Moderators: peeker643, swerb, pup, papacass
by swerb » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:26 am
by Toxicadam » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:49 am

by rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:15 am
Toxicadam wrote:Just like the Shaq trade last year, this deal won't get done because of our reluctance to trade Hickson.
by British_Pharaoh » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:47 am

by StewieG » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:06 pm
by British_Pharaoh » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:31 pm
StewieG wrote:I still think our best option is Jamison.

by scott » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:24 pm
by Ea$t $ide » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:28 pm
by e0y2e3 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:07 pm

by mrburns » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:15 pm
rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Hickson has lost his luster with an inconsistant year. If the price of a Jamison or Stoudemire is Hickson and Ilgauskus, Cleveland would be crazy not to take it.

by SDM » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:19 pm
by e0y2e3 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:22 pm
Mr. Burns wrote:rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Hickson has lost his luster with an inconsistant year. If the price of a Jamison or Stoudemire is Hickson and Ilgauskus, Cleveland would be crazy not to take it.
Gotta disagree. He's playing 20 minutes a game on the best team in the East, shooting 55%, and he should be a junior in college. Not saying he's the second coming, but there's definitely progress there.

by mrburns » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:37 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Mr. Burns wrote:rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Hickson has lost his luster with an inconsistant year. If the price of a Jamison or Stoudemire is Hickson and Ilgauskus, Cleveland would be crazy not to take it.
Gotta disagree. He's playing 20 minutes a game on the best team in the East, shooting 55%, and he should be a junior in college. Not saying he's the second coming, but there's definitely progress there.
Yeah, that awesome progress is called "Okay, LBJ is going to get me wide open, hopefully I am close enough to dunk it because that is my entire game."
Guy can jump and is quick. Has shown NOTHING more.
I could put a Pet Rock at PF for that Cavs that would demonstrate a deeper natural inclination to understand the game.

by e0y2e3 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:44 pm

by RickNashEquilibrium » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:46 pm
Mr. Burns wrote:rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Hickson has lost his luster with an inconsistant year. If the price of a Jamison or Stoudemire is Hickson and Ilgauskus, Cleveland would be crazy not to take it.
Gotta disagree. He's playing 20 minutes a game on the best team in the East, shooting 55%, and he should be a junior in college. Not saying he's the second coming, but there's definitely progress there.
Jamison is a better fit for making a run this year, no doubt.
But Stoudemire's intriguing because he fits what this team should've been in the first place - fast and athletic. Assuming Shaq departs next year, he could be a nice piece. Any team with LeBron should be itching to fast break whenever possible. You'd have to be at least a little wary of the money you'd have to pay him given his injury history, but there are far worse moves you could make, especially considering that the Cavs in all likelihood won't have the cap room for a max contract like Bosh.
by mrburns » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:00 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Hickson has value to a club that is rebuilding where he can play the entire game and they can deal w/ his general retardedness.
Same way Drew Gooden has had value for years.
Drew Gooden and JJ Hickson should never stand in the way of putting a deal down for a real player.
Thanks for completely ignoring my point and going all Broadway w/ your response though.
Do you have any counter to the fact that JJ Hickson is a basketball imbecile that scores 95% of his points because LBJ gets him 30 dunk chances a game?
Have you seen him box anyone out yet?
Have you seen him try to rotate on D?

by e0y2e3 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:03 pm

by Kingpin74 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:05 pm
by papacass » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:05 pm
by rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:06 pm
There are other things to consider in a Stoudemire trade like signability and team fit, so you probably think about that one a little longer. But JJ is improving and has value, which is why he keeps coming up in these trades.
by pup » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:08 pm
Papa Cass wrote:Amare is one of the top five finishers at the rim in the entire game. Even with some of the serious injuries he's had to his knee and eye, he still has an explosive first step to the basket. He doesn't possess a true post game, but he has quicks around the hoop. He can get his shot off in a variety of ways.
Amare cutting back door, taking a feed from LBJ and throwing it down? Yes, please. If Steve Nash can develop a PB&J relationship with Amare, imagine what could happen if Amare were teamed with a 6'-8", 265-pound elite passer who also happens to be a freight train and great finisher in his own right.
As for Amare's documented defensive deficiencies? Screw that. That's why you have a versatile roster. Need some more defensive help? Put Shaq in. Put Andy in. Put Powe in when he comes back. You would trade for Amare to give this team a much-needed offensive shot in the arm, particularly close to the basket, where you could turn games against the Lakers, C's and Magic into a war of attrition.
I don't think Hix is a piece of crap. I think he's ill-suited for his current role, but that's another story. But there is no way on eight planets or Pluto that I'd hesitate to give up Hix for Amare. If I'm Ferry, I'd make the Z-Hix offer and if Steve Kerr accepts, I'd be doing the "Thriller" zombie dance on my desk before the word "Yes" was completely out of Kerr's mouth.
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:12 pm
Pup wrote:Papa Cass wrote:Amare is one of the top five finishers at the rim in the entire game. Even with some of the serious injuries he's had to his knee and eye, he still has an explosive first step to the basket. He doesn't possess a true post game, but he has quicks around the hoop. He can get his shot off in a variety of ways.
Amare cutting back door, taking a feed from LBJ and throwing it down? Yes, please. If Steve Nash can develop a PB&J relationship with Amare, imagine what could happen if Amare were teamed with a 6'-8", 265-pound elite passer who also happens to be a freight train and great finisher in his own right.
As for Amare's documented defensive deficiencies? Screw that. That's why you have a versatile roster. Need some more defensive help? Put Shaq in. Put Andy in. Put Powe in when he comes back. You would trade for Amare to give this team a much-needed offensive shot in the arm, particularly close to the basket, where you could turn games against the Lakers, C's and Magic into a war of attrition.
I don't think Hix is a piece of crap. I think he's ill-suited for his current role, but that's another story. But there is no way on eight planets or Pluto that I'd hesitate to give up Hix for Amare. If I'm Ferry, I'd make the Z-Hix offer and if Steve Kerr accepts, I'd be doing the "Thriller" zombie dance on my desk before the word "Yes" was completely out of Kerr's mouth.
Biggest piece of this puzzle, IMO. That is the reason, after being Anti-Amare at last year's deadline, I would make this move for sure.
Last year, he would have had to defend, because a large portion of the time he would be on the floor with Z. Now, you can always team him with a defender, including using him at center and playing LBJ or Moon at the 4.
How "athletic" is this:
Mo, West, LBJ, Moon, Amare
by Orenthal » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:14 pm
by pup » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:18 pm
aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Papa Cass wrote:Amare is one of the top five finishers at the rim in the entire game. Even with some of the serious injuries he's had to his knee and eye, he still has an explosive first step to the basket. He doesn't possess a true post game, but he has quicks around the hoop. He can get his shot off in a variety of ways.
Amare cutting back door, taking a feed from LBJ and throwing it down? Yes, please. If Steve Nash can develop a PB&J relationship with Amare, imagine what could happen if Amare were teamed with a 6'-8", 265-pound elite passer who also happens to be a freight train and great finisher in his own right.
As for Amare's documented defensive deficiencies? Screw that. That's why you have a versatile roster. Need some more defensive help? Put Shaq in. Put Andy in. Put Powe in when he comes back. You would trade for Amare to give this team a much-needed offensive shot in the arm, particularly close to the basket, where you could turn games against the Lakers, C's and Magic into a war of attrition.
I don't think Hix is a piece of crap. I think he's ill-suited for his current role, but that's another story. But there is no way on eight planets or Pluto that I'd hesitate to give up Hix for Amare. If I'm Ferry, I'd make the Z-Hix offer and if Steve Kerr accepts, I'd be doing the "Thriller" zombie dance on my desk before the word "Yes" was completely out of Kerr's mouth.
Biggest piece of this puzzle, IMO. That is the reason, after being Anti-Amare at last year's deadline, I would make this move for sure.
Last year, he would have had to defend, because a large portion of the time he would be on the floor with Z. Now, you can always team him with a defender, including using him at center and playing LBJ or Moon at the 4.
How "athletic" is this:
Mo, West, LBJ, Moon, Amare
Right. Because LBJ was too small to play 4 last year, Andy wasn't on the roster, Jamario Moon isn't a string bean who gets pushed around by bigger 3s, and Shaq is a 'defender'. If anything, last year this should have been your take as everyone expected Ben to recover in time for the playoffs.
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:20 pm
Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
by neoleo » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:22 pm
aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.

by rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:24 pm
NEOLeo wrote:aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.
Not my argument, but come on man. If they were going to play LBJ at the 4, wouldn't they have done it against Orlando??? LBJ wasn't a 4 last year, period.
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:24 pm
NEOLeo wrote:aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.
Not my argument, but come on man. If they were going to play LBJ at the 4, wouldn't they have done it against Orlando??? LBJ wasn't a 4 last year, period.
by mrburns » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:26 pm
aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.

by RickNashEquilibrium » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:27 pm
rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Just because Mike Brown wasn't as smart as most of the people here who said to put Lebron on either Rashard/Turkoglu, doesn't mean he couldn't have handled it.
by Ea$t $ide » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:28 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Amare is, hands down, a better long term option than Jamo.
Jamo is, hands down, a better 1 year player as long as Shaq is your starting center.
Getting LBJ a guy he considers a long term running mate >>> than getting a guy who is ideal to play next to Shaq.
Big Picture and stuff.
by peeker643 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:35 pm
Mr. Burns wrote:aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.
You'd have a pretty versatile roster. If Brown could get it through his skull, you could play different teams with different personnel assortments.
And everything that's done at this point has to be done as much to keep LeBron as to win this year, although those two things generally go hand in hand. You'd have Mo, Andy, Amare, and Delonte signed up. That's a pretty good core. It'd be tough for LeBron to heart NY if he was walking away from that.
by pup » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:36 pm
aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.
by neoleo » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:38 pm
rebelwithoutaclue wrote:NEOLeo wrote:aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.
Not my argument, but come on man. If they were going to play LBJ at the 4, wouldn't they have done it against Orlando??? LBJ wasn't a 4 last year, period.
Just because Mike Brown wasn't as smart as most of the people here who said to put Lebron on either Rashard/Turkoglu, doesn't mean he couldn't have handled it.

by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:40 pm
Pup wrote:aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.
Come on dude. You being real?
You don't see the difference in teaming Amare up with Z for at least 20 minutes a night and teaming him up with Shaq for those same minutes? The time with Andy would be the same. Wallace, if healthy was probably going to give Amare bench time and be teamed up with Z.
As a guess, last year you would have seen:
20 minutes - Z and Amare
10 minutes - Z and Ben/Andy
18 minutes - Andy and Amare
Now you can go without having having to play Amare with an equally poor at the rim defender. Ever. He will always be matched with Andy or Shaq (who is a much better defender in the post than Z, BTW)
by rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Go watch some Phoenix tape from last year and tell me how awesome the Amare/Shaq combo was on the defensive end.
by mrburns » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:45 pm
Peeker643 wrote:Mr. Burns wrote:aoxo1 wrote:Pup wrote:Not even close.
LBJ wasn't too small, but they didn't do it.
As long as Z was in town, he was playing. Amare was going to play the 4. That would have made them even worse defensively with the bigs. Z and Amare in the post? Christ. Shaq or Andy in the post with Amare? I can handle that.
It isn't like you are going to play Moon at the 4 to defend Duncan. But Rashard? When need be? For sure.
Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.
You'd have a pretty versatile roster. If Brown could get it through his skull, you could play different teams with different personnel assortments.
And everything that's done at this point has to be done as much to keep LeBron as to win this year, although those two things generally go hand in hand. You'd have Mo, Andy, Amare, and Delonte signed up. That's a pretty good core. It'd be tough for LeBron to heart NY if he was walking away from that.
I think they have a pretty versatile and that Brown actually has played different groups against different styles. Saturday night being the most recent example.
The Cavs can and do play multiple styles depending what's called for on a given evening. I think it's the biggest development from last year to this.
Not a Brown pollyanna but I think it's sinking in and he has a roster that makes it easier for him to go that route.
YMMV

by rawdawgexpress » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:51 pm
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:52 pm
rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Go watch some Phoenix tape from last year and tell me how awesome the Amare/Shaq combo was on the defensive end.
Little bit of a misnomer considering the lack of emphasis on defense by Phoenix. If Brown has proven anything, it's that he can tailor his defense to minimize individual deficiencies.
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:55 pm
NEOLeo wrote:I'm not disagreeing with LeBron at the four. Not to put words into Pup's mouth, but I didn't interpret his post as doing that either. The point is, LeBron did not play the four last year. Whether or not he could have or should have is a different discussion. He did not. Talking about hypothetical matchups from last year and using LeBron at the 4 is wrong, because LeBron did not play the four last year.
by rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:57 pm
aoxo1 wrote:rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Go watch some Phoenix tape from last year and tell me how awesome the Amare/Shaq combo was on the defensive end.
Little bit of a misnomer considering the lack of emphasis on defense by Phoenix. If Brown has proven anything, it's that he can tailor his defense to minimize individual deficiencies.
Terry Porter was the coach for half the season. They tried to make it work on defense.
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:58 pm
NEOLeo wrote:I'm not disagreeing with LeBron at the four. Not to put words into Pup's mouth, but I didn't interpret his post as doing that either. The point is, LeBron did not play the four last year. Whether or not he could have or should have is a different discussion. He did not. Talking about hypothetical matchups from last year and using LeBron at the 4 is wrong, because LeBron did not play the four last year.
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:58 pm
rebelwithoutaclue wrote:aoxo1 wrote:rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Go watch some Phoenix tape from last year and tell me how awesome the Amare/Shaq combo was on the defensive end.
Little bit of a misnomer considering the lack of emphasis on defense by Phoenix. If Brown has proven anything, it's that he can tailor his defense to minimize individual deficiencies.
Terry Porter was the coach for half the season. They tried to make it work on defense.
True, but it's extremely hard to get a team that played zero defense for 5 years to suddenly want to play defense. Coming into a team with a strong defensive identity would seem (to me) easier to adjust to. Course Amare could just say "Fuck it all, I'm getting mine and then I'm outta here to be The Man."
by neoleo » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:03 pm
aoxo1 wrote:NEOLeo wrote:I'm not disagreeing with LeBron at the four. Not to put words into Pup's mouth, but I didn't interpret his post as doing that either. The point is, LeBron did not play the four last year. Whether or not he could have or should have is a different discussion. He did not. Talking about hypothetical matchups from last year and using LeBron at the 4 is wrong, because LeBron did not play the four last year.
We are talking about hypothetical lineups for this year.
aoxo1 wrote:Playing LBJ at the 4 last year would not have been some out of the blue, OMG I can't believe they did that development. It would have been, 'it's about time'.

by Larvell Blanks » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:19 pm
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:31 pm
NEOLeo wrote:Using Ben Wallace in a hypothetical lineup makes it from 2008-2009.
aoxo1 wrote:Right. Because LBJ was too small to play 4 last year, Andy wasn't on the roster, Jamario Moon isn't a string bean who gets pushed around by bigger 3s, and Shaq is a 'defender'. If anything, last year this should have been your take as everyone expected Ben to recover in time for the playoffs.
Pup wrote:Come on dude. You being real?
You don't see the difference in teaming Amare up with Z for at least 20 minutes a night and teaming him up with Shaq for those same minutes? The time with Andy would be the same. Wallace, if healthy was probably going to give Amare bench time and be teamed up with Z.
As a guess, last year you would have seen:
20 minutes - Z and Amare
10 minutes - Z and Ben/Andy
18 minutes - Andy and Amare
Now you can go without having having to play Amare with an equally poor at the rim defender. Ever. He will always be matched with Andy or Shaq (who is a much better defender in the post than Z, BTW)aoxo1 wrote:Go watch some Phoenix tape from last year and tell me how awesome the Amare/Shaq combo was on the defensive end. Tell me that it is clearly better than Z/Amare would have been. Then tell me how you figured that the minutes wouldn't break down more like
33 minutes - Amare and Andy
15 minutes - Z and Ben
by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:33 pm
NEOLeo wrote:Agreed. Again, what I think doesn't matter because it never happened. Could it have, yes. Should it have, yes. Did it, no.
by neoleo » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:58 pm
aoxo1 wrote:My statement about hypotheticals was in reference to your assertion that discussing them playing LBJ at the 4 is irrelevant because it is hypothetical, and that everything we are discussing is hypothetical because Amare is not a Cav. If you don't want to discuss hypotheticals, please refrain from posting in a thread about a hypothetical trade.
aoxo1 wrote:Oh, I see. Because they didn't play LBJ at the 4 means they couldn't have. That makes perfect sense.
And, again, Andy was on the roster last year.

by aoxo1 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:11 pm
NEOLeo wrote: Because LeBron never played the four last year. That's not hypothetical, that's fact.
by e0y2e3 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:40 pm

Return to Cleveland Cavaliers & The NBA
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], gbot and 3 guests