i can't see miami giving that deal any consideration at all. swap out tim thomas(who was just bought out anyway, wasn't he) with salmons and maybe you've got something they could think about.
I'm not buying. Wallace's rebounding, ppg, and bpg numbers peaked out three years before we got him. And that was reflected in the play I saw on the court. By the time he signed with the Bull, it wasn't a question of whether Wallace was as good as he was in his prime, but how quickly his skills would diminish -- though I'm not sure anyone expected them to free-fall like they did. But that's all beside the point. I should have been more careful with my use of the phrase "marque." I meant the type of player who could deliver a championship. There's only two players of that caliber i n2010, Lebron and D Wade. I don't think we should expect to have a shot at signing either of those players.
I agree, just so happens a deal with my Blazer for Travis Outlaw and Steve Blake is available. Get er done!
I'd offer Wade the max and I would want some assurance he'd take the extension. Basically I only see this as a package deal. The package is he gets pissed off at the Heat and says he's open to an extension but not there. We swoop in and offer the deal. Of course, we can't actually do that anymore because we just bought out TiT, but you get the idea. Boozer I'd deal for independently of Wade, but I don't think I'd sign him up to an extension until I saw the results
The Pistons also added Antonio McDyess the last two years, who was probably a better backup than the guys they had previously in an old Elden Campbell and Corliss Williamson. So that's a big reason his minutes went down. His rates fluctuated but they were both up and down. And people figured out the Pistons. Nobody is as good at 31 as they are at 27, but his drop off from 31 to 34 was a lot steeper than anybody could have foreseen. I wouldn't have pegged him as a guy who would basically quit when he got the big contract either.
FAIL. If you look at it per minute, all the rates dropped 23% to 50% comparing the 1st year to the 4th year. If you look at each category, each year, per minute, then they fell 8 our of 9 times.
I like the "nobody saw it coming" schtick after DC reposted his post from the time of the signing where he predicted Wallace's continued slide.
Try again Jay, what numbers are you looking at? Per 36 Code: Season Age Tm Lg G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS 2002-03 28 DET NBA 73 73 2873 2.6 5.5 .481 0.0 0.1 .167 1.1 2.4 .450 3.7 10.4 14.1 1.5 1.3 2.9 1.1 2.2 6.3 2003-04 29 DET NBA 81 81 3050 3.7 8.8 .421 0.0 0.1 .125 1.7 3.4 .490 3.8 8.0 11.9 1.6 1.7 2.9 1.5 1.9 9.1 2004-05 30 DET NBA 74 74 2671 4.0 8.8 .453 0.0 0.1 .111 1.8 4.1 .428 3.9 8.2 12.2 1.7 1.4 2.4 1.1 2.1 9.7 2005-06 31 DET NBA 82 82 2890 3.0 5.8 .510 0.0 0.0 .000 1.5 3.7 .416 3.7 7.7 11.5 2.0 1.8 2.3 1.1 2.0 7.4 Games is up, minutes are up, FG% is up, ORB are the same, the big dropoff in DRB came in year 2, asts were up, stls are up, TOV the same, fouls down, and points are up relative to three years prior. I wasn't talking about what he did with the bulls, I was talking about what he did right up to when he signed with the bulls. Of course he dropped off with the bulls. But it was impossible to predict how big the actual drop off turned out to be.
His playoff numbers from earlier in the thread. Umm...it wasn't impossible to predict he wasn't worth signing.
He might have been worth it if 1. The Bulls had gone all out to follow up with other moves to make us a contender. 2. The Bulls at least hadn't undercut their long-term prospects by dumping young players to absorb his cost.
re: Wallace. One last thought. It's interesting to me how his offensive rebounding stayed steady but his defensive rebounding fell off year-by-year when we started declining. This is for both his regular season and the playoffs. I wonder if this is common or if it's an anomaly.
I've been told I'm wrong by a guy with an even pointier head than me, but I've always thought it was fairly obvious that great offensive rebounders were often a product of being otherwise terrible offensive players. Fundamentally I don't think there's any difference in the skill of getting an offensive or a defensive rebound. But I can see how offensively it sticks because when you've got a guy who's a great rebounder and terrible otherwise, you make it part of your offensive plan to have him in position to get a rebound. Whereas, if you have a great rebounder who's also a very good scorer, you want to position him differently to create a threat or a bailout option, depending on what sort of play you're trying to run.
I like this idea. Wade is a top 5 NBA talent. Best case, that was Rose projects out to. He might not though. I also like that lineup b/c it has the makings of a title team. A superstar. An all-star. A near all-star. It would rely on Deng and Hinrich becoming near-all-stars, but heck, with Wade on the floor, things are going to get a lot easier for those guys. Everyone loves Rose and wants him to become a superstar. Wade *is* a superstar. Bird in the hand. Also, this team needs to have a focus. A goal. Win Now vs Win Later? What's the goal with this current roster. Unknown. Seems like its develop Rose, have some vets around so we don't suck terribly and stay financially flexible. The sad thing is that the overall "vision" of the organization shifted once Rose lucked into our laps. Fine, I guess something had to be done when faced with great luck like that. It just frustrates me to see the lack of vision or goals. A couple of things would need to go right for this lineup to be a title contender. Deng bounces back. Boozer stays healthy. Hinrich plays well. But that lineup could be a title contender for the next 2-3 years, and in the end, that's the goal. The "win later" scenario relies on Paxson making a big trade (yah right) or a big FA coming here (yah right 2). I'd take the sure thing in the Hinrich/Wade/Deng/Boozer/Noah/Miller lineup anyday.
