How 'bout that Stoudemire?

[houheffna]

We are arguing semantics. He may have lost a step but 07/08 post injury he had a year that was almost as good as his preinjury best year. So I don't think he really has lost much or any effectiveness. IF he continues on this roll, he will also have really good numbers this year. He shows up in the playoffs. Freds numbers aren't realistic. They aren't fair. They don't make sense, its a really bad question. Amare's worst case scenairo is the max. He won't get that, he will more likely than not get somewhere between 15 and 18 per. Lee will get 11-13. For 3-5 Mill more per year, I take Amare. Amare isn't getting 20 mill per year.

What do you mean Fred's numbers aren't fair? A question was asked...soliciting an answer, a direct answer. You have no clue what Stoudemire is getting because you don't know who is going where...if the big 3 stay home, he very well could ask and demand the max. That has been the point of my argument and others on here for a while now concerning STAT. If he wants the max for max years, he is much less desirable. When I asked people would they rather have Johnson at 15 or Gordon at 12, I was told THAT was unrealistic...its a question! Its based on supposition...saying a question doesn't make sense because it doesn't support your argument just doesn't cut it...

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I'd still rather net the highest impact player on that second tier level. He might not give his all during the regular season but he shows up big time in the playoffs and in the end, thats what really matters.

I'm not really disagreeing, I find it really to be splitting hairs between the two options, much like with Wade or Bosh. I think I'd rank what I'd try for as:

* LeBron
* Wade or Bosh
* Amare or Lee/***

Anything not on that list is a disappointment IMO.

I agree, I just think that Lee/*** has priced itself out of reach. Both would have to be willing to take 5/55 when they should be getting 5/60-70 depending on how desperate teams get. Lee especially has driven up his value with the allstar selection and 20/11.5 stat line. He should hire Dan Tony because he will get him that huge deal.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

We are arguing semantics. He may have lost a step but 07/08 post injury he had a year that was almost as good as his preinjury best year. So I don't think he really has lost much or any effectiveness. IF he continues on this roll, he will also have really good numbers this year. He shows up in the playoffs. Freds numbers aren't realistic. They aren't fair. They don't make sense, its a really bad question. Amare's worst case scenairo is the max. He won't get that, he will more likely than not get somewhere between 15 and 18 per. Lee will get 11-13. For 3-5 Mill more per year, I take Amare. Amare isn't getting 20 mill per year.

What do you mean Fred's numbers aren't fair? A question was asked...soliciting an answer, a direct answer. You have no clue what Stoudemire is getting because you don't know who is going where...if the big 3 stay home, he very well could ask and demand the max. That has been the point of my argument and others on here for a while now concerning STAT. If he wants the max for max years, he is much less desirable. When I asked people would they rather have Johnson at 15 or Gordon at 12, I was told THAT was unrealistic...its a question! Its based on supposition...saying a question doesn't make sense because it doesn't support your argument just doesn't cut it...

But thats exactly it, the worst that Stat can get is the max. There is no max plus a few mill. Lee will be getting more than 10. You can't compare someones max to below someones floor. Thats why your question was bad, you compared a max (bgs salary) to below the floor for JJ (below his current slary and what he turned down.) You can ask anything you want but can't complain when people call it unreasonable. In all likelyhood, Amare isn't getting the max, other options like Boozer, Lee and Bosh will limit his impact on the market.

 

[Dpauley23]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I'd still rather net the highest impact player on that second tier level. He might not give his all during the regular season but he shows up big time in the playoffs and in the end, thats what really matters.

I'm not really disagreeing, I find it really to be splitting hairs between the two options, much like with Wade or Bosh. I think I'd rank what I'd try for as:

* LeBron
* Wade or Bosh
* Amare or Lee/***

Anything not on that list is a disappointment IMO.

I agree, I just think that Lee/*** has priced itself out of reach. Both would have to be willing to take 5/55 when they should be getting 5/60-70 depending on how desperate teams get. Lee especially has driven up his value with the allstar selection and 20/11.5 stat line. He should hire Dan Tony
because he will get him that huge deal.

Datoni hasn't done anything. Knicks play at the same pace as the Bulls

 

[TheStig]

Dpauley23 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I'd still rather net the highest impact player on that second tier level. He might not give his all during the regular season but he shows up big time in the playoffs and in the end, thats what really matters.

I'm not really disagreeing, I find it really to be splitting hairs between the two options, much like with Wade or Bosh. I think I'd rank what I'd try for as:

* LeBron
* Wade or Bosh
* Amare or Lee/***

Anything not on that list is a disappointment IMO.

I agree, I just think that Lee/*** has priced itself out of reach. Both would have to be willing to take 5/55 when they should be getting 5/60-70 depending on how desperate teams get. Lee especially has driven up his value with the allstar selection and 20/11.5 stat line. He should hire Dan Tony
because he will get him that huge deal.

Datoni hasn't done anything. Knicks play at the same pace as the Bulls

Really? So you think Lee will put up 20 and 10 next year if hes on the bulls? Its not all about pace, Lee gets a lot of touches, more than he would on any functional team.

 

[Shakes]

I don't think Lee's being made to look good because of Dan Tony. I read a few Knicks blogs (hangover from when we had their picks and it was a joy to see them suffer) and plenty of Knicks fans have been saying for years that Lee is under used and under rated. I think Dan Tony is the reason Lee is putting up good numbers, but not because he's inflating them, it's just because he's given Lee a bigger role than he had before.

I do agree the price for Lee/*** is probably too much for us now. If we're just a bit short I wonder if we could send Kirk to the Bobcats for Diop. Saves us a couple of million next year, saves them about 3 million in total on the deal plus they get the better player.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I don't think Lee's being made to look good because of Dan Tony. I read a few Knicks blogs (hangover from when we had their picks and it was a joy to see them suffer) and plenty of Knicks fans have been saying for years that Lee is under used and under rated. I think Dan Tony is the reason Lee is putting up good numbers, but not because he's inflating them, it's just because he's given Lee a bigger role than he had before.

I do agree the price for Lee/*** is probably too much for us now. If we're just a bit short I wonder if we could send Kirk to the Bobcats for Diop. Saves us a couple of million next year, saves them about 3 million in total on the deal plus they get the better player.

Thats what I said, he gets a lot of touches. He also gets a lot of boards because he is the only good rebounder on that team. I see Lee as more of 12-15/8-10. No other team would play him this type of opportunity.

Any plan that involves Diop is not a good one. I'd rather have Amare/Kirk(expiring the following year) then ***/Lee. I would try to convince Bell to come here. I also don't think JR is gonna spend the bucks to sign ***. Just can't see it.

 

[Shakes]

People underestimating David Lee is the only reason we have a chance at getting him cheap-ish. So I guess your opinion of him being the commonly held one is a good thing.

Lee has put up great rebounding numbers his whole career. I think his and Noah's numbers would both go down playing together (were Duncan/Robinson the last pair to both average 10 a game?), but we'd be the number 1 rebounding team in the league.

Offensively he's one of the most efficient players in the league, and you can no longer use the excuse of it being because he's just a garbage guy. His touches are up this year and he's still shooting 55%. I agree he doesn't get to the line enough, but when you shoot 55% from the field it's hard to complain too much.

Also it's not like his touches are insane like you make it out to be, his usage is a touch under 24%. The only guy in the league putting up 20 a game on a lower usage is Chris Paul. Even if you dial him back to Warrick/Thomas' role of around 19%, he put up 16 a game last year on that kind of usage. If David Lee is only getting enough minutes or touches to be a 12-15 points a game player you're not using him well.

If we got Lee I would expect about 18/10 on 55%. Given the other front court players will be Noah and Gibson (ie nobody you'll throw the ball to a whole lot) he'll get enough chances to score.

Obviously we don't try to get Diop by choice. I think even Fred would rather Hinrich. It's a desperation move if we have nothing else available to us and we're a bit short to be able to bid on a SG. Was just a crazy idea I thought of while trying to figure out what we could do to increase our cap space. We're actually probably better off sending our draft pick and James Johnson somewhere for a future pick as a first option. But the point is we can make space if we really want it.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes, I think you are overvaluing a guy who puts up good numbers on a bad team. David Lee isn't going to be a 20/10 guy on a good team. He is a good player but no one would ever use him in the same fashion that dan tony does. Just can't see him being a 20/10 guy.

 

[Shakes]

I get that a guy can chuck up 20 points a game by taking a lot of shots. I just don't see how that relates to David Lee. He's always been an efficient scorer, why wouldn't he continue to be efficient on a better team? He's never played with anyone remotely as good as Rose at drawing defensive attention away from him. He'd fit right in with the system we have, he takes about half his shots as jumpers, which is exactly what Tyrus/Warrick/Gibson have all done from the PF position.

I think Pau Gasol is a good case study. He switched from a dreadful Memphis team to an elite Lakers team. He went from main guy to second banana. The Lakers run a completely different system to what he was in. Despite all that his scoring only dipped by about 2 a game. I know Gasol is a better all around player, I'm just talking about scoring since that seems to be the major point of contention.

 

[houheffna]

Shakes, I think you are overvaluing a guy who puts up good numbers on a bad team. David Lee isn't going to be a 20/10 guy on a good team. He is a good player but no one would ever use him in the same fashion that dan tony does. Just can't see him being a 20/10 guy.

please tell me how does Dan Tony (who is that?) use him? Could you please educate me on that? Because I don't have a damn clue as to what you are talking about...

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I get that a guy can chuck up 20 points a game by taking a lot of shots. I just don't see how that relates to David Lee. He's always been an efficient scorer, why wouldn't he continue to be efficient on a better team? He's never played with anyone remotely as good as Rose at drawing defensive attention away from him. He'd fit right in with the system we have, he takes about half his shots as jumpers, which is exactly what Tyrus/Warrick/Gibson have all done from the PF position.

I think Pau Gasol is a good case study. He switched from a dreadful Memphis team to an elite Lakers team. He went from main guy to second banana. The Lakers run a completely different system to what he was in. Despite all that his scoring only dipped by about 2 a game. I know Gasol is a better all around player, I'm just talking about scoring since that seems to be the major point of contention.

I don't think that Lee is a chucker either. I just don't see him having as big of a role here. I don't see him getting the touches here that he does in NY. I just can't see him as a 20/10 player here. I just can't see the upside, which is what everyone else is saying about him. You call him undervalued, I think he has been overused and more than peaked. Look at what Gibson does here, his shooting percent is 5% lower, even if you take that on, he isn't near 20ppg. I think we need to get someone that can take pressure off of rose offensively, not add to our strengths.

Pau Gasol is a different story. He lead his team to the playoffs three times at lees age. He didn't even have a legit second option and anchored the offense and defense. Gasol may not be good enough to lead a team to a ring (might have gone pretty far in the playoffs if he had a second star) but he could lead guys who couldn't win more than 20 games by themselves to the playoffs multiple times. If you could feed lee the ball and have him create for himself like gasol does. Keep in mind that Gasols numbers are depressed by the fact that he played with one of the slowest paces in the league most years.

 

[Shakes]

Absolutely Gasol is a better player, I'm not comparing their all around games. I'm just saying that a PF who scores 20 PPG has never become a 12 PPG scorer after a trade.

I don't really get why you think Lee would only get the same touches as Gibson. I mean I can do that with anyone. May as well not get Wade, because if we give him Hinrich's shots, he's not anywhere near a 20 PPG scorer either.

I guess I just don't understand why you think we wouldn't let Lee have a big role. He's a 60% TS% player when Deng, who currently takes about the same number of shots Lee does, is 53%. As far as I'm concerned it's pretty obvious if we get Lee a guy like Deng is just going to have to suck it up and see some of his shots go away. The same is going to happen no matter what player we get. You talk about Lee getting shots because the Knicks are a bad team, but over the year they're a far better offensive team than the Bulls. Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way, it's our current players who are only getting shots because they're in a bad offense.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Absolutely Gasol is a better player, I'm not comparing their all around games. I'm just saying that a PF who scores 20 PPG has never become a 12 PPG scorer after a trade.

Rasheed Wallace, Jermaine O'Neal and Shaq come to mind off the top of my head.

I don't really get why you think Lee would only get the same touches as Gibson. I mean I can do that with anyone. May as well not get Wade, because if we give him Hinrich's shots, he's not anywhere near a 20 PPG scorer either.

I say that because he isn't really a scorer, he is more of a hustle guy. Do you think we will be calling a ton of plays for him?

I guess I just don't understand why you think we wouldn't let Lee have a big role. He's a 60% TS% player when Deng, who currently takes about the same number of shots Lee does, is 53%. As far as I'm concerned it's pretty obvious if we get Lee a guy like Deng is just going to have to suck it up and see some of his shots go away. The same is going to happen no matter what player we get. You talk about Lee getting shots because the Knicks are a bad team, but over the year they're a far better offensive team than the Bulls. Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way, it's our current players who are only getting shots because they're in a bad offense.

Sorry I can't see him being featured, no one in the NBA is scared that David Lee will beat them.

 

[Dpauley23]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

Absolutely Gasol is a better player, I'm not comparing their all around games. I'm just saying that a PF who scores 20 PPG has never become a 12 PPG scorer after a trade.

Rasheed Wallace, Jermaine O'Neal and Shaq come to mind off the top of my head.

I don't really get why you think Lee would only get the same touches as Gibson. I mean I can do that with anyone. May as well not get Wade, because if we give him Hinrich's shots, he's not anywhere near a 20 PPG scorer either.

I say that because he isn't really a scorer, he is more of a hustle guy. Do you think we will be calling a ton of plays for him?

I guess I just don't understand why you think we wouldn't let Lee have a big role. He's a 60% TS% player when Deng, who currently takes about the same number of shots Lee does, is 53%. As far as I'm concerned it's pretty obvious if we get Lee a guy like Deng is just going to have to suck it up and see some of his shots go away. The same is going to happen no matter what player we get. You talk about Lee getting shots because the Knicks are a bad team, but over the year they're a far better offensive team than the Bulls. Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way, it's our current players who are only getting shots because they're in a bad offense.

Sorry I can't see him being featured, no one in the NBA is scared that David Lee will beat them.

How is he just a hustle guy? Considering he shhot the 16-23 foot jumper at 47% he seems like he could keep it up

 

[TheStig]

Dpauley23 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

Absolutely Gasol is a better player, I'm not comparing their all around games. I'm just saying that a PF who scores 20 PPG has never become a 12 PPG scorer after a trade.

Rasheed Wallace, Jermaine O'Neal and Shaq come to mind off the top of my head.

I don't really get why you think Lee would only get the same touches as Gibson. I mean I can do that with anyone. May as well not get Wade, because if we give him Hinrich's shots, he's not anywhere near a 20 PPG scorer either.

I say that because he isn't really a scorer, he is more of a hustle guy. Do you think we will be calling a ton of plays for him?

I guess I just don't understand why you think we wouldn't let Lee have a big role. He's a 60% TS% player when Deng, who currently takes about the same number of shots Lee does, is 53%. As far as I'm concerned it's pretty obvious if we get Lee a guy like Deng is just going to have to suck it up and see some of his shots go away. The same is going to happen no matter what player we get. You talk about Lee getting shots because the Knicks are a bad team, but over the year they're a far better offensive team than the Bulls. Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way, it's our current players who are only getting shots because they're in a bad offense.

Sorry I can't see him being featured, no one in the NBA is scared that David Lee will beat them.

How is he just a hustle guy? Considering he shhot the 16-23 foot jumper at 47% he seems like he could keep it up

Hustle guys shoot jumpers too, see Taj. I can't see him being a 20/10 guy on winning team.

 

[Shakes]

O'Neal wasn't even averaging 14 when he was traded, and kept on doing about the same after the trade. Shaq was only barely averaging 14 when Miami traded him (unless you mean the trade TO Miami, where his points went UP). Rasheed went from 17 to 14. basically nobody on the list was averaging 20 to start with, and nobody dropped more than about 3 points a game. You examples fit much better with my theory that Lee would average around 18 on the Bulls than yours that he'd average 12-15.

Who says Lee beats them? Derrick Rose beats them, Lee is part of the supporting cast. The idea of surrounding Rose with ***/Deng/Lee/Noah is that you've got no weak link.

I hate this David Lee is a hustle guy thing. Next you'll be calling him "feisty". You don't score 20 a game on hustle, no matter what team you're on. Yes I hope we'd call plays for him. He'd be a heck of a lot better running the pick and roll with Rose than the stupid version we run with Noah.

 

[houheffna]

There is no leg to stand on...you compare Lee to Shaq and Jermaine O'Neal...wrong, both on the wrong side of their careers and he is still rather young. Dismissing him as a hustle player is just lazy analysis...he hustles, but he has skill too. If you knew HOW he scored, you might have a better understanding of his game....

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

O'Neal wasn't even averaging 14 when he was traded, and kept on doing about the same after the trade. Shaq was only barely averaging 14 when Miami traded him (unless you mean the trade TO Miami, where his points went UP). Rasheed went from 17 to 14. basically nobody on the list was averaging 20 to start with, and nobody dropped more than about 3 points a game. You examples fit much better with my theory that Lee would average around 18 on the Bulls than yours that he'd average 12-15.

Shaq dropped form 18 to 12 from last year to this year but I didn't mean in a single offseason.

Who says Lee beats them? Derrick Rose beats them, Lee is part of the supporting cast. The idea of surrounding Rose with ***/Deng/Lee/Noah is that you've got no weak link.

If we make the playoffs you'll see, you need a second legit guy who can score on his own.
I hate this David Lee is a hustle guy thing. Next you'll be calling him "feisty". You don't score 20 a game on hustle, no matter what team you're on. Yes I hope we'd call plays for him. He'd be a heck of a lot better running the pick and roll with Rose than the stupid version we run with Noah.

LOL he'll only be feisty if he forgets how to shot never makes a layup again. But he is a hustle guy, thats what makes him special. I just don't see him being that special, otherwise he would be in conversations to get the max. Maybe 12 is too low but I don't see him being more than a 15/10 guy.

 

[JimmyBulls]

If the Bulls sign David Lee, he would be the best pick and roll option with Derrick Rose, and he'll be the team's second best rebounder. I don't think his work load would drop off a bit on this Bulls team. It's not like this team have a wealth of frontcourt options to put a all star like Lee on the backburner.

When I look at David Lee, I look at the skills he could bring to this team. He would be the best in almost every category and he won't kill the team in the pocketbook like Amare.