2013 General Free Agent Signings/News and Trades

These past couple of pages have been a real dumbass fest.

:music

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

:lol I guess something only qualifies as a basis if it comes from your god, Bruno.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Thaddeus-Young-450/

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/thaddeus-young

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Evan-Turner-1115/

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/evan-turner


:lol Blatantly making things up. Not a single one doesn't primarily play SF still and the vast majority aren't fringe players (not that it would be relevant if they were). Mbah a Moute has toggled back and forth, depending on the construction of the Bucks roster each season, but he was drafted as SF first and he'll primarily play SF next season.

I'm not using any argument (again, you're apparently incapable of deciphering between things that are subjective and things that are fact), I'm just saying, generally speaking, that type of player primarily plays SG early in their career and in the cases of the four I listed, all did. Only Pierce shifted full time to SF while he was still relatively young and that was because they acquired Allen. It's clear to me you've either become a fan in recent years or didn't follow the league much outside of the Spurs until then.

Obviously, the game is more about match-ups than outdated positional designations in a lot of cases now, but again, that's a different argument, as is whether the 76ers would be better off with them at their natural positions or the positions they primarily played last season.

---

This is getting ludicrous. All four of Jack, Miller, Pierce and McGrady started off as small-forwards a played there at least the first two years. Each one, with no exceptions. And each one returned to playing the three after playing the two for a few years. McGrady split time between the positions in his prime, and Miller played the two for a few years, but the other two have been almost exclusively threes their entire careers. You. Just. Made. It. Up. And now, you keep trying to push the same bad (or at least highly subjective) reasoning.

I perhaps should have used the term "fringe rotation players," to describe Aminu, Singleton and McGuire, but I don't apologize for discounting them. One could easily make the argument that they are playing as poorly as they are because they are being forced to play at small-forward too much. Kirilenko and Marion have been threes most of their careers because at the time they first started player, they could get away with it. Hell, a player like Jan Vesely could have gotten away with it back then, and he's a five in today's NBA. Marion only gets propped up by Dirk stretching the floor for him (and being an improved shooter in his own right), and Kirilenko played the four a lot last year, partially out of necessity, and partially due to the fact that his skills are best served in a big-man role.

Mbah a Moute has been a four his whole career. The only time he's played the three more, he was paired with Ilyasova (and even that was an odd change, since he played with Ilyasova before that, and Ersan was listed at the three), and he defended fours (and even fives) while the other defended threes, provided the Bucks weren't playing a team with a strong small-forward. And since Ilyasova can shoot well, the Bucks were able to play Luc at "SF" offensively. And to top it all off, Mbah a Moute was absolutely horrible at the three last year, posting his worst ORtg and DRtg.

Let's clarify something here: Saying, "These players are supposed to play this position," is subjective. Saying, "These players usually play this other position, and they don't perform as well when they aren't," is objective. Maybe you have your definitions backward? Your entire argument is based off your opinion with relatively poor support. My argument is based off the players' actually histories, their stats and their measurables. There's no question whose position should be considered stronger. If you want to believe what you believe, go on ahead. But you're really making yourself seem silly by continuing to take such as baselessly condescending tone.

TD21...:lol

No one plays the "I'm trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about but in reality I'm dumb as a box of Sharpie markers" role better than he does. Baam is his disciple but won't make it to much further than a poor man's version of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

This is getting ludicrous. All four of Jack, Miller, Pierce and McGrady started off as small-forwards a played there at least the first two years. Each one, with no exceptions. And each one returned to playing the three after playing the two for a few years. McGrady split time between the positions in his prime, and Miller played the two for a few years, but the other two have been almost exclusively threes their entire careers. You. Just. Made. It. Up. And now, you keep trying to push the same bad (or at least highly subjective) reasoning.

I perhaps should have used the term "fringe rotation players," to describe Aminu, Singleton and McGuire, but I don't apologize for discounting them. One could easily make the argument that they are playing as poorly as they are because they are being forced to play at small-forward too much. Kirilenko and Marion have been threes most of their careers because at the time they first started player, they could get away with it. Hell, a player like Jan Vesely could have gotten away with it back then, and he's a five in today's NBA. Marion only gets propped up by Dirk stretching the floor for him (and being an improved shooter in his own right), and Kirilenko played the four a lot last year, partially out of necessity, and partially due to the fact that his skills are best served in a big-man role.

Mbah a Moute has been a four his whole career. The only time he's played the three more, he was paired with Ilyasova (and even that was an odd change, since he played with Ilyasova before that, and Ersan was listed at the three), and he defended fours (and even fives) while the other defended threes, provided the Bucks weren't playing a team with a strong small-forward. And since Ilyasova can shoot well, the Bucks were able to play Luc at "SF" offensively. And to top it all off, Mbah a Moute was absolutely horrible at the three last year, posting his worst ORtg and DRtg.

Let's clarify something here: Saying, "These players are supposed to play this position," is subjective. Saying, "These players usually play this other position, and they don't perform as well when they aren't," is objective. Maybe you have your definitions backward? Your entire argument is based off your opinion with relatively poor support. My argument is based off the players' actually histories, their stats and their measurables. There's no question whose position should be considered stronger. If you want to believe what you believe, go on ahead. But you're really making yourself seem silly by continuing to take such as baselessly condescending tone.

---

They did, only to move to SG for the majority of the remainder of their youth. I have a good idea of what you're using for reference and it's wrong.

Aminu is not a fringe rotation player. He was on and off a starter last season and is the likely starter next season. Again, whether the relative struggles of he and the other two you mentioned are in part due to playing SF, that could be true (again, that's subjective), but it's also a different argument. My point was that they primarily play SF, despite their lack of three-point shooting, which is why you can't disqualify Young.

Mbah a Moute has toggled back and forth, depending on the construction of their roster in a particular season. By your logic, because a player primarily plays a certain position for the majority of their career, it automatically means it's their natural position . . . so that means Duncan is a natural PF, because he primarily played it from '97-'06.

I'm not saying supposed to, all I'm saying is, it is their natural position. My entire argument is based off of fact, not opinion. I'm not sure why you continue to fail to see the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

These past couple of pages have been a real dumbass fest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

They did, only to move to SG for the majority of the remainder of their youth. I have a good idea of what you're using for reference and it's wrong.

Aminu is not a fringe rotation player. He was on and off a starter last season and is the likely starter next season. Again, whether the relative struggles of he and the other two you mentioned are in part due to playing SF, that could be true (again, that's subjective), but it's also a different argument. My point was that they primarily play SF, despite their lack of three-point shooting, which is why you can't disqualify Young.

Mbah a Moute has toggled back and forth, depending on the construction of their roster in a particular season. By your logic, because a player primarily plays a certain position for the majority of their career, it automatically means it's their natural position . . . so that means Duncan is a natural PF, because he primarily played it from '97-'06.

I'm not saying supposed to, all I'm saying is, it is their natural position. My entire argument is based off of fact, not opinion. I'm not sure why you continue to fail to see the difference.

---

Man... perhaps if you could explain the difference between something being a "natural position" and something being their best position, the position they're "supposed to play" or the position they usually play, I could understand where you're coming from, and we could chalk all this up to a semantic disagreement. But right now, you're literally disputing numbers with nothing but your opinion of where they "naturally" play. That has absolutely nothing to do with facts, which you've failed to list. (Someone's -- even if that person is a highly touted scout -- opinion of where the player was projected to play coming out of school is not a fact.) Claiming that it doesn't matter that most of the players who can't shoot but play the three suck at, or at least rely on stretch-fours, it is also not support.

If Young wants to have a career like Aminu's, sure, I guess I can play the three. But if he wants to be a good player, he's best served to stay as an undersized four. Turner might have the passing of a guard, but the rest of his abilities make him a forward. He'd be better served with a player like Eric Gordon (meaning a shorter two-guard) than he would with a player like Ariza (a tall small-forward) next to him. Even when Iggy was there, Turner played his best when he was able to be the small-forward. Every one of his stats got better. If Philly wants Bust Turner back, they'll put him at two-guard again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

These past couple of pages have been a real dumbass fest.

---

You said it!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Man... perhaps if you could explain the difference between something being a "natural position" and something being their best position, the position they're "supposed to play" or the position they usually play, I could understand where you're coming from, and we could chalk all this up to a semantic disagreement. But right now, you're literally disputing numbers with nothing but your opinion of where they "naturally" play. That has absolutely nothing to do with facts, which you've failed to list. (Someone's -- if that person is a highly touted scout -- opinion of where the player was projected to play coming out of school is not a fact.) Claiming that it doesn't matter that most of the players who can't shoot but play the three suck at, or at least rely on stretch-fours, it is also not support.

If Young wants to have a career like Aminu's, sure, I guess I can play the three. But if he wants to be a good player, he's best served to stay as an undersized four. Turner might have the passing of a guard, but the rest of his abilities make him a forward. He'd be better served with a player like Eric Gordon (meaning a shorter two-guard) than he would with a player like Ariza (a tall small-forward) next to him. Even when Iggy was there, Turner played his best when he was able to be the small-forward. Every one of his stats got better. If Philly wants Bust Turner back, they'll put him at two-guard again.

---

I gave you four links from the two most credible draft sites, I gave you reasons for why they played up a position last season and I gave you examples of similar players who played their natural positions . . . what more do you want?

You still can't seem to comprehend the difference between subjective and fact. Everything you've said has been subjective and despite my not agreeing or disagreeing with any of those views, you've somehow decided that I'm opposed to them and have this outdated vision of the way the game is played today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

I gave you four links from the two most credible draft sites, I gave you reasons for why they played up a position last season and I gave you examples of similar players who played their natural positions . . . what more do you want?

You still can't seem to comprehend the difference between subjective and fact. Everything you've said has been subjective and despite my not agreeing or disagreeing with any of those views, you've somehow decided that I'm opposed to them and have this outdated vision of the way the game is played today.

---

So you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion...

Posting someone's opinion is not a fact, even if the person who gives the opinion is "credible." It doesn't matter if scouts thought they would play best at one position. Their time in the NBA didn't bear that out. Young played at the three almost none of the time over recent seasons, even when the Sixers had all their players. When he did play there early in his career, he wasn't bad offensively, but he was pretty bad defensively (giving up a PER of 19.7). Turner has been bad, bust-worthy at the two his whole career. He's been competent at the three. If the scouts didn't predict that, then that's their faults.

The facts are that they have the size to play their positions, the minutes logged (over their careers, not just last season) there to show the coaching staff agrees and the improved stats to show they perform best there. That is an objective argument.

You're whole view on "natural positions", which you've yet to clarify, leaves you open to accusations of having an antiquated view on the NBA and what the positional prototypes are. You're not being non-committal to my arguments; you're directly ignoring them by saying, "I know that they're supposed to play there, and that's that." Clarify what you mean, and perhaps I could understand why you think there are any facts that support you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

So you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion...

Posting someone's opinion is not a fact, even if the person who gives the opinion is "credible." It doesn't matter if scouts thought they would play best at one position. Their time in the NBA didn't bear that out. Young played at the three almost none of the time over recent seasons, even when the Sixers had all their players. When he did play there early in his career, he wasn't bad offensively, but he was pretty bad defensively (giving up a PER of 19.7). Turner has been bad, bust-worthy at the two his whole career. He's been competent at the three. If the scouts didn't predict that, then that's their faults.

The facts are that they have the size to play their positions, the minutes logged (over their careers, not just last season) there to show the coaching staff agrees and the improved stats to show they perform best there. That is an objective argument.

You're whole view on "natural positions", which you've yet to clarify, leaves you open to accusations of having an antiquated view on the NBA and what the positional prototypes are. You're not being non-committal to my arguments; you're directly ignoring them by saying, "I know that they're supposed to play there, and that's that." Clarify what you mean, and perhaps I could understand why you think there are any facts that support you.

---

It's not just them, but how many links am I supposed to come up with? And what's the point, when I know you'll just shoot them all down anyway and pass them off as being "someone's opinion"?

The bottom line is, it's indisputable that they were drafted at those positions and so far to date, they've only not played them so that they could get their best talent on the floor. Long term, who knows how Henkie/Brown view them or if they'll even be kept? All I said from the beginning of this was that, as currently constituted, it's a virtual lock they'll be sliding down a position, so they won't be as thin on the wings as Bruno thinks. Of course, that was before either of us realized Richardson would miss most of next season (I had thought he'd just miss the start).

I've already clarified it and I'm not bothering doing so again. Your whole reasoning for why Young "can't play the three" is complete and utter nonsense, as I proved with the list of similar players who do in fact play it, as is this notion that "because he's played more minutes at PF, that automatically means he's a natural PF", which I proved with the Duncan example.

:corn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

It's not just them, but how many links am I supposed to come up with? And what's the point, when I know you'll just shoot them all down anyway and pass them off as being "someone's opinion"?

The bottom line is, it's indisputable that they were drafted at those positions and so far to date, they've only not played them so that they could get their best talent on the floor. Long term, who knows how Henkie/Brown view them or if they'll even be kept? All I said from the beginning of this was that, as currently constituted, it's a virtual lock they'll be sliding down a position, so they won't be as thin on the wings as Bruno thinks. Of course, that was before either of us realized Richardson would miss most of next season (I had thought he'd just miss the start).

I've already clarified it and I'm not bothering doing so again. Your whole reasoning for why Young "can't play the three" is complete and utter nonsense, as I proved with the list of similar players who do in fact play it, as is this notion that "because he's played more minutes at PF, that automatically means he's a natural PF", which I proved with the Duncan example.

---

You haven't clarified anything. You've provided no facts. You've simply stated your opinion and posted opinions that agree with you. And you brought up a list of players that doesn't help your argument, because the players either performed too poorly to be considered good examples or did not have the histories that you think they did. Even Aminu saw much better stats when he played solid minutes the four, going from end-of-bench quality to just below average. McGuire was just plain awful no matter where he played last season.

And let's stay clear on this: You're not saying Young CAN move to the three. You're saying that the three is his natural position (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). I am saying he's a much better four than he is a three, and all the numbers support that. You've been saying that he's a natural three ... well ... just because, I guess. Or because some scouts incorrectly predicted he'd be good there. In fact, he hasn't been, to the point that the last three years, he's played at SF for less than one percent of his time on the floor. This is not a recent shift that just started last season -- the big shift in his career was moving from being a bench big to being a starting big. Whether Young will play the three next season is arbitrary, since any player can be put in any position at any time. We were talking about where he fits best (where his "natural position" is by any logical denotation). Don't try to move the goal posts on me.

I would not be surprised if you didn't intend to take a hard view on this. I didn't take one, either, until you decided to start a debate about it.

It's just common knowledge, just like it is that Anthony was drafted primarily as an SF. The fact that he primarily plays PF now doesn't make him a natural PF. You don't need links for that.

The list of players seal my argument, because they have the same issue Young has, which is the reason you think he can't play SF and yet . . . they play SF! How good the list of players are has nothing to do with anything, they were merely examples of limited to non three-point shooters who play SF.

I'm saying Young can play either, just that he's a natural SF and will likely be playing it again next season. That's it. I never argued where he'd fit best, nor do I need to, because apparently I've got you to formulate my opinion for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

It's just common knowledge, just like it is that Anthony was drafted primarily as an SF. The fact that he primarily plays PF now doesn't make him a natural PF. You don't need links for that.

The list of players seal my argument, because they have the same issue Young has, which is the reason you think he can't play SF and yet . . . they play SF! How good the list of players are has nothing to do with anything, they were merely examples of limited to non three-point shooters who play SF.

I'm saying Young can play either, just that he's a natural SF and will likely be playing it again next season. That's it. I never argued where he'd fit best, nor do I need to, because apparently I've got you to formulate my opinion for me.

---

:lol "Thad sucks at the three statistically, but he's supposed to play there."

:lol "These mediocre to bad players who play the three (when they are better statistically at the four) seal the deal for me."

:lol "Some of the best defenders (who were elite in other skills besides shooting) in the league played the three back in the day when small-forwards didn't need to have good perimeter skills, so Thad can do it in today's NBA."

:lol "Thad has played the four 90 percent of the time during the last several seasons, but he's a combo-forward."

:lol "Scouts said Thad was a three, so even though they've been proven wrong by his career, he's still a natural there."

Did I miss anything?

:wakeup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

:lol "Thad sucks at the three statistically, but he's supposed to play there."

:lol "These mediocre to bad players who play the three (when they are better statistically at the four) seal the deal for me."

:lol "Some of the best defenders (who were elite in other skills besides shooting) in the league played the three back in the day when small-forwards didn't need to have good perimeter skills, so Thad can do it in today's NBA."

:lol "Thad has played the four 90 percent of the time during the last several seasons, but he's a combo-forward."

:lol "Scouts said Thad was a three, so even though they've been proven wrong by his career, he's still a natural there."

Did I miss anything?

---

:lol Making up quotes

:lol Zero reading comprehension whatsoever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

:lol Making up quotes

:lol Zero reading comprehension whatsoever

---

Sounds like a 'no' to me. You're the one who thinks opinions are facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

It's just common knowledge, just like it is that Anthony was drafted primarily as an SF. The fact that he primarily plays PF now doesn't make him a natural PF. You don't need links for that.

The list of players seal my argument, because they have the same issue Young has, which is the reason you think he can't play SF and yet . . . they play SF! How good the list of players are has nothing to do with anything, they were merely examples of limited to non three-point shooters who play SF.

I'm saying Young can play either, just that he's a natural SF and will likely be playing it again next season. That's it. I never argued where he'd fit best, nor do I need to, because apparently I've got you to formulate my opinion for me.

---

No offense broski, but bringing up "natural positions" would lead one to believe they are best served playing there. Naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm also wondering if all that money spend this summer by Minny won't re-open the door on a Derrick Williams trade. To me, he was out of reach after his good second half of season but it might not be the case, especially if Adelman still likes more Cunningham.

---

I think the Wolves would keep Derrick Williams till the 2015 summer when Kevin Love might leave them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redshadows

I think the Wolves would keep Derrick Williams till the 2015 summer when Kevin Love might leave them.

---

The thing is, he's not cheap. He's set to make almost $6 Million next season. Also, his contract expires next July, so they Wolves would have to re-sign him in order to have him in 2015.

EDIT: I don't know what I was thinking. Williams' deal expires in 2015 (two Julys from now). But they'd still have to re-sign him and more importantly guarantee his 2014-2015 salary in October. Williams is an expensive insurance policy, especially with Love and Pek making bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd021

So you're just ignoring the fact that the Splitter lineup was 17 points per 100 possession better than the second best 5 man unit for the Spurs.

---

I think we actually let the Heat of the hook when we benched Splitter to match up with them. They couldn't score against our starting lineup. That's why they started Mike Miller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

It's not just them, but how many links am I supposed to come up with? And what's the point, when I know you'll just shoot them all down anyway and pass them off as being "someone's opinion"?

The bottom line is, it's indisputable that they were drafted at those positions and so far to date, they've only not played them so that they could get their best talent on the floor. Long term, who knows how Henkie/Brown view them or if they'll even be kept? All I said from the beginning of this was that, as currently constituted, it's a virtual lock they'll be sliding down a position, so they won't be as thin on the wings as Bruno thinks. Of course, that was before either of us realized Richardson would miss most of next season (I had thought he'd just miss the start).

I've already clarified it and I'm not bothering doing so again. Your whole reasoning for why Young "can't play the three" is complete and utter nonsense, as I proved with the list of similar players who do in fact play it, as is this notion that "because he's played more minutes at PF, that automatically means he's a natural PF", which I proved with the Duncan example.

---

I agree the only reason they've played Young at the 4 is to get their best talent on the floor. It's a secondary point that he's thrived as a small ball 4. Look at Carmello. That doesn't necessarily mean he's a 4 even though he has better stats there.

f'n stfu and move this to another thread. this is 2013 General Free Agent Signings/News and Trades thread not the Thadeus Young is a 3 or 4 thread. swear its morons like these guys that ruin forums in general.

Ronald Tillery ‏@CAGrizBlog Source: Griz working on small trade to get Celtics center Fab Melo for Donte Greene. CA story coming...