Denver's Situation

[twslam07]

As most of you know, Denver was a part of the 4 team trade that sent Howard to LA. They gave up Afflalo and Harringotn and got back Iguodala in return. Right now their rotation looks like this going into the season:

PG - Lawson/A Miller
SG - Iguodala/Fournier
SF - Gallinari/Chandler/Brewer/Hamilton/Q Miller
PF - Faried/Randolph
C - McGee/Koufos/Mozgov

They have many SFs in this rotation (Iguodala, Gallinari, Chandler, Brewer, Hamilton, and Q Miller). Iguodala is easily able to play SG which helps out the rotation a little bit, but they still have 5 talented SFs on their roster. I'm sure most of us would be happy to take one of them off their hands to free up space for them while upgrading our SF position. Iguodala is most likely untouchable given the fact that they just traded for him, Gallinari seems to be a part of Denver's future plans, and Brewer, Hamilton, and Q Miller, although have potential, wouldn't be too much of an upgrade over what we have currently. That leaves us with Chandler.

So what would Denver want for Chandler? What does their team need? When I look at their lineup they have a lot of solid players, but not a lot of firepower. Lawson and Gallinari are the only two guys that I see on their roster that can be considered scorers. Maybe they are looking for a scorer? Well the Kings seem to collect them like bottle caps. What else does Denver lack? Denver's frontcourt is probably their weakest spot, but they seem to value McGee more than the rest of us here, considering they gave up Nene to get him. Faried is solid although undersized, and they have some young promising centers in the background (Koufos and Mozgov). Therefore it's quite possible that they don't see their frontcourt being as weak as the rest of us do.

Again, this leaves us with a scorer being there main need, and like I said before, we have plenty of them. With the additon of Brooks to the team, I don't see how a 4 guard rotation of Brooks, Thomas, Evans, and Thornton will work unless Evans is seeing substantial time at SF, and we all don't want to see that again. To make this a good deal for us, we must trade one of them away. Evans is worth way more than Chandler, and I don't think you ever trade a player with elite potential when there is still a chance he can reach that potential. Thomas and Brooks wouldn't work considering they have Lawson and A Miller to share the PG minutes. That leaves us with Thornton. He is a pure scorer with a cutthroat attitude. He's capable of averaging 20 ppg, hitting the three, finishing in the lane, creating his own shot, and knocking down the clutch shot. It would seem that this is the type of player Denver would need.

How would Thornton fit into the rotation? I still think it would be in Denver's best interest to start Lawson, Iguodala, and Chandler on the perimeter, but having the scoring punch of Thornton off the bench would be great for their team. These are some combos of perimeter players they could trot out with Thornton.

PG - Lawson
SG - Thornton
SF - Gallinari

PG - Lawson
SG - Thornton
SF - Iguodala

PG - Miller
SG - Thornton
SF - Gallinari

PG - Miller
SG - Thornton
SF - Iguodala

I see no reason why any of these rotations wouldn't flow smoothly.

Why do we do this? It's obvious, isn't it? We have had a gaping hole at SF for awhile now. Chandler can come in and immediately be a legitimate upgrade. He has the size, strength, and athletcism we so desire at the SF position. He can shoot the 3 (he shot 35% the 2010-11 season) and shoots aroud 80% from the free-throw line. He is a good rebounder for his position and a good defender. His size, length, strength, and athleticism allows him to guard positions 2-4 which comes in handy on swithches.

Thornton is a good player on this team, but he has to go. He is the odd man out. Out of all our expendable assets, he is the one that we can get the most value for as of now. Having a solid 3 guard rotation will help team chemistry and it will prevent players from getting upset about playing time. Most importantly, it will keep Evans at SG!

If we do this trade, we're definitely on our way to a more balanced team. We would only need an athletic shotblocker to pair next to Cousins. Out of the 4 big men we have on our roster none of them can be considered shotblockers. If we're able to sign a 4th big who can alter shots, I would be a little more excited going into next year. I think Chris Andersen would be a great 4th big. He has even come out saying that he would be willing to sign for the veteran minimum which means the Kings would probably have to go above that if ny other team wants him. Maybe we could use the money we saved by swapping Thornton for Chandler? If we successfully pulled off these two moves, this is what our lineup would look like:

PG - Brooks (24 min)/Thomas (24 min)/Fredette
SG - Evans (37 min)/Salmons (12 min)/Garcia
SF - Chandler (28 min)/Johnson (15 min)/Outlaw (3 min)/Honeycutt
PF - Thompson (28 min)/Robinson (24 min)
C - Cousins (34 min)/Andersen (10 min)/Hayes

 

[DesertFox]

I'm willing to take a slight loss for Thornton to balance the roster, but Chandler isn't a guy I'd be willing to move him for. Chandler's best asset is his ability to score at the basket, and he is an OK outside shooter at best. He's a good defender and rebounder, but the gap between him and J Johnson is not as big as it seems, especially considering the loss of Thronton.
If they toss in a big and take back one of the King's mediocre SF's, I'd consider it.

 

[bajaden]

As most of you know, Denver was a part of the 4 team trade that sent Howard to LA. They gave up Afflalo and Harringotn and got back Iguodala in return. Right now their rotation looks like this going into the season:

PG - Lawson/A Miller
SG - Iguodala/Fournier
SF - Gallinari/Chandler/Brewer/Hamilton/Q Miller
PF - Faried/Randolph
C - McGee/Koufos/Mozgov

They have many SFs in this rotation (Iguodala, Gallinari, Chandler, Brewer, Hamilton, and Q Miller). Iguodala is easily able to play SG which helps out the rotation a little bit, but they still have 5 talented SFs on their roster. I'm sure most of us would be happy to take one of them off their hands to free up space for them while upgrading our SF position. Iguodala is most likely untouchable given the fact that they just traded for him, Gallinari seems to be a part of Denver's future plans, and Brewer, Hamilton, and Q Miller, although have potential, wouldn't be too much of an upgrade over what we have currently. That leaves us with Chandler.

So what would Denver want for Chandler? What does their team need? When I look at their lineup they have a lot of solid players, but not a lot of firepower. Lawson and Gallinari are the only two guys that I see on their roster that can be considered scorers. Maybe they are looking for a scorer? Well the Kings seem to collect them like bottle caps. What else does Denver lack? Denver's frontcourt is probably their weakest spot, but they seem to value McGee more than the rest of us here, considering they gave up Nene to get him. Faried is solid although undersized, and they have some young promising centers in the background (Koufos and Mozgov). Therefore it's quite possible that they don't see their frontcourt being as weak as the rest of us do.

Again, this leaves us with a scorer being there main need, and like I said before, we have plenty of them. With the additon of Brooks to the team, I don't see how a 4 guard rotation of Brooks, Thomas, Evans, and Thornton will work unless Evans is seeing substantial time at SF, and we all don't want to see that again. To make this a good deal for us, we must trade one of them away. Evans is worth way more than Chandler, and I don't think you ever trade a player with elite potential when there is still a chance he can reach that potential. Thomas and Brooks wouldn't work considering they have Lawson and A Miller to share the PG minutes. That leaves us with Thornton. He is a pure scorer with a cutthroat attitude. He's capable of averaging 20 ppg, hitting the three, finishing in the lane, creating his own shot, and knocking down the clutch shot. It would seem that this is the type of player Denver would need.

How would Thornton fit into the rotation? I still think it would be in Denver's best interest to start Lawson, Iguodala, and Chandler on the perimeter, but having the scoring punch of Thornton off the bench would be great for their team. These are some combos of perimeter players they could trot out with Thornton.

PG - Lawson
SG - Thornton
SF - Gallinari

PG - Lawson
SG - Thornton
SF - Iguodala

PG - Miller
SG - Thornton
SF - Gallinari

PG - Miller
SG - Thornton
SF - Iguodala

I see no reason why any of these rotations wouldn't flow smoothly.

Why do we do this? It's obvious, isn't it? We have had a gaping hole at SF for awhile now. Chandler can come in and immediately be a legitimate upgrade. He has the size, strength, and athletcism we so desire at the SF position. He can shoot the 3 (he shot 35% the 2010-11 season) and shoots aroud 80% from the free-throw line. He is a good rebounder for his position and a good defender. His size, length, strength, and athleticism allows him to guard positions 2-4 which comes in handy on swithches.

Thornton is a good player on this team, but he has to go. He is the odd man out. Out of all our expendable assets, he is the one that we can get the most value for as of now. Having a solid 3 guard rotation will help team chemistry and it will prevent players from getting upset about playing time. Most importantly, it will keep Evans at SG!

If we do this trade, we're definitely on our way to a more balanced team. We would only need an athletic shotblocker to pair next to Cousins. Out of the 4 big men we have on our roster none of them can be considered shotblockers. If we're able to sign a 4th big who can alter shots, I would be a little more excited going into next year. I think Chris Andersen would be a great 4th big. He has even come out saying that he would be willing to sign for the veteran minimum which means the Kings would probably have to go above that if ny other team wants him. Maybe we could use the money we saved by swapping Thornton for Chandler? If we successfully pulled off these two moves, this is what our lineup would look like:

PG - Brooks (24 min)/Thomas (24 min)/Fredette
SG - Evans (37 min)/Salmons (12 min)/Garcia
SF - Chandler (28 min)/Johnson (15 min)/Outlaw (3 min)/Honeycutt
PF - Thompson (28 min)/Robinson (24 min)
C - Cousins (34 min)/Andersen (10 min)/Hayes

A couple of corrections on your final lineup. Anderson is not a center, and would play there only as a last resort. He can play PF however, since that was a position he played in college. J.T. would be our third center along with Hayes.

The situation is a little more complicated for Denver than you stated. Interesting that you list Iggy as a SG, when if we had him, he'd be our starting SF, a position he's probably played more than SG. Plus, I saw Fournier play in summer league, and first, he surprised me. He was better than I thought he would be. But secondly, I think he has more SF in him than he does SG. When I look at Denvers roster, they don't really have anyone thats a true SG in the classic sense of the word, other than Rudy Fernandez, and he's a freeagent. So I would say yes, they could truely use Thronton.

Were I them, I would start Iggy at SF and Thornton at SG, if of course we were able to make a deal with them. But that aside, the question is, whom would we want? I'm not opposed to Chandler, but I'm not sure he would be enough for Thornton. Whether you have issues with Thornton's defense or not, the dude can put the ball in the basket, and again, whether we like it or not, scorers are treasured in the NBA.

I saw both Jordan Hamilton and Quincy Miller play in summer league. I've always liked Hamilton since his college days, and I think he's shown improvement. He played very well in Las Vegas. The rawest, and the player with the most long range potential may be Quincy Miller. Lest folks forget, he was a top five highschool player in the nation as a junior. Unfortunately, he suffered a knee injury early in his senior year, and many, including myself, don't think he was fully recovered from that injury last season.

Regardless, he did show moments of brilliance last season, despite playing second fiddle to P. Jones. Miller has serious length at 6'9", and if the knee is fully recovered, he's a very good athlete. In highschool he was a very good shotblocker, and showed some of that at Baylor. Don't get me wrong, he's a bit of a project, but if it were to invest in someone, he'd be the guy. Chandler is of course the safe choice. You pretty well know what your getting, and I can't argue against going in that direction. I just happen to think that Miller has a chance to be better than either Chandler or Hamilton.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

i like wilson chandler. but i am not giving up our leading scorer for him...

if we could find a way to get Iggy, then ya thornton can go.

but you gotta remember, we dont even know if Tyreke is gonna work out as a 2, he may end up off the team if he doesnt, in which case we will need thornton as our starting 2 once again. so we cant throw him away right now just because he doesnt have a spot in the starting lineup

 

[kingjatt]

I get the black hole chucker vibe from chandler, granted he would be a taller chucker but hes not the long defensive occasional 3 point shooter type SF we would need, he would probably see us as how hickson saw us, a crap team with no system and an oppurtunity to pad his stats.

 

[Boogie-havoc]

I've always loved and was high on Jordan Hamilton.

Feel like we could really grab this kid on the cheap - he just needs a chance to show his worth and blow up in my opinion as a legit rotation and eventually starter in this league. He has the ability.

The situation in Denver right now is not good for him - I really hope we can make a move here.

 

[beb0p]

I thought Denver has pretty good scoring power already. They have underrated scorers, but Iggy/Chandler/Hamilton and maybe even Randolph can score if they are given the opportunity.

Furthermore, they like to pair Dre Miller and Lawson together (likely sliding Iggy to SF and Danilo/Chandler to PF). Between Miller/Iggy/Fournier/Brewer at SG, I don't see any minutes left for Marcu Thorton if they trade for him. They can use Thorton but I don't think they must have a guy like him.

Speaking of Jordan Hamilton, I like him but he needs to stop channeling Kevin Martin! It's not that he can't defend but he just doesn't want to (like Martin). The dude can make plays and finish shots but if he doesn't want to bring it defensively I don't want him. On second thought, he'll fit well with the Kings.

 

[bajaden]

I thought Denver has pretty good scoring power already. They have underrated scorers, but Iggy/Chandler/Hamilton and maybe even Randolph can score if they are given the opportunity.

Furthermore, they like to pair Dre Miller and Lawson together (likely sliding Iggy to SF and Danilo/Chandler to PF). Between Miller/Iggy/Fournier/Brewer at SG, I don't see any minutes left for Marcu Thorton if they trade for him. They can use Thorton but I don't think they must have a guy like him.

Speaking of Jordan Hamilton, I like him but he needs to stop channeling Kevin Martin! It's not that he can't defend but he just doesn't want to (like Martin). The dude can make plays and finish shots but if he doesn't want to bring it defensively I don't want him. On second thought, he'll fit well with the Kings.

Well, Iggy has played SF for most of his career. I'm not sure why everyone suddenly wants to move him to SG. I don't see Fournier playing SG. Maybe I'm wrong, but he sure looked more like a SF to me at summer league. Plus, he's a rookie, so I expect him to be at the bottom of the food chain. I don't think Miller has the quickness to guard SG's anymore. The only guy I see as a true SG is Brewer, and if I have to choose between Brewer, Fournier, and Thornton, I'm taking Thornton. Of course if your right, and they plan to play Iggy at SG, and I agree, they don't need Thornton.

 

[Prince_XY]

PG - Brooks (24 min)/Thomas (24 min)/Fredette
SG - Evans (37 min)/Salmons (12 min)/Garcia
SF - Chandler (28 min)/Johnson (15 min)/Outlaw (3 min)/Honeycutt
PF - Thompson (28 min)/Robinson (24 min)
C - Cousins (34 min)/Andersen (10 min)/Hayes

I don't know where you got the idea that we already have Andersen in our team.

Anyway, I would rather have Petrie first address our need for a big man and shot-blocker by trying hard to acquire Chris "The Birdman" Andersen than go for another SF. IMO, we alreay have too many SFs, (especially if Smart will keep on playing Salmons and Evans at that position). We should just wait and see if the defensively known J. Johnson would be good enough for now as our starting SF.

 

[King Baller]

Denver does not seem like a good trading partner for the Kings. The only one of those SF's I like for the Kings is Iguodala and Denver is hanging on to him.

Birdman is way past his prime and is a questionable citizen.

KB

 

[twslam07]

i like wilson chandler. but i am not giving up our leading scorer for him...

if we could find a way to get Iggy, then ya thornton can go.

but you gotta remember, we dont even know if Tyreke is gonna work out as a 2, he may end up off the team if he doesnt, in which case we will need thornton as our starting 2 once again. so we cant throw him away right now just because he doesnt have a spot in the starting lineup

Both Evans and Cousins have the potential to better scorers than Thornton so I wouldn't look at it as we are giving up our leading scorer. It would be more like we are giving up a guy who all he can do is score.

I don't see your logic of holding on to Thornton as insurance for Evans. It's not like we are throwing him away, which you also mentioned in your post. We are getting a quality player back in Chandler. If Evans doesn't work out, which would surprise me, then yes we wouldn't have Thornton to replace him, but keep in mind SG is a much easier position to fill than SF.

 

[twslam07]

I've always loved and was high on Jordan Hamilton.

Feel like we could really grab this kid on the cheap - he just needs a chance to show his worth and blow up in my opinion as a legit rotation and eventually starter in this league. He has the ability.

The situation in Denver right now is not good for him - I really hope we can make a move here.

I like Hamilton a lot too, but I'm not sure our team would be able to give him the chance he needs. We have too many mid-level SFs, and I'm not sure Hamilton is good enough yet to surpass them and receive playing time.

 

[Chupacabra]

We already have more small forwards than we can count and youre proposing that we trade away MARCUS THORNTON for a ANOTHER small forward named wilson chandler?! I cant even immediately put a face to wilson chandler. Ill have to vote nay on this.

 

[twslam07]

I thought Denver has pretty good scoring power already. They have underrated scorers, but Iggy/Chandler/Hamilton and maybe even Randolph can score if they are given the opportunity.

Furthermore, they like to pair Dre Miller and Lawson together (likely sliding Iggy to SF and Danilo/Chandler to PF). Between Miller/Iggy/Fournier/Brewer at SG, I don't see any minutes left for Marcu Thorton if they trade for him. They can use Thorton but I don't think they must have a guy like him.

Speaking of Jordan Hamilton, I like him but he needs to stop channeling Kevin Martin! It's not that he can't defend but he just doesn't want to (like Martin). The dude can make plays and finish shots but if he doesn't want to bring it defensively I don't want him. On second thought, he'll fit well with the Kings.

In your scenario, you suggest that denver will "likely" slide Iguodala to SF yet when you bring up your list of SGs you include him? It's a little confusing. Anyways, if we assume you meant when you said they will likely slide Iguodala to SF then that leaves Miller, Fournier, and Brewer. You really don't see any minutes Thornton could grab there? I think it's a pretty safe argument to say that Thornton is better than all 3 of these players and would be in the starting lineup. Their lineup would look something like this if they play Iguodala and Gallinari where you are suggesting.

Lawson/A Miller
Thornton/Fournier
Iguodala/Chandler/Brewer/Hamilton/Q Miller
Gallinari/Faried/Randolph
McGee/Koufos/Mozgov

 

[twslam07]

Well, Iggy has played SF for most of his career. I'm not sure why everyone suddenly wants to move him to SG. I don't see Fournier playing SG. Maybe I'm wrong, but he sure looked more like a SF to me at summer league. Plus, he's a rookie, so I expect him to be at the bottom of the food chain. I don't think Miller has the quickness to guard SG's anymore. The only guy I see as a true SG is Brewer, and if I have to choose between Brewer, Fournier, and Thornton, I'm taking Thornton. Of course if your right, and they plan to play Iggy at SG, and I agree, they don't need Thornton.

It's not that we want to move Iguodala to SG, we just don't see another alternative. You have Iguodala and Gallinari who both play SF and both are definitely starting caliber. How do you make it work then? You could bring one off the bench, but wait one of them is capable of playing SG! Problem solved. Iguodala is an elite athlete and defender. I don't need to tell you this because I'm sure you are more than aware of his abilities. Bottom line, I think Iguodala can hold his own at SG. That is up to debate if you would like.

I don't agree with the point you made that if they plan to play Iguodala at SG, then they don't need Thornton. They would have a solid 5 man rotation on their perimeter (Lawson, Miller, Iguodala, Thornton, and Gallinari). Lawson and Miller handle the majority of the PG minutes, Iguodala and Thornton handle the majority of the SG minutes, and Gallinari and Iguodala handle the majority of the SF minutes. I know this is a simplified layout, but they could distribute their minutes in this fashion:

Lawson (34 min)/A Miller (20 min)
Iguodala (30 min)/Thornton (30 min)
Gallinari (30 min)

I'm sure you could shift some minutes around to your liking, but I don't see how Thornton wouldn't be able to fit in there. And if their is room for him, I'm sure the Nuggets would want him.

 

[twslam07]

I don't know where you got the idea that we already have Andersen in our team.

Anyway, I would rather have Petrie first address our need for a big man and shot-blocker by trying hard to acquire Chris "The Birdman" Andersen than go for another SF. IMO, we alreay have too many SFs, (especially if Smart will keep on playing Salmons and Evans at that position). We should just wait and see if the defensively known J. Johnson would be good enough for now as our starting SF.

Sigh... Another person that doesn't read my entire post. It's partly my fault for making them so long.

Anyway, I never had the idea that Andersen was already on our team. If you read my entire post, you would have noticed me referencing him as a free agent pickup on our part.

 

[twslam07]

Denver does not seem like a good trading partner for the Kings. The only one of those SF's I like for the Kings is Iguodala and Denver is hanging on to him.

Birdman is way past his prime and is a questionable citizen.

KB

Just because a player is past his prime doesn't mean he can't be useful to our team.

 

[Glenn]

Just because a player is past his prime doesn't mean he can't be useful to our team.

I am not advocating for the Birdman but the best teams have plenty of "past their prime" players playing for minimum salary. These kind of folks tend to flock to teams that are battling for a title and are insurance. No more SFs, please.

 

[Prince_XY]

Sigh... Another person that doesn't read my entire post. It's partly my fault for making them so long.

Anyway, I never had the idea that Andersen was already on our team. If you read my entire post, you would have noticed me referencing him as a free agent pickup on our part.

lol

Sorry, my bad.

 

[bajaden]

Sigh... Another person that doesn't read my entire post. It's partly my fault for making them so long.

Anyway, I never had the idea that Andersen was already on our team. If you read my entire post, you would have noticed me referencing him as a free agent pickup on our part.

Nothing wrong with long posts! I do it all the time. Sometimes its the only way you can clearly explain your point. And, I will admit to sometimes missing, or misunderstanding, key points in a long post. But thats my fault, not the posters..

 

[Glenn]

Nothing wrong with long posts! I do it all the time. Sometimes its the only way you can clearly explain your point. And, I will admit to sometimes missing, or misunderstanding, key points in a long post. But thats my fault, not the posters..

I used to write complete and quite long posts (years ago) until I found many people didn't read them simply because they were long. That's discouraging as like you, I put a lot into those notes. Now I hit a halfway point and if clarification is needed, I simply clarify. Covering every eventuality of thought in one note runs the risk of losing the reader and making no point at all. At least that's my opinion. There is no right or wrong approach.

 

[CruzDude]

Long posts and the dull, dreaded, hot and muggy days of summer seem to go together. Long posts are fine now IF they get a point across or make a point. But paragraph after paragraph waffling around a point or droning on about small stat differences doesn't cut it. And like bajaden says can just lose us in the drivel and make us take a nap or whatever. I've put my moderator scissors in a drawer with a note "don't open until September 30". Self moderation is much better anyway. So have at it until real stuff begins to happen in October.

 

[King Baller]

Just because a player is past his prime doesn't mean he can't be useful to our team.

I just don't see where a 35 year old player fits on this young Kings team. Let a contender take a flyer on him for the minimum.

KB

 

[beb0p]

In your scenario, you suggest that denver will "likely" slide Iguodala to SF yet when you bring up your list of SGs you include him? It's a little confusing. Anyways, if we assume you meant when you said they will likely slide Iguodala to SF then that leaves Miller, Fournier, and Brewer. You really don't see any minutes Thornton could grab there? I think it's a pretty safe argument to say that Thornton is better than all 3 of these players and would be in the starting lineup. Their lineup would look something like this if they play Iguodala and Gallinari where you are suggesting.

You do realize that Andre Miller was on the USA Olympic team? Is still one of the best pure PG in the league and last year had almost 7 assists in only 27 minutes? I like Thornton but let's not get carried away and say that he is obviously better than Miller because 1) he's clearly not and 2) he isn't what Denver wants.

The simplest and easiest thing for George Karl to do after losing Affalo is to pluck Iggy into the Affalo role - at SG and with the rest of the rotation unaffected. Iggy starts at SG and when Miller enters the game he is moved to SF. Last year, Affalo and Miller occupied over 80% of the SG minutes. Next year it's going to be Iggy and Miller occupying roughly 80% of the SG minutes. That leaves about 20% of minutes or about 10 minutes a game for the rest. 10 minutes a game for Thornton? I don't think so.

The whole idea of Denver trading for Iggy is to improve their defense. That's straight from Karl's mouth. They lead the league in points scored and second in FG%, why do they want more offense?

Denver gave up the second most pts in the league and it's none other than Karl who said it's better to be #4 in offense and #8 in defense than to be #1 in offense and #29 in defense. Point is: Karl is more than satisfied with the offense and is wiling to sacrifice a bit of offense to have better defense.

 

[Chupacabra]

Do the kings need to trade for ANOTHER small forward? NO. Is Marcus Thornton a superior player to Andre Miller? Yup. Do i like to ask questions and then immediately answer them? Absolutely.

 

[Glenn]

Do the kings need to trade for ANOTHER small forward? NO. Is Marcus Thornton a superior player to Andre Miller? Yup. Do i like to ask questions and then immediately answer them? Absolutely.

It is what makes you so endearing to all of us. Unless you are wrong, of course.

 

[King Baller]

You do realize that Andre Miller was on the USA Olympic team? Is still one of the best pure PG in the league and last year had almost 7 assists in only 27 minutes? I like Thornton but let's not get carried away and say that he is obviously better than Miller because 1) he's clearly not and 2) he isn't what Denver wants.

The simplest and easiest thing for George Karl to do after losing Affalo is to pluck Iggy into the Affalo role - at SG and with the rest of the rotation unaffected. Iggy starts at SG and when Miller enters the game he is moved to SF. Last year, Affalo and Miller occupied over 80% of the SG minutes. Next year it's going to be Iggy and Miller occupying roughly 80% of the SG minutes. That leaves about 20% of minutes or about 10 minutes a game for the rest. 10 minutes a game for Thornton? I don't think so.

The whole idea of Denver trading for Iggy is to improve their defense. That's straight from Karl's mouth. They lead the league in points scored and second in FG%, why do they want more offense?

Denver gave up the second most pts in the league and it's none other than Karl who said it's better to be #4 in offense and #8 in defense than to be #1 in offense and #29 in defense. Point is: Karl is more than satisfied with the offense and is wiling to sacrifice a bit of offense to have better defense.

Now I am aware that Andre "Iggy" Iguodala was on the USA Olympic squad. But Andre Miller??? Really? I must have missed it. I do know Andre Miller is 36 years old.

KB

 

[rainmaker]

You do realize that Andre Miller was on the USA Olympic team? Is still one of the best pure PG in the league and last year had almost 7 assists in only 27 minutes? I like Thornton but let's not get carried away and say that he is obviously better than Miller because 1) he's clearly not and 2) he isn't what Denver wants.

Uh, Miller was never an Olympian. He played on the World Championship team in 02, just over a decade ago. Not sure how he was back then is relevant to how he compares to MT a decade later. I sure would much rather have a younger, potential 18ppg scorer than a 36 yr old on his last legs, who wouldn't mesh with Reke just as he didn't with Roy.

Den may not want MT at all, but why would we want Miller, who I agree is still a good pure pg type now, but in a more limited role? Why would we bring in a 36 yr old to take mins away from Brooks/IT? Without Brooks, maybe. They're two completely different players so it's hard to sit here and say one is clearly better than the other. But I;ll say this, I'd guess that there'd be a much larger market for MT than Miller, and any Miller suitors would be contenders who need a quality, experienced backup point, whereas MT could be a building block for a number of teams. We surely don't need Miller more than MT, so as it pertains to us I'd say MT is the better player, and if Miller happened to be on our roster,I doubt he'd fetch as much in a trade for us as MT would, which would be another indicator that MT is a better player. No one is going after Miller for what he did in 02.

 

[beb0p]

Uh, Miller was never an Olympian. He played on the World Championship team in 02, just over a decade ago. Not sure how he was back then is relevant to how he compares to MT a decade later. I sure would much rather have a younger, potential 18ppg scorer than a 36 yr old on his last legs, who wouldn't mesh with Reke just as he didn't with Roy.

Den may not want MT at all, but why would we want Miller, who I agree is still a good pure pg type now, but in a more limited role? Why would we bring in a 36 yr old to take mins away from Brooks/IT? Without Brooks, maybe. They're two completely different players so it's hard to sit here and say one is clearly better than the other. But I;ll say this, I'd guess that there'd be a much larger market for MT than Miller, and any Miller suitors would be contenders who need a quality, experienced backup point, whereas MT could be a building block for a number of teams. We surely don't need Miller more than MT, so as it pertains to us I'd say MT is the better player, and if Miller happened to be on our roster,I doubt he'd fetch as much in a trade for us as MT would, which would be another indicator that MT is a better player. No one is going after Miller for what he did in 02.

My bet. I meant the World team, not the Olympic team.

I honestly don't know what MT's trade value is. I suppose Kings fans look upon him as a 20pt score and clutch player. I don't know that teams out there see him in the same light, or merely another Jamal Crawford/JR Smith type.

But Andre Miller, at his age, still rocks. I'm not saying Miller would fetch as much in a trade, but the only reason being age, not game. Miller can still ball. The Kings would be a more balanced team with Miller instead of MT. Not saying I'd trade MT for Miller straight up, but a pure seasoned PG is just what this team needs, 36 yrs old or not.

 

[bajaden]

My bet. I meant the World team, not the Olympic team.

I honestly don't know what MT's trade value is. I suppose Kings fans look upon him as a 20pt score and clutch player. I don't know that teams out there see him in the same light, or merely another Jamal Crawford/JR Smith type.

But Andre Miller, at his age, still rocks. I'm not saying Miller would fetch as much in a trade, but the only reason being age, not game. Miller can still ball. The Kings would be a more balanced team with Miller instead of MT. Not saying I'd trade MT for Miller straight up, but a pure seasoned PG is just what this team needs, 36 yrs old or not.

I've always been a fan of Millers, and if we hadn't already signed Brooks, I might be on board. As it is, there just wouldn't be enough minutes to go around, even if we were to play him some at SG. Right now, we just have too many players of the same ilk. Now if we could move Salmons, then it would be a different story.