Phx-Suns.Net

bajanguy008 wrote:https://amp.azcentral.com/amp/833868001

Latest update I've seen. As for the trade scenarios , I still can't see myself changing my stance on Mudiay or Drummond even if he's actually hitting FTs so far this year

On Drummond I can't agree. Depeding on whom you ask, Drummond is just a mere rebounder or is a beast.

I believe he is a beast if he is properly engaged. 2015 Drummond was an allstar and AllNBA 3rd team, and he is getting close to that level after last season.

He is not just making FTs, although that is no small feat since it will allow himself to attack the rim more, as he is not afraid of going to the line and can be used during crunch time as well.

He is getting more assists (although his teammates making more shots plays an obvious factor on his assists #s). Pistons fans are even seeing more effort on defense, but I'll need a bigger sample to erase last year's stupid performance.

If nothing else, he is in way better shape and more active than last year.

About his value, if you asked before the start of the season, I believe you could have gotten him for Bledsoe, Chandler, Chriss and a non-premium pick/useful-cheap player (from Suns or a third team). Right now, the Pistons don't even blink at that offer.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

bajanguy008 wrote:https://amp.azcentral.com/amp/833868001

Latest update I've seen. As for the trade scenarios , I still can't see myself changing my stance on Mudiay or Drummond even if he's actually hitting FTs so far this year

On Drummond I can't agree. Depeding on whom you ask, Drummond is just a mere rebounder or is a beast.

I believe he is a beast if he is properly engaged. 2015 Drummond was an allstar and AllNBA 3rd team, and he is getting close to that level after last season.

He is not just making FTs, although that is no small feat since it will allow himself to attack the rim more, as he is not afraid of going to the line and can be used during crunch time as well.

He is getting more assists (although his teammates making more shots plays an obvious factor on his assists #s). Pistons fans are even seeing more effort on defense, but I'll need a bigger sample to erase last year's stupid performance.

If nothing else, he is in way better shape and more active than last year.

About his value, if you asked before the start of the season, I believe you could have gotten him for Bledsoe, Chandler, Chriss and a non-premium pick/useful-cheap player (from Suns or a third team). Right now, the Pistons don't even blink at that offer.

He supposedly plays very poor defense. But what player does not have weaknesses. If he had a perfectly rounded game, he would not be potentially available.

I think you have to ask yourself with a contract like that can the Suns win a title around Booker and Drummond. Because between the two max contracts, you’re not getting much else on your roster. I don’t see him as a cornerstone guy so to me he is not worth building a franchise around. He’s DeAndre Jordan, and that’s only if he improves his defense. I don’t see DeAndre as a franchise player either.

The only big men I would pay max money to in today’s league would be Embiid, KAT, AD, Cousins, PorzinGod off the top of my head. Personally I wouldn’t max Gobert either.

Weird, I'd max Gobert long before KAT and Cousins for sure, defense matters.

I think defense matters but your best player can't be just a defender. I can't remember a time in recent history where a team's franchise player was a defender, whereas plenty of teams have won championships with an offensive superstar surrounded by good defensive role players.

specialsauce wrote:I think defense matters but your best player can't be just a defender. I can't remember a time in recent history where a team's franchise player was a defender, whereas plenty of teams have won championships with an offensive superstar surrounded by good defensive role players.

Pistons in 04 with Ben Wallace. You could make the argument that the Duncan Spurs were as well, but he was an all around star. KG on the Celtics is another one. Although it might not exactly fit your parameters either as he was still a good offensive player.

I also wouldn't classify Gobert as just a defensive player. He's no star offensively, but he's not inept. Combine him with an elite offensive perimeter player and you can build a championship contender.

So the Pistons team in 2004 has been used as an example for various situations since then (can you win without a superstar, etc.) and I feel like that was a fluke year. Also you can argue that Rip Hamilton or Chauncey Billups were their best players. I also think it's a stretch to compare the status of the league and style of play at that time to the landscape of the league now. Times have changed.

Duncan was a big time two-way player, and so was KG.

I'm talking about players that have a very limited offensive game. Gobert, Jordan, Drummond, Noel (not on the same level obviously as the first three but still similar skillset). I want nothing to do with these players in today's league. I get I'm in the minority on Gobert, but until he develops a legitimate offensive game, I'm not sold in the least bit.

I think about that one week where it looked like Phil Jackson might trade Porzingis all the time. That opportunity will never present itself again.

Now does anybody still believe Booker is a better prospect than Porzingis?

The Bobster wrote:Now does anybody still believe Booker is a better prospect than Porzingis?

Did anyone actually say this???

Split T wrote:

specialsauce wrote:I think defense matters but your best player can't be just a defender. I can't remember a time in recent history where a team's franchise player was a defender, whereas plenty of teams have won championships with an offensive superstar surrounded by good defensive role players.

Pistons in 04 with Ben Wallace. You could make the argument that the Duncan Spurs were as well, but he was an all around star. KG on the Celtics is another one. Although it might not exactly fit your parameters either as he was still a good offensive player.

I also wouldn't classify Gobert as just a defensive player. He's no star offensively, but he's not inept. Combine him with an elite offensive perimeter player and you can build a championship contender.

Luke Mutombo and Iverson.

Wally_West wrote:

The Bobster wrote:Now does anybody still believe Booker is a better prospect than Porzingis?

Did anyone actually say this???

We had people saying here they wouldn't give up Booker to get him this past offseason.

specialsauce wrote:So the Pistons team in 2004 has been used as an example for various situations since then (can you win without a superstar, etc.) and I feel like that was a fluke year. Also you can argue that Rip Hamilton or Chauncey Billups were their best players. I also think it's a stretch to compare the status of the league and style of play at that time to the landscape of the league now. Times have changed.

Duncan was a big time two-way player, and so was KG.

I'm talking about players that have a very limited offensive game. Gobert, Jordan, Drummond, Noel (not on the same level obviously as the first three but still similar skillset). I want nothing to do with these players in today's league. I get I'm in the minority on Gobert, but until he develops a legitimate offensive game, I'm not sold in the least bit.

In your scenario can you not have a better player than Gobert? If he's my best player and I'm building the team around him, then ya, I'll pass. But put an elite offensive player with him and he'd be fine. He can be a roll man and anchor the defense like Chandler did for Dallas when they won.

The Bobster wrote:

Wally_West wrote:

The Bobster wrote:Now does anybody still believe Booker is a better prospect than Porzingis?

Did anyone actually say this???

We had people saying here they wouldn't give up Booker to get him this past offseason.

Lots of folks believed that Porzingis is going to have injury problems. A few were openly doubtful that we could keep KP, since Booker + assets would have left a bad team behind. And a very small few thought that you can't run a winning NBA team in the modern era with a big as your best guy. I think there's even a bet in Cap's signature.

Split T wrote:

specialsauce wrote:So the Pistons team in 2004 has been used as an example for various situations since then (can you win without a superstar, etc.) and I feel like that was a fluke year. Also you can argue that Rip Hamilton or Chauncey Billups were their best players. I also think it's a stretch to compare the status of the league and style of play at that time to the landscape of the league now. Times have changed.

Duncan was a big time two-way player, and so was KG.

I'm talking about players that have a very limited offensive game. Gobert, Jordan, Drummond, Noel (not on the same level obviously as the first three but still similar skillset). I want nothing to do with these players in today's league. I get I'm in the minority on Gobert, but until he develops a legitimate offensive game, I'm not sold in the least bit.

In your scenario can you not have a better player than Gobert? If he's my best player and I'm building the team around him, then ya, I'll pass. But put an elite offensive player with him and he'd be fine. He can be a roll man and anchor the defense like Chandler did for Dallas when they won.

I think Gobert can be a third wheel. But it’s hard to put together a complete team with 3 max contracts. Therefore if you have space for 2 max players + decently paid role players, I don’t think Gobert + perimeter star (insert: Booker) is cutting it.

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Radiohead!!

The Bobster wrote:

Wally_West wrote:

The Bobster wrote:Now does anybody still believe Booker is a better prospect than Porzingis?

Did anyone actually say this???

We had people saying here they wouldn't give up Booker to get him this past offseason.

I think it was Booker plus the fourth pick plus other assets. But also Porzingis is on a different level altogether since they got rid of Carmelo.

Wally_West wrote:

The Bobster wrote:Now does anybody still believe Booker is a better prospect than Porzingis?

Did anyone actually say this???

Check my sig.

Cap wrote:

Wally_West wrote:

The Bobster wrote:Now does anybody still believe Booker is a better prospect than Porzingis?

Did anyone actually say this???

Check my sig.