#12, Brockman, Leuer, SL for #14, Dalembert

[Baddy Chuck]

Neither one is a particularly great distributor, so if that's what you want from the point guard position, you chuck them both. If you want a scorer at the position, either will do, and jennings is currently cheaper, and guaranteed to be here a year longer.

Yup, this. You either want a different type of player or you keep Jennings. I'm fine with either. If you trade Jennings only to move in a worse point guard who's a slightly better scorer you're just treading water.

[-Jragon-]

Neither one is a particularly great distributor, so if that's what you want from the point guard position, you chuck them both. If you want a scorer at the position, either will do, and jennings is currently cheaper, and guaranteed to be here a year longer.

Point taken. Here are my scenarios in order of preference:

1. Trade Jennings/start Monta at PG, try to land big talent/size at the 2/3
2. Trade both and get a distributing PG, "
3. Trade Monta/ Keep Jennings, try to land big talent/size at the 2/3
4. Keep both and start them 1/2 - to me this is the worst option, we saw already that it didn't work so something needs to happen here. If we're in love with Jennings potential still than at least TRADE MONTA because I really don't want him as a starting SG anymore.

[-Jragon-]

Neither one is a particularly great distributor, so if that's what you want from the point guard position, you chuck them both. If you want a scorer at the position, either will do, and jennings is currently cheaper, and guaranteed to be here a year longer.

Yup, this. You either want a different type of player or you keep Jennings. I'm fine with either. If you trade Jennings only to move in a worse point guard who's a slightly better scorer you're just treading water.

I just hate Jennings' game. Keeping him just because he's cheaper sucks, but I admit you two are probably right about that.

[thomchatt3rton]

But Im tired of defending Monta, who's game I don't like. All I was trying to do was refute BCs point, which I can't hardly remember.

It was the "Monta scores more at the rim because Jennings can't do it at all" argument. Monta scored an average of 6.1 points at the rim per game this season to Jennings' 5.4 points. That 5-7% doesn't seem like too much now does it?

Im sorry man, I might be confusing some arguments and stats here...

OK so you're saying that statistically Monta scored more at the rim, and at a better percentage than Jennings, but yet you disagree with my original "eye test" assertion that Monta is a better scorer at the rim than is Jennings?
I did already admit to TRWI&whatever that I engaged in hyperbole in saying "jennings was sh**" with all his ineffective floaters once he decided, irrevocably that he going to the rim". BTW, are those 7ish plus foot floaters considered shots "at the rim"? I don't know

Also, you've not answered for the difference in career FG%

[trwi7]

Neither one is a particularly great distributor, so if that's what you want from the point guard position, you chuck them both. If you want a scorer at the position, either will do, and jennings is currently cheaper, and guaranteed to be here a year longer.

Yup, this. You either want a different type of player or you keep Jennings. I'm fine with either. If you trade Jennings only to move in a worse point guard who's a slightly better scorer you're just treading water.

I just hate Jennings' game. Keeping him just because he's cheaper sucks, but I admit you two are probably right about that.

Yet you like Monta's. Once again, simply baffling.

[Baddy Chuck]

Also, you've not answered for the difference in career FG%

Because I don't really think its fair to compare the two at all when ones been in the league 3 seasons compared to 7 or 8. Jennings improved a lot this season at converting baskets and will likely continue to improve. Using career field goal % with him at this point in his career isn't a good measuring stick IMO.

[thomchatt3rton]

Also, you've not answered for the difference in career FG%

Because I don't really think its fair to compare the two at all when ones been in the league 3 seasons compared to 7 or 8. Jennings improved a lot this season at converting baskets and will likely continue to improve. Using career field goal % with him at this point in his career isn't a good measuring stick IMO.

OK, well Monta's 3rd year in league he shot 53%, and his average for his first 3 years is 48%. Jennings is 39%. Is that a fair comparison?

Again, I'm not arguing Monta over BJ. But don't try to tell me BJ is a better scorer. And in fact, I don't think its crazy to argue that Monta may become a better distributor than Brandon ever becomes a scorer.

This, to me, is the crux of the argument.

Monta could mature, lessen his awful usage, become a better passer (his assists have gone up as his career has progressed) and become just as good a scoring-type PG as BJ.

To me, BJ has the tougher row to ho- he's got to become a better scorer and IMO he's got to become a better utilizer of his talents and a better distributor. Monta is already a good scorer (although a ball dominant one) and his assist numbers are going up and up.

I disagree that age is the predominant factor in determining in whether a player becomes more effective over time. I'd argue that team context, along with other factors, is more important.

[Buck You]

Dalembert would be a great backup.

Starting him just continues our mediocrity.

[vlietinho]

I like the trade for us. Honestly didn't give much up to get a starting center.

[adam10]

Dalembert would be a great backup.

Starting him just continues our mediocrity.

We picked up a very decent starting centre without giving up anything... how are you still complaining about this? Would you rather we go after Henson at 12..?

[AussieBuck]

My source indicates we could have had Llull instead of the future 2nd, but palindromes turn Hammond's stomach.

[Sigra]

It's a good deal for the win now people. Dalembert is still legit.

[AussieBuck]

Just for reference, Dalembert was +4.1 points per 100 possession last year (+1.5 offense, +2.6 defense). Defense won't be an issue for the Bucks, but they probably have the worst offensive frontcourt in the league if they don't keep Ilyasova.

His defensive +/- for the last few years is positive but it's nothing great and his 2008/11 4 year adjusted is +.2. He's not a bad defender but he's nothing special. He'd be our best post defending C but not any where near as good as Udoh defensively otherwise and likely Sanders too on most nights.

[vlietinho]

Just hope this means no more Gooden at C

[trwi7]

My source indicates we could have had Llull instead of the future 2nd, but palindromes turn Hammond's stomach.

I also llulled at this.

[AussieBuck]

This isn't a list of everyone but most of the guys who played predominantly at C as I scanned a huge list I've ignored most limited minutes guys but included a few to make up for the low number of guys in the negative and some players of interest. I'm not claiming it's perfectly accurate but it's pretty good IMO.

RAPM 08-11 defensive +/- for centers:

Bogut +4.2
Howard 4
Duncan 3.9
Asik 3.8 (very limited minutes)
Przybilla 3.7
Hayes 3.6
Yao 3
Hibbert 3
Camby 2.9
Nene 2.8
Chandler 2.6
K Thomas 2.6
B Wallace 2.6
Udoh 2.4 (mostly a C)
Bynum 2.3
Foster 2.2
Varejao 2.1
J Oneil 2.1
Haywood 1.9
Noah 1.8
M Gasol 1.6
Gadz 1.6
Magloire 1.6
Horford 1.4
Okafor 1.2
Gortat 1.2
Ilgauskas 1.1
Zaza 1.1
Perkins 1
Turiaf .9
Sanders .9 (very limited minutes)
Mahinmi .8

Dalembert .2

Rasho .1
Monroe-.1
Frye -.1
R Lopez -.4
Brezec -.6
Okur -.7
Mullens -.8
Nazr -1
Jordan -1.1
B Lopez -1.1
Boone -1.1
Skinner -1.1
Hawes -1.2
McGee -1.5
Curry -2.2
Speights -2.3
Jefferson -2.5
Bargnani -3.3

[paul]

Looks about right.

60% of the world is covered by water, the rest is covered by Chuck Hayes.

[vlietinho]

Better get Gadz back

[AussieBuck]

Better get Gadz back

Gadz played 7% of available minutes in the timeframe. I included him just for you.

[Badgerlander]

http://www.journaltimes.com/sports/bask ... 963f4.html
BUCKS BEAT: Dalembert sees "fabulous opportunity'

The Milwaukee Bucks are obviously happy to have acquired Samuel Dalembert.

The feeling is apparently mutual.

Marc Cornstein, Dalembert’s agent, said he had a brief conversation with his client after the veteran center was dealt by Houston to to Milwaukee Wednesday.

“He was really excited about going to Milwaukee,’’ Cornstein said. “He’s very familiar with the Bucks’ roster and believes they are headed in the right direction.

“It’s always the coach’s decision about playing time, but he believes it’s a fabulous opportunity for him to play there. Like I said, he’s very excited.’’