mitchweber wrote:SacKingZZZ wrote:Read what I wrote again, I was saying despite what ever defensive shortcomings he may or may not have, it's because of the things that he does well that could make him a huge asset to a team.
Who called Kevin Garnett a role player!? Where???
Who stays, who goes, I don't know but we're still in a much better position regardless, because then we have two legit options to move forward with. Pick the best one, the one that can be as close to a top option on your team as you can get and move on to need.
A strong defensive C is an option if Spencer won't cut it in your opinion, but my point is, and the list that KF10 provided proves it, the players out there that are believed to be "defensive specialists" are doing so mostly at the position Spencer plays. And that's besides the fact that most of them play the role of 3rd big, and IMO they are exactly the kind of 3rd big we could use if our frontcourt can be top options for us talent wise.
That's still not really how it reads to me, but whatever. I'm over it.
You didn't call him a role player, but him not being one kind of flies in the face of the idea of "oh just get great offensive players and then put defensive role players around them". That's not even necessarily a bad idea in certain situations. I just don't think one defensive big would be enough with a Boozer/Hawes frontline taking up most of the time. I think the primary player next to Boozer needs to be a really strong defender (and a center, obviously), and I think Spencer tops out at being a "good" defender.
Anyway, I don't think we're in a better position, in all likelihood. If Boozer gets back to being his old self (and by the way, proves that his stats aren't helped considerably by playing with an elite PG, which I kind of doubt) we can re-sign Boozer to a long, but fair contract AND throughout the course of his contract he doesn't decide that he doesn't really care, or he doesn't get injured yet again--if all of those things happen, then yes, a Boozer/Knicks pick package would be worth the deal. I just don't think that's worth the risk. If we don't re-sign him, then we just dumped Kevin for a nice draft pick. Not worth it--especially to a team that can't afford to get much younger.
And that's ideal if we get Boozer--to have a defensive center next to him. Spencer wouldn't ultimately work.
Anyway, I understand your point regarding acquiring talent, and in the right cirucmstance, I would be all for acquiring Boozer for that very reason. But trading Kevin simply isn't worth it. Hell, the guy is a more efficient scorer than Boozer, and that's without having played with a Deron Williams.
And that I can totally understand. However, I can't understand the "bullseye" theory represented throughout much of this thread. It's like if it isn't "perfect" we pass, when in reality you may be taking a step in the direction of one day hitting that "bullseye" if you are aggressive in gaining assets. There's a chance the deal blows up in our face, but I just think for anyone to act like we don't consider deals because "so and so" isn't at least an 8 on some arbitrary numeric scale of defensive ability is being numb to the world and not truly doing all you can to improve the current situation. Sometimes the player you seek doesn't really exist and you need to start looking at plan B and figuring out how to make it work.
, he is a player really hard to move right now.
