If the Kings end up with John Wall..

[fnordius]

I'm curious as to how many teams have won a title with two ball-dominant guards. I prefer Turner. What model of success are we following by drafting both Tyreke and Wall? Is it wishful thinking, or has it worked before?

The answer probably depends on what you mean by "ball-dominant guard." It's generally agreed that Wall is a pretty good fit for the "pure PG" label. If he deviates from the stereotypical PG ideal in any way, it's probably in having a much better inside game than he does a mid-long range shot. But he's perfectly capable of getting the ball to mid-court and dishing it with lots of time left on the clock, so... clarify, please? You don't like that he can't pass the ball, then stand around at the perimeter being a 3-point threat, or something like that?

----

Also, I may have answered already, a few posts prior to this. The Knicks won the title in '72-'73 with what was called the "Rolls Royce Backcourt," Frazier and Monroe. The Knicks had a team culture at the time that was both defensively-oriented and about selfless team play. Then they traded for "Black Jesus," Earl Monroe. He was the star of a weak franchise, known for being a guy who could score from anywhere, and make his opponents look stupid while he was at it. A very Harlem Globetrotters sort of game, like the best city playground player there ever was. He didn't really care about D, and he didn't care at all about team play. And here they were, trying to pair him with very defensive-minded Frazier, who played pretty selflessly, yet not without taking his share of shots (he was the team's leading scorer). Sports commentators almost universally agreed that it wouldn't work, that NY was headed for failure.

The first year was a little rough, and there was definitely some adapting that needed to happen, but then it worked well enough to win them a title, and to go down in NBA annals as a candidate for best backcourt in league history.

 

[rainmaker]

The answer probably depends on what you mean by "ball-dominant guard." It's generally agreed that Wall is a pretty good fit for the "pure PG" label. If he deviates from the stereotypical PG ideal in any way, it's probably in having a much better inside game than he does a mid-long range shot. But he's perfectly capable of getting the ball to mid-court and dishing it with lots of time left on the clock, so... clarify, please? You don't like that he can't pass the ball, then stand around at the perimeter being a 3-point threat, or something like that?

----

.

I never said he can't pass. In fact, Wall is a very good passer, more of a natural playmaker. Since you brought up 3pt shooting, I don't see him as a threat from the nba 3pt line, yet.

I don't know where you got the idea I don't like Wall, or think he isn't a good pg. Please let me know where you saw that. Ball-dominant, as I would describe both Wall and Tyreke, means they excell with the ball in their hands. That is when they are at their best. Yes, Wall can break down his man and get to the hoop at will. So can Tyreke. And both need the ball in their hands to do so. So will they play off eachother, or simply take turns with the ball? I'm not attacking Wall for being ball-dominant. I'm just questioning how well two ball-dominant guards can play together, and excell together. I have said a few times on this board, I think the pairing could work if Tyreke learns to play off the ball, and develops a consistent jumper. I'm not sure that pairing would be better than a Tyreke/Turner pairing. More talented? Yes. Better? Don't know. Defensively, I also think a Turner/Tyreke backcourt has a better upside.

Whether or not Tyreke and Wall can co-exist is a different discussion than how good Wall is a pg. I think you're getting the two mixed up, and are coming accross as defensive.

 

[fnordius]

I never said he can't pass. In fact, Wall is a very good passer, more of a natural playmaker. Since you brought up 3pt shooting, I don't see him as a threat from the nba 3pt line, yet.

I don't know where you got the idea I don't like Wall, or think he isn't a good pg. Please let me know where you saw that.

I didn't say that, or think that. I'm just trying to resolve my confusion over your calling Wall too ball-dominant, since that's not a term that usually goes hand-in-hand with "pure point guard." More often than not, I find people using "ball dominant" as a polite euphemism for "sulks or stands around when not being a black hole."

Ball-dominant, as I would describe both Wall and Tyreke, means they excell with the ball in their hands. That is when they are at their best. Yes, Wall can break down his man and get to the hoop at will. So can Tyreke. And both need the ball in their hands to do so. So will they play off eachother, or simply take turns with the ball? I'm not attacking Wall for being ball-dominant. I'm just questioning how well two ball-dominant guards can play together, and excell together.

Thanks for the clarification.

I have said a few times on this board, I think the pairing could work if Tyreke learns to play off the ball, and develops a consistent jumper. I'm not sure that pairing would be better than a Tyreke/Turner pairing. More talented? Yes. Better? Don't know.

Okay. I'm not swearing that a Wall-Evans backcourt would work out all that well either, I'm not even willing to rule out the possibility that it could end with a trade. I was very bleak on the attempt to get Evans and Martin to work together, but think that Wall-Evans is an experiment worth trying. That's all I've ever argued, or thought.

Whether it would be better than Evans-Turner, I'm not even trying to guess. By your definition of ball dominance, Udrih is ball dominant; he's played his best when Evans wasn't in the game. And yet it's been a good pairing for the team.

Turner has also been accused of being ball dominant (in roughly the sense you use it), even though he passes a lot.

This raises the question of: who is not ball dominant? Not very many players are at their best without a basketball, and many that are tend to be passive in terms of creating their own shots: bigs who lurk next to the basket, and perimeter players who hang out at a distance, waiting to be passed to. Peja was like that, and sometimes Kevin was as well. I see that not so much as a style of play, but as a method for a player to try to be useful despite deficits in his game. It's something that I can accept in a role player, but not in a star. It almost seems incompatible with being a star player, doesn't it?

And I do want us to draft a star, whoever we get. Unless we find a big who is so defensively awesome that he need do nothing else aside from rebounding and the occasional opportunistic dunk, I think that we'll be getting someone who can be considered ball dominant. And I don't disapprove.

Defensively, I also think a Turner/Tyreke backcourt has a better upside.

Maybe. Probably depends on who we're playing. I don't think that Evans can guard someone like Westbrook all that well, but I think that Wall, with his speed advantage, probably could. And, as the Thunder continue to improve, guarding Westbrook may become pretty important for WC teams.

Whether or not Tyreke and Wall can co-exist is a different discussion than how good Wall is a pg. I think you're getting the two mixed up, and are coming accross as defensive.

I don't think I got them confused, I was just confused about what you thought might be incompatible about Wall and Evans.

As for defensiveness, I'm not sure what I'd be defending, aside from the idea of keeping an open mind, since I don't have a real stake in any other argument here.

 

[rainmaker]

I didn't say that, or think that. I'm just trying to resolve my confusion over your calling Wall too ball-dominant, since that's not a term that usually goes hand-in-hand with "pure point guard." More often than not, I find people using "ball dominant" as a polite euphemism for "sulks or stands around when not being a black hole."

Thanks for the clarification.

Okay. I'm not swearing that a Wall-Evans backcourt would work out all that well either, I'm not even willing to rule out the possibility that it could end with a trade. I was very bleak on the attempt to get Evans and Martin to work together, but think that Wall-Evans is an experiment worth trying. That's all I've ever argued, or thought.

Whether it would be better than Evans-Turner, I'm not even trying to guess. By your definition of ball dominance, Udrih is ball dominant; he's played his best when Evans wasn't in the game. And yet it's been a good pairing for the team.

Turner has also been accused of being ball dominant (in roughly the sense you use it), even though he passes a lot.

This raises the question of: who is not ball dominant? Not very many players are at their best without a basketball, and many that are tend to be passive in terms of creating their own shots: bigs who lurk next to the basket, and perimeter players who hang out at a distance, waiting to be passed to. Peja was like that, and sometimes Kevin was as well. I see that not so much as a style of play, but as a method for a player to try to be useful despite deficits in his game. It's something that I can accept in a role player, but not in a star. It almost seems incompatible with being a star player, doesn't it?

And I do want us to draft a star, whoever we get. Unless we find a big who is so defensively awesome that he need do nothing else aside from rebounding and the occasional opportunistic dunk, I think that we'll be getting someone who can be considered ball dominant. And I don't disapprove.

I think you thought because I said Wall is ball-dominant, I was trying to put a negative spin on his game. I really like Walls game, but think he needs the ball to excel. Tyreke is the same way. Regarding what you said about "pure point guard", I think they are, and have to be ball dominant to. At least the great one's. Can't make a good pass and set up a teammate without the ball in your hands.

Yes, Beno plays better with the ball to. But that brings me to my next point. He's also one of our best, if not the best, spot up shooter we have. We can also run plays for him coming off screens where he just catches and shoots or continues to the paint. Just because you're ball dominant doesn't mean you can't play well off the ball. But at this point, I don't think Tyreke or Wall plays well off the ball. So while Wall is much more talented than Beno, Beno might fit better next to Tyreke when Tyreke has the ball. Beno helps spread the floor and keep his man honest. That isn't to say that either won't improve greatly in that area. I think they will. Thats why I don't think a Wall/Tyreke would be a natural fit, but could work well down the road.

I believe Wall will be the best player form this draft when all is said and done. At the same time, I'm not sure him and Tyreke playing together would be an efficient pairing until they improve playing off the ball and shooting. It would take a few years, IMO, for them to learn to play together. With Turner, I think it would be a much easier transition, and would translate to more wins next season.

 

[bajaden]

The answer probably depends on what you mean by "ball-dominant guard." It's generally agreed that Wall is a pretty good fit for the "pure PG" label. If he deviates from the stereotypical PG ideal in any way, it's probably in having a much better inside game than he does a mid-long range shot. But he's perfectly capable of getting the ball to mid-court and dishing it with lots of time left on the clock, so... clarify, please? You don't like that he can't pass the ball, then stand around at the perimeter being a 3-point threat, or something like that?

----

Also, I may have answered already, a few posts prior to this. The Knicks won the title in '72-'73 with what was called the "Rolls Royce Backcourt," Frazier and Monroe. The Knicks had a team culture at the time that was both defensively-oriented and about selfless team play. Then they traded for "Black Jesus," Earl Monroe. He was the star of a weak franchise, known for being a guy who could score from anywhere, and make his opponents look stupid while he was at it. A very Harlem Globetrotters sort of game, like the best city playground player there ever was. He didn't really care about D, and he didn't care at all about team play. And here they were, trying to pair him with very defensive-minded Frazier, who played pretty selflessly, yet not without taking his share of shots (he was the team's leading scorer). Sports commentators almost universally agreed that it wouldn't work, that NY was headed for failure.

The first year was a little rough, and there was definitely some adapting that needed to happen, but then it worked well enough to win them a title, and to go down in NBA annals as a candidate for best backcourt in league history.

At the time both players were considered, what would be called today a point guard. It was a phrase that wasn't as prevelant back then. The point being, that both Monroe and Frazier were used to having the ball in their hands. And your quite correct, it turned into one of the best backcourts of all time. Of course they did have a couple of other good players on that team. Willis Reed, Bill Bradley, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere, Mike Bibby's father, Henry Bibby, and of course the star of the team, Phil Jackson..

 

[Uncia03]

I don't think there can be any doubt that if we do end up with John Wall that from a talent perspective the Kings would have the best back-court in the League. Two extremely young superstars if they both live up to anything close to their potential.

So the question is: How many championships have been won when you have two superstars (20+ PPG scorers) in the backcourt.

The answer is always 1, Frazier and Monroe for the 72-73 Knicks.

So then two other questions should come up:

1.) Is a Frazier/Monroe vs. Evans/Wall comparison valid?

2.) Is it wise to build your team after a model which seemingly only has one NBA championship ever?


1.) Frazier/Monroe vs. Evans/Wall

First, we saw what Tyreke can do, and in winning the ROY, it further justifies his season.
I've seen every playoff game so far this season and I can't wait to see the Kings get into the playoffs because Tyreke's game is perfectly built to dominate in the playoffs. If he can add a consistent jumper to his game, there is no doubt that he can hit superstar status.

Second, John Wall is an amazing player. His speed, quickness, athleticism, ball-handling, passing ability, and length will make him one of the dominant PGs in the league. It's just speculation now, but unless injuries occur the odds of him being at least a star in this league have to be incredibly high.

So, I'm going to assume that both Evans and Wall will play up to their potential so we can have this comparison to Frazier/Monroe.

And though you'd be comparing backcourts with two star players, I think that a lot of the comparisons have to end there.

There are three reasons why I think people should be wary of pointing to a Frazier/Monroe pairing to justify that an Evans/Wall pairing can work.

A.) NBA seasoning and maturity

The biggest difference in my mind comes from NBA seasoning and maturity that both Frazier and Monroe had before getting paired together. Frazier was 25 and Monroe was 27 and both of them had been in the NBA for 4 seasons prior to teaming up.

Tyreke would be 21 and has just finished claiming the Kings as his team. You then bring in a 20 year-old in John Wall who is going to want to be the star for any team that he plays for, and I think there will be conflicts.

Now, they are both professionals, and I believe that they'd be able to work things out, but I don't think it will go as well as Frazier/Monroe just due to youth and inexperience.

B.) NBA Champions

Don't forget that the Knicks had recently won the NBA championship, and that is a huge factor. They won the championship, the next year they lost a 7-game series in the Eastern Conference Championship, and then they picked up Monroe.

So Monroe came on to a Veteran team which was used to winning. This was not a team trying to find an identity, but rather a team trying to put pieces in place to win a Championship.

I think it's easier to bring in a star player and have it work with another star player if you already have a solid team foundation, which the Knicks had at that time.

C.) Championship Success

They didn't win it all the first year that Frazier and Monroe were together, but did win the Championship in their 2nd year. They then played together for four more seasons with-out winning it all.

So one of the best backcourts in history managed to get a championship 1 time in 6 seasons.


2.) Do you build your team after this model

So the bigger question is whether you want to build this team after a model which clearly has not had success in the NBA?

For me the answer is....maybe.

Because more than anything else, you win championships with superstars. And I think that the likelihood of John Wall being a superstar is very high.

The problem comes when there may be issues with having two superstars who duplicate one-another's games rather than compliment their games. And it has to be a concern when looking at putting together the best team possible.

Now, I'm personally a huge advocate of Evan Turner. Of course having a Evans/Turner backcourt should draw the same skepticism as far as Championship viability that an Evans/Wall backcourt draws.

But in my mind, Turner's game compliments Evans' game beautifully, and for that reason I give it the edge over a Evans/Wall backcourt.


If you had told me at the beginning of this last year that Tyreke would win ROY and we'd pick up John Wall I'd have been estatic.
Now after watching this season unfold, I'd be estatic, but would have to take a more wait-and-see approach to the pairing.

Ultimately, I'm going to trust Petrie and Westphal to make the selection that will give the Kings the best chance to build a Championship contender. So if they have a chance at Wall, make the selection, and then keep him, I'm going to have to assume they have a plan in mind to bring out the most in both him, Tyreke, and the rest of this young core.

Regardless of whether we land Wall or not, provided that we get a top 4 selection in this year's draft, there is every reason to be incredibly excited and optimistic for this team's future.

 

[Kingster]

Wall can guard Westbrook? How do you know this?

Observation.

 

[Kingster]

I don't think there can be any doubt that if we do end up with John Wall that from a talent perspective the Kings would have the best back-court in the League. Two extremely young superstars if they both live up to anything close to their potential.

So the question is: How many championships have been won when you have two superstars (20+ PPG scorers) in the backcourt.

The answer is always 1, Frazier and Monroe for the 72-73 Knicks.

So then two other questions should come up:

1.) Is a Frazier/Monroe vs. Evans/Wall comparison valid?

2.) Is it wise to build your team after a model which seemingly only has one NBA championship ever?


1.) Frazier/Monroe vs. Evans/Wall

First, we saw what Tyreke can do, and in winning the ROY, it further justifies his season.
I've seen every playoff game so far this season and I can't wait to see the Kings get into the playoffs because Tyreke's game is perfectly built to dominate in the playoffs. If he can add a consistent jumper to his game, there is no doubt that he can hit superstar status.

Second, John Wall is an amazing player. His speed, quickness, athleticism, ball-handling, passing ability, and length will make him one of the dominant PGs in the league. It's just speculation now, but unless injuries occur the odds of him being at least a star in this league have to be incredibly high.

So, I'm going to assume that both Evans and Wall will play up to their potential so we can have this comparison to Frazier/Monroe.

And though you'd be comparing backcourts with two star players, I think that a lot of the comparisons have to end there.

There are three reasons why I think people should be wary of pointing to a Frazier/Monroe pairing to justify that an Evans/Wall pairing can work.

A.) NBA seasoning and maturity

The biggest difference in my mind comes from NBA seasoning and maturity that both Frazier and Monroe had before getting paired together. Frazier was 25 and Monroe was 27 and both of them had been in the NBA for 4 seasons prior to teaming up.

Tyreke would be 21 and has just finished claiming the Kings as his team. You then bring in a 20 year-old in John Wall who is going to want to be the star for any team that he plays for, and I think there will be conflicts.

Now, they are both professionals, and I believe that they'd be able to work things out, but I don't think it will go as well as Frazier/Monroe just due to youth and inexperience.

B.) NBA Champions

Don't forget that the Knicks had recently won the NBA championship, and that is a huge factor. They won the championship, the next year they lost a 7-game series in the Eastern Conference Championship, and then they picked up Monroe.

So Monroe came on to a Veteran team which was used to winning. This was not a team trying to find an identity, but rather a team trying to put pieces in place to win a Championship.

I think it's easier to bring in a star player and have it work with another star player if you already have a solid team foundation, which the Knicks had at that time.

C.) Championship Success

They didn't win it all the first year that Frazier and Monroe were together, but did win the Championship in their 2nd year. They then played together for four more seasons with-out winning it all.

So one of the best backcourts in history managed to get a championship 1 time in 6 seasons.


2.) Do you build your team after this model

So the bigger question is whether you want to build this team after a model which clearly has not had success in the NBA?

For me the answer is....maybe.

Because more than anything else, you win championships with superstars. And I think that the likelihood of John Wall being a superstar is very high.

The problem comes when there may be issues with having two superstars who duplicate one-another's games rather than compliment their games. And it has to be a concern when looking at putting together the best team possible.

Now, I'm personally a huge advocate of Evan Turner. Of course having a Evans/Turner backcourt should draw the same skepticism as far as Championship viability that an Evans/Wall backcourt draws.

But in my mind, Turner's game compliments Evans' game beautifully, and for that reason I give it the edge over a Evans/Wall backcourt.


If you had told me at the beginning of this last year that Tyreke would win ROY and we'd pick up John Wall I'd have been estatic.
Now after watching this season unfold, I'd be estatic, but would have to take a more wait-and-see approach to the pairing.

Ultimately, I'm going to trust Petrie and Westphal to make the selection that will give the Kings the best chance to build a Championship contender. So if they have a chance at Wall, make the selection, and then keep him, I'm going to have to assume they have a plan in mind to bring out the most in both him, Tyreke, and the rest of this young core.

Regardless of whether we land Wall or not, provided that we get a top 4 selection in this year's draft, there is every reason to be incredibly excited and optimistic for this team's future.

Detroit Pistons worked out pretty well with a guard dominant offense.

Have you noticed that teams in the playoffs are going to two "point guard" lineups because then the opposing team can't neuter the offense by taking out of the primary ballhandler's hands?

 

[fnordius]

Interesting points. And good ones.

I'm thinking that a lot of this discussion comes down to a couple of things.

1) Potential ego issues.

Yes, if we draft Wall, there could be conflicts. Or if we draft Turner. Anybody with star/superstar talent that we acquire might do that. Is that bad? Several years ago I used to verbally spar with lakers fans who said that The Team could never win it all, because almost all championship teams had two star players, as they (then) had Shaq and Kobe. And of course Shaq + Kobe was unsustainable, since those two guys had the biggest egos in the known universe. But, before it blew up, they got more titles than this franchise has gotten in 60+ years, right? Possible ego issues may be something we have to put up with if we want to go all the way. If we avoid them this draft, I'd say it's because the ping pong balls didn't go our way, and I'll be depressed about it.

2) Need versus BPA.

I'm flopping like Ginobili here; in the past, I've consistently championed taking need into account at draft time. That's not to say that I scoffed at BPA, not at all. But, when you're drafting 10th to 25th, I don't think that BPA is always going to be very compelling. You're probably going to be looking at a lot of middling talent guys, none of whom have obvious potential to even be starters. With no clear standouts, I'd say that you should break the (approximate) tie by picking for need. But I don't say that about a top draft pick, when your team is deficient in raw talent. I'm thinking that the FO is in agreement with me on this, since they drafted Evans even though it seemed likely to force trading Kevin away.

I do think that if we get one of the top two or three picks, we may be looking at talent which is as compelling as Evans'. Do you reject Scarlett Johansson just because you're not one of those guys who is obsessed with blondes?

I don't claim to know the pecking order of upside in this draft, or how big the gaps between players may be. I still have, for example, nagging uncertainty about Cousins' intangibles. Unpleasant medical surprises sometimes lurk, and aren't always known to the fans, etc. For the time being, at least, I'm watching, waiting, and giving the FO the benefit of the doubt on sorting it all out correctly. But, this year, I'm not going to whine if we get the best player, even if he's not the answer to the team's most obvious needs. I'll take another star player, please, and let the chips fall where they may.

(This whole thread has a 6/7 chance of being moot, since we aren't likely to get the #1 pick, but the general principles are interesting enough to discuss anyway, I think.)

 

[Kingster]

We could have a whole theme just about the ego factor. The Shaq/Kobe thing worked long enough for a few championships, and then it didn't. The Westbrook/Durant combo looks pretty compatible, even though both do more with the ball rather than off the ball. Then there was Kidd, Jackson and Mashburn, which didn't work in Dallas. Frazier/Monroe worked. Any others that did, or didn't?

As an aside, I think it was a bad move by Westphal when he said it was "Tyreke's team." If either Wall or Turner is picked, it doesn't exactly foster the idea that there can be more than one bigtime player on this team. If the Kings do get Wall or Turner I would expect and hope that Westphal would do some major backtracking in a hurry.

 

[OptimusRhyme]

im pretty sure if john walls there we are going to take him.
we need the BPA right now and FO said they will take BPA.
just like we took evans while we had martin.

Turner is great and if walls gone and turners there i think were gonna take him.

But you dont pass up on a star PG. having wall forces reke to expand his game into another realm which could make him a superstar. hes gonna have to learn to shoot jumpers, learn to play off the ball anyways so why not use Wall as motivation to push him there.. if it dosent work out then we trade wall for something that does work.

I think you gotta take him.

 

[Chupacabra]

Im seeing that people who are making the argument for a Wall/Evans backcourt and comparing them to other past superstar tandems arent taking into account that Wall and Tyreke both play the SAME POSITION. Kevin Durant is a small forward, Westbrook is a point guard. Shaq is a center, Kobe is a shooting guard. Wall and Tyreke ARE BOTH POINT GUARDS. My god...

 

[Chupacabra]

You cant compare taking Wall in this draft to taking Tyreke in the previous draft. Yes we had Martin, he played as the off guard. So, we selected a point guard. This years situation is totally different. We already have a point guard who happens to be the future of the team and now were going to get another point guard? Theyre two different situations that the FO will look at differently. I personally think it would be idiotic to pick a player with the intention of moving Tyreke to the off guard. He just had one of the best rookie seasons ever as a point guard and now people want to slide him over?! Its not logical.

 

[Jaylee209]

trade wall and Spencer for al jefferson and their 1st. Draft Wesley Johnson. Sign CJ Watson and trade Noc and Landry for Dalembert.

 

[fnordius]

We already have a point guard who happens to be the future of the team and now were going to get another point guard?

I'm not arguing in favor of getting Wall, I'm only arguing that if you think you have a clear BPA, and your team is challenged in terms of talent, you take BPA. But it's a tough call, and perfectly reasonable people may disagree. Or may feel emotionally torn. That probably applies to a lot of us.

Im actually of the opinion that John Wall is going to be so good it doesnt matter if we need him or not, if we can get him then we do it.

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=658400&postcount=56

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Im seeing that people who are making the argument for a Wall/Evans backcourt and comparing them to other past superstar tandems arent taking into account that Wall and Tyreke both play the SAME POSITION. Kevin Durant is a small forward, Westbrook is a point guard. Shaq is a center, Kobe is a shooting guard. Wall and Tyreke ARE BOTH POINT GUARDS. My god...

my god...

portland passed up michael jordan bc they had clyde the glyde drexler. how insanely good would they be with both of them?

 

[Big Cuz 15]

trade wall and Spencer for al jefferson and their 1st. Draft Wesley Johnson. Sign CJ Watson and trade Noc and Landry for Dalembert.

uh.. we trade wall & spence for AL J & wesley johnson? then sign CJ watson trade noc and mandry for sammy d?

FAIL. we get substantially worse with all those moves. we already have wing players in greene, casspi, beno, garcia. the wing players are pretty much set unless theres a way to move the logjam of wing players for a great front court player

al jefferson is a liability on defense. if anything we might as well trade wall down and get cousins who is a bigger version of al jefferson. we'd probably score a additional pick & player in that deal too.

 

[bajaden]

I'm not arguing in favor of getting Wall, I'm only arguing that if you think you have a clear BPA, and your team is challenged in terms of talent, you take BPA. But it's a tough call, and perfectly reasonable people may disagree. Or may feel emotionally torn. That probably applies to a lot of us.


http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=658400&postcount=56

What if we define the argument to which is the best player right now. Wall or Turner. I have no doubt in my mind that at the present moment, Turner is the best player. Now that may change in a couple of years. There's no denying Wall's athleticism. And I'll be happy with either one. But I'll stick to my guns that Turner is the better fit, and is without a doubt the most NBA ready.

Only 19 days till we see if we even need to be having this discussion.

 

[rainmaker]

Don't know if anyone else is listening to Westphal on the radio right now, but Koz asked him to describe to perfect player to put next to Tyreke.

Westphal responded by saying versatile, able to handle the ball, a good defender, can post up on offense, and ideally, is as tall or taller than Tyreke.

Anyone else think he was describing Evan Turner?

 

[Jaylee209]

uh.. we trade wall & spence for AL J & wesley johnson? then sign CJ watson trade noc and mandry for sammy d?

FAIL. we get substantially worse with all those moves. we already have wing players in greene, casspi, beno, garcia. the wing players are pretty much set unless theres a way to move the logjam of wing players for a great front court player

al jefferson is a liability on defense. if anything we might as well trade wall down and get cousins who is a bigger version of al jefferson. we'd probably score a additional pick & player in that deal too.

Maybe I should have put Evan Turner instead. And I see Jefferson playing PF, and Dalembert our C, to make up for Al's defensive liabilities. And we do move our logjam, by moving noc and his crappy contract. Green and Casspi can take turns playing sf. CJ gets spot mins at 1 and 2.

 

[Kingster]

Im seeing that people who are making the argument for a Wall/Evans backcourt and comparing them to other past superstar tandems arent taking into account that Wall and Tyreke both play the SAME POSITION. Kevin Durant is a small forward, Westbrook is a point guard. Shaq is a center, Kobe is a shooting guard. Wall and Tyreke ARE BOTH POINT GUARDS. My god...

I think you are missing the point that there are different dimensions to the issue. One is ego. The other is skill set.

 

[bajaden]

Don't know if anyone else is listening to Westphal on the radio right now, but Koz asked him to describe to perfect player to put next to Tyreke.

Westphal responded by saying versatile, able to handle the ball, a good defender, can post up on offense, and ideally, is as tall or taller than Tyreke.

Anyone else think he was describing Evan Turner?

Sounds like Turner to me.

 

[fnordius]

What if we define the argument to which is the best player right now. Wall or Turner.

Then I admit to some degree of uncertainty, and am glad that we don't draft players to 1 year contracts, so that I don't have to get a headache trying to figure it out for sure.

 

[xrzn]

Sounds like Turner to me.

Also sounds like Donte.

 

[fnordius]

Also sounds like Donte.

Or Pau Gasol. Or Lebron James. Or...

 

[xrzn]

Or Pau Gasol. Or Lebron James. Or...

...or how about you make a post relevant to the dicussion?

 

[fnordius]

...or how about you make a post relevant to the dicussion?

I was just pointing out that maybe PW was simply answering the question he was asked. He may have been thinking of Turner, of Favors, or Donte, but he may have had no particular person in mind.

 

[rainmaker]

I was just pointing out that maybe PW was simply answering the question he was asked. He may have been thinking of Turner, of Favors, or Donte, but he may have had no particular person in mind.

I heard the interview, thats why I asked if anyone else heard that part. Westphal was referring to the type of player to pair Tyreke with in the backcourt.

Sure you aren't taking it out of context to prove a point?

 

[xrzn]

I was just pointing out that maybe PW was simply answering the question he was asked. He may have been thinking of Turner, of Favors, or Donte, but he may have had no particular person in mind.

The question was to describe the perfect player to put next to Reke.

 

[fnordius]

The question was to describe the perfect player to put next to Reke.

I guess I hadn't read the question as applying only to a second guard.

In that case, maybe he just slammed Beno for being shorter than Tyreke. Or maybe he did like me, and took the question as referring to a second star player.

I didn't catch the interview, and don't claim to know the answer.

EDIT: I googled "nba" and "play next to," and the first match was this quote from Chris Broussard, ESPN: "I think Miami will sign Amare Stoudemire to play next to Wade, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's Bosh instead." So I guess I'm not the only one who interprets the expression that way.