earthmansurfer wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Because we are running the triangle, I have to say I like Lin. I loved Lin last year and I know he has fallen off but to just bring the ball up, defend and have his IQ out there would probably do a lot for the team. Of course he would have to re-learn how to hit the open shot. But he loved NY and I think he is one of those players that plays much better under the bright lights here.

The problem with the triangle imo is that having a great PG probably doesn't help as much as one would think, since a great pg is not needed - seems like a waste of talent at a position (money wise).
So, I would rather have (talent wise) Jackson, Knight, etc. but I think this system would destroy much of their game and then a lot of their trade value. And we already experienced that with Tyson (for a variety of reasons.)

PG has not been a prominent position in the triangle because there hasn't been many talents that could maximize what is expected of the position. But if we signed a guy that can tenaciously defend the position, efficiently hit jump shots, takes care of the ball and is excellent at moving without the ball, I don't see why they couldn't be a star if the talent is there. Chauncey Billups would've been what he was in the triangle. Steph Curry would also still be a star. Hopefully we can sign a Brandon Knight or Reggie Jackson because they fulfill most of the criteria for being a triangle PG.

Fair points but that wouldn't a SG fit the bill and perhaps be a bit happier at the same time as well? I was wondering what was going through Larkins mind when he realized he would be playing in the triangle. My first thought was "Oh Shizz, I can't really show my skills in that." I just wonder if a great PG would think of signing here knowing they would be playing in the triangle. Let's say all things being equal (money, chance at winning, etc.) do you want to be a pg in the triangle? I wouldn't, it would be less fun.

Now, that said, if I was a SG with PG skills then I think that might be tempting.

This whole triangle thing as it relates to the pg position is a bit confusing. You mentioned a good point in that there haven't been any real pg's who are all stars who played in the triangle. But again, if you were a great pg, would you want to bring the ball up and just start the ball in motion (most times)? To me that would be like getting a well paid job that I don't really like.

But give me a tall PG (or combo guard) who can hit the open shot and defend VERY well, and then I think we have our pg. A pg that can create his shot would be great, but again, realistically, do they want to play here? (Maybe if they are the last piece, but I don't see them signing up early.)

EMS

A good pg would love to play in a triangle system. It's an easy job for them. They will always look like excellent game managers. But you're forgetting one thing.....Good pgs will push the ball and score or assist in transition. The triangle system is like have a solid backup plan for half court offense, if transition buckets are not available. Remember, Phils first words was to push the ball.....unfortunately, we don't have anybody to push it.

I rather spend my money on defense....and let the triangle system provide the offense. For example, Dennis Rodman claims he learned the triangle in 15 minutes. We know that's not true, but I believe he learned it pretty fast, because he never had an offensive structure to his game. Add more players that impact the game with their defense and rebounding, then hope their offense will click with Phils system. To me, that's the quickest way to win a championship under Phil and Melo. Otherwise, trade Melo.....and receive all roll players like Denver did with us. We might not win a championship, but we should be as good as the 90's knicks. At this point, I'll take that!

blkexec wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Because we are running the triangle, I have to say I like Lin. I loved Lin last year and I know he has fallen off but to just bring the ball up, defend and have his IQ out there would probably do a lot for the team. Of course he would have to re-learn how to hit the open shot. But he loved NY and I think he is one of those players that plays much better under the bright lights here.

The problem with the triangle imo is that having a great PG probably doesn't help as much as one would think, since a great pg is not needed - seems like a waste of talent at a position (money wise).
So, I would rather have (talent wise) Jackson, Knight, etc. but I think this system would destroy much of their game and then a lot of their trade value. And we already experienced that with Tyson (for a variety of reasons.)

PG has not been a prominent position in the triangle because there hasn't been many talents that could maximize what is expected of the position. But if we signed a guy that can tenaciously defend the position, efficiently hit jump shots, takes care of the ball and is excellent at moving without the ball, I don't see why they couldn't be a star if the talent is there. Chauncey Billups would've been what he was in the triangle. Steph Curry would also still be a star. Hopefully we can sign a Brandon Knight or Reggie Jackson because they fulfill most of the criteria for being a triangle PG.

Fair points but that wouldn't a SG fit the bill and perhaps be a bit happier at the same time as well? I was wondering what was going through Larkins mind when he realized he would be playing in the triangle. My first thought was "Oh Shizz, I can't really show my skills in that." I just wonder if a great PG would think of signing here knowing they would be playing in the triangle. Let's say all things being equal (money, chance at winning, etc.) do you want to be a pg in the triangle? I wouldn't, it would be less fun.

Now, that said, if I was a SG with PG skills then I think that might be tempting.

This whole triangle thing as it relates to the pg position is a bit confusing. You mentioned a good point in that there haven't been any real pg's who are all stars who played in the triangle. But again, if you were a great pg, would you want to bring the ball up and just start the ball in motion (most times)? To me that would be like getting a well paid job that I don't really like.

But give me a tall PG (or combo guard) who can hit the open shot and defend VERY well, and then I think we have our pg. A pg that can create his shot would be great, but again, realistically, do they want to play here? (Maybe if they are the last piece, but I don't see them signing up early.)

EMS

A good pg would love to play in a triangle system. It's an easy job for them. They will always look like excellent game managers. But you're forgetting one thing.....Good pgs will push the ball and score or assist in transition. The triangle system is like have a solid backup plan for half court offense, if transition buckets are not available. Remember, Phils first words was to push the ball.....unfortunately, we don't have anybody to push it.

I rather spend my money on defense....and let the triangle system provide the offense. For example, Dennis Rodman claims he learned the triangle in 15 minutes. We know that's not true, but I believe he learned it pretty fast, because he never had an offensive structure to his game. Add more players that impact the game with their defense and rebounding, then hope their offense will click with Phils system. To me, that's the quickest way to win a championship under Phil and Melo. Otherwise, trade Melo.....and receive all roll players like Denver did with us. We might not win a championship, but we should be as good as the 90's knicks. At this point, I'll take that!

I totally overlooked the "push it" mentality. That gives me hope.
Sort of a reason for a very good to great pg to push it in the triangle as that is one of the fewer times they can create. So, perhaps it really can make the team more dangerous.

I agree, I'm much more into defense, rather that stellar offensive players (in the triangle). I do think we need a person (like Melo) who we can always get a basket from. But beyond that, we need lots of good scorers who know how to D it up. Unless we have a bunch of crazy good offensive players (like Phoenix once die), there is little chance of winning on just that side of the ball. Looking at GS is special. They actually can score extremely well, but they also have defenders on the wing and a nice center.

mreinman wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Yea but that mix included blue chip talent whether they come through the draft, free agency or trades. I don't consider Melo or Marc Gasol blue chip talents. our 2015 lottery pick will have to be that blue chip/cornerstone player.

You can't max out a player like Marc Gasol though. You will have a roster full of 40yr vets and nbdl talent like we had when we won 54 games. Enough to get in the playoffs and fizzle out early.

Now when you have guys like Lebron, wade, bosh, jordan, pippen, kobe & shaq you can get by with a roster made up of bums. But only because those stars are otherworldly.

If your definition of blue chip is all time great calibur then I agree. Most the championships are won by teams with those players on their roster. Spurs 1st title, Pistons, ans Mavs come to mind as teams that have won recently without a blue chip. It can be done. I agree on Gasol wouldn't max him out of fear of him breaking down. However, I still like the approach and think a team built as I mention could compete in the East, especially with LeBron looking less dominant after pumping the breaks in the off-season.

Dirk not a blue chip?

Or Duncan and David Robinson.

VCoug wrote:

mreinman wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Yea but that mix included blue chip talent whether they come through the draft, free agency or trades. I don't consider Melo or Marc Gasol blue chip talents. our 2015 lottery pick will have to be that blue chip/cornerstone player.

You can't max out a player like Marc Gasol though. You will have a roster full of 40yr vets and nbdl talent like we had when we won 54 games. Enough to get in the playoffs and fizzle out early.

Now when you have guys like Lebron, wade, bosh, jordan, pippen, kobe & shaq you can get by with a roster made up of bums. But only because those stars are otherworldly.

If your definition of blue chip is all time great calibur then I agree. Most the championships are won by teams with those players on their roster. Spurs 1st title, Pistons, ans Mavs come to mind as teams that have won recently without a blue chip. It can be done. I agree on Gasol wouldn't max him out of fear of him breaking down. However, I still like the approach and think a team built as I mention could compete in the East, especially with LeBron looking less dominant after pumping the breaks in the off-season.

Dirk not a blue chip?

Or Duncan and David Robinson.

of course!

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

VCoug wrote:

mreinman wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Yea but that mix included blue chip talent whether they come through the draft, free agency or trades. I don't consider Melo or Marc Gasol blue chip talents. our 2015 lottery pick will have to be that blue chip/cornerstone player.

You can't max out a player like Marc Gasol though. You will have a roster full of 40yr vets and nbdl talent like we had when we won 54 games. Enough to get in the playoffs and fizzle out early.

Now when you have guys like Lebron, wade, bosh, jordan, pippen, kobe & shaq you can get by with a roster made up of bums. But only because those stars are otherworldly.

If your definition of blue chip is all time great calibur then I agree. Most the championships are won by teams with those players on their roster. Spurs 1st title, Pistons, ans Mavs come to mind as teams that have won recently without a blue chip. It can be done. I agree on Gasol wouldn't max him out of fear of him breaking down. However, I still like the approach and think a team built as I mention could compete in the East, especially with LeBron looking less dominant after pumping the breaks in the off-season.

Dirk not a blue chip?

Or Duncan and David Robinson.

yeah ... smh

Duncan was in his first yr (was told I can't use those as noted earlier in this thread), Robinson was on the decline at the pt (per this thread we need players in their prime). Dirk was no different than Melo prior to the championship. I am just going off what was written in the thread to define blue chip. I was told only all time greats are blue chip players, not top teir players in the league.

Duncan was in his 2nd year, not his first. Sure, Robinson was declining but he was still damned good; would probably be the best center in the league right now. Dirk was league MVP prior to winning a title.

earthmansurfer wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Because we are running the triangle, I have to say I like Lin. I loved Lin last year and I know he has fallen off but to just bring the ball up, defend and have his IQ out there would probably do a lot for the team. Of course he would have to re-learn how to hit the open shot. But he loved NY and I think he is one of those players that plays much better under the bright lights here.

The problem with the triangle imo is that having a great PG probably doesn't help as much as one would think, since a great pg is not needed - seems like a waste of talent at a position (money wise).
So, I would rather have (talent wise) Jackson, Knight, etc. but I think this system would destroy much of their game and then a lot of their trade value. And we already experienced that with Tyson (for a variety of reasons.)

PG has not been a prominent position in the triangle because there hasn't been many talents that could maximize what is expected of the position. But if we signed a guy that can tenaciously defend the position, efficiently hit jump shots, takes care of the ball and is excellent at moving without the ball, I don't see why they couldn't be a star if the talent is there. Chauncey Billups would've been what he was in the triangle. Steph Curry would also still be a star. Hopefully we can sign a Brandon Knight or Reggie Jackson because they fulfill most of the criteria for being a triangle PG.

Fair points but that wouldn't a SG fit the bill and perhaps be a bit happier at the same time as well? I was wondering what was going through Larkins mind when he realized he would be playing in the triangle. My first thought was "Oh Shizz, I can't really show my skills in that." I just wonder if a great PG would think of signing here knowing they would be playing in the triangle. Let's say all things being equal (money, chance at winning, etc.) do you want to be a pg in the triangle? I wouldn't, it would be less fun.

Now, that said, if I was a SG with PG skills then I think that might be tempting.

This whole triangle thing as it relates to the pg position is a bit confusing. You mentioned a good point in that there haven't been any real pg's who are all stars who played in the triangle. But again, if you were a great pg, would you want to bring the ball up and just start the ball in motion (most times)? To me that would be like getting a well paid job that I don't really like.

But give me a tall PG (or combo guard) who can hit the open shot and defend VERY well, and then I think we have our pg. A pg that can create his shot would be great, but again, realistically, do they want to play here? (Maybe if they are the last piece, but I don't see them signing up early.)

EMS

I think you just described Reggie Jackson and Brandon Knight to the "T". We're fortunate that they are available in an offseason when we have $30 million cap space. I actually think those two could be better versions of themselves in the system because in minimizes what they are not good at (creating for others as a classic PG) and maximize what they are good at (everything else). And I don't know about Reggie Jackson but Brandon Knight is book-smart and I am of the opinion that book-smart people make basketball-smart players. He reminds me a lot of what Chauncey Billups use to be sans the running back physique.

TPercy wrote:if we dont resign shump then get gerald green

+1

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Duncan, Dirk & Drob absolutely are all time greats, blue chip, cornerstone whatever you want to call them

Of course Duncan and Robinson are. I was referring to 1998-99 only. Duncan was a rookie, Robinson was on the decline, neither were in their prime. Dirk was regarded similar to Melo prior to that Championship. I personally think he is a great player, but given people's complaints about defense, etc when it comes to him, hard to argue to the contrary.

+1 about Dirk and Melo. I think he's been a bit overrated for most of his career. IMO, Melo is the better talent of the two; when building around him, I'd follow the Mavericks blueprint in 2011 and would expect similar results.

if we are unable to lure any impact players this off season, would Melo prefer a trade to a contender?
CA makes more money if he is traded to Houston and goes to a contender with Harden, D12, Ariza, Terrence Jones, etc...

While CA holds a no trade clause, with the asset's Houston has been collecting in addition to all of their own, I wonder what price would Morey be willing to part with to form a big 3 in Houston
Something like 1 1st round pick and 4 2nd rounders would be my bottom price with DMO, Koustas PAP, and maybe need to sign and trade a higher price of a player to fit the salaries of Beverely or somebody