Quote:
Originally posted by <b>Draco</b>!
Ratliff contributes more to the success of a team. When Ratliff joined the blazers we went from having probably the worst defense in the NBA to a very respectable one overnight. It was a huge difference just from one man's work in the middle.
|
Yet - didn't he play 2 years with the Hawks and he didn't amount to a hill of beans?
Quote:
|
In this scenario I'd take Ratliff.
|
Which is probably why you aren't a general manager. Hehe.
Ratliff is a cog-type piece. You can actually BUILD a team around Reef... unfortunately, no team has yet to do that.
The Grizz were hodgepodge and after signing BCountry to 16MM, they sunk the franchise. Heck, how about drafting "The Franchise" (who declared he would NEVER play for a Canadian team) instead of Lamar Odom (who declared he was VERY ANXIOUS to play with Reef) in a draft where they should have been able to draft Tim Duncan (if I remember correctly). That year the number 1 slot fell to the Grizz, but due to league crap, they had to forfeit and take a different pick. So, with the number one pick they get ----- Michael Dickerson and Felipe Lopez!!!! Wooo-haaaah! I don't think MJ could have pulled that team out.
Then moving forward to Atlanta ... jeez ... Jason "Ican'tdribble" Terry and Big Dog ... come on.
I think Ratliff is the best player Reef's ever played with --- which explains why they are quite good friends.
Quote:
|
It is somewhat subjective so everyone has to define it for themselves, just as some people would define "talent" differently.
|
I agree with that. I think "BEST PLAYER" means most talented.
For instance, if Tracy McGrady were traded to the Blazers ... he would be number one. But according to your methodology, he'd fall to #6-#7.
Play.