What's new
By:

Point Guard Situation and Trading Al for a PG

W

write4u

Banned
As some have suggested, the PG situation is a bit tenuous now. One thing I've noticed is that people have Watson ahead of Tinsley on the depth chart. Didn't that actually change after Tinsley got his chance to play and showed he was clearly better than Earl? I think Earl is a better man-to-man defender, but otherwise Tinsley is superior in every other category, and Tinsley was coming off a period when hadn't played in the NBA for a couple of years. I expect him to come back even better this year, and I expect he will be playing ahead of Earl.

My hope is that we trade Big Al and Earl and get a good young PG with promise, and a defensive-minded center. Or just a good young PG and resign AK on the cheap. Rumor has it that with the signing of JJ and Wallace, the Nets don't have room for AK. That would give us Favors-Kanter-Millsap-Williams-AK or Defensive Center for our bigs.

Thoughts on PGs and other considerations?
 
Generally speaking, I see no young point guards out there to be had. Rondo is perhaps the only one but I don't think they'd trade him and if they were willing, I'd don't think we'd be willing to part with what it would take to get him.
 
write4u said:
As some have suggested, the PG situation is a bit tenuous now. One thing I've noticed is that people have Watson ahead of Tinsley on the depth chart. Didn't that actually change after Tinsley got his chance to play and showed he was clearly better than Earl? I think Earl is a better man-to-man defender, but otherwise Tinsley is superior in every other category, and Tinsley was coming off a period when hadn't played in the NBA for a couple of years. I expect him to come back even better this year, and I expect he will be playing ahead of Earl.

My hope is that we trade Big Al and Earl and get a good young PG with promise, and a defensive-minded center. Or just a good young PG and resign AK on the cheap. Rumor has it that with the signing of JJ and Wallace, the Nets don't have room for AK. That would give us Favors-Kanter-Millsap-Williams-AK or Defensive Center for our bigs.

Thoughts on PGs and other considerations?
Click to expand...

I remember hearing Locke say that Watson had Jamal had almost identical offensive efficiency but Earl was much better defensively.
 
I'm done with moves. Marvin and Mo are upgrades enough over what we had.
Now we need to get Corbin to have an offensive playbook with more than one page in it.
 
write4u said:
My hope is that we trade Big Al and Earl and get a good young PG with promise, and a defensive-minded center.
Thoughts on PGs and other considerations?
Click to expand...

Agree with you on those remaining needs. Disagree entirely on AK. We're set at the wing rotation with Burks, Hayward and Williams. And were set at PF with Millsap and Favors. AK does nothing for us by playing minutes at the 4, except for getting abused by the bigger PF's in the league. And if he plays exclusively at the 3, that cuts into the mins of either Hayward or Burks. Sorry, but at this point in their careers, those two have a lot more upside than an oft-injured AK.
 
Ok, let's do so math: Favors will be getting a max contract eventually, that's about 15 mil. Hayward will likely get around ten, Burks if he is as good as he is supposed to be will get 10too. Kanter, yeah, 10 if not more. If we keep Marvin Williams, that's another ten or so, and MO will probably drop to about 6 or 7 after next year if we keep him. The point is that if we pay our core, we can't afford a superstar point guard, so what we have is fine. In fact, everyone wants to follow the 'thunder' method (which is really the supersonic method. poor seattle) Well guess what, we are. We have two players in Hayward and Burks who are supposed to be good playmakers and we have a point guard who is more of a scorerer. Remind anyone of maybe Durant and Westbrook? Where is it written that the point guard has to run the offence? I think that what's been done is brilliant. I think we can use Mo for five more years and I have high hopes for Marvin Williams.

Tinsley and Watson are old and won't be around for too much longer. I vote we use one of our picks to get a solid point guard to train under Mo.
 
Wes, this thread was more about the PG situation and I just added Al on there as an afterthought when I thought about how do we get the PG of the future. If we do, it's either Tinsley or Watson for the third PG -- and about those comparison numbers, I wonder if Tinsley's time before he got regular minutes might've lowered them overall. Earl did have his moments, provides a good spark, but he isn't that consistent and most everyone on the board agreed that Tinsley was better overall. Guess we could make do with Mo-Tinsley-Earl. All of them can do at least a competent job, so we won't lose much when we substitute like we used to, when we had Stock or Deron.
 
cctrackstar said:
Ok, let's do so math: Favors will be getting a max contract eventually, that's about 15 mil. Hayward will likely get around ten, Burks if he is as good as he is supposed to be will get 10too. Kanter, yeah, 10 if not more.
Click to expand...

Hayward, Burks and Kanter did not show anything yet which would make them 10mil/year player. No freaking way.
 
jamaal tinsley literally couldn't run last year. seriously, go look, you'll never find him doing more than this jaunty jog thing. if a guy got by him, he immediately gave up and either grabbed him from behind or just watched him go to the whole. his body just doesn't work like it used to. much better court vision than earl, obviously, and a better passer by a mile. but if you can't put one foot in front of the other...

that said, the best thing earl had going for him was his energy and toughness. in basketball terms, he was pretty subpar.

so we have ONE quality PG now, and even he is about as far from the "playmaking PG" end of the spectrum as a PG gets. in other words, yeah, i'd welcome a trade of al for a purer point guard plus ... ah hell, who am i kidding, i'd trade al for just about anything right now.
 
Nerd, I think you are exaggerating about Tinsley a bit. He wasn't that bad. And he did get better as he got some time. He really wasn't in shape at first. Yes, I agree he's lost a couple of steps, but I wager he will come back quicker this year because he will be in a lot better shape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top