About the suspension thing, I'm positive I read it on the BBS< and there was a link to it. I think it had its own thread too. I'm really not good at finsing these things, CBA stuff, history, I don't know. If someone can find it for me, I'd appreciate it. About Odom. The thing is, when he's here, he'll be the 3rd option. So scoring will come much easier for him, and he'll get much better looks at the basket. About his injuries, I agree, he's been somewhat injury prone in the past. But that's probably because he played major minutes all the time, is a big-time gym rat, and likes to play through injuries until he HAS to stop playing. I'm confident that if we still have Griff, Rice, and T-Mo, it won't be a big issue, because he will probably play a good 30 minutes a night. He won't be overworked, and won't have to carry the whole load. A very achievable 14ppg, 6reb, 6asst, 1.5blk would put this team much further into the standings, and after he's developed excellent chemistry with the team, we can go further without even touching the squad.
Preach on Swami!!!! I am with you man. Although I am not totally sold on Dunleavy, I would rather have Kermit the Frog than Odom.
Your contradicting yourself. First, you say that at a pick like #4 (and as everyone else has mentioned repeatedly, we can't get the 4 pick without trading for it) we get someone who has all the tools but isn't quite yet there. Then, you go on to crticize Dunleavy cause it would take him a few years to get used to the NBA game. It is just contradictory. Further, of all the players in the draft, Dunleavy will probably require the least amount of time to adjust to the NBA game. That is what puts him in this debate (should he be a top pick) in the first place, the fact that he can come in and contribute immediately. Do we want more, though? Someone who may not contribute as much immediately but will be better done the road? I say it isn't necessary, unless we get a top 3 pick. We already have Griffin who still has a lot of learning to do. Top 3, though, I'd take a chance on a Ming, if possible.
Sane, the thread you are thinking of I believe is this one: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31654&highlight=drug You can read the heypartner post yourself, but essentially it says that no matter how many times you test positive for pot, you are not suspended a year. The drug tests are used to catch the more dangerous type drugs like cocaine, PCP, heroine, etc.
I'm not contradicitng myself. I'm saying, with the #4, you'd want someone who CAN do everything at some point in his career, but maybe might not do it now. Like Qyntel Woods. But we can't wait for him to develop. But Dunleavy won't be able to do EVERYTHING at ANY any point in his career. That little slowness in his step has been explained to me. It seems PF's can blow by him. What about faster SF's?
<i>By aelliott's logic, if we pick Odom, if he plays bad, then we're srewed. if he plays good, then we're screwed. If Odom plays good enough to warrant the MAX, then it's better than giving the MAX to Lewis IMO. That 1M in salary we can trade them through Tierre and Collier or whatever. Just fillers. </i> If we trade for Odom then we're in exactly the same situation that the Clippers find themselves in right now. Do you commit long term money to an guy that you can't depend on or do you risk losing him for nothing. <i>I'm saying, with the #4, you'd want someone who CAN do everything at some point in his career, but maybe might not do it now. Like Qyntel Woods. But we can't wait for him to develop. </i> How do you know that Woods will be able to do everything at some point in his career? If you know a sure fire way to teach guys to play defense, how to shoot or how to play smart basketball, then I know of a whole bunch of potential clients for you. If we're going to be leaving our SF alone to play one-on-one defense, then it really doesn't matter who our SF is, we're going to get killed. You have to have a better team defense concept, not just one on one defenders. The new rules give the Rockets alot of ways to defend better, we just haven't taken advantage of the new rules yet. Have you seen how the rest of the league has taken away the Francis and Mobley isos? It's not because the teams got better man defenders, it because they're using zone concepts to shut us down.
Why can't the Rockets afford to wait for Dunleavy, Butler, Woods, Ming, or anyone else to develop? (Actually, you can include Odom as well, he still pretty raw, too.) If its a question of failing attendance, if the Rocks are at least competitive, entertaining, and show improvement, the fans will come. Just take care of business. Ditto for the new stadium. As for Steve deciding to leave if the Rocks don't make the playoffs, FINE! Like I've written in another thread, the Mavs at one time had Kidd and Mashburn, and I think they've done OK after they were traded. Why not just draft the best player available, let him develop, and continue with the rebuilding process?
I would be willing to bet anyone here Butler, Williams and Gooden have more of an immediate impact on the NBA (though I could expect the argument Dunleavy has a hiring ceilig than Butler though I still like Butler better as a pick). Dunleavy isn't near strong enough at this point to play with stronger small forwards (some one like KT would abuse him) and probably will never be able to handle quicker swingmen (I do think he could guard even a modest offensively skilled 2 like Christie). Dunleavy has to guard someone--I can't think of many starting NBA players he can at this point. Also, I think Gooden and Griffin would make a fine set of bookend forwards. The both have very complimentary offensive and defenses skills. Griffin is more of an outside guy on offense and weak side shot blocker (he needs a lot of work in low block defense). Gooden is much better and more physical in the paint (both ends), has a mid-range game (he might develop 3 point range a la Horry as well--he does already show evidence in good range and touch on his shot) and is a great man on man defender (the guy totally controlled one of the most versitle offensive forwards in the college game, Luke Jackson--who himself has a savvy outside, mid-range and dribble drive game that I saw no one else complete take him out like that). Gooden also sees the floor extremely well from the high or low post and doesn't force shots. In short, I see Gooden is just as fundamentally sound in his position (a 4/3) as Dunleavy at his (perhaps a 3 or 3/2) and is the far superior defensive player and rebounder. Wilcox I agree is very raw but potentially could a major 4/5 defensive presence and decent offensive player. He ceiling might be higher than any of these guys, but I agree his early contributions are likely to be limited to defense. The Rockets foremost need a guy to boost the defense and front court athleticsm (a guy with a combination of strength, size and quickness is lacking), a benefit to the offense (Gooden, Butler) is an added bonus. MD would not be my guy.
my standard college recruiting DISCLAIMER: don't listen to a word I say about judging college talent, because I have seen no NCAA games this year. just trying to add some possible disadvantages to Caron Butler since Dunleavy seems to have so many distractors. I am against Caron Butler on face. If you want Caron Butler without trading down for him, you better make sure he really is 6'7. I am very skeptical of 6'7 235 ib SFs in college, who have "both a perimeter and inside game and can rebound." That always sounds like a big excuse to why they didn't play power forward. If you really are 6'7" and 235 pounds, and your teammate at power forward is listed at the same height, and you really do have an inside game worthy of NBA mention, and the ability to guard NBA PFs worthy of Desert Scar mentioning that...why aren't you playing power forward at UConn and let a better shooter play SF? There may be a good reason, but it always sounds like the 6'7 235 ilb SF is covering something up. That is exactly how Rodney White, Fizer and Corless Williamson were described, and they all showed up at least 2 inches shorter than advertised; White has got to be 3 inches shorter than advertised. Can someone tell me if Caron was ranked higher than White as freshmen last year???? There is something very suspicious about these big tweeners in college panning out. From the comments in this thread and past experience watching so-called 6'8" 240 ilbrs excel in the NBA, they are a risk as much as any risks noted about Battier and Dunleavy. Kenny Thomas panned out, and he is taller than White/Fizer/Williamson to boot. Can anyone really say that Caron Butler can do anything better than Kenny, except maybe he has more outside range...yet, that is often exaggerated, too, in the college ranks. Don't pick another Rodney White, Fizer, Corless way tooooo high. And you better NOT package the #15 and Kenny to pick Butler...that's just foolishness based on favoring potential over our lovely #22 pick in KT. Battier and Dunleavy sound superior as SF fits. that said: I'd rather pick a PF, unless you are absolutely sure Dunleavy is a gifted passer, because imo, a Battier taken at #5 is too high this year, and Battier was probably taken too high last year at #6.
HP, Butler's game is closer to an SG than a PF--even in college. He can post up, but his primary weapon is starting from deep on the wing (taking a 3 or beating the guy off the dribble). His physical features and game thus are more in the Paul Pierce, Micheal Finley, Glen Rice, Ron Artest or Morris Peterson mold (1st 3 best case scenario, 2nd 2 worst case scerario) than short PF-game types like KT, Corliss or Forston. I do agree the tale of the tape is important. If Butler is less than 6'6" that is not the best sign. Likewise if Gooden or Wilcox are not at least legit 6'9" guys that would hampen my enthusiasm in them as well. However if Gooden measures out to 6' 10" w/o shoes he would be my #1 choice in the draft after the 1st or 2nd pick.
Thats what I'm trying to say. Battier will never be a cornerstone. More of a SUPER role player leader. But Battier will always have that slow step. That's why I think it's better if we don't pick Dunleavy with #5. At #5, we can grab Qyntel Woods or Wagner and get REAL value for them. We can't wait because that's what the front office is saying, btw. Sounds to me from OP like we know we're going to be in the playoffs, and we're looking for someone that will help us challenge for 5th place maybe. I'm not sold on Dunleavy as a high pick, though my opinion of him has gone way up. But still, not for us at #5. If we trade #5 for #8 and #12, pick Dunleavy at 8, then trade #12 and #15 for #10, then pick Hilario, I wouldn't look for any more trades. Unless we can get a deal like: KT Mo Taylor for Tyrone Hill We have our PF in Griffin, and TyHill would be great to split minutes with him. But for us, is losing Mo T's contract worth losing KT? If Hilario drops to #12, we can add the #15 to this deal so they'll throw in Mihm or Doleac. Cato/Doleac/Hilario TyHill/Griffin/Hilario Rice/Dunleavy/T-Mo Cat/Torres Francis/Mooch Personally, I like that team. But it's not better than what we'll be if we get Odom and lose all picks and any combination of Mooch, KT, Mo T, and Rice.
Am I the only one that hates nbadraft.net and their stupid comparisons? I mean, can't they just compare these college guys to more recent players that just got out of college. Like Dunleavy to Miller instead of Dunleavy to Bird. Bird freaking owned the college scene and carried his team to the championship game, Dunleavy hasn't even been the #1 option on his team... Just thought I'd vent my disgust with the NBA comparison bs on nbadraft.net...
For everyone that says Odom is a headcase and a cancer for a team I disagree. For one Odom has always said he loves the Clippers and he says he knows other players on his team might not want to stay but he does. He has never mentioned anything negative about the Clippers that I have heard. His coach loves him and acknowledges he's their teamleader and it's his team, not Brand. His team players love him, at least 5 guys wore his number on their jersey, headbands or shoes in the games when he was suspended. He has always been positive when speaking of his team. He even said he does not want to score more but score less and do all the small things to win games. I have seen him many many times and from my observations he doesn't have an ego, he's a teamplayer, truely a nice and funny guy(he even comes around the commentators and kiss them on the top of thier heads in a joking manner while they're live), and he plays hard even when their down big. He would be a rookie this coming season if he had stayed 4 years in college. He's only 22yrs old. As for injuries and games played here is his career stats: out of 82 games per season: 1999-00 76 games played (that's 93% of games played) 2000-01 76 games played (again 93% of games played) 2001-02 29 games played (only real season he's been injured) Name me one reason how he could hurt this team on the court? If he can bring what he brought last season I'd be happy and he was injured throughout last season. 13pts, 6rbs, 6asts, 1 stl, 1 blk
HP, I have to concur with Desert. I've seen 4 or 5 UConn games last year, two of which against my terps Not a lot to go by but he left some solid impressions. He's a legit talent, and almost single handedly beat the Terps this year in the tourny. He may only be 6'6" so the height could be fudged a bit but it didn't seem to be by much at all. He seemed mabye a hair taller than Byron Mouton who played the 3 at Maryland. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say he can guard NBA PFs. He's just too short for that and doesn't quite have that kind of strength. But his skills run almost towards an oversized 2 guard with an inside game than anything else. I don't doubt he'll be able to hold his own against NBA 3's in the post, something I can't say from what I've seen of Dunleavy. Watching his game, I very much agree with the Pierce and Finley comparisons. He's quick off penetration and has the ability to hit the long range shot. His range has been developing continuously and got progressivly better durring his time in school. As for his inside game, it's good but he's feasting on players that don't physically match up with him half the time. Simply because not many colleges had the speed and size at the 3 to match up with him. I don't think he'll be a dominant inside player right away but he does have the skills to build upon and make it a part of his game. I wholeheartedly agree with you about Dunleavy, he'll be good I have no doubt in my mind. But I see him plateauing (sp?) very quickly in the league. I think he'll do extremely well his rookie year but never greatly elevate his game. Simply because in my opinion the polish is already there. The only signifigant area that needs work is his defense. If we're looking to take a chance on the first pick, there are better choices than Dunleavy. Having said that you can't really go wrong picking him, he's a very safe and reliable pick.
Butler has more of a Ron Artest type build and skillset than a Kenny Thomas. Rodney White kind of snuck up on people...I don't recall seeing him in college, and went to a small school (one of the UNCs...UNC Charlotte?). Butler was highly regarded as a freshman. Why are you so down on White? He came out as a freshman and ended up on a team that was playoff bound, and didn't get much PT. I haven't seen much of him (a couple minutes in preseason/Rockets game to be exact), but he looked like a slick ball handler, and pretty quick. Just very raw. Butler is a very good shooter, and can do so off the dribble, off a pass, or off a screen. He is also a very good passer-not a spectacular playmaking passer, but he carried his team without being a ball hog. I'm wary of Butler's height, but assuming it's not too bad, then if he slips, I'd move up to take him-Quentin Richardson went from a thought of top 5 pick all the way down to 18(?) because of that, and many regret it now. Height can also be a big issue-Chris Porter went from what some thought #1 overall to a mid-2nd rounder...and now is he even in the NBA, 2 years later. If we got lucky and won the lottery (Ming), I would by all means trade KT/15 to move up and nab Butler if he's 6'7''. what are your standards for "gifted passer?" Hypothetically, assume Dunleavy is the 2nd coming of Mike Miller (healthy). Would you take him at 5 or 6?
I'm down on Rodney White from seeing him in a preseason game. I'm down on his size. I saw him standing right next to Corliss. He is a shrimp. I was all excited to see him, but floored by him not be anywhere close to 6'9. I do believe White had a better year at Charlotte as a freshmen, no? He was a freshman last year. I should shut up about Butler, I guess. But he sounds like more risk than Dunleavy to me. As for your question, "What is your criteria for gifted passer?" Larry Bird. Would I take Dunleavy at 5 or 6? I would consider it as much as I'd consider trading down a few spots and getting some compensation for Memphis, maybe. I look at it a lot like Sane. Someone will want Woods bad at #5. Maybe we won't. But you can trade down and let them have Woods if Dunleavy, Tsika and Butler are all still available. I'd ask around for sure, before passing on Woods. Does that make sense?
Yeah. As I've mentioned before, this is a GREAT year to be in need of a SF, because the market is huge-4 possible top 10 caliber SFs in the draft (Dunleavy, Woods, Tskitishvili, Butler,) maybe FIVE if you count Jared Jeffries. Several more in the mid-tier (Yarbrough, Prince, Grizzard, Nachbar, Chris Jeffries), a couple in free agency (Lewis, Nailon), and a lot through trade (Artest, Miller, Odom, etc....if the Dunleavy-Denver rumors are true, James Posey would be a nice fit at an affordable cost.) I think White had a better numbers year, but Butler wasn't too far behind and played on a better team/program. I recall him getting a triple-double year. I think 5 is an especially precarious slot-if we can't move up for Ming, there WILL be someone who wants Gooden, Wagner, Woods, Dunleavy, Tskitishvili, Butler, etc. enough to make us moving down worthwhile. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't pick at 5 (or 6 or 7 depending on the lotto) OR 15. CD said there's already interest drawing for the #15. There's likely to be a big man with potential/athleticism there (Ely, Haislip, Marcus, Stoudemire, Hilario), and some team may become infatuated with one of them.
Allow me to address your myths: Myth 1. First Dunleavy did not shoot 38% from behind the arc he shot .395 which is basically 40%. Are you also aware that over half of his shots were from behind the arc? His total F/G% was .499 or 50%. That means that he hit over 60% of his shots from inside the arc. Dunleavy is a great shooter. He is also better than Battier. Battier's F/G% was .470 as a senior and half of his shots were not 3's as Dunleavy's were. Fact: Dunleavy hit 50% of his F/Gs (over 60% if you take out the 3's) and Battier hit 47% of his F/Gs. Fact 2: Over half of Dunleavy's shots were from behind the arc. Myth 2. It is unfair to say that Dunleavy is not a clutch player. Dunleavy was not the one that was asked to make the big shots or lead the team. That responsibility belonged to Jason Williams. Last year the leader of the team Battier, this year it was Williams and next year it was suppose to be Dunleavy. We know that Dunleavy can perform in big time games because he has done it. Yes there have been some games where he was not great but the same can be said for Williams who had a very poor turnament this past year. Do you question Williams value in this draft? While I agree that you can't say Dunleavy is the next Larry Bird you should at least realize that Bird was the only real player on the team that he carried to the championship game against Magic. You should also realize that Bird was quite a bit older than Dunleavy is now. You did know that Bird was older than your avg senior because he dropped out of school for a while after his break up with Bobby Knight. Dunleavy is still just a junior. Myth 3. To say that Dunleavy does not have the quickness to be an effective defender in the NBA is just plain ludicrous. Dunleavy does not have the freakish athleticism that some prospects might have but don't confuse that by saying that he is not a good athlete. Dunleavy has great footwork, quick feet and very quick hands. In the NBA there are plenty of NBA stoppers that do not possess freakish athleticism. One person that comes to mind is Douge Christy. He does not have one ounce of the natural athleticism that Francis or Mobley has and yet he excels at defense, why? Because he has great footwork, great hands and he understands how to play defense and has the desire to dedicate himself to defense. Having said that we would not be drafting Dunleavy to be a defensive stopper, all we need from him is to be solid on defense while adding some continuity on offense. If you are assuming that somehow Woods will be an ace defender because he is suppose to have freakish talent then you will most likely be very disappointed. Dunleavy has all the athletic ability to be a very solid defender. IMO the Rockets do not need more raw athleticism they need smart players that can make the athletes they already have better. They don't need someone to come in and be the leader of this team they need someone that can come in and play a roll at a very high level.
