Axl Rose
and I knew the silence of the world
- Joined:
- Oct 11, 2011
- Posts:
- 12,274
- Liked Posts:
- 4,422
i was talking to czman...every player we mention he doesn't like
Never stated he stinks. Like I said people who don't watch games and thing spreadsheets are where basketball is played love him.
Additionally he is arguably a lot of things. He has never led the NBA in rebound rate and has been top 5 twice and top 10 twice. That is very good nowhere in my post did I say he was a bad player.
Carlos Boozer has been a top 5 rebounded and has been consistently in the top 15 for a long time when it comes to rebound rate.
He can score. He is a shooter. Look at what Kevin Martin did on bad teams offensively. A lot of guys put up good numbers on bad teams. Love is a good player. He is not a great player though. He is not going to get his own shot or a shot for others. He can hit the 3, but so can a lot of guys. Shooting is streaky.
He is just not big enough long enough or athletic enough to defend and protect the paint. The Bulls play grinding defensive basketball. They are not the Kincks. They don't need Kevin Love.
Plus he's a DukieI wouldn't be too quick to jump on the "Sign Deng to a long term extension" boat right away. He's approaching 30, and does have a lot of minutes logged on him.
I just really can't take you seriously. Sorry. Using rebounding rate as the only metric to gauge whether or not Kevin Love is a "great player" is shortsighted on your part. And you're completely wrong about the stat itself -- the guy has been top 10 in rebounding rate EVERY SINGLE YEAR he's been in the NBA. On top of that, Kevin Love has finished higher than Carlos Boozer in rebounding rate since his rookie season. Aren't you forgetting Kevin Love is 24-years-old? You're acting like the guy is in his early 30s and had some magical fluke season that he'll never be able to replicate.
On top of that, his defensive metrics have improve each season he's been in the NBA. Sure, Kevin Love is never going to be an elite defensive player, but he's physical enough to pester guys when they collapse on the basket. Minnesota's interior defense is terrible with or without Love. That'll never be his strength. Love is best suited to be a help defender on rotations, especially on larger bigs. The real issue you can see with Love defensively is that he doesn't quite have the lateral quickness to defend a small ball power forward. But just like with Boozer, the Bulls are generally able to do with Noah or Gibson on the floor.
Just a couple things. Deng has not been listed at 6'9" his entire career. He grew an inch at the begging of last season according to the Bulls. Height measurement data in all sports is not regulated so what a team states a player is does not mean anything. Combine measurements are going to much more accurate when it comes to height/length. The weight will be off because many guys tend to bulk up when they get to the NBA.
We obviously disagree about Butler being able to stay healthy at 3. Since we are both speculating and giving our opinion I think it is best to agree to disagree.
Even if you think he can be healthy their why would you do. Bulter has a SGs body not a SFs. If he moves to the 3 he will be undersized almost every night.
Moreover the SF position is arguably the deepest in in basketball and the SG is one of the weakest and without a doubt the weakest perimeter position. At best what I butler going to be at the 3? Top 1-15? At the 2 he could easily crack top 7 maybe even get into the top 5.
Well that's the thing, if you do trade Deng, you want a SG in return...one that will be a significant upgrade. That or you're getting another SF back that's just as good and you leave Jimmy at SG. Point is, you don't make a trade that doesn't make sense. If we do trade Deng, we'd have to be getting a piece back that fills a need, otherwise, it's a dumb trade.Additionally if you move Deng out and don't get a significant upgrade at the 2 where are you going to get someone at the 2?
It makes little sense to me to move a good player out (Deng) to play another guy out of position (Butler) in hopes that you can find a really good player at one of the hardest positions to fill. Why not just leave the players where they naturally fit and and allow Butler to possibly grow into a ++ SG instead of an slightly above average SF.
Sounds like what Asik is now (except he's a starter), someone like Kyle Korver, and freaking Kobe Bryant or something. Realistically, we can get 2 of those guys and I think we all know which 2 those would be.Ben Gordon?
kidding...
A back-up Big who can defend and make the occasional post move, a 3pt specialist, a 2g that can create for himself and others. that's what we need.
I feel obligated to ask you now, what is your opinion of players like Tracy McGrady? Oft injured, made it to the playoffs a few times only to be bounced in the 1st round.Lastly Kevin Love is not a great player. I guess if you extend the definition of great far enough so that it has little meaning he is. He has missed 107 games in 5 seasons and even before this season he has shown some injury concerns. He has never been on a team that has won 40% of its games. He has never been to the playoffs. Great players win games.
I feel obligated to ask you now, what is your opinion of players like Tracy McGrady? Oft injured, made it to the playoffs a few times only to be bounced in the 1st round.
Or what about Paul Pierce before Kevin Garnett, Rondo, and Ray Allen arrived? Pierce was putting up numbers and losing too (granted not every season, but his first few years in the league were losing seasons). Did people ever say he wasn't a great player?
I never thought Tracy McGrady was a great player. Did you think Mitch Richmond was a great player?
The difference I would say between McGrady and a Kevin Love is McGrady had unreal athleticism.
Paul Pierce was the best player on teams that made it to the second round and ECFs. I would not call him a great player, but he was right below it. Some of those early 2000's teams were devoid of talent besides him and Walker and I personally think Walker was not nearly as good as Pierce.
As far as Love and his teams being bad. Chris Bosh made the playoffs--all be it in the East--with some horrible teams. Bosh was a consistent 22/10 man and he plays better defense. Would you call him a great player? I wouldn't.
People throw around terms like Great/superstar/star way to frequently for my liking. I am not going to split hairs with people on it. If you want to call Kevin Love go ahead.
His contract is actually worth less than Boozer's per year (though longer if I'm not mistaken) and if you find Boozer a decent enough fit for the cost, I have no idea why Love isn't. Especially considering you essentially labelled Love as a 3pt shooting Boozer.His liabilities would be exasperated in Chicago under Tibs and skills would not be fully used. Therefore, he is not a good fit for the cost.
Well I did say that their listed height wasn't really relevant. Furthermore, you're basically ignoring that combine scouting report that says that Butler has EXCELLENT SIZE FOR AN NBA SMALL FORWARD. He's basically 6'7"...this is not undersized. His weight isn't and wasn't an issue either, so I'm really failing to see why you're calling him undersized. He's perfectly fine. Not all SFs are Lebron James, but even so, Jimmy can guard Lebron for 48 minutes unless the refs give Lebron every call, so again, this whole "undersized" argument is basically wrong.
His contract is actually worth less than Boozer's per year (though longer if I'm not mistaken) and if you find Boozer a decent enough fit for the cost, I have no idea why Love isn't. Especially considering you essentially labelled Love as a 3pt shooting Boozer.
Well what is your definition of great then? Who in your mind is great? Is great synonymous with someone like Lebron James, Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, etc? Are only the best players of an era considered "great" in your mind? I'm just curious.
Ruy ***: height 6'7" Wing span 7'3" standing reach 8'11"
Nicolas Batun Wing span 7'1" standing reach 8'9"
Kawhi Leonard height 6'6" Wing span 7'3" standing reach 8'10"
Paul George height 6'8" Wing span 6'11" standing reach 8'11" (Will probably go back to SG once Granger comes back, if they don't move Granger)
Kevin Durant height 6'9" Wing span 7'5" standing reach 9'2"
Carmelo Anthony height 6'6" Wing span 7' standing reach 8'10"
Danny Granger height 6'8" Wing span 7'2" standing reach 8'7"
I am not going to go through every SF in the NBA. He is going to be on the small side for SF. Butler and his 6"8" wing span and 8'5" standing reach are just not very good.
Why put a player at a position of weakness when he can be a position of strength. Butler can Post most 2s. He is not going to post 3s. His outside shooting is going to be the same either way. Butler will be much better at rebounding from the SG position, comparatively.
I see no benefit from moving him to the SF. I have yet to see anyone give a real benefit either. Just a lot about he can do it or not.
Ok fine his arms are shorter than all the small forwards with freakishly long arms. You win. So was Jimmy more at a position of weakness against Lebron James and his 7' wingspan or against Dwyane Wade and his 6'11" wingspan? Note Wade is 4 inches shorter than Lebron, as I'm sure you know. Wade also has a higher standing reach than Butler. Well dang...Jimmy's screwed either way. He seems to be undersized at either spot.Ruy ***: height 6'7" Wing span 7'3" standing reach 8'11"
Nicolas Batun Wing span 7'1" standing reach 8'9"
Kawhi Leonard height 6'6" Wing span 7'3" standing reach 8'10"
Paul George height 6'8" Wing span 6'11" standing reach 8'11" (Will probably go back to SG once Granger comes back, if they don't move Granger)
Kevin Durant height 6'9" Wing span 7'5" standing reach 9'2"
Carmelo Anthony height 6'6" Wing span 7' standing reach 8'10"
Danny Granger height 6'8" Wing span 7'2" standing reach 8'7"
I am not going to go through every SF in the NBA. He is going to be on the small side for SF. Butler and his 6"8" wing span and 8'5" standing reach are just not very good.
Why put a player at a position of weakness when he can be a position of strength. Butler can Post most 2s. He is not going to post 3s. His outside shooting is going to be the same either way. Butler will be much better at rebounding from the SG position, comparatively.
I see no benefit from moving him to the SF. I have yet to see anyone give a real benefit either. Just a lot about he can do it or not.
I don't think we'd necessarily have to gut the team for Love. Would we have to give up pieces? Sure, but Boozer is probably one of them (probably why this scenario is highly unlikely from the start). Or if you trade Luol Deng and parts for Love you follow that up by moving Boozer for another wing to fill in that void.His contract is worth what you have to trade to get him. If the Timberwolves want Boozer for him then hell yes. The problem is they are going to want more than that. He is not a FA until 2016/17 and I don't think the Bulls should wait that long. I don't think gutting the team for Kevin Love makes sense.
There is a cost their. I still don't see how Kevin Love makes any sense.
Ok so relative to HOF level players then, are guys like Ewing, Pippen, Drexler, Wilkins, Worthy, etc not considered great in your eyes because they were always behind Jordan and whoever you thought the next best guy was? Say it was Hakeem or someone. Then ONLY those players get the superstar/great label because they are the best couple players in the league. Why so restrictive? What prevents CP3 or Kobe or Wade from being considered great? Were they great before Durant showed up and now cease to be great because Durant happens to be better? It seems far to restrictive to me. I'm not sure what exactly I'd call "great" but it would certainly have more than 2 players or even 4 players.Top couple players in the game. The Great players would be the players that I would call Superstars. I think Kevin Durant and Lebron James covers it. Before his injury I think Rose was knocking on that door. It is hard to say what he will be since we have not seen him over a year.
But why wouldn't Deng sign for anything else than a long term extension? Long term is 4 years now which would bring him to the beginnings of the tail end of his career. It'll most likely be the last "big" contract he gets. He'll want the years.Biased poll.
No option to vote for extension that is not long term. Both options to keep him are poor. "Let walk (and get nothing for him)", or "long term extension" (he's no spring chicken especially several years from now as has been pointed out)
Pointless thread & poll except to instigate arguments and devalue Deng.