Comments on: Greg Monroe carries Pistons in overtime loss to Clippers

By: tarsier

tarsier — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:12:03 +0000

You’re right again. i forgot about that. Granted, if the salary of a pick was not wanted, it would have been easy to flip for cash or a future pick or something. But yeah, I hadn’t though of that.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:47:15 +0000

Butler didn't have salary commitments, but the pick did. Even if it was minimal, a first round pick is still guaranteed future salary. Prince at the time had no future salary beyond last season.

None of that is meant as a Dumars defense, either. I have no impassioned plea to either keep or get rid of him.

By: tarsier

tarsier — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:22:18 +0000

Butler didn’t have any more future salary commitment than Prince. But you’re right on the Wilkins circumstances. I forgot about that.

While the Kings may not have been interested in Daye, I am guessing somebody would have given up a second rounder for him. And one has to think the Kings would be interested in a second rounder for Hickson. Heck, I would have been happy just to see Dumars give up their late second rounder for JJ even if Daye was completely uninvolved. I understand the rationale for keeping Dumars, I just have yet to see that he even has the right vision for the team (regardless of whether he has the competency to pull it off, which I am actually guessing he does). But Langlois says he makes statements like “we won’t mortgage the future for the present but that doesn’t mean we will sacrifice the present for the future either.” I believe in completely committing to either the future or the present, not half-assing it like Joe appears to.

By: frankie d

frankie d — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 03:07:15 +0000

here is the link to the stat about percentage of shots assisted.
it was ridiculous. only 32% of his at-rim shots were assisted, while the next closest player was at 48%. cousins had, by far, the lowest percentage of any player in the league.
what that obviously means is that the guards are not passing the ball to the big guys. and you put a guy like hickson in that mix, with his limited ball skills, and its going to be tough for him to get his offense other than by freelancing and probably going one-on-one, which really isn’t his game.
they’ve got the same guards this year, and they’ve added a couple more shoot-first combo guards, jimmer and isaiah thomas, which obviously doesn’t help his game.
this just might be the classic case of a player landing in a horrible spot for his skills.

By: rick77

rick77 — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:51:33 +0000

Now you have said something I can agree with Frankie and my comment was about earlier comments made. Not your recent comment with Patrick as I happen to agree with your point.

By: rick77

rick77 — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:48:03 +0000

See those are the type of arguments that I am talking about when I get upset because they never divulge what the reasoning is but go off on a tangent. Again I respect everyones opinion but that does not mean I have to agree. You on the other hand take the time to explain your point and give reasons how you came to your conclusion. You can even say thats dumb but to call someone dumb because they dont agree with you is childish.

Moving on I hear on BSKBALL.com that Hickson is looking at the Warriors. I dont understand why the Warriors would do this. i mean they signed Kwame to a big deal and they have Bierdrins plus Bogut, who is hurt. I dont know why his agent wouldnt steer him our way. Its not inconceiveable to think that he could here start because I think he could. I mean they had Udoh and traded him for an injured player. Oh well I guess we can never get lucky. Im sure Joe D cast his lot, but sometimes guys play where they think they can get a better chance when it comes to these buyouts.

By: frankie d

frankie d — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:43:38 +0000

didn’t realize if they’d kept that spot open.
great!
and while he’ll have his choice of suitors, the pistons can make a good argument to him.
there is a huge hole in the team at the very position he plays.
in fact, his skills line up well with monroe’s. while he has a decent shot, i recall him back in his college days and he was very, very active around the basket. apparently one of the things that has happened is that he’s fallen in love with his jumper. playing with a good passing big man like monroe would allow him to move in closer and not focus as much on his jumper.
he’s coming up on a contract year, and it would definitely be in his best interests to go someplace where he’ll get minutes and play within a system that works for him.
he’s been playing the center spot, apparently, and he’s a natural power forward. he’d be able to play his natural position with the pistons. while he is not the exact fit for the team, he still works well, imho.
sacramento is a bad system for a guy like hickson. he’s not as skilled as either thompson or cousins, and the sacramento guards are not pass-first types. in fact, they really don’t have a “true” point guard at all. they really have a bunch of combo guards – probably even more shot-happy than detroit’s – and a player like hickson, who cant create his shot and is dependent on guards getting him the ball, may get into very bad habits. which is apparently what happened.
(read a stat somewhere that last year cousins had one of the league’s lowest percentages of baskets that resulted from a teammate’s pass.)
it was obviously a very, very bad fit for hickson, and detroit’s team is probably a much better environment for a guy like hickson.
essentially, he can play like a bigger, quicker jason maxiell with more offensive skills. he’d be an upgrade over maxiell.
i hope joe goes after him aggressively. hickson has shown that he can offer a team certain things – good offensive production, aggression offensively, rebounding – and its worth a shot to see if he can fit in better with a different group of players.
frankly, i’m surprised that sactown traded for him, considering the team they already had. just looking at their guards from last year – thornton, evans – it doesn’t appear to be a team well-suited to a player like hickson.
but, maybe their loss can be detroit’s gain.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:35:30 +0000

@Lorenzo:

Just because I love a good HOF debate.

Paul - in, no question. Best PG in the league for going on 5-6 seasons now, carried a really poor Hornets team (I believe the second and third best guards on that team were Jannero Pargo and Mo Peterson) to the second round and a near-upset of the Spurs, plus all the accolades others have mentioned. Plus, no signs of his game slowing down in the next couple seasons. He's in.

Hill - In. Injuries have made his pro career fall short of what it could have been, but he was one of the best non-MJ players of the 90s and don't forget, college career counts to, so what he did at Duke plus his late years Renaissance will get him in pretty easily I think.

Yao - In. Again, injuries cost him what would've been an iconic career, but as an international player, there is no question that the most successful NBA player ever to come from Asia gets in.

Penny - Out. One of the most tragic career arcs ever, but Penny just didn't have a long enough peak.

Tim Hardaway - Out. Good player, but a notch below the elite PGs of his era -- Payton, Stockton, Kidd. Had he not had the knee injuries, he could've been better than those guys, but I don't think his peak was good enough.

Billups - In, but I'm biased here.

Richmond - Out, although I think Mitch is a good candidate for the veterans committee to get in someday simply because he spent so much of his career on unimaginably dreadful Sacramento teams.

McGrady - In. Toughest call because his peak was so short, but at his peak, he was arguably the best in the game.

Incidentally, Paul is better than any guy on that list.

By: Lorenzo

Lorenzo — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:19:53 +0000

@tarsier…..lol, @ the “untrue”…. easy there buddy this isn’t a true or false examination where things work in such absolutes. I grant you that Paul is one of the top players in the game at the moment and is building up an excellent resume; none the less the issue is very much up for discussion. There are a number of current and former players who have accrued comparable numbers and accolades whose HOF credentials must very likely still be discussed….Hill, McGrady, Penny, Richmond, Hardaway, Yao, Billups…etc. etc. Do any or all deserve to be in there? It’s as interesting a discussion as any. Bottom line, let Paul play out his career before you call him a lock, barring him winning multiple titles or an MVP (both very possible) in the next few years, it’s still a discussion.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:16:14 +0000

@IP:

Listing the guys over the last decade or so who have made it as second round picks doesn't mean that Macklin necessarily should be playing and getting minutes at the NBA level right now. Sure, maybe he turns into a player. But even though a handful of players have emerged from the second round and been good players over the years, the odds of that happening are really long -- the list of guys who never sniffed minutes or even made a roster is much longer. Again, that's not to say Macklin won't make it, but I can't think of any team that just gifts second rounders, especially guys like Macklin who has limited upside anyway because he's already 25, minutes. Even on most bad teams, second rounders don't play off the bat unless they kick the door in by out-playing everyone (like Isaiah Thomas with the Kings this year) when they get their few opportunities or they get to play because of injuries/roster defections (like what happened in Cleveland last year when Lebron/Ilgauskas/West left and three other regulars missed significant time with injuries).