Reply With Quote
The difference is Rasho's number one job has to be rebounding. Shaq, Garnett and Duncan have to carry there teams ... Rasho just has to pick up the ball after it hits the rim.
More numbers -- If Shaq played Rasho's minutes, he'd average 8.96 rebounds per game.
Food for thought.
The difference is Rasho's number one job has to be rebounding. Shaq, Garnett and Duncan have to carry there teams ... Rasho just has to pick up the ball after it hits the rim.
Again, they benched him and then he went on to give them what they needed in the 2002-03 season. The benching is rather insignificant.
Yes, the Spurs wanted to move Rose because of the contract, before any consideration of his play. The fact that they didn't want anything but ending contracts in return says enough. It was always about long term payroll, not a cold shooting streak in a few games.
Again you place too much emphasis on the fact that Rose was benched in regards to the Spurs trying to trade him. Teams knew what he could do. No need to showcase him. That's a point for people who think that a cold shooting streak is why you trade a player, not something significant such as long term payroll considerations. The Spurs took him out of the rotation precisely because they had decided to move him because of the contract. At that point it made no sense to keep him in the rotation. And of course why risk injury to a player that you are trying to move, after all?
Duh.
Same with Jeff Foster, Reggie Evans and Ben Wallace.The difference is Rasho's number one job has to be rebounding. Shaq, Garnett and Duncan have to carry there teams ... Rasho just has to pick up the ball after it hits the rim.
He's supposed to board at a better rate than all those as well?
Bull . Got beat out. End of line.Yes, the Spurs wanted to move Rose because of the contract, before any consideration of his play.And yet, he played. If your dumbass theory was true, they wouldn't have played him at all. Good show!At that point it made no sense to keep him in the rotation. And of course why risk injury to a player that you are trying to move, after all?
Rasho is going to play 30-32 minutes per game this year. He's playing next to Tim Duncan in the front court. He shouldn't have anything better to do than grab rebounds. The other teams will be concentrating on keeping Duncan off the boards.
I'm just asking him to average 2 more rebounds per game. That's not something outlandish like asking him to say ..... dunk the ball.
one rebound every 3 minutes is what you want
unfortantly not many nba players do that
people playing with shaq,kg and duncan do not do that
dave might have but dave was taller and a better player then rasho
I agree Rasho is never going to average 10rpg for a whole season (unless Tim misses a lot of games . . . which can't be good). Myself, I thought that he did pretty damn well last year for the minutes he played. Much better than I expected him to or he ever had before. He could get a lot more consistent on the boards, but double digits?? If Malik gets his pt back, and I think he will, 10rpg for Rasho is out of the question since Malik will get a lot more boards playing next to Rasho than Horry did.
But shooting 50-52% is not unrealistic. With his offensive rebounds he should have had a lot more easy buckets on putbacks, and more trips to the line. He'll never be even a mediocre FT shooter, but with slightly better FG% and a more reasonable number of FT attempts, he should have had 10-11 ppg last season, and there's no reason to believe he won't this year, especially if the Spurs run a more dynamic offense, as they should with Hedo our and Barry in.
Just like in 2002-03? Bull indeed.Bull . Got beat out. End of line.
Why didn't the Spurs try to trade him in 2002 when they benched him?And yet, he played. If your dumbass theory was true, they wouldn't have played him at all. Good show!
I was being facetious when I made that comment. Unlike you I can actually understand that the Spurs wanted to move Rose because his contract did not fit in their long term plans, plans which certainly considered what Ginobili and Parker would cost to re-sign. That decision was made after the end of the 2002-03 season, not before, since a not so small part of the rationale for giving Rose that contract in 2002 was to keep TD happy, which of course was rather significant because he was a free agent in the following summer. Also, it did not become apparent how much Ginobili was going to cost to retain until his performance in the 2002-03 season, especially in the championship run. The fact that you believe everything the Spurs say and do says enough about your ability to ascertain just what is a "dumbass theory."
If your view had any semblance of being correct, the Spurs would not have sought to move Rose for nothing but just expiring contracts. They would have sought out the deal that brought them in the best talent. If they were willing to carry Rose's contract long term as you assume (so long as he wasn't "beaten out") then why not be open to taking back a long term contract? If they were willing to do so, then the trading possibilities would have been much more attractive.
You've yet to explain that because you have no response for it.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-14-2004 at 04:34 PM.
That's still exactly a Shaq O'Neal rebounding clip.Rasho is going to play 30-32 minutes per game this year. He's playing next to Tim Duncan in the front court. He shouldn't have anything better to do than grab rebounds. The other teams will be concentrating on keeping Duncan off the boards.
I'm just asking him to average 2 more rebounds per game. That's not something outlandish
For that floor time, 9 would be fantastic. More a Jermaine O'Neal rebounding rate.
He played well enough to beat out Willis, not Horry. Too bad for him.Just like in 2002-03?They did.Why didn't the Spurs try to trade him in 2002 when they benched him?Sure. Right. You can back off if you want. No shame in being wrong.I was being facetious when I made that comment.If you can convince me those guys traded for wouldn't have played last year, I'd agree. You can't.If your view had any semblance of being correct, the Spurs would not have sought to move Rose for nothing but just expiring contracts.
Look at it this way. All he has to do is get one rebound per game that Hedo would have gotten. Then improve enough to pull down 1 extra board a game.
I'm not asking for the world.
He was benched in 2002. He certainly played horribly in that season, no doubt.He played well enough to beat out Willis, not Horry. Too bad for him.
Wrong.They did.
Oh, I'm backing off from a facetious comment. You really got me there.Sure. Right. You can back off if you want. No shame in being wrong.
That doesn't matter. Why limit yourself to only taking back expiring contracts? If you are willing to carry that level of payroll why not seek out the best talent you can acquire? You can always try to address another part of the team.If you can convince me those guys wouldn't have played last year, I'd agree. You can't.
That right there is where your bull theory breaks down.
I'm simply putting it in perspective. If you think he can rebound at a Shaq rate, fine.Look at it this way. All he has to do is get one rebound per game that Hedo would have gotten. Then improve enough to pull down 1 extra board a game.
I'm not asking for the world.
I don't.
Of course it does.That doesn't matter.Not at all. You can't convince me they wouldn't have played. In Thomas' case, even more than Malik. You failed.That right there is where your bull theory breaks down.
It does not matter if Thomas played the same position. It was clear the overriding concern of the Spurs is that they got back an expiring contract. After the season we saw that they were so determined to get rid of Malik's contract that they left him unprotected in the expansion draft with the distinct possibility of getting nothing in return.Not at all. You can't convince me they wouldn't have played. In Thomas' case, even more than Malik. You failed.
What position does "nothing" play?
Sure it does. Otherwise there would've been more trade possibilities. And of course, Scola would've been signed with any money gotten from Malik's leaving in the expansion draft. Guess which position he plays.It does not matter if Thomas played the same position.
Why keep around a guy at that contract if he gets beat out every year by whatever old fart that comes along?
You never answered that and never will.
Malik has his chance again, but if he's beat out again by the old farts, he's gone -- and they'll take anything this time.
Once the Spurs found out how much Ginobili would cost long term as well as what Cardinal and Foyle cost then all of a sudden Pop loved Malik again.
Rather clear for those who were paying attention as to why the Spurs loved Malik again. 5 years and $32 million didn't seem so bad when Brian Cardinal was getting $40 million.
What was limiting the trade possibilities? It was that the Spurs were only seeking out expiring contracts in return.Sure it does. Otherwise there would've been more trade possibilities.
if he quits trying it does not matter if he got paid $1
he needs to go
And of course, Scola would've been signed with any money gotten from Malik's leaving in the expansion draft. Guess which position he plays.
Why keep around a guy at that contract if he gets beat out every year by whatever old fart that comes along?
You never answered that and never will.
Malik has his chance again, but if he's beat out again by the old farts, he's gone -- and they'll take anything this time.Nope, look at the packages. Even you aren't this stupid.It was that the Spurs were only seeking out expiring contracts in return.
Just like in 2002? That shows you how insignificant that being "beat out" was. Given that, why move Rose just because he was "beaten out" early on by an old player again?Why keep around a guy at that contract if he gets beat out every year by whatever old fart that comes along?
You never answered that and never will.
So I answered your point. Again.
Oh yes, they will want to move him so much that they will go to the extreme of only wanting expriring contracts back.Malik has his chance again, but if he's beat out again by the old farts, he's gone -- and they'll take anything this time.
Which one? Name it 'stupidhead.'Nope, look at the packages. Even you aren't this stupid.
Because he costs to much to play 15mpg after getting beaten out by old farts two years in a row.Given that, why move Rose just because he was "beaten out" early on by an old player again?
End of story.Yep, and they won't have to play PF. You ARE that stupid, eh?Oh yes, they will want to move him so much that they will go to the extreme of only wanting expriring contracts back.
Oh great, an unproven player versus a proven player which we know what he can do at that position.And of course, Scola would've been signed with any money gotten from Malik's leaving in the expansion draft. Guess which position he plays.
Scola is nothing but a prospect. If he's as good as advertised then perhaps he's as good as Malik, and then you will find yourself having to pay him an arm and a leg in a couple of seasons.
If's he's not as good as Malik, then you just ed up and are stuck having to find a decent backup bigman with salaries escalating considerably at that position and you are capped out. Come on, even an uptight know it all like you couldn't possibly have advanced such a dumb ing argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
