In the same way that Monta Ellis looks like one. They're both short, I guess. When will this myth die? If there is any truth to it, we needed a guy who could hit spot up threes when the defense collapsed on Roy, not a guy who needs the ball all the time and only looks to create for himself. Which is what Bayless is. Sad that someone should aspire to be Mo Williams. Even sadder that he couldn't even make it.
I'm inferring from here: http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2010/11/a_blessing_in_disguise_meet_ar.html
McMillan had no use for Bayless and was right. Bayless is an athlete but in the wrong sport. Babbitt will be better.
Bayless is averaging 17.8/5.3/3.0 as a starter playing 34 minutes per game this season for Toronto. He is shooting .450 from the field, 4.29 from 3 point and .837 on FT. Also only 2.09 TO per game.
I don't understand your point? 4-7 with him in the starting line up, so the Raptors are better with him as a starter. Better yet when he starts without Calderon
I'm shocked you would stand up for Bayless on such a small sample size on a shitty team. Not just that anyone would, but that it'd be you. That's my point.
Bayless has proved he can put up good numbers as a starter throughout his career. His teams have sucked in both NO and Toronto, but it's hardly his fault
I liked Bayless and was disappointed we simply gave him away. But he's always struck me as one of those guys with "empty" numbers. He was certainly exciting to watch, but he never struck me as someone who made those around him better. I felt like he could always "get his". Certainly, with the guys we had, he wouldn't have fit in because he was always shoot-first (he's not a PG, but an undersized SG). But I'd take him on our current team (which, if not for our earlier start, would be a 15-30 team - like the Raptures).
Bayless is a solid scorer. He does one thing well, which is get to the hoop and get fouled. And he's worked on his three point shot. But he'll never be a natural point. He'll never run the team except mechanically, and his instinct is always to get his. His stubby little arms are a barrier to good defense, too. In the right situation you can be glad you have someone with that skill set, but it's not a very wide skill set. When he's scoring a lot for your team you know your team is shitty, and has no real PG available.
He may turn out to be a very solid player but there's still not one good reason to take him over Faried. Huge blunder.
I know you said there's still not a good reason.... But the word is we passed on Faried as part of the Felton-Miller deal. Again, I know you said "good reason", but we apparently had made a deal, and that was a condition of the deal. So, I said there's a good reason (in that we had made a trade). And then I'll tell you that the trade was a huge mistake of epic proportions, and if Chad is responsible for the deal, then I in no way, shape, or form want him as my GM.
