Have any of yall been watching that "real camp" thing on NBA tv with the Nets training camp? Boki is working hard around guys that don't seem to be... imho. He does look good though.
Anyway for the Rockets to get Boki back ? I think he didn't do well in JVG system but with RA at the helm I think he can really flourish
Yes, DD did rewrite history. But to be fair: 1. He was a rookie under Rudy, wasn't expected to be anything much. I don't think you should use Rudy as an example. Scott and Frank, yes. 2. He was not traded for Wesley straight up. It was a Jackson for Wesley trade on the most part. Jackson was our starting SG playing heavy minutes. Boki was a throw-in. So yes, he was gotten rid of for peanuts. I was furious about that trade. I felt that Wesley for Jackson was a lateral move. Throwing in Boki didn't make sense. (It turned out that Wesley fit much better than Jackson, doesn't mean he's a better talent.)
I don't know. It is arguable (doesn't mean I agree) that Boki is better than Head at this point. If Head can get minutes, so could Boki.
LOL, well as DD has informed us about 10,000 times, it is indeed possible for a rookie to be in the doghouse (see v-span). his rules, not mine! Either way, we had to make the deal work and he was part of the deal. The fact is it was a wildly successful trade for the ROckets when you factor in the much better fit/results of Wesley/McGrady 2/3 combo vs. McGrady/Jackson 2/3 combo - and the other factor is that nachbar took a couple more years to develop - way after his rookie deal would have expired anyway.
How do you figure Wesley being a Rocket was wildly successful? Please help me understand this-Wesley had one good to very good year with us. If you give him credit for running an offense that Bobby sura and Tracy made work - too much credit for Wesley. As for an inspiratiion in the locker room - Jon Barry was a much stronger influence. Wesley had one good year -ONE- and Boki was fodder -we should have kept Boiki instead of throwing him away. Sura was our savior in Jan - '05- not Wesley. We paid 4.5 mil to 5 mil for Wesley in a 3 year guaranteed contract - we paid 2 of those years- or 9 mil for one good season It is not like Van Gundy was consistent- we had Ryan Bowen for 2 worthless years- plenty of time for Boki to develop Ask Karl Malone how Boki defended
Exactly, It is essentially part of the same argument, why trade for Wesley which is at the END of his career for a player that clearly had his best years ahead of him. Boki was a good shooter, and was NOT a good defender...still isn't but in the right system he can flourish. He has found his niche, and it generally takes 3 or 4 years for young players to hit their stride, I don't like giving up on them too early before you hit that range for basically a one year rental when the team was NOT good enough to contend with Wesley..... At some point you have to develop for the future...... DD
Looking back, Jackson for Wesley was a good trade. I wouldn't say it was a "wildly successful" one. I agree with TBar. The "wild success" that year was due to a lot of other factors. Sura's and Barry's contributions were very important. I still think there was no need for Nachbar's inclusion in the deal, from a purely value point of view. Jackson and Wesley were equal talents. They should have been swapped straight up. This is only speculation. But I suspect that getting rid of Boki did have something to do with JVG's not valuing him. Whether he would have developed faster under a coach such as Adelman is pure speculation too. But Sam, admit it. You keep trying to downplay Boki's current success because you have predicted him to be much worse than what he is now. Your view on Nachbar's talent was about on the same level of your view on Spanoulis's.
Sura and Barry's (and James) contributions WERE important - but the remaking of the guard lineup started when Tracy moved to SF. Opening up 40 minutes/game at one guard spot tends to do that. Yes, there were other factors, but without moving JJ (who could ONLY play SF, and badly) was the foundation of the pyramid. Unless you have a retroactive telepathic connection with NO - you don't really have much to stand on here, do you? Plus I don't know what cap consderations there were here. Obviously, speculating that "NO would have done it w/o Nachbar!!" at this point is a bit of a stretch. And by bit, i mean "huge". If search were on - you would see that I have acknowledged that he exceeded my educated guess of his ultimate ceiling. I gave the guy a 90% chance of being nothing much, as did his first two NBA employers. It turned out that the 10% was the right option. However, as I have also said, when it comes down to waiting several years and betting the farm on a guy who took five years to average 9 ppg and is a good shooter, finisher, but not much else, as a near lottery selection - I don't know if ultimately that is the benefit of the bargain. Not much worth crying about at this point either. Next time "Classic Moments" are turned on, please read the fall 04 comments.
Very well, based on 1.25 3PA per game for a total of 10-21 in 16 games. Of course, he shot 33% on his next 442 attempts prior to his "breakout" season in N.J. and 34% on his 73 attempts prior to his "very well" 10-21. Other than his "very well" 10-21 on tres, he was 5-22 (23%) from 2 pt range, averaged less than 2 rebs per game, and had a total of 9 assists, 1 steal and 0 blocks in 16 games, despite averaging 16-17 MPG in the first 10 games. He was not helping the team with his .6 made 3s per game in 13 MPG, nor was he helping the team with his other aforementioned stats, not to mention his D. He SHOULD have been benched based on such(IIRC, Padgett took his minutes and performed better). Is it possible that Boki's previous 3 coaches (each w/ NBA finals experience as a head coach BTW) had ZERO to do with his failures and Boki, on his own, worked on his game to make something of himself?
Question 1: Would any NBA team in its right mind, extend the team option to a 1st round pick, who after his first 3 seasons, averaged 4.8 pts, 1.9 rebs, 0.8 assists, 0.3 steals, 0.1 blocks, 1.9 PFs and shot 38% from the field, including 37% from 3 pt range? Question 2: If they did invoke the 4th year option, would they tender him a 1 year offer to keep him for a 5th season based on his 4th year averaging 4.4 pts, 1.7 rebs, 0.8 assists, 0.5 steals, 0.1 blocks, 1.8 PFs and shot 35% from the field, including 27% from 3 pt range? All of this, accured over 166 games, averaging 14 MPG. I think the reasonable answer to both questions are "no".
Apples/oranges. O'Neal was a slight built 18 year old post player who everyone knew would take several years to develop (physically and mentally). Boki was a physically ready 22 year old, and IIRC, had 4-5 years of pro ball experience overseas. And to boot, O'Neal was light years better in his 5th year than Boki was.
Look my point is that we got nothing in return for a guy that had some good potential at a spot we needed help. Euros take a bit of time to get comfortable, and in year 3, Boki was just starting to find his groove when he was dumped by JVG, he was shooting VERY well from 3pt range and pretty much for crap around the rim. And after the trade he did OK, but not great, I believe he should have been given the chance to come into his own in Houston, it is like the Astros trading Kenny Lofton, sometimes you should DEVELOP your players rather than trade them for nothing. DD
And my point is, he showed ZERO potential. His spot was SF, where TMac played 40 mins that year. Boki showed ZERO ability to help anywhere no matter how many minutes he played. Besides his stellar 10-21 on 3s, show me 1 stat that showed he deserved to be a mainstay in the rotation? Why is it that not even you can say "hey, I remember that 1 game where Boki light it up" and instead, most can only recall Boki's one glorious moment being a foul he commmitted on Karl Malone in a playoff game? For every Boki that took 4 years to make anything of himself, I'll show you a Peja or a Vlad Radmonovic (both 21-22 when they came into the league) that showed something their 1st seasons and went on to have pretty decent sophomore years.
Because I saw his potential, which is why you and I are not going to agree here, I could see that he was going to be a good player, especially once he got into a system that fit his slashing type of game. Each person is different and each situation is different, I would bet that if you put Boki with Adelman his rookie year would have been much better, he fits that system. He certainly did get better each and every year until he finally showed you and others he could be a good rotational player, the difference is I knew it long before you or Sam did, and could see that he was developing fine. The bottom line is we are talking about potential, and you and I are clearly not seeing through the same lenses. I think Boki was always going to be a fairly decent NBA player and just needed time on court to adjust, I feel the same about V-Span.....sometimes you can just see something in a player that tells you they will make it.... Boki made it.....and I wish it were in Houston. I understand your point, I just happen to disagree with it. We are just looking at 2 different sides of the same coin.... DD
You mean the system where most of the majority of his shots were assisted 3pters? And why wasn't he successful in Frank's system for the first 30 games or so? Did Frank change his system to fit Boki's obvious many talent or did Boki improve himself to earn PT when it became obvious that this might be his last chance to make it in the NBA? And I would bet that if you put VladRam or Peja in Rudy or JVG's system they would still succeed. No he didn't. He was, at best, a below average player until 1/4 into last season and his production actually DECLINED after his rise from being an 11th man on the Rockets to a horribly mediocre rotation player with a bad NO team for 55 games in '05. His development didn't change, at all, until 1/4 into last season where he finally broke out of his 3-4 PPG average and got up to 10 PPG. We all know you have your own set of lenses. Thats how you identify players like Griffin, Langhi and V-Span. Tell us DaDa what you saw. He couldn't/didn't defend. He was, at best, an average 3 pt shooter, he didn't rebound, he wasn't a passer and he didn't finish when he should have. You are leaning on a 21 shot 3 point sample to make your case concerning the Rockets not using him as a throw in (which is funny, considering there have been far better players than Boki that were considered throw ins). That is all you have bud. 21 3 pt attempts over 16 games. Could have been in Houston or with the Hornets. Boki obviously wasn't ready. Only took him 4 1/4 years. But I am glad he found his niche as a rotation player.
I don't see how this is relevant. First, it is not true that JJ could only play SF. He played SG/SF all his career. Second, JVG himself said that there was no difference between SG and SF in his system. Besides, all the other key acquisitions (Sura, Barry, James) were guards in the traditional sense. It is arguable that we needed a SF more than a SG. True, we would never know how the negotiation went. We as fans can only judge a trade by our opinions on how much a player is worth. Same with the debate over the Battier trade. Some people think that Gay has equal, if not more, value than Battier. So throwing in Swift was an atrocity. Some think that Battier is more valuable than Gay, so it was a fair trade. Some think that Swift has negative value, so it wasn't that we were forced to give up Swift, but Memphis was forced to take Swift. It's all opinions. IMO, JJ and Wesley were equal value. Throwing in Boki was giving up a young potential for nothing. He averaged 8 ppg in NO right after he was traded. Luther Head is also a good shooter (averaging around 10 ppg) and not much else. Would you have kept Head over Boki if given a choice?
Update: Boki scored 35 points against Philly. I know it's just preseason, but that is still impressive!
