On the month: CJ = 13mpg // 2ppg Gee = 6.7mpg // 3.3ppg On the year: CJ = 38.1% // 4.7ppg on 4.3FGA Gee = 48.2% (80% since trade) // 4.9ppg on 3.5FGA I think, given equal scoring opportunities, Gee would outperform CJ.
Gee's not gonna get 3 dunks in a game all the time. He's yet to play more than 1 game of significant minutes. They are not comparable until, as you say, given equal scoring opportunities.
I also looked at Gee's numbers on the season before he came to Portland. I'm not familiar with him, but based on the one game I saw, and then looking at his season numbers, I have no reason to think that CJ is even equal, let alone better.
With all that being said, I really liked PtldPlatypus' idea of starting Gee and bringing AAA off the bench. I'm also not advocating that one is better than the other, just that we really don't know with Portlands' style of play (being that it is different than how Denver and Cleveland ran theirs) is conducive to Gees' style... Though, Gee is a vet so I assume he can adjust. Regardless, I love having Gee on this team, and can only hope that Stotts' puts him in great situations to flourish, because he feels like a dark horse for us.
Would he really complain at getting starter minutes off the bench because he's not out there for the opening tip? I believe him to be smarter than that.
If he were still getting 30+ mpg and playing all the crunch time minutes, why not? He would still be playing a major role and be the third scoring option; he would just begin doing so 6 minutes later in the game. In fact, he would probably be the primary scoring option at various points, and more often than if he were starting. If his ego is so wrapped up in "starter" or "reserve" as opposed to overall contribution to the team, is that really who we want? I don't see him thinking that way.
I don't doubt that we will, but I think we'd have a more well-rounded and effective rotation overall if we didn't.
This. It's unconventional. And starting AAA is fine by me, but starting him is not a no-brainer, as in fact, using your brain would make you realize there are more options that you have at play. Options are good.
I agree with blue9. I think Gee is the better option for back-up than CJ. I am a huge CJ fan, but he just doesn't have enough constant good games to put any faith on. If Gee could give us what he gave in Denver "High % shots, defense and the 3 point shot" we may not have the huge drop off when Afflalo goes to the bench. I'm just not confident with CJ coming in and I would really like Dame to stay within the 34-36 minutes per game mark.
Bottom line: We're still missing what we went out and got when we went out and got Afflalo. CJ isn't up to that level overall (yet?). Gee isn't Stotts' ideal offensively. I get the Platypus' logic. But it's pretty clear Afflalo will start, and we'll make due with the bench we have, and hope a wing steps up. I can't take much more of Kaman being our primary offensive weapon off the bench.
I think we give CJ a few games, and then we give Gee a few games. I anticipate Gee's defense, maturity, and slashing beating out CJ as being a better option for playoff basketball.
You know, it's funny. When Lopez went down, Stotts decided to start Freeland in his place and keep Kaman as a reserve. This feels like almost the same situation to me. It's really too bad Stotts won't apply the same logic here. Also, as much as I've touted Gee as my preferred starter in Matthews' spot, I think Crabbe might be an even better option, seeing as he's already started a few times this year, and would have less of a transition to integrate into the offense.
Damn. Just went through 6 pages of your old posts trying to find an example of you disagreeing with management, and the best I could come up with was you agreeing that Gee>Wright, and you mentioning that you wanted to draft Chris Paul back in '05. You are just a lackey to the man, aren't you?
