any crunch time lineup suggestion that doesn't have Roy in it is doomed to not see the court, imo. Not saying I like that particular event, but you saw that last night...even in his first game in 2 months, rusty as heck and sitting the bench for much of the 4th, he got inserted in over Andre.
Who was more likely to hit a 3 with 4 seconds left, Andre or Roy? Remember, Roy had hit one already by that point. I think Nate was just getting as many legit shooters on the floor as possible to keep LA from compressing in on LMA. Besides, he ended up being a decoy.
I think if he talks to coach about it that won't be a problem. The dude does need to keep his hair out of his face.
As rusty as Roy looked last night - he still had the best +/- on the floor and the Lakers had a lot more trouble containing him than they did to any other perimeter player we had in the 3rd/4th quarter.
We didn't need a 3...we needed a point. Regardless, all that I'm saying is that in his first game back, after playing only 15 minutes and looking a bit rusty in his first game in 2 months after double-knee surgery, he was put on the floor. So it's not likely that he'll be left out of any crunch time lineups going fwd, unless it's on the back-to-back.
Probably not, and for good reason; he's hit many of those shots before, and unless he brick half a dozen in a row like that, we have no reason not to have him out there, even as a decoy. I'm not terribly concerned about this.
Who else loved the play were Roy caused Shannon Brown to fall on his ass? Of course it was a little ruined by Roy going "WTF I can still do that to people?" and then missing the shot.
That move looked like it hurt Roy a bit, though... big lateral moves seem to be rare items on his menu anymore. It was fun to watch, but it looked to me like they both kinda tripped themselves up.
How shocking, the ESPN round table barely talks about the Wallace deal and doesn't even mention if blazers were winners or losers, just said Cha traded him to us and left it at that.
All I can say is Artest wouldn't have done that damage on the boards last night with Crash in there! Day late! HAHAHAHA!
I'd say moving two firsts for him = lose. But you did get far and away the best player in the deal and made your team better. That said, I'll put the over/under at 3 games until we see daily "Gerald Wallace is teh suckz I told you all along Cho!" threads.
First round picks outside the top ten have low expected yield. Most fans and media overrate mid- to late-first round picks, IMO.
Those firsts are in the 20's more than likely plus Portland still has it's 2011 first (pretty sure the NO pick got shipped). That dampens that blow I think.
I actually like some guys in that section of the draft so I like that we're able to keep one of the 2011 1sts. Markieff Morris would be nice get out of Kansas. Solid back-up 4/5 in the future. Marcus Morris maybe, better scorer but he's a 4/3 which we don't need as much. Probably will be picked before he gets to the Blazers anyways. That or Nolan Smith.
Two firsts that are late in the draft aren't really worth that much. You can find good players in it but we would just have these guys sitting on the bench not getting any playing time.
Completely agree with that but none the less when you're talking about giving up two first round picks for a proven player that's typically something better than Gerald Wallace. I'd be surprised if any other teams even offered one first round pick for Wallace. Battier got moved for Thabeet and one first round pick. Yeah though, most picks from 12-30 are no better than an early second round pick and at least with the seconds they're easy to get rid of when you know they're a bust. Still though, they do have a certain value to them and could shock you and end up being decent picks or re-traded in another trade, you can combine them to move up, etc. etc. IMO two firsts is a lot for a good-not-great player.
