<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 9 2008, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (killa kadafi191 @ Feb 9 2008, 06:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I can see the purpose of Malik. Malik is a player who can consistently hit an open jumper. Krstic was still a question mark and Mikki went to Sac Town so they figure Malik can do the same thing Mikki did but didn't work out that way. As long as he is not starting it's good. The problem with the Nets they do not know how to take advantage of a player strengths. Eddie House anyone“ People were so happy to hear him go and laughing at Boston when they sign him and now that laughing has turn to crying "why we give up house". Boki will be next.</div> who was happy to see him go? He had a reputation of not being strong defensively, but as a number of people pointed out (including Ghoti, which I remember clearly), he always tried hard (which actaully made him one of the more consistent defensders on the team). He also was good at making the quick skip pass, which we really miss. The only drawback to House was his injuries. For some reason management labelled him as having just one skill and decided he should go. </div> Thorn: Eddie is not a PG wtf, we need a shooter, we already have a PG in marcus. god, words cannot describe houw much i have grown to hate thorn
Frank is anti-athletic players. (Someone on here made a great point once that Frank would rather play the world's most useless players as long as they could get into good boxing out position instead of a guy who could jump over 5 guys and damn near kill a mother fucker dunking it on the way back down.) Thorn is anti-shooters. (As evident by the fact that, you know, we never have any.) Kidd is pro-both. Nets fever... catch it!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 9 2008, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (killa kadafi191 @ Feb 9 2008, 06:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I can see the purpose of Malik. Malik is a player who can consistently hit an open jumper. Krstic was still a question mark and Mikki went to Sac Town so they figure Malik can do the same thing Mikki did but didn't work out that way. As long as he is not starting it's good. The problem with the Nets they do not know how to take advantage of a player strengths. Eddie House anyone?? People were so happy to hear him go and laughing at Boston when they sign him and now that laughing has turn to crying "why we give up house". Boki will be next.</div> who was happy to see him go? He had a reputation of not being strong defensively, but as a number of people pointed out (including Ghoti, which I remember clearly), he always tried hard (which actaully made him one of the more consistent defensders on the team). He also was good at making the quick skip pass, which we really miss. The only drawback to House was his injuries. For some reason management labelled him as having just one skill and decided he should go. </div> talking about all the post from basketballboard website. Also the response once he signed with Boston.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 9 2008, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (killa kadafi191 @ Feb 9 2008, 06:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I can see the purpose of Malik. Malik is a player who can consistently hit an open jumper. Krstic was still a question mark and Mikki went to Sac Town so they figure Malik can do the same thing Mikki did but didn't work out that way. As long as he is not starting it's good. The problem with the Nets they do not know how to take advantage of a player strengths. Eddie House anyone?? People were so happy to hear him go and laughing at Boston when they sign him and now that laughing has turn to crying "why we give up house". Boki will be next.</div> who was happy to see him go? He had a reputation of not being strong defensively, but as a number of people pointed out (including Ghoti, which I remember clearly), he always tried hard (which actaully made him one of the more consistent defensders on the team). He also was good at making the quick skip pass, which we really miss. The only drawback to House was his injuries. For some reason management labelled him as having just one skill and decided he should go. </div> I don't understand that House thing fully. He actually showed more point guard skills than advertised and even played passable defense. I think it was a personality clash more than anything else. Maybe he didn't get along with Ratner. He was the one who called House "one-dimensional".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 9 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 9 2008, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (killa kadafi191 @ Feb 9 2008, 06:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I can see the purpose of Malik. Malik is a player who can consistently hit an open jumper. Krstic was still a question mark and Mikki went to Sac Town so they figure Malik can do the same thing Mikki did but didn't work out that way. As long as he is not starting it's good. The problem with the Nets they do not know how to take advantage of a player strengths. Eddie House anyone?? People were so happy to hear him go and laughing at Boston when they sign him and now that laughing has turn to crying "why we give up house". Boki will be next.</div> who was happy to see him go? He had a reputation of not being strong defensively, but as a number of people pointed out (including Ghoti, which I remember clearly), he always tried hard (which actaully made him one of the more consistent defensders on the team). He also was good at making the quick skip pass, which we really miss. The only drawback to House was his injuries. For some reason management labelled him as having just one skill and decided he should go. </div> I don't understand that House thing fully. He actually showed more point guard skills than advertised and even played passable defense. I think it was a personality clash more than anything else. Maybe he didn't get along with Ratner. He was the one who called House "one-dimensional". </div> there was def. more to the House non signing then anythign else. my guess is frank and eddie clashed on some issue, such as shooting and defense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (killa kadafi191 @ Feb 9 2008, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>talking about all the post from basketballboard website. Also the response once he signed with Boston.</div> I'll be honest, I figured they didn't need him. I figured that with Ray Allen, Paul Peirce, and Kevin Garnett, they didn't need a shooter like House off the bench, and were better off with a distributor such as Brevin Knight. Then, it turned out Rondo, Peirce, and Allen played good enough as playmakers, that it might have made a player such as Knight redundant. Of course, we needed House. Other than Boki, we didn't have another shooter off the bench, or a point guard period, since Marcus was injured.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 9 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 9 2008, 12:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Allen makes vet's min. Krstic was coming off a major surgery. They did everything perfectly, actually they exceeded expectations. For less than a million they have a decent jump shooting big man. How many other teams can say that they have a solid roleplayer for a vet's min?</div> Vet's minimum is a waste of money for this guy. Rookie minimum is more like it. Would you rather have Carl Landry or Malik Allen? I don't understand anyone who defends the bench Thorn put together. It's abysmal. </div> You're grasping at straws: 1) The difference between rookie minimum and vets minimum is negligible (964.5K-427K=537K) 2) No matter how you spin it, he's a vet. He's ineligible for rookie minimum salary. Thorn got him as cheap as he could have. 3) You're trying to give him a "fair" value, and that's just not how NBA works (cough Nene). The realistic question was: is there anyone else Thorn could have gotten for that money? You can't even argue this from a roster spot standpoint: they already have free spots. I hate Malik as much as you, but Thorn didn't mess up with the Malik signing. He did what any other great GM would have.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 10 2008, 02:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 9 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 9 2008, 12:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Allen makes vet's min. Krstic was coming off a major surgery. They did everything perfectly, actually they exceeded expectations. For less than a million they have a decent jump shooting big man. How many other teams can say that they have a solid roleplayer for a vet's min?</div> Vet's minimum is a waste of money for this guy. Rookie minimum is more like it. Would you rather have Carl Landry or Malik Allen? I don't understand anyone who defends the bench Thorn put together. It's abysmal. </div> You're grasping at straws: 1) The difference between rookie minimum and vets minimum is negligible (964.5K-427K=537K) 2) No matter how you spin it, he's a vet. He's ineligible for rookie minimum salary. Thorn got him as cheap as he could have. 3) You're trying to give him a "fair" value, and that's just not how NBA works (cough Nene). The realistic question was: is there anyone else Thorn could have gotten for that money? You can't even argue this from a roster spot standpoint: they already have free spots. I hate Malik as much as you, but Thorn didn't mess up with the Malik signing. He did what any other great GM would have. </div> I'm not "grasping" at anything. The point is this guy is not worth his roster spot and is twice as expensive as a rookie free agent, D-Leaguer or extra second round pick that might actually develop into something decent. Just because the Nets never do this, it doesn't mean it isn't a smart thing to do. And LOL @ "any other great GM".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 10 2008, 02:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 10 2008, 02:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 9 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 9 2008, 12:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Allen makes vet's min. Krstic was coming off a major surgery. They did everything perfectly, actually they exceeded expectations. For less than a million they have a decent jump shooting big man. How many other teams can say that they have a solid roleplayer for a vet's min?</div> Vet's minimum is a waste of money for this guy. Rookie minimum is more like it. Would you rather have Carl Landry or Malik Allen? I don't understand anyone who defends the bench Thorn put together. It's abysmal. </div> You're grasping at straws: 1) The difference between rookie minimum and vets minimum is negligible (964.5K-427K=537K) 2) No matter how you spin it, he's a vet. He's ineligible for rookie minimum salary. Thorn got him as cheap as he could have. 3) You're trying to give him a "fair" value, and that's just not how NBA works (cough Nene). The realistic question was: is there anyone else Thorn could have gotten for that money? You can't even argue this from a roster spot standpoint: they already have free spots. I hate Malik as much as you, but Thorn didn't mess up with the Malik signing. He did what any other great GM would have. </div> I'm not "grasping" at anything. The point is this guy is not worth his roster spot and is twice as expensive as a rookie free agent, D-Leaguer or extra second round pick that might actually develop into something decent. Just because the Nets never do this, it doesn't mean it isn't a smart thing to do. And LOL @ "any other great GM". </div> Why isn't he worth a roster spot? Technically speaking, a roster spot on NJN right now costs $0, because despite having Malik, we still have 2 free spots. He's not costing anything. Yes - he's twice as expensive, but you KNOW what you're getting with him - that's why he's a vet who's still in the league. Do a statistical analysis to compare his realistic expectation per salary to how many rookie free agents, D-Leaguers or 2nd round players actually turn into something serviceable, and you'll realize that the failure rate with the mentioned ones is extremely high. Nets needed a cheap Krstic clone while he recovered from surgery. They accomplished their objective. If they wanted to take a risk on two free agent rookies, they can still do that - but they're not. Plenty of 2nd rounders become great players, but compared to the amount of 2nd rounders who are out of the league in two years, they're a very, very tiny minority. Even if by some magic the Nets hit the lottery and got a gem in the free agent rookie market, that player would still need time to develop - and since NJ was in "Win Now" mode, that was not an option. You can say that "well, they're obviously not winning now" -but hindsight is always 20/20. Remember how high you were on this team - NJ was the rage all around, and everyone expected them to go around 50-30. With those expectations, Malik signing was absolutely excellent and intelligent. NOW it doesn't look smart because NJ sucks and he's taking minutes from our young guys, but that's after an unexpected turn of events.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 10 2008, 03:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 10 2008, 02:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 10 2008, 02:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 9 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 9 2008, 12:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Allen makes vet's min. Krstic was coming off a major surgery. They did everything perfectly, actually they exceeded expectations. For less than a million they have a decent jump shooting big man. How many other teams can say that they have a solid roleplayer for a vet's min?</div> Vet's minimum is a waste of money for this guy. Rookie minimum is more like it. Would you rather have Carl Landry or Malik Allen? I don't understand anyone who defends the bench Thorn put together. It's abysmal. </div> You're grasping at straws: 1) The difference between rookie minimum and vets minimum is negligible (964.5K-427K=537K) 2) No matter how you spin it, he's a vet. He's ineligible for rookie minimum salary. Thorn got him as cheap as he could have. 3) You're trying to give him a "fair" value, and that's just not how NBA works (cough Nene). The realistic question was: is there anyone else Thorn could have gotten for that money? You can't even argue this from a roster spot standpoint: they already have free spots. I hate Malik as much as you, but Thorn didn't mess up with the Malik signing. He did what any other great GM would have. </div> I'm not "grasping" at anything. The point is this guy is not worth his roster spot and is twice as expensive as a rookie free agent, D-Leaguer or extra second round pick that might actually develop into something decent. Just because the Nets never do this, it doesn't mean it isn't a smart thing to do. And LOL @ "any other great GM". </div> Why isn't he worth a roster spot? Technically speaking, a roster spot on NJN right now costs $0, because despite having Malik, we still have 2 free spots. He's not costing anything. Yes - he's twice as expensive, but you KNOW what you're getting with him - that's why he's a vet who's still in the league. Do a statistical analysis to compare his realistic expectation per salary to how many rookie free agents, D-Leaguers or 2nd round players actually turn into something serviceable, and you'll realize that the failure rate with the mentioned ones is extremely high. Nets needed a cheap Krstic clone while he recovered from surgery. They accomplished their objective. If they wanted to take a risk on two free agent rookies, they can still do that - but they're not. Plenty of 2nd rounders become great players, but compared to the amount of 2nd rounders who are out of the league in two years, they're a very, very tiny minority. Even if by some magic the Nets hit the lottery and got a gem in the free agent rookie market, that player would still need time to develop - and since NJ was in "Win Now" mode, that was not an option. You can say that "well, they're obviously not winning now" -but hindsight is always 20/20. Remember how high you were on this team - NJ was the rage all around, and everyone expected them to go around 50-30. With those expectations, Malik signing was absolutely excellent and intelligent. NOW it doesn't look smart because NJ sucks and he's taking minutes from our young guys, but that's after an unexpected turn of events. </div> 1. The Nets won't sign any more players. They are bumping against the luxury tax. 2. If you want to "win now" you don't do it with a player who plays defense like Malik Allen. Do the Nets actually scout these players or do they just read the Hoopshype profiles? 3. Calling Allen a "Krstic clone" is insulting and just laughable. 4. Who was high on this team? The GM spent all last season trying to trade the entire roster. (And couldn't find any takers, BTW.) 5. Young players who have few expectations and need time to develop? What a novel idea! Perhaps that is something to try when your record of free agent signings is worse than peanut butter pizza. 6. Malik Allen is terrible. Thorn's bench is a joke. Why defend him? It's baffling to me that every Nets fan isn't calling for this guy's head. How many bad moves in a row does he have to make?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 10 2008, 03:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 10 2008, 03:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 10 2008, 02:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 10 2008, 02:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 9 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 9 2008, 12:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Allen makes vet's min. Krstic was coming off a major surgery. They did everything perfectly, actually they exceeded expectations. For less than a million they have a decent jump shooting big man. How many other teams can say that they have a solid roleplayer for a vet's min?</div> Vet's minimum is a waste of money for this guy. Rookie minimum is more like it. Would you rather have Carl Landry or Malik Allen? I don't understand anyone who defends the bench Thorn put together. It's abysmal. </div> You're grasping at straws: 1) The difference between rookie minimum and vets minimum is negligible (964.5K-427K=537K) 2) No matter how you spin it, he's a vet. He's ineligible for rookie minimum salary. Thorn got him as cheap as he could have. 3) You're trying to give him a "fair" value, and that's just not how NBA works (cough Nene). The realistic question was: is there anyone else Thorn could have gotten for that money? You can't even argue this from a roster spot standpoint: they already have free spots. I hate Malik as much as you, but Thorn didn't mess up with the Malik signing. He did what any other great GM would have. </div> I'm not "grasping" at anything. The point is this guy is not worth his roster spot and is twice as expensive as a rookie free agent, D-Leaguer or extra second round pick that might actually develop into something decent. Just because the Nets never do this, it doesn't mean it isn't a smart thing to do. And LOL @ "any other great GM". </div> Why isn't he worth a roster spot? Technically speaking, a roster spot on NJN right now costs $0, because despite having Malik, we still have 2 free spots. He's not costing anything. Yes - he's twice as expensive, but you KNOW what you're getting with him - that's why he's a vet who's still in the league. Do a statistical analysis to compare his realistic expectation per salary to how many rookie free agents, D-Leaguers or 2nd round players actually turn into something serviceable, and you'll realize that the failure rate with the mentioned ones is extremely high. Nets needed a cheap Krstic clone while he recovered from surgery. They accomplished their objective. If they wanted to take a risk on two free agent rookies, they can still do that - but they're not. Plenty of 2nd rounders become great players, but compared to the amount of 2nd rounders who are out of the league in two years, they're a very, very tiny minority. Even if by some magic the Nets hit the lottery and got a gem in the free agent rookie market, that player would still need time to develop - and since NJ was in "Win Now" mode, that was not an option. You can say that "well, they're obviously not winning now" -but hindsight is always 20/20. Remember how high you were on this team - NJ was the rage all around, and everyone expected them to go around 50-30. With those expectations, Malik signing was absolutely excellent and intelligent. NOW it doesn't look smart because NJ sucks and he's taking minutes from our young guys, but that's after an unexpected turn of events. </div> 1. The Nets won't sign any more players. They are bumping against the luxury tax. 2. If you want to "win now" you don't do it with a player who plays defense like Malik Allen. Do the Nets actually scout these players or do they just read the Hoopshype profiles? 3. Calling Allen a "Krstic clone" is insulting and just laughable. 4. Who was high on this team? The GM spent all last season trying to trade the entire roster. (And couldn't find any takers, BTW.) 5. Young players who have few expectations and need time to develop? What a novel idea! Perhaps that is something to try when your record of free agent signings is worse than peanut butter pizza. 6. Malik Allen is terrible. Thorn's bench is a joke. Why defend him? It's baffling to me that every Nets fan isn't calling for this guy's head. How many bad moves in a row does he have to make? </div> These amounts are negligible. Rookie costs 450, times that by 2 that's 900. If it was actually worth it, they'd do it. Especially since they can still unload salaries by trade dead line (as last year). I'm sure you're a much better scout than what NJ have. So tell me, great one, who's the mystery big man with a pretty accurate jump and who plays great defense? (cough - I think the name you're looking for here is something like J. O'Neal, even though I always thought his defense was overrated) How is it insulting and laughable? They're both good jump shooting big men with relatively poor rebounding skills and poor man to man defense. (P.S. I loved Krstic last year) Krstic is undoubtedly better, but if consider that before the injury people were HOPING to get him for $8M/Yr, then getting someone who has a matching skill set for 1/8th the price is not bad at all. The whole board was high on the team. Everyone was salivating over Magloire's supposed impact and Krstic's return from surgery. Read some summer posts. There's a difference between "not finding any takers", ala Marbury, and not getting what you want for the player. NJ could have gotten a 2nd tier big man anytime they wanted for either Carter OR Kidd. But they wanted a 1st tier. Not just expectations, REALISTIC expectations. Almost NOONE who's still a free agent after the draft has any realistic expectations. People like Gilbert Arenas are pure dumb luck. Thorn's bench IS a joke. Blaming a guy who's played well if you compare him to what he was brought in to do at what price is asinine. You want to blame someone? Blame Magloire. He makes more than 4 times that Malik does and hasn't had 1/10th the impact. I'm defending Allen even though I think he's garbage. He's not Amare. He's a guy making vets minimum. Treat him as such. Blame Thorn for other stupid moves, blame Frank for not playing Magloire enough (or whatever you want), but blaming Allen is totally unfair.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 10 2008, 03:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>These amounts are negligible. Rookie costs 450, times that by 2 that's 900. If it was actually worth it, they'd do it. Especially since they can still unload salaries by trade dead line (as last year).</div> What does this have to do with replacing the worthless Malik Allen with a younger, cheaper player? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sure you're a much better scout than what NJ have. So tell me, great one, who's the mystery big man with a pretty accurate jump and who plays great defense?</div> I didn't realize it took 25 years of NBA scouting experience to determine the quality of Allen's defense. My mistake. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>(cough - I think the name you're looking for here is something like J. O'Neal, even though I always thought his defense was overrated)</div> Are you responding to my actual posts or just making things up and attributing them to me? That's a dirty trick! <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>How is it insulting and laughable? They're both good jump shooting big men with relatively poor rebounding skills and poor man to man defense. (P.S. I loved Krstic last year) Krstic is undoubtedly better, but if consider that before the injury people were HOPING to get him for $8M/Yr, then getting someone who has a matching skill set for 1/8th the price is not bad at all.</div> Allen has a matching skill set to Krstic. Just paraphrasing. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The whole board was high on the team. Everyone was salivating over Magloire's supposed impact and Krstic's return from surgery. Read some summer posts.</div> "Everyone" is quite a term. I think you are using that same dirty trick again! <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>There's a difference between "not finding any takers", ala Marbury, and not getting what you want for the player. NJ could have gotten a 2nd tier big man anytime they wanted for either Carter OR Kidd. But they wanted a 1st tier.</div> That's called "not finding any takers". <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Not just expectations, REALISTIC expectations. Almost NOONE who's still a free agent after the draft has any realistic expectations. People like Gilbert Arenas are pure dumb luck.</div> You don't have to find Gilbert Arenas to replace Malik Allen. Any decent college player with a brain and a few useful skills will do. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Thorn's bench IS a joke. Blaming a guy who's played well if you compare him to what he was brought in to do at what price is asinine.</div> 1. Who am I blaming? Read closely and see if you can find the correct answer. 2. Allen has "played well". Just paraphrasing. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You want to blame someone? Blame Magloire. He makes more than 4 times that Malik does and hasn't had 1/10th the impact.</div> The only thing in this post that makes any sense, but hardly on topic. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm defending Allen even though I think he's garbage. He's not Amare. He's a guy making vets minimum. Treat him as such.</div> Some people actually think Allen has a matching skill set to Krstic. You should probably yell at them for having unreasonable expectations. I just think he sucks.
I believe what we call that is micromanaging an argument. I don't think more thought has been placed on Malik Allen since it was our decision to sign him* *probably a lie.
How did you become a mod if you can't keep an argument civil and resort to personal attacks? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>What does this have to do with replacing the worthless Malik Allen with a younger, cheaper player?</div> You said they're at the salary cap. I'm demonstrating that since Ratner has stated that he will go over the cap for a good reason and because in NBA terms, $900K is a negligible amount of money, the NJ organization obviously feel that there isn't anyone [rookie free agent or a D-Leaguer, people you mentioned in first post], worth signing, NOONE. Which makes your argument about signing a 2nd round draft pick instead of Malik useless. NJ feels that there's NOONE worth 900K (that's 450 times 2 because of luxury tax). <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I didn't realize it took 25 years of NBA scouting experience to determine the quality of Allen's defense. My mistake.</div> You're not answering the question. Yeah, Allen's defense sucks. You're not exactly a revolutionary for pointing that out. The question was WHO DO YOU RECOMMEND INSTEAD? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Are you responding to my actual posts or just making things up and attributing them to me? That's a dirty trick!</div> I responded to your post. If you didn't follow it, here's how it went: You said Allen's defense sucks I said that Allen was brought in because he's a jump shooter. You said you're unhappy with Allen. I combined your point [that he needs to be a good defender] with my point [that he's a good jump shooter] and came up with a big man who is a good defender and a good jump shooter. Give me some other names who fit into both of these categories. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Allen has a matching skill set to Krstic. Just paraphrasing.</div> That's not paraphrasing. That's copying. Are you saying that my description of both Allen and Krstic is off target? (good shooters, bad rebounders, poor defense) <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"Everyone" is quite a term. I think you are using that same dirty trick again!</div> Crap. Maybe I am. Ok, I'll stop using "assume people know how to read on a message board" trick. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's called "not finding any takers".</div> .....Right. So if I'm a GM, and I try to trade LeBron.. but I want Garnett, Pierce AND Allen for him. Since I can't do that, I can't find any takers for LeBron, right? Oh and P.S., why don't you come up with ONE superstar trade during which the team got what it wanted in return. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You don't have to find Gilbert Arenas to replace Malik Allen. Any decent college player with a brain and a few useful skills will do.</div> GENIUS! How come no one on the Nets team, hell, how come no one in the NBA ever thought of that?! Maybe it's because in order to even have a SHOT of being in the NBA you have to be a GREAT [not decent] college player with a few useful skills. Maybe THAT'S why NBA rejects go on to dominate other leagues (such as Europe or NBDL). Maybe THAT'S why not every college standout becomes a good player in NBA? No matter how bad Allen is, he would still destroy 90% of professional basketball players in the world. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1. Who am I blaming. Read closely and see if you can find the correct answer. 2. Allen has "played well". Just paraphrasing.</div> Let's see. This is a thread about how bad Malik sucks, more than that, it's about the author's wish to never have signed him. That implies some sort of blame put on that individual. You seem to be in whole hearted agreement with the author. Once again, that's not paraphrasing. And yes, for the 5th time, for a Vets minimum salary, the man is doing more than 90% of other people who make the same salary. That's called good performance, or in other words, "playing well". <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm defending Allen even though I think he's garbage. He's not Amare. He's a guy making vets minimum. Treat him as such.</div> Some people actually think Allen has a matching skill set to Krstic. You should probably yell at them for their unreasonable expectations. I just think he sucks. </div> Cough.
It's hard to discuss this with someone who has such poor reading comprehension. The crux is that you think that Allen would "destroy 90% of professional basketball players in the world", and I think that is a load of complete horse crap. You think he is "playing well" for his salary. I think he has one shaky skill and no potential to improve. That makes him a detriment. If you think Thorn's a genius for getting such a useful player for a million bucks, I'll never agree with you. Allen is a minus player. He contributes only to losing. Just keep defending Thorn and his philosophies and stellar free agent record. He really deserves such a passionate effort.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 10 2008, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's hard to discuss this with someone who has such poor reading comprehension. You think he is "playing well" for his salary. I think he has one shaky skill and no potential to improve. That makes him a detriment. If you think Thorn's a genius for getting such a useful player for a million bucks, I'll never agree with you. Allen is a minus player. He contributes only to losing.</div> My thoughts exactly. Instead of signing a one-dimentional player who has absolutely no potential to improve, why not sign a one-dimentional "effort guy" there are so many college guys who come out with at least the potential to improve. Two words; Rod Benson. At least his D wasnt this matador bullshit that Malik exhibits on a daily basis.
The problem, once again, is that Thorn prefers to sign some veteran with an established skill set instead of some youngster with limited experience. It doesn't matter if that skill set is limited, or worth little. Everyone will agree that Malik plays poor defense, can't box out, doesn't rebound, doesn't drive to the basket, and from time to time he can hit a jump shot (but not as often as, say, Mikki Moore or a healthy Krstic). But he got the job because he has been in the league for five years. There are plenty of unheralded kids who can do the same thing, have the potential to actually improve, and will be cheaper, but Rod will never sign them because they don't have a "history." Example: Kevin Pittsnogle, who was never drafted and is toiling for Albuquerque of the D League. Remember him? Since being signed by Albuqueque earlier in the season, he is averaging 13 points and five rebounds in 23 minutes--with a three-point percentage of 37.7%, better than Jason Kidd, Malik Allen, and probably anyone currently on the team. So this raises the following question: If the things that Malik Allen does are so valuable, why isn't Pittsnogle in the league? What does Malik Allen do that Pittsnogle couldn't do? In 2006-07 Pittsnogle played for Pittsburgh in the CBA. Here's what a press release says about him: Pittsnogle appeared in 34 games for the Xplosion, including 28 starts. He ranks seventh in the CBA in both scoring, with an average of 19.4 points per game, and free throw percentage (.868). He stands second on the team in rebounding (6.2 rpg.). In addition to his All-Star accolades, he was named CBA Player of the Week for the week ending on January 1. His 44 points against Minot on January 10 rank as the second highest single game total in the league this season, while his 42 points against Albany on New Year’s Day stand fourth.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 10 2008, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The problem, once again, is that Thorn prefers to sign some veteran with an established skill set instead of some youngster with limited experience. It doesn't matter if that skill set is limited, or worth little. Everyone will agree that Malik plays poor defense, can't box out, doesn't rebound, doesn't drive to the basket, and from time to time he can hit a jump shot (but not as often as, say, Mikki Moore or a healthy Krstic). But he got the job because he has been in the league for five years. There are plenty of unheralded kids who can do the same thing, have the potential to actually improve, and will be cheaper, but Rod will never sign them because they don't have a "history." Example: Kevin Pittsnogle, who was never drafted and is toiling for Albuquerque of the D League. Remember him? Since being signed by Albuqueque earlier in the season, he is averaging 13 points and five rebounds in 23 minutes--with a three-point percentage of 37.7%, better than Jason Kidd, Malik Allen, and probably anyone currently on the team. So this raises the following question: If the things that Malik Allen does are so valuable, why isn't Pittsnogle in the league? What does Malik Allen do that Pittsnogle couldn't do? In 2006-07 Pittsnogle played for Pittsburgh in the CBA. Here's what a press release says about him: Pittsnogle appeared in 34 games for the Xplosion, including 28 starts. He ranks seventh in the CBA in both scoring, with an average of 19.4 points per game, and free throw percentage (.868). He stands second on the team in rebounding (6.2 rpg.). In addition to his All-Star accolades, he was named CBA Player of the Week for the week ending on January 1. His 44 points against Minot on January 10 rank as the second highest single game total in the league this season, while his 42 points against Albany on New Year’s Day stand fourth.</div> I can only explain this whole thread, and mainly this post, by saying that Rod Thorn must be either really really dumb, or he doesn't really care about this team as much as we think he does. Either way, there's an abundance of young, talented players who would most likely improve our team (Pitts, Boom Tho, Byars, Williams, etc), but instead we'd rather pick up dumb old guys who give half-ass effort and aren't even all that good.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 10 2008, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's hard to discuss this with someone who has such poor reading comprehension. The crux is that you think that Allen would "destroy 90% of professional basketball players in the world", and I think that is a load of complete horse crap. You think he is "playing well" for his salary. I think he has one shaky skill and no potential to improve. That makes him a detriment. If you think Thorn's a genius for getting such a useful player for a million bucks, I'll never agree with you. Allen is a minus player. He contributes only to losing.</div> Are you 12? Lame insult after lame insult. Reading comprehension? Are you kidding? Every time I answer your point directly you go completely off topic (aka "dirty trick"), you "paraphrase" without even paraphrasing (seriously, look up what paraphrasing means. Copying is a totally different word), or you throw in an insult. We can disagree about how Allen would do vs. competition outside of the NBA. But there are lots of players who were rejected from the NBA who are doing just fine over the seas. On the same note, there are also several great, even legendary European players who barely make the 8th man role with an NBA club: for example: Sarunas Jasikevicius, Vassilis Spanoulis or Zhizhi. Yeah, Allen is a minus player. But he's a minus player in the NBA. The average salary of an NBA player is probably around... $4M? That generally implies that players who make more should be the plus players, while players who make less than that should be minus players. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Just keep defending Thorn and his philosophies and stellar free agent record. He really deserves such a passionate effort.</div> Wait, you're saying I have poor reading comprehension? Yeah. Considering about 5 posts ago I said: Thorn's bench IS a joke. and now you're attempting to say that I'm defending Thorn's FA signings, you're the one with poor reading comprehension. So far you haven't made a single point outside of stating your opinion "Malik sucks" and "almost any college player could do better". Considering you can't read (see above), and you can't keep personal insults out of a discussion on a message board, I'm going to assume that your intelligence is severely lacking compared to the 30 GMs of the NBA. If it was as easy as you claim, someone would have realized it by now. Since they didn't, it's logical to say that you're wrong.
