Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
21 - 40 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,714 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
I can't really understand the logic of getting SAR for Sheed. Basically, it still leaves Portland with 3 PF's up front with DD, Zach and SAR. Only this trio would be worse defensively. From what i've seen, Shareef is not a SF. He likes to go to the basket and play in the paint. How is he going to open up the paint for Zach ?

SAR is similar to Jamison. They are both 3/4 tweeners, they put up similar stats (when Jamison was with Golden State), both solid rebounders and they both play really bad defense. You guys hated the Jamison idea, yet you think SAR is a good return ? :uhoh:
Not really, but he would be easier to move than Jamison. I don't know the numbers off hand, but his contract isn't as long is it? I think that it would be Nash trying to get chips to deal later more than anything when it comes to trading Rasheed Wallace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,377 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
Hey, hey, let's not go there, kiddo. Judging from your comments about Pippen, one might wonder if you've watched Blazer games from the past few seasons. But there's no point using that tack.

Let's keep it civil. There's no worthwhile analysis in implying that the other person simply hasn't watched the other player. It's just a way to disparage the other poster's opinion without having any valid points to make.
I've watched plenty of Blazer games and that's my opinion. I'm not the only one who thinks that way about Pip. I'm not sure where I wasn't civil here...just asking a question. SAR is not known for his defense and he is below average. He puts up good numbers but then again, look at what team he plays for. Do you think Sheed would put up better numbers in Atlanta?...I sure do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,855 Posts
Re: This had to be concluded...

This is kind of off-topic, but oh well...

Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
Name 10 better.
Terry is another guy who puts up stats, but he's not a top player. He takes a lot of shots, he's not good at distributing the ball, he gives no effort on defense and he turns the ball over a lot. Basically, Terry is a slightly taller version of Damon.

I could easily name 10 better PG's than Terry...Kidd, Cassell, Marbury, Nash, Bibby, B.Davis, A.Miller, Payton, Snow, Billups, J.Williams...etc. I would honestly take any one of those guys over Terry.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
Re: This had to be concluded...

Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!

Name 10 better [point guards than Terry].
I'd prefer to have any of these ten:

Jason Kidd
Stephon Marbury
Baron Davis
Sam Cassell
Gary Payton
Steve Nash
Jason Williams
Mike Bibby
Steve Francis
Andre Miller

That's without including rookies from this season like LeBron James (up to now), Kirk Henrich or Dwayne Wade.

Use that as trivia food if you like but don’t fool yourself, people who actually understand the game of basketball realize what a difference dominant shot blocking makes.
I didn't say shot-blocking doesn't make a difference. I said that a player who's only really value is that he leads the league in blocked shots is too one-dimensional to count as serious talent. Ratliff is hardly considered a major difference-maker...some posters here want him as a "throw-in." Nobody considers him a major piece.

I stated that last seasons Hawks were talented and their starting 5 indeed was. In the eastern conference they were predicted by many to make the playoffs while the organization went as far as to guarantee the playoffs.
The organization guaranteed the playoffs as a marketing gimmick in to try and drum up interest in a moribund franchise. Yes, the Hawks were considered a possible playoff team which, in the East, is not the same as being "quite talented." The Wizards have been considered playoff contenders...pretty much every Eastern team has. That doesn't make them all quite talented.

Not the greatest of teams but certainly talented enough to exceed 35 wins in the eastern conference (on paper that should have been a .500 eastern team).
Possibly. Or perhaps Terry is overrated (as I definitely think he is). The bench is very weak, Newble was a pretty terrible shooting guard, in terms of actual production, and Ratliff is a poor scorer (and rebounder, for his size and position).

So SAR and Robinson, with an overrated Terry. 35 wins seems about right. Let's take a gander at the offense of this team:

We have Robinson and Terry as 20 and 17 ppg scorers, but on mediocre shooting. Players who can score 17-20 ppg on 42-43% shooting are no huge value to the team.

Only SAR scored a lot on good shooting (48%).

My position is that he has little effect on the outcome of games because he concedes as much as he contributes and that his contributions come more so at the expense of those around him (his teammates) then to the benefit of them.
Yes, which is something one can say, unprovably either way, about any player. Clearly some, like Duncan, are reputably good enough that it doesn't matter that you can't prove it one way or the other. But for the vast majority of players, you could claim that "he concedes as much as he contributes and that his contributions come more so at the expense of those around him (his teammates) then to the benefit of them."

I'm not too interested in claims that are totally subjective.

A winning mentality is a quality, an intangible (a skill). That is not to say that the player’s team will win but that their contributions greatly facilitate it. There is a difference between a player who produces and one who does what necessary to win.
Fine, but that's totally subjective as well. The reason I'm not too big on subjective claims is that one can use totally subjective claims, like who has a "winning mentality" and who's "contributions come at the expense of the team rather than for the benefit," to tear down any player one wishes.

Every single claim you make about SAR, I could make for Dirk Nowitski. But the cold hard facts are what they actually produce, which make them talented assets in this league.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!

I'm not sure where I wasn't civil here...just asking a question.
I wouldn't be commenting on his defense if I hadn't seen him play.

SAR is not known for his defense and he is below average.
And my contention is that his poor defense is overstated. Therefore, I'm saying that, in my opinion, what "is known" is not right.

He puts up good numbers but then again, look at what team he plays for. Do you think Sheed would put up better numbers in Atlanta?...I sure do.
Perhaps. One can argue either way as to whether being on a good team helps one's stats or whether being on a bad team helps one's stats.

If your contention is that SAR only puts up good numbers because he's on a bad team, that's fine. I disagree entirely, but opinion is opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!

SAR is not known for his defense and he is below average. He puts up good numbers but then again, look at what team he plays for. Do you think Sheed would put up better numbers in Atlanta?...I sure do.
IMO Sheed will do exactly the same anywhere he goes. 24 pts one night, 8 pts the next. He has never had the work ethic to be great. SAR will have a bit less in Pt and rebounds because Portland is better than atlanta, but no one has ever questioned his work ethic on all these horrible teams he has been on. Maybe he will be better. Bibby improved coming to Sac.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!

Well, I was going to post this in response to Ed's post, but you make the same point even more emphatically about SAR's "bad defense."

...

He's a downgrade, defensively, from Wallace but I don't think he's really below average.
He might not be below-average at the 4 spot (although he might be). The issue to me is that he wouldn't be able to play the 4. He'd play the 3, where he'd get toasted I fear.

Ed O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Swoosh</b>!
It actually came from Mike Kahn on CBS Sportsline...here is the link to the original story LINK

O-Live just summarized the portion regarding the Blazers.
Thanks Swoosh.... makes more sense now that you mention it. I should have realized the Blog is a blog after all.

As I have stated in other threads, I think if a deal does go down with Atlanta I can see Sheed and ? for SAR and Ratliff. Maybe even Patterson and some cash to help witht eh trade kicker. I think Ratliff is valuable as a shot blocker.

The main reason I can see this happening is Atlanta's new owner wants to shed salary fast. Both SAR and Ratliff have 2 years left, and getting Sheed's expiring contract allows them to shed about 76% of that all in one year and not haev to wait for 2 years. The remaing can be shed with either Davis, yet another year or taking on a smaller contract longer. It still sheds lots of money quickly for them.


There are a lot of fans who have been saying how much they have liked the increase in hustle and effort from the Blazers the last few games. One of the many things I have always liked about SAR is he gets up and down the court well on the break, he gets to the basket a LOT, thus getting a lot of FT's, and he hustles quite a bit. I have always enjoyed his energy. I think those area all positives for him.

If we had a center who could pass a lot, and put him at the top of the key like Sabas. Randolph and SAR would do wonders as dual PF's on the baseline, cutting to the hoop.

Just MHO....

I would rather have a player such as SAR from the east who IS an all star than one who is not. Even though he is in the east, at least he is an all star level player.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,946 Posts
I think a bit too much is made of the need for a 3 that opens up the paint for Zach. Teams can do just fine with two guys roaming the paint, so long as they pass well enough to punish double teams. Focus the perimeter shooting where it should be -- in the back court -- and SAR and Zach should be just fine together (offensively).

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Communication is everything to them both.... I agree...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,548 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
I like SAR a lot. If we didn't have ZR and we had to move Rasheed, I'd be falling all over myself for this deal.

As it is, though, while my preference is to keep Rasheed, we could do a LOT worse than taking on SAR. He's young, he's a good offensive player, and his contract is a manageable length.

He and ZR would be a nightmare on defense (for Portland fans) and I question how well their offensive games would mesh, but SAR's good enough that acquiring him might some day allow us to move Zach if we got enough talent. SAR is that good.

In the mean time, he could be plugged in at the 3 and most nights do a decent job, I think.

In comparison to Jamison, or KVH, this would be an awesome acquisition for Rasheed. In comparison to keeping Rasheed, it's tough for me to be excited over.

Ed O.
General agreement from me. This has been talked to death already but here is a recap of my preferences of the main possibilities and recent trade rumors. In order of preference:

1) Crazy long shot, but still first choice: Trade Sheed and more to Orlando for T-Mac and the contract albatross known as Grant Hill.

2) Re-sign Sheed to a 3 year $28mil deal ($8, $9 & $11)

3) Sign and trade Sheed this summer so Portland gets back, among other things, a clear upgrade at PG or Center.

4) If T-Mac as a FA is a possibility (Portland needs to find this out first), trade Sheed for a mid-level talent on a mid-level contract (appx. current market value), plus picks and/or young talent on rookie scale, plus contracts ending no later than 05, so Portland end up with at least $10mil of Sheeds current $17mil off the 05 books.

If, because the Blazers are intent on dumping Sheed, or Sheed has told them he won’t resign, will become a FA and most likely walk, then and only then:

5) Call every team in the NBA (again) and solicit offers. Find out players that are “available”. Try to work a 3 or 4 team trade that makes better sense for Portland than the below. Portland needs a good PG and a young defensive center (to cover for Zach in the post). Portland doesn’t really need another scoring Forward.

6) Trade Sheed to Atlanta for Shareef. Do not include Jason Terry or Nazr Mohammed, unless Atlanta takes back Portland long contracts (DA or Patterson). Shareef’s deal expires 2005. Leaves that opportunity open. Theo Ratliff’s contract also expires in 2005 and if he could be worked in that is fine too.

Why Shareef over the other rumors?
Better contract.
Better player.
More valuable piece to have.
Good enough, might choose him over Zach. Get to audition before choosing. Then trade the other for a valuable piece.

Why not excited about Shareef?
Not a great match for Zach. Another forward. Yeah. We have forwards already (Zach, Patterson, Q, Miles, Dale)
Not as good a defender as Sheed.
Never been part of a winning team.

97) Trade Sheed to Dallas for Jamison, Howard and Delk.
(note the rumor for the trade was much worse than above)
Not as good as Shareef.
Worse contract. Truly, truly awful contract.
Blazer’s see Sheed 4 times per year instead of 2.

98) Trade Sheed to NY for Keith Van Horn and change.
Not as good as Shareef.
Worse contract. (One extra year, but that makes all the difference because the huge FA year is 05, not 06.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,840 Posts
SAR is similar to Jamison. They are both 3/4 tweeners, they put up similar stats (when Jamison was with Golden State), both solid rebounders and they both play really bad defense. You guys hated the Jamison idea, yet you think SAR is a good return ?
Rahim has two years left at about $28 mill, while Jamison has 5 years left at about $70 mill.....:uhoh:

If both players are so similar, why would you take the one with an extra 3 years and 42 million on his contract? For a guy who plays really bad defense, 14 mill a season is way too much, so it would be safer to take the player with the lesser contract.


As far as SAR playing SF, he has before in the past, so I don't think that would be that much of a problem.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
ANother thing to keep in mindis Aquiring Shareef keeps our goal of cap space for 2005 intact while not completely mailing it iin for next year. A team witout Rasheed or Shareef is likely worse than ione with eaither, and a team coming off a fairly successful season is likely more attractiver to the likes of McGrady than a team coming off a terrible season.

E.G. See the Chicago Bulls only being able to land Ron Mercer a afew years back.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
I think a bit too much is made of the need for a 3 that opens up the paint for Zach. Teams can do just fine with two guys roaming the paint, so long as they pass well enough to punish double teams. Focus the perimeter shooting where it should be -- in the back court -- and SAR and Zach should be just fine together (offensively).
I agree completely. Just because Wallace, as a big man, has taken on the odd role of being the shooter to open up the paint doesn't mean a replacement "big" should have to assume the same role.

There's some hope Derek Anderson and Wesley Person can do some of that. Portland should definitely be looking for a shooting compliment in the backcourt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
990 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
Snow, Billups, J.Williams...etc. I would honestly take any one of those guys over Terry.
The final three are a stretch.

I see your first eight as being clearly better then Terry.

Snow
Billiups
J. Williams

I disagree.

Terry possesses an outside shooting ability that Snow lacks he is a far better defender then Williams and simply more talented then Billups (a career 40% shooter). Terry is also the youngest of the bunch. I would not rate them as being clearly better then him and from the perspective of talent I would take him ahead of all three.

Last season Terry averaged more assists then both Snow and Billups and he shot better the both Billups and Williams.

Terry (last season)
ppg: 17.2... apg: 7.4... rpg: 3.4... spg: 1.6... FG%: (43%)... 3FG: (37%)

Terry (Carrer)
ppg: 16.0... apg: 5.5... rpg: 3.2... spg: 1.4... FG%: (43%)... 3FG: (37%)

Terry proved to be a winner in college and given the right cast I can see him aiding a team winning in the NBA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
If we could get back Terry in this deal then I would like it, obviously Im a huge fan of Shareef, he's a good Muslim cat. But we lose defensively and the fact that Sheed CAN play center, Reef can't, if we could some how throw in Dale or some other stuff to get back Terry and Nazr Mohammed then this would be a deal beneficial to us.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
One thing just popped up in my mind.

If Atlanta Deals for Sheed by sending Terry and SAR, just so they can cut salary, that means that they would be letting Sheed walk after the season, leaving them with Boris Diaw and Stephen Jackson as their 2 best players.

I don't see them iving away every shred of talent they possess, you think they are bad now...Whew they would need to hand out clothespins at the doors.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!

I don't see them iving away every shred of talent they possess, you think they are bad now...Whew they would need to hand out clothespins at the doors.
And an empty, empty, empty payroll. In the "I can amass more cap space than you" game that seems to be so in vogue these days, Atlanta would be the clear winner.
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
As best as I can tell Atlanta would only be around 10 mil under tha cap if the got Sheed and let him walk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Schilly ... dude can you please change your avatar? That's just freaky, man.
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Top