# Jamal Crawford ... WOW



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

My gosh.. anyone watching the Chicago/Sonics game?... with the proper coaching this guy could become one of the premier point guards in the league... one play he takes it down the middle, and sees no opening.. so he bounces the ball off the backboard takes two steps in and dunks it in (it was basically the T-mac dunk)... but in addition he draws the foul for a three point play. Flashy plays like this don't make a player good, but they're also not easy to do. 

This guy has a shot (when he's not taking those 27 foot three pointers 8 times a game).. He definitely can pass almost with marbury precision... has one of the craziest crossovers in the league...he's 6'5"... two things keeping him from becoming great are shot selection(not improving) and defense(improving)... 

Blazers should make a play for him.. IMO


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

I second that. He is an incredable talent. Like you stateed he is wild and crazy at times but he has NO ONE on that team.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

OK lets get him... lets get a couple of them

PG + C is what we need.... and to help get them we take on ER's contract..

Crawford $2.5 mil (2 years with qualifier) + Eddy Curry $3.0 mil (3 years)+ Eddie Robinson $6.25 mil (3 years) = $11.75 mil (8 years worth of contracts)

they can take as little as $10.15 mil or as much $13.6 mil

maybe they need some more veteran experience, so who will they take from us as a combination... :whoknows:

Wes has an expiring contract at $7.7 mil, which should interest them
Q rings in as potential at $1 mil
Davis is at $9 mil with 2 years left, some sites say he has a trade kicker
DA $7.8 mil
Patterson is at $5.43 but has a trade kicker
Darius $4.1 mil


Wes & Patterson?
DA and Darius?
Davis and Q + slight filler?

thoughts?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I been saying this for a while, Chicago should be the #1 team Blazers deal with for any potential trades. Rasheed plus Qyntel would be a package Paxton would like for Curry or Chandler plus Crawford and we can take Antonio Davis' crappy contract. Id be all for it.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

No to AD.... :nonono: we do not need to do that.... they have a few bad contracts like us.. but I think they have a few more

we are out of it completely in a year and 6 months.... they are not...


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

Not Darius. This kid is 22 and getting better. He will be awesome in 3 years. We need to make the commitment to him. 

For those guys I would give DD, Person and Grizzlies draft pick.Give them an other pick 3 yrs down the road. We don't need the pick with that team. It would be #30 any way.

We would have a nucleolus of young talent with Rasheed, Ruben, Miles still on our team. A good pick this year, Rasheed resigned for 10 mill/ yr, Miles for 6/ yr for 5 to 6 yrs. Damon off the books next year and we are set to make an other run. Sing a Tracy McGrady/ Ray Allen

PG-Crawford
SG-Woods/DA/Draft Picks
C-Curry/ Sign like a Dampier back up center guy
SF-Miles/Rasheed
PF-Rasheed/Randolph


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

LMAO theres no way they are gonna give us Curry or Chandler if we dont give Sheed or Zach up. It's completely unrealistic to think DD, Person, and a pick is gonna get Curry, hell no. It would take Sheed but even if we are giving Sheed I don't know that they would bite. Curry has a crapload of potential, along with Chandler. I think we COULD get Crawford if we gave up Qyntel plus fillers.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't need Chandler. Paxon likes him and question Curry's commitment. 

I would give them Q in that trade for those two.
Q, DD, 2 1st rounder with Grizzlies and ours from 3 yrs from now.
Exchange Q for Person if you want for cap reasons. Curry will walk from Chicago 2 years from now anyway.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think that Portland could get any of Chandler, Curry or Crawford without giving up Rasheed or Zach, and I don't think we could get two of them without giving up one of the two of them AND taking back Antonio Davis.

I'm not a fan of Davis nor his contract, but if we HAVE to trade Rasheed, I'd be willing to swallow his contract if we could get two of the Bulls' three I listed above.

Ed O.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

i would be estatic if we could get Craw and Curry for Q, Dale and both of our 2004 1st rounders


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd trade 'Sheed (and even take back Antonio Davis) to get both Jamal Crawford *and* Eddy Curry.

Tyson Chandler may have the better attitude, but I'm starting to think his ceiling is not as high as once thought. He's starting to look like a great rebounder / shot-blocker with limited offensive game.

Curry still holds the hope of being an all-around dominant player, even if his motivation is currently questioned.

I think Crawford can be a star point guard and really isn't too far away from it. Curry is quite far from stardom, but also possesses superstar potential.

A possible future of:

PG: Crawford
SG: Woods
SF: Miles
PF: Randolph
C: Curry

is worth carrying Antonio Davis' bloated contract for a few years. When you want to win a championship, you bet *all* your chips...because championship talent is incredibly hard to come by. The above lineup is one of the most "bust or dominate" lineups one could conceive of.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I think that Chandler better fits our team because he makes up for Randolph's lack of defense. Curry is actually very similar to Zach, weak defense but great offensive potential. Chandler fits us better but I would take either.


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

i did this on Real GM and to my surprise it worked...:laugh: 

Chicago trades: PF Tyson Chandler (12.1 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 27.1 minutes) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 13.8 minutes) 
SG Jamal Crawford (16.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 34.7 minutes) 
Chicago receives: C Dale Davis (5.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.4 apg in 28.3 minutes) 
SF Qyntel Woods (4.5 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.0 apg in 13.3 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -25.3 ppg, -7.1 rpg, and -5.0 apg. 

Portland trades: C Dale Davis (5.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.4 apg in 28.3 minutes) 
SF Qyntel Woods (4.5 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.0 apg in 13.3 minutes) 
Portland receives: PF Tyson Chandler (12.1 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 11 games) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 29 games) 
SG Jamal Crawford (16.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 46 games) 
Change in team outlook: +25.3 ppg, +7.1 rpg, and +5.0 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Chicago and Portland being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Chicago and Portland had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

*since we have a spot open*

Chicago trades: SG Jamal Crawford (16.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 34.7 minutes) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 13.8 minutes) 
PF Tyson Chandler (12.1 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 27.1 minutes) 
Chicago receives: C Dale Davis (5.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.4 apg in 28.3 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -29.8 ppg, -10.0 rpg, and -6.0 apg. 

Portland trades: C Dale Davis (5.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.4 apg in 28.3 minutes) 
Portland receives: SG Jamal Crawford (16.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 46 games) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 29 games) 
PF Tyson Chandler (12.1 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 11 games) 
Change in team outlook: +29.8 ppg, +10.0 rpg, and +6.0 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Chicago and Portland being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Chicago and Portland had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Your just not understanding that we can't get Tyson or Eddy for garbage like Dale Davis. lol Once you figure out a deal that consists of Chandler and Crawford and prolly AD coming to Portland and basically Sheed and Qyntel going to Chi Town you are prolly close.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: since we have a spot open*



> Originally posted by <b>blazerfan4life</b>!
> Chicago trades: SG Jamal Crawford (16.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 34.7 minutes)
> PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 13.8 minutes)
> PF Tyson Chandler (12.1 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 27.1 minutes)
> ...


Even if a trade works salary-wise, you still have to apply some common sense.

Why on Earth would Chicago trade two of their three top prospects, plus a decent bench player, for a Dale Davis that no Portland fan really wants?

We don't even take a bad contract off their hands.

It's like proposing Stoudamire and Person for Tracy McGrady and Drew Gooden or something.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I think that Chandler better fits our team because he makes up for Randolph's lack of defense. Curry is actually very similar to Zach, weak defense but great offensive potential.


No problems. Put Randolph and Curry on the floor together, convince Snapper to take Mo's place on the sidelines, and play some high scoring, matador defense 70's/80's ball!

Heck, I wouldn't even mind watching a .500 team if they were consistently up tempo and entertaining. If the talent pans out as championship material, that would be icing on the cake.

Dan


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: since we have a spot open*



> Originally posted by <b>blazerfan4life</b>!
> Chicago trades: SG Jamal Crawford (16.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 34.7 minutes)
> PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 13.8 minutes)
> PF Tyson Chandler (12.1 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 27.1 minutes)
> ...


Back away from Damon's stash.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Crawford $2.5 mil (2 years with qualifier) + Eddy Curry $3.0 mil (3 years)+ Eddie Robinson $6.25 mil (3 years) = $11.75 mil (8 years worth of contracts)
> 
> they can take as little as $10.15 mil or as much $13.6 mil
> 
> ...




Wow. Wow.

None of those.

Jeez..........

We're not giving up two quality young talents, who combine to average 30 points a game even during this god awful stretch of play, for cap relief. No thank you.

:| 

Wow....






> Originally posted by blazerfan4life!
> Chicago trades: SG Jamal Crawford (16.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 34.7 minutes)
> PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 13.8 minutes)
> PF Tyson Chandler (12.1 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 0.9 apg in 27.1 minutes)
> ...




Oh boy, this one is worse. To put it in perspective, if a Bulls fan asked you for Q and Raadolph for Fizer and Brunson (THINK OF THE SALARY RELIEF!!!), what would you say?

Exactly......






> I'm not a fan of Davis nor his contract, but if we HAVE to trade Rasheed, I'd be willing to swallow his contract if we could get two of the Bulls' three I listed above.
> 
> Ed O.


Well you can't. :greatjob:


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

I thank you gentlemen for a good laugh.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BSchmaranz</b>!
> I thank you gentlemen for a good laugh.


What's so funny? :no:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> What's so funny? :no:


I would guess the multiple ideas of getting an excellent Bulls prospect (or two) for practically nothing. I know that would make me laugh (at best) if I were a Bulls fan.

Ed O.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I would guess the multiple ideas of getting an excellent Bulls prospect (or two) for practically nothing. I know that would make me laugh (at best) if I were a Bulls fan.
> 
> Ed O.


Yeah, I figured that much. Then again, what do you expect from a Blazer board talking about what players they want. The same kind of far-fetched fantasies are included in every team's respective board...so what.


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

Well... based on the previously posted trade "ideas", the Bulls fans would like to make a counter offer:

Marcus Fizer (or Corie Blount)
FOR
Zach Randolph


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

:no: 

PEOPLE PEOPLE...i know we couldn't do it..i was just putting it out there for a laugh..i am not in Damons stash...not smoking or drinking or anything ok....:laugh: 

I am very sane...:laugh:


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> originally posted by *Minstrel*
> I'd trade 'Sheed (and even take back Antonio Davis) to get both Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry.
> 
> Tyson Chandler may have the better attitude, but I'm starting to think his ceiling is not as high as once thought. He's starting to look like a great rebounder / shot-blocker with limited offensive game.
> ...


No offense, but what in the world makes you think that the Bulls would do anything even remotely along these lines? Why in the world would they want to trade their two most talented prospects for an aging, hotheaded PF who can't rebound? Crawford's stats, currently, are comparable to Sheed's, and JC is a whole lot younger, cheaper, and less psychotic. I would not trade either him or Curry for Sheed straight up, much less the two of them together. Curry has played soft and been very dissapointing this season, but he's still got alot better trade value than this, as athletic 7-footers with his type of talent don't exactly come around that often. And it's not as if the Bulls are dying to get rid of Davis either- he's been exactly what we've needed him to be so far this year. Maybe if the Bulls had a shot at Kobe, that cap room would be important enough to the team to make a deal for Sheed. But even if that were the case, I very much doubt that they'd have to give up both Curry *and* Crawford to make the deal happen.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> No offense, but what in the world makes you think that the Bulls would do anything even remotely along these lines?


Because Wallace is considerably better than Curry and Crawford. Crawford may have similar offensive numbers, but Wallace is one of the premier low-post defenders, which is a valuable and rare skill.

Further, the Bulls dump one of the worst contracts in the NBA. You may be thrilled with Antonio Davis, but the vast majority of the basketball world sees him as a contractual anvil.



> I would not trade either him or Curry for Sheed straight up, much less the two of them together.


I never said the Bulls would or would not do the trade. Not that I'd take your word on whether they would, since you're going to be enormously biased (and I'm sure I am, too).

The fact that you call Wallace "hot-headed" suggests to me that you're working purely off spoonfed media opinion which is about three years out of date. Wallace has reduced his technicals greatly...nobody says, "Why would I trade for a hot-headed point guard in Gary Payton?" even though Payton's had more technicals.

Maybe Blazers fans overvalue Wallace, maybe they don't. But here's something Bulls fans don't seem to realize: Curry, Chandler and Crawford are not the same commodities they once were. Two to three seasons of disappointing returns make all three of them more likely to be nothing special than superstars. *I'd* be willing to gamble, but Chicago fans treat their three prospects as if they *A.* were still new prospects, with no history of disappointment or *B.* actually close to panning out.

Neither is true. Look at the Clippers: Both Miles and Odom were supposed to be superstar prospects. How much value do they have now? Miles got acquired for McInnis, Odom still has decent value but is hardly a can't-touch player.

Feel free to ascribe any value you wish to Curry, Chandler and Crawford, but while Bulls fans can pretend that they continue to never drop in value, all three are starting to get perilously close to where they won't have much value at all. 

It's entirely possible that I, as a Portland fan, will be extremely thankful this deal never happened. I'd sure be unhappy today if Portland had dealt Wallace for Miles and Odom a few years ago (which I'm sure, then, some Clippers fan would have haughtily said they'd never trade such gorgeous prospects).

I simply brought up the idea as a discussion point. I really don't know how much Paxson values Crawford and Curry.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> Curry has played soft and been very dissapointing this season, but he's still got alot better trade value than this, as athletic 7-footers with his type of talent don't exactly come around that often.


Do you remember Will Predue? Scott Williams?Luc ? :laugh:


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

I was just kidding:angel:


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

But is really is this simple.



With all 3, we know what we're sitting on. We've seen what they CAN do.




It's freaking irritating that they don't do it all the time, but we know what's there. We've gifted away talent just for it to flourish elsewhere way too often. It's not a mistake we want to go making again.



So unless we get absolutely bowled over by an offer, we'll sit with what we have. It either comes tigether here, or it never comes together.




That's a risk I think we are all willing to take.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*One good game against Seattle of all teams*

And this guy is suddenly the PG to get? I do not think so. I have watched this guy play a lot, and while he is a tall guard, I think he is yet again a PG who plays more like a shooting guard. I also notice his shooting percentage is fairly low, he shoots under 40%. I think chances are, while you saw a good game for him in Seattle, I also think that for about every good game he has, he has about 4 bad ones. If he was truly as good as a lot of people on this post are goggling over, then Chicago would have more wins under their belt. This guy is not the answere.


----------



## pumkinhead (Jan 30, 2004)

THE BLAZERS have got to project their draft position. and that of memphis to realisticaly trade whith chicago. chandler, curry, crawford, maybe" fiser" i say if their isnt a big time guy that projects better at the position in draft then these talents its a no brainer. so memphis doing well dictates a trade. crawford is a good point guard. if we would sign miles then a lineup of chandler curry randolph miles crawford BENCHossibly:SMFoutlaw pg:free agent {then} jon barry {FA}#1 possible {C-f}:{our pick} rueben patterson, veteren c-f , {sg}FA {OUTLOOK} interested in who MR Patterson will bring in if this materalised but its speculation: this would bring back a atheletic team{old blazers} who were said were"just atheletic": i remember they were perenial playoff and WCF participants and finals particpants . I just love the blazers I am new so please be gentle in response PH


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> originally posted by *Mintsrel*
> Because Wallace is considerably better than Curry and Crawford. Crawford may have similar offensive numbers, but Wallace is one of the premier low-post defenders, which is a valuable and rare skill.
> 
> Further, the Bulls dump one of the worst contracts in the NBA. You may be thrilled with Antonio Davis, but the vast majority of the basketball world sees him as a contractual anvil.


Nobody's doubting that Wallace is better, but that does not necessarily mean that his _trade value_ is higher. Maybe it would be if the Bulls really wanted cap space that badly, but since they're not going to attract any marquee free agents anyway, Sheed has little or no trade value to them. His best days are behind him, he'd probably walk in the offseason, and he's really not even that good of a player. 17.3 ppg and 6.8 rpg are respectable numbers, but hardly anything spectacular. Crawford averages 17.2 ppg, Curry averages 13.0 ppg, and both have alot of room to improve. As far the amazing post-defense that you speak of, we can get that from Davis just as easily and not have to give up two of our best prospects. Regardless of how the rest of the league views Davis' contract, it would certainly not kill the Bulls to simply wait it out and let him provide some veteran savvy and toughness while he's here. So far, he's been one of our most consistent contributors, and his contract expires a year before Jalen Rose's would have.



> The fact that you call Wallace "hot-headed" suggests to me that you're working purely off spoonfed media opinion which is about three years out of date. Wallace has reduced his technicals greatly...nobody says, "Why would I trade for a hot-headed point guard in Gary Payton?" even though Payton's had more technicals.


When's the last time Gary Payton punched a referee? With the possible exception of Ron Artest, there is no one in the league who is even in the same class as a Rasheed in terms of disciplinary problems.



> Maybe Blazers fans overvalue Wallace, maybe they don't. But here's something Bulls fans don't seem to realize: Curry, Chandler and Crawford are not the same commodities they once were. Two to three seasons of disappointing returns make all three of them more likely to be nothing special than superstars. I'd be willing to gamble, but Chicago fans treat their three prospects as if they A. were still new prospects, with no history of disappointment or B. actually close to panning out.
> 
> Neither is true. Look at the Clippers: Both Miles and Odom were supposed to be superstar prospects. How much value do they have now? Miles got acquired for McInnis, Odom still has decent value but is hardly a can't-touch player.


I'm not under any delusions about the respective trade values of Crawford, Curry and Chandler- I never said that they were "untouchable" players or superstars in the making or anything. I would not be at all adversed to trading any or all of these guys if the right deal came along, but I can tell you that this is most certainly not it. Just cause Chandler, Curry and Crawford are not future supertstars does not mean that we should just give them to you for crap that you don't want- they've still got a lot better trade value than that. Why else would Blazer fans want them so bad?

Say what you will about Crawford, he is still a 6'5 player with PG skills who is averaging 17.2 ppg and 5.5 apg on the season- those are hardly "dissapointing returns" for a 23-year player in only his second full season. Chandler has been anything but dissapointing this season while he has been healthy- he is easily the team's best player, IMO. Besides being a bonafide 7'1 shotblocker, he is averaging 11.4 ppg and 9.3 rpg- almost identical to the 11.7 ppg and 9.4 rpg that Eastern conference allstar Jamaal Magloire is putting up. I don't expect Chandler to ever be a huge force on the offensive end, but then neither was Dikembe Mutumbo, and I think he did pretty well for himself, don't you?

As for Curry, you're right- he has been a huge dissapointment this season, playing soft and not asserting himself offensively like he should be. But there is still a huge premium on size in this league, and Curry is one of the few young, true centers with real athletic ability and offensive talent. There must be some reason why Jerry West wants him so bad- the kid has trade value. I would not be at all averse to the Bulls trading his lazy azz, but how exactly would we benefit from trading him for an aging PF who is just barely a better rebounder and has a long history of behavioral problems?



> Feel free to ascribe any value you wish to Curry, Chandler and Crawford, but while Bulls fans can pretend that they continue to never drop in value, all three are starting to get perilously close to where they won't have much value at all.


Feel free to ascribe any value you wish to Rasheed Wallace, but while Blazer fans can pretend that he continues to never drop in value, he is starting to come perilously close to where he won't have much value at all (except to teams that are desperate for cap room, that is). 

Seriously, I just find it hilarious that you think Sheed has trade value around the league for talented young prospects .. and not merely as a cap cleanser for a team to let him walk and use the flexibility to go after some *real* talent.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

What are all these disciplinary problems you are referring to Louie? You say nobody is even in the same class as Sheed...list them for us. You obviously don't know much about Sheed and only go by the crap that is spewed out of moron's like Stein with ESPN.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> When's the last time Gary Payton punched a referee? With the possible exception of Ron Artest, there is no one in the league who is even in the same class as a Rasheed in terms of disciplinary problems.


As a specific follow-up to antibody's question: what does punching a ref have to do with anything? Rasheed's never made physical contact with a ref that's led to any sort of disciplinary action. He was suspended for approaching refs after a game in the past, but it was never alleged that he punched anyone.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> With the possible exception of Ron Artest, there is no one in the league who is even in the same class as a Rasheed in terms of disciplinary problems.


Are you insane? Sheed is the worst disciplinary problem in the NBA after Artest? 

How about Kobe Bryant and Ruben Patterson being charged with rape? 

How about Shaq trying to punch a guy while his back is turned and swearing on live national tv?

How about Steve Francis missing a game to catch the Superbowl? 

How about Vin Baker and Shawn Kemp's much documented substance and alcoholism problems? 

How about Zach Randolph deliberately fracturing his own teammate's eye socket? 

How about all the flagrant, dangerous fouls Kenyon Martin and Karl Malone have delivered? 

Sheed led the league for a few years in technicals earlier in his career. However, he's never done anything that matches the disciplinary problems of ANY of the people I've listed above. His T's came from honest (albeit at times uncontrolled) disagreement with the way refs called games. I'll take that any day over deliberate violence, substance abuse or just plain not caring about winning games. 

I defy you to show me a single instance where he has assaulted anyone.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

as for overvaluing players, yes, I think we at times overvalue Rasheed. 

however, Rasheed is our best player and we're .457 win team. 

according to you, Crawford and Chandler are better or as good, yet you have a .265 win team in a weaker conference. it doesn't add up. 

I think Minstrel made a great point about a past potential trade of Odom/Miles for Wallace. 

It happens every year. a few years ago, SAR or Antawn Jamison were "leagues" beyond the value of Wallace. their stock dropped, his didn't. 

before then, everybody knew there was "no way" we could get a talent like Mutombo for Wallace, and now that seems laughable. 

fans of other teams see him play two or four times a year and they mostly remember what the announcers tell them. there's a lot more to his story.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

To get two of the three guys (crawford, chandler, curry) you'd need to give up Randolph. Dont mistake the Bulls losing for them wanting to pull desperation moves, which is what most of the trade scenarios in this thread would be if completed. Woods, with a pick, would probably get you one of the three guys if you'd take on ADs contract. All three C's have more trade value than Woods. Randolph is the only guy who has considerably more trade value than any of the three C's, but I'm sure Portland doesnt want to part with him.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> as for overvaluing players, yes, I think we at times overvalue Rasheed.
> 
> however, Rasheed is our best player and we're .457 win team.
> ...


Its about trade value though. Sheed is only gauranteed to play for you for less than half a season, then he could leave on his own. Plus hes a known headcase. 

Crawford is like 23, Curry and Chandler are 21. Theres a reason people are trying to get them and almost every GM in the league has called about atleast one of them.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

while needlessly bashing (IMHO) wallace and his value, Louie has a point. why would the bulls trade 2 of chandler/curry/crawford for wallace, when they know sheed could leave for nothing in the summer. 

those three are practically all they got (except hinrich). I doubt they are after cap space, since all they've got so far with tons of cap space is eddie robinson...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you insane? Sheed is the worst disciplinary problem in the NBA after Artest?
> ...


Louie is talking about on the court, where Sheed circa 2-3 years ago was an absolute terror. He has been much more controlled of late, but reputations are slow to change. 

I'm of the opionion that the Blazers do not have much to offer us (the Bulls) for our young players. If we expected to be a big player in the free agent market this summer, it would be a different story. But Kobe has never expressed any interest in Chicago, and we would not expect him to come even if we had more cap room than everybody else. However, there's no guarantee Sheed would stay with the Bulls if Paxson wanted to keep him. If Rasheed gets traded before the deadline, expect him to look for a better deal elsewhere and not from the team that trades for him.

Aside from Sheed, Zach is obviously the man, and why would you guys trade him? So Zach is out. Q is talented, but he really hasn't done anything yet that compares to any of our three young guns. Darius is with you until the end of the year. Obviously I like him, but you guys did well to trade for him, and perhaps you will retain him if he continues to look promising. Again, cap room doesn't do us much good, so Dale or Wes' contract don't do us much good.

What most Bulls fans would want if we traded one of our big three is another relatively young player (under 30 for sure) who is not necessarily an all star, but definitely on the border of being a star. Think Dunleavy, Q Richardson, Jason Richardson, James Posey, Pau Gasol, Shane Battier, Desmond Mason, Rashard Lewis, Flip Murray, Vlad Radmanovic, Caron Butler, Al Harrington, or Jiri Welsch. For example, Seattle desperately needs an athletic 4 who gives them a little bit of toughness. Tyson Chandler would be perfect for them (assuming he's healthy), and Rashard Lewis or Radmanovic (they have two talented young 3's and no 4) would help us a lot. Not that Paxson would make that trade, but at least it would make sense for what we need (we have a gaping hole at SF right now). If we don't get a package involving a player such as this, well then maybe we hold our hand and hope our young guys improve.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> Louie is talking about on the court, where Sheed circa 2-3 years ago was an absolute terror. He has been much more controlled of late, but reputations are slow to change.


fellow blazer-fans, which is better, sheed playing with fire and stacking techs, or sheed who is in control of his emotions, but seems to be slacking every other game?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> But is really is this simple.
> 
> 
> So unless we get absolutely bowled over by an offer, we'll sit with what we have. It either comes tigether here, or it never comes together.


That's fine. And if Paxson feels that way, cool. I was simply bringing up a possibility...I wouldn't even venture to guess whether Portland or Chicago would do it. My guess is that Nash would, since his new mission seems to be "cheaper, younger"...but I also don't know if it would ultimately be a good move.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> As far the amazing post-defense that you speak of, we can get that from Davis just as easily and not have to give up two of our best prospects.


Clearly you haven't watched Wallace play if you think Antonio Davis is even in the same league. Duncan and Garnett have said Rasheed is the player who gives them the most trouble, defensively. Wallace has held Duncan to 10 points or less twice. He regularly holds top power forwards under their averages *without* double-team help.

Portland fans might overvalue Wallace, but most fans from other teams show startling ignorance about Wallace's ability (usually because they don't know anything about Wallace beyond what the media chooses to tell them), so it's kind of hard to discuss him.



> When's the last time Gary Payton punched a referee?


Payton punched a referee the same time that Wallace did: either "never" or "last Tuesday, in your fantasies." Your pick.

Again...ignorance.




> Just cause Chandler, Curry and Crawford are not future supertstars does not mean that we should just give them to you for crap that you don't want


Calling Wallace "crap we don't want" would be as foolish as me calling Curry and Crawford "crap you don't want." My first choice is to re-sign Wallace.

Most likely, that will prove to be a better choice than trading them for Curry and Crawford, too.



> - they've still got a lot better trade value than that. Why else would Blazer fans want them so bad?


Who said anyone wants them "so bad"? I brought it up as a mere possibility, kiddo. Do you see me creating thread after thread lusting after your amazing disappointments? The only reason I thought it might be a good idea was because Nash seems to want to go younger and cheaper...a possibility is to go whole hog and take some risks.

Curry, Chandler and Crawford aren't terribly good players. They're high risks. Sometimes high risks are appealing but, to be honest, high risks are usually poor decisions, too.

Most likely, the Bulls will simply remain at the bottom of the league for a few more years, flush out Crawford, Chandler and Curry for nearly nothing (or just let them walk) and start a new rebuild.

So maybe you're right, that the Bulls would never give up such a glorious future. And maybe I shouldn't bother wishing that future on Portland.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

we do not need Crawford.... we got Omar Cook


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Who said anyone wants them "so bad"? I brought it up as a mere possibility, kiddo. Do you see me creating thread after thread lusting after your amazing disappointments? The only reason I thought it might be a good idea was because Nash seems to want to go younger and cheaper...a possibility is to go whole hog and take some risks.


Every GM in the league has called Paxson about one of them. You cant be 21 years old and be a disappointment yet. Especially when you're still on a rookie contract. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Curry, Chandler and Crawford aren't terribly good players. They're high risks. Sometimes high risks are appealing but, to be honest, high risks are usually poor decisions, too.


And trading TWO of those high risks for a headcase type player, who is ALSO a high risk since he may not even sign back, is a smart decision? Especially when the two the Bulls are trading still have their whole future ahead of them and Sheed is on the downspiral. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Most likely, the Bulls will simply remain at the bottom of the league for a few more years, flush out Crawford, Chandler and Curry for nearly nothing (or just let them walk) and start a new rebuild.


Your opinion. I doubt it though. Thats if the players amount to nothing which is highly unlikely. Curry and Crawford have both shown a ton of improvement lately. Chandler has been hurt which has hurt their record. In the eastern conference, the "bottom of the league" and the eighth seed isnt too different. They could easily make the playoffs next year, especially if they bring in a guy like Okafor.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Every GM in the league has called Paxson about one of them. You cant be 21 years old and be a disappointment yet. Especially when you're still on a rookie contract.


You can't quite be a "bust" (which implies permanance) at 21, I'd agree to that. You can very much be a disappointment when you're in your third season of little growth.

Every GM may have called Paxson because they probably see a small chance to acquire a high risk/high reward prospect on the cheap.

That doesn't mean they have great value. It just means, if they were available cheap, a lot of teams would be intrigued.



> And trading TWO of those high risks for a headcase type player, who is ALSO a high risk since he may not even sign back, is a smart decision?


First of all, I don't think Wallace is a head case. That's his media image, but he's done nothing in quite a while to disrupt the team. Plus, his technicals have been way down for years.

Secondly, Wallace's flight risk is overdone in my opinion. The team that has him when free agency rolls around has the best chance to sign him. Very few teams can offer Wallace much more than the MLE. If the Bulls, or someone else, dealt for Wallace, they'd have his Bird rights. They could sign him for something like $9 million / year and *still* save $8 million against the cap.



> Your opinion. I doubt it though. Thats if the players amount to nothing which is highly unlikely.


My opinion, yes. And I think it's *more* likely than not that they will not pan out. Curry always shows brief stretches of "great improvement" and then lapses back.

Crawford is not bad, but he shoots poorly and I'm not encouraged that he'll overcome that...a high volume shooter and scorer is not *that* rare. It's the players who can score efficiently that are rare.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> You can't quite be a "bust" (which implies permanance) at 21, I'd agree to that. You can very much be a disappointment when you're in your third season of little growth.


Well Chandler shouldnt be included considering he was averaging around 15 and 13 before his back problems got to him. Paxson, as well as myself and a lot of Bulls fans are convinced that Curry is just out of shape. That is a disappointment, but is easily correctable and nothing to trade a guy over if his upside is that huge when hes in shape. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Every GM may have called Paxson because they probably see a small chance to acquire a high risk/high reward prospect on the cheap.
> 
> That doesn't mean they have great value. It just means, if they were available cheap, a lot of teams would be intrigued.


If those GMs were convinced that the prospects wouldnt amount to anything, they wouldnt call. They see the struggles in Chicago and think its a state of chaos where retail price has gone down to rummage sale price, which is not the case. Its pretty much low risk for the Bulls to keep them if all theyre getting is roleplayers in return right? Since at worst, these guys will be roleplayers, and at best will be stars. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> First of all, I don't think Wallace is a head case. That's his media image, but he's done nothing in quite a while to disrupt the team. Plus, his technicals have been way down for years.
> 
> Secondly, Wallace's flight risk is overdone in my opinion. The team that has him when free agency rolls around has the best chance to sign him. Very few teams can offer Wallace much more than the MLE. If the Bulls, or someone else, dealt for Wallace, they'd have his Bird rights. They could sign him for something like $9 million / year and *still* save $8 million against the cap.


Good point as far as resigning him for 9 mil. That would be a steal for him. I'd still be a bit worried that he'd just leave in the offseason, I'm not sure of his contract situation though. Can he leave no matter what? or can it be matched? I'd think he'd just leave if it cant be matched. Plus I dont think hes the role model type player needed in Chicago to help develop the youngsters. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> My opinion, yes. And I think it's *more* likely than not that they will not pan out. Curry always shows brief stretches of "great improvement" and then lapses back.


I think if it doesnt pan out, it'll be because Paxson gave up too soon. I'm not sure what your defintion of panning out is, but right now the playoffs is the sign of future success for the Bulls. If they do that next year, it will be considered a success and its definitely not out of the question. Hinrich is 22, Crawford is 23, Curry and Chandler are 21, Dupree is like 22. Thats gotta be the youngest starting five in a long while. I think Paxson would rather bring in some older but still effective veterans to keep developing the youngsters, then to scrap the whole plan altogether. Theres too much there to just throw it away. Especially with the improvements in Crawford and Curry since Skiles started. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Crawford is not bad, but he shoots poorly and I'm not encouraged that he'll overcome that...a high volume shooter and scorer is not *that* rare. It's the players who can score efficiently that are rare.


Crawford is the one I'm least fond of, but his passing ability alone makes him a pretty good starting PG. His scoring just overshadows that too often. Shot selection and defense are his weakness, but I wish you could see the improvements hes made over the past month in those areas. Skiles is truly making a difference. As far as Curry, he can play decent man defense, score 15 points and grab 6-7 boards in limited minutes as an out of shape 21 year old player whos 7 foot 280 lbs with a very nice touch and post game. With him more developed, as a 23-24 year old whos in nba shape, it realistic for him to put up 20+ and close to 10 rebounds on VERY efficient shooting. Crawford and Currys main problem is consistency, which is common for young players, and as I expected, they've started to be more consistent players as the season goes.


----------



## D-Up (Jan 26, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> one play he takes it down the middle, and sees no opening.. so he bounces the ball off the backboard takes two steps in and dunks it in (it was basically the T-mac dunk)...


Not nearly as nice as McGrady's dunk, but more impressive because this was done in a real game.



> He definitely can pass almost with marbury precision... has one of the craziest crossovers in the league...he's 6'5"... two things keeping him from becoming great are shot selection(not improving) and defense(improving)...


I have not seen much of his passing to be impressed by it yet. I like his ability to score, though. If he passes more and ease up on his shooting a bit, he would be an excellent pg to have.



> Blazers should make a play for him.. IMO


I might add while he's still cheap.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Well Chandler shouldnt be included considering he was averaging around 15 and 13 before his back problems got to him.


Chandler is in a different bin. Actually, all three are in different bins to me:

Crawford - Developed the most, the best of them at the moment but also perhaps unlikely to improve much more

Chandler - Has become a solid player, but looks more and more like his ceiling is much lower than originally thought. He could be a solid rebounder shot-blocker, but seems unlikely ever to have the offensive game of a star.

Curry - The highest ceiling of the three but also the one with the least development. Looks like a beast for a few games and then becomes Olowakandi for weeks.

So...they all have their plusses and minuses, but they are all somewhat disappointing *so far* in one way or another. Either due to lack of ceiling or lack of development.



> If those GMs were convinced that the prospects wouldnt amount to anything, they wouldnt call. They see the struggles in Chicago and think its a state of chaos where retail price has gone down to rummage sale price, which is not the case. Its pretty much low risk for the Bulls to keep them if all theyre getting is roleplayers in return right? Since at worst, these guys will be roleplayers, and at best will be stars.


I'd say at worst they'd be Olowakandi and Miles. Below the level of solid role-players (unless they turn things around).

But yes, if all you can get for them are role-players, Chicago is much better off holding on to them. However, I wouldn't characterize Rasheed Wallace as a role-player at all. He may have a bad knock for attitude, but as someone who follows him day-by-day, I'd say he's a good guy and not anything like a cancer. His biggest failing is he gets too competitive on the floor.



> Good point as far as resigning him for 9 mil. That would be a steal for him. I'd still be a bit worried that he'd just leave in the offseason, I'm not sure of his contract situation though. Can he leave no matter what? or can it be matched? I'd think he'd just leave if it cant be matched.


Well, if Chicago's offer was the highest, I think he'd stay. He has no particular reason to dislike Chicago and it's reasonably close to his home of Phildelphia. Most teams around the league can't offer him anything near $9 million.



> I think if it doesnt pan out, it'll be because Paxson gave up too soon. I'm not sure what your defintion of panning out is, but right now the playoffs is the sign of future success for the Bulls.


I don't think just making the playoffs is success. In the East? No. I think success has to be determined by what these players become. They were supposed to be superstar-quality prospects. If not even one of them becomes a star or superstar, I'd say they didn't pan out.



> Crawford is the one I'm least fond of, but his passing ability alone makes him a pretty good starting PG. His scoring just overshadows that too often. Shot selection and defense are his weakness, but I wish you could see the improvements hes made over the past month in those areas.


He's better than anyone Portland has at the point, no question. I actually like Crawford. With the right teacher (Cheeks?) he might turn a corner. Of course, I thought that about Stoudamire, too.

I'm mildly intrigued by Crawford and Curry (not so much Chandler, for reasons I mentioned above). But I wouldn't trade the farm for them. If Bulls fans value them much more highly, I can respect that. But I still don't think Rasheed Wallace for those two and Antonio Davis (which is supposed to be a boon to Chicago, to drop that contract) was an insulting offer, at all. It may not be one Chicago fans embrace (and various Portland fans might not either), but I think it's in the realm of reasonable, at least for discussion sake.


----------



## D-Up (Jan 26, 2004)

*Re: One good game against Seattle of all teams*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> If he was truly as good as a lot of people on this post are goggling over, then Chicago would have more wins under their belt. This guy is not the answere.


Although Crawford IS a decent to good player right now, I think people are talking more about his potential to be a much better player. I like Crawford's potential. I think he's worth to take a risk on.

A pg with his size, athleticism, and scoring ability should not be overlooked.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: One good game against Seattle of all teams*



> Originally posted by <b>D-Up</b>!
> 
> A pg with his size, athleticism, and scoring ability should not be overlooked.


Worrisome, though, is his shooting. Three seasons into his career, if he still hasn't learned better shot selection, I'm not convinced he ever will.

A point guard who scores 18 points per game on 20 shots per game would be a problem, even if he has size, athleticism and passing ability.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Crawford - Developed the most, the best of them at the moment but also perhaps unlikely to improve much more
> 
> Chandler - Has become a solid player, but looks more and more like his ceiling is much lower than originally thought. He could be a solid rebounder shot-blocker, but seems unlikely ever to have the offensive game of a star.
> ...


Crawford is developed the most, but hes also the oldest by a couple years and seasons. Hes my least favorite because hes truly a point guard, and I'm not a fan of score first point guards. Pax has him trying to play the 2guard because of his height and scoring ability, but hes a natural point. 

Chandler is hard to put a finger on. His first four games this season before he started hurting were impressive. Averagin 15.5 points and 15.5 rebounds, and had 9 blocks in those 4 games which is a little over 2 a game. Thats definitely not bad for a kid who had just turned 21, and is still really thin. 

Currys lack of conditioning more than anything has been the problem. Hes developed fine during the seasons, its just he gets out of shape in the offseason and doesnt come prepared. Thats something that can easily be fixed with supervision, and is likely the reason he used to pick up fouls quickly and wasnt a good rebounder. As a big guy whos played AAU ball and high school ball since like 3rd grade, I know first hand you cant rebound or defend if you're tired. You just dont have the energy. 

Either way, they are all unproved in some way. Regardless, the Bulls know what they have in each guy, and wont trade them for anything less than a Rashard Lewis/Pau Gasol type player whos also somewhat young, and can produce. Since Pax probably wont get any offers for those players straight up, he'll probably just keep working with the prospects we have. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Well, if Chicago's offer was the highest, I think he'd stay. He has no particular reason to dislike Chicago and it's reasonably close to his home of Phildelphia. Most teams around the league can't offer him anything near $9 million.


Yea, Sheed would be a good player to have at that price. I just dont think the Bulls would bite on it if they are giving up 2 of the guys they have such high hopes in. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I don't think just making the playoffs is success. In the East? No. I think success has to be determined by what these players become. They were supposed to be superstar-quality prospects. If not even one of them becomes a star or superstar, I'd say they didn't pan out.


I dont think Crawford was ever supposed to be a superstar prospect. He was picked 7th (8th technically) in what could be considered the worst draft of all time. Miles, Swift, Fizer, Dermarr Johnson were all selected before him. 

Chandler and Curry are superstar prospects, but Pax would be giving up too early on them by dealing them now. They are only 21, what high school prospects panned out before 21? Most of them break out around 22-24. Chandler and Curry are on the verge of breaking out anytime, their stats show it in select games and usually inconsistency is common before they break out. Infact, Chandler might have been on his way to a breakout season if his back hadnt got injured. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I'm mildly intrigued by Crawford and Curry (not so much Chandler, for reasons I mentioned above). But I wouldn't trade the farm for them. If Bulls fans value them much more highly, I can respect that. But I still don't think Rasheed Wallace for those two and Antonio Davis (which is supposed to be a boon to Chicago, to drop that contract) was an insulting offer, at all. It may not be one Chicago fans embrace (and various Portland fans might not either), but I think it's in the realm of reasonable, at least for discussion sake.


Bulls fans tend to think they should easily be able to get a guy like Rashard Lewis of two of the three prospects are involved. If not, then Bulls fans arent interested. Its not an insulting offer though, Wallace is very talented. He is just on the downward spiral of his career, and thats not worth giving up 2 guys who we have such high hopes for. I think one of the three C's for Wallace would be more realistic as a main trade. Other guys could be thrown in as well to even the edges out a little bit if one side wasnt happy. That may seem like a ripoff on your side though, so I dont know.


----------



## D-Up (Jan 26, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: One good game against Seattle of all teams*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Worrisome, though, is his shooting. Three seasons into his career, if he still hasn't learned better shot selection, I'm not convinced he ever will.


True. Maybe playing with two guys (Randolph and Wallace) who are clearly better to take more shots than him would help him realize he shouldn't shoot too much. He's been one of the 1st two option on offense for the Bulls. That won't be the case here.



> A point guard who scores 18 points per game on 20 shots per game would be a problem, even if he has size, athleticism and passing ability.


True again. I hope he's not set in his ways to be able to change that. I think he can with the right teaching.


----------



## D-Up (Jan 26, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I think one of the three C's for Wallace would be more realistic as a main trade.


Curry or Chandler, not Crawford. I would be okay with a trade for Wallace if we can get either Chandler or Curry, without taking a terrible contract like Davis'. But then that would be a very hard trade to pull off considering Wallace's contract.


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> I defy you to show me a single instance where he has assaulted anyone.


Didn't Sheed throw a basketball the length of the court and hit a guy with it in practice, then run off giggling?

Unless he's going to lead us to a championship, I don't want a guy capable of that kind of garbage on the Bulls.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hps</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't Sheed throw a basketball the length of the court and hit a guy with it in practice, then run off giggling?
> ...


yes. and his only purpose was to hurt boumtje-boumtje. sheed is the anti-christ, you know.

seriously though, someone on this board saw a video clip of the incident, and according to him, it wasn't nearly as bad as was reported by the media...


----------



## bullsfan0302 (Feb 17, 2003)

are you all out of your mind????? Chicago would never give Curry or Crawford (let alone BOTH) for such an overrated player such as sheed. you must be crazy


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

man, if you think hitting someone in the nads on a fluke 100 foot throw is an "assault" akin to what Randolph, Shaq or others have done, I suppose it's your perogative.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullsfan0302</b>!
> are you all out of your mind????? Chicago would never give Curry or Crawford (let alone BOTH) for such an overrated player such as sheed. you must be crazy


You're right. There is a 0% chance that Chicago will make any move where they can get over $17m off the books for next year. Curry, Chandler and Crawford are doing an excellent job leading the Bulls to multiple playoff appearances, and with the small and short contracts of such all-stars as Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams and Eddie Robinson the Bulls have all the cap flexibility they'll need to get over the hump and get more rings for Chicago.

We must be out of our minds to even contemplate the Bulls welcoming the chance to get cap relief and/or other value for their young superstars.

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right. There is a 0% chance that Chicago will make any move where they can get over $17m off the books for next year. Curry, Chandler and Crawford are doing an excellent job leading the Bulls to multiple playoff appearances, and with the small and short contracts of such all-stars as Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams and Eddie Robinson the Bulls have all the cap flexibility they'll need to get over the hump and get more rings for Chicago.
> ...



:worship: OK, that was an impressive display of sarcasm! :clap:


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Minstrel* !
> Clearly you haven't watched Wallace play if you think Antonio Davis is even in the same league. Duncan and Garnett have said Rasheed is the player who gives them the most trouble, defensively. Wallace has held Duncan to 10 points or less twice. He regularly holds top power forwards under their averages without double-team help.


I never said that Davis is the interior defender that Wallace is- I don't doubt that Wallace really is among the best post defenders in the league. All I said was that Davis can provide high quality post defense himself (with superior rebounding to Wallace, I might add). With that in mind, I think it's pretty obvious that the Bulls would most likely have no desire to trade Davis and _two of their three best young prospects_ for Wallace, who for all his post defense is still aging, a hothead, and a pathetic rebounder for a 6'11 starting PF. Especially when you consider that Wallace can walk after the season, it is completely *asinine* to think that the Bulls would even consider such a ridiculously lopsided trade. It's not as if they're craving cap space- the Bulls organization, I'm sure, is well aware of their track record in terms of ability to bring in top flight free agents. We're not gonna get Kobe, cap space or no, so the Bulls would have to be retarded to do this deal.




> Payton punched a referee the same time that Wallace did: either "never" or "last Tuesday, in your fantasies." Your pick.
> 
> Again...ignorance.


Actually, that part was my mistake- I was under the impression that Sheed had punched referee Tim Donaghy after that game in Memphis last season. I was mistaken...... Rasheed only cursed him out and threatened him. That's still pretty out-of-control in my book, but admittedly not nearly as bad as I thought.



> Calling Wallace "crap we don't want" would be as foolish as me calling Curry and Crawford "crap you don't want." My first choice is to re-sign Wallace.


Maybe *your* first choice is to resign Rasheed, but somehow I doubt that the Blazer organization feels the same way. If he is really such a valuable player to the Blazers, than how come every other week there's a trade rumor swirling around him? 

The simple truth is that the Blazers now have a PF who's younger, cheaper, more productive, and can actually rebound the ball. Sheed is expendable, and other teams know it. 



> Most likely, that will prove to be a better choice than trading them for Curry and Crawford, too.


I agree- but not from the Bulls. I have no doubt that the Blazers can get a lot of value for Sheed from some team that is desperate to clear cap space, but the Bulls are not one of those. Top flight free agents simply don't come to Chicago.



> Who said anyone wants them "so bad"? I brought it up as a mere possibility, kiddo. Do you see me creating thread after thread lusting after your amazing disappointments? The only reason I thought it might be a good idea was because Nash seems to want to go younger and cheaper...a possibility is to go whole hog and take some risks.


Look at the tagline and entire first page of this thread! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that it's alot of Blazer fans saying how badly they all want him:

-"Jamal Crawford ... WOW (post #1) 
My gosh.. anyone watching the Chicago/Sonics game?... with the proper coaching this guy could become one of the premier point guards in the league... one play he takes it down the middle, and sees no opening.. so he bounces the ball off the backboard takes two steps in and dunks it in (it was basically the T-mac dunk)... but in addition he draws the foul for a three point play. Flashy plays like this don't make a player good, but they're also not easy to do. 
This guy has a shot (when he's not taking those 27 foot three pointers 8 times a game).. He definitely can pass almost with marbury precision... has one of the craziest crossovers in the league...he's 6'5"... two things keeping him from becoming great are shot selection(not improving) and defense(improving)... 
Blazers should make a play for him.. IMO"

-"I second that. He is an incredable talent. Like you stateed he is wild and crazy at times but he has NO ONE on that team."

-"i would be estatic if we could get Craw and Curry for Q, Dale and both of our 2004 1st rounders"

-"I been saying this for a while, Chicago should be the #1 team Blazers deal with for any potential trades. Rasheed plus Qyntel would be a package Paxton would like for Curry or Chandler plus Crawford and we can take Antonio Davis' crappy contract. Id be all for it."



> Curry, Chandler and Crawford aren't terribly good players. They're high risks. Sometimes high risks are appealing but, to be honest, high risks are usually poor decisions, too.
> 
> Most likely, the Bulls will simply remain at the bottom of the league for a few more years, flush out Crawford, Chandler and Curry for nearly nothing (or just let them walk) and start a new rebuild.
> 
> So maybe you're right, that the Bulls would never give up such a glorious future. And maybe I shouldn't bother wishing that future on Portland.


So you've got a crystal ball or something? Look, I never said that these kids were stars or anything- with the exception of Chandler, they have been hugely dissapointing this season, and I would happily trade them if a good oppurtunity were to present itself. But what you are offering is not a good oppurtunity- it's a hugely lopsided trade that only a massively biased Blazer fan could think up. It is very true that Crawford, Curry and Chandler have yet to lead the Bulls anywhere, and I am just as skeptical as you that they ever will lead the Bulls anywhere as long as the team remains as it is currently constructed. But they are all, at the very least, extremely talented players, all three. Especially when you consider their young age, that counts for a whole hell of a lot more than you are giving it credit for. I absolutely guarantee that the Bulls can get a much better return on their young talent than this, and I truly hope that they do, because I am sick and tired of watching this crappy team suck it up every single night.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> originally posted by *the Wanker*
> 
> Are you insane? Sheed is the worst disciplinary problem in the NBA after Artest?
> 
> ...


I already explained that I was mistaken about Rasheed assaulting that ref, so I apologize for that remark. However, he still is most certainly among the biggest headcases in the league. It doesn't really matter if he has cleaned up his act lately- his repuation is still well-known among league executives, and reputations are extremely hard to leave behind in this buisness. His track record speaks for itself- let's go down the list:

-Two seasons ago he picked up an astonishing, record-number 41 technical fouls and seven ejections, leading the league in both catagories.
- He picked up a seven-game suspension for threatening a referee outside the Rose Garden after a game.
- He was arrested and charged with marijuana possession in November 2002 while riding in a car with Damon Stoudamire. 
-He's been one of the players most responsible for Portland's reputation as the "Jail Blazers", and he was at least partially responsible for the team bringing in Steve Patterson this year for the sole purpose of cleaning house.

Personally, I actually don't think that Sheed's behavioral problems are even that big of a deal anymore- I actually believe that he does alot more good than he does harm for a team nowadays, and there's nothing wrong with a little chronic in my book. But it doesn't matter what I think- it matters what other organizations think, and if you think that all his behavioral problems haven't hurt his trade value immensely, then you're blind. 

As much as you Blazer fans may like him Sheed is most definitely one of the league's biggest headcases. IMO, he and Artest share the title. It's certainly not as if I am not the only one who shares this opinion either- for example, just check out this link: 
http://www.cracksmoker.com/NBA/NBA WallaceR.htm 
Not exactly a fair and unbiased evaluation of the man, but it at least chronicles and puts into perspective all the questionable things he's done over the course of his career.




> I defy you to show me a single instance where he has assaulted anyone.


Funny, now that you mention it....................

"Rasheed Wallace of the Washington Bullets will get to wait a year before his case goes forward on charges he assaulted his girlfriend. Chiquita Bryant, Wallace's girlfriend and mother of his child, filed the charges over the Easter weekend. Durham District Attorney Jim Hardin said Wallace's arrangement with the court includes community service and 12 months' probation. Wallace, a former North Carolina star who just finished his rookie NBA season, will have to participate in a program that helps men change attitudes about domestic violence."

And then there's this:

"The attorney for basketball star Rasheed Wallace says a second assault charge against his client in the past two months is an attempt to frame Wallace. Wallace, a former North Carolina star now playing for the Washington Bullets, was charged with simple assault after he allegedly blocked Chiquita Bryant's car in at the day-care center Thursday and refused to let her leave. "It's another case of misunderstanding," James D. "Butch" Williams, Wallace's lawyer, said Friday. "Mr. Wallace was set up. This was not of his own doing. He was only trying to exercise his court-ordered visitation rights with his child. We intend to vigorously defend against this charge." If convicted of the charge, Wallace could face again an earlier assault charge filed in April of assaulting Bryant. Prosecution on that charge was deferred for a year after Wallace apologized in court and agreed to perform 50 hours of community service and to seek counseling for his anger. "


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right. There is a 0% chance that Chicago will make any move where they can get over $17m off the books for next year. Curry, Chandler and Crawford are doing an excellent job leading the Bulls to multiple playoff appearances, and with the small and short contracts of such all-stars as Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams and Eddie Robinson the Bulls have all the cap flexibility they'll need to get over the hump and get more rings for Chicago.
> ...


Now Ed, take it easy on our guests and play nice! :laugh:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Especially when you consider that Wallace can walk after the season, it is completely *asinine* to think that the Bulls would even consider such a ridiculously lopsided trade.


It's not lopsided unless you discount the likelihood that Curry will never amount to anything. If you have already penciled in Curry as a star/superstar, yes, it's lopsided.

I don't think Wallace is likely to walk. Why would he? The Bulls can offer him the most (and yet still much less than his current salary, *saving* the Bulls cap space), Chicago is fairly close to his hometown of Philadelphia (much closer than Portland is). Most teams won't be able to offer Wallace more than the MLE. Even if Chicago offered him $9 million, they likely keep him *and* save $8 million of cap space (for whatever benefit that is).

Wallace, at center, would likely be the best center in the East.



> Rasheed only cursed him out and threatened him. That's still pretty out-of-control in my book, but admittedly not nearly as bad as I thought.


Not that out-of-control when you consider that, reportedly, the referee cursed at Wallace, prompting Wallace's outburst. Many people in this country would react angrily to being cursed at. It's not like Wallace did it unprovoked or was laying in wait for the ref. He and Brevin Knight were leaving the arena together and happened to run into Donaghy.



> Maybe *your* first choice is to resign Rasheed, but somehow I doubt that the Blazer organization feels the same way. If he is really such a valuable player to the Blazers, than how come every other week there's a trade rumor swirling around him?


Trade rumour swirling around Wallace don't say anything about his availability. He *could* be dealt, obviously, but it's obvious that Nash places high value on him, as he's evidently turned down deals for Jamison, Dampier + Van Exel and others.



> The simple truth is that the Blazers now have a PF who's younger, cheaper, more productive, and can actually rebound the ball. Sheed is expendable, and other teams know it.


Evidently you're unaware that Wallace has moved to center. He's hardly expendable. He's far and away the best center the Blazers have, and he's a great compliment for Zach Randolph. Nash has expressed his interest in Wallace coming back, Wallace has expressed interest in staying. Wallace and Randolph form one of the best front courts (center + power forward) in the league.



> I agree- but not from the Bulls. I have no doubt that the Blazers can get a lot of value for Sheed from some team that is desperate to clear cap space, but the Bulls are not one of those. Top flight free agents simply don't come to Chicago.


Either a team that wants cap space or a team that wants an excellent power forward or center. And that's fine if you think the Bulls can't use him...but I'm not sure if *A.* you're right or *B.* Paxson feels the way you do.

Maybe.



> Look at the tagline and entire first page of this thread! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that it's alot of Blazer fans saying how badly they all want him


The tagline was about a dunk he did. As far as people wanting him, this was the most passionate one:

-"i would be estatic if we could get Craw and Curry for Q, Dale and both of our 2004 1st rounders"

And I agree with that poster. I'd also be ecstatic to get Crawford and Curry without giving up any of our best players. Woods is as raw as anyone, Dale is not very good anymore and our first rounders are unlikely to be impact.

So, sure...I'm sure people would love to get Curry and Crawford for very little. When I said, "Who wants them *so bad*?" I was mostly talking about myself (i.e. my proposal for them hardly indicated deep desire for them) but I think sentiment would be extremely mixed about getting them, due to their disappointing history.



> So you've got a crystal ball or something?


Nope. Just my opinion.



> But what you are offering is not a good oppurtunity- it's a hugely lopsided trade that only a massively biased Blazer fan could think up.


Bull****. Another Chicago fan, on this very thread, agreed that the offer was far from insulting, that it was reasonable...he just wouldn't do it. Which is fine.

Therefore, I think *you* are the massively biased fan here, to claim that two disappointments and a horrific contract are "massive overpayment" for an excellent power forward / center.



> But they are all, at the very least, extremely talented players, all three.


Uh yeah, that remains to be seen.



> I absolutely guarantee that the Bulls can get a much better return on their young talent than this, and I truly hope that they do


Yeah...we'll see. Three equally great prospects sure worked out well for the Clippers.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> It's not lopsided unless you discount the likelihood that Curry will never amount to anything. If you have already penciled in Curry as a star/superstar, yes, it's lopsided.


No- even if you consider Curry for what exactly what he is- a 21-year old 7-footer averaging 13.3 ppg and 6 rpg on the season- it is still pretty lopsided. Post that trade on the Bulls board, or better yet, the main NBA board, and see how many people think that the Bulls would do something like that.



> I don't think Wallace is likely to walk. Why would he? The Bulls can offer him the most (and yet still much less than his current salary, saving the Bulls cap space), Chicago is fairly close to his hometown of Philadelphia (much closer than Portland is). Most teams won't be able to offer Wallace more than the MLE. Even if Chicago offered him $9 million, they likely keep him and save $8 million of cap space (for whatever benefit that is).


Philadelphia is still a good 9-10 hours from Chicago- I don't think that matters. Rasheed *will* walk if he has any sense in him ( I believe he does). Chicago will never be a contender as long as he is in the league if they do this trade. Indeed, they may not be even they don't, but they'll at least have a chance if they A.) stick with their current young guys and hope they improve with age, as they accumulate high draft picks in the meantime *or* B.) trade their young guys for other talented young guys or draft picks intsead of aging power forwards.



> Not that out-of-control when you consider that, reportedly, the referee cursed at Wallace, prompting Wallace's outburst. Many people in this country would react angrily to being cursed at. It's not like Wallace did it unprovoked or was laying in wait for the ref. He and Brevin Knight were leaving the arena together and happened to run into Donaghy.


Stop looking at him through rose-colored glasses. Cursing out and threatening an NBA official is out-of-control, no matter how you look at it. I could maybe understand if it happened in the heat of battle, but it happened after the game was over. You have to leave stuff like that out on the court.



> Trade rumour swirling around Wallace don't say anything about his availability. He could be dealt, obviously, but it's obvious that Nash places high value on him, as he's evidently turned down deals for Jamison, Dampier + Van Exel and others.


Nash has turned down offers like those because he knows that he can get a ton of value for Sheed from a team that is craving cap relief and/or needs some post scoring and defense for the playoff stretch. The Bulls are not in the playoff hunt and aren't in desperate need of cap space, so they fall into neither catagory.



> Evidently you're unaware that Wallace has moved to center. He's hardly expendable. He's far and away the best center the Blazers have, and he's a great compliment for Zach Randolph. Nash has expressed his interest in Wallace coming back, Wallace has expressed interest in staying. Wallace and Randolph form one of the best front courts (center + power forward) in the league.


I'm well aware of that, but Wallace is a PF by nature, no matter how you figure it. He's 6'11, 230 lbs.- he might fare well against other teams with PFs masquerading as centers, but he'll always be overmatched against teams with quality, true centers- a problem that will become more and more prevalent the older he gets. Wallace and Randolph may form an effective frontcourt tandem, but you will never get very far with them in today's Western conference.



> Either a team that wants cap space or a team that wants an excellent power forward or center. And that's fine if you think the Bulls can't use him...but I'm not sure if A. you're right or B. Paxson feels the way you do.
> 
> Maybe.


I have no doubt that the Bulls could _use_ Wallace- he'd undoubtedly make them a better team in the immediate sense. But the Bulls are not going anywhere in the immediate future, Wallace or no Wallace- so why would they trade away valuable young players/trade bait for a 29-year old PF who can and most likely will walk after the season is over? Especially when you consider that Wallace is really nothing special (17 ppg and 6.7 rpg is really not all that impressive), the deal really makes no sense at all from the Bulls' perspective.



> -"i would be estatic if we could get Craw and Curry for Q, Dale and both of our 2004 1st rounders"
> 
> And I agree with that poster. I'd also be ecstatic to get Crawford and Curry without giving up any of our best players. Woods is as raw as anyone, Dale is not very good anymore and our first rounders are unlikely to be impact.


I bet you'd be ecstatic, but it's not gonna happen. I only brought that up as an example of a Blazer fan wanting Crawford and Curry- not as an example of a fair trade (or a trade that is even close being fair, for that matter).



> So, sure...I'm sure people would love to get Curry and Crawford for very little. When I said, "Who wants them so bad?" I was mostly talking about myself (i.e. my proposal for them hardly indicated deep desire for them) but I think sentiment would be extremely mixed about getting them, due to their disappointing history.


Jamal Crawford is averaging 17.3 ppg and 5.5 apg this season. For a 23-year old playing in what is really the first full season getting regular minutes, that is far from dissapointing. If anything, Rasheed's numbers have been far more dissapointing this season relative to what was expected of him (6.7 rpg for a starting PF or C is absolutely *pathetic*)



> Bull****. Another Chicago fan, on this very thread, agreed that the offer was far from insulting, that it was reasonable...he just wouldn't do it. Which is fine.


Maybe that Chicago fan thinks we have a legitimate shot at Kobe and wants to clear the cap space. If you think the Bulls have a shot at Kobe, the deal is more than fair from our perspective. Personally though, I tend to think that a snowball has a better chance in hell than Kobe coming to Chicago.





> Therefore, I think you are the massively biased fan here, to claim that two disappointments and a horrific contract are "massive overpayment" for an excellent power forward / center.


A couple problems here:
-Crawford is far from a dissapointment. His #'s are comparable to Sheed's relative to his position, and Crawford is younger, cheaper, and does not carry the baggage/reputation that Rasheed does.
-Curry, while he has most definitely been a dissapointment this year, is still a 21-year old 7-footer averaging 13.3 ppg and 6 rpg on the season. It is far too early to write him off as a bust, especially when you consider how rare true centers are nowadays.
-The "horrific contract" you speak of still goes to a productive, hard-working, professional veteran who has been everything the Bulls have needed him to be this season. They are not nearly as desperate to move him as you seem to think.

So yeah, I'd still have to say that it's you who is massively biased, and me who is perfect in every conceivable way. 

But don't take my word for it- post this trade on the NBA forum and see how many people think that the Bulls would actually do this trade.:yes:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

No offense LOUIE, but Bulls' fans seem a little schizo on this subject.

When it comes to trade talks, you guys seem to value Crawford and Curry very highly.

The rest of the time, the Bull's board is full of posts flogging the 2 kids! 

Since many people here have the same problem with Sheed - it seems like a perfect trade! :bsmile:


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> No offense LOUIE, but Bulls' fans seem a little schizo on this subject.
> 
> When it comes to trade talks, you guys seem to value Crawford and Curry very highly.
> 
> The rest of the time, the Bull's board is full of posts flogging the 2 kids!


That's the thing- I don't even value them all that highly. Alot of those posts flogging them on the Bulls board are probably mine. But that doesn't mean that I am willing to just give them away for a guy that is just going to walk after the season anyway. I have said before that I would not at all be averse to trading Crawford and Curry if a *good* oppurtunity were to present itself, but I hardly consider this to be a "good" oppurtunity, and I'm sure that most Bulls fans would agree with me. Even if Sheed were to re-up, he is still a 29-year old who can't rebound and has a history of disciplinary problems. Trading for him really would not benefit us in any way, long-term.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Post that trade on the Bulls board, or better yet, the main NBA board, and see how many people think that the Bulls would do something like that.


Wallace is quite undervalued by fans, because most fans are ignorant about him. *You* thought he had punched an official. Most fans are just as ignorant about Wallace.



> Stop looking at him through rose-colored glasses. Cursing out and threatening an NBA official is out-of-control, no matter how you look at it. I could maybe understand if it happened in the heat of battle, but it happened after the game was over. You have to leave stuff like that out on the court.


Did you even read what I said? It had nothing to do with on-court stuff. He wasn't waiting for the ref to curse him out for what the ref did. *The ref was cursing at Wallace and Wallace cursed him back*. Not enlightened, but hardly out-of-control.



> I'm well aware of that, but Wallace is a PF by nature, no matter how you figure it. He's 6'11, 230 lbs.- he might fare well against other teams with PFs masquerading as centers, but he'll always be overmatched against teams with quality, true centers- a problem that will become more and more prevalent the older he gets. Wallace and Randolph may form an effective frontcourt tandem, but you will never get very far with them in today's Western conference.


You seem to be under the impression that "Center = Shaquille O'Neal." There's only one O'Neal (and Wallace has actually defended him well in the past...as well as one can). The toughest big men in the league today are power forwards. Yao Ming is probably the second most imposing center and he's as passive as they come.

Face it...in today's league, Wallace can play center against anybody. No sweat. Power forwards are who he has to bring his 'A' game against.




> I only brought that up as an example of a Blazer fan wanting Crawford and Curry- not as an example of a fair trade


Yeah, but wanting them for nothing doesn't count as wanting them "so bad," which was the point here.



> Jamal Crawford is averaging 17.3 ppg and 5.5 apg this season. For a 23-year old playing in what is really the first full season getting regular minutes, that is far from dissapointing.


Take a gander at his field goal percentage. He doesn't even shoot 40%. For a player to still have as poor a shot selection as he does after three seasons, into his fourth season (and it's not improving), is very disappointing. It leaves great doubt as to whether he'll ever have good shot selection.

Volume scorers on volume shots aren't that rare or valuable. And Crawford's not even a volume scorer yet. Scoring 17 points on 16 shots is not terribly important. It *is* very Damon Stoudamire, though. 

Anyway, I think we can perhaps agree to disagree. We both know, from prior experience, that we can argue each other for pages and pages. You think I'm massively biased, I think you are...but ultimately, I don't really care. I'm quite happy holding onto Wallace and there's a better than 50% chance that the Blazers will be better off for it. I only brought up such a trade for the novelty of an "all-prospect" lineup and discussion. Not because I had any great desire to do it. The Bulls and Clippers have shown the folly of trying to do a total tear-down and rebuild with all prospects.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Wallace is quite undervalued by fans, because most fans are ignorant about him. You thought he had punched an official. Most fans are just as ignorant about Wallace.
> 
> Did you even read what I said? It had nothing to do with on-court stuff. He wasn't waiting for the ref to curse him out for what the ref did. The ref was cursing at Wallace and Wallace cursed him back. Not enlightened, but hardly out-of-control.


I read what you said, but I do not necessarily believe that's how it happened. I've already said that I was mistaken about him hitting that official, but the reason I thought that had happened was because I was going by the official statement from Stu Jackson (NBA Senior Vice President); "He accosted a referee and threatened him''. Not just that, but no report that I've ever read about the incident ever said anything about the referee initiating the encounter. This ESPN report certainly makes it sound as if Wallace was the one who approached Donaghy:

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0118/1494990.html 
"Trail Blazers forward Rasheed Wallace was suspended Saturday for seven games without pay for confronting and threatening a referee outside the Rose Garden in Portland."

Of cours, it could be a case of media bias or just a mistake on the reporter's part, but going from the article it seems like Wallace was the aggressor. If that's still not enough to convince you that he's a headcase, then how about his being fined $15,000 for trying to go after a fan who threw a wad of chewing gum on him after a game against Golden State? How about the assault charges filed against him by his ex-girlfriend when he was with the Bullets? How about his record-number 41 technical fouls two years ago, along with a league-leading 7 ejections?



> You seem to be under the impression that "Center = Shaquille O'Neal." There's only one O'Neal (and Wallace has actually defended him well in the past...as well as one can). The toughest big men in the league today are power forwards. Yao Ming is probably the second most imposing center and he's as passive as they come.


Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Yao Ming, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, even the Brad Miller/Vlade Divac combo to a lesser extent; egardless of their official position or whether they are better actual players than Wallace, straight-up- they are all guys who would badly overmatch Wallace physically and run him ragged in any playoff series (assuming they ever were to face him- probably doubtful in the case of Ilgauskas unless he gets traded). A Wallace-Randolph frontcourt probably is one of the better frontcourts in the league and would most likely fare well against most other frontcourts, but you will never, ever make it to a Finals series with that frontcourt tandem- I don't need a crystal ball to tell you that.



> Yeah, but wanting them for nothing doesn't count as wanting them "so bad," which was the point here.


Alright, well then disregard that statement and take a look at the other ones I re-posted. They seem to be conveying the basic message that A.) they want Crawford, and B.) he could be really outstanding with the right coaching.




> Take a gander at his field goal percentage. He doesn't even shoot 40%. For a player to still have as poor a shot selection as he does after three seasons, into his fourth season (and it's not improving), is very disappointing. It leaves great doubt as to whether he'll ever have good shot selection.
> 
> Volume scorers on volume shots aren't that rare or valuable. And Crawford's not even a volume scorer yet. Scoring 17 points on 16 shots is not terribly important. It is very Damon Stoudamire, though.


Speaking of ignorance of a player, you are demonstrating some right now. There have been alot of times, especially early in the season, where Crawford would take shots that I would shake my head at. But the fact is that the *primary* reason that his FG% is so low is that fact that so many of his shots are three-pointers. And I would say that that's a good thing; do you realize that shooting 50% from two-point range is the same as shooting 33% from three-point range? And it's not as if Rasheed is even shooting 50% from the field- come to think of it, 44% is pretty damn low for a PF.

Sure I would like Crawford to improve his shot selection, but a big part of that is the fact that he has no other consistent offensive weapons to go to, and he often ends up with the ball in his hands as the clock is winding down. And for the record, Crawford has shown marked improvment in recent games in terms of overal shot selection and willingness to attack the basket and get to the line.



> Anyway, I think we can perhaps agree to disagree. We both know, from prior experience, that we can argue each other for pages and pages.


Agree to disagree? Hell no!; half the fun of these boards is going for pages and pages.:yes:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> I read what you said, but I do not necessarily believe that's how it happened. I've already said that I was mistaken about him hitting that official, but the reason I thought that had happened was because I was going by the official statement from Stu Jackson (NBA Senior Vice President); "He accosted a referee and threatened him''. Not just that, but no report that I've ever read about the incident ever said anything about the referee initiating the encounter.


Brevin Knight originally said so, before the league announcement. I would hardly expect the league announcement to be unbiased. They're not going to announce something that makes them look bad.



> If that's still not enough to convince you that he's a headcase, then how about his being fined $15,000 for trying to go after a fan who threw a wad of chewing gum on him after a game against Golden State?


If anyone in the world goes after someone who threw something at them, they'd hardly be labelled a "headcase." You're just using that conveniently. It in no way sunstantiates his being a headcase. Many, many people in this country would confront someone who threw a piece of gum at them. You might, yourself. (No, I don't know you, which is why I said "might.")



> How about the assault charges filed against him by his ex-girlfriend when he was with the Bullets? How about his record-number 41 technical fouls two years ago, along with a league-leading 7 ejections?


What were the *results* of those charges? Are they still pending, six years later? Further, I said he's done nothing over the last couple of years that make him a headcase. His technicals he's willfully cut down, which in fact shows that he does want to improve his on-court behaviour. His off-court behaviour is fine.



> Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Yao Ming, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, even the Brad Miller/Vlade Divac combo to a lesser extent; egardless of their official position or whether they are better actual players than Wallace, straight-up- they are all guys who would badly overmatch Wallace physically and run him ragged in any playoff series (assuming they ever were to face him- probably doubtful in the case of Ilgauskas unless he gets traded).


Are you kidding, throwing Duncan in there? Wallace already routinely defends Duncan because Duncan is a *power forward*. As I also said, he's held Duncan to 10 points or less twice and he generally holds him under his average without much double-team help. And, as I also said, Duncan and Garnett said that Rasheed is the defender who gives them the most trouble.

Yao Ming, I already covered. He's a passive player (which you've also said, which makes you throwing him in as someone who would "badly overmatch Wallace" rather bizarre) who really doesn't play a power game.

Ilgauskas, I've never seen Wallace play, but there's no one more rugged than Shaquille O'Neal and Wallace primarily defended him in one playoff series a couple of years ago (in Cheeks' first year). Wallace actually played O'Neal well, holding him to his averages without much double-team help and without picking up foul trouble.

If Wallace can defend Shaq, he can defend anyone. And there's no center in the league who's going to "run Wallace ragged." Wallace is as mobile or more mobile than any big man in the game.



> A Wallace-Randolph frontcourt probably is one of the better frontcourts in the league and would most likely fare well against most other frontcourts, but you will never, ever make it to a Finals series with that frontcourt tandem- I don't need a crystal ball to tell you that.


Sure the Blazers could. The Blazers would just need more talent around them. Right now, they're weak at the 1, 2 and 3. Change that and the Blazers could definitely go to the Finals with Wallace and Randolph.



> Speaking of ignorance of a player, you are demonstrating some right now. There have been alot of times, especially early in the season, where Crawford would take shots that I would shake my head at. But the fact is that the *primary* reason that his FG% is so low is that fact that so many of his shots are three-pointers. And I would say that that's a good thing; do you realize that shooting 50% from two-point range is the same as shooting 33% from three-point range?


Yes, but then, he's not shooting 33%. He's shooting close, at 31%, but his three-point percentage is in it's third year of decline. That's a very bad trend combined with this being his second straight year of increased three-point attempts. He's shooting more and shooting worse, year by year.



> Sure I would like Crawford to improve his shot selection, but a big part of that is the fact that he has no other consistent offensive weapons to go to, and he often ends up with the ball in his hands as the clock is winding down.


Sure, but that was also true of players like Damon Stoudamire, Jason Terry, etc. Mediocre players who are in love with shooting. The fact is, unless you are a seminal scorer, like a Stephon Marbury or Iasiah Thomas or Gary Payton, a point guard who likes to shoot a lot is not a good thing. Baron Davis is proving that with his mad three-point assault.

Maybe Crawford will become a Marbury-type, but I don't think it's likely.



> Agree to disagree? Hell no!; half the fun of these boards is going for pages and pages.:yes:


Heh.  Just give up and make it easy on us both!


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Brevin Knight originally said so, before the league announcement. I would hardly expect the league announcement to be unbiased. They're not going to announce something that makes them look bad.


That's fine then- I was just going by what the league had said, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them to pin it entirely on the player. 



> If anyone in the world goes after someone who threw something at them, they'd hardly be labelled a "headcase." You're just using that conveniently. It in no way sunstantiates his being a headcase. Many, many people in this country would confront someone who threw a piece of gum at them. You might, yourself. (No, I don't know you, which is why I said "might.")


How many NBA players go after fans during or after games? Not many, and those that do are usually reagarded as headcases. Make whatever excuses you want for it- that is not good PR under any cirsumstances. I'm not making a personal judgement of him (I might have gone after the guy myself)- I'm only talking about how it impacts his reputation among league execs. 




> What were the results of those charges? Are they still pending, six years later?


I dunno- I can't any more information about it online. Either way, it's still bad PR.




> Further, I said he's done nothing over the last couple of years that make him a headcase. His technicals he's willfully cut down, which in fact shows that he does want to improve his on-court behaviour. His off-court behaviour is fine.


Maybe he has cut down on his technicals, but that's not really saying much when you set the league record with 41 in a season. According to ESPN, Rasheed is still *#1* in the league in technicals this season, and what's this I hear about him being ejected from Wednesday's game against Phoenix in the 2nd quarter?

And it doesn't really matter if his off-court behavior is fine _now_- reputations stay with you in this buisness.



> Are you kidding, throwing Duncan in there? Wallace already routinely defends Duncan because Duncan is a power forward. As I also said, he's held Duncan to 10 points or less twice and he generally holds him under his average without much double-team help. And, as I also said, Duncan and Garnett said that Rasheed is the defender who gives them the most trouble.


I threw Duncan in there because he is an extremely talented 7-footer who weighs at least 30 lbs. more than Wallace. It doesn't matter what his official position is- Wallace would have to guard to him if the Blazers played in the Spurs in a playoff series. Even if Wallace did limit Duncan's offensive output in a series, Duncan's the kind of player that makes his whole team better. There's little doubt in my mind that either the Spurs or Garnett's T-Wolves would eat the Blazers alive in a 7-game series.



> Yao Ming, I already covered. He's a passive player (which you've also said, which makes you throwing him in as someone who would "badly overmatch Wallace" rather bizarre) who really doesn't play a power game.


So just because he's a "passive player" in his 2nd season in the NBA, you don't have to worry about him? Yao is the best young center prospect on the NBA horizon and he's only going to get better. His numbers are already better than Sheed's overall (16.1 ppg and 9.1 rpg)- imagine what he's gonna do once he gets a PG that'll actually give the ball. The reason I say that he would badly overmatch Wallace in a head-to-head matchup is the fact that he's got about 6 inches and 80 lbs. on Wallace. Even if you don't play the most physical game in the world, those are huge advantages. 

And for the record, Yao's Rockets have a better record than Sheed's Blazers.




> Ilgauskas, I've never seen Wallace play, but there's no one more rugged than Shaquille O'Neal and Wallace primarily defended him in one playoff series a couple of years ago (in Cheeks' first year). Wallace actually played O'Neal well, holding him to his averages without much double-team help and without picking up foul trouble.


Oh yeah, I remember that series- how did the Blazers fare in that series, by the way? They didn't get swept or anything, did they? 



> If Wallace can defend Shaq, he can defend anyone. And there's no center in the league who's going to "run Wallace ragged." Wallace is as mobile or more mobile than any big man in the game.


I don't mean that they'd actually run him ragged up and down the floor- it's just a figure of speech. I just mean that guarding a guy that is bigger, stronger, and in some cases better than you is going to take a big toll on a guy over the course of a 7-game series.



> Sure the Blazers could. The Blazers would just need more talent around them. Right now, they're weak at the 1, 2 and 3. Change that and the blazers could definitely go to the Finals with Wallace and Randolph.


OK fine- if the Blazers somehow mirculously pulled of deals for Kobe Bryant and Jason Kidd (or guys along those lines), they could go to the Finals with that frontcourt. Only problem is that I don't know where you expect to get guys like that- outside of Sheed and Randoplh, I don't really see who the Blazers have with any kind of significant trade value.



> Yes, but then, he's not shooting 33%. He's shooting close, at 31%, but his three-point percentage is in it's third year of decline. That's a very bad trend combined with this being his third straight year of increased three-point attempts. He's shooting more and shooting worse, year by year.


That's because he's being relied on more and more to carry the team offensively. Last year, he at least had help from Jalen Rose on the perimeter, and Curry was tearing it up in the post throughout the second half of the season. I can't even tell you how many times Crawford has wound up with the ball in his hands as the shot-clock was winding down this season, simply because he is the only player on the team who can create a shot for himself off the dribble. 

Anyway, 31% from 3-point range still equates to about 46-48% from 2-point range, which really is not too bad at all. He has also improved markedly over the course of the season in terms of shot selection and accuracy.



> Sure, but that was also true of players like Damon Stoudamire, Jason Terry, etc. Mediocre players who are in love with shooting. The fact is, unless you are a seminal scorer, like a Stephon Marbury or Iasiah Thomas or Gary Payton, a point guard who likes to shoot a lot is not a good thing. Baron Davis is proving that with his mad three-point assault.


Baron Davis is carrying his team to a winning record, so he must be doing something right. And Jamal Crawford is not the same as Terry and Damon- not only because he is actually tall enough to play SG if necessary, but because he actually does have some genuine PG skills. I never saw much of those from either of those other two guys.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> that is not good PR under any cirsumstances. I'm not making a personal judgement of him (I might have gone after the guy myself)- I'm only talking about how it impacts his reputation among league execs.
> ...
> ...


"Reputations" matter more with fans and media then with GMs. People always say, "So and so has no value because he's got baggage" and then lo and behold, someone signs him for a lot of money or makes a fairly large trade.

But really, I'm not too interested in arguing PR value. Maybe you think he has little to no value due to PR, doesn't matter. I'm arguing real value in the deal, which I think is within the realm of reason.



> I threw Duncan in there because he is an extremely talented 7-footer who weighs at least 30 lbs. more than Wallace. It doesn't matter what his official position is- Wallace would have to guard to him if the Blazers played in the Spurs in a playoff series.


You completely misunderstood. My point was not that Wallace would avoid Duncan, by being a center. My point is that Duncan is old-hat. Wallace has been defending him for years. He's not some great new challenge for Wallace, some obstacle to Wallace playing center.



> There's little doubt in my mind that either the Spurs or Garnett's T-Wolves would eat the Blazers alive in a 7-game series.
> ...
> And for the record, Yao's Rockets have a better record than Sheed's Blazers.
> ...
> Oh yeah, I remember that series- how did the Blazers fare in that series, by the way? They didn't get swept or anything, did they?


Pretty weak, Louie. I expect better from you. All these comments are totally worthless, because I'm not arguing the Blazers' team strength.

It's like me saying, "What value do Curry, Chandler and Crawford have? The Kings would stomp them with their second unit. The Wolves would beat the Bulls by 30 in their sleep. Etc, etc. Clearly, they have no value."

You basically dodged each point with a, "Yeah? Well that team would rock your team!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!!"  (Okay, maybe I exaggerated it a bit, but stay on task. This is about Wallace, the player. Not the Blazers, and whether they can beat the Spurs.)



> So just because he's a "passive player" in his 2nd season in the NBA, you don't have to worry about him? Yao is the best young center prospect on the NBA horizon and he's only going to get better.


Uh, again, want to stay with us on topic? "Passive" doesn't mean "bad." Ming is a very good player. He's just unlikely to physically overmatch Wallace or run him ragged, since he's not a physical player. Clear enough? Ming's stats have nothing to do with whether he's capable of physically punishing defenders.



> I don't mean that they'd actually run him ragged up and down the floor- it's just a figure of speech. I just mean that guarding a guy that is bigger, stronger, and in some cases better than you is going to take a big toll on a guy over the course of a 7-game series.


If Wallace can decently defend Shaquille O'Neal, if he can well defend the Western power forwards, he can handle the Greg Ostergumps of the world. The center position isn't a bunch of Shaquille O'Neals.



> Anyway, 31% from 3-point range still equates to about 46-48% from 2-point range, which really is not too bad at all.


No, it's not, but he's trending downwards. That *is* bad.



> Baron Davis is carrying his team to a winning record, so he must be doing something right.


Yeah, he's still an excellent player. Just not as valuable a player as he was before he killed his offensive efficiency with a crapload of three-pointers.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> "Reputations" matter more with fans and media then with GMs. People always say, "So and so has no value because he's got baggage" and then lo and behold, someone signs him for a lot of money or makes a fairly large trade.
> 
> But really, I'm not too interested in arguing PR value. Maybe you think he has little to no value due to PR, doesn't matter. I'm arguing real value in the deal, which I think is within the realm of reason.


When did I ever say that Sheed has, "little to no value due to PR"? In fact, I clearly said earlier in this thread that Nash can get a ton of value for Sheed from a team that is craving cap relief and/or needs some post scoring and defense for the playoff stretch. However, if you think that his trade value hasn't been hurt by his reputation as a headcase, then I would have to say that you are blind.



> Pretty weak, Louie. I expect better from you. All these comments are totally worthless, because I'm not arguing the Blazers' team strength.
> 
> It's like me saying, "What value do Curry, Chandler and Crawford have? The Kings would stomp them with their second unit. The Wolves would beat the Bulls by 30 in their sleep. Etc, etc. Clearly, they have no value."
> 
> You basically dodged each point with a, "Yeah? Well that team would rock your team!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!!" (Okay, maybe I exaggerated it a bit, but stay on task. This is about Wallace, the player. Not the Blazers, and whether they can beat the Spurs.)


I didn't throw those comments in there to dodge the points- I just put them in there to keep things in perspective. For all the greatness of the Randolph/Wallace frontcourt you speak of, they have not been able to lead the Blazers to a winning record this season. The other factor here is that Wallace has, if anything, a superior supporting cast to Tim Duncan (talent-wise, at least), yet the Spurs are twice the team the Blazers are. 



> Uh, again, want to stay with us on topic? "Passive" doesn't mean "bad." Ming is a very good player. He's just unlikely to physically overmatch Wallace or run him ragged, since he's not a physical player. Clear enough? Ming's stats have nothing to do with whether he's capable of physically punishing defenders.


It's not about whether or not he physically punishes Wallace in a head-to-head matchup- it's about whether Wallace has any chance of defending him. Ming has got 6 inches and 80 lbs. on Wallace, so it would be a pretty tall order for him ( get it? _tall_ order? :laugh: ...................................................:sigh: )





> If Wallace can decently defend Shaquille O'Neal, if he can well defend the Western power forwards, he can handle the Greg Ostergumps of the world. The center position isn't a bunch of Shaquille O'Neals.


No, but if you want to make it anywhere in the West, you're going have to make it past the Shaqs and the Duncans. 



> No, it's not, but he's trending downwards. That is bad.


Did you read what I said earlier? The *reason* he's trending downwards is because he's being relied on more and more to carry the team offensively. Like I said, last year he at least had help from Jalen Rose on the perimeter, and Curry was tearing it up in the post throughout the second half of the season. I can't even tell you how many times Crawford has wound up with the ball in his hands as the shot-clock was winding down this season, simply because he is the only player on the team who can create a shot for himself off the dribble. He has *nobody* on that team that can give him consistent offensive help.



> Yeah, he's still an excellent player. Just not as valuable a player as he was before he killed his offensive efficiency with a crapload of three-pointers.


He's having his best statistical season to date, and the Hornets are playing their best basketball in years. If anything, he's more valuable now than he was before he, "killed his offensive efficiency with a crapload of three-pointers". Those three-pointers seem to be working out alright for the Hornets.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> However, if you think that his trade value hasn't been hurt by his reputation as a headcase, then I would have to say that you are blind.


I'm not saying that his value hasn't been hurt. But fans definitely overstate *how much* it's been hurt. In any case, I was simply arguing real value of the deal, not value modified by PR. If Crawford hit his girlfriend tomorrow, it wouldn't change the real, on-court value of the deal, though it would change the PR value. But that's not what I'm arguing, in this case.



> I didn't throw those comments in there to dodge the points- I just put them in there to keep things in perspective. For all the greatness of the Randolph/Wallace frontcourt you speak of, they have not been able to lead the Blazers to a winning record this season.


Sure. For all the greatness of Tracy McGrady, he hasn't led them to a winning season this year. That should drop his trade value and make him easy to get, right? All I said was that Wallace and Randolph would make up one of the best power forward/center combos in the game, which is true. Just as it's true to say McGrady is one of the top players in the game. Winning depends on the entire team, and the Blazers have very little around Wallace and Randolph.

Second of all, Wallace only moved to center a week ago, or so. Coincidence that the Blazers have won like six of seven suddenly? This season doesn't reflect Wallace at center, it reflects him at small forward, which is where he played until a week ago, which was a bad match-up for him.



> The other factor here is that Wallace has, if anything, a superior supporting cast to Tim Duncan (talent-wise, at least), yet the Spurs are twice the team the Blazers are.


Don't be ridiculous. Damon Stoudamire, Derek Anderson, Zach Randolph and Darius Miles are a better supporting cast than Tony Parker, Rasho Nesterovic, Bruce Bowen and Manu Ginobili? Now you're simply making things up in order to downgrade Wallace. No sane person who knows basketball would claim the Blazers have a better supporting cast around Wallace then San Antonio has around Duncan. Plus, the Blazers bench is weak this year while San Antonio has Hedo Turkoglu, Ron Mercer, Malik Rose, Kevin Willis, Charlie Ward and Robert Horry off the bench.



> It's not about whether or not he physically punishes Wallace in a head-to-head matchup- it's about whether Wallace has any chance of defending him. Ming has got 6 inches and 80 lbs. on Wallace, so it would be a pretty tall order for him ( get it? _tall_ order? :laugh: ...................................................:sigh: )


I get it. He's tall. But Wallace is higher ( get it? _high_er? :laugh: ...................................................:sigh: ). Anyway, Wallace is nearly 7 foot, himself, so he's as capable of defending Ming as most centers. The 80 lbs. are fairly irrelevant because, as we've noted a few times now, Ming isn't a physical player and is not going to use that 80 lbs. to force his way through Wallace.



> No, but if you want to make it anywhere in the West, you're going have to make it past the Shaqs and the Duncans.


Which, as I've pointed out, Wallace has defended well in the past. We seem to be going around in circles here.



> Did you read what I said earlier? The *reason* he's trending downwards is because he's being relied on more and more to carry the team offensively.


There's always an excuse. Wallace's rebounding numbers have generally been a function of playing with a lot of good rebounders (Dale Davis, Arvydas Sabonis, Scottie Pippen, Brian Grant) and because he can can shoot from outside which, prior to Wesley Person arriving, made him pretty much the only fairly reliable outside shooter on the team. So Cheeks had him shoot more from the perimeter. That hurts his rebounding.

But all you wanted to say was, "Wallace is a *pathetic* rebounder."



> He's having his best statistical season to date, and the Hornets are playing their best basketball in years. If anything, he's more valuable now than he was before he, "killed his offensive efficiency with a crapload of three-pointers".


He's not having his best statistical season with relation to assists or rebounds. Only points scored, which is only natural as he's taking *six* more shots a game. And have you seen his shooting percentage? It's an em-baron-ssing 38%. That makes his overall scoring far less valuable. A majority of players in this league could score a lot of points with a lot of shots on terrible shooting.

The really valuable ones score a lot on good shooting, making their offense efficient.

And I don't think the Hornets are playing "their best basketball in years." A year or two ago, people were talking about the Hornets as an elite team. You don't hear that much anymore. Of course, Mashburn's injury has a lot to do with that...but I'll be interested to see if Davis reins in his dangerously insane chucking when Mash returns.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I'm not saying that his value hasn't been hurt. But fans definitely overstate how much it's been hurt. In any case, I was simply arguing real value of the deal, not value modified by PR. If Crawford hit his girlfriend tomorrow, it wouldn't change the real, on-court value of the deal, though it would change the PR value. But that's not what I'm arguing, in this case.


If that happened, it would most definitely hurt Crawford's value to other teams, IMO. Other than that, this is really just a matter of opinion that I really don't care to keep going back and forth over.



> Sure. For all the greatness of Tracy McGrady, he hasn't led them to a winning season this year. That should drop his trade value and make him easy to get, right? All I said was that Wallace and Randolph would make up one of the best power forward/center combos in the game, which is true. Just as it's true to say McGrady is one of the top players in the game. Winning depends on the entire team, and the Blazers have very little around Wallace and Randolph


If you think that McGrady's trade value hasn't suffered because of his team's pathetic performance, I would have to strongly disagree. Whereas McGrady was once considered one of the few truly "untradable" players in the league, the Magic have to be getting to a point where they're going to start to at least listening to offers. They're the worst team in the league and losing fan support _with_- how much worse off could they e without him? Not to say that they're looking to trade him or anything- just that I'd be willing to bet that hes not nearly as untradable as he was a year ago.



> Don't be ridiculous. Damon Stoudamire, Derek Anderson, Zach Randolph and Darius Miles are a better supporting cast than Tony Parker, Rasho Nesterovic, Bruce Bowen and Manu Ginobili? Now you're simply making things up in order to downgrade Wallace. No sane person who knows basketball would claim the Blazers have a better supporting cast around Wallace then San Antonio has around Duncan. Plus, the Blazers bench is weak this year while San Antonio has Hedo Turkoglu, Ron Mercer, Malik Rose, Kevin Willis, Charlie Ward and Robert Horry off the bench.


I actually wasn't talking just about this season, but I do believe that Rasheed has a more talented starting four around him than does Duncan. Duncan's supporting cast is more disciplined, better coached, harder working, etc., but mainly Duncan is just a far, far superior player to Wallace. I'll give you that the Blazer bench is pretty weak this year. But in the past they've had some of the deepest, most talented overall teams in the league, and yet Wallace has failed to achieve anything close to what Duncan has achieved in terms of both team goals and individual goals.





> I get it. He's tall. But Wallace is higher ( get it? higher? ................................................... ). Anyway, Wallace is nearly 7 foot, himself, so he's as capable of defending Ming as most centers. The 80 lbs. are fairly irrelevant because, as we've noted a few times now, Ming isn't a physical player and is not going to use that 80 lbs. to force his way through Wallace.


80 lbs. is an advantage even if you're not primarily a low-post bruiser, and 6 inches coupled with excellent hands and scoring abiliy equate to a *huge* advantage on Yao's part. When he really learns how to play in this league, Sheed won't stand a chance (indeed, most post defenders in this league won't).



> Which, as I've pointed out, Wallace has defended well in the past. We seem to be going around in circles here.


Wallace may have done a good job on Shaq in relation to most other PFs masquerading as Centers, but the fact remains that the Lakers have always beaten the Blazers in spite of the fact that Wallace has had alot more talent around him than Shaq has had. The point is this; doing a _good_ job on somebody defensively typically doesn't mean that much if they're simply a far superior player to you. I maintain that unless you've got an allstar backcourt, you will *never* get out of the West with a Wallace/Randolph frontcourt.



> There's always an excuse. Wallace's rebounding numbers have generally been a function of playing with a lot of good rebounders (Dale Davis, Arvydas Sabonis, Scottie Pippen, Brian Grant) and because he can can shoot from outside which, prior to Wesley Person arriving, made him pretty much the only fairly reliable outside shooter on the team. So Cheeks had him shoot more from the perimeter. That hurts his rebounding.
> 
> But all you wanted to say was, "Wallace is a pathetic rebounder."


Are you insane? Sabonis, Pippen, and Grant have all been on other teams this season (Grants been gone for like 3 years now), and Sheed is still averaging 6.7 rebounds per game. Pathetic. 
And before you blame his shortcomings to the amazing Dale Davis and his 6.5 rpg stealing all of the boards away from Rasheed, I would like to remind you that alot of superior rebounders play alongside other superior rebounders. Karl Malone (9.5 rpg) and Shaq (11 rpg) are coexisting just fine in L.A., as have a number of frontcourts, this season and in years past.




> He's not having his best statistical season with relation to assists or rebounds. Only points scored, which is only natural as he's taking six more shots a game. And have you seen his shooting percentage? It's an em-baron-ssing 38%. That makes his overall scoring far less valuable. A majority of players in this league could score a lot of points with a lot of shots on terrible shooting.
> 
> The really valuable ones score a lot on good shooting, making their offense efficient.
> 
> And I don't think the Hornets are playing "their best basketball in years." A year or two ago, people were talking about the Hornets as an elite team. You don't hear that much anymore. Of course, Mashburn's injury has a lot to do with that...but I'll be interested to see if Davis reins in his dangerously insane chucking when Mash returns.


Davis has been doing what his team has needed of him in the absense of Mash, and while it may have hurt his shooting % he has carried them to a winning record.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Are you insane? Sabonis, Pippen, and Grant have all been on other teams this season (Grants been gone for like 3 years now), and Sheed is still averaging 6.7 rebounds per game. Pathetic.


No, I'm not insane...you're just ignoring what you can't conveniently explain away for your own purposes. I said that this season, and last, Cheeks has had Wallace play outside a lot as one of their only reliable outside shooters. Playing outside makes rebounding more difficult. And, as a small forward, which he played the majority of this season, he's defended perimeter-oriented small forwards, pulling him away from the middle.

Anyway, I'm releasing myself from this discussion. It was never important enough to generate this many replies and tonight's trade has made this discussion even more irrelevant. I don't feel like going back and forth over Wallace, especially now that he's not even on the team I follow, heh.


----------

