# Trade Marcus Banks



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Trade Banks' while his value is high, it won't last long. Orien Greene is a great option for backup! :clap:


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

*Re: Now's the time*

yeeee....NOOOOOOOOOOOO :curse:


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Now's the time*

Excuse me?

You do not like Greene either, from what I recall. Also, Banks is a far better player than Greene. His only problem is that he has a shooting mentality when he is in fact, not a very good shooter. Also, he seems to get the ball with 1-3 seconds left on the shot clock so he is obligated to shoot or cause a turnover (in which case you would be even more against him).

Please.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

*Re: Now's the time*

Man, we could have Steve Nash manning the point and you'd want him gone "while his value is high" so that West could get more PT. Admit it, Banks' improved play is making you uneasy.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

*Re: Now's the time*



P-Dub34 said:


> Man, we could have Steve Nash manning the point and you'd want him gone "while his value is high" so that West could get more PT. Admit it, Banks' improved play is making you uneasy.



lmao its really true


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Now's the time*

I don't wish to call out Marcus, but his performance last night (from what I saw) was pretty bad so his comments, while over-zealous, are sort of appropriate.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

*Re: Now's the time*

Still, basing things off one game? Or even the what, four, that Banks have been back mean nothing. Just because Banks is playing well now means nothing except that he's playing well now. When he keeps it up for a prolonged period then I'll buy in. Just because I like Banks more doesn't mean I don't hold him to the same standards that I do for West.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Now's the time*

Okay...I just checked some numbers.

Only three players on the Celtics average a higher percentage of shots attempted with three or less seconds on the shot clock. Banks averages 14% while LaFrentz averages 16% and Dickau averages 15%. Surprisingly, Orien Greene averages a whopping 26% of his shot attempts with three or less seconds on the clock. This is partly why Banks and Greene force up many shots that rarely go in. They are bad shooters, yes, but please do not jump to conclusions without looking at _all_ the facts.

Oh, by the way:

 <table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="50%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#efefef"><td bgcolor="#33cc33"><center>*Player*</center></td> <td><center>*On Court
+/-*</center></td> <td><center>*Off Court
+/-*</center></td> <td><center>*Team Net
+/-*</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="left"> Davis</td> <td><center> -0.1</center></td> <td><center> -15.7</center></td> <td><center> +15.7</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="left"> Pierce</td> <td><center> -1.0</center></td> <td><center> -7.1</center></td> <td><center> +6.1</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="left"> *Banks*</td> <td><center>* +3.0*</center></td> <td><center>* -2.7*</center></td> <td><center>* +5.7*</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="left"> LaFrentz</td> <td><center> +0.2</center></td> <td><center> -4.9</center></td> <td><center> +5.2</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="left"> Dickau</td> <td><center> +1.7</center></td> <td><center> -3.2</center></td> <td><center> +4.9</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="left"> *West*</td> <td><center>* -0.3*</center></td> <td><center>* -4.9*</center></td> <td><center>* +4.6*</center></td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

*Re: Now's the time*

Too small of a sample size for Banks for those numbers to mean a whole lot at this point, Prem. As for Davis' #'s, wow...


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Now's the time*

I understand that but if he wants to trade Banks after one bad game, then I would consider it acceptable to post statistics that are susceptible to being skewed.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

*Re: Now's the time*



> then I would consider it acceptable to post statistics that are susceptible to being skewed.


Fair enough.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

It wasn't a "bad game," in fact without Banks last night's game would have been over in the 3rd quarter, but the kid kept attacking the hoop and getting to the line, and also resulting in a few 3 point plays.

Then he also had one great steal which would have given the Celtics either a 3 point lead or broken a tie, but Pierce took a bad shot.

But we'll ignore all the energy Banks gave us and helped us bring us back into the game, because darn it, he shot a bad % and that's all that matters.


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

Yeah, without Banks last nights game would have been over before the fourth quarter. Just because he attempted that one wild lay up, you jump on him. If he would have made that you would be like oh what a great shot, all on his nuts, right? Banks and West will be a far better backcourt then West and Greene would be.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

> If he would have made that you would be like oh what a great shot, all on his nuts, right?


:|


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

DWest Superstar said:


> :|


You started the topic, defend what you say.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

I just think we can get better value back then what he is really worth, I read somewhere Raptors fans were saying they would be willing to trade Calderon for Banks


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

I would rather have Banks. You can tell just by watching him play he is going to be a very good player. He already has everything he needs. Just give him some polishing and experince and he will show you...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Now's the time*



P-Dub34 said:


> Too small of a sample size for Banks for those numbers to mean a whole lot at this point, Prem. As for Davis' #'s, wow...


Actually, one irony of Banks return will be the plummeting of West's +/- number. Most of West's 4.6 comes from the fact that his backups (Groan & Spotted Dickau) have been so bad that the Celtics scoring efficiency has plummeted when they're on the floor. With Banks manning the backup role, the pts/poss numbers of the second unit will go up, sending West's +/- down.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

Keep Banks, no way Orien Greene is a good back up at this point. 

He needs more time, and we need players who can play now.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

I read this and just shook my head in disbeleif, to me it's so obvious that Marcus is the best PG on the team, that the fact it is not evident to all, startles me. Delonte has far exceeded my expectations but I still say he is a SG first.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I'm just a Bulls fan lurking in enemy territory, but if John Paxson calls Danny Ainge and offers Tim Thomas, Ben Gordon(or Kirk Hinrich), and both of our 1st rounders(one pick is from the Eddy Curry trade) for Paul Pierce and Mark Blount an your 1st rounder, would you do it? 

Thomas' contract expires at the end of the season, thus giving you cap space and New Yorks' pick will be a high pick that would possibly land you guys Rudy Gay, Adam Morrison or LaMarcus Aldridge. You guys look to be rebuilding anyway, and those are some pretty decent pieces to get.

Feel free to tear it apart now... :biggrin:


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

add luol deng and u juuuuuuuuuuuuuuust might be on to something...although i really REALLY dont want pierce to be traded


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

dsouljah9 said:


> I'm just a Bulls fan lurking in enemy territory, but if John Paxson calls Danny Ainge and offers Tim Thomas, Ben Gordon(or Kirk Hinrich), and both of our 1st rounders(one pick is from the Eddy Curry trade) for Paul Pierce and Mark Blount an your 1st rounder, would you do it?
> 
> Thomas' contract expires at the end of the season, thus giving you cap space and New Yorks' pick will be a high pick that would possibly land you guys Rudy Gay, Adam Morrison or LaMarcus Aldridge. You guys look to be rebuilding anyway, and those are some pretty decent pieces to get.
> 
> Feel free to tear it apart now... :biggrin:


It would have to be Deng, as Boston would need a small forward to replace Pierce. And if Boston is unloading Pierce, they might not win another 11 games all season, making our first as valuable as the New York one, so no way it goes in any trade.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

No, not at all. In my opinion, there is no one in the '06 draft worth trading Pierce for. The Celtics' cap situation isn't as bad as some make it out to be meaning he won't be dumped for salary unless the Celtics want to tank the '06-'07 season. There is absolutely no point in trading Paul Pierce before the end of the season as the Celtics would be losing for the wrong draft. As Chicago has the right to opt for New York '07 first-round selection instead of their '06 selection, they could potentially offer a better package for Paul Pierce. At the end of the '05-'06 season and after the draft, I wouldn't mind a package of Chris Duhon, Luol Deng, New York's '07 first-round selection, Chicago's '07 first-round selection and filler but this deal would not be likely as the Bulls do not have many expiring contracts (or high paid players besides Tyson Chandler). So, basically, a Pierce to Chicago trade is not going to happen under the situation that Boston moves Pierce before the '06-'07 season to rebuild.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

We have New York's pick this and the right to swap picks next year and their 2nd rounder in '07 and '09. And, in my scenario, Boston would be getting the New York pick(which will be a high pick) and our 1st rounder in exchange for Bostons 1st rounder. As far as who will replace Pierce, Thomas can play the 3 if y'all want him to. Personally, I think it's better than Denvers' offer Miller and an injured Nene.

Hinrich, Gordon, Thomas(1st rounders) for Pierce/ Blount(1st rounder) works


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

dsouljah9 said:


> We have New York's pick this and the right to swap picks next year and their 2nd rounder in '07 and '09. And, in my scenario, Boston would be getting the New York pick(which will be a high pick) and our 1st rounder in exchange for Bostons 1st rounder. As far as who will replace Pierce, Thomas can play the 3 if y'all want him to. Personally, I think it's better than Denvers' offer Miller and an injured Nene.
> 
> Hinrich, Gordon, Thomas(1st rounders) for Pierce/ Blount(1st rounder) works


Pierce and a 1st rounder? 

Sorry, unless Duncan is coming in that deal, that'll never happen. Heck, if we rid of both Raef and Blount's contracts we still wouldn't do that. That 1st rounder is a top 3 pick without Pierce.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

New York has the second worst record in the league, I'm sure that their pick will be higher than yours. And Boston would be getting back 2 1st rounders. Anyway, all of this is hyopthetical because Paxson has given all indications that he will "stand pat"


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

dsouljah9 said:


> We have New York's pick this and the right to swap picks next year and their 2nd rounder in '07 and '09. And, in my scenario, Boston would be getting the New York pick(which will be a high pick) and our 1st rounder in exchange for Bostons 1st rounder. As far as who will replace Pierce, Thomas can play the 3 if y'all want him to. Personally, I think it's better than Denvers' offer Miller and an injured Nene.
> 
> Hinrich, Gordon, Thomas(1st rounders) for Pierce/ Blount(1st rounder) works


There wouldn't be a need for both Hinrich and Gordon. Deng and either Hinrich or Duhon would be more favorable but even then, Boston does not need to trade Pierce this season in a rebuilding scenario. The '06 draft is the wrong one to tank for (and by trading Pierce, this would be tanking). Also, Denver offered Miller *and Nene when he was healthy*. That deal was denied. Seriously, Pierce isn't going to Chicago unless they can trade for an expiring '07 contract.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

dsouljah9 said:


> We have New York's pick this and the right to swap picks next year and their 2nd rounder in '07 and '09. And, in my scenario, Boston would be getting the New York pick(which will be a high pick) and our 1st rounder in exchange for Bostons 1st rounder. As far as who will replace Pierce, Thomas can play the 3 if y'all want him to. Personally, I think it's better than Denvers' offer Miller and an injured Nene.
> 
> Hinrich, Gordon, Thomas(1st rounders) for Pierce/ Blount(1st rounder) works


The 2006 draft is crap. Even a high pick in 2006 is likely to produce a roleplayer. Trading Pierce _and_ a first for two roleplayers and an expiring deal is senseless.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Getting back on tangent, Marcus played extremely well last night.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

I really wasn't paying attention so I'll take your word for it. He looked like he was playing great defense, though.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

He had two excellent passes to Al for buckets, one a driving, midair feed for the open layup, and one skip pass past a few defenders to Al for the wide open finish. He also hit a three, another jumper, and played good D, IMO. Nice game by Marcus. Bibby lit up everybody who was sent to guard him pretty much.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

On the Chicago thing, no thanx, I'll keep Paul right now, he's finally acting like a dare I say it "leader" so I want him here as long as that lasts.
As for Marcus, he had a very good game, his shot looks really good this year.


----------

