mjb21aztd
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 16,107
- Reaction score
- 8,365
People were happy about the trade once it happend, and now that we are struggling a little people hate the trade funny....
Bobcats Own Lakers
- Thread starter Mainstreet
- Start date
arwillan
The King
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2006
- Posts
- 2,952
- Reaction score
- 0
I think most people are still happy with the trade.
Maybe if you like read the thread and follow the discussion, you'd find out. I wasn't the one that started the Diaw/Barnes comparison.
Correct, Barnes had the better deal. Of course no one is arguing that.
No one, jesus...
Chaplin
Better off silent
FAIL
YOU'VE made the comparison!
But that's enough, you think Diaw is a star, fine. He has the talent, no question, he just never showed it with us--and nobody really was willing at the time to give up Amare in the hopes that Diaw would return to his one-hit wonder form.
elindholm
edited for content
You just used per48 stats! The whole point of those is to take minutes out of the equation. Why else did you bring them up?
"Production we allowed him to give," ROFL. All you're doing is throwing out one silly idea after another to see whether anyone takes the bait.
So now you're basing your entire position on a debate of the precise meaning of "sucked." That's all you have.
This has ceased to be worthwhile to anyone.
Suns_fan69
Official ASFN Lurker
I agree it is a dirty play, but I don't necessarily think that Bynum is a dirty player. That's what I was trying to say.
Umm, to show you exactly why his stats don't reflect his salary.. If he was given Charlotte minutes, then his stats here would probably be similar to his Charlotte stats, and you wouldn't have anyone saying he's not worth his salary. At least I don't here any Bobcat fans complaining about his salary anymore. (Might have something to do with he and Bell turning their lottery bound team into a playoff caliber team overnight)
What are you talking about? Silly idea? Actually, it's more like common sense. If we had given him more minutes, and made the offense go more through him, his stats would have increased. The fact that you're trying to deny this is sad.
Since I've shown you that you were wrong in saying he performed poorly, yeah I guess, all I have to left is to explain why it's incredibly stupid to say a player who performs well sucks. (Note: Once again, someone who shoots 57% and puts up good numbers in limited minutes is someone who definitely isn't performing poorly)
Last edited:
Chaplin
Better off silent
Most scrubs put up good numbers in limited minutes in per48 statistics--doesn't make them stars. Per48 stats are meaningless and that's all you have on your side.
But the difference is we know for a fact that he puts up great numbers in extended minutes. (2006, last year's playoffs, Charlotte) Even if that wasn't true and he wasn't capable of being a star, it still doesn't mean that he performed poorly or was worthless as a role player, does it?
elindholm
edited for content
That's total nonsense. Use your cherished per48 stats: He is playing much better for Charlotte, not just more. That's because he's motivated, not because he's being "allowed" to show what he can do.
No, of course not. Give them a few months.
The fact that I'm trying to deny it suggests that I watch games, which you evidently don't. Diaw was given plenty of opportunities to make plays during his last 2 1/2 years on the Suns.
LOL, good one. What you've shown is that you're capable of repeating yourself over and over, ignoring all rebuttals to the evidence you try to trot out.
Lou Amundson has per48 stats of 15 points and 12 rebounds, on 55% shooting. Should we give him $9 million per year also? Or is the problem that the Suns aren't letting him show what he can do?
Last edited:
elindholm
edited for content
No, we know that he used to.
Last year's playoffs? You mean all five games of them? You don't think there are five, or ten, or fifty other games in which he got big minutes and laid an egg?
There you go again, playing semantics with words like "worthless." No, he wasn't worthless, just profoundly underperforming. Happy?
Bufalay
ASFN Lifer
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 4,679
- Reaction score
- 786
Obviously the argument that Diaw's disappointing performance resulted from a lack of minutes is foolish. However, there is an argument to be made that he wasn't put in positions to maximize his contributions. His performance in game 5 against the Spurs last year was a striking example of this. Unlike the majority of the regular season, he was given a primary role in the offense and delivered the results that we had been expecting from him all along. I can't recall him being used in this way during the preceding two years. Is it possible that his underachieving resulted from this misuse?
Diaw didn't exactly put himself in a position to maximize his talent either if the reports of him showing up out of shape and his work ethic leaving alot to be desired is true.
elindholm
edited for content
Yes. But, as the Suns are presently configured, he wasn't going to get those custom-tailored opportunities. In order to maintain his value to the team, Diaw had to be flexible, and he wasn't. There are a lot of players out there who can do well only under very specialized sets of circumstances -- borderline stars in one magical season, then mediocre role players the rest of their careers. The infamous Tim Thomas was the poster child for this group four or five years ago. Larry Hughes is looking like another prime example.
If someone has the potential to be a franchise player, you build an entire strategy around him. But a third-option player (or let's even be generous and call Diaw a potential second-option) who turns up his nose and looks away when the game plan doesn't meet his lofty standards isn't much use to anyone.
In any case, I'd much rather be trying to figure out how best to utilize Richardson than be doing the same with Diaw.
Chaplin
Better off silent
There was PLENTY of opportunities for Diaw to maximize his contributions. Remember, before Shaq he wasn't much better either. And he played a ton of minutes with the 2nd teamers back then and this year and he STILL didn't produce, when by all rights he should have.
Bufalay
ASFN Lifer
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 4,679
- Reaction score
- 786
You are saying that he couldn't thrive under the conditions in which he found himself because they weren't befitting his standards, but I would think that a more reasonable conclusion would be that he just wasn't capable of adapting.
Neither do i, it seemed like a desperate move to protect the paint even though he was already out of position. Dirty? I don't think so, Stupid? yup.
Sounds like a nasty injury. Hope Wallace recovers soon.
Last edited:
Anybody miss the Boris Diaw that drives the ball 3 feet from the basket and he passes, and passes? How many times have you yelled "Damn it Diaw! Shoot the ball!" Or the soft 'lay in' when he does shoot that gets blocked or he missed because he didn't slam it? He supposedly had a high vertical but was too lazy to use it.
I'm 100% happy we traded his lazy, unmotivated, slacker, 9 million per year, heartless, show pony trotting ass. Thank you Kerr.
I'm 100% happy we traded his lazy, unmotivated, slacker, 9 million per year, heartless, show pony trotting ass. Thank you Kerr.
nowagimp
Registered User
We dont miss diaw, we dont miss DA, we dont miss winning. ASFN fans dont mind losing as long as they lose turning the ball over like a D league team and playing half court basketball with a running roster, LOL.
First off, using the 48 stats, there's a whole 2 efficiency points separating them, so I wouldn't consider them to be that far apart. Naturally he's going to get a few more rebounds per possession without Shaq, get a few more assists now that he's in a system that passes the ball around and doesn't create 100 turnovers, and have a lot more shots now that he's not playing with shot happy guys such as Shaq, Amare, and Barbosa. Second, being allowed to show what he can do is probably the biggest reason why he's motivated. I love that "allowed" is in quotes. I mean, how can you be so oblivious here? What are you expecting out of a player given 24 minutes and a small role in the offense to give you but role player type stats? For some reason, you're expecting 9 million dollar production from a player told to be a role player. That doesn't make any damn sense.
No. Now, to turn it around, would you say that Lue is playing poorly or underperforming? The only person who would say that is someone who didn't have a clue what they were talking about. Even if he was getting $9 million, it wouldn't make those two statements true. The description you're looking for is "overpaid." and that's a different argument altogether. If you want to argue that, that's fine. But at least admit that you're changing the argument.
What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that if you admit that he was playing well and think he was simply being overpaid, then it opens up the discussion of if we could have used him better instead of trading him away for him to prosper elsewhere.
I wasn't aware there was a problem with Amundson.
Let's see. http://www.basketball-reference.com...&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts He did have a few stinkers here, but most are well above his season average of 8 points while still maintaining a high percentage. Based on this, I say that the per 48 stats are an accurate way to measure his stats.
I'm not arguing semantics, that's what you don't understand. I'm saying he performed about as well as could be expected. I find it disgusting that he's always getting no respect here despite the fact that he was playing pretty well for us this year. He was being more aggressive. He wasn't even doing the pass the ball out from close to the rim act much this year. Seriously, I'm not sure what else you guys wanted from him.
Amen to that. Making our team worse and making others teams better is fine as long as we get rid of players who may have disappointed us at one time or another years ago.
I've never seen a group of people that loved losing as much as ASFN posters.
This is a bit ridiculous. This team has gotten progressively worse 2 seasons in a row. That's a huge leap of faith to assume if we had D'Antoni that the slide would not have continued 3 years in a row.
This team was struggling with Diaw....there is no evidence to suggest this team would be better off with Diaw considering he would not have started here. Also, lets not make like Diaw is a star either. Even if we has traded Amare and kept Diaw...it's not like that would have solved all this teams problems.
nowagimp
Registered User
Trading amare to keep diaw would have solved the weak defense on the front line whil shaq was in the game at least. No it doesnt solve all the problems, but any ostrich can see the suns at the end of last year(with a healthy hill) were beating at least half of the playoff teams. this year they cant even beat the wannabees consistently. The players are not playing together, whatever the reason. Good coaches know how to make that situation better, not worse. Connect the rest of the dots yourself, but spare me the anomalous slide reasoning. We all know about slides when you jettison rotation players from a team with little depth.
Also lets not look at the slide as some kind of anomaly. When the suns dumped KT and JR, that was a huge slide in personnel/depth, and defense. That led to m arion for shaq and needing hill to be a 32 min starter in order to get wins.
Last edited:
So playing .500 ball against the NBA elite is good? This team was getting progressively worse 2 years running against the elite. If D'Antoni was still here the slide would have continued IMO.
nowagimp
Registered User
WIth shaq the suns beat the celtics and spurs last year. WIth porter/kerr pretty much following what you and mojo wanted they cant beat the bobcats or knicks at home. Either blow it up or try to adjust. they tried to adjust and FAILED miserably. Blow it up means unloading shaq, amare, nash, all the big contracts. Was this your position at the start of the season? I dont think so.
Also if you dont think being competitive is better at drawing FA's than being a scary dysfunctional team, I dont know what to tell you. The suns would have been much more competitive and at least had a chance to lure FA's when they had the cap space. Good NBA players consider 55 wins a winning organization, perhaps by signing they could put the team over the top(they believe). This is how to attract the better FA's, not by proving that you cant make use of your talent pool( nightmare among NBA players is to not get the right situation). You have to ask how many NBA players believe that the suns problems are player related? LOL there!
Last edited:
