Conley has been a topic here for a few years now and with Tinsely may see a reduced role. Would we still want him if he was available relatively cheap? I think I'd prefer trying to get Chalmers from Miami if he's available. Thoughts?
Chalmers got busted for weed, so that probably won't happen. As for Conley, he is not the guy for this team. Brandon doesn't seem to want to adapt his game to a PG that can actually be a PG, so getting one is silly.
That is about the only scenario I see them dealing him. They could free up cap space with a Harris for Rudy and expiring contracts deal. It'd still make more sense for them to trade down or deal it for something, as I think for 2010 free agents, it is more enticing to play with an established young-prime PG than a rookie.
All the Grizz fans are enamored with Tinsley. Check out the comments to this story. Conley's value may be at an all time low. I would be intrigued by seeing Conley and Oden play together again just because of their experience together in the past. I don't know that Conley blows me away, but depending on who they would want I wouldn't be opposed to a Conley deal. We would probably have to send a PG back. I might do a Bayless for Conley swap but I am not sure who is getting the better end of that deal. It might be a good situation for both players.
I don't want Conley. As much as I like Harris, I think Roy would bitch about him. I think a PG like Rondo would be perfect for us (outside of the fact that he can't make 3s... but Blake can be his backup)... defense, knows how to feed the stars and keep 'em all happy. But Rondo isn't gettable. I honestly don't know what PG i'd want that is attainable. Westbrook is another PG i'd like, but he seems locked into OKC.
Conley was an extremely good three point shooter last year--.406. Don't know what happened this year. Maybe just horrible spacing? Anyway, I think he breaks out of his shooting slump at some point, and when he does he'll give you all the perimeter shooting that Blake does. So yeah, I'd definitely still be on board with that idea. I'm not a fan of picking up a PG who can't hit threes after the Andre Miller experiment. It's nothing against Andre--it just seems like you have to be a fantastic three point shooter if you have want to have any hope of supplanting the basketball god that is Steve Blake.
I think it'd definitely be worth it to get a look at him while he's on his rookie deal if the guy's attainable. They might want a passive floor spacer in Blake with Mayo and Gay, ha. I would really really love to get Marc Gasol though.
I don't think so. I think you start Rondo instead of Blake even if he can't shoot 3s. But I see your point. I think the main difference is defense here, as Rondo is a pretty darn good PG defender.
Maybe for Greg. They both could potentially make each other better mainly due to knowing each other so well. But no, I am not so high on him anymore. I don't think he's that good.
This is why people lose money on the stock market. Or one reason anyways...Sell low buy high. Not a good strategy. You want to buy low and sell high. Last year no one wanted Deng. Missed the boat on that one cough cough RLEC.
I agree, he's worth a shot if we could get him for TO's expiring and a pick, Blake, perhaps even a Bayless swap.
People also lose money on the market by buying low and seeing the investment sink even more. Conley isn't going to be free...Memphis will want something of value. The question is whether hes worth it. Just because he's "low" right now doesn't mean he has a high ahead. Some players are never very good. I'm not against the buy low/sell high philosophy...that's obviously the right strategy, assuming you correctly evaluate which "buy low" propositions are likely to pan out. Not at all true. Some of us, like me, wanted Deng. But then, Eddy Curry was also a buy-low proposition at one time (still is, of course, but at one time he was considered a legitimate opportunity). All buy-low propositions don't make you money or win you games. Whether Conley is one who will pan out can be argued, but saying that simply because his value is lower right now that it's shortsighted not to want to trade for him isn't reasonable at all.
I may be way off on this but I actually think Patty Mills could easily be as good as what Conley has shown so far, so if is coming back around Xmas maybe we'll get a chance to see a little of him.
I liked/like Conley, I think he's talented but surrounded by a lot of guys who like to handle the rock which diminishes not only his confidence, but his effectiveness when he's on the court with his current teammates ... but this begs the question, would Brandon let him handle the ball? I'm not so sure. Frankly, my "preferred" guy would be (as in the player I think least likely to disrupt whatever it is that Nate calls this offense) Mario Chalmers, barring that I think pretty highly of Kyle Lowry, he's no lights-out 3 point shooter, but he's a bulldog on defense and he's doing a pretty good job of spreading the ball around with Houston and he's doing it efficiently, he gets into the lane, he finishes pretty well for a 6'1" player and he's somewhat versatile. Really though, I'm kind of tired of talking about trading for new point guards as long as Steve Blake is still here; Nate has shown almost no inclination to sit his ass down even though he's playing at or below replacement player level -- in short, what's the fucking point?
I don't want to be rude, but I think you're way off ... Mills is nothing special; a small, slightly built, 6 footer who looks to score first, wasn't a particularly accurate 3 point shooter from the college line and coming off a busted foot ... let's just say I'll be shocked if he sticks in the NBA.
