POLL: Take A Step Back...will we be better with Jennings

ComboGuardCity · Post #1 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:42 pm

Personally, I was on the Knight bandwagon and think he didn't get the opportunity he deserved. BUT, he's gone. We have to move on. Looking forward is this the best deal for us? Does Jennings mix well with us. I've had time to think and maybe Joe is on to something...or maybe he's trying to save his job.

Before the trade, our weaknesses were:
1. Spacing
2. A point guard
3. An outside scorer

Strengths:
1. Interior Presence on both ends
2. Defense

Jennings's weaknesses are masked with our great D; He can't finish at the rim and he's not an elite defender, but we don't have room for a slasher. His strength of outside shooting (at least its decent with the amount he chucked in MIL) and his distributing (check out the "talent" in MIL) is actually a net positive at this point.

At this point, I'm trying to be optimistic after my trigger reaction.

Now that its sunk in, What do you think?

Han Solo · Post #2 » by **Han Solo** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:43 pm

I like the move.

Hey, how are we sitting now with our roster? Can we sign Siva?

ComboGuardCity · Post #3 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:44 pm

Han Solo wrote:I like the move.

Hey, how are we sitting now with our roster? Can we sign Siva?

We can sign Siva AND BWall.

Jodi · Post #4 » by **Jodi** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:44 pm

I still think I'm dreaming...

rock digger · Post #5 » by **rock digger** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:45 pm

With every passing minute I get happier at the thought of not seeing Knight try to command the offense.

joseph mamah · Post #6 » by **joseph mamah** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:47 pm

I cant believe Dumarse traded BK for this clown.

Kyrama · Post #7 » by **Kyrama** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:49 pm

We traded a guy who is terrible at being a PG for another guy who is terrible at being a PG.

Joe Berry · Post #8 » by **Joe Berry** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:50 pm

Jennings makes the team worse short and longterm, good luck hoping he will improve his defense or shotmaking. He lacks character and has too many fundamental flaws in his game. Paying him 8 per year is inexcusable.
There is a reason NO OTHER GM IN THE LEAGUE wanted any part of this guy.

Rodya · Post #9 » by **Rodya** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:51 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:
Han Solo wrote:I like the move.

Hey, how are we sitting now with our roster? Can we sign Siva?

We can sign Siva AND BWall.

There's a better chance that RIP is signed than there is of Ben.

Joe Berry · Post #10 » by **Joe Berry** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:51 pm

Kyrama wrote:We traded a guy who is terrible at being a PG for another guy who is terrible at being a PG.

one is a rookie on a rookie contract, the other guy just got 8 mil $ per year, thats the difference - fire Dumars

Rodya · Post #11 » by **Rodya** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:51 pm

Joe Asberry wrote:Jennings makes the team worse short and longterm, good luck hoping he will improve his defense or shotmaking. He lacks character and has too many fundamental flaws in his game. Paying him 8 per year is inexcusable.
There is a reason NO OTHER GM IN THE LEAGUE wanted any part of this guy.

No other GM in the league wanted a part of him for his asking price or for Milwaukee's asking price, to be exact.

princeofpalace · Post #12 » by **princeofpalace** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:55 pm

Knight was a lousy excuse for a PG. Jennings is more talented, is a better shooter and a better pure passer. Is he the better player? Right now, I think we went from having one of the leagues worst PG's to still having one of the league's worst PGs.

If Cheeks can help mentor Jennings then yes, I think we got better. If we get Milwaukee Jennings then the value is neutral.

Im still hoping we move Stuckey and or Jerebko for a SG that can play D and hit the 3.

DBC10 · Post #13 » by **DBC10** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:56 pm

Joe Asberry wrote:
Kyrama wrote:We traded a guy who is terrible at being a PG for another guy who is terrible at being a PG.

one is a rookie on a rookie contract, the other guy just got 8 mil $ per year, thats the difference - fire Dumars

I think this is the most damning part. At least BK played decent defense that can be improved since he's athletic and can shoot the 3 well AND a rookie contract.

I'm just going to post this in pretty much all the threads regarding Jennings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnHndbNPYi0

Also, literally no team was interested in him. Of course Dumars does because he's a gambler.

ComboGuardCity · Post #14 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:03 pm

Well the results are extremely polarizing.

DBC10 · Post #15 » by **DBC10** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:14 pm

^ I will gladly say I was wrong if Jennings turns out to be an all-star caliber player when he plays with us. He's only shown flashes of that with the Bucks. Someone quote, capture, and print that.

We'll either be incredibly terrible or incredibly good.

Brapman · Post #16 » by **Brapman** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:15 pm

FWIW: Jennings advanced stats as a pure PG were good - better by a little than Mike Conley, George Hill, and Westbrook and way better than Knight (who was one of the worst in the league on that measure).

DraftExpress: Stats

Here's the point, I guess: Jennings is a dramatic improvement over Knight right now. In year 3 of his contract, it's an expiring deal, making him highly tradeable then. Even now, an $8 million 3 year contract is not onerous - as one exec essentially said today, "It's a steal for the Pistons at that low amount." Jennings might breakthrough on a team with great big men and excellent young shooters (Gigi, KCP) and under the tutelage of Cheeks and Billups. As a talented 23 year old, it's possible that we've caught lightening in a bottle and like Billups did a bunch of years ago for us, breakthrough into the upper echelon of PGs. But if he doesn't at least we've improved ourselves over the next couple seasons, and we're then in better position to get a star PG to replace him (since we could offer Jennings, and CV's and Stuckey's expiring contracts - or could sign one outright if one becomes available).

ComboGuardCity · Post #17 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:19 pm

Jennings expires when Drummond is due for his big deal as well.

Mr. Krabs · Post #18 » by **Mr. Krabs** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:28 pm

DBC10 wrote:We'll either be incredibly terrible or incredibly good.

That alone is good enough to justify this trade. Jennings was a headcase, a chucker, and a overall bad player mentally. Joe is taking a chance in this one, when teams like Heat and Nets are in the league, you gotta take some chances. When this contract is over in 3 years, Drummond will only be 22, Monroe will be 26 and hopefully will have some legit playoff experience. Who knows, maybe Jennings will get over his mental problems and become our starting PG? Joe is just looking to get better now to give the guys a little taste of winning.

The Bucks had a way worse team than we have now and made the playoffs. Jennings had 6,5 assists while having 2,5 turnovers, with a team that doesn't have much offensive targets. He shot horribly but %37,5 percent on 3pt attempts. We won't need his finishing around the rim, he should focus on distributing and shooting open jumpers, we have way more inside threats than what Bucks had.

We can't expect a random superstar to sign with us and make us contenders immediately, this is not LA.

DetroitDon15 · Post #19 » by **DetroitDon15** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:39 pm

I can't wait to buy my home playoff game tickets this year!

Montanabadboy33 · Post #20 » by **Montanabadboy33** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:44 pm

As luke warm as I've been on Jennings, I don't see how this trade doesn't make us better. And he's still very young, he'll just be entering his prime by the time his contract expires. I think given our salary structure, his contract is very team friendly. Love the aggressive play by Dumars, absolutely boom or bust, but its the kind of move that takes some minerals, glad to see Joe D still has his. Go Stones.

Are we better with the Jennings trade in the short term and the long term?