CaminoChaos
Bench
there is a couple moves he is waiting on that will add length and athletisism to the 4 or 5.
What is it!
What is it!
Elston Turner on the radio just said....
- Thread starter CaminoChaos
- Start date
D-Mass
Starter
CaminoChaos said:
I don't know, but I like the term "waiting on"...that means that moves are already in play. "Length and athleticism" don't describe too many PF/C's in the league, so some of the hunches of people in this forum may work out. Bosh, Chandler, Hunter, etc. all come to mind with that description. I think "length" is a really important word he used...to me, people like Reggie Evans don't have length. Should be interesting!
CaminoChaos
Bench
Folsom Al said:
I thought thats what Rat ask Elston.
Anyways at least they are going after a Big.
CaminoChaos
Bench
CaminoChaos said:there is a couple moves he is waiting on that will add length and athletisism to the 4 or 5.QUOTE]
How were we all so blind. It's KG he's talking about.
D-Mass
Starter
CaminoChaos said:CaminoChaos said:there is a couple moves he is waiting on that will add length and athletisism to the 4 or 5.QUOTE]
How were we all so blind. It's KG he's talking about.
LOL...I left that out of my original list because it seems so far out of the realm of possibility. But, man, would that be great!
Kingsgurl
Starter
Well, whozit, it's just pretty much the unvarnished truth in all it's glory. At least it means they ARE looking to add what we need at that position (but I kind of assumed that was a given, personally) It also means that trying to acquire the players you want sometimes just doesn't work out. There are a ton of variables (first and foremost the other team(s)
LA King Fan II
Bench
IMO gaining a true quality 4/5 will cost Martin or Garcia + Peja or Bibby + Skinner or Corliss.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
Gee looking to add lenth and athleticisim at the 4-5... that was a brilliant anlaysis of a hidden weakness. And thne the ablolutely profound inisght that if the Kings do NOT add atheleticism and lenth to the 4-5 they will make do with what they have (Sarcasim intended)... as iff there was a door number 3 to choose from. This is EXACTLY the mindless drivel that I collect for my logic classes.
How were we all so blind. It's KG he's talking about.[/QUOTE]
Man i would love to get KG, But the only thing about that i wouldn't like is what we would have to give up to get him. In getting a younger guy like say chandler we wouldn't have to give up so many pieces. In KG we have to give up probably 2 core players plus part of our bench. In say chandler we probably would only have to give up one. Dont get me wrong though i would love to have kg I just hope we wouldn't have to give away half of the team.
[/QUOTE]Man i would love to get KG, But the only thing about that i wouldn't like is what we would have to give up to get him. In getting a younger guy like say chandler we wouldn't have to give up so many pieces. In KG we have to give up probably 2 core players plus part of our bench. In say chandler we probably would only have to give up one. Dont get me wrong though i would love to have kg I just hope we wouldn't have to give away half of the team.
Bad Boy Bo
Bench
Pay big to get big.
F
Fillmoe
Guest
he has a trade kicker in his contract too
nbrans
All-Star
Here are some possible Bibby for big man targets. Depending on the salaries it might take more players from the Kings or more players from the other team:
Chris Bosh (only because Babcock is an idiot)
Dwight Howard (major, major stretch, especially since they signed Dooling, but I thought I'd include him because you never know with the Magic)
Al Jefferson (also very, very doubtul, although I think Danny Ainge is a Bibby fan)
Elton Brand
Kenyon Martin
Nene
Tyson Chandler
Pau Gasol
Zach Randolph
Carlos Boozer
Chris Bosh (only because Babcock is an idiot)
Dwight Howard (major, major stretch, especially since they signed Dooling, but I thought I'd include him because you never know with the Magic)
Al Jefferson (also very, very doubtul, although I think Danny Ainge is a Bibby fan)
Elton Brand
Kenyon Martin
Nene
Tyson Chandler
Pau Gasol
Zach Randolph
Carlos Boozer
captain bill
All-Star
SlimKid15 said:How were we all so blind. It's KG he's talking about.
Man i would love to get KG, But the only thing about that i wouldn't like is what we would have to give up to get him. In getting a younger guy like say chandler we wouldn't have to give up so many pieces. In KG we have to give up probably 2 core players plus part of our bench. In say chandler we probably would only have to give up one. Dont get me wrong though i would love to have kg I just hope we wouldn't have to give away half of the team.[/QUOTE]
Right, Chicago is going to give up their best young player for an aged, slowing one...no chance. We would have to give up 2 core players or a huge chunk of our bench to get Chandler. GMs aren't stupid. If everyone on the internet knows how good Chandler is, Paxson sure as hell does, too.
Right, Chicago is going to give up their best young player for an aged, slowing one...no chance. We would have to give up 2 core players or a huge chunk of our bench to get Chandler. GMs aren't stupid. If everyone on the internet knows how good Chandler is, Paxson sure as hell does, too.[/QUOTE]
So you think chandler is worth as much as KG? Your crazy if you think it would take as much to get chandler as it would to get kg.
So you think chandler is worth as much as KG? Your crazy if you think it would take as much to get chandler as it would to get kg.
captain bill
All-Star
SlimKid15 said:
So you think chandler is worth as much as KG? Your crazy if you think it would take as much to get chandler as it would to get kg.[/QUOTE]
No, but I also know that Minnesota wouldn't take Bibby/Peja for Garnett. It would take more. It would also take more than one core player for Chandler. In 5 years Chandler will be a phenomenal player, probably not as good as KG (not yet) but he will be one of the best in the game. Giving up one aging player who is not on top of his position for that kind of young guy is nice, but the Bulls would be nuts to accept it. Okay, Chandler isn't KG. That means we can get him for peanuts because, why?
No, but I also know that Minnesota wouldn't take Bibby/Peja for Garnett. It would take more. It would also take more than one core player for Chandler. In 5 years Chandler will be a phenomenal player, probably not as good as KG (not yet) but he will be one of the best in the game. Giving up one aging player who is not on top of his position for that kind of young guy is nice, but the Bulls would be nuts to accept it. Okay, Chandler isn't KG. That means we can get him for peanuts because, why?[/QUOTE]
Thats what i said in the beginning that it would take too much to get kg. I said a cpl of our core players and our bench. All im saying is if were going to trade, trade as less as we can. I was only using chandler as an example anyway. Im not saying they would do that i am just saying we can get someone along the lines of chandler for less then we would getting kg.
Thats what i said in the beginning that it would take too much to get kg. I said a cpl of our core players and our bench. All im saying is if were going to trade, trade as less as we can. I was only using chandler as an example anyway. Im not saying they would do that i am just saying we can get someone along the lines of chandler for less then we would getting kg.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
captain bill said:
No, but I also know that Minnesota wouldn't take Bibby/Peja for Garnett. It would take more. It would also take more than one core player for Chandler. In 5 years Chandler will be a phenomenal player, probably not as good as KG (not yet) but he will be one of the best in the game. Giving up one aging player who is not on top of his position for that kind of young guy is nice, but the Bulls would be nuts to accept it. Okay, Chandler isn't KG. That means we can get him for peanuts because, why?[/QUOTE]
Tyson, while a good player, shouldn't markedly improve over what he did last year. He is a guy that hustles, blocks shots, and provides athleticism. If anything he could become a star role player, but not much more. He is along the lines of a PJ Brown type of player. He gets his 10 and 10, is tough, blocks a few shots, but is not a star player. Even getting more minutes is a hard way to imply that his play would improve because he plays physical and gets in foul trouble early. I also don't see Tyson developing a refined offensive set. He has improved slightly on offense, but the guy is eternally raw.
Other knocks on Tyson could be that he is a prototypical, "contract year" player. Throughout much of his career he has been kind of lackidasical with an "on or off" attitude and commitment to the game.
So in other words, I bet that if Petrie inquired about Tyson, and Paxson said it would take 2 of our core players, then...well that would be one SHORT conversation.
I argue that Tyson is not worth 1, let alone 2 of our core players. He could be the perfect addition to the core we have, but I would hope that we have a backup capable of playing well in the 20 minutes a game where Tyson is on the bench.
GoGoGadget
All-Star
7th said:D-Mass said:Great...fantastic...wonderful...da bomb...there is really no word to describe that!
Supercalifragilisticexpialidoscious?
Similar threads
