If Kings end up with 6th overall pick (most likely), what would you want GP to do?

[Kingster]

Many of us don't see IT as an ideal starting PG for a good Kings team. It's ok now, but if you look at a possible playoff Kings team, IT should come from the bench. We are too weak defensively with him and MT in the backcourt, and you don't go very far with this kind of problem. I'm not saying that Thomas isn't good or hasn't been playing very well. But I'm one of those who don't see him as an ideal starter. He could be part of a great second unit, with more opportunities when Cousins and Reke are on the bench resting.

BTW: who is Connelly?

Connelly is the Grizzlies starting guard.

I just don't see how taking IT out of the lineup is going to improve your team, whether it's on defense or offense. He does both. If you want to improve your backcourt D you either put Tyreke at the 2 or you trade him and put another good defender at the 2. Then go out and get a good defensive 3. Doesn't make sense to take your best point guard defender out of the lineup. Thomas keeps other point guards out of the paint better than anybody we have.

 

[Kingster]

I think the D would be fine if we just moved MT to the bench and started IT and Evans. The only issue I would have is that if the PG is a strong offensive player and we were to put Evans on him I would worry about IT guarding the SG. But man D IT isn't bad at all if he's on the PG.

I had always wanted to know from someone who says he's not a starter or is an ideal bench player, why do you think this is the case? What is your reason on why you think IT is better suited for coming off the bench?

I don't think it has to do with strong offensive player or weak offensive player. If it's quickness that's hurting you, then definitely IT needs to be in there to guard against it. He's better than Tyreke in that department. He's considerably better than Tyreke in getting over screens. If it's strength that's hurting you, then Tyreke needs to be guarding the guy. More times than not, however, it's quickness that hurts you when you face NBA point guards, not strength.

 

[bajaden]

Heres a thought.

Say the Lolcats end up at #2. Do they really want to draft MKG? Who is going to be a stud down the road, but probably wont do anything to add wins right away...

Or would they like to get our pick (who could be a really good guard or a decent big in Sullinger) + Thornton, who could easily put up 20ppg for them next season (fg% be damned!).

I'd say thats looking like a pretty good deal for them. They add a lot more talent than just drafting MKG. Meanwhile here in Sac, we just got our defensive captain (sorry Hayes)/super duper roleplayer of the future.

If that went down we'd just have to pray that Jimmer improves enough in the offseason to be a major rotation guy, cause our shooting will be caca.

The Cats need talent, and one player isn't going to get it done. So I would have to think that they would consider a deal like that. Whats hard to figure, is just where do they consider their biggest need is. They have Augustin at PG, but he's a restricted FA. I would think that although they drafted Kemba Walker last year, they would still want to retain him since he was playing well. Their PF of the future appears to Biyombo with D.J. White and Tryus Thomas as backups. I would say that Center is a position of need, but not a desperate one with DeSagana Diop and B.J. Mullens. At SG they have Gerald Henderson, and he's really played well for them the last half the season. They have Reggie Williams as his backup, and their stuck with Corey Maggette for the next two years.

You'll notice that I haven't mentioned SF. Thats because that other than Maggette who can play SF at 6'6", the only other player is the dynamic Matt Carroll. That said, Gilchrist would look very good to them. On the other hand, if they could land Thornton, and then move down a few spots and grab Barnes, thats still a nice improvement for their team.

So the question is, is it worth it to us? I love Gilchrist, so I'm the last person you should ask that question. I think he's going to be a star in the league. So, because trading Thornton, would also open up a spot at SG for Tyreke as well as fixing our SF problem for the forseeable future, I would do the trade. And I really like Thornton. But sometimes you have to give up talent to get talent. You could turn around and draft a Jenkins or a Buford in the second round as a future backup at SG. Both guys can shoot the ball, and both have legit size for the position.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Connelly is the Grizzlies starting guard.

Connelly:

Conley:

 

[Vlade4GM]

Baja, you've probably explained it before, but why do you think Gilchrist is going to be a star? I mean, he's very young and he could theoretically improve in a lot of unforeseen ways, but he doesn't really have star-like abilities. He has the intangibles, versatile defense, and "does the little things" role player ability, but that doesn't typically make a player a star. I really like Gilchrist, but I think there's going to be a Shane Battier type result taking him high: you'll love and appreciate having him, but will he ultimately be what you expect from a top pick? Eh, probably not. Why? Well, for the same reason Battier never made it as a top player, he can't really create off the dribble, and that's a very difficult ability to learn and some players just don't have it in them. That's a harsh lesson I learned with Wes Johnson. I think he'll be a lot better than Battier offensively, but he can't create off the dribble, and there aren't many great off-ball scorers in the league because it's really hard to do that now, especially without a jump shot.

 

[bajaden]

Baja, you've probably explained it before, but why do you think Gilchrist is going to be a star? I mean, he's very young and he could theoretically improve in a lot of unforeseen ways, but he doesn't really have star-like abilities. He has the intangibles, versatile defense, and "does the little things" role player ability, but that doesn't typically make a player a star. I really like Gilchrist, but I think there's going to be a Shane Battier type result taking him high. You'll love and appreciate having him, but will he ultimately be what you expect from a top pick? Eh, probably not. Why? Well, for the same reason Battier never made it as a top player, he can't really create off the dribble, and that's a very difficult ability to learn and some players just don't have it in them. That's a harsh lesson I learned with Wes Johnson. I think he'll be a lot better than Battier offensively, but he can't create off the dribble, and there aren't many great off-ball scorers in the league because it's really hard to do that now, especially without a jump shot.

Why do you think Gilchrist can't create off the dribble. I grant you, he's not a good outside shooter, but the dude is an good ballhandler, and a great finisher at the basket. He also has a very good pullup midrange game. If you just look at his stats, nothing will leap off the paper at you, but if you watch him play, which I did at least 30 times this year, you realize he very good at a lot of things. He just does whatever is needed on a game by game basis. If they need him to score, he scores. He had his share of 20 plus point games this year. If they need him to just play defense and rebound thats what he does at the expense of his touches on offense. I have no idea where you came up with this idea he can't create off the dribble. I'll tell you who can't create off the dribble, and thats Barnes.

There was no one on the Kentucky team that was more deadly in the open court with the ball than Gilchrist. But all that aside, the one main reason I just love Gilchrist, is for his relentless aggression on both sides of the ball, and his leadership qualities. He will not tolerate any of his teammates slacking off on a play. I saw him get in the face of one of his teammates many times throughout the year. If he was on the Kings, and Cousins or Evans, one of our two stars, was late getting back up the court, I guarantee you Gilchrist would be in their face. He could care less about your being a star. He only cares about winning, and he's willing to sacrafice his game at times if it means it results in a win.

But to say that all he has all the intangibles, but lacks skills, is about as far from the truth as you can get. Now if you want to make the case that he can't create off the dribble and make a 3pt shot consistently, I'll give you that one. But that has more to do with his poor outside shooting than his ability to get open.

 

[Uncia03]

Baja, you've probably explained it before, but why do you think Gilchrist is going to be a star? I mean, he's very young and he could theoretically improve in a lot of unforeseen ways, but he doesn't really have star-like abilities. He has the intangibles, versatile defense, and "does the little things" role player ability, but that doesn't typically make a player a star. I really like Gilchrist, but I think there's going to be a Shane Battier type result taking him high: you'll love and appreciate having him, but will he ultimately be what you expect from a top pick? Eh, probably not. Why? Well, for the same reason Battier never made it as a top player, he can't really create off the dribble, and that's a very difficult ability to learn and some players just don't have it in them. That's a harsh lesson I learned with Wes Johnson. I think he'll be a lot better than Battier offensively, but he can't create off the dribble, and there aren't many great off-ball scorers in the league because it's really hard to do that now, especially without a jump shot.

It's hard to know whether or not he can adequately create off the dribble.
He has very good handles in the open court, but he was rarely ever asked to create for himself in a half-court set.

Calipari had him moving with-out the ball, usually diving into the lane as a cutter, or getting to the rim for the offensive rebound.

I think it's akin to Cousins' ability to play and shoot at the elbows. Calipari never had him do that, but it's clear he had the ability if he had been directed to do that.

I'd say that the vast majority of MKG's baskets were either fast-break, offensive-rebound putbacks, or attempts at the rim after receiving the ball on a hard cut.

So when you have Cousins who can operate both in the post and the elbow along with Tyreke who is elite at penetrating to the rim, I think that regardless of MKG's personal ability to take his man off the dribble, the offense MKG showed at Kentucky is perfectly suited to what we'd need from him on this team. (Except that he does need to fix his broken jumper, which actually is pretty good from mid-range, but needs help from the 3pt line.) (This is also with the expectation that we have a coach who decides to play a real half-court offense, though MKG would flourish in a run-and-gun style as well)

I don't know if he'll end up being a star or not, but with everything he brings to the table, I know I definitely want him on my team, and would trade all but Cousins and Tyreke for him.

 

[bajaden]

Connelly:

Conley:

Subtle and Succinct!

 

[Kingster]

Connelly:

Conley:

I'd take Connelly over Conley any day....

 

[JB_kings]

Subtle and Succinct!

I don't care how good IT plays, I'm taking Connelly!

 

[bajaden]

It's hard to know whether or not he can adequately create off the dribble.
He has very good handles in the open court, but he was rarely ever asked to create for himself in a half-court set.

Calipari had him moving with-out the ball, usually diving into the lane as a cutter, or getting to the rim for the offensive rebound.

I think it's akin to Cousins' ability to play and shoot at the elbows. Calipari never had him do that, but it's clear he had the ability if he had been directed to do that.

I'd say that the vast majority of MKG's baskets were either fast-break, offensive-rebound putbacks, or attempts at the rim after receiving the ball on a hard cut.

So when you have Cousins who can operate both in the post and the elbow along with Tyreke who is elite at penetrating to the rim, I think that regardless of MKG's personal ability to take his man off the dribble, the offense MKG showed at Kentucky is perfectly suited to what we'd need from him on this team. (Except that he does need to fix his broken jumper, which actually is pretty good from mid-range, but needs help from the 3pt line.) (This is also with the expectation that we have a coach who decides to play a real half-court offense, though MKG would flourish in a run-and-gun style as well)

I don't know if he'll end up being a star or not, but with everything he brings to the table, I know I definitely want him on my team, and would trade all but Cousins and Tyreke for him.

Good analysis! Said it better than I could have. I went and read Draftexpress's review of Gilchrist, and now I can see where people might get the idea that he's a bad ballhandler, which he isn't. But as to having all the little fakes, jabsteps etc. that shooters like Allen and Kobe use, no, he didn't display those this past season at Kentucky. But then, as you pointed out, thats not what Calapari wanted him doing either. One thing I didn't mention, was the fact that he's also a very good passer.

I think whether he becomes a star or not, depends on what the team that drafts him expects from him. I think Gilchrist is one of those guys that if you want him to be one of your offensive guys, he'll become that. He's such a dedicated, hardworking player, that the last thing I worry about is his shooting ability. There's no doubt that his jumpshot needs fixing though.

 

[bajaden]

I don't care how good IT plays, I'm taking Connelly!

Boy, I have a great line, but I can't use it here. Damm, I really want to say it, but I better not.

 

[Mass]

Connelly is the Grizzlies starting guard.

I just don't see how taking IT out of the lineup is going to improve your team, whether it's on defense or offense. He does both. If you want to improve your backcourt D you either put Tyreke at the 2 or you trade him and put another good defender at the 2. Then go out and get a good defensive 3. Doesn't make sense to take your best point guard defender out of the lineup. Thomas keeps other point guards out of the paint better than anybody we have.

Well, I guess we should agree we disagree on this point. IT has done a good job on D for a 5'9 guy, but that's the problem: he is 5'9. He won't ever be able to guard bigger guards on a regular basis, like Rose, Williams, Westbrook. I've seen many times people just running over him and getting the bucket. It's not his fault of course, but you can't hide he is 5'9. I believe he would be better coming from the bench, where he doesn'y have to play 38/40 min per game.
Last thing, saying he is our best point guard defender it's not a verey solid point if you want to prove he is a good defender. The only other PG we have is Jimmer, and even a chair is a better defender than jimmer.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Why do you think Gilchrist can't create off the dribble. I grant you, he's not a good outside shooter, but the dude is an good ballhandler, and a great finisher at the basket. He also has a very good pullup midrange game. If you just look at his stats, nothing will leap off the paper at you, but if you watch him play, which I did at least 30 times this year, you realize he very good at a lot of things. He just does whatever is needed on a game by game basis. If they need him to score, he scores. He had his share of 20 plus point games this year. If they need him to just play defense and rebound thats what he does at the expense of his touches on offense. I have no idea where you came up with this idea he can't create off the dribble. I'll tell you who can't create off the dribble, and thats Barnes.

There was no one on the Kentucky team that was more deadly in the open court with the ball than Gilchrist. But all that aside, the one main reason I just love Gilchrist, is for his relentless aggression on both sides of the ball, and his leadership qualities. He will not tolerate any of his teammates slacking off on a play. I saw him get in the face of one of his teammates many times throughout the year. If he was on the Kings, and Cousins or Evans, one of our two stars, was late getting back up the court, I guarantee you Gilchrist would be in their face. He could care less about your being a star. He only cares about winning, and he's willing to sacrafice his game at times if it means it results in a win.

But to say that all he has all the intangibles, but lacks skills, is about as far from the truth as you can get. Now if you want to make the case that he can't create off the dribble and make a 3pt shot consistently, I'll give you that one. But that has more to do with his poor outside shooting than his ability to get open.

I didn't mean to imply that he lacked skills (I know he's a good passer), but perhaps the skills that makes one a top go-to option in an offense, which typically makes a player a star.

Well, maybe I missed it (I wasn't watching college bball a ton this year,) and I forgot to mention that Callipari does tend to hide players' skills, but I didn't see that much of an off the dribble game, at least not for the NBA level. And being good in transition is not the same as being able to create in a half-court setting.

Still, I'd probably take him 2nd overall because I'm just so indifferent about most of the top players in this draft. My list is pretty much Davis, Gilchrist, Beal, and T. Jones.

 

[bajaden]

I didn't mean to imply that he lacked skills (I know he's a good passer), but perhaps the skills that makes one a top go-to option in an offense, which typically makes a player a star.

Well, maybe I missed it (I wasn't watching college bball a ton this year,) and I forgot to mention that Callipari does tend to hide players' skills, but I didn't see that much of an off the dribble game, at least not for the NBA level. And being good in transition is not the same as being able to create in a half-court setting.

Still, I'd probably take him 2nd overall because I'm just so indifferent about most of the top players in this draft. My list is pretty much Davis, Gilchrist, Beal, and T. Jones.

Let me rephrase the star thing. I think he could be a star! It all depends on where he goes, and how he's used. I think his chances are better on a young team like the Kings, or any young team out there, because he will immediately become one of the leaders of that team. He was the default leader of the Kentucky team, and he had second and third year playes listening to him.

No, he'll never lead the NBA in scoring, but he'll in all likelyhood lead his team into the playoffs, and possibly a championship down the road. And I doubt that they'll be anyone that doesn't think he's the leader of that team. He was the youngest player in college last season, but he played like a senior. This is a guy that won't let his team quit. As I said, I'm very biased when it comes to Gilchrist. I've been following him for a long time, and nothing would make me happier than to have him on the Kings. Not likely to happen, but I can hope.

A couple of other players that GM's will wish they drafted when they had the chance are Moultrie, and probably Meyers Leonard. Don't know if you know much about them, but Moultrie a 6'11", 230 Lb, PF, transfered after two years at UTEP, where he played SF, to Mississippi St, where they switched him to PF. He had a very good year averaging around 16 ppg, and 10 rpg. He has a nice jumpshot with range out to the 3 pt line, where this past season he took fewer shots, but made a much higher percentage. Shot selection is everything. I think the kid is just beginning to find his game, so in my opinion, he has upside left in the tank.

Leonard, a sophmore this past season is a 7'1", 250 Lb, Center from Illinios. After a dismal freshman season, he had a mini breakout year averaging 13.6 ppg, and 8.2 rpg. But he also averaged just under 2 blocked shots a game at 1.9. Leonard is big, long, and athletic. He's also very raw in a lot of areas. So he's a bit of a project, but someone that could be very good in a couple of years.

With the lack of good big men in the NBA right now, I can see someone making a reach for him in the lottery. He has a lot of upside. One area in which he surprised me was with his passing. Much better than I thought he would be. It didn't help him that he played on a guard oriented team that forgot that he was there at times.

 

[DesertFox]

Well, I guess we should agree we disagree on this point. IT has done a good job on D for a 5'9 guy, but that's the problem: he is 5'9. He won't ever be able to guard bigger guards on a regular basis, like Rose, Williams, Westbrook. I've seen many times people just running over him and getting the bucket. It's not his fault of course, but you can't hide he is 5'9. I believe he would be better coming from the bench, where he doesn'y have to play 38/40 min per game.
Last thing, saying he is our best point guard defender it's not a verey solid point if you want to prove he is a good defender. The only other PG we have is Jimmer, and even a chair is a better defender than jimmer.

Yeah, being 5-9 hurts, but if the total package is better than any other option, then you go with him. I look at him the same way I do JT, great 6th/7th guys.
You can win with one of those level of players starting, but not both. I'm fine with IT long term starting only if we have a stud blocker PF and JT as a 3rd big. Similarly, vice versa for JT as a starter and IT off the bench.

 

[twslam07]

Yeah, being 5-9 hurts, but if the total package is better than any other option, then you go with him. I look at him the same way I do JT, great 6th/7th guys.
You can win with one of those level of players starting, but not both. I'm fine with IT long term starting only if we have a stud blocker PF and JT as a 3rd big. Similarly, vice versa for JT as a starter and IT off the bench.

I know this is kind of off topic, but I feel like everyone uses a different metric for everyones height on this team. Everyone says Thomas is 5'9" and everyone says Evans is 6'6". Before players are drafted they usually participate in height and wingspan measurements. Most players are measured with shoes and without shoes. Thomas is 5'9" and Evans is 6'4" without shoes. Thomas is 5'10.25" and Evans is 6'5.25" in shoes. I tend to go by how players measure out in shoes simply because that's the height they will be playing as.

Other notables on our team whose heights are in shoes:
Salmons 6'7"
Greene 6'9" (yep that's right. he is not that 6'11" SF NBA2K makes him out to be)
Hayes 6'7"

Looks like we have 2 less players 6'6" and under

Again, I know it's really off topic. I just see these constant mistakes in peoples heights and it makes me cringe. I must be OCD

 

[bajaden]

I know this is kind of off topic, but I feel like everyone uses a different metric for everyones height on this team. Everyone says Thomas is 5'9" and everyone says Evans is 6'6". Before players are drafted they usually participate in height and wingspan measurements. Most players are measured with shoes and without shoes. Thomas is 5'9" and Evans is 6'4" without shoes. Thomas is 5'10.25" and Evans is 6'5.25" in shoes. I tend to go by how players measure out in shoes simply because that's the height they will be playing as.

Other notables on our team whose heights are in shoes:
Salmons 6'7"
Greene 6'9" (yep that's right. he is not that 6'11" SF NBA2K makes him out to be)
Hayes 6'7"

Looks like we have 2 less players 6'6" and under

Again, I know it's really off topic. I just see these constant mistakes in peoples heights and it makes me cringe. I must be OCD

I pointed out that Thomas was 5'10" in shoes right after we drafted him, but it didn't seem to make any difference. I also go with the height in shoes, simply because thats the height that most teams have listed. In Greene's case, I think it is assumed that he grew an inch or two since the Kings made the deal for him. Don't know the truth of it, but when I saw him standing on the floor right next to JT, he looked to be a similar height, so its possible. Dwight Howard measured out at 6'9" at the combine, but its accepted that he's close to 7 foot now. Again, very possible since he was only 18 at the time he was drafted.

In the end, its not your true height that matters, but your standing reach. Its very possible for a player thats 6'9" to have a higher standing reach than a player thats 7 foot tall. And as Jerry Reynolds has said on more than one occasion, "You don't rebound with the top of your head".

 

[rhythmless]

I know this is kind of off topic, but I feel like everyone uses a different metric for everyones height on this team. Everyone says Thomas is 5'9" and everyone says Evans is 6'6". Before players are drafted they usually participate in height and wingspan measurements. Most players are measured with shoes and without shoes. Thomas is 5'9" and Evans is 6'4" without shoes. Thomas is 5'10.25" and Evans is 6'5.25" in shoes. I tend to go by how players measure out in shoes simply because that's the height they will be playing as.

Other notables on our team whose heights are in shoes:
Salmons 6'7"
Greene 6'9" (yep that's right. he is not that 6'11" SF NBA2K makes him out to be)
Hayes 6'7"

Looks like we have 2 less players 6'6" and under

Again, I know it's really off topic. I just see these constant mistakes in peoples heights and it makes me cringe. I must be OCD

You're not the only one. I've spent at least 10 posts trying to correct posters about this. Harden is the exact same height as Tyreke, but Harden is listed at 6'5" and Tyreke is 6'6". As for Donte, he was measured as 6'9", drafted at 6'9", and traded to us at 6'11". Reports are that he grew, which I was fine with. But then Tyreke got drafted as 6'5" and immediately "grew" into 6'6" with us. That's when I raised an eyebrow. This just seems like padding our guys to make them seem better than they are, which reeks of the Kings organization. Course, with us drafting all the youngins, it's not unheard of that some keep growing. Donte already had two growth spurts though. One to get him to NBA height, and one from 6'7"-6'9" in college (IIRC).

Can't wait till DMC drinks some more of this Sac water so they can call him a 7 footer next season.

 

[spudfan]

Well, I guess we should agree we disagree on this point. IT has done a good job on D for a 5'9 guy, but that's the problem: he is 5'9. He won't ever be able to guard bigger guards on a regular basis, like Rose, Williams, Westbrook. I've seen many times people just running over him and getting the bucket. It's not his fault of course, but you can't hide he is 5'9. I believe he would be better coming from the bench, where he doesn'y have to play 38/40 min per game.
Last thing, saying he is our best point guard defender it's not a verey solid point if you want to prove he is a good defender. The only other PG we have is Jimmer, and even a chair is a better defender than jimmer.

Agree with this stuff. Even if he is able to stay in front of bigger guards as we have seen his size creates other problems. Being short makes it much easier for opposing players to see the court and throw passes over/around. Makes shooting over much easier too.

 

[hrdboild]

I know this is kind of off topic, but I feel like everyone uses a different metric for everyones height on this team. Everyone says Thomas is 5'9" and everyone says Evans is 6'6". Before players are drafted they usually participate in height and wingspan measurements. Most players are measured with shoes and without shoes. Thomas is 5'9" and Evans is 6'4" without shoes. Thomas is 5'10.25" and Evans is 6'5.25" in shoes. I tend to go by how players measure out in shoes simply because that's the height they will be playing as.

Other notables on our team whose heights are in shoes:
Salmons 6'7"
Greene 6'9" (yep that's right. he is not that 6'11" SF NBA2K makes him out to be)
Hayes 6'7"

Looks like we have 2 less players 6'6" and under

Again, I know it's really off topic. I just see these constant mistakes in peoples heights and it makes me cringe. I must be OCD

It's particularly bad when the inaccuracy gives rise to lunacy like "let's move Tyreke to SF -- he's big enough to play there". It's why Westbrook and Rose get to be scoring guards but Tyreke gets pigeonholed as a wing player despite having a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses as those two. 6'5" is average height for a SG or above average for a PG. If you use the pre-draft measurments he's only 1/4 inch taller than DWade.

 

[Kingster]

Well, I guess we should agree we disagree on this point. IT has done a good job on D for a 5'9 guy, but that's the problem: he is 5'9. He won't ever be able to guard bigger guards on a regular basis, like Rose, Williams, Westbrook. I've seen many times people just running over him and getting the bucket. It's not his fault of course, but you can't hide he is 5'9. I believe he would be better coming from the bench, where he doesn'y have to play 38/40 min per game.
Last thing, saying he is our best point guard defender it's not a verey solid point if you want to prove he is a good defender. The only other PG we have is Jimmer, and even a chair is a better defender than jimmer.

Who can guard Rose, Williams and Westbrook?

 

[rhythmless]

It's particularly bad when the inaccuracy gives rise to lunacy like "let's move Tyreke to SF -- he's big enough to play there". It's why Westbrook and Rose get to be scoring guards but Tyreke gets pigeonholed as a wing player despite having a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses as those two. 6'5" is average height for a SG or above average for a PG. If you use the pre-draft measurments he's only 1/4 inch taller than DWade.

It's actually not horrible for Tyreke as an SF. His standing reach is average for a SF (since they're long for him). He is well built for a SG, not a stick like Garcia(who has played both swing positions his entire career). He rebounds well for a guard, so average/slightly below average for an SF. He is quick, and could be a defensive force 1-3 if he chose to be. His torso is pretty wide like an Artest, but his arms are scrawny in comparison. Age and some more gym time could fix that. His focus isn't always there. Lots of lapses. But you put all of his size advantages in the PG slot to the SF and they end up average/slightly below average. Especially when you try and match him up with the 6'8"-6'10" SF ala Gay/Batum/Durant/James. It's not happening.

A 6'5 PG would be extraordinary. But it doesn't mean anything unless your SG is the same height or taller. Otherwise, the other team just switches on defense and you are now guarded by a SG.

 

[upinsmoke]

Just kicking around "trade machine" at night.

Try to see if NO wants to overpay for another lotto pick
SAC TRADES: Salmons/1ST round Pick
NO TRADES: Ariza/10TH pick

3 team trade involving SAC/HOU/ORL
SAC TRADES:1st RND pick to HOU
HOU TRADES: Lowry to SAC, K-Mart to ORL and Pick 14/16/ sac's pick
ORL TRADES: Dwight Howard to HOU

Orlando consider's this deal because with Howard expiring and refusal to sign anything there option's are limited. 3 top 16 picks plus a expiring K-mart at 13 million is not a bad deal IMO. Houston Gets their superstar they have been wanting forever and have the cap to sign another star like D-Will. As for us even with IT's promising season I think we can all agree Lowry's tenacious defense and leadership would be welcomed addition to the team. Then go after Batum and try to bring back JT.

1. Lowry / IT
2. Evans / MT / Jimmer / Garcia (exp 12/13)
3. Batum / Salmons(exp 13/14) / Honeycutt (team option) / Outlaw
4. JT/ Whiteside (team option)
5. CUZ/ Hayes

 

[hiero]

Just kicking around "trade machine" at night.

Try to see if NO wants to overpay for another lotto pick
SAC TRADES: Salmons/1ST round Pick
NO TRADES: Ariza/10TH pick

3 team trade involving SAC/HOU/ORL
SAC TRADES:1st RND pick to HOU
HOU TRADES: Lowry to SAC, K-Mart to ORL and Pick 14/16/ sac's pick
ORL TRADES: Dwight Howard to HOU

Orlando consider's this deal because with Howard expiring and refusal to sign anything there option's are limited. 3 top 16 picks plus a expiring K-mart at 13 million is not a bad deal IMO. Houston Gets their superstar they have been wanting forever and have the cap to sign another star like D-Will. As for us even with IT's promising season I think we can all agree Lowry's tenacious defense and leadership would be welcomed addition to the team. Then go after Batum and try to bring back JT.

1. Lowry / IT
2. Evans / MT / Jimmer / Garcia (exp 12/13)
3. Batum / Salmons(exp 13/14) / Honeycutt (team option) / Outlaw
4. JT/ Whiteside (team option)
5. CUZ/ Hayes

wow that first trade is one of the dumbest useless things I've ever seen, the only thing worse was trading down to get jimmer and acquiring salmons.