# Trade: Belli for Julian Wright of NOH



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

Just read this on another board. Should be a solid link soon.

I was very interested in JW that draft year but he has done nothing in the nba. Doe he just need some PT or does he just suck?

Good size. Young guy. The type of player we want to try out on our bench during a losing season I would say. Not as talented as Belli though so we lose in that aspect of the trade. Hopefully a better defender and rebounder.

Hopefully 1 of our young wings takes a big step forward this year and shows star potential. A 20 win season is a good investment in the future if it gives one of them the chance to do that.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Consensus among Hornets fans is that Julian just doesn't get it. He has mental lapses that would make middle school coaches shudder. It really doesn't seem that he understands the defensive or offensive schemes after all this time. That is why he spent so much time in Byron Scott's doghouse. There's some question as to whether or not he cares enough to be a really good basketball player. 

At the end of his rookie year it really looked like he was going to help the hornets. He was really good at finishing and Paul got him the ball where he could just finish. Since then he's done absolutely nothing and that on a team that was really desperate for him to step up.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Both players haven't done much in the NBA


----------



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

The Belli trade
http://raptorsrepublic.com/2010/08/...marco-belinelli-to-hornets-for-julian-wright/

actually followed this trade by NOH and 3 other teams



> The Hornets, Nets, Pacers and Rockets completed a four-team trade, Nets General Manager Billy King announced Wednesday.
> 
> As part of the transaction, the Rockets acquire Nets guard Courtney Lee and send Trevor Ariza to New Orleans, with Indiana acquiring Darren Collison and James Posey from the Hornets, and New Jersey adding Troy Murphy.
> 
> “We’re excited to add Darren to the strong core of young players already on our roster,” said Larry Bird, Pacers President of Basketball Operations. “He’s a dynamic young point guard and we believe that he will be a key piece of our goal of building a team that the fans in Indiana deserve.”


This will mean no Jose to IND talks anymore.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Take it from someone who has seen almost all of Juju's minutes in the NBA. You guys got fleeced in this deal. Wright is not a rotation player in this league. You basically traded an 8th man for a 12th man.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

love the trade

Both guys have done close to nothing in their careers and likely won't mount to anything in the future. I'm ecstatic because this brings our Euro count to 3. If we can get rid of one more Spaniard then this summer has a happy ending for Raptor fans.


----------



## RapsFan (Feb 4, 2003)

Seems to continue the shift from shooters to athletic wings.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

the team lost a lot of skills there but i suppose that is okay because bellineli wasn't going to get playing time anyway. i do like wright's size but again he hasn't done much in the league. he got his chance to play over peja and couldn't find his niche. i'm hoping he can become more of a contributor than kleiza at least. unlike kleiza he would fit into the team's plans if he pans out.


----------



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> Take it from someone who has seen almost all of Juju's minutes in the NBA. You guys got fleeced in this deal. Wright is not a rotation player in this league. You basically traded an 8th man for a 12th man.


If that turns out to be true we are actually ok with it. Belli was likely not going to see the floor much this year behind DeMar, Sonny, Barbosa, and Kleiza in whatever order. So if he gets a chance to play in NO then good for him. The trade could have even been a favour to Belli from Gherardini.

A contract year could be the spark Wright needs to realize his career is in serious jeopardy if he does not figure things out quickly. If he is a waste of space maybe he can at least lose us an extra game or two and bring us a higher pick.

This is strictly a player development year for us and hopefully a nice draft pick as well.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> Take it from someone who has seen almost all of Juju's minutes in the NBA. You guys got fleeced in this deal. Wright is not a rotation player in this league. You basically traded an 8th man for a 12th man.


Marco was not an 8th man for us. Jose, Jack, Barbosa, DeRozan, Weems, Kleiza, Johnson, Bargnani, and Davis will all see more time than Marco would have, then it is a toss up between bigs, Marco would have been a 10th man on this team. It is a wash, if anything it may give Marco a chance to earn a contract for next year.


----------



## changv10 (Apr 25, 2005)

Just wanted to share the draft day glimpse of Julian Wright:

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/julian-wright

So he seems to be a good playmaker, as he played the point long time ago. So not your typical 6'8, but one that really has good ball handling. Maybe he's really a point-forward, but struggled having to play for one of the best point guards in the league. 

The criticism is in his jumper and in his strength. 

Reading the Toronto Star, it said that he excelled playing the 4 when David West was out. It probably forced him to use his speed against typical NBA 4's and his court vision gave other teams problems ... makes sense. But when you have him as a (3), he's not any faster, nor can he shoot, nor is he strong enough to over power them. That's probably where the idea of using him as a quick 4 comes from in a small lineup. The only pro playing the (3) is rebounding because of his wingspan, which is good (we need that). 

PG - Calderon (25), Jack (23), Banks (nd)
SG - Derozan (30), Barbosa (18)
SF - Weems (25), Kleiza (15), Wright (8)
PF - Johnson (15), Davis (20), Wright (13), Evans (dnpcd)
C - Bargnani (30), Johnson (15), Davis (3), Andersen (dnpcd), dorsey (nd)

10 man rotation: Derozan, Bargs, Johnson - 30, Calderon, Weems - 25, Jack, Davis - 23, Wright - 21, Barbosa - 18, Kleiza - 15


----------



## Junkyard Dog13 (Aug 9, 2003)

or I have heard that Amir ,might play C and Baregs shift back to PF, now it is unknown what Amir actual wieght is he entered the leauge at 210 but looking at him now he must be 240. I will assume this line up pending we cant deal Jose

PG Calderon 20 Jack 20 Barbosa 8
SG Derozan 26 Barbosa 18 Weems 4
SF Weems 22 Klieza 18 Wright 8
PF Bargnani 26 Davis 12 Klieza 6 Wright 4
C Jhonson 28 Anderson 10 Bargnani 6 Davis/Dorsey 4

10 man rotation calderon Derozan Weems Bargnani Jhonson Barbosa Klieza Jack Davis Anderon


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

I think people are underestimating Klieza and the minutes he will get. In his last 2 year in the NBA he played 23.9 and 22.2 minutes per game, this on a team that had Carmelo Anthony. Why is it people think he can only get 15-18 minutes on this roster?


----------



## changv10 (Apr 25, 2005)

billfindlay10 said:


> I think people are underestimating Klieza and the minutes he will get. In his last 2 year in the NBA he played 23.9 and 22.2 minutes per game, this on a team that had Carmelo Anthony. Why is it people think he can only get 15-18 minutes on this roster?


good point ... i didn't know Kleiza has been playing up to 28 mins per game before, while Julian only at most averaged 14 minutes per game. I guess I get more intrigued playing the more athletic highlight reel type of guy in a losing season, than a more talented possibly more boring guy that brings you wins in a losing season.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

changv10 said:


> good point ... i didn't know Kleiza has been playing up to 28 mins per game before, while Julian only at most averaged 14 minutes per game. I guess I get more intrigued playing the more athletic highlight reel type of guy in a losing season, than a more talented possibly more boring guy that brings you wins in a losing season.


i think that's what most people rather have. develop young guys maybe find a few surprise gems in these group of guys. playing a veteran who has reached his maximum potential isn't good for the team's future plans or exciting to watch.

we know kleiza was solid the year he played with melo, he's just not a "good" player. there are a ton of guys who can play better at 4mil per year. nobody is underrating kleiza. the best thing about kleiza is his size at his position and nice touch around the basket. everything else is underwhelming. he'll lose minutes because 1. he's not good 2. we want to develop the other guys, specifically weems


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

*Kleiza is only 25 years old!* 

What is wrong with you people, why can't he have gotten better, what makes Weems, who is only 18 months younger a so much better prospect? Kleiza did what he did on a playoff team in the West. Weems could not even get minutes in Denver. To me, Weems' future is as a 2 guard, where Linas is a forward through and through. I will say it again, don't sleep on this guy.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I actually have Kleiza penciled in as the starter next year. With Belli gone it is likely that Weems would get his minutes backing up DeRozan especially if Calderon is gone at the end of the summer. If Calderon stays then Barbosa would get minutes at SG but if Jose is gone than Barbosa would be the backup PG with Weems, Wright on the wings.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

billfindlay10 said:


> *Kleiza is only 25 years old!*
> 
> What is wrong with you people, why can't he have gotten better, what makes Weems, who is only 18 months younger a so much better prospect? Kleiza did what he did on a playoff team in the West. Weems could not even get minutes in Denver. To me, Weems' future is as a 2 guard, where Linas is a forward through and through. I will say it again, don't sleep on this guy.


you don't need to repeat yourself. i got you the first time in all the other threads that you were rep'ing kleiza. yes he is 25 but he's shown what he can do in the nba. i don't believe after 4 seasons in the nba and one in europe that he's magically going to become a good player.

weems is only starting to show what he can do. and he has great chemistry with derozan. and it's not "just 18 months younger" because that's 2 full seasons of basketball. weems essentially had his rookie season last season and was making strides in his game. kleiza never showed that kind of potential, ever.

it's funny you're even defending kleiza. he's another "meh" euro signing that this team doesn't need especially at the price. yes he's got some game but that only means taking more minutes from the young guys who should be getting all the playing time. the fact that he's even possibly going to start over weems is setting back this franchise. we can start something here with the weems and derozan combo and kleiza is only going to ruin that.

ideally you wished one of derozan/weems were slightly bigger but i think they're athletic enough and skilled enough to warrant starting together. kleiza at sf is taller, that is it. weems can bring a lot more in every aspect except height.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

c_dog said:


> it's funny you're even defending kleiza. he's another "meh" euro signing that this team doesn't need especially at the price.


I wouldn't really consider Kleiza as "another European player" because he played highschool and college ball in the United States. He might be a different type of player than Sonny Weems but the 2 of them learned the same American style basketball. Theres no point to discriminate just because Kleiza is from a different country, I mean the guy did average 30 points in the Big 12 tournament in 2005. If you want to compare credentials along the way to the NBA Kleiza has Weems beat pretty much every step of the way. He is no different from Josh Childress or Brandon Jennings or our own Anthony Parker who left the States to play in Europe for a few years.

4.5 mil for Kleiza is also a very fair price. The way I look at contracts is that when a player can easily be traded then the guy is not overpaid. Calderon's contract is a problem because you can't get rid of him. If tomorrow BC decides that he doesn't want Kleiza on the team there are plenty of teams that would be willing add a guy with his skillsets to the team.

Unless either Weems or DeRozan develops a consistent jumper I really don't see Triano going with that duo over DeRozan/Kleiza or even Weems/Kleiza. Weems might have the edge on defense but Kleiza at this stage is a much more polished player offensively than both Weems and DeRozan and it would make more sense to start him on a squad that lacks scoring.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I wouldn't really consider Kleiza as "another European player" because he played highschool and college ball in the United States. He might be a different type of player than Sonny Weems but the 2 of them learned the same American style basketball. Theres no point to discriminate just because Kleiza is from a different country, I mean the guy did average 30 points in the Big 12 tournament in 2005. If you want to compare credentials along the way to the NBA Kleiza has Weems beat pretty much every step of the way. He is no different from Josh Childress or Brandon Jennings or our own Anthony Parker who left the States to play in Europe for a few years.
> 
> 4.5 mil for Kleiza is also a very fair price. The way I look at contracts is that when a player can easily be traded then the guy is not overpaid. Calderon's contract is a problem because you can't get rid of him. If tomorrow BC decides that he doesn't want Kleiza on the team there are plenty of teams that would be willing add a guy with his skillsets to the team.
> 
> Unless either Weems or DeRozan develops a consistent jumper I really don't see Triano going with that duo over DeRozan/Kleiza or even Weems/Kleiza. Weems might have the edge on defense but Kleiza at this stage is a much more polished player offensively than both Weems and DeRozan and it would make more sense to start him on a squad that lacks scoring.


you guys are crazy. kleiza's contract is atrocious. nobody wants a fringe nba player a 4mils per season. plenty of similar players playing at 2-3 mils. his contract is a liability, not an asset.

and DD/Weems have good midrange game and both showed improved 3point shooting in summer league. you know those 2 motivate each other to get better and are always trying to improve their games. Chemistry is very important in basketball and the young gunz have got it. they were undefeated in summer league and while many of you will say "it's only the summer league" but it's an indication that the raps have a young group of guys who are talented and capable of winning games.

i will admit that kleiza does play a more physical game than most euro's. one of his strengths is his crafty touch around the rim. he's not going to dunk over people but he finds ways to score there. being 6'8-6'9 at the wing position certainly helps with that too. but playing him over weems will be a big mistake.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD2ncuy3WF8

I doubt this video will change anyones mind, but it may give some a better understanding of the type of player we are getting....and it looks to me like he can and will dunk on a few guys!

Kleiza brings things we don't have to the 3 spot, a consistent 3 point shot (still needs a little work), a post up game, and size to switch on screens to bigs. He does not have the flash Weems has, but he is a very good player, by no means a fringe NBA guy. 

I am just going to wait for the season ans see what Jay does with the team.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

c_dog said:


> you guys are crazy. kleiza's contract is atrocious. nobody wants a fringe nba player a 4mils per season. plenty of similar players playing at 2-3 mils. his contract is a liability, not an asset.


You do understand that Kleiza's contract is front loaded right? You know why his contract is like that? Because Denver would've matched if it wasn't. Kleiza would've gotten this contract *2 years ago* but chose to play in Europe for 6+ mil a year. The reason why Kleiza is in Toronto is because he really likes the city. If you follow the news he had plenty of other offers that were about the same dollar wise.



> and DD/Weems have good midrange game and both showed improved 3point shooting in summer league. you know those 2 motivate each other to get better and are always trying to improve their games.


Let's see them do it in the NBA first. I honestly don't think either one of them will make more than 50 3s this year nor should they.

And who is to say that Kleiza wouldn't be able to develop a friendship with other young players. Like I said, we're not talking about an Euro who has a language and cultural barrier. The guy has been here since he was a teenager. Just because you don't seem to like the guy really doesn't mean that the guys wouldn't like him, it's hardly a knock on him at this point.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> You do understand that Kleiza's contract is front loaded right? You know why his contract is like that? Because Denver would've matched if it wasn't. Kleiza would've gotten this contract *2 years ago* but chose to play in Europe for 6+ mil a year. The reason why Kleiza is in Toronto is because he really likes the city. If you follow the news he had plenty of other offers that were about the same dollar wise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it would be nice if all the guys on the team get along but kleiza is a good 2-3 seasons older. his upside is extremely limited. it's pretty tough for a guy who's had so many oppurtunity to shine and at the age of 25 to get much better. i hope they get along, but he's a bit old to be considered one of the young cores to build around.

and frankly i don't care if there were 1-2 teams offering him a similar contract. fact is i wouldn't want him for 3 million and raptors still outbid those teams silly enough to pay him with 4million.

kleiza shouldn't be starting. he's a good glue guy for a team that is front loaded but the direction of this team should be about rebuilding. that's why signing him in the first place doesn't make any sense. i think weems can be a legit sf in this league anyway. he's about the size as andre iguodala.

and i can see derozan make 70 3's this year. just under a 3 per game. he's shown improved shooting in the summer league that i think 70 3's would be a piece of cake for him.


----------



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

When did 25 become old? It was not that long ago that guys like Patrick Ewing came into the nba after 4 years of college which would put them at about 23 as a rook.

If anything 25 is now younger than it was 15 years ago because players are taking much better care of their bodies and extending their careers to 35 pretty easily.

And you can't count on keeping a player for 10-12 years or if they will stay healthy so who cares if they have potential for a longer career. All any team can plan for is the next 5 or 6 years with any player.

I understand people not liking the signing. It would have made way more sense 2 or 3 years ago than it does today. But its not nearly as stupid as looking at Diaw or someone who is a total waste of space and takes time from our young guys. Kleiza is young, he can play, and his contract is short and very movable.

Kleiza and Sonny will probably battle to see who is a long term piece in TOR and who will be moved in the next couple of years. My money is on Weems winning that battle.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

C_dog said:


> it would be nice if all the guys on the team get along but kleiza is a good 2-3 seasons older. his upside is extremely limited. it's pretty tough for a guy who's had so many oppurtunity to shine and at the age of 25 to get much better. i hope they get along, but he's a bit old to be considered one of the young cores to build around.


You're really just pulling assumptions out of thin air. The fact is nobody knows if Weems will be better or Kleiza will be better and that's why both of them will get the same opportunity this year to be the starter. If Kleiza wins the starting job then he should be starting, the same goes for Weems. You're trying to make it sound like the Raptors should give the job to Weems because he's a year younger and that's just a weak argument. If he has more potential than Kleiza the difference isn't as significant as you're making it out to be. If he's a better player than Kleiza then he would be starting. If not, his ass is on the bench along with Wright and Calderon (whom I also feel won't be a starter this year if he stays). 



> and frankly i don't care if there were 1-2 teams offering him a similar contract. fact is i wouldn't want him for 3 million and raptors still outbid those teams silly enough to pay him with 4million.



ok so let's say that he is overpaid by 1 mil. That in your world deserves an "Atrocious" label? This is the first time I've heard anybody use that term on a 4 mil contract. The bottom line is Kleiza is movable if we choose to move him.

Finally I just don't see DeRozan making 70 3s this year. Let's say that he makes 35-40% of 3s next year(an unbelievable projection imo), making 70 would mean that he needs to take at least 175 3s next year. Do you know how many 3s he took last year? A grand total of 16. I don't know about you, that's an atrocious projection if you really believe it.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> You're really just pulling assumptions out of thin air. The fact is nobody knows if Weems will be better or Kleiza will be better and that's why both of them will get the same opportunity this year to be the starter. If Kleiza wins the starting job then he should be starting, the same goes for Weems. You're trying to make it sound like the Raptors should give the job to Weems because he's a year younger and that's just a weak argument. If he has more potential than Kleiza the difference isn't as significant as you're making it out to be. If he's a better player than Kleiza then he would be starting. If not, his ass is on the bench along with Wright and Calderon (whom I also feel won't be a starter this year if he stays).


if kleiza and weems were fighting for the spot i am confidence weems would win it. the problem is sometimes coaches feel obligated to play guys with the big contracts. -- sort of make them earn their money instead of collecting free cheques. weems is playing for chump change right now and doesn't really have the security. as dumb as BC is he might even waive weems to make room for another freaking euro.



> ok so let's say that he is overpaid by 1 mil. That in your world deserves an "Atrocious" label? This is the first time I've heard anybody use that term on a 4 mil contract. The bottom line is Kleiza is movable if we choose to move him.


if you've never seen someone call 4 mil atrocious then you simply haven't been following enough teams around the nba. there are guys who are lucky to even be in this league, guys like brian scalabrine. kleiza is better than scalabrine but he's basically a fringe nba player. i think at 4 mils he will be difficult to move. certainly you can't throw him into trades to sweeten up the deal for the other team. 



> Finally I just don't see DeRozan making 70 3s this year. Let's say that he makes 35-40% of 3s next year(an unbelievable projection imo), making 70 would mean that he needs to take at least 175 3s next year. Do you know how many 3s he took last year? A grand total of 16. I don't know about you, that's an atrocious projection if you really believe it.


you're right that derozan would have a hard time making 70 3's this year. it would take quite a drastic change in his game. even wade took 3 seasons or so before he starting making 3's so chances are derozan will take probably take a similar route with his 3pt shooting. but he'll definitley shoot at lot more than 16. i'm certainly hoping he eventually becomes a 3pt threat though.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

lucky777s said:


> When did 25 become old? It was not that long ago that guys like Patrick Ewing came into the nba after 4 years of college which would put them at about 23 as a rook.
> 
> If anything 25 is now younger than it was 15 years ago because players are taking much better care of their bodies and extending their careers to 35 pretty easily.
> 
> ...


as much as i want 25 to be young, in competitive sports it really isn't. guys are supposed to be in their primes or entering it at that age. and say what you want about guys lasting longer these days but kareem, stockton and malone were three of the most durable guys in the history of the league. then you look at the more recent and supposedly great class of 96 and the only legit players now are kobe, ray allen, and marcus camby. all rest are out of the league. guys are not lasting longer, not unless they're all time greats and kleiza is not one of them.

and ewing came in the league ready to play. he was one of the best centers in the league from day 1. sure guys came into the league older but they also came in and were ready to play. ewing at 22 was more polished than kleiza will ever be.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

c_dog said:


> if kleiza and weems were fighting for the spot i am confidence weems would win it. the problem is sometimes coaches feel obligated to play guys with the big contracts. -- sort of make them earn their money instead of collecting free cheques. weems is playing for chump change right now and doesn't really have the security. as dumb as BC is he might even waive weems to make room for another freaking euro.


Again, these are your assumptions that are not based on *anything*. Weems got playing time last year didn't he? If Weems can find playing time behind a 10 mil man in Turkoglu I don't see how he ends up getting waived because of a 4 mil guy in Kleiza. The bottom line is Weems needs to earn his minutes. He's not getting more minutes because he is a year younger as if that has any significant bearing. We're not talking about 19/20 year olds here. Weems is 24 and he should be treated like any other player. Not a long term project that should be given free playing time.



> if you've never seen someone call 4 mil atrocious then you simply haven't been following enough teams around the nba. there are guys who are lucky to even be in this league, guys like brian scalabrine. kleiza is better than scalabrine but he's basically a fringe nba player. i think at 4 mils he will be difficult to move. certainly you can't throw him into trades to sweeten up the deal for the other team.


The same could be said for the opposite. If you're labeling 4 mil contracts as atrocious perhaps you're not aware of the caliber of players that get paid this sort of money as well as the market for a player like Kleiza.

I've already said that Kleiza had similar offers from other teams according to various reports. If you still find him to be unmovable I really have nothing more to say on this subject. The fact that his contract is front-loaded means he will be even easier to move down the road.



> you're right that derozan would have a hard time making 70 3's this year. it would take quite a drastic change in his game. even wade took 3 seasons or so before he starting making 3's so chances are derozan will take probably take a similar route with his 3pt shooting. but he'll definitley shoot at lot more than 16. i'm certainly hoping he eventually becomes a 3pt threat though.


Wade improved his jump shot but he's still a terrible 3pt shooter. I'm sure if DeRozan or Weems wanted they could launch a tons of 3s and end up shooting under 30% from 3, which is what Wade ended up after his "drastic improvement". 



> as much as i want 25 to be young, in competitive sports it really isn't. guys are supposed to be in their primes or entering it at that age. and say what you want about guys lasting longer these days but kareem, stockton and malone were three of the most durable guys in the history of the league. then you look at the more recent and supposedly great class of 96 and the only legit players now are kobe, ray allen, and marcus camby. all rest are out of the league. guys are not lasting longer, not unless they're all time greats and kleiza is not one of them.


So if Weems doesn't put up quality numbers this year we should just close the books on him because he turns 25 next year. Is that what you're trying to tell me? This image that you're trying to paint with Kleiza being old and Weems being young is just comical considering they're only 1 year apart. How about this for logic? Kleiza was a better basketball player than Weems when he was 15 years old, Kleiza was better when he was 20, and when he was 22, 23, 24, and likely 25. It is up to Weems to catch up and prove that he's a better player and not play the dumb "potential" card that you're trying to throw out there.

Just give it up, you're not making any sense.



> ewing at 22 was more polished than kleiza will ever be.


And Obama is a better president than this orange I'm currently eating. This orange has the potential to be the next American president but I'm not sure if it ever will. I am comparing similar things here.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Wade improved his jump shot but he's still a terrible 3pt shooter. I'm sure if DeRozan or Weems wanted they could launch a tons of 3s and end up shooting under 30% from 3, which is what Wade ended up after his "drastic improvement".


check out wade's 3pt numbers in recent years. check out his 3pt shooting in the playoffs last season. in case you didn't notice wade has become a pretty good 3pt shooter.



> So if Weems doesn't put up quality numbers this year we should just close the books on him because he turns 25 next year. Is that what you're trying to tell me? This image that you're trying to paint with Kleiza being old and Weems being young is just comical considering they're only 1 year apart. How about this for logic? Kleiza was a better basketball player than Weems when he was 15 years old, Kleiza was better when he was 20, and when he was 22, 23, 24, and likely 25. It is up to Weems to catch up and prove that he's a better player and not play the dumb "potential" card that you're trying to throw out there.
> 
> Just give it up, you're not making any sense.


you're not making any sense. stop trying to twist things around. i made the point that after 4 seasons and at 25 that kleiza already showed us what he's capable of and he's not getting any better. weems is only 18 months younger but he is practically a sophmore and hasn't had a whole lot of playing time to show what he can do. if weems doesn't have a great season then i agree that chances are low that he'll improve the season after. but really, he played so well in place of turkoglu that if he just plays like that his entire career, he's already a better player than kleiza. and for your info i don't think kleiza at 24 was a better player than weems, and certainly not now at 25. so i'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish there.

and what are you saying playing the "potential" card. potential is very important in pro sports. weems last year showed more potential than kleiza ever did. if you can't even see it and say that i'm making assumptions then i don't know what to tell you. it should be obvious who is the better player just by watching what they've shown us so far.




> And Obama is a better president than this orange I'm currently eating. This orange has the potential to be the next American president but I'm not sure if it ever will. I am comparing similar things here.


even if we take ewing being a hof center and kleiza being a "good" nba player, the timeline of reaching primacy shouldn't be that far apart. ewing came into the league ready to play right away despite being older. kleiza started young but by now should be as good as he'll ever get. not that i like comparing a mediocre player to nba greats.

----
[email protected]"potential card"

you know what, why don't you ask for the general opinion of fans. who has more potential. weems or kleiza. i think the poll would be overwhelming that weems would get most of the votes. you're saying it's my assumption. maybe. maybe it's 10% assumption but i'm making my conclusion based on what i've seen these guys do in their careers.

and you're saying potential stands for nothing? i really don't know what to say to that anymore. yeah that okc thunder team is crap. all potential. yeah john wall is crap, he's all potential.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

c_dog said:


> check out wade's 3pt numbers in recent years. check out his 3pt shooting in the playoffs last season. in case you didn't notice wade has become a pretty good 3pt shooter.
> 
> 
> you're not making any sense. stop trying to twist things around. i made the point that after 4 seasons and at 25 that kleiza already showed us what he's capable of and he's not getting any better. weems is only 18 months younger but he is practically a sophmore and hasn't had a whole lot of playing time to show what he can do. if weems doesn't have a great season then i agree that chances are low that he'll improve the season after. but really, he played so well in place of turkoglu that if he just plays like that his entire career, he's already a better player than kleiza. and for your info i don't think kleiza at 24 was a better player than weems, and certainly not now at 25. so i'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish there.
> ...


On Wades 3 point shooting, did you look at his numbers? His best year shooting 3's has been 31.7%, if that is your best year in 7 seasons, you are not a good 3 point shooter. As far as last years playoffs, that is a 5 game sample....so that argument throws itself out. 

If you want to compare showing potential, let me throw this out for you. Weems' career high in points 21, Kleiza career high, 41. No fringe NBA player I know has gone off for 41. I get it that you like Weems and what he brings to the table, but don't discount a player who has *proven* NBA talent, who out played Josh Childress on the same team, and who earned minutes on a Denver team that Weems could not. 

I would love for Sonny to develop better handles and become more comfortable at the 2, but I don't for one second think he is the future of the Raptors at the 3 spot, Kleiza is probably not the future there as well, but I think he may be the better fit for now.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

billfindlay10 said:


> On Wades 3 point shooting, did you look at his numbers? His best year shooting 3's has been 31.7%, if that is your best year in 7 seasons, you are not a good 3 point shooter. As far as last years playoffs, that is a 5 game sample....so that argument throws itself out.
> 
> If you want to compare showing potential, let me throw this out for you. Weems' career high in points 21, Kleiza career high, 41. No fringe NBA player I know has gone off for 41. I get it that you like Weems and what he brings to the table, but don't discount a player who has *proven* NBA talent, who out played Josh Childress on the same team, and who earned minutes on a Denver team that Weems could not.
> 
> I would love for Sonny to develop better handles and become more comfortable at the 2, but I don't for one second think he is the future of the Raptors at the 3 spot, Kleiza is probably not the future there as well, but I think he may be the better fit for now.


it's hilarious that he had a 41 point game but his career high ppg is 11 points! i don't care about one fluke game in the 301 games he's played over 4 years. tony delk was a career journey man and he had a 50 point game, but he was not a scorer despite that one fluke performance. career high of 11 point, and 9 points the next game.. those are not impressive numbers. 41 points doesn't make him a fringe nba player, being consistently mediocre makes him a fringe nba player. and i thought weems did very well.. he basically went from DNP to playing starting minutes at the end of the season and contributed right away. his play was so refreshing that i thought jay triano had no excuse not to play him sooner. give him a few more games, maybe he'll put up close to 40 points in a few contests. no guarantee that he can beat kleiza's best but he'll certainly have a lot of good games.

i just don't think kleiza is a better fit, not even for now. derozan and weems have chemistry and they push each other. they play their best when they're on the floor together. weems ball handling is pretty decent and he is big enough to play the 3 because he is the same size and andre iguodala.

@wade.. he's no ray allen but he can make that shot now. teams respect his shot and will have to play him there. i'm just trying to make the point that players can develop a 3pt shot if they work on it.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

Andre Iguodala measured out at 6'5.75" and 217 lbs at the NBA predraft, Weems measured out at 6'4" and 193 lbs....not even close to being the same size. Just like Wade is not a good 3point shooter, Weems is noit the size of Iguodala. 

All I have been saying is that Weems will not be anointed a starter and that Kleiza will be in teh running for that spot, if you can't see that I am sorry. You keep grasping at straws with the more potential and chemistry with Derozan. Did you ever think DeMAr may like to play with Linas as he spreads the floor better and plays with a little grit? 

There are times in a game when you can play up-tempo, there are times when you have to grind it out, there will be minutes for both guys and a good battle for starting. They each bring something the other does not, Linas can play the 3 and a little 4, Weems can play the 2 and 3, neither of them will be burried on the bench


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

c_dog said:


> check out wade's 3pt numbers in recent years. check out his 3pt shooting in the playoffs last season. in case you didn't notice wade has become a pretty good 3pt shooter.


Ask any Miami fan if Wade is considered a good 3pt shooter. Everyone knows that he is a streaky shooter. Just because he may have a hot streak in the playoffs doesn't mean his 3pt shot is drastically improved. The bottom line is he shoots 30% or under for most of his career and nobody with that percentage has been considered a good 3pt shooter in the history of the NBA. This falls right in line with the fact that nobody that gets paid 4 mil a year (overpaid by only 1 mil) gets labeled as an atrocious contract.



> you're not making any sense. stop trying to twist things around. i made the point that after 4 seasons and at 25 that kleiza already showed us what he's capable of and he's not getting any better. weems is only 18 months younger but he is practically a sophmore and hasn't had a whole lot of playing time to show what he can do.


Who's twisting things around?

Am I seeing things? Did you not post this?



> as much as i want 25 to be young, in competitive sports it really isn't. guys are supposed to be in their primes or entering it at that age.


So which is it? Are we counting the years that you come into the NBA or are we counting the years that you come out from between your mom's legs? You can't have it both ways here. If 25 is your cut off point then Weems has 1 year to develop into a legitimate starter. If he doesn't, he's a scrub. Or in your words, a fringe NBA player.



> you know what, why don't you ask for the general opinion of fans. who has more potential. weems or kleiza. i think the poll would be overwhelming that weems would get most of the votes. you're saying it's my assumption. maybe. maybe it's 10% assumption but i'm making my conclusion based on what i've seen these guys do in their careers.


Well, sadly we don't have a ton of Raptor fans here and so far in this thread I've seen 2 posters that feels they are about the same and I'm not sure how Lucky777 feels about this subject.

And just for the record I don't deny that Weems have the chance to become better than Kleiza. I'm just saying that his "potential" isn't big enough to justify handing the starting job to him. Weems has a chance to be a good player in this league but he needs to earn it just like Kleiza has earned it. If you look at Kleiza's career he played sparingly the first couple of years and it's not until his 3rd year when he got consistent playing time. How did he get such playing time? By performing in game and being consistent. Something that Weems need to do for an entire year.

I'll end with the example of Jamario Moon. He came into the league when he was 27. At that time I said despite being a rookie in the league it's likely that he wouldn't mount to much because of his age. As it turns out he is still pretty much the same player 3 years later. I'm not saying that Weems or Kleiza wouldn't be better, but at around the same age I don't see that because Weems has played less in the league it means that he has a better chance to be a better player. When you think about it, theres a reason why Weems didn't get playing time. He didn't perform in college and that's why he wasn't drafted high. He didn't impress his coach in summer league and that's why he didn't play much in his rookie season. And the dominoes fall from there. While Weems may not be as fortunate as other young players to receive tons of playing time, he is still responsible for being the player that he is now rather than someone much better.



> and you're saying potential stands for nothing? i really don't know what to say to that anymore. yeah that okc thunder team is crap. all potential. yeah john wall is crap, he's all potential.


Now you're twisting my words. I believe in potential, I just don't believe that theres a big difference in potential when 2 guys are only a year apart.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Ask any Miami fan if Wade is considered a good 3pt shooter. Everyone knows that he is a streaky shooter. Just because he may have a hot streak in the playoffs doesn't mean his 3pt shot is drastically improved. The bottom line is he shoots 30% or under for most of his career and nobody with that percentage has been considered a good 3pt shooter in the history of the NBA. This falls right in line with the fact that nobody that gets paid 4 mil a year (overpaid by only 1 mil) gets labeled as an atrocious contract.


i think 3 mil would be overpaying. kleiza should be just above the minimum. so in that respect 4 mil is quite atrocious.




> Who's twisting things around?
> 
> Am I seeing things? Did you not post this?


yes 25 is quite old in sports. the big difference between weems and kleiza is that weems hasn't shown us what he can really do yet while kleiza's shown everything. and weems still has a year to go before he reaches 25 and we all know that plentiful of playing time over the course of an entire season would help him improve drastically.




> So which is it? Are we counting the years that you come into the NBA or are we counting the years that you come out from between your mom's legs? You can't have it both ways here. If 25 is your cut off point then Weems has 1 year to develop into a legitimate starter. If he doesn't, he's a scrub. Or in your words, a fringe NBA player.


i've kept saying it's both. weems is 18 months younger and he's had way less playing time. he has ways to go before ppl can label him a finished product.




> Well, sadly we don't have a ton of Raptor fans here and so far in this thread I've seen 2 posters that feels they are about the same and I'm not sure how Lucky777 feels about this subject.
> 
> And just for the record I don't deny that Weems have the chance to become better than Kleiza. I'm just saying that his "potential" isn't big enough to justify handing the starting job to him. Weems has a chance to be a good player in this league but he needs to earn it just like Kleiza has earned it. If you look at Kleiza's career he played sparingly the first couple of years and it's not until his 3rd year when he got consistent playing time. How did he get such playing time? By performing in game and being consistent. Something that Weems need to do for an entire year.


i think his potential is way bigger than kleiza's. that's why i would want him to develop so we can see what he's fully capable of.



> I'll end with the example of Jamario Moon. He came into the league when he was 27. At that time I said despite being a rookie in the league it's likely that he wouldn't mount to much because of his age. As it turns out he is still pretty much the same player 3 years later. I'm not saying that Weems or Kleiza wouldn't be better, but at around the same age I don't see that because Weems has played less in the league it means that he has a better chance to be a better player. When you think about it, theres a reason why Weems didn't get playing time. He didn't perform in college and that's why he wasn't drafted high. He didn't impress his coach in summer league and that's why he didn't play much in his rookie season. And the dominoes fall from there. While Weems may not be as fortunate as other young players to receive tons of playing time, he is still responsible for being the player that he is now rather than someone much better.


i like the example of jamario moon. he makes the example that once you reach a certain age it's hard to get much better. moon did get better the last 3 seasons as he's become a more consistent 3 point shooter. but he's essentially the same player with improved outside shot.

moon was what, 27 though. i think weems has one good year to really make his mark on the team.



> Now you're twisting my words. I believe in potential, I just don't believe that theres a big difference in potential when 2 guys are only a year apart.


fair enough. you don't think weems has enough potential. i beg to differ. i think he's one of the most talented and underrated guys on the team. derozan, ed davis, weems, and amir are our most valueable players. they are the ones who can help turn this franchise around.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

billfindlay10 said:


> Andre Iguodala measured out at 6'5.75" and 217 lbs at the NBA predraft, Weems measured out at 6'4" and 193 lbs....not even close to being the same size. Just like Wade is not a good 3point shooter, Weems is noit the size of Iguodala.


their nba profile list them both as 6'6 with igoudala at 207lbs and weems at 203lbs. and i'm sure if weems feels like he needs to get stronger he can hit the gym harder and put on a few extra pounds.

and weems does not look 6'4 in any way. that measurement looks off. he looks to be slightly bigger than derozan who's definitely 6'5 at the very least. maybe he's a late bloomer and grew a few inches because last i checked he looked way bigger than delonte west.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

c_dog said:


> their nba profile list them both as 6'6 with igoudala at 207lbs and weems at 203lbs. and i'm sure if weems feels like he needs to get stronger he can hit the gym harder and put on a few extra pounds.
> 
> and weems does not look 6'4 in any way. that measurement looks off. he looks to be slightly bigger than derozan who's definitely 6'5 at the very least. maybe he's a late bloomer and grew a few inches because last i checked he looked way bigger than delonte west.


No kidding he looks bigger than Delonte West, he measured out at 6'1.5", so Weems is bigger. You can't go by the listed height on NBA.com, you need to look at combine measurements....real measurements.

C-dog, why do you keep saying that we have seen everything Kleiza has to offer? Are you saying that players can't continue to get better after they turn 23, the last time we saw him in the NBA?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

c_dog said:


> i think 3 mil would be overpaying. kleiza should be just above the minimum. so in that respect 4 mil is quite atrocious.


Then you're just simply flat wrong. I've already said about 3 times that Kleiza had similar offers from other teams. How can he be worth the minimum if other teams were willing to pay 4+ mil for him? Unless we're talking about the value that *you think* he deserves not the value that NBA GMs feel that he's worth. If that's the case I'm sorry, your opinion is quite worthless when compare with those that actually make the decisions. Just because you think that he's worth the minimum doesn't mean that the Raptors can't trade him because GMs feel that he's worth about 4 mil a year.




> yes 25 is quite old in sports. the big difference between weems and kleiza is that weems hasn't shown us what he can really do yet while kleiza's shown everything. and weems still has a year to go before he reaches 25 and we all know that plentiful of playing time over the course of an entire season would help him improve drastically.


So in your world 1 year would make that much difference. So if Weems doesn't show anything next year we should just give up on him because he turns 25 after that. Makes a lot of sense, I get it.

Heres the bottom line, listen closely. *They're both going to fight for the starting job*. If Kleiza wins the job Kleiza would be starting, if Weems wins it then Weems would be the starter. That's all. There are no special treatment for Weems because of his age because being 1 year younger just doesn't mean anything in the world of basketball. Believe it or not, that's just how it is. Weems are not going to get free playing time because he's 24 on a team where the average age is just over 25. I don't care if you feel that Weems has more potential, he has to show it in practice and perform on the court. If Kleiza outplays him then Weems will be on the bench, theres no bitching and crying about it. It's not because Kleiza got paid an *atrocious* contract, it's not because the coach doesn't believe in developing young players, it's because Kleiza is simply a better player.

Of course, the opposite is also true. If Weems proves himself to be a better player then I don't doubt that he will get more playing time than Kleiza. It's just odd when Weems appears to be your favorite player yet you lack such confidence in his abilities that you feel the need to soften the blow in case he fails.



> fair enough. you don't think weems has enough potential.


No dude, *READ*. I don't feel that Weems lacks potential, I just don't see his potential being that much greater than a guy that's a year older than him. I don't feel that at 24 his ceiling is that much higher than a 25 year old who has consistently outperformed Weems in the past. It has nothing to do with how much potential Weems has, it's about comparing him with other guys around the same age.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

billfindlay10 said:


> No kidding he looks bigger than Delonte West, he measured out at 6'1.5", so Weems is bigger. You can't go by the listed height on NBA.com, you need to look at combine measurements....real measurements.
> 
> C-dog, why do you keep saying that we have seen everything Kleiza has to offer? Are you saying that players can't continue to get better after they turn 23, the last time we saw him in the NBA?


if kleiza actually shows improvement from his last stint in the nba then i tip my hat off to you guys. i think he best season was 07-08 and he regressed a bit in 08-09. i have my doubts he'll be much better from those 2 seasons but if he plays better than that i'll be plesantly surprised.

@seifer:


> No dude, READ. I don't feel that Weems lacks potential, I just don't see his potential being that much greater than a guy that's a year older than him. I don't feel that at 24 his ceiling is that much higher than a 25 year old who has consistently outperformed Weems in the past. It has nothing to do with how much potential Weems has, it's about comparing him with other guys around the same age.


isn't that the same as saying you don't think he has *enough*potential? that you don't see it as being "much greater" than a guy a year older than him? i understood exactly what you said i simply disagreed. weems has as much potential as any star wing player who's ever graced the nba. you don't get that kind of all around package in a athletic swingman very often.

it's almost ironic that kleiza got signed with the raptors.. this is the same guy who prevented weems from getting playing time his rookie season in denver and now he's standing in weems' way again. i'm hoping weems destroys kleiza in training camp to make a statement.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

c_dog said:


> isn't that the same as saying you don't think he has *enough*potential? that you don't see it as being "much greater" than a guy a year older than him? i understood exactly what you said i simply disagreed. weems has as much potential as any star wing player who's ever graced the nba. you don't get that kind of all around package in a athletic swingman very often.


*NO*

You need a lesson in reading comprehension because you fail at understanding simple concepts. I'll break it down for you one last time.

I'm not saying Weems doesn't have potential, I'm saying his potential isn't that much greater than Linas Kleiza who is a year older than Weems. Unless you can prove how much potential Kleiza has, how do you know how much potential I think Weems has? Nobody is discussing Weems as an individual, we're comparing the 2 players.



> weems has as much potential as any star wing player who's ever graced the nba.


You know what on second thought if that's how much potential you feel that Weems has, then by comparison I don't find him having enough potential.

At this point I'm embarrassed to see this on the Raptor board. This is similar to Bulls fans claiming that Ben Gordon had the potential to be better than Kobe. 



> i'm hoping weems destroys kleiza in training camp to make a statement.


Don't worry, if Kleiza beats Weems you can just claim that Kleiza is getting favored because he gets paid an atrocious 4 mil contract and because Triano doesn't believe in playing young 24 year olds over old 25 year olds.

I'm done with this. You guys can have fun with this dude, he's out of his mind.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> *NO*
> 
> You know what on second thought if that's how much potential you feel that Weems has, then by comparison I don't find him having enough potential.
> 
> At this point I'm embarrassed to see this on the Raptor board. This is similar to Bulls fans claiming that Ben Gordon had the potential to be better than Kobe.


i think weems does have all the tool to be a star wing player in the league. he has the size, the athletism, and from what we've seen he has skills too.

you know what, laugh. i know a talent when i see one. i was already happy with getting him last season and wanted him to start over turk and nobody agreed with me until they witnessed how much turk sucks.

next season will be the same again. ppl will keep riding BC's cock and praising his moves and his valueable euro's while i'm wondering why he's not rebuilding around the young gunz. next season can't come soon enough.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

c_dog said:


> i think weems does have all the tool to be a star wing player in the league. he has the size, the athletism, and from what we've seen he has skills too.


He better become a star next year because I'm sure you would be the first one telling us to waive him if he doesn't because he's shown us everything he could be once he turns 25. 



> you know what, why don't you ask for the general opinion of fans. who has more potential. weems or kleiza. i think the poll would be overwhelming that weems would get most of the votes. you're saying it's my assumption. maybe. maybe it's 10% assumption but i'm making my conclusion based on what i've seen these guys do in their careers.


:laugh:

I like how you went ahead and asked and got Kleiza'd all over you. Maybe instead of convincing the 2 of us on this board you should try to talk some *sense* into those guys.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

seifer0406;6351079
I like how you went ahead and asked and got Kleiza'd all over you. Maybe instead of convincing the 2 of us on this board you should try to talk some [B said:


> sense[/B] into those guys.



Check and mate!


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Dude Kleiza is a proven commodity. Everyone knows what he can do, except for one person perhaps. He's getting paid a below market deal. Weems is a project, all we can do is take your word about how good he will be...That and 50 cents will get you a gumball.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

kleiza is another one of those recycled fringe guys. i honestly believe so. even though he did put up some numbers he was kind of the right guy in the right situation. it's obvious most people on the boards haven't seen weems play at all( brian and diable pretty much admitted not seeing him play) and just say kleiza because he's the "safe" pick. that is fine, raps don't get the best coverage around and weems didn't play until the last couple of games. we'll see if i'm right next season.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Kleiza is proven as a mid-level talent. A mediocre player on what is sure to be a mediocre or worse team. I can see him starting and putting up 16-18 points or whatever but Mike James did that too so what does it prove? Rather give the lion's share of the minutes to Weems to see if last season was a fluke or if he really can develop into a serious player.

The Belly/Wright deal is very insignificant. Wright shouldn't play much and Belly was bumped by Barbosa. Don't expect much from either player this season or going forward.


----------



## Babe Ruth (Dec 6, 2006)

Honestly I like this trade, I know that Wright hasn't done much since entering the NBA, but maybe a new team will help him out. He's only twenty-three years old, he still as some learning to do and hopefully Triano and the coaching staff will develop him into a solid player.

I wouldn't call him a bust just yet.


----------

