Official Trade Thread - Part XXVII

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Could we have created cap room to sign Greg Smith? Feels like a missed opportunity letting the Bulls get him.

Agreed -- I was shocked that Houston let him go. He just turned 23. A better player than e.g. Kevin Seraphin in just about every way.

I was thinking the same thing as soon as it happened, but I'm just a little too tired of getting bent out of shape over these things. The Wizards are like an alcoholic parent that I'm relatively powerless to change. The thought process now is usually, "It'd be nice if the Wizards could [fill in the blank], but nah, it'll probably never happen," and on to the next, trying to conserve a sufficient reserve of hysteria for the REALLY BIG BLUNDER.

Agreed.

Even if they had a first round pick the Wizards would likely screw up the pick.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Hypnotizer]

If Grunfeld hired Sloan i would forgive him for everything

Me too. Wait, he's still going to fire himself, right?

I wouldn't.
Jerry is good coach, but he's too old for another job. Randy was born in '59, Jerry in '42. Phil Jackson said "enough" two years ago and he was born in 1945. It's really hard to travel all the season long from city to city at this age, I think.

[montestewart]

If Grunfeld hired Sloan i would forgive him for everything

Me too. Wait, he's still going to fire himself, right?

I wouldn't.
Jerry is good coach, but he's too old for another job. Randy was born in '59, Jerry in '42. Phil Jackson said "enough" two years ago and he was born in 1945. It's really hard to travel all the season long from city to city at this age, I think.

He could just watch the games on TV. Works for me.

[dckingsfan]

Can anyone rank the coaches that EG has hired?

[nate33]

Can anyone rank the coaches that EG has hired?

There aren't many:

1. Wittman
2. Saunders
3. Tankscott

Technically, he didn't hire Eddie Jordan but he certainly didn't take steps to move him so maybe we can consider him an implicit hire. In that case, I'd rank EJ 3rd behind Saunders.

[dckingsfan]

Can anyone rank the coaches that EG has hired?

There aren't many:

1. Wittman
2. Saunders
3. Tankscott

Technically, he didn't hire Eddie Jordan but he certainly didn't take steps to move him so maybe we can consider him an implicit hire. In that case, I'd rank EJ 3rd behind Saunders.

hmmm, doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies about hiring the next coach. Maybe he is worse at picking coaches than drafting. No wonder he is ranked so low as a GM.

[ptptpt]

Can anyone rank the coaches that EG has hired?

There aren't many:

1. Wittman
2. Saunders
3. Tankscott

Technically, he didn't hire Eddie Jordan but he certainly didn't take steps to move him so maybe we can consider him an implicit hire. In that case, I'd rank EJ 3rd behind Saunders.

You would rank EJ third behind Saunders??? What did Flip do for this team that was so much better than EJ?

[Rafael122]

Watching ESPN while the Wiz game is at halftime, and they were talking about the possibility of Melo to Chicago and what they need to do to get him.

1) Amnesty Boozer
2 Trade Dunleavy and their 2 first round picks this year

OR they could trade Taj Gibson and possibly keep Dunleavy.

But let's go with the Dunleavy situation...this will be a quasi-YODA situation. Wiz have the cap space to absorb Dunleavy's contract (which is an expiring by the way). Ideally you would want Chicago to trade at least one pick if it meant the chance to sign Anthony. Dunleavy can play either the 2 or the 3, but in this situation, so he's an ideal backup for Beal, or they could move Webster to the back up 2 spot and have Dunleavy start at the 3, with Porter being the immediate backup.

As of today, the Bulls have the 16th and 19th pick, I would do something like Dunleavy and the 19th pick to the Wizards.

Use the 19th pick on a guy like Payne, re-sign Booker and Gortat.

PG - Wall/Miller
SG - Beal/Webster
SF - Dunleavy/Porter
PF - Nene/Booker/Payne
C - Gortat

Still gotta get a back up center and a long term solution at the point guard spot. By my calculation they have about $6 mil left in cap space and got to get at least 1 more rotational player.

[TGW]

Wouldn't we have to renounce Gortat and Ariza to do that, Rafael?

Looks like a damn good plan to me if it's possible.

[Rafael122]

Wouldn't we have to renounce Gortat and Ariza to do that, Rafael?

Looks like a damn good plan to me if it's possible.

I think we would have to renounce Ariza,but I could be horribly wrong.

[LyricalRico]

Well, we techically don't have any cap space until we renounce cap holds. So I'm not sure we could just absorb his contract without first renouncing several guys (Ariza, Booker and Seraphin at a minimum but probably Gortat too).

What about Miller's partially guaranteed contract, plus GRJ and our second, for Gibson? Would work under the 150% rule if we qualify. We let Ariza/Booker/Seraphin walk, and bring back Gooden on the cheap. Maybe Miller too. Gortat is re-signed, of course.

Gortat/Nene
Gibson/Nene/Gooden
Webster/Porter
Beal/Webster
Wall/Miller(?)

Even better defensively with Gibson, and he's not signed for much more than we would have had to pay Ariza if we kept him. Assuming Beal and Porter each take a step forward, that's a pretty good team IMO. And we still have Nene coming off the books in 2016.

Probably moot since Chicago can likely get more for Gibson...

[Rafael122]

Well, we techically don't have any cap space until we renounce cap holds. So I'm not sure we could just absorb his contract without first renouncing several guys (Ariza, Booker and Seraphin at a minimum but probably Gortat too).

What about Miller's partially guaranteed contract, plus GRJ and our second, for Gibson? Would work under the 150% rule if we qualify. We let Ariza/Booker/Seraphin walk, and bring back Gooden on the cheap. Maybe Miller too. Gortat is re-signed, of course.

Gortat/Nene
Gibson/Nene/Gooden
Webster/Porter
Beal/Webster
Wall/Miller(?)

Even better defensively with Gibson, and he's not signed for much more than we would have had to pay Ariza if we kept him. Assuming Beal and Porter each take a step forward, that's a pretty good team IMO. And we still have Nene coming off the books in 2016.

Probably moot since Chicago can likely get more for Gibson...

Or they can keep him and roll with Rose/Butler/Noah/Gibson/Anthony lineup, and figure the rest of it out later. I would think Chicago doesn't want to completely gut the team to get Anthony.

Hopefully one of the cap gurus can chime in though, should they renounce Booker, Seraphin, and Ariza, would they have enough room to get Dunleavy, a first rounder, and bring back Gortat. At the very least, the top 8 would be solid, with the need to add a backup power forward, and center.

[payitforward]

I keep reading what seems like one bad idea after another here, and I don't get it. We need to build for the future, not acquire a guy like Dunleavy who will turn 34 this Summer.

For that matter, the combination of Dunleavy and Gibson is likely to cost about the same as the combination of Ariza and Booker, each of whom has produced more than his Bulls counterpart. Substitute Dunleavy and Gibson in the minutes Ariza and Booker played for us this year, and we'd likely be a few losses light.

In Booker's case, he shoots a higher TS%, rebounds more, steals more, and turns it over less. The delta of higher usage in Gibson's case is extremely inefficient -- he uses up opportunities that should be used more efficiently.

In Ariza's case, he's both more efficient and higher usage than Dunleavy -- and it isn't even close. He's a much better, much younger player. Will he remain as good as he was this year? I don't know. But I do know that guys Dunleavy's age get worse in a hurry.

I think the reason for all these weird ideas is that we essentlally don't have any assets to trade. We're pinning our dreams on guys, because we can't trade for guys better than they are.

The 6 most productive players on this team minute for minute have been Wall, Gortat, Ariza, Gooden, Booker, and Miller. Wall is the only one who is in place long-term. Gooden will be cheap, but like Miller he is a limited-minutes player -- way past his prime. Gortat, Ariza and Booker are all in play; they are questions for next year.

We have 5 guys who mean absolutely nothing to our future: Seraphin, Temple, Rice, Singleton & Harrington. It would be right to put Nene on that list too, as he's had a poor season, been injured again (a lot of years in a row...), puts up few minutes therefore, and is colossally over-paid.

That leaves Beal, who has tremendous potential, Porter, who may have a lot of potential, and Webster, who has slipped this year.

What assets do you think we have to trade that would bring us anything to speak of? We are more likely to keep adding end-of-career guys and therefore never really contend for a title year after year.

[TGW]

You're not going to sell me on Booker being better than Gibson, and I don't think any GM would buy that either. Gibson is a very good defender on and off the ball—Booker is not. The negligible differences in rebounding and steals don't make up that difference.

[payitforward]

You're not going to sell me on Booker being better than Gibson, and I don't think any GM would buy that either. Gibson is a very good defender on and off the ball—Booker is not. The negligible differences in rebounding and steals don't make up that difference.

I don't want to sell you on anything. But the differences you point to aren't negligible.

Every 40 minutes, by way of fewer steals, more turnovers and fewer rebounds, Taj Gibson gives his team's opponent @3 more possessions of the ball -- 3 more chances to score -- than Booker does. That's just a fact, not something I'm selling. Those turnovers actually happened, they're not an interpretation I'm offering. Ditto Booker's more rebounds and steals.

Every 40 minutes Taj takes 4.8 more shots than Trevor. Those are shots that if Taj didn't take them they would be taken by another player on the Bulls. How many of those 4.8 shots does he make? He makes 1.6 of them. That's a .33 FG% on those shots -- which means that yes it would be better if another player on the Bulls took most of those shots. That scoring, in other words, is not evidence that Gibson is better than Booker.

So, every 40 minutes Taj gives the opponent 3 more chances to score than Booker does and takes 4.8 shots @ a .33 FG% that Booker, instead, lets other guys on his team take.

Now, tell me: how much better is Gibson as a defender? How much does that positive delta over Booker gain for his team? Also, can you give me some data to support the claim? I.e. do the league's PFs average a higher score vs. Booker than vs. Gibson?

Or are you just using the eye test? The "I'm watching, and I'm an expert, and I know what I see -- namely, bigger is better and Gibson is bigger"?

Still, perhaps Taj is a better defender, you may be right. And if he didn't turn it over more, steal it less, get fewer rebounds (especially on the offensive boards) and shoot too many low % shots that might make him better than Trevor.

Hmmm, maybe take a look at the efg% of all PFs who played 20+ minutes a game this year. Where is Taj? Worst 20%. Turnovers? Worst 15%. What's his salary? @ $9m. Why do you like this guy?

[TGW]

Yes I am using the eye test, as well as numbers. You choose certain per-40 metrics, which are fine, but I can use certain ones to prove my point as well.

If you want some metrics to backup what I'm saying, look here:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinge ... sort/VORPe

Gibson is ahead of Booker in PER, Value Added, and Estimated Wins Added. He also has a higher Defensive Win Share than Booker.

I wouldn't disagree that Booker is probably a better offensive player. His offensive WS is 2.3 vs. Gibson at 1.4. My point is that Gibson is a much, much better defender than Booker and that the difference more than makes up for Booker's slight advantage offensively (as shown by Gibson's elite 4.4 DWS). In other words, Gibson's defense is more valuable than Booker's offense.

As for salaries, I don't like Gibson's. It goes for too long and too much for my liking, but that wasn't really the argument I was making. If it came down to it I wouldn't want that contract either.

[payitforward]

Yes I am using the eye test, as well as numbers. You choose certain per-40 metrics, which are fine, but I can use certain ones to prove my point as well.

If you want some metrics to backup what I'm saying, look here:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinge ... sort/VORPe

Gibson is ahead of Booker in PER, Value Added, and Estimated Wins Added. He also has a higher Defensive Win Share than Booker.

I wouldn't disagree that Booker is probably a better offensive player. His offensive WS is 2.3 vs. Gibson at 1.4. My point is that Gibson is a much, much better defender than Booker and that the difference more than makes up for Booker's slight advantage offensively (as shown by Gibson's elite 4.4 DWS). In other words, Gibson's defense is more valuable than Booker's offense.

As for salaries, I don't like Gibson's. It goes for too long and too much for my liking, but that wasn't really the argument I was making. If it came down to it I wouldn't want that contract either.

Agreed -- not about the contract; neither of us want the contract.

As to "metrics", you used roll-up metrics. Those metrics weight various activities in different ways and then try to come up w/ a single number. Comparing PER for Gibson and Booker, for example, we have to keep in mind that his extra 4.8 shots per 40 minutes, made at a rate of 33%, actually *raise* Gibson's PER! And Win Shares, offensive or defensive, is pretty much a useless stat -- all the more so when you compare players on different teams who are by definition never on the floor w/ the same guys.

I *like* Taj Gibson; he's a pretty good player. The real problem there is that he is not as good the last 2 years as he was his first 3 years. His rebounding has gone down, his TOs have increased and this year he has shot too much.

Taj came into the league at 23, older and more experienced than most rookies. Guys like that often play well out of the box and reach their peak early. Taj doesn't have the athleticism to propel him any further. Unlike Booker, he's not particularly quick, fast or strong. And of course, Trevor is almost 2 1/2 years younger.

But the best thing about Booker is that he is quite a good player whom we'll be able to wrap up through his peak for a pretty low salary, given his productivity. I've looked, believe me, and I can't find even one other available (keep that word in view) player whom we could put in his place w/o taking a pretty significant price/performance hit. And, because of our limited cap flexibility, price/performance is critical to our future.

Now, I may have missed someone -- happy to be set straight on that. But from where I stand, re-signing Trevor Booker is a must for the Wizards.

[Dat2U]

Every 40 minutes, by way of fewer steals, more turnovers and fewer rebounds, Taj Gibson gives his team's opponent @3 more possessions of the ball -- 3 more chances to score -- than Booker does. That's just a fact, not something I'm selling. Those turnovers actually happened, they're not an interpretation I'm offering. Ditto Booker's more rebounds and steals.

Every 40 minutes Taj takes 4.8 more shots than Trevor. Those are shots that if Taj didn't take them they would be taken by another player on the Bulls. How many of those 4.8 shots does he make? He makes 1.6 of them. That's a .33 FG% on those shots -- which means that yes it would be better if another player on the Bulls took most of those shots. That scoring, in other words, is not evidence that Gibson is better than Booker.

So, every 40 minutes Taj gives the opponent 3 more chances to score than Booker does and takes 4.8 shots @ a .33 FG% that Booker, instead, lets other guys on his team take.

Now, tell me: how much better is Gibson as a defender? How much does that positive delta over Booker gain for his team? Also, can you give me some data to support the claim? I.e. do the league's PFs average a higher score vs. Booker than vs. Gibson?

Or are you just using the eye test? The "I'm watching, and I'm an expert, and I know what I see -- namely, bigger is better and Gibson is bigger"?

Still, perhaps Taj is a better defender, you may be right. And if he didn't turn it over more, steal it less, get fewer rebounds (especially on the offensive boards) and shoot too many low % shots that might make him better than Trevor.

Hmmm, maybe take a look at the efg% of all PFs who played 20+ minutes a game this year. Where is Taj? Worst 20%. Turnovers? Worst 15%. What's his salary? @ $9m. Why do you like this guy?

Do you actually watch games? Do you use anything other than your own favorite stats to draw conclusions.

Your all stats approach is a recipe for being wrong time and time again.

Perhaps Taj is a better defender? LOL, I like how you won't even acknowledge Taj's significant advantage on that end of the court. Taj is worlds away a better defender. I just don't look at stats to see that, I look at the games and see how much of positive impact Taj has on the court. He's an excellent low post defender at PF, one of the best in the league IMO.

Offensively, Taj may be less efficient but that's because he has a bigger role. No one really respects Booker's offensive skill set. Booker may be a decent mid range shooter but teams give him that shot. Booker is such a low usage player that his ability to impact games offensively is very limited. So as you post on and on about how Booker uses fewer possessions, I guess that has it's benefits but it also means his positive impact is minimal.

Unlike Booker, teams respect Gibson's mid-range game and have to account for it because of his larger role in their offensive scheme. Booker doesn't really have an offensive role other than to set picks, crash the offensive boards and stay out the damn way of the other 4 guys.

Defensively, its not even close. IMO, Booker hurts the team on this end of the court significantly because of his inability to guard in space (despite his quickness) and his struggles against guys with legit size.

Here's a list of the 10 best games Booker has had this season. Please note the competition:

12/13/2013 - Atlanta - 24 pts /14 rebs in 44 minutes
4/9/2014 - Charlotte - 16 pts /2 rebs / 5 blks on 4-5 FGs in 28 minutes
1/15/2014 - Miami - 13 pts / 11 rebs on 5-5 FGs in 28 minutes
1/1/2014 - Dallas - 10 pts / 19 rebs in 30 minutes
4/16/2014 - Boston - 20 pts / 3 rebs on 9-13 FGs in 26 minutes
2/19/2014 - Atlanta - 12 pts / 2 rebs / 4 stls on 6-8 FGs in 24 minutes
1/7/2014 - Charlotte - 12 pts / 8 rebs in 22 minutes
12/28/2013 - Detroit - 10 pts / 9 rebs / 4 asts in 31 minutes
11/01/2013 - Philadelphia - 10 pts / 8 rebs in 28 minutes

Notice a trend? Outside of Detroit (who's terrible) & Dallas, all undersized teams.

Booker works well against certain players. His success is largely dependent on his match up. An undersized PF or front line means he has an opportunity to use his athleticism and energy to hit the boards and finish around the rim. But anyone or any team with size can neutralize him pretty easily.

What does this mean? He's nothing more than a backup PF. If he's cheap and you have a solid starter in front of him then he's fine as your 4th big off the bench. Ask him to do anything more, like Chicago has been asking of Taj Gibson, he's going to struggle mightily.

I'm not big on using just one stat, but I found this to be an interesting ranking of PFs:

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_ ... position/6

Code: Select all

RK   NAME            TEAM  GP   MPG    ORPM   DRPM   RPM   WAR
8    Taj Gibson      CHI   82   28.7   0.85   3.65   4.50   8.94
80   Trevor Booker   WSH   72   21.6   -0.70  -2.90  -3.60  -1.10

I don't really know enough about this stat to truly trust it, but it does match what my eyes have been seeing.

[Rafael122]

I keep reading what seems like one bad idea after another here, and I don't get it. We need to build for the future, not acquire a guy like Dunleavy who will turn 34 this Summer.

Well we need a backup 2 and a 3 should Ariza leave. Dunleavy would be on the last year of his contract, and he's making pennies ($3.3 mil) compared to what Ariza will probably get in free agency. Also add, the trade I suggested brings back a draft pick, which will most likely be a rotational player.

For that matter, the combination of Dunleavy and Gibson is likely to cost about the same as the combination of Ariza and Booker, each of whom has produced more than his Bulls counterpart. Substitute Dunleavy and Gibson in the minutes Ariza and Booker played for us this year, and we'd likely be a few losses light.

In Booker's case, he shoots a higher TS%, rebounds more, steals more, and turns it over less. The delta of higher usage in Gibson's case is extremely inefficient -- he uses up opportunities that should be used more efficiently.

In Ariza's case, he's both more efficient and higher usage than Dunleavy -- and it isn't even close. He's a much better, much younger player. Will he remain as good as he was this year? I don't know. But I do know that guys Dunleavy's age get worse in a hurry.

I'm not arguing that Ariza isn't better than Dunleavy. All I suggested was if the Bulls are intent on getting Melo, it would be great if the Wizards can step in, grab a pick in the process. It's basically what the Wiz did to get Hinrich

I think the reason for all these weird ideas is that we essentially don't have any assets to trade. We're pinning our dreams on guys, because we can't trade for guys better than they are.

Eh you can get creative, but I'm not sure if Ernie has it in him.

The 6 most productive players on this team minute for minute have been Wall, Gortat, Ariza, Gooden, Booker, and Miller. Wall is the only one who is in place long-term. Gooden will be cheap, but like Miller he is a limited-minutes player -- way past his prime. Gortat, Ariza and Booker are all in play; they are questions for next year.

We have 5 guys who mean absolutely nothing to our future: Seraphin, Temple, Rice, Singleton & Harrington. It would be right to put Nene on that list too, as he's had a poor season, been injured again (a lot of years in a row...), puts up few minutes therefore, and is colossally over-paid.

That leaves Beal, who has tremendous potential, Porter, who may have a lot of potential, and Webster, who has slipped this year.

What assets do you think we have to trade that would bring us anything to speak of? We are more likely to keep adding end-of-career guys and therefore never really contend for a title year after year.

Cap space. Just like the Wizards did in bringing in Okafor and Ariza, they can do it again, only this time you're dealing for a guy who had a pretty solid year, a pretty good three point shooter and doesn't have to play 30 minutes per game, a capable back up at two positions. I'm merely using Chicago and Dunleavy as an example though. It could be anyone, my preference would be a trade w/the Bulls because they need to trade a couple of players and a draft pick or two to make a run at Carmelo.

[payitforward]

Every 40 minutes, by way of fewer steals, more turnovers and fewer rebounds, Taj Gibson gives his team's opponent @3 more possessions of the ball -- 3 more chances to score -- than Booker does. That's just a fact, not something I'm selling. Those turnovers actually happened, they're not an interpretation I'm offering. Ditto Booker's more rebounds and steals.

Every 40 minutes Taj takes 4.8 more shots than Trevor. Those are shots that if Taj didn't take them they would be taken by another player on the Bulls. How many of those 4.8 shots does he make? He makes 1.6 of them. That's a .33 FG% on those shots -- which means that yes it would be better if another player on the Bulls took most of those shots. That scoring, in other words, is not evidence that Gibson is better than Booker.

So, every 40 minutes Taj gives the opponent 3 more chances to score than Booker does and takes 4.8 shots @ a .33 FG% that Booker, instead, lets other guys on his team take.

Now, tell me: how much better is Gibson as a defender? How much does that positive delta over Booker gain for his team? Also, can you give me some data to support the claim? I.e. do the league's PFs average a higher score vs. Booker than vs. Gibson?

Or are you just using the eye test? The "I'm watching, and I'm an expert, and I know what I see -- namely, bigger is better and Gibson is bigger"?

Still, perhaps Taj is a better defender, you may be right. And if he didn't turn it over more, steal it less, get fewer rebounds (especially on the offensive boards) and shoot too many low % shots that might make him better than Trevor.

Hmmm, maybe take a look at the efg% of all PFs who played 20+ minutes a game this year. Where is Taj? Worst 20%. Turnovers? Worst 15%. What's his salary? @ $9m. Why do you like this guy?

Do you actually watch games? Do you use anything other than your own favorite stats to draw conclusions.

Your all stats approach is a recipe for being wrong time and time again.

Perhaps Taj is a better defender? LOL, I like how you won't even acknowledge Taj's significant advantage on that end of the court. Taj is worlds away a better defender. I just don't look at stats to see that, I look at the games and see how much of positive impact Taj has on the court. He's an excellent low post defender at PF, one of the best in the league IMO.

Offensively, Taj may be less efficient but that's because he has a bigger role. No one really respects Booker's offensive skill set. Booker may be a decent mid range shooter but teams give him that shot. Booker is such a low usage player that his ability to impact games offensively is very limited. So as you post on and on about how Booker uses fewer possessions, I guess that has it's benefits but it also means his positive impact is minimal.

Unlike Booker, teams respect Gibson's mid-range game and have to account for it because of his larger role in their offensive scheme. Booker doesn't really have an offensive role other than to set picks, crash the offensive boards and stay out the damn way of the other 4 guys.

Defensively, its not even close. IMO, Booker hurts the team on this end of the court significantly because of his inability to guard in space (despite his quickness) and his struggles against guys with legit size.

Here's a list of the 10 best games Booker has had this season. Please note the competition:

12/13/2013 - Atlanta - 24 pts /14 rebs in 44 minutes
4/9/2014 - Charlotte - 16 pts /2 rebs / 5 blks on 4-5 FGs in 28 minutes
1/15/2014 - Miami - 13 pts / 11 rebs on 5-5 FGs in 28 minutes
1/1/2014 - Dallas - 10 pts / 19 rebs in 30 minutes
4/16/2014 - Boston - 20 pts / 3 rebs on 9-13 FGs in 26 minutes
2/19/2014 - Atlanta - 12 pts / 2 rebs / 4 stls on 6-8 FGs in 24 minutes
1/7/2014 - Charlotte - 12 pts / 8 rebs in 22 minutes
12/28/2013 - Detroit - 10 pts / 9 rebs / 4 asts in 31 minutes
11/01/2013 - Philadelphia - 10 pts / 8 rebs in 28 minutes

Notice a trend? Outside of Detroit (who's terrible) & Dallas, all undersized teams.

Booker works well against certain players. His success is largely dependent on his match up. An undersized PF or front line means he has an opportunity to use his athleticism and energy to hit the boards and finish around the rim. But anyone or any team with size can neutralize him pretty easily.

What does this mean? He's nothing more than a backup PF. If he's cheap and you have a solid starter in front of him then he's fine as your 4th big off the bench. Ask him to do anything more, like Chicago has been asking of Taj Gibson, he's going to struggle mightily.

I'm not big on using just one stat, but I found this to be an interesting ranking of PFs:

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_ ... position/6

Code: Select all

RK   NAME            TEAM  GP   MPG    ORPM   DRPM   RPM   WAR
8    Taj Gibson      CHI   82   28.7   0.85   3.65   4.50   8.94
80   Trevor Booker   WSH   72   21.6   -0.70  -2.90  -3.60  -1.10

I don't really know enough about this stat to truly trust it, but it does match what my eyes have been seeing.

Yes, Dat, I watch games -- I watch Wizards' games (I must have missed a couple this season, but I can't remember which), and I watch other teams on NBA-TV.

Yes, as well, Taj is a better defender -- what I wrote came off in a way different from what I meant; i.e. wasn't being sarcastic.

You complain about my using stats and then you use stats to knock down what I wrote!

My point is not that Trevor Booker is some kind of star -- he's not. And the question whether he's better overall than Taj is actually irrelevant. The point is that Booker is incredibly effective for what he costs, and he is likely to be a bargain for his next deal. Now... that might not turn out to be true -- there's no 100% in this stuff. But, it would be ridiculous, for example, to replace him with Gibson at twice the price or more.

For the rest, we'll just agree to disagree. Booker scored 20 points in the first half vs. Boston. Give the guy some credit. What's our record w/ him as a starter?

Lets watch what he does vs. Chicago -- and what Taj does. Maybe one of us will have reason to change his mind. I imagine they'll play some minutes against each other too, and we can see just who shuts down whom?

Let me ask you this -- who do you want to play better in the series, Taj or Trevor? The latter I'm sure!