What's new
By:

Mike Dunleavy, Jr?

M

Med_Phys

Member
I thought I heard him being discussed the other day by Locke and he was being compared to AK. Thoughts on bringing him in as a FA to play the 3 and/or 2? 3 years for $10M too much? I think him and Watson would round out the roster nicely.
 
He is more than serviceable. He is still pretty good player, and a great shooter (when healthy). I just don't see the point in picking him up. He is going to cost more than the minimum.
 
If he has aspirations of coaching and wants to be a mentor without eating up valuable minutes for the youngsters, then go for it.
 
If Bell was amnestied and/or Miles was traded I'd love to see Dunleavy come in and get 20mpg playing the 2/3.

I will say I have little expectation of Bell getting amnestied and no expectation of Miles getting traded.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
He is more than serviceable. He is still pretty good player, and a great shooter (when healthy). I just don't see the point in picking him up. He is going to cost more than the minimum.
Click to expand...

Really not that great a shooter. At his best, Dunleavy could be a playmaker with his ability to drive and dish while being a respectable shooter. Kind of like what I envision Hayward to be. But his driving days are done. I could get behind Dunleavy as a one year guy, but for our team that's all we can offer.
 
2010-11 fg% .462 3% .402 ft% .800 reb 4.5 ast 1.7 Stl 0.7 blk 0.5 pts 11.2

Easily more productive than raja. (hard not to be). If there was some sort of swap of the two I could see it, but otherwise no point.
 
He has had a couple of season of above 40% shooting from deep. I would consider that to be a great shooter. The problem with Dunleavy is that he is slow. He probably can't guard anybody.
 
I'd go for him if the price was good. It is likely that he'll be out of our range, but if somehow there's not crazy spending on this level of FA, I think he's worth it. Outside shooting, experience, BBIQ are all good. Injured as much as AK seemingly, however. Despite physical limitations, it seems he somehow has good raw defensive statistics (see 82games.com); that may be very misleading, though. Nevertheless, his teams do seem to play better when he's in the game.
 
I live in Indianapolis and follow the Pacers. I would not trade for Mike Dunleavy Jr. for the following reasons: 1. terrible defender in every way; 2. streaky shooter 3. not a playmaker off the dribble at all; 4. average to below average nba player at this stage in his career.
 
delpotro said:
I live in Indianapolis and follow the Pacers. I would not trade for Mike Dunleavy Jr. for the following reasons: 1. terrible defender in every way; 2. streaky shooter 3. not a playmaker off the dribble at all; 4. average to below average nba player at this stage in his career.
Click to expand...

Agree with you on #2 & 4. Not sure on #3. It's hard to look at the statistics without coming to the conclusion that he generally helps an offense. In looking at Pacer forums, the debate on Dunleavy's defense goes back to the old argument of whether you trust your eyes or whether you trust the available statistics. He looks much better statistically than in the eyeball test.

But many Pacer forums also mention that he's been a good mentor for Indy's young wings. Perhaps he takes after Dunleavy Sr. in coaching instincts? That could be valuable for the Jazz now.

I'd only be interested in he knew he was coming as a backup that wouldn't get a lot of playing time (perhaps around 35% of available minutes?) and he was comfortable with the idea of mentoring Jazz's young wings. (Kind of the role Watson played for us.) If he was alright with that, and the price was good, I'd do everything I could to try to arrange a S&T with him for Bell (and perhaps a 2nd round pick in 3 years, or other considerations).
 
He is quite injury prone and has averaged about 62 games per season. He was supposed to be the 2nd coming of Bird (poor man's version), but the only similarity is the back problems.
 
David Locke said:
This ranking is based on fit, money and years he would be offered. This is not without ignoring his flaws. He is a poor defensive player. He is often injured playing just 59% of games in the last three years. Because of these flaws he should be more affordable and not take a long term deal. However, he does a lot of undervalued things. He is a makes his teammates better. Las year with Indiana the Pacers were a +2.6 when he was on the floor (per 48 minutes) and a -3.6 when he was off the floor. He understands the game The positive plus minus has been this way the majority of his career. His defensive rebounding rate of 16% eligible rebounds is very high for a small forward. It is 10th in the NBA. Recall last year the Jazz were 26th in the NBA in defensive rebounding. Last year, he shot 40% from three and took 4 a game. He has no isolation 1 on 1 game, last year he was 1 for 13 shooting in those circumstances, but was 25th in the NBA in spot ups and the #4 player in the NBA coming off screens. That is what the Jazz do.
Click to expand...

I like him depending on the $. He seems like a guy that might fly under the radar and the Jazz don't have one single real SF on the team. I think he'd be a nice stop-gap.
 
This is also somewhat outdated, but I think there is still a lot of good stuff here.

DraftExpress.com said:
Overview: A heady small forward who has started to show how good he can be in the right setting. Has great size for the perimeter. Doesn’t have great physical strength. Possesses below average athleticism for his position. Doesn’t compensate with toughness. Shows a great feel for the game. Can work on and off the ball offensively. Able to initiate the offense. Shoots the ball well from the perimeter. Developed good fundamentals at Duke, where he was part of the team that won the NCAA Championship in 2001. Needed a few seasons to come around in the NBA. One of the most fundamentally sound players in the game today. Son of Los Angeles Clippers Head Coach Mike Dunleavy.

Offense: A crafty, versatile offensive player who has really come into his own. Has a high basketball IQ and supreme size at his position. Gets one quarter of his offense as a spot up shooter and another quarter in transition. Does most of his damage as a jump shooter. Has a very fundamental stroke and shows great footwork out on the perimeter. Great catch and shoot player. Very good from beyond the arc. Shows great consistency off the dribble. Likes to pull up when driving right. Not a very good finisher at the rim. Lacks the strength to lay the ball in with contact. Gets to the line at a decent rate. Shoots a very respectable percentage. Great ball handler and passer for his size. Will drive and dish periodically. Will get a little bit too aggressive with his dribble sometimes. Isn’t strong enough to recover the ball when he loses it. Very nice offensive option.

Defense: A heady defensive player who doesn’t have the physical assets to be a standout, but is big and smart enough to get by. Displays good help side fundamentals. Reads ball handlers extremely well when he is playing off the ball. Will make an effort to use his length to deny penetration, but he is susceptible to both quicker and stronger players. Won’t leak out in transition. Does his best to help with rebounding duties. Very disciplined defender. Not dynamic, but won’t make many mistakes either.

From DraftExpress.com https://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz1fi6VxodP
https://www.draftexpress.com
Click to expand...
 
Magic Spray said:
If the Jazz don't want AK, why in the HELL would they want Dunleavy?
Click to expand...

At least Dunleavy can spread the defense - AK can't spread **** on a shingle

And who says The Jazz don't want AK? I would say there is at least a one in three chance he's back sometime this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top