Trade with Phoenix

[mdme]

I think we all know by now that Harper is a project. She wasn't coached well at Maryland at all (hence her poor FT shooting form, tendency to flail limbs when faced with contact, and irritating habit of bringing the ball down to guards' level). That said, she's got tremendous upside. Despite Frese's inability to develop her in college, she has displayed a little range out to the FT line on her jumper.

Problem is:

#1 She doesn't realize that she is a project
#2 If she was truly good then even without effective coaching, she should've developed her game specially in a quality conference in the ACC.
#3 Assuming it's even all coaching....do we even have a guarantee she can be coached into "improving"

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

If Kelly isn't a center, and it seems like everybody is in agreement that she's not one on this team or in the pros...then what is she? A power forward? If she's a power forward how does she match up with the other power forwards on this roster? Is she going to take minutes from a healthy Walker or Brunson? Is she going to replace either of those two long term?

I'm not sure why anybody would compare her to Harper. I said that last summer when people were saying Kelly was better than Harper. I felt it was hard to compare the two when they play different positions and are completely different players. Harper won't be playing the 4 here this season or at any conceivable point in the future. Kelly will have to or play the 3. I think Kelly is a defensive liability at the 3 and actually won't get minutes there or as many minutes there now that Maiga-Ba is back.

If we're going to give somebody minutes at the SF, they should either be a stellar defender or have skills identifiable with those you'd want from a small forward. That means a more extended offensive game beyond the paint, passing and going to the basket.

Seems people have no faith that Walker is healthy or will be healthy this season, and that may very well be true. But for the sake of argument let's pretend she is. And let's also pretend that the league does not go to 12 minute quarters all of a sudden. With the addition of Maiga who likely will play some of the minutes Robinson and Kelly got in either the 3 guard rotation or the Kelly Brunson Harper rotation, and the addition of Farris who will slide in the role that AWS should have had if Walker didn't blow out a knee either of the last two years. Who isn't going to get the same minutes they had last season? By numbers alone somebody who is listed as a post player is going to play less. I suggest that Harper isn't going to be the one losing minutes.

It has nothing to do with a judgment on Kelly, at least for me it's not. It's now a numbers thing. Walker, Maiga-Ba and Farris (barring injury to somebody) just sopped up roster spots and minutes that had been allocated elsewhere last year.

 

[creative one]

First off, who's trying to pass her off as a Center? Harper averaged 4 RPG in 16.5 MPG, Kelly averaged 3.3RPG in 16.7 MPG. So either Harper is a non-rebounding 6-5" forward/center, or you just don't give Kelly any credit.

Kelly's attributes fit the mold of a center: anchored in the paint on offense and defense.

As for the rebounding, Harper averaged 12 rpg in Euroleague, a competition similar in magnitude to an early regular season WNBA game. Kelly is averaging slightly under 6 rpg in the Spanish league. I know that Harper can rebound at the professional level, and she was a tough rebounder in a tough league in college. I am not convinced that Kelly can rebound any better than she's shown.

So which is it? You go with a player that has "tremendous upside" or do you go with who is producing now? If the future isn't promised, shouldn't you go with the player producing now?

Did you learn nothing from the Sidney Spencer case? Just because a later-round player had one good season does not mean she's on the fast track to superstardom. As soon as Cooper found a couple of players who were more skilled/more athletic than Spencer, guess who rode pine? Spencer. Didn't matter what she'd done the year before.

You go with the player who's taller and is producing better overseas. Don't forget that overseas play provides developmental opportunities for young players during the offseason. The player who's really producing over there is Laura.

Getting tired of this height argument...who gives a damn how tall she is.

I give a damn when I'm seeing a 6'1 center struggle with players who are 3-4 inches taller and much longer. Believe it or not, height DOES matter in the WNBA.

She can play, don't care what pick she was in draft, don't care that she was cut by the Comets. She's not our long-lost post savior, but geez

Nobody said she COULDN'T play. She proved that she could compete at the professional level (though it took her two teams to determine that, and some players who are equally talented don't even get that chance). But teams should always look to improve their personnel. It's not a given that Crystal would even come close to producing at her 2008 level this year because the league is constantly getting taller and more athletic. I'm just saying that she should have to compete for her spot just like the other players who don't have guaranteed contracts and aren't recent top 10 picks.

With all that said and despite what it may seem, I like both Harper and Kelly and I do want both on the roster.

That would be nice, but if one of those two can yield Tasha Humphrey, I have to go with Humphrey.

 

[creative one]

Problem is:

#1 She doesn't realize that she is a project
#2 If she was truly good then even without effective coaching, she should've developed her game specially in a quality conference in the ACC.
#3 Assuming it's even all coaching....do we even have a guarantee she can be coached into "improving"

1. Um, I think Harper, who is of reasonable intelligence, realizes that the skill set she presented last year did not get the job done.

2. That's a flawed statement. On all levels, players need good coaching if they are to leave college better than when they arrived. It's not like any of the other ACC posts in her draft class are setting the league on fire. In fact, the ACC has not had a true star enter the league since Alana Beard, so it's not like she was playing with and against surefire All-Stars. Despite that, she showed promise then and is showing it now.

Harper missed half of her freshman season due to an achilles injury. She showed great promise as a sophomore on both sides of the ball, which is rare for a Maryland player (given Frese's disdain for defense). Her junior season was, for lack of a better word, lost. The team was buying into the whole "we spread the wealth" argument that left Harper as the 5th option. She was basically a garbagewoman that year. As a senior, she ran the floor more and demonstrated more of her range from 15 to 17 feet to go along with being a good defender at 6'4. Thus, she became a more attractive draft candidate and was supposed to be off the board before Pick #10.

3. No. That's what makes the WNBA Draft a crapshoot. Rarely do you get can't-miss prospects like Parker, Fowles, and Wiggins. When there are no sure things, you go with the notion that bigger and more athletic players with decent skill sets have a better chance at survival in this league than their smaller, lesser athletic counterparts who rely heavily on will power.

 

[mdme]

1. the skill set she presented last year did not get the job done.

Agreed.

2. she showed promise then and is showing it now.

This statement contradicts your statement #1. And also, whatever she is showing now, has not been proven to translate to the WNBA level. Many players show game in the international leagues but fail to bring it to the W.

2. Harper as the 5th option. She was basically a garbagewoman that year.

Maybe thats all she is. again this statement contradicts statement #2

3. No.

Again precisely my point.

 

[RDub21]

To everyone on this board, we need to focus. Focus on one player and one player only.......

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090320/c...x=231&y=345&q=85&sig=docu9whiAfGKCdMehYI1yg--

Shavonte Zellous

31 pts (on 13-27 shooting), 9 reb, 4 steals vs Montana tonight!!!!

I don't want to talk about January, Walker, Ashley Paris. If her name ain't Courtney, Marrisa or Dewanna, this is the only draft pick I am settling for, PERIOD, END OF STORY!!!!! Make it happen Draft gods, please make it happen!!!!


SEATTLE -- Shavonte Zellous could use some help from her teammates as Pittsburgh progresses in the NCAA tournament. In the first-round against Montana, Zellous by herself was more than enough.


Zellous scored 15 of her 31 points in the first half to keep Pitt even with energized and inspired Montana, and the superior talent of the fourth-seeded Panthers took over in the second half of a 64-35 win on Saturday night in the first-round of the Oklahoma City Regional. Zellous carried Pitt in the first half and the Panthers defense did the rest. Pitt held 13th-seeded Montana to just 10 second-half points, tying the tournament record for fewest points allowed in a half. Connecticut gave up just 10 to Long Island in the second half of a first-round game in 2001."The first half I just kind of put the team on my shoulders and willed us to get through it and get to the second half," said Zellous, who became Pitt's all-time single-season scoring leader with her fifth 30-point game of the season.

Agreed, Zellous is the type of player we need. Someone to take over game offensely when our "offense" is struggling.

 

[RDub21]

Did you learn nothing from the Sidney Spencer case? Just because a later-round player had one good season does not mean she's on the fast track to superstardom. As soon as Cooper found a couple of players who were more skilled/more athletic than Spencer, guess who rode pine? Spencer. Didn't matter what she'd done the year before.

You go with the player who's taller and is producing better overseas. Don't forget that overseas play provides developmental opportunities for young players during the offseason. The player who's really producing over there is Laura.

What did I learn from Sidney Spencer's case? I learned she's not better than Candace Parker and that her minutes and stats suffered because of that. If we had a #1 pick, I'd be more than happy to let Kelly go, until then...

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Parker didn't steal Sidney Spencer's job/minutes....Cooper/Toler went out and
got DMJ and Ferdinand-Harris who did. The Monarchs essentially did something similar (in addition to returning, they hope, their starting C/F). Somebody is going to lose minutes in simple math.

 

[6th]

Agreed, Zellous is the type of player we need. Someone to take over game offensely when our "offense" is struggling.

On this we agree.........100%. Zellous was always near the top of my list and her performance in Round 1 of the tourney solidified that for me. The M's are bit with lapses in offense too often and Zellous would help correct that problem IMO.

 

[creative one]

On this we agree.........100%. Zellous was always near the top of my list and her performance in Round 1 of the tourney solidified that for me. The M's are bit with lapses in offense too often and Zellous would help correct that problem IMO.

I'd be fine with Zellous. She is the player with the offensive talents and athleticism that this team desperately needs. Problem is, she could move up the draft boards in a heart beat. Chicago could use a taller guard. Phoenix still needs a scorer off the bench (they still like Bonner, but they might be looking at a PG who isn't a rookie to assure Lauren that they're a championship team NOW) and Indiana needs a taller guard off the bench as well.

Let's hope she doesn't have such a great game tonight and that her team wins anyway.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Agree on her getting through the Phx Indy gauntlet to fall to 7. I think she'd have to play out of her mind to get to Chicago. If I'm the Mystics, I take Coleman (ignoring the local attraction of the pick) because she's an upgrade over the enigma that is Mo Currie and the notion that I didn't sign Melvin and Sanford to split time with Paris or vice versa. That could force Chicago to pass on Paris, and I wouldn't. They could use a post there with Folwes.


Although a glut with Paris in Washington could make Humphrey expendable (or not since Langhorne is a redundant player in terms of where her offense comes from and the whole undersize argument we've had here) I like the concept of her on the market for some reason.

Squeeze Bonner and one of the two point guards in, I think the odds of Zellous dropping go up. Especially if Vaughn continues to play well.

 

[samq]

I prefer Currie over Coleman. I'm nowhere near sold on Coleman. I think Currie would be great if she was like the 3rd or 4th option. She definitely has the talent, but is too inconsistant.

 

[creative one]

The problem is that Currie thinks she should be a 1st option. Coleman has shown she can be effective as a third option (albeit at the college level in her junior year).