I normally dont like this guy, but he makes some very good points about not giving in to Richardson, and Murphy's contract demands... http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ts/10045371.htm
Thx for the article. I agree with his points. Although we would be awful without their scoring, there's always someone left that can fill the void and you have the flexibility to bring in a true difference maker through good trades. We won't be a free agent destination if we dont' have a winning team with a good coaching system. Right now we have a promising coach but still unproven until the year is over. We shouldn't give into the ransom that Murphy and Richardson are putting on the franchise unless they want to be here and understand the reasons..
Yeah, 6 years at $55m is too high for Murphy RIGHT NOW. If he plays this whole year like he did this preseason, then maybe we could do that. But like he says, in my mind he needs to be more of a low post threat. As far as Jrich goes...If he scores 25-26pts per game and shows the ability to take over games and lead us to the playoffs, then by all means, give him what he wants...
In general, it's a good article. But I've never read a Kawakami article (or a Skip Bayless article for that matter) where he didn't say something that makes me think he has no idea what he's talking about. It's sort of like being in an English class and talking to a classmate about a book you were supposed to read and he says something to you that's so off the mark that you instantly know he only read the Cliff Notes. I'm sure everyone who read the article picked up on the particular line, but for those of you who didn't, here it is (he's talking about Murphy and Richardson): "If they are so-so, Mullin can hit the sign-and-trade market, with sights set on potential difference-makers such as Phoenix's Zarko Cabarkapa or Philadelphia's Samuel Dalembert." Would anyone, ANYONE here trade either Murphy or Richardson in a sign and trade for Cabarkapa and think they got the better end of the deal? Custodian, I'll save you the trouble of saying you would trade Dunleavy for Zarko. I disagree, so we'll leave it at that. :mrgreen: Actually no, let's not leave it at that. Besides Zarko being much worse than Murphy or Richardson, let's examine the logic of trading for a guy who is basically the same type of player as Dunleavy (Zarko) or Foyle (Dalembert). Basically, there is no logic to examine. Sure Dalembert may have more upside, but why would you trade for a guy who is the same type of player as one you just signed to a huge contract? Dunleavy's potential is up for debate, but that's a topic for a different thread. It's this kind of half-assed thinking that has always made me hate Kawakami.
That analogy works perfectly. Sometimes he starts with an acceptible thesis and premise, but he says so many things that undercut his legitimacy - either outright lies or totally clueless comments - that make reading his articles an exercise in futility.
I believe the point being that Zarko and Dalembert have more potential at a lower cost than Murphy or JRich. He's right on about hamstringing yourself with two dudes who have not yet proven anything. (Murphy though has proven himself to be a true big body who will rebound in traffic and can score. Yes, I love the guy. He's a glue guy.) JRich's attitude right now about "loyalty" is exactly why I doubt him. He's put up points on a subpar team but has not yet shown any indication that he makes others around him better. Veshon Lenard can get you 16 ppg and will not cost $65M. Hell, Lucius Harris used to score double figures off the bench. Raja Bell can score 15 ppg, and he was a free agent. I sure hope they do not max out JRich.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">In general, it's a good article. But I've never read a Kawakami article (or a Skip Bayless article for that matter) where he didn't say something that makes me think he has no idea what he's talking about. It's sort of like being in an English class and talking to a classmate about a book you were supposed to read and he says something to you that's so off the mark that you instantly know he only read the Cliff Notes. I'm sure everyone who read the article picked up on the particular line, but for those of you who didn't, here it is (he's talking about Murphy and Richardson): "If they are so-so, Mullin can hit the sign-and-trade market, with sights set on potential difference-makers such as Phoenix's Zarko Cabarkapa or Philadelphia's Samuel Dalembert." Would anyone, ANYONE here trade either Murphy or Richardson in a sign and trade for Cabarkapa and think they got the better end of the deal? Custodian, I'll save you the trouble of saying you would trade Dunleavy for Zarko. I disagree, so we'll leave it at that. :mrgreen: Actually no, let's not leave it at that. Besides Zarko being much worse than Murphy or Richardson, let's examine the logic of trading for a guy who is basically the same type of player as Dunleavy (Zarko) or Foyle (Dalembert). Basically, there is no logic to examine. Sure Dalembert may have more upside, but why would you trade for a guy who is the same type of player as one you just signed to a huge contract? Dunleavy's potential is up for debate, but that's a topic for a different thread. It's this kind of half-assed thinking that has always made me hate Kawakami.</div> Woopsies I read the article and I only focussed my comment on the one part I liked! I had forgot to comment on that the Dalembert and Zarko comments by the reporter were a bit odd because I was like what?? Difference maker my arse! They've got upside but they are unproven they can overcome their weaknesses or elevate their all around game to make others around them better. Where is the difference making coming from other than just pure stats? Walker, don't worry I'm not that irate about wasting a high pick on Dunleavy to want to trade him for Zarko Cabarkapa. I mean why? They are very similar players because of their versatility and their lack of defense. I do have common sense when it comes to who we should get for him. For instance, I would never trade Dunleavy for Zarko because we'd be losing rebounding, our perimeter defense would still be the same or worse, and points wise I don't know i he's the same player ever since Fortson sent him crashing to the floor in a near nose dive that broke his shooting wrist last season. He'll be a good player, but I don't think he'll make more of an impact than let's say Troy Murphy who gives you rebounds and toughness or Dunleavy who gives you basketball smarts and a Keith Van Horn like jumper (streaky). Lastly, I want to see how Zarko playing power forward and center in Phoenix plays out. It might be funny to watch 100 posters come out this year with him looking up from under the basket. BTW Dalembert already lost his starting job to Marc Jackson I think. Besides with Foyle signed for that much and long, we'd probably better look toward finding other positions to fill like a solid post center when D-square comes off the books and someone to replace Dampier. We need a bruiser down low that's not named Zach Randolph and can block shots and rebound and pass well and keep other post players from getting inside. Good luck to us in finding one. Doh!
