Printable View
Why would Gordon be any easier to trade than Humphries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roon
"Hey, Sam, remember that guy who played well in the regular season last year and absolutely fell apart in the only postseason he's ever been in? How'd you like to pin your playoff hopes to him?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Roon
I don't really want to do the trade (guilty pleasure watching BG when he's drilling 3s with defenders draped all over him, plus he and Biz have good synergy, plus Humphries is overvalued IMO) but there's no reason not to from the Cats perspective, especially with the Cho maxim: Trade for need, draft BPA, and it goes without saying where our biggest need is.
Here are some points I'm thinking about:
* Ben Gordon was the throw in pick to get a draft pick out of Detroit and move Maggette. He served his purpose on trade day. If we could get something solid for him, great. If all we do is make a lateral move, so to speak, still fine.
* We have a lot of back court at the moment and could easily add another piece this year even if we drafted a big with our first pick. Kemba and Sessions are certainly capable, whereas....
* We desperately need some consistency from our bigs to help the whole team develop. Biyombo is still learning to play basketball and Mullens is slowly transforming from a poor man's Dirk to a more defensive oriented player. We could really use a guy who could just give us blue-collar minutes at the four and allow our other guys to play their more traditional spots.
* Humphries' two year contract is nice because he gives us that bit of consistency for the rest of this year and next, and then we can peace-out if we don't see him as a long term solution. One things teams do in situations like ours is overpay, often by contract length, for a mediocre big. Humphries is a stop-gap acquisition that doesn't really hurt us.
* I'm not really concerned about the divorce, as Kardashian is pregnant with Kanye's West's kid, which will be a substantially bigger story than her divorce from a professional basketball player in Charlotte. In fact, the move here may be what Kris needs to get out of the limelight and focus more on basketball.
Bottomline: I don't love Humphries, but it's a low risk acquisition that gives us short term solidarity at a position where we sorely need it.
@Roon: Not a snowball's chance in hell David West will be wearing anything but blue n gold in the near future.
I'm going to throw out a Humph comparison here: Carlos Boozer: a double double machine at a similar age and also underachieving. (Nothing some new scenery can't solve) I'm going soley off that logic so let me know if fair or not.
Booz seemed to me like an ideal asset given our front-court futility...except the consensus seems to be that he is a "playoff choke-artist" and "despised by homers." Humph seems like a similar package without the headache luggage.
So that being said, I like the move. I would allow a position battle between Humph, Biz, and Mully battle for minutes (worst performer is coming off bench)...so young talent would be seeing PT either way.
just think for a second.... Adrien at the 4 and Hump at the 5. we would get so many rebounds it would be ridiculous. offensive glass consumers, is both their play style. it would also give us freedom to fire more shots and not worry about haywood touching himself under the basket while a 6'8 PF easily blocks him out. not to mention we will never have to see the likes of Tyrus, Diop, Haywood and (unfortuanately) Warrick. Also, i dont mind Warrick that much so spot minutes would do cause at least he brings something to the table.
As long as Biz and Mully aren't entitled to starting-type minutes in spite of inferior productivity (bc of distant goals), fine. Let Hump and Adrien get those type of minutes if they control the glass...if anything it would be motivating for the bench bigs.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmanvelocity
I'm worried about the trade, because it doesn't make sense for the Nets. Someone suggested a deal in which the Nets got both Josh Smith and Ben Gordon, but the Nets would have to gut their roster (minus their core) to get that done. I'm scared the Nets were looking for a team willing to take Hump's contract as a facilitator to get Josh Smith.
Here's a longer explanation (self-promotion piece :p)
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/0...r-larger-deal/
Why? We have too many guards as is, even without Gordon. Brooks is talent, but talent means nothing when it'll rot away on the bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiz Kid
Not if we decided to "cash in" on Henda before the deadline.
Latest I heard today is talks are at a standstill. So be it. Much prefer that to making a deal Cho is not real happy with. I trust him to make a deal only if it helps us. Perhaps the Nets were just wanting too much.