Sonics in strong position to remain solid at the core

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Nate McMillan, Jerome James, Antonio Daniels and now possibly Damien Wilkins. The Sonics exodus continues, and with each departure, the panic meter has crept up.

Now take a step back and relax.

The NBA is all about moving parts. Sure, the Sonics seem to be moving like a raft over Niagara Falls, but it isn't at all unusual.

In the NBA, they build teams around core players. Only four players from this year's Spurs were on the team the last time it won the title two seasons ago. Only Tim Duncan returns from their 1998-99 championship team.

The Pistons, who played in this year's Finals, had only six playing pieces from their title team the year before.

The Bulls' first three-peat was done with a core of Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant. The next three-peat substituted Dennis Rodman for Grant. John Paxson become Steve Kerr. Will Perdue became Luc Longley. B.J. Armstrong became Ron Harper.

It's all about the core.</div>

Seattle PI.

Very good article from Locke.

Comparing us to the Bulls title teams and the Spurs and Pistons is probably a slight exaggeration, but it does prove his point. Guys like AD, Jerome, Reggie and Flip are nice roleplayers to have, but likely none are going to be the difference between building a contender and being in the lottery. It's all about the core, and finding the right mix of roleplayers to surround that.

No need for panic stations yet, we have four of our core signed up, and Vlad will still probably be back, at least for next season.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post">
Very good article from Locke.

Comparing us to the Bulls title teams and the Spurs and Pistons is probably a slight exaggeration, but it does prove his point. Guys like AD, Jerome, Reggie and Flip are nice roleplayers to have, but likely none are going to be the difference between building a contender and being in the lottery. It's all about the core, and finding the right mix of roleplayers to surround that.

No need for panic stations yet, we have four of our core signed up, and Vlad will still probably be back, at least for next season.</div>

I agree - well written article. Its funny how quick alot of fans are to look at the ridiculous payrolls of teams like NY and PDX and wonder how they ever got there - well, its by overpaying in $$$'s and years to get mediocre role/complimentary players to come or remain with their team. Guys who although they may have played well and might be fan favorites, will never be more than a solid complimentary piece that can be replaced for likely less money and years.

Yeah, the Bulls and Spurs are a bit of a stretch - the big differences being Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan - solid complimentary players have proven time and time again they want to play with these guys, sometimes even taking less money! Ray Allen hasn't proven to be this kind of draw, and may never will - but the theory is sound in principle.

The same thinking is why DET lost Okur basically without a fight - he wasn't worth the money he got from the Jazz to the Pistons in a backup role, and especially after inking Sheed, so they pulled McDyess in for half the price and continued to click on all cylinders.

 

Just thought of another reason why you don't give Wilkens a 5 year deal....Ansu Sesay. The guy showed up out of the NBDL several years back and had a great end of the season run with us, putting up #'s eerily similiar to Damien this season. Granted, Damien has a more developed offensive game, but both are scrappy hustlers who play solid D, will never start in the NBA, and have alot of marginal skills across the board.

I'm not saying Damien won't turn out to be a better player than Ansu, in fact I think he already is - but does it matter that much if he's playing 5-12 minutes a night? Well, it probably does matter a bit - but not if the tradeoff is 3 million per season and 3 or 4 more guaranteed more - he's not that much better.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stat...cs?statsId=3273

 

Dumb article. Must have a case of off season bordom. Getting paid by an insider who knows Evans is leaving. Something.

Let's get it straight. Evans is a core player. Vlad is not. Period.

The Radman came up big at times, but night in and out Reggie brought it. He out hustled and out scrapped the other team and continually put us in a possition to win games. If you don't know that already, then you weren't watching. In fact, if you read Kevin Pelton at supersonics.com you would know that Reggie Evans had one of the best rebounding years since the 73-74 season. Don't believe it? Look it up...no wait...I will do it for you.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">According to Basketball-Reference.com, Evans' performance on the glass this season would rank as the 12th-best rebounding season since 1973-74 (when the NBA started tracking opponent rebounds, making this kind of calculation possible). Only three other players - Dennis Rodman (owner of the six greatest rebounding seasons since 73-74), Fortson (the best single-season rebounder who has never been married to Carmen Electra) and Jayson Williams - have rebounded better than Evans is this season.</div>

Article

And it isn't just rebounding. He has heart. He gets in player's heads. Nobody plays harder in the NBA. Nobody. It is refreshing to watch. If this team were one being he would be the backbone. Broadway Vlade is the nice hairdo. Reggie Evans isn't core? That is a bunch of crap. Locke needs to put down the bong and pay attention. I find it sad that somebody can make a living vomiting this bile into a newspaper, and it makes me sick that the readers will believe it.

 

We also have a guy called Nick Collison who we drafted in the lottery and was entrusted with more responsibility than Reggie at the business end of last season.

According to ESPN stats analyst John Hollinger, going by the stat of percentage of available rebounds grabbed while on the court, Evans had the 8th best rebounding season in the last 40 years. The top seven and ninth were owned by Rodman.

However, for all the things Evans brings to the floor, here's what he can't do - play big minutes (30+) because of his offense, and because we have Nick around. He is restricted to purely one position, and it's no good having him in at the end of games because he doesn't come up with the big plays at both ends like Nick does, and he is a liability from the stripe.

Vlad is vital because he creates so many match-up problems - a 6'11 guy with one of the purest strokes in the league, and an ability to slash and finish. You can put Ray Allen on the floor with the ball in his hands, and sit a 6'10 Lewis and a 6'11 Vlad waiting to cash the three, and who does the opposition focus on?

I love Reggie and want him back, but he is interchangable in the right situation.

 

I just don't think Reggie has the skill set to ever be a core player - the man is an unbelievable rebounder, but the only thing he contributes on the offensive end is a high pick and the occasional offensive rebound. With the exception of about 5 plays a game, we play 4 on 5 on the offensive end of the floor when he's in the game. Especially now that teams can go zone, the other team barely has to guard the guy.

Reggie is a decent defender, but lacks the jumping ability to contest shots and because of his height, that only allows him to play the 4 spot. Ben Wallace is the guy we all want Reggie to become, but I just don't see it happening. Ben changes games so much on one end of the floor, you can handle his deficiencies on the other. For all Reggie does - rebounding like a madman, pestering opposing PFs, hustling like no other - he doesn't often change the face of a game. He will be a very valuable piece to any team that has him, but to say he's a core piece to any championship caliber squad is a huge leap.

 

Do you guys watch basketball?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Odde24:</div><div class="quote_post">Do you guys watch basketball? </div>

Just Slamball

Really though - I see your point about his value. A huge part of our success last season is was we finally became a solid rebounding team, Reggie was obviously a huge part of that. I definately don't want to see him go to someone in our division - but if he's going to end up playing less minutes than Nick and Vladi both - it would be tough to justify keeping him if we had to pay him like a core peice.

 

Remember that we had little to no success with VR starting at PF and Nick tended to get into foul trouble. Nick can also play the Five (and definatly will with our current squad) so I wouldn't worry to much about the minutes just yet.

 

Im really conflicted on this issue. I think Evans game are team an edge (or was part of what gave the team an edge. Which makes him really important, but in the same fashion he was on the court about .25% of the time in crunchtime and Collision is no doubt going to get more minutes this year. Interesting situation....

Nice to have you back Odde....nice to have one of the SC guys back.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Odde24:</div><div class="quote_post">Remember that we had little to no success with VR starting at PF and Nick tended to get into foul trouble. Nick can also play the Five (and definatly will with our current squad) so I wouldn't worry to much about the minutes just yet.</div>

Yeah its a good point, but my concern about the whole situation is not next season, its the 2 or 3 after that. True that Nick can play he 5, but Vlad can't and won't play the 3 much with Lewis around. Two years from now when Swift/Petro combine to take substantial minutes, the floor time is going to be even harder to come by. My whole argument is predicated upon us locking Vlad up long term obviously, otherwise I wouldn't mind Reggie on a 3 or maybe even 4 year deal. I just don't want him to languish on the bench with a significant/long term deal if he's likely to only be utilized like he was last year for one season.

At the end of the day though, we could be bantering for nothing considering he has yet to garner any offers from other teams (at least I haven't heard of one yet) - and may end up playing for the one year tender ala Stromile Swift. That actually is my hope.

 

Let me clarify that I'm not trying to undervalue Reggie's importance, I just don't think he is as important to the current roster as Vlad.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post">Let me clarify that I'm not trying to undervalue Reggie's importance, I just don't think he is as important to the current roster as Vlad.</div> I disagree, how can you value a 6th man that is as streaky as anyone in the NBA over a consistent starter that is being compared in rebounding terms to Dennis Rodman? I can understand the Nick Collison angle, but to say that Vlade...who is a less talented version of Rashard Lewis is more important than a presence in the paint like Reggie is unfair.

Vlade basically is here to shoot and there are many players in the league that can shoot. There are not many players in the league that can average 19 rebounds per 48 minutes. The Sonics' problem has almost always been with big men and rebounding and there is a demand for post players in this league. Why should we dump someone that has finally given us a rebounding presence and tarnish a system that worked so well last year for another shooter?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Shard:</div><div class="quote_post">I disagree, how can you value a 6th man that is as streaky as anyone in the NBA over a consistent starter that is being compared in rebounding terms to Dennis Rodman? I can understand the Nick Collison angle, but to say that Vlade...who is a less talented version of Rashard Lewis is more important than a presence in the paint like Reggie is unfair. </div>

Why? Reggie is only a presence in the paints when it comes to rebounding - he isn't any sort of scoring or shotblocking threat.

Vlad is so important IMO because he creates mismatches. He is a 6'11 guy who can shoot the lights out, finish at the hole and put the ball on the floor. He isn't a consistent four, but play him there for stints and not only does the opposition four have to come out and guard him, but it allows us to put four shooters on the floor. That's a nightmare to guard. Play him at the three, and he is bigger than just about every opposing three in the league.

I don't think Vlad is less talented than Lew per se, but he is less polished.

As far as Reggie goes, he is a beast on the boards, but with Danny and Nick around, and the fact that he has a number of glaring weaknesses, means to me he is more replaceable than another guys.

I never said we should dump Reggie either, I really hope we keep him.

 

I love Reggie, but he didn't win games. Vlad did. Reggie's biggest contribution was probably setting the tone energy-wise at the start of games.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Casual:</div><div class="quote_post">I love Reggie, but he didn't win games. Vlad did. Reggie's biggest contribution was probably setting the tone energy-wise at the start of games.</div>

Yep - Casual is right. Reggie is such an offensive liability that he barely plays in the 4th quarter. He'll never be in the lineup at the end of a close game because he can't hit a free throw, let alone force somebody to guard him. As great as Reggie is a rebounder, his pathetic offensive game will limit him from ever developing into a guy that is more than a one-dimensional, hustler. I love the guy - but his skill set is one that can be replaced.

 

Dear M_Cage98,

Let me introduce you to an exciting game called Basketball. It is a fun game to play and also makes for a great spectator sport. One of the great things about this sport is that it requires a team consisting of five "players" playing different positions on a closed "court". A great example of a Basketball league would be the National Basketball association. In the "NBA" they split playing time into four equal "quarters". I am sure that if you were to tune into one of the sports channels on the TV or actually visit one of the "arenas" that this sport is played at, you could learn more about Basketball. Please take the time to study up on the intricacies of this sport, as I'm sure that you will enjoy it. If you need help understanding any of the rules or plays, feel free to send me a message as i would be glad to help. Enjoy!

Sincerely,
Odde24 (aka Odde23)

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Odde24:</div><div class="quote_post">Dear M_Cage98,

Let me introduce you to an exciting game called Basketball. It is a fun game to play and also makes for a great spectator sport. One of the great things about this sport is that it requires a team consisting of five "players" playing different positions on a closed "court". A great example of a Basketball league would be the National Basketball association. In the "NBA" they split playing time into four equal "quarters". I am sure that if you were to tune into one of the sports channels on the TV or actually visit one of the "arenas" that this sport is played at, you could learn more about Basketball. Please take the time to study up on the intricacies of this sport, as I'm sure that you will enjoy it. If you need help understanding any of the rules or plays, feel free to send me a message as i would be glad to help. Enjoy!

Sincerely,
Odde24 (aka Odde23)</div>

Wow, instead of responding to my counterpoint you bring up this garbage? This post accomplished all of 2 things...1) waste 10 minutes of your day 2) make you look stupid. For someone who thinks they know alot about the game, you sure have a problem communicating anything resembling a worthwhile argument. What is it exactly that you disagree with so much? I have to ask, because you obviously didn't think enough of your side of the coin to respond intelligently.

Unfortunately, Odde24, decisions in the NBA can not always be based on what happened on the court last season - there is always a next season. Players improve, players decline - and decisions are based sometimes not only upon speculating these ups and downs, but taking into consideration, get this....MONEY! The funny thing is I agree with alot of the reasons brought up about RE before you segwayed into that childish rant. I assume our fork in the road comes when we begin discussing how much we should be willing to pay to retain him as well as his long term role with this team. I know its hard to post your ideas (someone just might disagree ) - but give it a try.

 

I thought it was funny, and quite frankly, even though they are hard to see, I made my points. 1) A basket ball team has 5 players on the floor. No single player can win a game, including Radmanovic. 2) A game has four quarters, and a team needs players on the floor for each one.

Oh ok you need some more.

-Radmanovic is redundant. He is a subpar defender with nice offensive skills. Gee, that sounds like Ray...and Rashard...and Ridnour...and Murray. We can put all five on the floor and play no defense and have no toughness at all. Sounds fun, I will pass.

-Then there is the Collison arguement. We may or may not stunt the growth of a guy who may or may not become as good as Evans. Bad point, I will leave that one alone.

-Then there is the reason we are even disscussing this. Some half wit prints that a back-up sf-pf with a nice stroke and poor defense, that has shown NO improvement in three years (NONE!) is a "core" player, while a young starting PF that showed huge (HUGE!) strides last year towards being one of the best rebounders in the last 40 years, plays awesome D, and has all the intangables needed to win games is balast. I don't buy it. I won't buy it. You want match up problems for the other team on defense, sick Reggie on them. you want to bring the bigs out of the paint, play Shard at the four. Vlade is redundant, we have shooters. What this team needs is defense, rebounding, and hustle. What this team needs is Reggie Evans. He is "core".





Sorry you didn't like my "childish rant", but it wasn't for you to like. It was for my own amusement. Ya see, I crack myself up. I'm still laughing about it, and if it got a reaction out of you, well then it served two purposes. I'm ok with that.

 

-Radmanovic is redundant. He is a subpar defender with nice offensive skills. Gee, that sounds like Ray...and Rashard...and Ridnour...and Murray. We can put all five on the floor and play no defense and have no toughness at all. Sounds fun, I will pass.


Vlade being on the floor helped us a lot. Doesnt mean we cant still have 1 tough player on the floor but clearly vlade served his purpose well.

-Then there is the Collison arguement. We may or may not stunt the growth of a guy who may or may not become as good as Evans. Bad point, I will leave that one alone.


Ok your gettin a lil silly here. Is their any question as to whether Collision isnt ALREADY better then Evans. I believe its fairly apparent he is. Hes better at every single thing on the court except rebounding. And the gap between them in that is not as big in the scoring or defensive abilities.

-Then there is the reason we are even disscussing this. Some half wit prints that a back-up sf-pf with a nice stroke and poor defense, that has shown NO improvement in three years (NONE!) is a "core" player, while a young starting PF that showed huge (HUGE!) strides last year towards being one of the best rebounders in the last 40 years, plays awesome D, and has all the intangables needed to win games is balast. I don't buy it. I won't buy it. You want match up problems for the other team on defense, sick Reggie on them. you want to bring the bigs out of the paint, play Shard at the four. Vlade is redundant, we have shooters. What this team needs is defense, rebounding, and hustle. What this team needs is Reggie Evans. He is "core".



Evans hustles hard on defense. But awesome defense? Im not so sure. Hes not athletic and hes small. He does annoy people but overall id still take Collison over him anyday on the defensive end.



Sorry you didn't like my "childish rant", but it wasn't for you to like. It was for my own amusement. Ya see, I crack myself up. I'm still laughing about it, and if it got a reaction out of you, well then it served two purposes. I'm ok with that.