Reply With Quote
So then if Dumars didn't think he was ever going to be more than a rotation player, why did he give him the $36 million contract to begin with?
The rest of the NBA didn't think Wallace was even a rotation player.
Ben Wallace got a $36 million contract from Dumars before he was even a regular starter.
So then if Dumars didn't think he was ever going to be more than a rotation player, why did he give him the $36 million contract to begin with?
That's my point. I never heard or seen a quote from Dumars saying he didn't feel Ben was more than just a rotation player when he signed him. But, maybe he did say it. Giving Ben a six year contract at about $6 million a year shows that he at least felt Ben could have been an "IMPORTANT" rotation player.
You would pay 6 mill a year for a "rotation player"?
Okay, I'm trying not to get turned around by the "never"/"nots" here.
I think what you're saying is the following:
-Joe Dumars was actually quoted as saying he thought Ben Wallace was going to be a rotation player.
-Joe Dumars was never quoted as saying he thought Wallace would be more than a rotation player.
-Yet he gave the guy $36 million, so he must have thought more than what he stated.
I have no knowledge about the first two statements, but the $36 million must have meant something. Maybe he just got lucky.
Quadzilla99 was the one who said Dumars admitted he didn't think Ben Wallace was going to be more than a rotation player. I didn't say that.
I said even if Dumars did say that, he must have thought that Wallace was going to be at least an "important" rotation player to give him $6 million a year for 6 years.
As for $6 million a year for a rotation player, there are plenty of examples of players that don't even start that make that much or more.
And, by me saying Dumars believed in Ben enough to give him that much money back in 2000-01, I'm inferring that I don't really believe Dumars felt that Ben Wallace would only be a rotation player.
Yeah, but usually the non-starters that get $6 million have done something to prove it beforehand.
These are Wallace's stats leading up to the last six years in Detroit:
1998-99 16 games, 17 mpg, 3.1 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 1.1 bpg
1999-00 16 games, 27 mpg, 6.0 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 2.0 bpg
2000-01 81 games, 24 mpg, 4.8 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 1.6 bpg
So I guess there was maybe a hint of what was to come, but $36 million was still a huge gamble. It would be interesting to pull up some of the media reaction to the contract at that time.
Shooga,
Exactly right. Which is why I question whether Joe Dumars "admits" what Quadzilla claims.
I think Nazr's as good as he'll ever be. He's an excellent rebounder, especially on the offensive glass. He's a decent low-post threat. When it comes to hands, he's the anti-Duncan. He also plays horrible defense. Rasheed and Prince should help to cover that up a bit though.
He seemed wholly unmotivated this season, and he looked terrible. He was also worthless most of the 2005 season. He was getting tons of DNPs until Nesterovich got injured in Phoenix in 2005. He got pretty hot in the playoffs though, to the point that Rasho never cracked the rotation again. It was very frustrating, because it looked like he turned the corner, but in the 2006 season his play returned to the pre-Rasho-injury level.
Was Ben Wallace any good on defense?
Nazr will be good in Detroit if he can stand to live in the dump and doesn't leave like Elliot. Detroit wins 55. Spurs are ing up letting Rasho and Nazr go. Bill Simmons is a genius. Ron Artest best thing is that he got a few Detroit fans put away.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
