# ESPN: Rasheed Wallace to be traded



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Rob Parker and Skip Bayless of ESPN both agree: Rasheed Wallace will not be back in a Piston's uniform next season. One possible destination for Mr. "Just Cut the Check": Charlotte.

Bayless says that the Detroit players have been tuning out their coach for a long time, and they don't even listen to him at halftime anymore. Gee, do you think Rasheed Wallace and his wonderful attitude might have something to do with that?

This is just one more sign that Portland's housecleaning was the right thing to do. Thankfully, other teams can now experience the joy of Rashweed Wallace for themselves.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3423956


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

What a waste


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I doubt the Pistons will get much for him. If I was a GM, I sure wouldnt give up much if anything for him at this stage of his career.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

He would be awesome on a team like the Spurs.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Alright hear me out.............Travis, Jack, Reaf and the #13 to bring back MY DOGG.....SSSSHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDD!


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Awesome!


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Alright hear me out.............Travis, Jack, Reaf and the #13 to bring back MY DOGG.....SSSSHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDD!


Yeah right! I wouldn't even trade Jack for Wallace.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Alright hear me out.............Travis, Jack, Reaf and the #13 to bring back MY DOGG.....SSSSHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDD!


Dog s***? Dude I've got a yard full of the stuff form my Boxer mix and my Malamute mix and it won't cost the blazers Travis, Jack, Raef and our 13th pick ... in fact if you come pick it up it's free.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Alright hear me out.............Travis, Jack, Reaf and the #13 to bring back MY DOGG.....SSSSHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDD!


Your "dog"? That's actually a pretty good tag for Wallace . . .


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

absolutely horrible trade. I wouldn't deal Trav for Sheed straight up..all Sheed does is ***** and shoot 3's..no thanks.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> This is just one more sign that Portland's housecleaning was the right thing to do. Thankfully, other teams can now experience the joy of Rashweed Wallace for themselves.


Yep. The poor Pistons have been subjected to a single championship and five straight conference finals with Rasheed on the team. Terrible.

Fortunately we've managed to miss the playoffs every year Rasheed's been gone. It's been great.

Ed O.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Yep. The poor Pistons have been subjected to a single championship and five straight conference finals with Rasheed on the team. Terrible.
> 
> Fortunately we've managed to miss the playoffs every year Rasheed's been gone. It's been great.
> 
> Ed O.


And Im sure if you ask anyone, Sheed was the key reason to that run.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I remember Larry Bird once said that he wouldn't coach a team for more than three years because they start tuning you out. And Shaq once said that (partially due to his military brat upbringing) he was kind of comfortable with the idea of moving to a new team every few years. Dennis Rodman and Ron Artest seem to be in that mold too. 

I think Sheed is kind of like that. You get the best productivity out of him when he's not too comfortable in his surroundings, when he has to adapt to the culture of the team. Once he gets too comfortable, things just fall apart. 

I'd guess half the playoff teams would love to have him for the right price. He'd be great in Phoenix for a year or two, spelling Shaq and taking on the tough defensive assignment so Amare could focus on offense. 

I have no idea what his contract status is, though.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

You guys know I'm joking. I actually really liked Sheed while he was here, but also realized he had to go! He is a very strange player. When he chooses to, he can almost dominate a game. Too bad for his teams it rarely happens. He is only going to succeed on a team like the Spurs. Actually, he might be a great fit for a team like the Cavs! For all the drama he caused around here, they should trade his *** to the Clippers or Bucks!


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Yep. The poor Pistons have been subjected to a single championship and five straight conference finals with Rasheed on the team. Terrible.
> 
> Fortunately we've managed to miss the playoffs every year Rasheed's been gone. It's been great.


The Pistons were an elite team before Wallace joined them. They were good enough to thrive in spite of his lazy game and horrible attitude, but for the last three years he's come up very small and done almost nothing to help them reach the finals. His career in Detroit has been more minuses than pluses, which is why they're dumping his sorry *** now to the first taker.

As for us missing the playoffs every year since Sheed left . . . Uh, we were missing the playoffs when he was here.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

R-Star said:


> And Im sure if you ask anyone, Sheed was the key reason to that run.


it's amazing how success has constantly dogged Rasheed Wallace. it seems everywhere he goes his team meets or exceeds expectations, in spite of him being a completely worthless cancer loser. 

funny, isn't it?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

The Heat, Spurs, or Suns could benifit from having Sheed on their squad.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

If a coach could keep Rasheed low, and have him grab the boards. I would keep him. I don't think I have ever seen that happen though.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

mook said:


> it seems everywhere he goes his team meets or exceeds expectations, in spite of him being a completely worthless cancer loser.


Huh? Detroit's "expectation" was definitely not to miss the NBA finals three years in a row . . .


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I doubt Detroit would have won their championship if they didn't trade for Wallace with their draft pick.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

mook said:


> it's amazing how success has constantly dogged Rasheed Wallace. it seems everywhere he goes his team meets or exceeds expectations, in spite of him being a completely worthless cancer loser.
> 
> funny, isn't it?


So Im sure having Rip, Billups and Ben Wallace, all playing in their primes had nothing to do with the teams success. Or consistantly having one of, if not the deepest bench of big men also didnt help. It was all Sheed.

Im not taking anything away from Rasheed, he was a huge part in their success. _The key_ part though? No.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> He is only going to succeed on a team like the Spurs. Actually, he might be a great fit for a team like the Cavs!


Cavs would be a nice fit for him. Phil Jackson could get a lot out of him on the Lakers, even as a bench player. Dallas could use his defense, letting Dirk focus on rebounding and offense. 

actually, it's harder to come up with playoff-quality teams where he WOULDN'T fit in. 

he'd be horrible in Utah, but only because he couldn't get along with Sloan. he'd actually mesh pretty well with the talent there. 

he wouldn't even be tried here, thanks to past baggage. 

on what other playoff team would he be a disaster?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Huh? Detroit's "expectation" was definitely not to miss the NBA finals three years in a row . . .


I (and a lot of people) expected Detroit to lose this year to Boston. the Celtics did have the best record in the league, after all. 

it became pretty clear to me that Shaq and Wade were going to march through everybody to get to the finals, so it wasn't a big shock. 

I'll admit, though, that the Cavs making the finals surprised me and everybody else. I guess there's the exception to what I said. but that had a lot more to do with LeBron James' greatness than Rasheed sucking. 

however, in the interest of accuracy, I'll amend my statement:



> it's amazing how success has constantly dogged Rasheed Wallace. it seems everywhere he goes his team *nearly always* meets or exceeds expectations, in spite of him being a completely worthless cancer loser.


better?


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

mook said:


> Cavs would be a nice fit for him. Phil Jackson could get a lot out of him on the Lakers, even as a bench player. Dallas could use his defense, letting Dirk focus on rebounding and offense.
> 
> actually, it's harder to come up with playoff-quality teams where he WOULDN'T fit in.
> 
> ...


Yeah but how would he mesh with SLC? He wasn't exactly thrilled being in a really white town like Portland, now imagine him tooling around Salt Lake City in his spare time ...


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

TheATLien said:


> I doubt Detroit would have won their championship if they didn't trade for Wallace with their draft pick.


We wouldn't have, but times have changed.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Ruff Draft said:


> We wouldn't have, but times have changed.


yep.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

mook said:


> Cavs would be a nice fit for him. Phil Jackson could get a lot out of him on the Lakers, even as a bench player. Dallas could use his defense, letting Dirk focus on rebounding and offense.
> 
> actually, it's harder to come up with playoff-quality teams where he WOULDN'T fit in.
> 
> ...


I agree. Houston would be another good fit for him.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I could see Rasheed in Dallas. Dallas could really use defencive player like Rasheed with his low post skills. Mark Cuben should jump on this if the pistons really are shoping him around.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Wow. I just watched Joe D's interview.

"Will I make drastic changes? You're damn right I will."


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Ruff Draft said:


> We wouldn't have, but times have changed.


I agree. I think the Rasheed from a couple years ago would be great in Orlando with Dwight and Hedo, but 1.) He might not be that good again and 2.) Detroit probably wouldn't trade with an Eastern contender.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

1. The Pistons have been the definition of team basketball over the last few years. No one player can be credited for their success or failure. They are one of the most balanced teams in the league. Because they are so balanced, it may have been part of their undoing. The only year they won it was the year Rip Hamilton was scoring like mad. The real reason they have not got back to that level, is that they do not have a scorer that shows up every night and gets theirs. In the playoffs you need that.

2. Rasheed Wallace still is one of the best power forwards in basketball. He is still very good defensivly, he can hit his shot all the way out. If you honestly believe all Sheed does is take 3's, then you need to watch the playoffs and pay attention this time, he went to the cup quite often. Sure he takes 3's. But it is overblown.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

hasoos said:


> If you honestly believe all Sheed does is take 3's, then you need to watch the playoffs and pay attention this time, he went to the cup quite often. Sure he takes 3's. But it is overblown.


I can't recall Wallace getting a single dunk in the Boston series. I may have just missed it, however. The fact is, he hates playing in the paint; he hated it when he was in Portland, and he hated it in Detroit. The guy just wants to stand around and shoot the 3. Some people think he passes the ball because he's a good teammate, but I've always though he passes it because he's too lazy to make anything happen himself.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Rasheed is still a great talent. He plays how he wants to play though. That didn't work in Detroit. We needed him to do more.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ruff Draft said:


> Rasheed is still a great talent. He plays how he wants to play though. That didn't work in Detroit. We needed him to do more.


We feel your pain. It was the same story in Portland.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

He fits in a lot of teams, but show me a deal that works. Maybe make one that is acceptable.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> The Pistons were an elite team before Wallace joined them.


They were "elite", huh? They made the EC finals the year before he got there, but they've managed to excel even after losing other big guys like Ben Wallace and Mehmet Okur. Who gets the credit for that? McDyess? Hamilton? Billups?

Also, how many games had the Pistons won in 2002-03, the last full year Rasheed was in Portland? 50.

How many games had the BLAZERS won in 2002-03? 50.



> As for us missing the playoffs every year since Sheed left . . . Uh, we were missing the playoffs when he was here.


Really? What year was that again? The fact is that the Blazers never missed the playoffs when Rasheed was a Blazer.

The Blazers finished 2 games out of the playoffs in 2003-04 in spite of giving away Bonzi and moving Rasheed. The Blazers probably would have made the playoffs (if barely) had they kept Rasheed that year.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

R-Star said:


> So Im sure having Rip, Billups and Ben Wallace, all playing in their primes had nothing to do with the teams success. Or consistantly having one of, if not the deepest bench of big men also didnt help. It was all Sheed.
> 
> Im not taking anything away from Rasheed, he was a huge part in their success. _The key_ part though? No.


Who is saying he is THE key part?

Facts are facts. Rasheed somehow manages to be on winning teams every single year, and he somehow manages to be one of the best--if not THE best--player(s) on those teams.

Listening to some Blazers fans/Rasheed bashers, though, it's purely coincidence and, in fact, his teams win IN SPITE of Rasheed, rather than because of him.

Amazing.

Ed O.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

nice to see you back again Ed O


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ah, "The Sheed Rap". I haven't heard this golden oldie for awhile.

Amazing basketball talent and an even bigger jerk.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

TheATLien said:


> I agree. I think the Rasheed from a couple years ago would be great in Orlando with Dwight and Hedo, but 1.) He might not be that good again and 2.) *Detroit probably wouldn't trade with an Eastern contender.*


Great, watch the Lakers trade nothing for him. :lol:


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> You guys know I'm joking. I actually really liked Sheed while he was here, but also realized he had to go! He is a very strange player. When he chooses to, he can almost dominate a game. Too bad for his teams it rarely happens. He is only going to succeed on a team like the Spurs. Actually, he might be a great fit for a team like the Cavs! For all the drama he caused around here, they should trade his *** to the Clippers or Bucks!


i knew you were joking, homie!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I was shocked to see mediocre man's story about Wallace insulting (to put it mildly) his wife in front of their kid, because UNIVERSALLY he is loved in Detroit (there was a story about it recently in one of the Detroit papers, about how he goes out of his way to work with young players, how there isn't a singly ball boy who hasn't been handsomely tipped by him and so on). I know Jason Quick hates his guts, but Quick is the press, and Wallace doesn't care about the press. Personally, I have never seen any reason to dislike him: he's a big goofball, but he is almost unique (Garnett might be the other example) in caring not a jot about his scoring so long as the team wins, and he plays great defense. His game has declined, true, but he's still a VERY good player. (Hey - maybe Joe D. can "donate" him to the Celtics like Chris Wallace did with Gasol to the Lakers.)

Here's my suggestion: if Joe D really wants to move him, then package him with Billups and send him this way! The fact that it would make Talkhard burst a blood vessel only makes it more appealing.

(And if anyone thinks that there's any way in hell that the '04 Pistons beat the "Lakers Reloaded" without Rasheed, they're morons. And with him, they almost swept them.)


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I can't recall Wallace getting a single dunk in the Boston series. I may have just missed it, however.


I didn't watch the whole series by any means, but I was able to see him dunking in the Celtics series just by watching Sportscenter... guess you missed that as well. 

Detroit had a great run, but father time waits for no one and thats an old team so I can see why Joe may blow it up. I thought they had a decent shot this year but that went out the window when Jameer Nelson hooked Billups foot causing him to inadvertently do the splits in the prior series. Wallace will be 35 starting next season. He's about done no matter where he's playing... but here's guessing it's with his old buddy Timmy D in San Antonio. His contract expires after next year so he should have value as both a player and as an expiring deal.

I wonder what Joe would like back for Prince? I'd hope KP is making that call...

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> As for us missing the playoffs every year since Sheed left . . . Uh, we were missing the playoffs when he was here.


take off the hate goggles and do some research before you post. Portland made the playoffs every single year with Wallace. In fact his teams have made the playoffs every year for the last 13 years.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/rasheed_wallace/career_stats.html

STOMP


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> The Pistons were an elite team before Wallace joined them. They were good enough to thrive in spite of his lazy game and horrible attitude, but for the last three years he's come up very small and done almost nothing to help them reach the finals. His career in Detroit has been more minuses than pluses, which is why they're dumping his sorry *** now to the first taker.
> 
> As for us missing the playoffs every year since Sheed left . . . Uh, we were missing the playoffs when he was here.


We never missed the playoffs with Sheed here. And when Sheed was traded, we had won 8 of our last 10 games with the Miles-ZBo-Sheed front line and we were clearly going to make a push and make the playoffs.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

R-Star said:


> So Im sure having Rip, Billups and Ben Wallace, all playing in their primes had nothing to do with the teams success. Or consistantly having one of, if not the deepest bench of big men also didnt help. It was all Sheed.
> 
> Im not taking anything away from Rasheed, he was a huge part in their success. _The key_ part though? No.


Both Billups and Larry Brown said that Rasheed was the reason they won the title in 04.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> The Pistons were an elite team before Wallace joined them. They were good enough to thrive in spite of his lazy game and horrible attitude, but for the last three years he's come up very small and done almost nothing to help them reach the finals. His career in Detroit has been more minuses than pluses, which is why they're dumping his sorry *** now to the first taker.
> 
> As for us missing the playoffs every year since Sheed left . . . Uh, we were missing the playoffs when he was here.


Ha ha hah haha !!!!!

deleted


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Here is a fairly safe prediction:

Sheed will get traded at a bargain price to a team like the Spurs or Lakers. Everybody in the new city will love him, as it will be obvious that he is helping the team win. Some Portland "fans" will continue to hate him and refuse to give him ANY credit for anything.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Rob Parker and Skip Bayless of ESPN both agree: Rasheed Wallace will not be back in a Piston's uniform next season. One possible destination for Mr. "Just Cut the Check": Charlotte.
> 
> Bayless says that the Detroit players have been tuning out their coach for a long time, and they don't even listen to him at halftime anymore. Gee, do you think Rasheed Wallace and his wonderful attitude might have something to do with that?
> 
> ...


Who is more evil Talkhard? Rasheed or Obama?


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Freshtown said:


> Ha ha hah haha !!!!!
> 
> deleted


Exactly. This is why fans who don't/didn't like Sheed have such a bad reputation. When the loudest voice doesn't even research his claims, we all suffer for it.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

meru said:


> I was shocked to see mediocre man's story about Wallace insulting (to put it mildly) his wife in front of their kid, because UNIVERSALLY he is loved in Detroit (there was a story about it recently in one of the Detroit papers, about how he goes out of his way to work with young players, how there isn't a singly ball boy who hasn't been handsomely tipped by him and so on).


Maybe he's just nice to the black kids.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> Who is more evil Talkhard? Rasheed or Obama?


Close call. I'd have to give it to Obama, however, since he's pretending to be something he's not and trying to fool the entire country. Wallace is generally more upfront with his bull****.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

There is no way Talkhard is more evil than me. :hijacked:


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Close call. I'd have to give it to Obama, however, since he's pretending to be something he's not and trying to fool the entire country. Wallace is generally more upfront with his bull****.


Hey, that's only because Fox News and the Drudge Report haven't unleashed their mighty truth-seeking machines on Rasheed. I'm sure they could find out that he eats the hearts of Christian babies for breakfast. AND that he turns to Osama Bin Laden for religious advice. Maybe HIS middle name is Hussein, too!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

How about: Rasheed for Shaq? The Pistons play a slow down game that actually fits Shaq better, and Rasheed would be great in Phoenix.

Or: Rasheed for Shawn Marion?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Maybe he's just nice to the black kids.


Riiiight - because, after all, that's all there are in Detroit.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

meru said:


> How about: Rasheed for Shaq? The Pistons play a slow down game that actually fits Shaq better, and Rasheed would be great in Phoenix.
> 
> Or: Rasheed for Shawn Marion?


Why would they take on Shaq's huge contract?

Suns would jump for joy because Sheed is an expiring.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

I say let Detroit keep all the conference finals and the one championship. They can have them. I would rather win without Sheed or not at all. He's one of those guys who always assumes no responsibility but will always be critical of those that do. I also happen to believe he's a bigot. As a matter of fact I think if you asked him straight up if he is a bigot, he would tell you as much. That much I give him credit for, he always speaks his mind.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Sheed was definately the trade that put the Pistons over the top and made them LEGIT contenders. kind of how Gasol made the Lakers have "it". i love the guy. he's a great player. he just never did it consistantly.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The fact is that the Blazers never missed the playoffs when Rasheed was a Blazer.


Right, that's what I meant.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Close call. I'd have to give it to Obama, however, since he's pretending to be something he's not and trying to fool the entire country. Wallace is generally more upfront with his bull****.




you poor poor man. Keep voting for those republicans and their gold lined pockets full of oil and excuses.


Back to basketball; Ed's right, Sheed is a winner everywhere he goes, he's not the reason Detroit lost. From what I saw, i'd put more blame on the coach than anything else. Maxiel should have had WAY more playing time, he was hoottttttttttt.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

blue32 said:


> you poor poor man. Keep voting for those republicans and their gold lined pockets full of oil and excuses.


You poor, poor fellow. Keep voting for those Democrats who just keep raising our taxes and want us to surrender to the terrorists.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

how about neither the democans or the republocrats do anything but protect each other and what the big oil companies say?


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

great stuff.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> You poor, poor fellow. Keep voting for those Democrats who just keep raising our taxes and want us to surrender to the terrorists.



lol - that doesnt even make sense. this is the type of crap that keeps everyone "living in fear" and allows the regime to keep screwing the american people. 

at least the "so-called democrats" allow the people to drive to work to pay the taxes, rather then what it is now, cant even afford to drive to the grocery store to feed the family. But hey, at least we're stopping those terrorrrrrrists from blowing up our buildings....


okay sorry back to basketball....


----------



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

hasoos said:


> 2. Rasheed Wallace still is one of the best power forwards in basketball. He is still very good defensivly, he can hit his shot all the way out.


The problem with Sheed is most people here tend to either seriously overvalue him or seriously undervalue him. People either love him or hate him and either way it clouds their judgment. 

For example, I'd hardly consider a guy who shoots 42% from the field and averages 6.6 RPG "one of the best power forwards in basketball".

And for all those on this board who like to bash LaMarcus Aldridge as a weak rebounder, he averaged 7.6 RPG in his second season. That's something Sheed didn't accomplished until his 6th season and has only topped 3 times in his 13 year NBA career. So, if Sheed averages 13.2 PPG, 6.6 RPG and shoots 42% from the field and is "one of the best power forwards in basketball", what's that make Aldridge who averaged 17.8 PPG, 7.6 RPG and shot 48% from the field?

BNM


----------



## sasaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> The problem with Sheed is most people here tend to either seriously overvalue him or seriously undervalue him. People either love him or hate him and either way it clouds their judgment.
> 
> For example, I'd hardly consider a guy who shoots 42% from the field and averages 6.6 RPG "one of the best power forwards in basketball".
> 
> ...


Thanks for the facts to back up your point: LMA is seriously undervalued. PLUS he is young, with a great career AHEAD!


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> The Heat, Spurs, or Suns could benifit from having Sheed on their squad.


I totally agree. If I'm the Spurs, I'm doing all I can to figure out some sort of three-way swap that lands Wallace in San Antonio.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

BlayZa said:


> nice to see you back again Ed O


yeah it is!!!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> The problem with Sheed is most people here tend to either seriously overvalue him or seriously undervalue him. People either love him or hate him and either way it clouds their judgment.
> 
> For example, I'd hardly consider a guy who shoots 42% from the field and averages 6.6 RPG "one of the best power forwards in basketball".
> 
> And for all those on this board who like to bash LaMarcus Aldridge as a weak rebounder, he averaged 7.6 RPG in his second season. That's something Sheed didn't accomplished until his 6th season and has only topped 3 times in his 13 year NBA career. So, if Sheed averages 13.2 PPG, 6.6 RPG and shoots 42% from the field and is "one of the best power forwards in basketball", what's that make Aldridge who averaged 17.8 PPG, 7.6 RPG and shot 48% from the field?


I might be the biggest fan of LaMarcus on the board, but I'd like to add an obvious observation to comparing/contrasting his game to Rasheed's... the three point shot. This year he put up *315!* of them, shooting a very respectable 36%. LA shot 7 of them this year making just 1. Using TS% to factor in the extra points scored with the 3 ball, they shot an identical 0.523% from the field this year. With Greg on board manning the low post, I'm expecting LA to start working the 3 point shot into his arsenal starting next year... I understand he drills them in practice. 

I don't think Wallace is a great PF anymore, but he's still a very good player. He plays the sort of smart team ball I love to see. Of course it comes with complete stupidity like his tirade against the officials after game 5 of the Celtics series. If a guy feels/knows that the officials are making BS calls on flops (which was true IMO) the one sure way not to get the calls to go your way the next game is to show them up like he did. 

Anyways, all in all I  enjoy him and what he brings

STOMP


----------



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

STOMP said:


> I might be the biggest fan of LaMarcus on the board, but I'd like to add an obvious observation to comparing/contrasting his game to Rasheed's... the three point shot. This year he put up *315!* of them, shooting a very respectable 36%. LA shot 7 of them this year making just 1. Using TS% to factor in the extra points scored with the 3 ball, they shot an identical 0.523% from the field this year. With Greg on board manning the low post, I'm expecting LA to start working the 3 point shot into his arsenal starting next year... I understand he drills them in practice.


I hope not. I'd prefer to see LaMarcus continue to work on his mid-range game. That's where he's the most effective and those are higher percentage shots that will be open with Oden on the low blocks.

Sheed is a 34% career 3-point shooter. That's simply not good enough to justify the volume of 3-point shots he attempts. He shoots threes like he thinks he's Steve Kerr. Unfortunately, he's not. Standing out on the perimeter and jacking up threes also negates the tremendous advantages he has closer to the basket. He's 6'11", very long, athletic (or used to be anyway) with a very high release point on his shot. When he chooses to use those tools to his advantage, he's unstoppable. Unfortunately, he's never shown much interest in doing so on a consistent basis. 

Playing far from the basket partially explains his poor rebounding, but the bigger problem is a lack of effort. Rebounding has never been a priority for Sheed, and it shows in his career average of 6.9 RPG.



STOMP said:


> I don't think Wallace is a great PF anymore, but he's still a very good player. He plays the sort of smart team ball I love to see. Of course it comes with complete stupidity like his tirade against the officials after game 5 of the Celtics series. If a guy feels/knows that the officials are making BS calls on flops (which was true IMO) the one sure way not to get the calls to go your way the next game is to show them up like he did.


I don't think he was ever a GREAT power forward. Very good, with the potential to be great, but most of his career he hasn't been among the top 5 at his position. Early in his career, guys like Malone and Barkley were clearly a level or two above Wallace and the same has been true of Duncan and Garnett for Sheed's entire career. There may have been a year or two where you could make a case for him being a top five power forward in the league, but given his poor rebounding, even that would be tough. There have been a lot of guys who have played, and are playing the power forward spot (Bosh, Boozer, etc.) that are better, more efficient scorers and better rebounders than Sheed. He has been a top 10 power forward for over a decade. So, in my book that makes him a very good power forward, but not one of the best of his, or any, generation.

BNM


----------



## DonCorleone (Jul 1, 2005)

STOMP said:


> This year he put up *315!* of them, shooting a very respectable 36%. LA shot 7 of them this year making just 1. Using TS% to factor in the extra points scored with the 3 ball, they shot an identical 0.523% from the field this year. With Greg on board manning the low post, I'm expecting LA to start working the 3 point shot into his arsenal starting next year... I understand he drills them in practice.


I certainly don't want to see LaMarcus launching more three pointers or patterning his game after Rasheed. Frankly, his game already reminds me a little too much of Rasheed's game for my liking, and I don't mean that in a good way. LaMarcus would be much better served to pattern his game after a couple of the truly elite power forwards in the game....Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. Both of these players shoot a comparatively minuscule number of three pointers over the course of a season and, not coincidentally, they are vastly superior rebounders and just simply better in general than Rasheed.

Having a power forward that can cause major damage in the post, but instead lazily floats around behind the 3 point line, firing up an inordinate number of 3 pointers at a relatively average success rate certainly isn't most beneficial to the team. Instead, the player could be scoring at a higher percentage inside, getting to the foul line, getting the opposing team into foul trouble, getting your team into the penalty quicker, drawing double teams which would open up teammates, plus be in a better position to crash the boards.

I would much rather see LaMarcus work on his toughness, rebounding and post moves, which would steer him even further towards being a player that is considered more of a PF/C instead of a PF/SF, rather than work on expanding his perimeter game even further back than it already is.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I don't think he was ever a GREAT power forward. Very good, with the potential to be great, but most of his career he hasn't been among the top 5 at his position. Early in his career, guys like Malone and Barkley were clearly a level or two above Wallace and the same has been true of Duncan and Garnett for Sheed's entire career. There may have been a year or two where you could make a case for him being a top five power forward in the league, but given his poor rebounding, even that would be tough. There have been a lot of guys who have played, and are playing the power forward spot (Bosh, Boozer, etc.) that are better, more efficient scorers and better rebounders than Sheed. He has been a top 10 power forward for over a decade. So, in my book that makes him a very good power forward, but not one of the best of his, or any, generation.


While I agree with much of what you're saying, it was you who claimed that fans either over or underestimate him... I'd definitely put you into the under category. For me, he was a top 5 PF for much of his career. I liked his perimeter shooting because it drew opposing Bigs out of the lane giving slashers room to do their thing. His ability to slide along the frontline on D and guard a variety of players effectively was probably his greatest asset. His greatest weaknesses/faults were his smallish hands and of course his temper. I'm sure you know what they say about stats telling the whole story, but my favorite stat is W's... 13 strait years in the playoffs is nice.

To each their own.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

DonCorleone said:


> Having a power forward that can cause major damage in the post, but instead lazily floats around behind the 3 point line, firing up an inordinate number of 3 pointers at a relatively average success rate certainly isn't most beneficial to the team. Instead, the player could be scoring at a higher percentage inside, getting to the foul line, getting the opposing team into foul trouble, getting your team into the penalty quicker, drawing double teams which would open up teammates, plus be in a better position to crash the boards.
> 
> I would much rather see LaMarcus work on his toughness, rebounding and post moves, which would steer him even further towards being a player that is considered more of a PF/C instead of a PF/SF, rather than work on expanding his perimeter game even further back than it already is.


ideally you have one guy at the high post one on the low... where do you want Greg setting up? While he was on the low block for much of this year, I think LA is a natural at the high post. As such it's likely that he'll end up with the ball in his hands on the perimeter with the shot clock running down much more then last year so here is guessing he'll be taking more 3s. I don't think he'll be putting up 315 of them, but I'm guessing it will be more then 7. 

KG is probably the top high post player in the league over the course of his career, Duncan has been arguably the top low post player. While KG's perimeter jumper comfort spot seems to be just inside the 3 point line, he has shot up to 116 of them in a single season. I'd have no problem with LA patterning his game after KG either. 

STOMP


----------



## DonCorleone (Jul 1, 2005)

STOMP said:


> ideally you have one guy at the high post one on the low... where do you want Greg setting up?


I would suggest that Greg and LaMarcus explore setting up in some of the same places that David Robinson and Tim Duncan set up when playing together. That seemed to work out pretty well for them and rarely involved either of them shooting 3 pointers.

As NBA history shows, there is plenty of space on a basketball court inside of the 3 point line for two post players and plenty of area inside of the 3 point line for LaMarcus to display his shooting touch. It makes sense to put your players in areas where they are most likely to excel. LaMarcus, with his combination of size, length and athleticism, should be great around hoop getting easy shots, drawing fouls, etc. He should also be great in the midrange game with his high release and touch. He should also be great at rebounding (if he continues to improve his toughness, desire and strength) assuming he is close enough to hoop to rebound. Operating inside the 3 point line rather than behind it would certainly put him closer to rebound position. On the other hand, LaMarcus would likely at best be a mediocre 3 point shooter compared to players that should be taking those shots instead, so I am not in favor of having him spend much time standing behind the 3 point line, which would take him away from his strengths, when it simply isn't necessary.

I think the coaches made it clear to LaMarcus at one point last season that he was falling in love with his perimeter shot too much and wanted him to start playing more like a power forward with his physical gifts should. I seriously doubt they want to encourage him to not only fire up more perimeter shots, but fire up the perimeter shots even deeper. In my opinion, he should leave the deep bombs to other players on the Blazers' roster and he should concentrate on getting in position to rebound their misses.



STOMP said:


> While KG's perimeter jumper comfort spot seems to be just inside the 3 point line, he has shot up to 116 of them in a single season. I'd have no problem with LA patterning his game after KG either.


I agree, it would be great if LaMarcus looked at KG as an example, particularly during the season his team had the most success (winning is the ultimate goal, afterall). KG shot only 11 three pointers the entire regular season while not making a single one, presumably because most, if not all, were of the last second desperation heave variety. The fact he took such few 3 pointers, and failed to make a single one, didn't seem to hurt his team's performance. His rebounding, great shooting percentage inside the 3 point line and free throws more than made up for it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

DonCorleone said:


> I would suggest that Greg and LaMarcus explore setting up in some of the same places that David Robinson and Tim Duncan set up when playing together. That seemed to work out pretty well for them and rarely involved either of them shooting 3 pointers.
> 
> As NBA history shows, there is plenty of space on a basketball court inside of the 3 point line for two post players and plenty of area inside of the 3 point line for LaMarcus to display his shooting touch. It makes sense to put your players in areas where they are most likely to excel. LaMarcus, with his combination of size, length and athleticism, should be great around hoop getting easy shots, drawing fouls, etc. He should also be great in the midrange game with his high release and touch. He should also be great at rebounding (if he continues to improve his toughness, desire and strength) assuming he is close enough to hoop to rebound. Operating inside the 3 point line rather than behind it would certainly put him closer to rebound position. On the other hand, LaMarcus would likely at best be a mediocre 3 point shooter compared to players that should be taking those shots instead, so I am not in favor of having him spend much time standing behind the 3 point line, which would take him away from his strengths, when it simply isn't necessary.
> 
> I think the coaches made it clear to LaMarcus at one point last season that he was falling in love with his perimeter shot too much and wanted him to start playing more like a power forward with his physical gifts should. I seriously doubt they want to encourage him to not only fire up more perimeter shots, but fire up the perimeter shots even deeper. In my opinion, he should leave the deep bombs to other players on the Blazers' roster and he should concentrate on getting in position to rebound their misses.


be prepared to be disappointed. Last year he was the team's best low post option, but those days are done. Like KG and David Robinson, he'll be at the top of the key more times then not. This is a good thing for a player with his skillset especially when paired with a guy more suited for the inside game like Greg. He'll be able to pick and pop, and slash to the hoop when guys play up on him. 


> I agree, it would be great if LaMarcus looked at KG as an example, particularly during the season his team had the most success (winning is the ultimate goal, afterall). KG shot only 11 three pointers the entire regular season while not making a single one, presumably because most, if not all, were of the last second desperation heave variety. The fact he took such few 3 pointers, and failed to make a single one, didn't seem to hurt his team's performance. His rebounding, great shooting percentage inside the 3 point line and free throws more than made up for it.


better teammates had much more to do with Boston having the best record in the league then KG having a superior year. Playing alongside premiere perimeter threats like Allen and Pierce opens up the paint more for their spacing and they've no one on the low block like Greg. Much like LA last year, KP adjusted his game to fit with his teammates. It's nice to have players who have the talent to allow them to adjust.

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

as far as Aldridge shooting the 3, there aren't any hard-and-fast rules. if he's hitting threes like Nowitzki did before this year (3 straight years at 40%, and threes were 15% of his shots), Oden is racking up serious boards, and the team is winning, it's pretty hard to complain. 

if Aldridge is taking 14 shots a night and 1-3 of them is from three (either out of desperation or on a set play), I'm ok with it, provided it's +36%. 

this year over a third of Rasheed's shots were from three, and as much as I like the guy I find that unacceptable.


----------



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

STOMP said:


> While I agree with much of what you're saying, it was you who claimed that fans either over or underestimate him... I'd definitely put you into the under category. For me, he was a top 5 PF for much of his career.


I guess we just have different standards. Sheed has been in the league 13 years and has never made 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd team all-NBA. And, the all-NBA teams don't pick just one power forward per "team" for most of Sheed's career there have been at least 4 power forwards on the all-NBA teams and three or four times there were 5. So, obviously the people who vote on these things didn't consider Sheed a top 5 power forward during the years they voted 5 other power forwards all-NBA ahead of him.

Nor has he ever made 1st, 2nd or 3rd team all-defense. He's never averaged over 20 PPG for a season, never averaged more than 8.2 RPG, never averaged more than 2.3 APG, never averaged more than 1.8 BPG. He had a PER over 20 exactly once (20.9). His 17.4 career PER means he's been an above average starter for a long time, but not a superstar. He was 55th in the league in RPG this season. Many small fowards and even some guards averaged more RPG than he did. He's ever cracked the to 20 in RPG - not a single time in his 13 year career. Sorry, in my book to be one of the best power forwards in the league you need to be better than the 55th best rebounder in the league.

Yeah, those are just numbers, but compare them to the numbers put up by Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett and even guys like Dirk Nowitski, Shawn Kemp (before he ballooned to over 300 lbs.), Chris Weber, Carlos Boozer, Elton Brand, Amare Stoudemire, etc. Those guys have all had multiple seasons scoring > 20PPG (and many of them have had multiple seasons scoring in the high 20s compared to Sheed's multiple seasons scoring in the high teens) and are/were regularly among the top 10 in rebounding. Many of them made multiple all-defense teams and five of them have won MVPs - something Sheed has never come REMOTELY close to accomplishing. It's pretty tough company and Sheed just doesn't measure up. He's nowhere close to the best of the bunch (Malone, Barkley, Duncan and Garnett) and doesn't even come all that close to most of the others. Maybe he's just been unfortunate to play during an era where the power forward position has been loaded with great players, but honestly if I look back on his career I can't find more than one or two years at most(as I said in an earlier post) where you could make a legitimate case for him being among the top 5 power forwards in the league. During the prime of his career he was consistently in the top 6 to 8 power forwards in the league and was among the top 10 at his position for a decade, which is why I called him a very good, but not quite great player.

I don't think that's undervaluing him at all. My opinion that he hasn't been a top 5 power forward is right in line with his stats and also right in line with the voting for the all-NBA and all-defense teams.

BNM


----------

