Keith Van Horn

[Cheesebeef]

Player #1:
29 years old, 6-10, 15,800 minutes, 603 games, 11.9 ppg (best year 14.7 in 03-04), 4.0 rpg (best year 4.9), .4 bpg, .8 stpg, 44% fg, 37.1 3p%, 76.3 ft%, 1.4 apg.

Player #2:
30 years old, 6-10, 18,150 minutes, 575, 16.0 ppg (best year 21.8 in 98-99, but put up 16.1 in 03-04), 6.8 rpg (best year 8.5), .5 bpg, .8 stpg. 44.3% fg, 36.1% 3p, 83.5 ft%, 1.6 apg.


So, which player would you prefer, assuming both are healthy? Is it a toss-up?

Player 1=Tim Thomas
Player 2=Keith Van Horn

I am not making a case to sign KVH. I am pointing out that we tend to overvalue TT and undervalue KVH. They are virtually identical players in most categories, with KVH being the significantly better rebounder.

I think some actually undervalue KVH because he is white and kind of geeky looking.

I think some people undervalue KVH because he's turned into a complete stiff the last two years and EVERYONE here LOVED seeing him on the court against us because he was such a detriment to Dallas both on offense and defense when put in the game. I think people also devalue him because he can't stay healthy anymore either. I also think people devalue him because he curls up in a ball in post-season and has throughout his career - you put up his career avergaes in the regular season, but negletced to do so in the playoffs where his stats HAVE PLUMMETED - 9.5 ppg in the playoffs versus 16 in the regular season - that's beyond pathetic.

TT is still playing at the level he always has - which is putting up around 11-12 points per game in the regular season, then elevating his play in the post-season, which he's done throughout his career. KVH is a shell of the guy who used to average 20 points per game and 8 boards and now is a complete liability on the court.

There's no comparison between the two and comparing career stats in this case where KVH has basically fallen off the face of the earth is a specious argument at best.

 

[SunsTzu]

Yeah I'd much rather have TT now, but I think KVH struggles in recent years were due to being on teams that he didn't really fit very well with. I'd much rather have KVH than Devan George.

 

[boisesuns]

Yeah I'd much rather have TT now, but I think KVH struggles in recent years were due to being on teams that he didn't really fit very well with. I'd much rather have KVH than Devan George.

I agree, I think KVH would fit in with the with the suns, but I wonder if he would make the rotation much.

 

[George O'Brien]

Yeah I'd much rather have TT now, but I think KVH struggles in recent years were due to being on teams that he didn't really fit very well with. I'd much rather have KVH than Devan George.

That's a tough one, since I'm not a fan of either.

The most obvious difference between KVH and TT is that athleticism. KVH doesn't have any. With TT, the problem is that he has vastly more talent, but only shows it some of the time. It is hard to justify locking in on a guy simply because he has a good playoff series.

I point to Croshere as a case in point.

 

[Cheesebeef]

That's a tough one, since I'm not a fan of either.

The most obvious difference between KVH and TT is that athleticism. KVH doesn't have any. With TT, the problem is that he has vastly more talent, but only shows it some of the time. It is hard to justify locking in on a guy simply because he has a good playoff series.

I point to Croshere as a case in point.

it's hard to justify locking in on a guy simply because he has A good playoff series? This is a joke, right George? The guy had THREE good playoff series for the Suns and has had good playoff series EVERY OTHER TIME HE'S BEEN IN THE PLAYOFFS.

You point to Croshere as a case in point of WHAT? It can't be in comparison to TT because Croshere had one year where he played well in the playoffs, versus TT who has elevated his game EVERY TIME he's been in the playoffs. So, why bring up Croshere again?

 

[arthurracoon]

it's hard to justify locking in on a guy simply because he has A good playoff series? This is a joke, right George? The guy had THREE good playoff series for the Suns and has had good playoff series EVERY OTHER TIME HE'S BEEN IN THE PLAYOFFS.

You point to Croshere as a case in point of WHAT? It can't be in comparison to TT because Croshere had one year where he played well in the playoffs, versus TT who has elevated his game EVERY TIME he's been in the playoffs. So, why bring up Croshere again?

 

[George O'Brien]

it's hard to justify locking in on a guy simply because he has A good playoff series? This is a joke, right George? The guy had THREE good playoff series for the Suns and has had good playoff series EVERY OTHER TIME HE'S BEEN IN THE PLAYOFFS.

You point to Croshere as a case in point of WHAT? It can't be in comparison to TT because Croshere had one year where he played well in the playoffs, versus TT who has elevated his game EVERY TIME he's been in the playoffs. So, why bring up Croshere again?

It has been a few years since TT was in the playoffs, so this "every year" thing is a bit overblown. Don't get me wrong, I was all for signing TT, it's just that I was opposed to a big contract because of his history of under achieving during the regular season.

If TT had proven to be a top low post defender and rebounder, then I'd say "go for it." As it is, I suspect that he may be another product of the D'Antoni system. We'll see if Sean Marks turns out to be another.

 

[Folster]

If TT had proven to be a top low post defender and rebounder, then I'd say "go for it." As it is, I suspect that he may be another product of the D'Antoni system. We'll see if Sean Marks turns out to be another.

If a player can't play there is nothing that D'Antoni's system can do for them. TT was a good player before he came here. Marks has been a scrub everywhere he has been.

 

[George O'Brien]

If a player can't play there is nothing that D'Antoni's system can do for them. TT was a good player before he came here. Marks has been a scrub everywhere he has been.

From the reviews I've read, Marks is another outside shooting big man who's not a particularly good defender or rebounder. On the Heat and Spurs, that meant zero minutes. On the Suns, that means filling in for TT who played a similar role.

No one is suggesting Marks is as good at TT. Between a deal that averages $6 million and one that costs less than $1, I'd be surprised if he was as good. However, in the age of luxury tax, is TT worth six times as much as Marks? Could be, but we won't know until Marks gets a chance to play in the D'Antoni system.

 

[Errntknght]

A guy who falls off significantly in the play-offs is detrimental to your team because what you think you've learned about your team during the regular season is wrong. A small drop off is not a big deal because you are going only against the better teams so overall teams experience a slight decline in stats.

I'd rather have a guy who is just good in practice because your players get the benefit of practicing against him - not the other players around the league.

 

[Cheesebeef]

It has been a few years since TT was in the playoffs, so this "every year" thing is a bit overblown. Don't get me wrong, I was all for signing TT, it's just that I was opposed to a big contract because of his history of under achieving during the regular season.

George - did you notice that i put in ALL BOLD - EVERY TIME HE'S BEEN IN THE PLAYOFFS - there's a distinction between "every year" as you put it and EVERY TIME - the fact that in the past he put up better numbers and then once back in the playoffs HE DID AGAIN shows a LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY in the playoffs. So, how is overblowing anything when a guy who EVERY TIME HE'S GOTTEN THE OPPORTUNITY in the playoffs CONTINUALLY raises his game - how exactly is that overblown?

And as far as a "big" contract - give me a freaking break - we're not talking about a 7-10 million dollar player - we're talking about 5 milliion per year -which was the LEAGUE AVERAGE is - but if the league average is somehow a "big contract" in your world, well, then there's no reason in discussing this point with you as you continue to blow things out of proportion.

If TT had proven to be a top low post defender and rebounder, then I'd say "go for it." As it is, I suspect that he may be another product of the D'Antoni system. We'll see if Sean Marks turns out to be another.

This is just ridiculous as well. A product of DA's system? How was he really just a benficiary of DA's system when he didn't even hit his career average in the regular season and then AS USUAL, he raised his game in the playoffs just like evvery time before. If he was truly a product of DA's system, wouldn't that mean that his numbers prior to this would be down across the board? That ain't the case.

And then you basically see if Sean Marks could be compared to him? Good lord. I mean if TT was a product of DA's system as you believe, I guess that means we should be xpecting 12 ppg from Marks and 15 in the playoffs, or at least similar shooting percentages/clutch play.

Yeah, that might happen... just like you believing that Sato was all but a lock for this team. Sheesh.

 

[Errntknght]

George, >>From the reviews I've read, Marks is another outside shooting big man who's not a particularly good defender or rebounder. On the Heat and Spurs, that meant zero minutes. On the Suns, that means filling in for TT who played a similar role.

No one is suggesting Marks is as good at TT. Between a deal that averages $6 million and one that costs less than $1, I'd be surprised if he was as good. However, in the age of luxury tax, is TT worth six times as much as Marks? Could be, but we won't know until Marks gets a chance to play in the D'Antoni system.<<

How about some 'logical consistency' George! The question of whether TT is 6X as valuable as Marks depends entirely on how healthy our other frontcourt players are, particularly during the playoffs. TT provides excellent insurance against a playoff injury to KT, Amare, Diaw or Marion and Marks doesn't do that at all, as far as we know. Thus is Marks is not filling TT's role - more akin to Grant's role.

Someone else made this comparison in roles in another thread, and I think it may well have been you...

 

[Cheesebeef]

From the reviews I've read, Marks is another outside shooting big man who's not a particularly good defender or rebounder. On the Heat and Spurs, that meant zero minutes. On the Suns, that means filling in for TT who played a similar role.

No one is suggesting Marks is as good at TT. Between a deal that averages $6 million and one that costs less than $1, I'd be surprised if he was as good. However, in the age of luxury tax, is TT worth six times as much as Marks? Could be, but we won't know until Marks gets a chance to play in the D'Antoni system.

again, with the exaggerations - TT came back to us with 4/21- that 5 million per year and at this point in his and Marks career (which has been NOTHING) than hell yes, TT is at least 5x the player that Marks is and to believe otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I also think people devalue him because he curls up in a ball in post-season and has throughout his career - you put up his career avergaes in the regular season, but negletced to do so in the playoffs where his stats HAVE PLUMMETED - 9.5 ppg in the playoffs versus 16 in the regular season - that's beyond pathetic.

TT is still playing at the level he always has - which is putting up around 11-12 points per game in the regular season, then elevating his play in the post-season, which he's done throughout his career. KVH is a shell of the guy who used to average 20 points per game and 8 boards and now is a complete liability on the court.

There's no comparison between the two and comparing career stats in this case where KVH has basically fallen off the face of the earth is a specious argument at best.

A CAREER 4.0 rebound average for a 6-10 player is also beyond pathetic. As defenders--they're both butter.

KVH lacks athleticism, and TT shows a historic lack of effort.

Van Horn has fallen off sharply playing behind Dirk. His points per minute have always been .47 to .50 or so.

Yes, he's fallen off in the playoffs, and TT tend's to disapper once that next big payday is guaranteed.

My point. KVH is NOT a Burke or Marks. He is a much better player than either. And TT is overrated, by many on this board.

TT is >> than KVH, but the difference is not near as great as some would make it out to be.

 

[SirStefan32]

This is just crazy! KVH should not even be used in the same sentence as TT. KVH could never do anything but shoot the ball. Tim Thomas has always been a good player. He was just unfortunate to end up in New York and then in Chicago, where he just didn't fit in because of the rebuilding mode they were in.

Tim Thomas is five times the player Burke, Marks, Van Horn and Banks all are combined. No question about it.

 

[Joe Mama]

This is just crazy! KVH should not even be used in the same sentence as TT. KVH could never do anything but shoot the ball. Tim Thomas has always been a good player. He was just unfortunate to end up in New York and then in Chicago, where he just didn't fit in because of the rebuilding mode they were in.

Tim Thomas is five times the player Burke, Marks, Van Horn and Banks all are combined. No question about it.

talk about getting carried away. I agree with you regarding the comparison of Tim Thomas to Keith Van Horn, but the last statement is way over the top.

I would take KVH on a one-year deal for next to nothing. That's about all I would give him.

Joe

 

[Errntknght]

SirStephan, "Tim Thomas is five times the player Burke, Marks, Van Horn and Banks all are combined. No question about it.

Horsefeathers! If I started a team with Burke, Marks and KVH at 1 mil each and Banks at 4 mil versus your team with TT at 35 mil per annum, my team may or may not wind up being good depending on how well I used the rest of my salary cap but yours would be a laughingstock.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yes, he's fallen off in the playoffs, and TT tend's to disapper once that next big payday is guaranteed.

you do realize this is a complete falsehood, right? Look at his numbers before and after the contract - his numbers WENT UP in the regular season AND in the playoffs. It didn't make the contract any more bearable (and everyone at the time thought it was insane to sing him to a MAX deal), but the above is flat out wrong and the numbers bear that out.

 

[JCSunsfan]

This is just crazy! KVH should not even be used in the same sentence as TT. KVH could never do anything but shoot the ball. Tim Thomas has always been a good player. He was just unfortunate to end up in New York and then in Chicago, where he just didn't fit in because of the rebuilding mode they were in.

Tim Thomas is five times the player Burke, Marks, Van Horn and Banks all are combined. No question about it.

What has TT done but shoot? He certainly didn't rebound and he's a poor defender. At least KVH grabbed a few boards.

Tim Thomas, at his best, was not as good as KVH at his best, period.

If you want to make the argument that TT is a better player--even a much better-player now, I'll grant you that.

Oh, and Cheese. I stand corrected on the contract deal.

This has gotten to be quite a fun little debate.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Tim Thomas, at his best, was not as good as KVH at his best, period.

If you want to make the argument that TT is a better player--even a much better-player now, I'll grant you that.

Oh, and Cheese. I stand corrected on the contract deal.

This has gotten to be quite a fun little debate.

without a doubt, in their prime KVH and TT were comparable, but I'd agree with you and give KVH a slight edge, even though that would be a hard argument to make - one guy plays at a borderline all-star level during the rgeular season and has shrinkage during the playoffs, whereas the other guys plays inconsistently, making you furious, then steps his game up in the playoffs - to be honest, at either one of their MAX deals, they were detriments to any team because of their financial implications of the squad.

As far as as now - it's pretty apparent who's better and it really doesn't matter as neither of them is going to play here this year.

And as far as the contract, it's a real common thing for people to just latch on to what they hear, when in reality TT is and has alwaqys been what we saw this season - a guy who SHOULD be dominant and isn't. The guy has all the tools but there's definitely something not right about him - that's why his MAX deal was such a horrid deal. A guy like that should only be getting 5 mill per year - I just wish there would have been a way to secure him and get a decent PG, even if it was someone of a lesser caliber of Banks. But that's a dream world scenario.

 

[George O'Brien]

When discussing the TT decision, I get the feeling that people are missing some the issues related to the luxury tax as it relates to length of contract. When comparing the two deals, the big problem is year four.

2005-06 3.64
2006-07 4.00
2007-08 4.37
----------------
12.01

2005-06 4.58
2006-07 5.04
2007-08 5.50
2008-09 5.95
---------------
21.07

Best guess is that the Suns will be over the lux tax line as early as 2006-07. This means the 2008-09 year would cost the Suns $12 million.

 

[Cheesebeef]

When discussing the TT decision, I get the feeling that people are missing some the issues related to the luxury tax as it relates to length of contract. When comparing the two deals, the big problem is year four.

2005-06 3.64
2006-07 4.00
2007-08 4.37
----------------
12.01

2005-06 4.58
2006-07 5.04
2007-08 5.50
2008-09 5.95
---------------
21.07

Best guess is that the Suns will be over the lux tax line as early as 2006-07. This means the 2008-09 year would cost the Suns $12 million.

okay - using that ridiculously flawed logic, I guess that means that the 2008-9 contract oif Marcus Banks also means we're he would cost the Suns 12 million. Looks like they WAYYYYYYY overpaid for a back-up PG there. Or does Banks not count or is he somehow gonna be worth 12 million dollars?

Good grief, the tax is from AN ACCUMAULTION of contracts, and to put one players contract out there like that is such ridiculously specious argumentative crap that has no basis in reality, besides the fact that by 2008-9 the roster's going to look DRASTICALLY different.

 

[George O'Brien]

First, Banks deal is for five years and not four; but also finding a serious backup for Nash was a huge deal for the Suns. But yes, it is necessary to evaluate a player based on what he costs, but also his role in the rotation.

What would TT's role in the rotation have been? I got a lot of flack when suggesting that Boris might play PG, but if he didn't it would mean four guys with big contract fighting over 96 inside minutes.

There was a long debate on this board over TT versus KT. Unfortunately, this was not an even competition because the Suns are going to pay KT for two more years even if his value as a defender/rebounder is not decisive. The problem with TT is that he's not a good enough defender/rebounder to steal all of KT's minutes and promised to be too expensive for the remainder.

One "missing element" of the Suns offer was that it would keep TT's contract low enough that they could trade him if needed. With the lux tax being what it is, that was no small consideration.

 

[Cheesebeef]

First, Banks deal is for five years and not four; but also finding a serious backup for Nash was a huge deal for the Suns. But yes, it is necessary to evaluate a player based on what he costs, but also his role in the rotation.

What would TT's role in the rotation have been? I got a lot of flack when suggesting that Boris might play PG, but if he didn't it would mean four guys with big contract fighting over 96 inside minutes.

There was a long debate on this board over TT versus KT. Unfortunately, this was not an even competition because the Suns are going to pay KT for two more years even if his value as a defender/rebounder is not decisive. The problem with TT is that he's not a good enough defender/rebounder to steal all of KT's minutes and promised to be too expensive for the remainder.

One "missing element" of the Suns offer was that it would keep TT's contract low enough that they could trade him if needed. With the lux tax being what it is, that was no small consideration.

so the whole "TT would have been 12 million dollar" thing was really a specious argument that had nothing to do with what you were talking about? Didn't see you address that in the post above. I wonder why?

 

[George O'Brien]

so the whole "TT would have been 12 million dollar" thing was really a specious argument that had nothing to do with what you were talking about? Didn't see you address that in the post above. I wonder why?

Why should I? Do you address any issues that don't comform to your preceptions? Not that I've noticed.

It's all bait and switch on this discussion. You want to prove to me that TT would be a nice addition, I've said that repeatedly. You want me to believe he was worth the price to the Suns, then no you haven't said anything worth the bother. Attacking me isn't going to change your lack of content, just get you put on "ignore".