Author Topic: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09  (Read 7994 times)

jemagee

  • Guest
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2009, 12:05:11 PM »
Marbury isn't the answer to any teams questions unless it's 'how can we make our team more like a circus and more of a mess'?

I liked ramon sessions personally (i really liked jose calderon two years ago but then i realized even undrafted he was a restricted free agent) but the sixers are more worried about the luxury tax than building the best roster - so a free agency wasn't going to be much this off season.

The sixers drafted a real point guard - but the coach seems more interested in winning meaningless games then getting the kid some minutes so he can learn to play NBA point guard...


Offline Joe Vancil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
    • ICQ Messenger - 236778608
    • MSN Messenger - joev5638@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GenghisThePBear
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - joev5638
    • View Profile
    • http://www.joev.com
    • Email
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2009, 02:13:01 PM »
Don't get me wrong;  I'm not saying Tinsley or Marbury are GOOD solutions, but they're better solutions than you've got.

As for Sessions - why go after him?  It's another "hope he develops" kind of guy.  You want someone who is already there, especially if you believe your rookie is the "hope he develops" guy.

And I agree;  Jordan should have played Holliday UNLESS he was so hopelessly over-matched that it would be damaging to the kid's long-term potential.  And in that case, you needed to sign someone to mentor him.
Joe

-----------
Support your right to keep and arm bears!
Club (baby) seals, not sandwiches!

jemagee

  • Guest
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2009, 02:14:15 PM »
I like point guards who can pass :)  Sessions is an excellent passing point guard - my 'love' for claderon was based on his assist numbers when he was a FA - I think Sessions is already 'there' he just suffered from an idiot coach last year who didn't give him the minutes.

Tinsley I thought the sixers should look into - but not Marbury - he doesn't help the long term development of this team.


Offline rickortreat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2056
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2009, 03:23:56 PM »
Neither Tinsley nor Marbury appeal to me at all.  Marbury thinks he is a good player, and I think his ego gets in the way of anything he is capable of. I was never impressed with Tinsley either.

Felton makes good sense, and if the Sixers can work out a way to get him, they probably should.

But Iguodala can run the team even if Williams can't, and that isn't proven yet.  It's at the back-up point spot that I'm worried.  If Jrue can't do it, and I agree he has to get PT unless he would just be embarrassed, we have to find someone.  Green is not good enough, and Ivey is even worse. Out of all the things the Sixers did, resigning Ivey was very questionable.  Kapono in spite of being slow is a better choice.

If Jason Smith can't play, then we're short a big player or even two Brezec=uugh.  Green is fine as a back-up off guard, but only if he can be paired with a solid point. I hope Stefanski is looking or waiting to see if anyone drops off a roster or some team with too many is willing to part with one.

Because of the way Ivey and Green played, this business with Jrue doesn't pass the smell test. If he was good enough to be a first round pick, and someone who was supposed to have actually gone higher he should be getting more of a look in preseason.

Offline Joe Vancil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
    • ICQ Messenger - 236778608
    • MSN Messenger - joev5638@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GenghisThePBear
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - joev5638
    • View Profile
    • http://www.joev.com
    • Email
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2009, 03:33:11 PM »
Felton is off the table already, because he accepted a 1-year offer from Charlotte, allowing him to become an unrestricted free agent next year.

What that means is that he'd have been willing to sign a more lucrative 1-year contract with Philadelphia.  If it's a 1-year deal, why would you not take the most money if you're playing for a notoriously cheap team in the first place?

I look at Felton as a missed opportunity for everyone out there who needed a starter-quality point guard - because no matter how you slice it, HE SIGNED A ONE-YEAR DEAL.
Joe

-----------
Support your right to keep and arm bears!
Club (baby) seals, not sandwiches!

jemagee

  • Guest
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2009, 03:57:14 PM »
Yes he signed a one year deal Joe, but in the NBA, if anyone else offered him a one year deal, Charlotte most likely matches anyway...Charlotte was going to match any offer he got and most teams knew it - very few teams had cap room to make him an offer that charlotte wouldn't match (and he's not worth that much to most teams either)

The sixers weren't going to offer anyone more than about 5 mil for 1 year - the luxury tax is their master...not paying it is the most important thing in their organization - it trumps building a winning roster right now as far as i'm concerned.

If Raymond Felton was playing for one year he was playing in Charlotte.

Bunch of RFA's are playing on the one year qualifier...Sessions switched teams only because it was pretty certain that milwaukee wouldn't match...no one wanted to play chicken this year like teams have in the past.

Offline Derek Bodner

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3040
    • AOL Instant Messenger - dbodner22
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - dabodz
    • View Profile
    • http://www.phillyarena.com
    • Email
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2009, 04:22:25 PM »
Off the top of my head, if you accept a qualifying offer, you can't be traded.  Or do you have the right to refuse a trade?  I'd have to check.

jemagee

  • Guest
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2009, 04:26:49 PM »
Off the top of my head, if you accept a qualifying offer, you can't be traded.  Or do you have the right to refuse a trade?  I'd have to check.
Off the top of my hed - I believe you CAN be traded but don't you lose bird rights if you accept the trade?

Offline Derek Bodner

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3040
    • AOL Instant Messenger - dbodner22
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - dabodz
    • View Profile
    • http://www.phillyarena.com
    • Email
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2009, 04:38:10 PM »
Quote
In addition, if the player is playing under a one-year contract and will have Larry Bird or Early Bird rights at the end of the contract, he can't be traded without his consent.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q80

Offline Joe Vancil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
    • ICQ Messenger - 236778608
    • MSN Messenger - joev5638@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GenghisThePBear
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - joev5638
    • View Profile
    • http://www.joev.com
    • Email
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2009, 04:40:43 PM »
Yes he signed a one year deal Joe, but in the NBA, if anyone else offered him a one year deal, Charlotte most likely matches anyway...Charlotte was going to match any offer he got and most teams knew it - very few teams had cap room to make him an offer that charlotte wouldn't match (and he's not worth that much to most teams either)

The sixers weren't going to offer anyone more than about 5 mil for 1 year - the luxury tax is their master...not paying it is the most important thing in their organization - it trumps building a winning roster right now as far as i'm concerned.

If Raymond Felton was playing for one year he was playing in Charlotte.

Bunch of RFA's are playing on the one year qualifier...Sessions switched teams only because it was pretty certain that milwaukee wouldn't match...no one wanted to play chicken this year like teams have in the past.


Charlotte is notoriously cheap, though.  By accepting a one year offer, you're right, Charlotte COULD have matched, but that doesn't mean they WOULD have matched.  Keep in mind - we're talking a franchise where the owner wants out.  In such a case, he doesn't match.

If Charlotte wants to serve as a minor league franchise for their best folks to go elsewhere, I say, fine - rob the team.  Or heck, at least TRY to rob the team.
Joe

-----------
Support your right to keep and arm bears!
Club (baby) seals, not sandwiches!

jemagee

  • Guest
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2009, 04:44:32 PM »
Most teams aren't cheap on one year deals.

And notoriously cheap or not - they paid big money to wallace and okafor to keep players they thought were good...who is it they let go that went on to flourish somewhere else?

Offline rickortreat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2056
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2009, 05:07:46 PM »
Most teams aren't cheap on one year deals.

And notoriously cheap or not - they paid big money to wallace and okafor to keep players they thought were good...who is it they let go that went on to flourish somewhere else?

Larry Brown goes through players like toilet paper. There are ex-Sixers all over the league, although I have to admit none of them turned out to be great losses. Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Speedy Claxton all NBA players but none of them Championship level talent.  Because of their situation Charlotte seems like a good team to go after.

Offline RickyPryor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2009, 03:56:55 PM »
Nate is a competitive street baller, with a huge ego.  But Lou is a better player,

A little surprised this went through with no commentary.

I can't stand Nate either, but Lou's not "better".  In fact it'd be hard to argue that they're "even".  Consider:

Nate plays far more minutes, shoots at a far higher percentage from everywhere on the court (which is not saying much; Lou's FG% is laughable), he's a better foul shooter, rebounds TWICE as often (while being 4 inches shorter), scores alot more points, assists 30% more and steals the ball more.  And with all that activity...Nate and Lou turn it over at the very same pace.

Is there any meaningful stat you can throw out there to bolster your argument?

Offline rickortreat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2056
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2009, 04:07:59 PM »
Ricky. Compare their stats at the end of this season, with both players in starting roles. 

I will be shocked, let me rephrase that, SHOCKED! If Lou isn't clearly the better player.

Offline RickyPryor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Sixers Vs. Knicks 10/13/09
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2009, 09:53:32 PM »
Ricky. Compare their stats at the end of this season, with both players in starting roles. 

I will be shocked, let me rephrase that, SHOCKED! If Lou isn't clearly the better player.

From your lips to God's ear.  I was only reacting to you saying Lou is better.  Now.