CrazyJoeDavola, I can't believe you just said that trading Moochie for McInnis is a lateral move. IF for no other reason at all, McInnis has a very short and very small contract. The Rockets are thinking abotu cutting Moochie Norris. How is it a lateral move? Besides this, Moochie has started for 50+ games, and we saw what he could do. It's NOTHING compared to what McInnis did in LA. McInnis plays D, has an AMAZINg asst-to ratio, and scores at a high %. With this trade, I'm proposing Steve moving to the SG spot, backed up by James Posey when needed. James Posey can be backed up by Sheed, T-Mo, or Boki. We have lots of options. If you think this trade is lopsided in THEIR favour, then it's a better trade than I thought.
Well, they want to move Wallace. Who else would take him? Look, we can speculate nba2k3 style, but Rasheed ain't coming here. McInnis is a good idea. I agree with you. Maybe. Just, ... it's not's CD's style. I don't see it.
Moochie Norris is one of the worst players in the NBA. Jeff McGinnis is a solid, solid player that can easily play 20-25 minutes and actually contribute.
I stand corrected. Why wasn't McGinnis starting in Portland? Seems he couldn't even beat out Stoudamire for the starting spot. I am skeptical whether he is starting material for us. However, the edge has over Moochie does not make up for the edge that Mobley/Griffin hold over Wallace. If the Rockets wouldn't trade Griffin for SAR, then I am sure they wouldn't trade Griffin AND Mobley for Wallace. I think we are giving up too much (a quality starting SG and a PF with untapped/potentially great potential) for a backup PG (might be good enough to be a starter, but thats debatable) and a headcase/problem child in Wallace (good player, but Griffin has the potential to be better). So yeah, lopsided in their favor.
I agreed with you guys that we need to run as well as having a good system that enables good ball movements. We'll run whenever we have a chance, otherwise, move the ball around and finding the easy basket. Just like the Bulls in the 90s. There's 2 problems though: 1. We don't have a good enough PG that knows how to pass the ball, and run the fast break. ie. Jason kidd 2. We don't discplined enough players to enables ball movements. Most of our offense is just get out of my way, I'm going to the hole through 4 defenders, Shoo, I don't have a shot and I'm trapped. Where the hell are my teammates? Oh, they're standing around and watching. Notice how the New Jersey nets, they have guys sprint down the other end even before Jason Kidd throw the ball outlet. They knows how to run and get in good position, then Kidd hit them ahead with the ball. Beautiful fast break.
From the beginning I've liked the idea of Dunleavy. Remember three years ago when the Blazers took the Lakers to 7 games? That was Dunleavy coaching that team, and they ran all over the Lakers asses. Not only that, I liked the way he used Sabonis in the low and high post as the hub of the offense. I've always thought Dunleavy was a class guy, and that Portland team he coached flat out scored some points. He's big on D but he's not a freak about it to the point where he forgets that you still have to score more points than the other team. I think he would be a good fit for us.
Believe me , if we had Wallace, he wouldn't be backing up anyone. Although, do you really want a player like that on your team? What a headcase. In addition, I think he's just about the biggest underachiever in the league. Given his abilities, I don't see any reason he shouldn't be close to the same level as Webber or Garnett.
