KT vs Reef

[playmaker0017]

I was watching last night and with the way the team wants to use Shareef, I'm starting to get the feeling that Thomas is the way to go.

Reef is NOT the player Adleman wants him to be.

He may get a few assists from that spot, but he's just not comfortable. KT is more like Brad Miller. He prefers to sit out at the FT line and pop jumpers.

We seemt o want to trade everyone on the team - but I'm thinking why not trade Reef? It's obvious that the team isn't going to utilize him for his offensive prowess and put him in positions he can score at - and if he's not scoring ... what the heck is he in there for? He's not the world's best defender. He's not the world's best rebounder.

I just think KT might be a better fit. He's not the better player, but he's the better player for THIS team playing THIS system.

 

[Kings113]

Uh, it's one game.

SAR will still be the starter. KT can't and won't be a regular starting PF in the west. SAR is still adjusting to the team, but that has made progress.

Trade SAR for?

 

[playmaker0017]

Kings,

I'm not talking about tonight. KT had a pretty subpar game, as did Reef.

I mean in general.

Reef seems like the odd man out on this squad. He's trying to be something he isn't and it's not turning out for the better. He's being apprehensive and indecisive with the ball ... and of all the things a scorer can't be ... it's indecisive.

KT is more the type of player that RA seems to want Reef to be. Reef isn't very comfortable up at the top of the key. Perhaps he will learn, but it's not pretty to watch.

 

[nbrans]

Reef is averaging 4.1 assists a game. He's played well in the high post and in the low post. Against Seattle he was brilliant at setting up Peja for threes. How is he not fitting into the offense?

Meanwhile, KT clangs outside shots and hasn't gotten a good look at the basket and has not passed the ball very well.

If your point is that the Kings could utilize Reef's strengths more then yes, I'd agree with you. They're still adjusting. But that doesn't mean that KT is a better fit.

 

[piksi]

They are both not Webber but we have what we have so we need to give it time and hope it works out

 

[Diabeticwonder]

Last time I checked, with the starting 5, Brad Miller was the one firmly entrenched at the top of the key. Reef is a much better low post player than a high post player and he will even tell you that. Actually, he did...during an interview that aired during one of the last few games. The only time when Reef is up at the high post is when Brad is not in the game or when they are running a different set. But for the most part Reef will be down low on the block doing his thing. I realize that he didn't do that against the Spurs, but coming into last night's game Reef may have been the most consistent King this year. For this Kings' team to go anywhere we are going to need Reef down on the block and Miller running the offense from the high post.

 

[playmaker0017]

If your point is that the Kings could utilize Reef's strengths more then yes, I'd agree with you.

I think that is it. He's being underutilized and mismanaged.

With Kenny Thomas - the team could play the way they currently are - and not be for the worst. He doesn't need more shots. He doesn't need to be in the low post. He can sit up at the top with Miller and do the whole set picks thing.

That's essentially what they have asked Reef to be ... a pick-setter. Miller is the PG. Reef is the pick setter.

It seems like a waste. I think KT might be better suited for the role.

 

[playmaker0017]

Last time I checked, with the starting 5, Brad Miller was the one firmly entrenched at the top of the key. Reef is a much better low post player than a high post player and he will even tell you that. Actually, he did...during an interview that aired during one of the last few games.

I know that - but RA doesn't.

The only time when Reef is up at the high post is when Brad is not in the game or when they are running a different set. But for the most part Reef will be down low on the block doing his thing.

You and I must watch different games. Reef gets the ball at the top of the key more often than not. With Brad Miller at the top of the key, it's virtually impossible to establish low post position. For one, there is no where to post up. The other issue is that if he did post up on the opposite side, there is no way to get him the ball.

 

[Bricklayer]

I was watching last night and with the way the team wants to use Shareef, I'm starting to get the feeling that Thomas is the way to go.

Reef is NOT the player Adleman wants him to be.

He may get a few assists from that spot, but he's just not comfortable. KT is more like Brad Miller. He prefers to sit out at the FT line and pop jumpers.

We seemt o want to trade everyone on the team - but I'm thinking why not trade Reef? It's obvious that the team isn't going to utilize him for his offensive prowess and put him in positions he can score at - and if he's not scoring ... what the heck is he in there for? He's not the world's best defender. He's not the world's best rebounder.

I just think KT might be a better fit. He's not the better player, but he's the better player for THIS team playing THIS system.

Well at least you opted for the "trade MY guy" approach rather than the "trade everyone else to make room for my guy" trap that many people who arrive here as fans of one player fall into. (Have noted that you have also figured out the traditional "fire adelman" approach ).

In some ways Reef would be a better fit for the bench right now. In our heyday our bench used to be a major change of pace for us. In recent years its gotten stale as we've increasingly looked at it as just a continuation of the starters and looked for "system guys" to fill it out. But back when it, and we, were really good the bench guys did NOT play within the system and came screaming in playing their own games and changing things up for us, whetehr it be Jon Barry and Vernon Maswell, Bobby Jackson, Scot Pollard, Jim Jackson, whatever -- they weren't Princeton players so much as guys who brought energy and their own unique flavor to the game. If that philosophy was still in place maybe Reef could come in as the 6th man and just play his game without worrying about fitting in.

Unfortunately that would leave us with KT as our starter, and he's only a starter on a lottery team, better fit or not. Reef at least represents a threat, realized or not. There is a role he MIGHT be able to fill in the offense -- that of Vlade's low block passing big man. But Vlade had the advantage of great size when he did that, as well as great vision. And it means catching in the post and just holding your posiion and waiting for the offense to cycle throgh, whereas Reef, like most good post players, is really looking to catch and just attack.

Continue to believe that there just HAS to be a trade to consolidate our talent at some point, even if that was not Geoff's initial plan. But have no idea who might go, and other than the KG sweepstakes can't see that many players out there that would be worthy of a 2 or 3 starter for 1 deal, or that could really come in and run the Princeton as a big man. People have long underestimated just how unique Vlade and Webb were to be able to run the Princeton sets while still finding ways to mix in post play, rebounding, and traditional big man play. For most its an either/or. Reef has a long cheap contract. He could easily be moved, but he might also be here a while. He might as well start working on his jumper and go watch some Vlade & Webb tapes and see if he can emulate that style of play. It also might not hurt if Reef himself took one for the team and concentrated on upping his rebounding and shotblocking so as to contribute even if not scoring.

 

[playmaker0017]

Well at least you opted for the "trade MY guy" approach rather than the "trade everyone else to make room for my guy" trap that many people who arrive here as fans of one player fall into.

Well, quite honestly - it's not the "mix" of players. I think that's just fine. It's the system that is problematic.

I mean seriously, walk down the roster:

Trading Peja - what do you get? At best a defensive stopper. At worst a guy that requires the ball in the post. Both are probably less than adequate in return. Peja stretches a defense like no one else can. It's hard to get value for that.

Trade Bibby - what do you get? You aren't going to get a PG of equal value, that's for sure. Bibby may play like a SG, but plays the PG role. So we'd be down a PG. Of everyone, I feel he's the most expendable, as a defensive/passfirst guy would be nice ... but you probably won't find it. If I traded ANYONE this would be my guy.

Trade Miller - why? What can you get in return? Certainly not someone that can run this offense. Miller may beout of sorts, but I just don't see being able to get anything we need by moving him.

That really leaves Reef - but then the issue is ... you'll NEVER get the right amount of talent in return since his contract is so little.

Have noted that you have also figured out the traditional "fire adelman" approach

I'm not about firing the guy as much as firing the system. I think there is a tremendous overreliance on the system ... to the point that it is detrimental.

Like you mention - the mix of Webber/Vlade was amazing ... but those were some VERY special players. It's like trying to recreate a special moment ... it just isn't the same.

 

[nbrans]

I'm a SAR fan, but I also agree he would be the one who would make the most sense to trade, if there is one. His salary and production are extremely attractive to other teams, and I don't think it would be that hard to package him with an expiring deal and get someone really good in return.

That said, even though I know you're a Reef fan I think you might be underselling the way he's fit into the Kings offense thus far. He's proving to be an extremely effective passer, particularly at finding Peja. That low post dimension is something the Kings badly, badly need, particularly at the end of games when the defense tightens up and the Kings need to get a good shot.

I definitely think the Kings can get more out of him. But those 15 points he puts up are extremely efficient, valuable points because in most games he's getting those points on 8 or 9 shots. He's not taking his fair share of shots, which opens up more for Peja and Bibby. I'd like to see the Kings go to him more, but it's all an adjustment. Other than the Spurs game, which was a step back, I think his presence in the offense has been getting more and more multi-dimensional.

 

[Packt]

I agree with the assessment that Reef is not a good fit for this offense. He's been the most consistent, but also at the expense of the team somewhat. I'm not calling him out, but that's just how things are. The past few games it seems like he's been looking to run the offense how it's supposed to be ran, more, as opposed to looking to post and score himself. Still doesn't look comfortable yet. The plays have mainly consisted of passing the ball off the curling man at the high post. He will have to sacrifice and pick his spots if the team is to be successful since traditional post play is not a good fit for the offense. He has gotten points off of broken plays down low, that's something we have not had the past couple years.

 

[JB_kings]

If you guys can come up with a Reef for Tim Duncan trade, have it at. LOL

But seriously, if Reef can't be used correctly in Adelman's system, you might be overestimating his ability and worth. You already have seen Reef put up great numbers on bad teams, lets see how he does when he has a little help around him. If only bad teams can use Reef correctly, maybe that's why they lost so much?

 

[nbrans]

It's amazing how SAR went from one of the few bright spots on the offense to being deemed unfit for the Kings' system in one game.

Let's see: good passing... low post game... outside shot to keep the defense honest... unselfish play... yup. Definitely unfit for the Kings' system.

 

[playmaker0017]

But seriously, if Reef can't be used correctly in Adelman's system, you might be overestimating his ability and worth. You already have seen Reef put up great numbers on bad teams, lets see how he does when he has a little help around him. If only bad teams can use Reef correctly, maybe that's why they lost so much?

That a bit of an oversimplifying the situation.

Adelman's system isn't designed to take advantage of players that are talented at breaking down their defender. It's doubly not designed to take advantage of players that have the talent of doing that in the post.

The Princeton Offense, again, as a system was designed to get the most out of the least. Not the most out of the most.

Webber and Vlade were anomolies. They were players that were so completely different than others that played their position that they fit in PERFECTLY. Worse yet, they were EXTREMELY talented.

Basically, you have to think of it this way .... if Peja isn't shooting, what else does he do for you? He's not a rebounder. He's not a great playmaker. He's not a great defender. He's not a great leader. What else does he bring?

The same question can be asked of Reef (albeit to a lesser extent). If he's not being used to score ... what IS he being asked to do that he's good at?

 

[playmaker0017]

It's amazing how SAR went from one of the few bright spots on the offense to being deemed unfit for the Kings' system in one game.

I still think he's the most talented player on the Kings roster. There's no change there. I still think he's a bright spot.

But, from the get-go I questioned the ability of an offense designed around the high post to utilize a player like Reef effectively.

Let's see: good passing... low post game... outside shot to keep the defense honest... unselfish play... yup. Definitely unfit for the Kings' system.

It's not that he's unfit - he's underutilized.

If he's not a big part of the scoring ... what else does he do effectively?

He's not a world beating defender. He's not a dominant rebounder. He's not a leader. He's not the BEST passer. He's servicable to good in these areas. But, he's an excellent scorer.

So - if he's not a part of the scoring - what is he doing? He's doing well on the assists, but for the most part - these are just random. A guy hits a jumper. He's not CREATING those opportunities.

 

[Bricklayer]

If you guys can come up with a Reef for Tim Duncan trade, have it at. LOL

But seriously, if Reef can't be used correctly in Adelman's system, you might be overestimating his ability and worth. You already have seen Reef put up great numbers on bad teams, lets see how he does when he has a little help around him. If only bad teams can use Reef correctly, maybe that's why they lost so much?

Well, there is always that subtext -- above I referred to KT as a lottery PF, but really this is Reef's chance to prove that HE isn't just a lottery PF too. And part of that is showing that he's not just a one-trick pony.

Nonetheless, the questions about this offense are legit. Shaq would not be a great fit either. Nor even Duncan. If your offense can't adjust to that caliber of player, there are some problems with it. Think some of this might be solved by reinstituting our two man game and pick and roll stuff which has been oddly absent this year. Of course I'm not at all sure Reef is really proficient at that either, but at least it would represent a way to call a play and get him involved. Right now he may be "efficient", but he's also pretty toothless and passive and goes for long stretches having all the impact of a wet noodle. Be nice to be able to call his number with something we've traditionally run, rather than having to stop, break the offense, and call a clearout or whatnot so Shareef can get in a comfort zone.

 

[nbrans]

I still disagree that he 1) hasn't been a good for the offense and 2) that the offense hasn't been a good fit for him.

Any time a player is making 56% of his shots while dishing out 4 assists a game something has to be going right. Brick, as you mentioned, Vlade was a good fit down low because he could pass out of the post or go to the hoop if there weren't passing options, and against Houston and Seattle this really seemed to work well for Shareef. I don't understand your contention that he's breaking up the offense to get points.

And wow, Brick, there isn't a player better suited for the Kings' offense than Tim Duncan. Stick him on the block or stick him on the elbow and let him pass to cutters or put the ball in the hoop -- basically what he does already. And Shaq played extremely well in the triangle, a very similar offense to the Kings'.

Adjustments are necessary - I'd like to see him in the post more a la Vlade and he's going to have to keep adapting and learning to pass to set up the other players. But the trends are promising and it really looks like this is starting to happen more and more, the San Antonio game notwithstanding.

 

[uolj]

Was it the Kings' offensive strategy that was keeping Abdur-Rahim off the low block, or was it the fact that he wasn't successful there against All-defense Tim Duncan?

Abdur-Rahim is a fine fit for the Kings offense, which is again becoming a combination of high and low post based sets. The Kings coaching staff has no problem putting a skilled low-post player down there as part of the regular offense, they did it quite often when the situation warranted it when they had a couple of good post players a few years ago. As the season wears on the team will be more and more comfortable executing that offense.

Just don't expect to see Abdur-Rahim in the low-post as the primary threat night in and night out, because that just doesn't make sense. I imagine that if and when the Kings reach the playoffs, the amount of sets run for Abdur-Rahim will increase, as they should. Until then, I will have patience with this offense.

 

[Bricklayer]

I still disagree that he 1) hasn't been a good for the offense and 2) that the offense hasn't been a good fit for him.

Any time a player is making 56% of his shots while dishing out 4 assists a game something has to be going right. Brick, as you mentioned, Vlade was a good fit down low because he could pass out of the post or go to the hoop if there weren't passing options, and against Houston and Seattle this really seemed to work well for Shareef. I don't understand your contention that he's breaking up the offense to get points.

And wow, Brick, there isn't a player better suited for the Kings' offense than Tim Duncan. Stick him on the block or stick him on the elbow and let him pass to cutters or put the ball in the hoop -- basically what he does already. And Shaq played extremely well in the triangle, a very similar offense to the Kings'.

Adjustments are necessary - I'd like to see him in the post more a la Vlade and he's going to have to keep adapting and learning to pass to set up the other players. But the trends are promising and it really looks like this is starting to happen more and more, the San Antonio game notwithstanding.

1) people like to compare the triangle and the Princeton, but they are offenses with exactly opposite focuses. The triangle's focus is to generate shots for its post players. The Princeton's is to use its post players to generate shots for others.

2) Duncan is not an elbow player either. He likes to work further on the wings where the bank is open, or down in the block. He can and will occasionally run sets out top, but its roughly the least dangerous spot ont he floor he can be. He's smart enough that he MIGHT be able to do some of the Vlade stuff in the post, but he's really in there to score and is not a terribly intuitive passer.

Both men are at their best dominating the post and the paint, and that has always been a problem for the Princeton because it wants to intentionally CLEAR the paint/post area so that it can unclog the lane for all of the backcuts and off the ball movement. Duncan can do that at a bit when on the sides, but from that position he doesn't have passing the Princeton's passing angles that the elbow position opens up.

 

[Wuster]

I was watching last night and with the way the team wants to use Shareef, I'm starting to get the feeling that Thomas is the way to go.

Reef is NOT the player Adleman wants him to be.

He may get a few assists from that spot, but he's just not comfortable. KT is more like Brad Miller. He prefers to sit out at the FT line and pop jumpers.

We seemt o want to trade everyone on the team - but I'm thinking why not trade Reef? It's obvious that the team isn't going to utilize him for his offensive prowess and put him in positions he can score at - and if he's not scoring ... what the heck is he in there for? He's not the world's best defender. He's not the world's best rebounder.

I just think KT might be a better fit. He's not the better player, but he's the better player for THIS team playing THIS system.

An interesting and provocotive post, p-17 - thanks. I think a lot of people don't want to admit that for all intents and purposes the Kings are rebuilding and integrating, which is a process. Having a "core" of 3 starters doesn't mean you are adding a piece here and there and wa-la! - everything is hunky dory. Your observations about Shareef/Thomas/Princeton offense are largely correct I think... as of this time. But Reef is in there as part of the rebuilding/integrating process, which evolves, and certainly takes more than 10% of a season.

And in defense of the Princeton system... it's led this team to 5 seasons of 50+ wins. Let's not abandon it quite yet.

 

[nbrans]

1) people like to compare the triangle and the Princeton, but they are offenses with exactly opposite focuses. The triangle's focus is to generate shots for its post players. The Princeton's is to use its post players to generate shots for others.

2) Duncan is not an elbow player either. He likes to work further on the wings where the bank is open, or down in the block. He can and will occasionally run sets out top, but its roughly the least dangerous spot ont he floor he can be. He's smart enough that he MIGHT be able to do some of the Vlade stuff in the post, but he's really in there to score and is not a terribly intuitive passer.

Both men are at their best dominating the post and the paint, and that has always been a problem for the Princeton because it wants to intentionally CLEAR the paint/post area so that it can unclog the lane for all of the backcuts and off the ball movement. Duncan can do that at a bit when on the sides, but from that position he doesn't have passing the Princeton's passing angles that the elbow position opens up.

Whoa, wait, what? The Kings and Lakers' offenses are about versatile ball and player movement, not about favoring inside out or outside in. The Kings run a variation on the triangle -- people have only taken to calling it the Princeton because of the backdoor cuts that are a hallmark of Carrill's teams, but they're basically the same offense. The triangle in Chicago was not used to get shots for post players.

The point of both offenses is to get a variety of shots and different looks and to respond spontaneously to the way the defense is playing. They don't favor a particular player, which is why Kobe never liked it.

And yes, especially when Webber was injured and Brad Miller came the post players tended to be more out on the elbow and the perimeter, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. Cuts to the hoop work well when there's a player in the post as well.

And Duncan can score from wherever on the court, it doesn't matter. The point is that he's an extremely skilled unselfish passer and only scores when he needs to. He would kill in the Kings' system, but then, the system in San Antonio isn't all that different.

P.S. Here's an article about the Kings' offense (as used by last year's Bucks) that explains the concept and the similarity to the triangle. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/buck/oct03/177291.asp

 

[4cwebb]

Adjustments are necessary - I'd like to see him in the post more a la Vlade and he's going to have to keep adapting and learning to pass to set up the other players. But the trends are promising and it really looks like this is starting to happen more and more, the San Antonio game notwithstanding.

This may be oversimplifying things a bit, but it seems that Reef was just overmatched against the Spurs' larger than average front line. Duncan's a C playing PF, then they trot out a burly C, then another 7 foot C. Reef is a good post scorer, but he's facing one of the best post defenders in the league who happens to have a significant size advantage, not to mention size behind him if Reef is able to get free. As others have said, one bad game does not necessarily mean that Reef can't be successful.

Sure, he hasn't had the type of offensive success he's been used to in the past to this point in a Kings' uniform, but I attribute those to growing pains. I think you make a good point about about Reef in Vlade's role in the post, even if he is looking to score first --- Miller's man generally needs to respect Brad's jumper from the top of the key to elbow, so he can't sag in to the paint to help too quickly. And if Peja's on the same side of the floor, his man can't in good conscience double down off of Reef, either. If it means that a couple of guys stand around on the other side of the ball occassionally, so be it. Other than Bonzi, Kings don't have many "finishers" cutting to the basket anyway, so I'd rather see Reef plying his trade in the post and taking higher percentage shots than jumpers.

 

[Bricklayer]

And Duncan can score from wherever on the court, it doesn't matter. The point is that he's an extremely skilled unselfish passer and only scores when he needs to. He would kill in the Kings' system, but then, the system in San Antonio isn't all that different.

I think you overestimate the flexibility of the system. The elbow is a CRITICAL component (Brad Miller in fact is playing very much like Pete's centers did back in his Princeton days). Just as, BTW, post offense is critical in the triangle. In fact before the triangle was the triangle it was known as the triple post or tri-post offense. The triangle does not work if your team is composed of all perimeter scorers, and the Princeton in pure form does not work with pure post scorers, one on one players, PGs dominating the ball etc. They are both very personnel dependent and demanding. There is a reason all of Phil's teams have had a similar structure, just as there is a reason the same sorts of players keep showing up in Sacto.

Thank you for the kind link, however I have been watching the Princeton since it was actually run at Princeton. I am quite aware of exactly what it is, and is not (although note it HAS mutated a bit over the years as thigns were added or subtracted for various players -- Petey Carril is fond of saying its not even a real system just a collection of plays and principles). I learned my triangle by unfortunately witnessing 9 world championships, so I will claim no more than a layman's knowledge there.

This is Duncan's shot chart from last night (with my own elbow designations obviously). I have enough respect for Tim's talent and intelligence to believe he would make it work somehow, but it is NOT a natural fit for his normal game. One or the other would have to give, and frankly if you have a Tim Duncan, it should be the system that gives, not the all-time great player.

 

[4cwebb]

Whoa, wait, what? The Kings and Lakers' offenses are about versatile ball and player movement, not about favoring inside out or outside in. The Kings run a variation on the triangle -- people have only taken to calling it the Princeton because of the backdoor cuts that are a hallmark of Carrill's teams, but they're basically the same offense. The triangle in Chicago was not used to get shots for post players.

I'd agree that the triangle in Chicago wasn't used to get shots for post players, but it got plenty of shots for players in the post. We all know Jordan was lethal on the blocks, and the triangle got him down there, at least as I understood it.

The point of both offenses is to get a variety of shots and different looks and to respond spontaneously to the way the defense is playing. They don't favor a particular player, which is why Kobe never liked it.

I'd venture that Kobe didn't like the triangle largely b/c Shaq got almost all the looks in the post --- he was no Bill Wennington or Luke Longley when it came to baseline jumpers. Of course, I don't know Kobe, so I could easily be wrong.

And Duncan can score from wherever on the court, it doesn't matter. The point is that he's an extremely skilled unselfish passer and only scores when he needs to. He would kill in the Kings' system, but then, the system in San Antonio isn't all that different.

Not to take up for Brick, but I thought his point was that Duncan's weakest area of effectiveness was the elbow. It's not that he can't score from there, just that he doesn't prefer to do so, and I'd say certainly doesn't do so nearly as effectively as he does from the mid-wing on in. I'm sure if he was a King, the "system" would quickly be adapted to allow him to play from his favorite spots. Systems tend to do that for the best players on the planet. Don't know if it's an accommodation that Reef warrants just yet.

 

[nbrans]

I agree that Duncan is most effect sliding off the elbow or on the block, but the triangle/Princeton is extremely adaptable, and if Duncan wanted to slide down off of the elbow it woudln't be a huge deal. The offenses are ABOUT adaptibility. And obviously when you have a player like Duncan, you adjust.

If the Kings are going to make an adjustment it's to get Shareef into the post more. And yeah, 4cwebb, I agree that Shareef had a tough assignment against the 7 footers, which was made impossible with Ginobili sloughing off. With Peja on the floor chances are he would have had a better shot.

 

[yanon]

Outside of SAR, the Kings have no low post threat. Are you willing live and die by the jump shots?

 

[BMiller52]

ROFL at comparing tim duncan to reef. SAR isn't half the player TD is, yeah he's good and cheap, but Duncan's the best NBA player in the league. Reef isn't untradable, I think he'd be a good trading chip because he's so cheap and he's still a good player.

 

[playmaker0017]

ROFL at comparing tim duncan to reef. SAR isn't half the player TD is, yeah he's good and cheap, but Duncan's the best NBA player in the league.

I don't think anyone, except you, actually was trying to insinuate that Reef was on Tim Duncan's level.

No one in the league is on Tim Duncan's level.

But, offensively, Duncan and Reef play very similar games and dominate from the same locations. Granted, Duncan is better (by far) ... but the style comparison isn't completely without merit.

Reef isn't untradable, I think he'd be a good trading chip because he's so cheap and he's still a good player.

Reef IS almost untradeable because he is so cheap. You just won't get the right value in return - unless you unload a big contract. Reef just isn't making that much, so you'd have to bundle him with a lot ... you might be able to unload Corliss or Skinner?

 

[BMiller52]

No one in the league is on Tim Duncan's level.

KG is on Tim Duncan's level .

Reef IS almost untradeable because he is so cheap. You just won't get the right value in return - unless you unload a big contract. Reef just isn't making that much, so you'd have to bundle him with a lot ... you might be able to unload Corliss or Skinner?

Skinner probably, corliss has an exp contract after this season is over for(correct me if I'm wrong) 6 millionish, could land us a good role player who wants out of their current team or somethin.