<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">According to sources in the NBA the Portland Trailblazers will extend an offer sheet to the Sonics Damien Wilkins. Contract details are not clear, but word on the street is that deal is significant. Translation: the Blazers are over paying Wilkins in order to make sure the Sonics don't match the deal. The Sonics had Juan Dixon in town all weekend and are hoping they can get him signed. The issue is whether or not Flip Murray and Juan Dixon would be redundant. Murray is a restricted free agent.</div> Locked On Sports I really like Damien, but if the Blazers are willing to give him a serious deal, then there is no point in matching it. He is a nice fit as a big 2/3 and as an energy guy, but there are other guys around who can do that. It probably was Dixon you saw at the Storm game, psheehy, if he was in Seattle all weekend.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post">Locked On Sports I really like Damien, but if the Blazers are willing to give him a serious deal, then there is no point in matching it. He is a nice fit as a big 2/3 and as an energy guy, but there are other guys around who can do that. It probably was Dixon you saw at the Storm game, psheehy, if he was in Seattle all weekend.</div> Yeah...saw it confirmed in the paper and then your pic on the rumour thread...guess it was him. Weiss is going to be a crack up this year. He really likes to yuk it up with the fans. Will be VERY different from Nate's stoicism.
Call me crazy, but I don't see Murray's and Dixon's offensive contributions to be redundant. Flip seems to be a more versatile player and probably a little more talented. I think some playing time would be a good way to judge that a little more capably, but I admit to being a little undereducated about Sonics affairs. I'd love to hear an actual comparison between the two if any of you have the time.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Casual:</div><div class="quote_post">Flip dunks on your face, Juan Dixon shoots threes over you.</div> come on Casual, lets get real. These are subpar players, who shoot a ton, with low fg %ages. They both have tunnel vision aimed at the basket and they best they can hope to be called is a "spark of the bench". It is fine to sort through the trash to see if there are any salvagable parts, but let's not make a big deal about it. I was ok losing James, in fact I think I prayed for it a few times. However losing AD without a fight was much like throwing the baby out with the bath water. just plain dumb.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Odde24:</div><div class="quote_post"> I was ok losing James, in fact I think I prayed for it a few times. However losing AD without a fight was much like throwing the baby out with the bath water. just plain dumb.</div> Lose AD without a fight? The Sonics offered him a 3 year deal hovering around the MLE - a deal that both the Lakers and Blazers who were interested in him wouldn't exceed (both rumored to only be willing to offer 2 years) AD was great for this team last year, he was pretty good in his role the year before - but to handcuff the team with a 5 year 30 million deal for a 30 year old player bench player is what I would call just plain dumb. Its not like the guy has a history of playing the way he did last season - I have a hard time believing that a player who is a horrible shooter and who's best offensive weapon is driving strong to the hoop is going to get better (or even maintain production) once he gets much past 30. Is Ridnour going to improve over the next couple of years, I would assume so - and my guess is mgmt assumes so as well - all that does is take minutes away from AD if he's around. I would have been upset if we didn't make a play for AD at 3 years, but 5 is WAY too long. Same situtation with JJ - 3 years maybe, but 5 is crazy.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting M_Cage89:</div><div class="quote_post"> I have a hard time believing that a player who is a horrible shooter and who's best offensive weapon is driving strong to the hoop is going to get better (or even maintain production) once he gets much past 30. </div> OK so we <u>completely</u> disagree. I think that AD was finally coming into his own. I think that he is one of those point gaurds that takes awhile to mature and settle down. I also don't think we are talking about the same player if you think he is a "horrible shooter" fg45% 3pt33% ft77% is fine from where i sit. I suppose you are in the camp of replacing him with Murray, who actually IS a horrific shooter. Maybe i am from the old school of thought where having a savvy veteran combo gaurd was a good thing. Ya, I would have done the 5 year deal with daniels for 28 and bonuses. I would also like to keep winning instead of starting a new five year plan. ya, it is safe to say, we completely disagree.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Odde24:</div><div class="quote_post"> Maybe i am from the old school of thought where having a savvy veteran combo gaurd was a good thing. Ya, I would have done the 5 year deal with daniels for 28 and bonuses. I would also like to keep winning instead of starting a new five year plan.</div> And you'd feel comfortable paying him a fair bit of that when he's 34/35? Are you also from the old school of thought that we should have given Barry four years? AD's biggest value IMO was as a game-finisher, someone who shared the point guard spot with Luke and was probably more reliable at the end of games. Do you want to keep him in this role and stunt Luke's development? We need a back-up point now, not someone to share the position with him and split minutes. And I agree, neither Flip nor Dixon are point guards. PS - It's good to see you around again.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Odde24:</div><div class="quote_post">OK so we <u>completely</u> disagree. I think that AD was finally coming into his own. I think that he is one of those point gaurds that takes awhile to mature and settle down. I also don't think we are talking about the same player if you think he is a "horrible shooter" fg45% 3pt33% ft77% is fine from where i sit. I suppose you are in the camp of replacing him with Murray, who actually IS a horrific shooter. Maybe i am from the old school of thought where having a savvy veteran combo gaurd was a good thing. Ya, I would have done the 5 year deal with daniels for 28 and bonuses. I would also like to keep winning instead of starting a new five year plan. ya, it is safe to say, we completely disagree.</div> Welcome back Odde... AD was great in many ways for this team, however I could NOT see paying him the kind of money over the same term as Washington did. I would pick a defensive, veteran combo guard like AD over Flip and Dixon based on the Supes current roster any day. I also think mgmt made the wise decision in this case.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Odde24:</div><div class="quote_post">OK so we <u>completely</u> disagree. I think that AD was finally coming into his own. I think that he is one of those point gaurds that takes awhile to mature and settle down. I also don't think we are talking about the same player if you think he is a "horrible shooter" fg45% 3pt33% ft77% is fine from where i sit. I suppose you are in the camp of replacing him with Murray, who actually IS a horrific shooter. Maybe i am from the old school of thought where having a savvy veteran combo gaurd was a good thing. Ya, I would have done the 5 year deal with daniels for 28 and bonuses. I would also like to keep winning instead of starting a new five year plan. ya, it is safe to say, we completely disagree.</div> Well, we disagree, but at least its been a good convo I love AD on a 2, and I'd take him on a 3 year deal. The problem I have with "AD finally coming into his own" is that even if this is the case, he maybe has 2 more seasons before age catches up with him and take a step away from AD, and he doesn't bring much to the table. I can maybe see the argument of him taking a while to settle down and mature, but I definately don't agree with rewarding that with a long term deal - Kevin Ollie comes to mind, think CLE is glad they signed him a few years back? As far as him being a horrible shooter, alright, that was a little overboard - but its far from a strength. The man shot 29.7% from 3 last year, the vast majority of those shots being wide open looks. When he loses a step, he won't be as effective penetrating, and will be forced to rely more and more on his jumpshot - which hasn't been a strength over the course of his career. We definately will take a step back if Murray/Dixon take AD's minutes in the lineup next season. The difference being is that is will be at 1/3 the price and shorter deals to boot. Neither of these two will help us win as many games as AD would have next season, or maybe the season after that - but either of these two efforts combined with another player picked up with the excess dollars that would have been dumped into signing AD will win us more games in the long run. Not to mention leaving us WAY more flexible - which is a good thing. I'm also of the thought that having a savvy, veteran, combo guard in AD is a good thing - just not at 5 years. It seems like ever GM in the league save one agreed with me. You would be hard pressed to find a team that AD couldn't help out next season and while every one of them had the MLE, I didn't hear of anyone even offering him 4 years before Washington offered 5. I would also like to keep winning - I just don't want to see us peak next season in round one or two because we don't have the flexibility financially to add the pieces necessary to add anyone of value in subsequent years.
Thanks for the welcome back, i think i need a moist towelette to sop up the tear from this joyful reuniun. i think i am over my anger issues now, and my doctor thinks its safe to join in playing with the other kids now. I like Luke but IMHO I would rather have Daniels playing starter minutes off the bench for the next four or five years then sign some schlub. I don't think it would "stunt" Lukes growth at all. Daniels shows fire when they need it, gets the team going, even has mild success playing SF in the three gaurd line up. He is a great defender whom i just don't see slowing down at 33 or 34. Isn't this a pointless conversation anyway? sorry i started it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post"> Are you also from the old school of thought that we should have given Barry four years?</div> No, but it was a heartbreaker losing him. My favorite sonic all time. (i didn't say best so let's not start that arguement) WWHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYY BRENT!@?!!?@?@??!! WWWHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?!?!?! (sob sob)
AD also lost more than a step defensively last year, from what I saw. Maybe it was his knee but guys were blowing right by him.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Odde24:</div><div class="quote_post">No, but it was a heartbreaker losing him. My favorite sonic all time. (i didn't say best so let's not start that arguement) WWHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYY BRENT!@?!!?@?@??!! WWWHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?!?!?! (sob sob)</div> Uh, can you say title, championship, big one...I knew you could.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Roland Hood:</div><div class="quote_post">AD also lost more than a step defensively last year, from what I saw. Maybe it was his knee but guys were blowing right by him.</div> Not sure I'm with you here. He played pretty solid man, and while the really quick guards did get by at times, most of the time I blamed the bigs for their lazy interior defense. The Spurs guards play aggressive and loose on the perimeter because they know they have two seven footers backing them up. I'm not so confident with BGJ, The Collector and Nick "the not so quick" watching the paint, that our guards could do more than play safe defense, which means giving up some jumpers and some penetration as you try to decide which to guard.
