# What is a small forward, to you?



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think a discussion of this position, the conventions of this position, and its evolution since the beginning of the NBA might be warrented, as it's almost a guarantee that Portland will be getting a new SF this summer.

A few questions to ponder:

- What 2-3 skills are most important when it comes to the SF position?

- Have championship squads had SFs with similar qualities?

- Does LaMarcus Aldridge have an appropriate skillset for the 3 position? Webster? Outlaw?

- Will Kevin Durant change this position as we know it?

- If I told you that we could trade Zach Randolph for a young, top-flight offensive player *or* a defensive stopper that could one day contend for the all-defensive team every year, which player would you choose given a starting lineup containing Oden at C, Aldridge at PF and Roy at SG. 

- If we trade Zach for a 25-28 year old SF, how much of Randolph's scoring would you like him to replace? What would be the ideal statistical averages for such a player on this team?

- Do we need to park a shooter in the starting lineup at the 3 position? Is outside shooting that much of a priority?



Wikipedia said:


> The *small forward*, or, colloquially, the *three*, is one of the five positions in a regulation basketball game. Small forwards are typically somewhat shorter, quicker, and leaner than power forwards and centers, but on occasion are just as tall. The small forward position is considered to be perhaps the most versatile of the main five basketball positions, due to the nature of its role. Most current NBA small forwards are between 6'5" and 6'11" in height. Small forwards are primarily responsible for scoring points and also often as secondary or tertiary rebounders behind the power forwards and centers, although a few who play as point forwards have considerable passing responsibilities.
> 
> 
> Many small forwards in professional basketball, however, are prolific scorers. The styles with which small forwards amass their points vary widely, as some players at the position like the Hornets' Peja Stojakovic are very accurate straight up shooters, while others like Kings' Ron Artest prefer to "bang inside", initiate and/or not shy away from physical contact with opposing players, while others are primarily slashers such as Carmelo Anthony. One common thread between all kinds of small forwards is an ability to "get to the line", that is have opposing players called for committing shooting fouls against them, as fouls are frequently called on the defense when offensive players "take the ball hard" to the basket, that is, aggressively attempt post-up plays, lay-ups, or slam dunks. Therefore, accurate foul shooting is an imperative skill for small forwards, many of whom record a large portion of their points from the foul line.
> ...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> A few questions to ponder:
> 
> - What 2-3 skills are most important when it comes to the SF position?


1. Ball-handling
1a. Dribble-drive/get to the line skills
1b. Dribbling and passing in the face of defensive pressure
2. Perimeter shooting
3. Defense



> - Have championship squads had SFs with similar qualities?


Scottie Pippen in his prime is my ideal small forward. His ability to guard the 1, 2 or 3 spots and ability to handle the ball for major stretches at a time gave the Bulls flexibility to use players ranging from Steve Kerr to Ron Harper to John Paxson at the guard spot along with Jordan.

Given Roy's ability to handle the ball, adding a small forward with good handles would let Portland add the best player possible at the "point guard" spot. A shooter like Ben Gordon would be possible, or a defensive-minded guard like Greg Anthony in his prime... or a combination of players at the spot.



> - Does LaMarcus Aldridge have an appropriate skillset for the 3 position? Webster? Outlaw?


LA? No way.

Webster? I think he's got the shooting down and can play the position, even if he'll never be a good ballhandler and it's a big question about his defense.

Outlaw? I think he could. He's a good perimeter shooter and he's demonstrated an ability to get to the line by penetrating. His defense, especially on ballhandlers, will never be very good and he'll never tak the ball up the floor himself on a regular basis, but he could work.



> - Will Kevin Durant change this position as we know it?


No. I like Durant, but all the Jordan-like impact predictions seem a bit much. Carmelo Anthony was just about as good as a freshman (and more effective in terms of winning games), but even though he's going to be challenging for scoring titles and will probably end up in the HoF, he didn't (and won't) redefine the position.

I don't see Durant doing it, either.



> - If I told you that we could trade Zach Randolph for a young, top-flight offensive player *or* a defensive stopper that could one day contend for the all-defensive team every year, which player would you choose given a starting lineup containing Oden at C, Aldridge at PF and Roy at SG.


Offensive player. No question. 



> - If we trade Zach for a 25-28 year old SF, how much of Randolph's scoring would you like him to replace? What would be the ideal statistical averages for such a player on this team?


Hmm... I'd like the small forward to get 18-20 ppg. Stats similar to what Brandon got last year with a bit more scoring.



> - Do we need to park a shooter in the starting lineup at the 3 position? Is outside shooting that much of a priority?


I think that the small forward needs to be able to score. Whether through spreading the floor or getting to the line, we need someone to carry the offensive load because none of the big 3 (Roy/Aldridge/Oden) are ready to do so just yet.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm not very interested in thinking about the role of the SF (or any other position) in some general or theoretical sense. I am _very_ interested in thinking about it in the context of a specific team, such as "your Pooooortland Traaaaaailblazers!"

Clearly more ranged shooting for the starting line-up (or even off the bench) would be nice. 

I really like the idea of finding a relatively lock-down wing defender, but it's true that with Aldridge and Oden present, that's not quite as pressing a need as it once would've been. 

A decent ball-handler would be nice, too. When Roy's at SG he's above average for his position but when he's at PG he's much closer to average. Jack, if he's around, is stable but again, nothing to write home about. Rodriguez _might_ be the next Nash but it's hard to know how much he'll be playing over the next year or two or how much he'll really develop.

I'd prefer a SF who could swing to SG or, failing that, could swing to PF. If the team adds a SF who's a pretty pure SF, he'd better be pretty lights out _and_ they'd should find another promising option at SG -- Roy's great but he's occasionally on the bench or playing the 1 or the 3 and neither Jones nor Webster are inspiring a great deal of confidence (and I'm thinking of Webster more and more as a 3).


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I think that the small forward needs to be able to score. Whether through spreading the floor or getting to the line, we need someone to carry the offensive load because none of the big 3 (Roy/Aldridge/Oden) are ready to do so just yet.
> 
> Ed O.


The more I think about it, the more I think Rodriguez may see more minutes this next season. Nate's main issue with him was defense, and with Oden and Aldridge behind him, that'll matter less. Also, your point is a good one about scoring and one thing Rodriguez absolutely brings is the ability to help his teammates find easy baskets.

_If_ that's what KP and Nate are thinking as well, then I'd think they might be looking for a SF who can really fly up the court and who's also a good team defender -- someone who can cheat over to help contain opposing PGs without losing track of his main assignment.

Edit: It seems to me that many of Webster's best games came with Rodriguez and/or Roy on the floor with him. It seems to me that playing Rodriguez more and specifically with Webster more may increase Webster's value to the team. Also, a great knock against Webster was defense but again, with Oden and Aldridge back there....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> - What 2-3 skills are most important when it comes to the SF position?


On our team, in the offense I think we will sorta run I think a player who moves well without the ball, can shoot, but isn't necessarily a deadeye, a player who can finish on the break, a player who can defend, dribbling and passing would be great as well.



> - Have championship squads had SFs with similar qualities?


Like Ed said, Pippen was perfect. Even a player like Jerome would be great. Jeff Green really would be a nice player I think



> - Does LaMarcus Aldridge have an appropriate skillset for the 3 position? Webster? Outlaw?


Aldridge can not play SF. Webster and Outlaw both could develope into good SF's, I think Travis has the ability and Martell has the brains though. 



> - Will Kevin Durant change this position as we know it?


No. He won't be anything better than Lebron IMO. 



> - If I told you that we could trade Zach Randolph for a young, top-flight offensive player or a defensive stopper that could one day contend for the all-defensive team every year, which player would you choose given a starting lineup containing Oden at C, Aldridge at PF and Roy at SG.


Offensive. I think with Oden it's important to have some offensive weapons around him.



> - If we trade Zach for a 25-28 year old SF, how much of Randolph's scoring would you like him to replace? What would be the ideal statistical averages for such a player on this team?


16 ppg and up, 5 rpg, 4-5 apg.



> - Do we need to park a shooter in the starting lineup at the 3 position? Is outside shooting that much of a priority?


Hell no.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Yet I remember when Jerome Kersey was the Blazers SF. He was a middling scorer (Clyde, Terry, even Duck scored more), decent rebounder, crazy jumper who got a lot of hustle points. 

As the article said, it's the most versatile position. Depends on a team's needs.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

For THIS team?

1. Perimeter shooting.
2. Recognition & passing.
2. Defense (both 1:1 and "help" varieties).

IN that order. Between Oden and Aldridge, the Blazers will have plenty of low-post scoring punch. Between Roy and whoever his back-court cronie is, they will have plenty of slashing attack. What the team needs MOST from its SF is perimeter shooting. And when the guy isn't shooting it himself, he needs to be able to read opposing defenses and get the ball to the scoring option (smarts). I (reluctantly) put Defense third, because Oden, Aldridge, Przy, et al are going to have the low-post and slashers covered in spades. Primary defensive concern at SF should also be on the perimeter.

I really think the Blazers need a SF who can shoot long, help the PG enable the rest of the offense, and defend the perimeter like a mofo.

PBF


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Ed O said:


> 1. Ball-handling
> 1a. Dribble-drive/get to the line skills
> 1b. Dribbling and passing in the face of defensive pressure
> 2. Perimeter shooting
> 3. Defense


For Portland everything Ed mentioned, as well as moving well without the ball, and not being an alpha player ie someone who needs to dominate the ball in order to be successful.


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

Does anyone else think Marvin Williams is a more complete prospect than any of the SFs available in this year's draft? Also, he's just turns 21 years old this month. 

He has much better size than Brewer, a better stroke and athleticism than Green, and NBA experience and steady improvement. He's kind of like a better version of Outlaw with more polish and less athleticism, but he fits the criteria discussed in this thread pretty well.

With Josh Smith and Joe Johnson as their franchise players, and with Childress and Sheldon on board, and with Brandon Wright likely joining the party, I feel like we should be able to get Marvin from them, but I'm wary about overpaying. In my heart (since I want Zach gone) I'd probably accept Marvin and the #11 for Zach, but I don't know if that's fair value for us. I wonder how badly they want JJ. JJ for Marvin straight up? With the pick?

What do the rest of you think of his game.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't feel like answering all the questions posed, but I will answer one. If we could get a SF who can bring 16-18ppg 4-5rpg and shoot 38%+ from 3 all the while not being a complete louse on D, I would be happy. I think increased production from the 5 and the 2 in addition to an increased role by Aldridge measn we won't need nearly as much from the 3 as what we are giving up in Zach.


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

Schilly said:


> I don't feel like answering all the questions posed, but I will answer one. If we could get a SF who can bring 16-18ppg 4-5rpg and shoot 38%+ from 3 all the while not being a complete louse on D, I would be happy. I think increased production from the 5 and the 2 in addition to an increased role by Aldridge measn we won't need nearly as much from the 3 as what we are giving up in Zach.


Agreed, actually. I think the people calling for 18 points from the mystery man are shooting a bit high. It's hard not to see Roy, Oden, and Aldridge all as potential 20 ppg scorers, EASILY. I don't think many teams have four players accounting for 80 points...


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> I think a discussion of this position, the conventions of this position, and its evolution since the beginning of the NBA might be warrented, as it's almost a guarantee that Portland will be getting a new SF this summer.


The small forward position is flexible in the NBA. Helpful players in that postion come in all types with all different skills and body types.

What is the best type of small forward depends on the team and the other players they have.



> A few questions to ponder:
> 
> - What 2-3 skills are most important when it comes to the SF position?


For the Blazers, as I have already posted elsewhere:

1) Quality defense of the wing position

2) Ability to knock down the open 3 at a high percentage


We don't need an extra big 3 that is a 3/4, as we have Aldridge.

We don't need to emphasize ball handling as we have Roy to be the extra ballhandler.

We don't need a 3 that can post-up, iso and create their own offense, as we have Sergio, Roy and the bigs.

The dream player will be more than the two listed, but those are the two most important for our Blazers IMO.

All NBA defense would be great - Pippen, Bowen level.

Quality slashing skills, ability to draw fouls would be great.

High level ability to run the floor and finish would be nice for Sergio and popular. Fans like running and dunking.

Ballhandling and setting up the offense would be helpful.



> - Does LaMarcus Aldridge have an appropriate skillset for the 3 position? Webster? Outlaw?


I see Aldridge like a young Rasheed. He could do it but it would be a mistake full-time. I see Aldridge as a 4 that can play some at 3 and can play some center or full-time center in the right system.

Webster and Outlaw do not have my 2 priority skills, nor much of anything else I listed.



> - If I told you that we could trade Zach Randolph for a young, top-flight offensive player *or* a defensive stopper that could one day contend for the all-defensive team every year, which player would you choose given a starting lineup containing Oden at C, Aldridge at PF and Roy at SG.


probably the defender, but if by top-flight you mean Durant or LeBron, I will take that. Please.



> - Do we need to park a shooter in the starting lineup at the 3 position? Is outside shooting that much of a priority?


It is a very high priority, but we need a player that can do more than JUST hit 3s. Guys that only shoot 3s are bench players.

I feel 3 point shooting is critical for opening up the paint for Oden. The sooner he gets those shooters the better it will be so he can develop his game. No shooters equals misery for Oden.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

There are a lot of good name SF's being mentioned, but the guy I think would be a nearly perfect addition if we could somehow get him would be Mike Miller.


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

Schilly said:


> There are a lot of good name SF's being mentioned, but the guy I think would be a nearly perfect addition if we could somehow get him would be Mike Miller.


Honest question: How's his defense? He's a fearless shooter, I know that much.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

TowelBoy said:


> Does anyone else think Marvin Williams is a more complete prospect than any of the SFs available in this year's draft? Also, he's just turns 21 years old this month.
> 
> He has much better size than Brewer, a better stroke and athleticism than Green, and NBA experience and steady improvement. He's kind of like a better version of Outlaw with more polish and less athleticism, but he fits the criteria discussed in this thread pretty well.
> 
> ...


He doesn't do anything especially well except shoot from the line. We'd basically be getting Travis Outlaw without the jump shot but with a higher basketball IQ and ability to finish during dribble penetration. The guy shoots 43 percent from the field but doesn't really hit the glass or block shots like Travis.

Maybe on a better team he'd come out of his shell like Joe Johnson did with Phoenix?

We'd have to board the patience mobile with him.

The good thing is, if he came to the Blazers he'd probably come off the bench thus dropping his value on the open market come free agent time. He's from Bremerton High School, so he might accept a reasonable deal to stick around the Northwest. 

Another question: What position would we draft if we did this deal? If you go with another SF we'd have Udoka (re-signed), Green (for conversation's sake) and Williams, not to mention the contract of Darius Miles and Martell Webster all at SF.

Maybe in this scenario we move Jack somewhere else and draft a PG at #11.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

The more I think about it, the more I think the team probably needs to add two players: a SG/SF who can really defend and a SF who can really shoot. If somehow Pritchard can get all that in one player, that's great, but it's starting to seem unlikely to me and I think a rotation of those two with Roy (and potentially still guys like Udoka, Webster, and Jones) would probably be fine. In fact, adding either one of those two would be a marked improvement from last year. I'm starting to think, though, that two players would be better than one unless that one is _really_ strong with at least one of those two jobs -- adding another guy who's pretty good at a lot of things rather than really good with one or two isn't necessarily a good move, even if he's as good as Roy. I like Roy a lot and I still like players who can play multiple positions and/or roles, but now that the team _has_ a good generalist in the backcourt, I'd really like to see a good specialist beside him.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Samuel said:


> - What 2-3 skills are most important when it comes to the SF position?


1. Defense
2. Shooting and/or Penetration
3. Passing



Samuel said:


> - Have championship squads had SFs with similar qualities?


Modern Era Dynasties: Pippen, Bird, Bowen (maybe not passing)



Samuel said:


> - Does LaMarcus Aldridge have an appropriate skillset for the 3 position?


Nope, he's a big.



Samuel said:


> Webster?


I don't think he's presently showed us the necessary defensive and passing aspects. 



Samuel said:


> Outlaw?


Doesn't pass the ball very much.



Samuel said:


> - Will Kevin Durant change this position as we know it?


I think he'll be an offensive weapon, and a decent defender. He doesn't seem like a guy who will distribute the ball though, and will probably take it himself in most cases. Not a McGrady or LeBron type.



Samuel said:


> - If I told you that we could trade Zach Randolph for a young, top-flight offensive player *or* a defensive stopper that could one day contend for the all-defensive team every year, which player would you choose given a starting lineup containing Oden at C, Aldridge at PF and Roy at SG.


I would settle for average in both areas, as opposed to excellent in one.



Samuel said:


> - If we trade Zach for a 25-28 year old SF, how much of Randolph's scoring would you like him to replace?


I think Oden will replace Randolph's scoring, and Roy coming off his rookie year will probably show an increase as well. I don't see a need to replace Randolph's scoring with a SF.



Samuel said:


> What would be the ideal statistical averages for such a player on this team?


10-12 pts, 6-7 reb, 3.5-5 ast, 1-2 stl, 40% 3Pt, 45-50% FG, 80-85% FT



Samuel said:


> - Do we need to park a shooter in the starting lineup at the 3 position? Is outside shooting that much of a priority?


I think a SF has to have a minimum of two out of the three skills I listed, defense being required as one of them. He can have penetration instead of the three, but if he does then I want him to also have passing ability.

What I'm looking for most is the hustle guy with a team mentality, always looking for the best option, being ready to make a play when Plan A fails, but not needing to be the first or second option. The "intangibles" guy.


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

Samuel said:


> He doesn't do anything especially well except shoot from the line. We'd basically be getting Travis Outlaw without the jump shot but with a higher basketball IQ and ability to finish during dribble penetration. The guy shoots 43 percent from the field but doesn't really hit the glass or block shots like Travis.
> 
> Maybe on a better team he'd come out of his shell like Joe Johnson did with Phoenix?
> 
> ...


Per John Hollinger, Williams has a "beautiful" jump shot that he routinely sticks from mid range. Apparently he has a habit of taking shots from a step inside the three-point line, and hasn't yet extended his range. I haven't watched him much, so I have to go by what I read.

Anyway, I could see him stepping up as the starter this year at some point, beating out Udoka. Since roster spots are limited, it would also likely spell the end of Outlaw's career as a Blazer, which is possibly anyway with the league-wise interest he may generate.


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

PorterIn2004 said:


> The more I think about it, the more I think the team probably needs to add two players: a SG/SF who can really defend and a SF who can really shoot. If somehow Pritchard can get all that in one player, that's great, but it's starting to seem unlikely to me and I think a rotation of those two with Roy (and potentially still guys like Udoka, Webster, and Jones) would probably be fine. In fact, adding either one of those two would be a marked improvement from last year. I'm starting to think, though, that two players would be better than one unless that one is _really_ strong with at least one of those two jobs -- adding another guy who's pretty good at a lot of things rather than really good with one or two isn't necessarily a good move, even if he's as good as Roy. I like Roy a lot and I still like players who can play multiple positions and/or roles, but now that the team _has_ a good generalist in the backcourt, I'd really like to see a good specialist beside him.


Oh this is fun... trade Zach Randolph and picks (2nds, futures as needed) to the Boston Celtics for Wally Szczerbiak and the rights to Corey Brewer.

SG/SF who can really defend = Brewer.

SF who can really shoot = Wally (contract is two more years).


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

TowelBoy said:


> Anyway, I could see him stepping up as the starter this year at some point, beating out Udoka. Since roster spots are limited, it would also likely spell the end of Outlaw's career as a Blazer, which is possibly anyway with the league-wise interest he may generate.


 Only a year ago we were overloaded at SF with Khryapa, Patterson, Webster, Outlaw, Monia and Miles all logging minutes there.

- Miles is MIA and probably won't be a part of the team next year.

- Patterson was moved for Skinner who was moved for Magloire who expired at the end of this season.

- Monia was shipped off in the above trade.

- Webster can't be penciled in as a future starter or even a consistent rotation player.

- And then with the loss of Aldridge and LaFrentz earlier this season, we found out that Outlaw's shotblocking and inability to keep up with faster 3's made him more suited for the PF (the leaguewide shift toward the fast break greased this move). 

I think Outlaw's move to the 4 spot is the reason why the team is pushing so hard for an SF. We have 2 backups and no starter.


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

Samuel, would you rate Marvin's lateral quickness as less than, greater than, or equal to Outlaw's?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

I agree, a good small forward is usually the most versatile player on the team - and EXACTLY what skills he needs to bring is a function of what his teammates are lacking. Different SFs were great on different teams for different reasons. In addition to Scottie Pippen, who played great perimeter D, was an excellent passer/ball handler and scored when needed, I also consider players like pre-injury Detroit-days Grant Hill and Larry Bird to have been small forwards who made their teams better by excelling at more than one aspect of the game. 

Grant Hill, prior to injury, was very Pippen like. He was an excellent scorer, rebounder and passer. He did it all - then his ankles gave out. He wasn't the defender Pippen was, but in his second and third seasons Hill averaged 20.2 PPG, 9.8 RPG, 6.9 APG followed by 21.4 PPG, 9.0 RPG, 7.3 APG. That's the kind of versatility you dream of in a SF.

Although Bird played PF early in his career, the BEST of those great 80s Celtics teams was the 1985-86 squad when McHale moved into the starting 4 spot and Larry moved over to SF. That year, he averaged 25.1 PPG, 9.8 RPG, 6.8 APG and 2.0 SPG. Bird shot 0.423 from 3-point range, was MVP, the Celtics won 67 games and the NBA championship. He sacrificed a little in individual scoring (down from 28.7), but moving McHale to the 4 and Bird to the 3 made the Celtics a better team. People who didn't follow the NBA back then don't realize what a great all-around player Bird was. He wasn't just a great scorer. He was an excellent rebounder and passer. He wasn't a great on-the-ball defender, but he was very smart and really knew how to play the passing lanes on defense (top 10 in steals and 2nd team all-defense three times). He wasn't just the leading scorer on those great Celtics teams, he was the best all-around player and he made his teammates better.

Short of getting a first ballot Hall of Famer, I'd like to see us get a small forward who is an excellent on-the-ball perimeter defender and is a decent passer/ballhandler and capable of knocking down an open 3-pointer. 

I don't buy the logic that with Oden and Aldridge we can get away with poor perimeter defenders. In fact, I take the opposite approach. What good is it to have Oden and Aldridge patrolling the paint if the other team is constantly lighting us up from the outside? Seriously, if the other team is killing us from outside because our perimeter players can't guard a chair, they won't need to try to drive the lane - thus neutralizing the advantage Oden and Aldridge provide. I want at LEAST one of our perimeter players to be a far above average man-to-man defender. Someone who can stick to Kobe, LeBron, Carmelo, TMac, etc. like glue. 

I also want them to make the other team pay by knocking down the open three when Oden and/or Aldridge draw the double team. We need SOMEBODY to keep the defense honest or they will just pack the paint - again neutralizing the advantage Oden and Aldridge provide.

Out of the top SFs in the draft, Corey Brewer comes closest to matching these needs. He's an excellent perimeter defender, can knock down the big shot, is a proven winner and used to being the third or fourth option on offense. He will fit in well without demanding a lot of touches. I don't care that he's skinny. So was Aldridge when we drafted him. Brewer was able to bench his weight (185 lbs.) 11 times. That's plenty strong enough for a SF with long skinny arms. He's always been my first choice should the Blazers get a second pick in the 5 - 10 range.

My second choice would be Jeff Green. He's not a great defender, but has excellent size for a SF. That will make it tough for other 3s to shoot over him. He's an excellent passer, a smart player and a good shooter. I prefer a better defender, but I think Green would fit in well on this team.

My third choice would be Al Thornton. He's a great scorer and a dead-eye shooter from anywhere. However, you give up a LOT in terms of defense, passing and basketball IQ. Still he would definitely draw defensive attention that would open up things down low for Oden and Aldridge and create lanes for the guards to penetrate. He'd be an upgrade at the 3, but I'd still definitely rather have Brewer or Green.

BNM


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

TowelBoy said:


> Samuel, would you rate Marvin's lateral quickness as less than, greater than, or equal to Outlaw's?


Probably less than, although I haven't seen a ton of Marvin footage. 

PG: Sergio
SG: Jones/Webster/Pick?
SF: Williams
PF: Outlaw
C: Przybilla

That'd be an interesting lineup, with Udoka starting the season at SF then hopefully giving way to Williams in the latter half.

Imagine Przybilla on the Block, Sergio scooping it up and Outlaw/Williams on opposite sides of the court on the break. Scary.


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

Samuel said:


> Probably less than, although I haven't seen a ton of Marvin footage.
> 
> PG: Sergio
> SG: Jones/Webster/Pick?
> ...


Yes, we'd have a very deep, young team, which would indeed be scary for the rest of the league. The more I read about Marvin the more I like him, and supposedly his intangibles and BBIQ are off the charts. Plus, he was taken ahead of Chris Paul for a reason. He could be just the all-around player we are looking for. Shoots and handles like a guard, passes well, and he's huge and athletic at the SF spot. He might even be the guy do draw the assignment of defending Durant...


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

As far as available veterans who would be a good fit and attainable. I'd take Tayshaun Prince or Andres Nocioni - if the price isn't too high. Prince is basically an older, more experienced version of Brewer. Nocioni plays REALLY hard at both ends. He's like Ruben Patterson with a brain, an outside shot and no criminal record. Again, a great role player who'd bring a lot of energy. Not flashy, not pretty, but you know he's going to give a great effort every night. His hustle and determination would be a good example for the younger players.

Of course, if you can get an all-star SF for Zach, you do it in a heartbeat, but if not, I'd be happy with either of these two guys (or Brewer, or possibly Green). 

Actually, my ideal trade is Zach for a re-signed Nocioni + Brewer (selected 9th by the Bulls for us) + filler. Nocioni could start now with Brewer the defensive stopper off the bench and future starter. Of course, that assumes we get lucky and Brewer slips to 9th - AND that Chicago is willing to do this trade, but a guy can dream. Once Brewer is ready to start move Nocioni to the spark-plug-off-the-bench role. That would cover the starting 3 spot for the next 10+ years, plus the back-up three for the next four or five.

BNM


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> As far as available veterans who would be a good fit and attainable. I'd take Tayshaun Prince or Andres Nocioni - if the price isn't too high. Prince is basically an older, more experienced version of Brewer. Nocioni plays REALLY hard at both ends. He's like Ruben Patterson with a brain, an outside shot and no criminal record. Again, a great role player who'd bring a lot of energy. Not flashy, not pretty, but you know he's going to give a great effort every night. His hustle and determination would be a good example for the younger players.
> 
> Of course, if you can get an all-star SF for Zach, you do it in a heartbeat, but if not, I'd be happy with either of these two guys (or Brewer, or possibly Green).
> 
> ...


You know that trade doesn't work, right? Nocioni can't be signed until the 12th of July, so no sign-and-trade deals can involve 2007 draft picks. It couldn't even be arranged beforehand either, as Nocioni can't be CONTACTED until the 1st.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

TowelBoy said:


> You know that trade doesn't work, right? Nocioni can't be signed until the 12th of July, so no sign-and-trade deals can involve 2007 draft picks. It couldn't even be arranged beforehand either, as Nocioni can't be CONTACTED until the 1st.


Nocioni can't be contacted, but the Bulls can. As an RFA, they hold his Bird rights and have the right to match any offer Nocioni receives. So, in effect they control his destiny whether he likes it or not. So, the Blazers and Bulls could agree to a deal on draft day - waiting to see who's available at the ninth pick. They would then have to but wait to execute it when the free agent signing moratorium expires. 

I doubt if Nocioni would mind either. He'll get more money this way than signing with someone else. He will be coming to a team on their way up and will likely be a starter - something he'll never be in Chicago with Luol Deng penciled in for the next 10 years.

BNM


----------



## TowelBoy (Jun 6, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Nocioni can't be contacted, but the Bulls can. As an RFA, they hold his Bird rights and have the right to match any offer Nocioni receives. So, in effect they control his destiny whether he likes it or not. So, the Blazers and Bulls could agree to a deal on draft day - waiting to see who's available at the ninth pick. They would then have to but wait to execute it when the free agent signing moratorium expires.
> 
> I doubt if Nocioni would mind either. He'll get more money this way than signing with someone else. He will be coming to a team on their way up and will likely be a starter - something he'll never be in Chicago with Luol Deng penciled in for the next 10 years.
> 
> BNM


Tom Penn himself said it can never happen. No matter how logical you and I think it is that Noc would accept the money to come here, the Bulls aren't going to draft a player they may not want and count on Nocioni to comply. Also, there's no way you can guarantee that there won't be another team out there willing to offer him 8 or 9 million per year.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Problem with Nocioni is he will also become a BYC once he's signed assuming he gets a large enough raise which he would have to in order to be traded for Zach.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Just to add... If Nocioni gets more than 3.6mil to start from the bulls which is 20% higher than this past seasons contract, he will instantly be a BYC even in a Sign and Trade.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

OK, it's the BYC that's the snag. Chicago can match ANY offer he gets, even a ridiculous one. However, his trade value will be much lower, making it impossible to match salaries with Zach - unless we also agree to take back PJ Brown re-signed on a massive one year deal.

I don't think it's technically impossible (given Brown's 06-07 salary), just VERY improbable.

BNM


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> OK, it's the BYC that's the snag. Chicago can match ANY offer he gets, even a ridiculous one. However, his trade value will be much lower, making it impossible to match salaries with Zach - unless we also agree to take back PJ Brown re-signed on a massive one year deal.
> 
> I don't think it's technically impossible (given Brown's 06-07 salary), just VERY improbable.
> 
> BNM


A player must be signed to a minimum 3 year deal in order to be signed and traded.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ALthough only the 1st year needs to be guranteed.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

TowelBoy said:


> Tom Penn himself said it can never happen. No matter how logical you and I think it is that Noc would accept the money to come here, the Bulls aren't going to draft a player they may not want and count on Nocioni to comply. Also, there's no way you can guarantee that there won't be another team out there willing to offer him 8 or 9 million per year.


Nocioni's compliance isn't necessary - he's bound by the terms of CBA. His only other option would be to leave the NBA and go play elsewhere. Not totally out of the realm of possibility, but highly, highly unlikely. Doesn't matter what someone else offers him, the Bulls can match.

The REAL snag is the BYC status that would be attached to Nocioni if he gets a big raise. But with the Bulls under the cap and PJ Brown as an additional possible sign and trade, I think that could possibly be worked out within the terms of the CBA, but it would be a rather complex deal - which rarely happens.

BNM


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Actually Nocioni would ahve to comply.

Per Larry ****


> 76. Can a free agent be signed and immediately traded?
> 
> Under no circumstances can a team sign and then trade another team's free agent. But there is a rule that allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes, called the sign-and-trade rule. Under the sign-and-trade rule, the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. *This is done by adding a clause to the contract which stipulates that the contract is invalid if the player's rights are not traded to the specific team within 48 hours.*


Remember the player has to agree to the contract before he signs it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Schilly said:


> ALthough only the 1st year needs to be guranteed.


Brown has basically said he wants to play one more year and then retire. So, this might work.

Also, the Bulls, currently, look to be about $10 million under the cap. So, they could absorb a major portion of Zach's contract without going over the cap.

I do think the deal would be very complex, and therefore unlikely to happen even if it's technically possible.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Schilly said:


> Actually Nocioni would ahve to comply.
> 
> Per Larry ****
> 
> ...


I still don't see where that says Nocioni has a choice in the matter, but I may be missing something. Chicago has the right to match ANY offer and Nocioni has no say in the matter. All the clause says is they will trade him within 48 hours - it doesn't say he has to agree to the trade, or even where he'll be traded. He could technically threaten to go play in Europe if he doesn't want to be traded, but he'd be giving up millions and the right to play in the NBA. Am I missing something?

BNM


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> I still don't see where that says Nocioni has a choice in the matter, but I may be missing something. Chicago has the right to match ANY offer and Nocioni has no say in the matter. All the clause says is they will trade him within 48 hours - it doesn't say he has to agree to the trade, or even where he'll be traded. He could technically threaten to go play in Europe if he doesn't want to be traded, but he'd be giving up millions and the right to play in the NBA. Am I missing something?
> 
> BNM


Right they have the right to match his offer, but the Trade part would have to be part of the original contract offer he receives. Another team can't do a S&T. They don't match and add, they either match and assume the verbage of the matched deal or they draw up a new deal, which Nocioni would have to accept.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

In order to make Nocioni a RFA Chicago must make him a 1 year Qualifying offer, which he can accept which would make him a UFA after the upcoming season.

There is no way Nocioni can be traded if he doesn't agree to the trade first.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

EDIT: (deleted) After rereading the thread BNM covered the BYC point I was making, so this post is redundant.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

OK, given all the obstacles, a sign and trade deal involving Nocioni and whoever the Bulls select with the 9th pick may not be technically impossible, but given the complexity and the potential risks (Nocioni nixes the deal - not sure why he would as it'd give him the chance to be a starter, but it's still a risk in that they can't even ask him until AFTER the draft) such a deal would be HIGHLY improbable.

Bummer.

BNM


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

TowelBoy said:


> Oh this is fun... trade Zach Randolph and picks (2nds, futures as needed) to the Boston Celtics for Wally Szczerbiak and the rights to Corey Brewer.
> 
> SG/SF who can really defend = Brewer.
> 
> SF who can really shoot = Wally (contract is two more years).


Wow, ya know, I really think I like that. Wally's been slammed for years as being a terrible defender. I don't think he's any worse than Randolph and it'd matter less than it has with Randolph with Oden and Aldridge back there.

Further, Wally would buy Brewer some time to get his offense more NBA ready -- by the time it simply wasn't worth having Wally on the court, there's a decent chance Brewer would be ready to replace him offensively.

Wally would get to be playing not just with some very good defenders but with at least a two of Rodriguez, Roy, Aldridge and Oden able to draw a double team most nights.

That said, the Celtics may be unwilling to trade with Portland now, however sweet the deal might be from there end (as Zach would be a beast in the East _and_ they'd be getting out from Wally's contract which they've been trying to do for awhile now, iirc).


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

ron artest


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

As much as I don't like Wally Worlds game, it might be worth taking him for two years to get the 5th pick to land Brewer (or whoever else Pritchard wants there). His production was down last year, but so were his minutes and he only played in 32 games due to injury. Still he managed to shoot 0.415 3FG% and 0.897 FT% for the second traight year. I do know Boston is desperate to get rid of him and his contract and this trade works under the CBA. So, it's possible.

Boston might want something else to sweeten the pot, but we have lots of 2nd round picks. They might also want to dump Theo's contract back on us, but we'd have to give up couple more players to make the salaries match and that might be too much. In fact, since Joel is BYC, we'd either have to give up at least three MORE players (not counting Oden, Aldridge and Roy) - two players if we include a re-signed Magloire and we can't due that until after the free agent signing moratorium. 

Boston might also be interested in dumping Brian Scalabrine with his 6.6 PER and three years and $10 million left on his contract. We have several individual players who could be used to match salaries with Wally (or Theo) + Scalabrine for Zach + ? trade. Both Freddie and Dickau work and are both expiting contracts. Martell also works, but I don't know if Pritchard would be willing to give him up as a throw in. I guess it depends on how much he values that 5th pick.

So, it looks like Zach (and posibly a second round pick) for Wally (or Theo) and the 5th are the most realistic options. Zach + one of Freddie, Dickau or Webster for Wally + Scalabrine also works.

BNM


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> As much as I don't like Wally Worlds game, it might be worth taking him for two years to get the 5th pick to land Brewer (or whoever else Pritchard wants there). His production was down last year, but so were his minutes and he only played in 32 games due to injury. Still he managed to shoot 0.415 3FG% and 0.897 FT% for the second traight year. I do know Boston is desperate to get rid of him and his contract and this trade works under the CBA. So, it's possible.


Would you take a #5 pick and a bad contract instead of a guy like RJ and a later pick? I feel like you're getting a little more bang for your buck with the latter possibility.



> Boston might want something else to sweeten the pot, but we have lots of 2nd round picks. They might also want to dump Theo's contract back on us, but we'd have to give up couple more players to make the salaries match and that might be too much.


I don't think they'd be 'dumping' Theo's contract as much as selecting the team to send him to. Ainge has crapped the bed in the last few years and ended up with Telfair, a green Green, and some other marginal pieces. He's going to want to get every ounce of value out of that expiring contract. When you're the team recieving the expiring deal, you're the one getting the value, so you have to give up some value for that in return (that didn't come out very clearly...).[/quote]


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

why not just give up randolph for artest and filler/pick 

hes a proven sf with great defensive qualities


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I like getting Wally much more than getting Theo. Bos would probably rather give us Wally anyways so if we do a Zach for the 5 deal that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

www.starbury.com said:


> why not just give up randolph for artest and filler/pick
> 
> hes a proven sf with great defensive qualities


There is no way the Blazers are adding Artest with their emphasis on high character team players.

Not to mention his horrid 3pt shooting and poor shot selection. He is a good defender but a very bad fit on offense.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

No to mention Artest is the LAST guy I want "mentoring" our young players. Heck our young players would be good role models FOR Artest. Forget it, he's simply too mentally unstable and too selfish. He has to always do SOMETHING to be the center of attention with absolutley NO considertion of how it affects his team.. It's always all about Ronnie. He makes Terrell Owens look like a stable influence by comparison.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> Would you take a #5 pick and a bad contract instead of a guy like RJ and a later pick? I feel like you're getting a little more bang for your buck with the latter possibility.


It depends on Jefferson's health and, assuming he's healthy, what Pritchard thinks he can get at 17. Jefferson gives more immediate help than Wally, but the 5th pick is bound to be a better long term prospect (no guarantees, but I trust Pritchard's judgement to get the bet out of either pick).

In an ideal world, we would trade Zach to NJ for Jefferson and the 17th, Jack to Atlanta for the 11th (both deals work and address needs for both trading partners) and then package those two picks to move up high enough to grab Brewer or Green as our SF of the future to take over when Jefferson begins to slide. Or, if that doesn't work, you could just take two promising SF prospects, like Thornton and Thad Young at 11 and 17 and hope one of them works out to be a good fit as the future starting SF. Who knows, if Thad Young ever lives up to his potential, he could be the eventual starter with Thornton providing instant offense off the bench.

BNM


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> It depends on Jefferson's health and, assuming he's healthy, what Pritchard thinks he can get at 17. Jefferson gives more immediate help than Wally, but the 5th pick is bound to be a better long term prospect (no guarantees, but I trust Pritchard's judgement to get the bet out of either pick).



I, too, prefer Wally and #5 to Jefferson and #17. Wally has the potential to be a great fit on this team -- all he really does well is shoot and that's something this team really needs. He's got the potential to continue doing that reasonably well for the next several years and if the fit is good enough, might resign to be the gunner off the bench. What's it matter if he's not a good defender if he's got Oden and Aldridge behind him and Roy and/or Brewer (or the like) beside him?

To be clear, I have no doubt that Jefferson is a better player. I just think Wally's the better fit _and_ I'd rather have the 5th pick than the 17th.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Samuel said:


> I think a discussion of this position, the conventions of this position, and its evolution since the beginning of the NBA might be warrented, as it's almost a guarantee that Portland will be getting a new SF this summer.


great thread, Samuel.



> A few questions to ponder:
> 
> - What 2-3 skills are most important when it comes to the SF position?


to play along side oden, aldridge, roy, and sergio or one with his ball handling and passing ability:

1a. perimeter shooting - preferably one who's a good spot up 3-point shooter. hitting the outside shot will open up the inside game for both oden and aldridge. a 3-point shooter would also complement roy's and sergio's games, as they both like to penetrate and kick out.

1b. great man-to-man perimeter defense. a lockdown type of defender who's main job is to take on the best perimeter player on the other team. this helps roy to exert more of his energy on offense.

2. move well without the ball - this would include finding open spots to shoot the 3, cutting to the lane, and running the floor.



> - Have championship squads had SFs with similar qualities?


sure. pippen is the easy pick, but james posey and bruce bowen also qualifies.



> - Does LaMarcus Aldridge have an appropriate skillset for the 3 position? Webster? Outlaw?


no, i absolutely do not want to waste aldridge skillset at sf. he has the body and skillset to be a great pf or c, but he would be a subpar sf.

i think webster has the body, balance, and shooting to play sf. he needs to improve a lot on defense before i'd be comfortable playing him at sf. 

travis has the shooting, but lacks good man-to-man defense and ball handling skills to play sf full time.



> - Will Kevin Durant change this position as we know it?


no, i think that goes to lebron. i could see durant being an excellent rebounding sf though.



> - If I told you that we could trade Zach Randolph for a young, top-flight offensive player *or* a defensive stopper that could one day contend for the all-defensive team every year, which player would you choose given a starting lineup containing Oden at C, Aldridge at PF and Roy at SG.


definately a defensive stopper. sure, we would struggle to score next year. but i think in 2-3 years, roy, oden, and aldridge will be nightmares for opposing defense to handle. with zach gone, i could easily see roy stepping in to average 20pts next season. aldridge will be capable of producing 15-18pts next season. oden, at minimum, will average 14pts next season.

with a defensive stopper on the perimeter, even as young as we are, i could see us being a top 10 defensive team next season. that will be enough to cover for our offensive struggles.



> - If we trade Zach for a 25-28 year old SF, how much of Randolph's scoring would you like him to replace? What would be the ideal statistical averages for such a player on this team?


9-12 points would be enough for me. as long as his scoring comes with a good shooting percentage, especially the 3-point shot. 



> - Do we need to park a shooter in the starting lineup at the 3 position? Is outside shooting that much of a priority?


if he's also a lockdown perimeter defender, sure.


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

What the ****! I mean seriously what the ****... You want Wally... Damn... whats wrong with you? I'd say he is pretty much done. He was slow but now after knee needed surgury he is injury prone and has one functional lega and for christ sake he was really slow before and was serious liability on defense. and its not like he that skilled on offense. You guys either havent seen him lately or you just want to hurt your team. And while I like Brewer and I belive he could contribute from start... I'd still prefere Zbo or getting really athletic veteran who has shown that he can score up to 25 points in game. RJ isn't good shooter and has other disadvantages but he is great fastbreak guy (works perfectly with Sergio), can get to ft line (you might need such ability), I'd say hes defense is decent, he is good rebounder (and can play some pf)... and finally I haven't seen that much rookies who could contribute from start. with all your youth you need someone who is respected and can score or you might be in trouble. So I claim that Webster is better than Wally (and getting him might mean that you have to play him... ouch) and I am not convinced that 5th pick will turn into +20 scorer and defender within 1-2 years. Damn, getting 26(27?) year athletic freak (who has great work ethic btw) with 11 mil sallary + pick isn't enough for you?!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Banjoriddim said:


> What the ****! I mean seriously what the ****... You want Wally... Damn... whats wrong with you?


Mostly I really like the SFs at the upper end of this draft. This team won't need 20 points from the starting SF, especially if said SF improves the team defensively. Who knows, maybe Wally won't play another game. Even so, I'd be mighty tempted to move Randolph for whomever Pritchard wants with the 5th pick. Anything out of Wally could be viewed as bonus from my perspective and _if_ he can play, he'd be the best shooter on the team. He, Webster, and Rodriguez could open up a zone and give Aldridge and Oden all kinds of room to work.

Edit: That said, stepping back you may well be right that there are better combinations to be had. Nocioni and #9 come to mind.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Ime is fine.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Banjoriddim said:


> What the ****! I mean seriously what the ****... You want Wally...


No, we don't _want_ Wally. He's simply the price we'd have to pay to get the 5th pick so we can take a young, athletic SF in the draft. Nobody is going to give us an experienced, talented proven small forward AND a top 10 pick for Zach. So, if we want another top 10 pick, we're going to have to take out someone else's garbage (i.e. broken down Wally and his big contract).

BNM


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

we have a thread that wants Wally Sczerbiak or Ime Udoka over Ron Artest

That type of logic is why the blazers are relying on an incredibly lucky draft pick to turn their franchise around 

*despairs*


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

www.starbury.com said:


> we have a thread that wants Wally Sczerbiak or Ime Udoka over Ron Artest
> 
> That type of logic is why the blazers are relying on an incredibly lucky draft pick to turn their franchise around
> 
> *despairs*


Are you related to the great "not chemistry expert" Bob Whitsitt?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

www.starbury.com said:


> we have a thread that wants Wally Sczerbiak or Ime Udoka over Ron Artest
> 
> That type of logic is why the blazers are relying on an incredibly lucky draft pick to turn their franchise around
> 
> *despairs*


Yeah, because we all know it's the posters on this board making all the player personnel decisions for the team, not our GM, assistant GM, scouts and coaches. Hey, you may not agree with all our decisions and opinions, but we sure hit it out of the park on draft day last year, didn't we. So you see, it's not JUST that lucky bounce of the ping pong balls we're relying on to turn the team around.

Gotta go. I need to get on the phone with Danny Ainge and hammer out the details on the Wally trade.

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

www.starbury.com said:


> we have a thread that wants Wally Sczerbiak or Ime Udoka over Ron Artest
> 
> That type of logic is why the blazers are relying on an incredibly lucky draft pick to turn their franchise around
> 
> *despairs*


says the guy with the Sixers avatar and the Marbury handle.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

www.starbury.com said:


> we have a thread that wants Wally Sczerbiak or Ime Udoka over Ron Artest
> 
> That type of logic is why the blazers are relying on an incredibly lucky draft pick to turn their franchise around
> 
> *despairs*


you're thinking we still have john nash as our GM. he is no longer working in any capacity with us.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> - If I told you that we could trade Zach Randolph for a young, top-flight offensive player *or* a defensive stopper that could one day contend for the all-defensive team every year, which player would you choose given a starting lineup containing Oden at C, Aldridge at PF and Roy at SG.
> 
> - If we trade Zach for a 25-28 year old SF, how much of Randolph's scoring would you like him to replace? What would be the ideal statistical averages for such a player on this team?
> 
> - Do we need to park a shooter in the starting lineup at the 3 position? Is outside shooting that much of a priority?


I would want a player that is defensive minded, but have the ability to create his own offense. Killer three-point shooters can be obtained without having to trade Zach. I think the Gerlad Wallace-type player would be a perfect fit. Lock the other team down and don't rely on help defense.

If you're solid on the defensive end at all positions, you lock the team down. Frustrate the hell out of them, then wait for your offense to come to you.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Schilly said:


> Problem with Nocioni is he will also become a BYC once he's signed assuming he gets a large enough raise which he would have to in order to be traded for Zach.


Rather than start a new thread, I thought I'd revive this one...

I was just reading over Larry ****'s Salary Cap FAQ when I came across these little nuggets regarding BYC status:

"_BYC defines the salary that's used to compare players for compliance under the Traded Player exception (see question number 68 for more information about the Traded Player exception). Usually the salary used for comparison is the player's actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:

* *The team is over the salary cap*, used the Larry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20% (unless it's the minimum salary)_."

and

"_For Larry Bird or Early Bird players, the player's BYC begins on the date he signs his contract. For extended rookie scale contracts, the player's BYC begins on the day after the July Moratorium which precedes the first season of the extension. For example, if an extension of a rookie scale contract is signed on 10/30/05, his BYC begins on 7/12/06, because the first season of the extension is 2006-07. *A player's BYC goes away if the team falls below the salary cap*, the player signs with a different team, or the player is traded_."

Chicago is currently under the cap. With PJ Brown, Nocioni and several other smaller contracts expiring, the look to be about $10 million under the cap (not counting the salary for the 9th pick). So, depending on what moves they make between now and July 12, they may be able to sign Nocioni to a generous raise that doesn't make him BYC. He could then be combined with another player (Chris Duhon or Michael Sweetney, perhaps) and whoever they draft at No. 9 in a sign and trade for Zach.

So, if handled right, the BYC obstacle could be removed making a trade more practical, but still rather complex. Guess that's why we hired Tom Penn. Of course, you still have the risk that Nocioni wouldn't agree to a sign and trade, or some other team offers him an insane contract that would pushed Bulls over the cap if they matched (although I really don't think anyone would as they would end up getting stuck with that contract when the Bulls declined to match the ridiculous offer). AND it is also incumbent on the Bulls drafting someone at 9 that the Blazers want, the Bulls are willing to give up, but wouldn't mind keeping if the deal fell through. 

BNM


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Way to go into the trenches, Boobs, nice find. :biggrin:


----------

