Trade with Phoenix

Den-Den · Mar 20, 2009

Well...this was a surprising read today.

Not all that familiar with Barbara Farris--anyone care to comment???

www.spmsportspage.com/published/pr/pr-pro/mercury-trades-barbara-fa.shtml

I think most on this board believed that Kim Smith would not be back, nor would Aqua. Personally, I was very fond of Aqua and will miss her...

Luv13fan · Mar 20, 2009

Hot Damn!!!!

Barb Farris just improved our Post game by 35%. She offers an insurance policy Just in case. She is a banger, and what I would consider a white Line type of post player.

Age shouldn't be an issue because in all likelihood she should be 3rd or 4th on the depth chart. 10 to 15 minutes a game, and she should do that much more effectively than AWS.

You are now looking at a post rotation of Bekkah/DeMya Harper/Farris maybe Kelly. This should make us extremely phyical in the post, and slow down those guards who would drive to the basket without hesitation.

I have been BEGGING for us to try and get her for YEARS.
The First Good Move Whiz has done iin 3 years.

My hat is off to him.

Monty'sBiggestFan · Mar 20, 2009

Farris is a big body who brings a physical presence to the paint. Sorta along the lines of what I posted in the draft thread about what interests me about Kia Vaughn and what has been missing in the lost DeMya seasons. With all the leaking going on from the rebkellian, I saw Sacramento being part of a meaningless deal...but this is beyond meaningless to me on Phx' side.What I find most amusing is that all that it took to get her was people who were likely to be cut. What in the hell is Phx going to do with who they picked up? And don't they need Farris

RDub21 · Mar 20, 2009

First off, I volunteer to get my post deleted

I like Barb, as others said, she is a banger in the post and from what I remember she is infamous for some "Vlade-style" flops. She is a servicable back-up post player and provides some insurance for our post rotation.

Luv13fan · Mar 20, 2009

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

I totally agree with your assesment. On paper this is meaningless because it is not a blockbuster trade. But it is the type of trade tha I have faulted Whiz for not making before.
When you are consistantly a play-off team, aquiring the right complementary pieces makes all the difference. Farris is a solid complimentary piece Move, and it help us unload driftwood.

It is a dynamic move.

Now What Phoenix is doing is beyond me. Maybe they are just clearing roster space. I don't see Kim or Aqua making their squad. But Farris salary is off their books.

creative one · Mar 20, 2009

Good pick-up for us, but it was made even better considering that we were able to unload players we were just going to cut anyway. Because she didn't mesh with Phoenix's run-and-gun style, she got lost in the shuffle. But she's definitely had some good seasons (note "seasons"). I liked her when she played in New York. It's good to see we're getting players who can contribute now instead of having to rely on young posts who may never develop.

Not sure what this means for Phoenix. They wanted shooters, but they're getting two players who can't and have never been able to shoot at any level of basketball (well, maybe Kim was a decent shooter in college). I'm guessing they'll be easy cuts.

uncommonclay · Mar 20, 2009

welcome aboard barb ... good bye aqua -n- kim ...

uncommonclay · Mar 20, 2009

Luv13fan said:

beyond me too ... whatever ... ???

Monty'sBiggestFan · Mar 20, 2009

I wasn't suggesting it was meaningless for Sacramento, it is on par with trades Whiz has made for pieces he sees as complementary. The amount of fanfare the trades generate to whether folks like what piece he saw as complementary. I was thinking that Farris might slip Kelly to the bubble..but perhaps not. It leaves one roster spot open if Kelly stays. I think it all but overwhelmingly guarantees that the draft brings a combo guard here. Or if not true combo, one that best fits as an off guard who maybe plays point or is currently masquerading as a point. I've just shortened my wishlist accordingly

Salary dump is the only way this make sense....i like Farris in their rotation more than I do Ohlde...but like the chorus...whatever lol.

Purple Reign · Mar 20, 2009

To me, Farris is now the new Williams-Strong. She in my opinion is 3rd string center and power forward at best. With that said welcome to the Monarchs Family, Barbara Farris.

Purple Reign · Mar 20, 2009

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

Is it just me, or is Crystal kelly not considered part of the long term future of the franchise. Last year she was so highly considered, and I thought she played so well in the playoffs. Now based on my passing observation in the off season, it seems that she is not in the plans.

RDub21 · Mar 20, 2009

I am a Crystal fan and I do see the same "she's not staying" feeling on this board. She has her limitations, but I think that she brings to the table something our other post players lack, and that is offense. She has a post game and she knows how to get to the foul line. She'll never be an all-star, but I don't see why she shouldn't be part of the Monarchs future.

uncommonclay · Mar 20, 2009

RDub21 said:

i wonder about that too ... i think crystal played better than laura harper ... crystal has game, she knows how to play, in all phases of the game, and isn' afraid to mix it up ... i feel her best way to improve would be to keep improving her athleticism ... she could be pretty darn good ...

creative one · Mar 20, 2009

If by "offense" you mean "getting to the FT line", then yes--Crystal brings that. She, like the other recent later round success stories, was able to have a decent rookie season because not many teams bothered scouting her, especially early on. Now that everyone knows about her (undersized non athlete, weak rebounder, not much of a defender due to lack of size), the chances are great that she would not be as effective this time around. Unlike Harper, she does not have size and athleticism to rely on.

Given our recent transactions, this team is building for now. With the league's future as tenuous as it is, the best thing to do is to maximize your chances of winning a title. If your team is that competitive, then attendance will take care of itself.

As for Crystal, she did have a rookie season that was better than anyone could've predicted given her draft position. Overseas, she's averaging a very pedestrian 11 and 6 while some of the other posts in her draft class are putting up much better numbers. That tells me one thing. There's just not much upside there. We just acquired a player who some consider to be her ceiling. Kelly might hang on for one more season to see if she will actually develop. If we acquire Appel or Charles in 2010 (assuming the league hangs on), guess who's on the chopping block?

creative one · Mar 20, 2009

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

Actually, it doesn't. Right now, we have six guaranteed contracts (starters plus Maiga-Ba) and Harper (non-guaranteed, but a top 10 pick from last year). Once you take into account the 1st round pick, there are still three slots. Everyone else, including Farris, is non-guaranteed. That means we still do as we've always done, which is to draft the best player regardless of position.

uncommonclay · Mar 20, 2009

creative one said:

If by "offense" you mean "getting to the FT line", then yes--Crystal brings that. She, like the other recent later round success stories, was able to have a decent rookie season because not many teams bothered scouting her, especially early on. Now that everyone knows about her (undersized non athlete, weak rebounder, not much of a defender due to lack of size), the chances are great that she would not be as effective this time around. Unlike Harper, she does not have size and athleticism to rely on.--- yeah, but she got better as the season went on ... when teams could have learned about her ... don't knock the free throw line ... there's no more open shot than that ...

Given our recent transactions, this team is building for now. With the league's future as tenuous as it is, the best thing to do is to maximize your chances of winning a title. ... then start cheering for Detroit ... ; ) If your team is that competitive, then attendance will take care of itself.

As for Crystal, she did have a rookie season that was better than anyone could've predicted given her draft position. Overseas, she's averaging a very pedestrian 11 and 6 while some of the other posts in her draft class are putting up much better numbers. That tells me one thing. --- the overseas coaching for Crystal isn't as good as it was here in Sacto ... There's just not much upside there. We just acquired a player who some consider to be her ceiling. Kelly might hang on for one more season to see if she will actually develop. If we acquire Appel or Charles in 2010 (assuming the league hangs on), guess who's on the chopping block? -- barb farris ...

...

creative one · Mar 20, 2009

uncommonclay said:

I didn't see any evidence of her getting better as the season progressed. Her biggest source of offense is FT shooting, and that's never good for a player who isn't a star. She seemed to peak in July and then had one more spike during the short playoff stint. Harper, on the other hand, seemed to show signs of improvement all season and is showing marked improvement overseas (looking at her game, not just the stats). Harper fared very well in Euroleague (enough to be named an All-Star in Euroleague and in Turkey) and she's 6'4. The potential is there. I'm not seeing any potential with Kelly. She's an average player in Europe

I'm not knocking getting to the FT line at all. The best players (LeBron, Kobe, D-Wade, etc., or Taurasi, Parker, Augustus, etc.) find themselves there all the time. However, the best players score in a multitude of ways. Crystal Kelly does not. Just because she found herself at the line last year does not mean she'll get even half those attempts in 2009. Same thing goes for other undersized borderline players who relied on FT shooting like Matee Ajavon and Erica White.

That's rude. I don't need your help choosing which team to cheer for. I'm stating the obvious, which is to take control of what you can today. The future is not promised in anything, let alone the WNBA. You have no control over how your team will look/perform three years from now. You do, however, have more control over how your team looks/performs today. Of our projected top six performers, none of them are young players (i.e. on rookie scale contract). We need to take advantage of that by getting this team ready for a strong championship run. Perhaps the front office is finally seeing that.

And you know that how?

Trends don't lie. She's having trouble scoring without FT reps over there and would do so over here. She's having trouble rebounding over there and had trouble doing so over here. Perhaps she is what she is, a decent player who could make a roster or two in this league but not a rotation player for a team looking to make a championship run.

Bob Farris has a championship ring and years of experience. I feel safer knowing she could be an option for this team should the unthinkable happen than I would with Harper/Kelly as the only post options.

Monty'sBiggestFan · Mar 20, 2009

The best player available will be a guard, unless the best player available at 7 is Coleman, which it won't be....unless Santa is watching and has been reading my signature since the end of the end of the 08 season...

Is Farris just signed through the 09 season?

creative one · Mar 20, 2009

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

No. Chicago, Minnesota, Phoenix, Washington, and Indiana are all interested in those tiny combo guards (though one is preferred more so than the other). Atlanta's GM loves Montgomery at #1. The best player available to us will be a forward or post. New York is banking on us not taking Kia Vaughn before they pick at #8.

Atlanta-McCoughtry (but they like Montgomery)
Washington-Coleman (also like Montgomery)
Chicago-Montgomery (also like McCoughtry)
Minnesota-Paris (a HUGE gift)
Phoenix-Bonner (would also take Toliver if Bonner is gone)
Indiana-Toliver (she's marginally better than the undersized guards they already have, but BPA)

So what does that leave us at guard? Zellous isn't considered a lottery pick while January and Starks aren't considered consensus first round picks (or first round picks at all). But Vaughn's stock is rising, Black is 6'5 and ACC DPOY, Littles is an All-American, and Ashley Paris has impressed a few folks.

Yes, but it's not guaranteed. At the same time, Kelly would have to show a lot of promise to remain here past 2009 (assuming she makes the cut in 2009). 2010 does have some promising forwards and posts who are TALL (not just Charles and Appel).

Monty'sBiggestFan · Mar 20, 2009

Whiz will not draft a post at 7, I just can't see that happening. I could completely see him taking January regardless of whether she is a consensus anything.

I completely agree about Kelly. If there is a big available over 6'1' or whatever size Kelly actually is, she's the one who is gone. The reason that I thought she might ride into the sunset this season is because the optimal roster under the Whiz regime is 4 posts and 5 guards. They are now short a guard. Well, not necessarily short a guard because I didn't have Franklin returning on my projected roster...that's just where I've had an empty spot on my ledger.

RDub21 · Mar 20, 2009

Obviously we're split on this whole Crystal Kelly situation. I think for the 4th/5th post option, you can't really ask for more. She plays hard, she plays within herself, but what she does do, she does well imo. When she is in the game, she's playing alongside the like of Brunson and Harper, so it's not like we don't have players who can board.

creative one · Mar 20, 2009

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

Oh yes he will if the post is the BPA. The only way he doesn't choose a post under those circumstances is if he trades the pick (which he still could do).

It's about what's best for the team. It's best to have more players who are at least 6'0 so that you can recover if the unthinkable happens. If a guard goes down, you can sign a decent one off the street (Betty Lennox and Temeka Johnson are still available). If a big goes down, you're picking between Kasha Terry and Tyesha Fluker and are stuck with a rookie guard who can't contribute right away to a championship team.

Ridiculous. I don't see him reaching for a player who isn't a first round pick on any team's board. That would be on the Ashley Shields/Ketia Swanier idiocy level. That's the best way for one to lose credibility among other GMs. If January's there at #20, then MAYBE you take a flyer on her. Otherwise, not happening.

January is good at the college level where she doesn't have to face stiff defense and isn't responsible for running her team, but as a pro prospect she's just not that good. Good college player? Yes. Good enough to be drafted in a weak draft? Sure. Good enough to contribute right away to a pro team as a lead guard? No. If we get a project, the project should be 6'4 or taller, not 5'7 with questionable PG skills.

We may look at a guard in the draft and FA, but we're not exactly hurting at guard if we don't choose one. We have six true guards on the roster (seven if you include Camino...I don't) and Powell as an emergency guard. There are always better guards available if need be than there are forwards and post players.

creative one · Mar 20, 2009

RDub21 said:

I believe what MBF and I are saying is that it's not impossible to imagine her one her way out if we find a 6'4 player who can provide what she provides (except with more rebounding and blocks). A lot of people are questioning why she isn't seen as a mainstay. Truth is, size has a LOT to do with that.

Basically, she is what she is. If you can't find a taller player who does what she does, then she's fine as the #4 post. If you can find that either through trade or the draft, then she's the odd player out. This is a business. If "bigger" means "better", you go with that.

Monty'sBiggestFan · Mar 20, 2009

Since I'm floating in the neighborhood...I'll respond to both comments.

Swanier and Shields is a stretch for a comparison to drafting January IMO. She'll be in the league a heckuva lot longer than either of those two. Shields had zero business getting drafted PERIOD, let alone in the first round. I don't know anybody who's saying that about January.

re: Kelly, that' exactly what I'm saying. Kelly is a nice player, projects well in the future...for what she does. She's an efficient ballplayer and that never goes out of style. I'd like to see her add more to her game, but I'm not hating on her. She and Ashley Walker are similar to me, I think Walker does more on the defensive end and has extended her game to the perimeter (sorta). I'd swap her for Kelly. I'd swap Humphrey for Kelly for the same reason. Again, nothing against Kelly...those two would give the Monarchs a different look in the paint from the Brunson/D.Walker(and now Farris) combo in the middle.

If, as creative one points out, you can get a Tina Charles or Jayne Appel who REALLY do more than Kelly does and do it taller, why would you stick with an undersized player in the paint? We already play undersized with Brunson and Walker, and in the absence of the latter, Powell?

The addition of Farris means less minutes for somebody, since the Ms could break camp carrying 5 posts. DeMya will get her minutes back too, so somebody isn't going to get as many minutes, and that somebody won't be 1st rounder Harper.

EDIT: just saw something else...re: Kelly in rotations with Brunson and Harper...this probably was addressed in the paragraphs above, but another thought came to mind too.
She's not going to get that rotation now with Maiga-Ba back, I don't think. I don't think defensively you get much with Kelly trying to guard a SF, Maiga-Ba's offensive game would be a good trade off for Kelly's defensive game.

creative one · Mar 20, 2009

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

I don't think so. January is a decent WNBA prospect who is undersized at her position and would only survive if she found her niche. Ditto for Swanier and Shields. There's nothing in January's game that suggests her stock should be higher than Swanier's (picked 12th in a strong draft) or Shields (picked 8th in a weak draft).

I highly doubt that, but if it happened, it wouldn't be difficult. Swanier is a one-and-done type. Shields is trying to stretch out her career now that she's on the chopping block, but she's still only at two years.

Come on, MBF. That's revisionist history. Shields was considered a strong second-round prospect. She impressed scouts during the pre-draft camp because she could do one thing--drive the ball to the hole. Oh, and it was a weak draft.

That's because they're not saying anything about her. With this being a weak draft, no one's focusing on prospects who aren't considered top 10 draft prospects.

I think Walker is more mobile, so I'd opt for Walker if it came down between her and Kelly. My preference is Humphrey because she can really stretch the defense with her shot.

Monty'sBiggestFan · Mar 21, 2009

Just a quick thought as I sign off for the night so'z I can get my full first round on in the morning...I'll get to the rest of my thoughts in during the mindnumbing studio segments in between sessions lol..

I'll admit to revisioning on Shields as a prospect. But not on her not being a first rounder, weak draft or no. That was a major overreach, which was not unlike many of the moves the Houston GM made. I don't think January is off the radar of the first round. The first rounders seem to be in a state of fluidity.

mdme · Mar 21, 2009

I think this will all depend on how DWalk holds up this season. If she gets injured again (which I think is quite possible) we will need another post. Also, I only got to see limited games of the M's last year but most of the time I thought Kelly was more effective than Harper. Kelly just seems more polished and smooth in contrast to Harper who was kinda clumsy and rough at times. just my 2c

creative one · Mar 21, 2009

mdme said:

I think we all know by now that Harper is a project. She wasn't coached well at Maryland at all (hence her poor FT shooting form, tendency to flail limbs when faced with contact, and irritating habit of bringing the ball down to guards' level). That said, she's got tremendous upside. Despite Frese's inability to develop her in college, she has displayed a little range out to the FT line on her jumper. Overseas, she's developing a baby hook shot and is improving her footwork around the rim. Oh yeah, she rebounds the heck of out of the ball. She's 6'4 with long limbs and athleticism. I feel better about her ability to help us this season (and beyond, depending on the state of the league) than I do about seeing a 6'1 non-rebounding center with no range on her jumper. That's not to say that Kelly didn't help us big time last year (she did) and couldn't help out this year (she could). But with the post talent 2010 has, along with the very remote possibility that Kia Vaughn's stock soaring could knock Courtney Paris down to the Monarchs' pick, there appear to be better (taller) options available sooner rather than later.

In short, I don't see Kelly developing beyond what she's shown. If she had Harper's size and athleticism, it'd be different.

RDub21 · Mar 21, 2009

First off, who's trying to pass her off as a Center? Harper averaged 4 RPG in 16.5 MPG, Kelly averaged 3.3RPG in 16.7 MPG. So either Harper is a non-rebounding 6-5" forward/center, or you just don't give Kelly any credit.

So which is it? You go with a player that has "tremendous upside" or do you go with who is producing now? If the future isn't promised, shouldn't you go with the player producing now?

Getting tired of this height argument...who gives a damn how tall she is. She can play, don't care what pick she was in draft, don't care that she was cut by the Comets. She's not our long-lost post savior, but geez

With all that said and despite what it may seem, I like both Harper and Kelly and I do want both on the roster.

Purple Reign · Mar 21, 2009

With All Due Respect......

To everyone on this board, we need to focus. Focus on one player and one player only.......

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090320/c...x=231&y=345&q=85&sig=docu9whiAfGKCdMehYI1yg--

Shavonte Zellous

31 pts (on 13-27 shooting), 9 reb, 4 steals vs Montana tonight!!!!

I don't want to talk about January, Walker, Ashley Paris. If her name ain't Courtney, Marrisa or Dewanna, this is the only draft pick I am settling for, PERIOD, END OF STORY!!!!!

Make it happen Draft gods, please make it happen!!!!

SEATTLE -- Shavonte Zellous could use some help from her teammates as Pittsburgh progresses in the NCAA tournament. In the first-round against Montana, Zellous by herself was more than enough.

Zellous scored 15 of her 31 points in the first half to keep Pitt even with energized and inspired Montana, and the superior talent of the fourth-seeded Panthers took over in the second half of a 64-35 win on Saturday night in the first-round of the Oklahoma City Regional. Zellous carried Pitt in the first half and the Panthers defense did the rest. Pitt held 13th-seeded Montana to just 10 second-half points, tying the tournament record for fewest points allowed in a half. Connecticut gave up just 10 to Long Island in the second half of a first-round game in 2001."The first half I just kind of put the team on my shoulders and willed us to get through it and get to the second half," said Zellous, who became Pitt's all-time single-season scoring leader with her fifth 30-point game of the season.

Trade with Phoenix

Bench

Bench

Starter

Bench

Bench

Bench

Bench

Bench

Starter

Starter

Starter

Bench

Bench

Bench

Bench

Bench

Bench

Starter

Bench

Starter

Bench

Bench

Bench

Starter

Bench

Starter

Bench

Bench

Bench

Starter