| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sage_10 wrote: | | Why do we want Banks again? We have too many PG's as it is. |
Fickle fans... some of these idiots actually want PGs who can play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58336
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | some of these idiots actually want PGs who can play. |
And if so, why is Banks even a consideration? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wolfpaclaker wrote: | | Quote: | | some of these idiots actually want PGs who can play. |
And if so, why is Banks even a consideration? |
Let's see... could not having Nash and Barbossa on our roster have something to do with it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TEEGUNN
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 18086
Location: rocky mountain high
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Banks isn't likely coming. He's not a tri-fit player. He can D-up, but he still doesn't have that stigma with the refs of being allowed more contact ala Bowen. Actually, what we could use is Bynum with Zo's stigma of never fouling. It's more important with todays rules to have that swatting big who can get away with extra contact than perimeter defenders, unfortunately. That's an imbalance with the rules that needs to be changed.
_________________
"Why do you think bad things happen, anyway???" "So we have something good to look forward to."
Jake Speed, 1986 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58336
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wait so why did Boston and Minnesota let him go so easily too?
If there's one thing about Banks it's that I've learnt he can not play PG on O. He has some fatal flaws as a PG that could be covered by the Lakers but certainly not in the current situation because he would need 2-3 playmakers out there with him. Something that he could get as a starter like Smush does but he wouldn't start.
With Parker and Farmar - where's Marcus' playing time?
He comes here .. 3rd stringer. He'll need a year to figure the system and Phil isn't the the type to just bench 2 guys that have been in his system for longer for the newbie.
History tells me that the Lakers rather pay Smush in the offseason than trade for Marcus' contract. Smush has earned a raise with the Lakers while Marcus has earned hype through Laker message boards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58336
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TEEGUNN wrote: | | Banks isn't likely coming. He's not a tri-fit player. He can D-up, but he still doesn't have that stigma with the refs of being allowed more contact ala Bowen. Actually, what we could use is Bynum with Zo's stigma of never fouling. It's more important with todays rules to have that swatting big who can get away with extra contact than perimeter defenders, unfortunately. That's an imbalance with the rules that needs to be changed. |
Good post, and I also want to add that Smush has excellent length. Smush can absolutely be the defender that we need at PG and has shown in countless clutch situations that he has it in him to be a defender.
I don't see any reason to add Banks with Smush and Jordan already part of the rotation (with both improving as the season is wearing). Now say we're talking Jason Kidd or Dre Miller - now that's a whole different thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wolfpaclaker wrote: | Wait so why did Boston and Minnesota let him go so easily too?
If there's one thing about Banks it's that I've learnt he can not play PG on O. He has some fatal flaws as a PG that could be covered by the Lakers but certainly not in the current situation because he would need 2-3 playmakers out there with him. Something that he could get as a starter like Smush does but he wouldn't start.
With Parker and Farmar - where's Marcus' playing time?
He comes here .. 3rd stringer. He'll need a year to figure the system and Phil isn't the the type to just bench 2 guys that have been in his system for longer for the newbie.
History tells me that the Lakers rather pay Smush in the offseason and trade for Marcus' contract. Smush has earned a raise with the Lakers while Marcus has earned hype through Laker message boards. |
They let him go because he's not a traditional PG. Neither is Smush, which is why he was sitting in the bargain bin, marked down 90% for final sale.
That being said, I don't think Banks is part of the Laker plan, in a roster that is being financially engineered. If they upgrade, it won't be to take on Banks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29057
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shnjb wrote: | | 24KaratGold wrote: | "Take Banks off their hands"  He's a huge problem for them, I'm sure.
Mitch: Hey you know that Banks guy?
Suns Gm: Yeah, I hate him. You wanna take him off our hands?
Mitch: Meh. I dunno.
Suns Gm: Tell you what. We'll give you a #1 to take him
Mitch: Ok fine. |
It's amazing isn't it?
It's as if these people think of scenarios without EVER considering the other team's needs. |
Wow, you guys are hilarious. Are either you aware of the fact that the Suns traded 1st round picks for CASH last year? Cash. What need did that fill? The Pistons gave us Maurice Evans for the rights to a long-shot 2nd round pick. Teams make seemingly one-sided moves ALL THE TIME to cut salary. The Suns owner is notoriously adverse to going one dollar over the luxury tax, and they are about 7 million over it for next season, and that's before they sign 3 first round draft picks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerskobe247
Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 742
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11717
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | | shnjb wrote: | | 24KaratGold wrote: | "Take Banks off their hands" He's a huge problem for them, I'm sure.
Mitch: Hey you know that Banks guy?
Suns Gm: Yeah, I hate him. You wanna take him off our hands?
Mitch: Meh. I dunno.
Suns Gm: Tell you what. We'll give you a #1 to take him
Mitch: Ok fine. |
It's amazing isn't it?
It's as if these people think of scenarios without EVER considering the other team's needs. |
Wow, you guys are hilarious. Are either you aware of the fact that the Suns traded 1st round picks for CASH last year? Cash. What need did that fill? The Pistons gave us Maurice Evans for the rights to a long-shot 2nd round pick. Teams make seemingly one-sided moves ALL THE TIME to cut salary. The Suns owner is notoriously adverse to going one dollar over the luxury tax, and they are about 7 million over it for next season, and that's before they sign 3 first round draft picks. |
Thanks. Finally - a voice of reason. To make matter worse, Phoenix is for sure above luxury cap not just the next season, but also season after next as well. Ouch! And, trust me, their revenues are not even close to ours... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The Suns owner is notoriously adverse to going one dollar over the luxury tax, and they are about 7 million over it for next season, and that's before they sign 3 first round draft picks. |
Why do you think he wanted 3 picks?
High quality rookies are one of the best ways to get the most value out of a player.
Salaries aren't much higher than the mid-MLE for lottery picks.
The rest drop incrementally until you hit the vet mins in the 2nd round.
Imagine they're productive rookies trying to prove themselves. You've got those contracts with 2 years and 3rd year team option if I remember correctly.
Tends to be one of the best ways to save money and build capspace.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29057
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | | The Suns owner is notoriously adverse to going one dollar over the luxury tax, and they are about 7 million over it for next season, and that's before they sign 3 first round draft picks. |
Why do you think he wanted 3 picks?
High quality rookies are one of the best ways to get the most value out of a player.
Salaries aren't much higher than the mid-MLE for lottery picks.
The rest drop incrementally until you hit the vet mins in the 2nd round.
Imagine they're productive rookies trying to prove themselves. You've got those contracts with 2 years and 3rd year team option if I remember correctly.
Tends to be one of the best ways to save money and build capspace. |
I agree with what you're saying, but you can't tell me the Suns wouldn't want to shed Banks's contract. They are over the limit next year, so they are going to have to slash salary. He's the wrong fit for that system and he's not getting any PT, so how are the Suns gonna showcase him and get rid of him? Seems like they'd have to entice another team to take him off their hands with a #1. With 1st round picks to spare, a roster that's already probably the best in the league, and a severe luxury tax penalty looming, are you still gonna tell me it's a ridiculous proposition?
Last edited by pjiddy on Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11717
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | | The Suns owner is notoriously adverse to going one dollar over the luxury tax, and they are about 7 million over it for next season, and that's before they sign 3 first round draft picks. |
Why do you think he wanted 3 picks?
High quality rookies are one of the best ways to get the most value out of a player.
Salaries aren't much higher than the mid-MLE for lottery picks.
The rest drop incrementally until you hit the vet mins in the 2nd round.
Imagine they're productive rookies trying to prove themselves. You've got those contracts with 2 years and 3rd year team option if I remember correctly.
Tends to be one of the best ways to save money and build capspace. |
Mike, it would have been right long term planning, you are absolutely correct. That's the reason you do not overpay players. The Suns did and now they are facing some tough choices. Like moving people out without "compensation".
Look at some stupid signings/trades they have done (salaries are for next season):
Piatkowski - $1.2MM (wouldn't you rather have 1st rounder for about the same money)
Banks - $3.9MM
J. James - $2.9MM
KThomas - $8.1MM
Moving these players will allow them to get their draft picks and sign some MIN players who might marginally contribute. But who would need them for this kind of money (with possible exception of James Jones)?
As it stands now - 10 players are signed for $76.5MM for next season. Shawn Marion - anybody?
Why did they want these 3 picks? - It is an asset. As you know, if push comes to shove, you can sell them... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree with what you're saying, but you can't tell me the Suns wouldn't want to shed Banks's contract. They are over the limit next year, so they are going to have to slash salary. He's the wrong fit for that system and he's not getting any PT, so how are the Suns gonna showcase him and get rid of him? Seems like they'd have to entice another team to take him off their hands with a #1. With 1st round picks to spare, a roster that's already probably the best in the league, and a severe luxury tax penalty looming, are you still gonna tell me it's a ridiculous proposition? |
About Banks, I think they got him as insurance. Diaw and Barbosa exploded last season and Nash is the MVP. They wanted Banks to help save Nash for the playoffs, especially considering in the last 2 seasons, Nash has basically been burned out by the time it's the postseason.
However, it's contradictory to D'Antoni's philosophy. He wants an 8 man rotation. He'd pull off 7 if he could. Instead of Banks getting consistent PT, Barbosa is thriving in the offense and he's getting more PT.
Essentially, this was what Phoenix wanted out of Barbosa before they traded Joe Johnson. Just now Barbosa is really coming into his own.
Top that with Raja Bell, and they've got their rotating 3-guard lineup, with Diaw getting priority over Banks. When Diaw first started there, he was projected as the next backup PG to Nash. Funny how that worked out. Now he's the power point forward.
Essentially that puts him 5th in guard rotation on a roster with a coach that likes tight rotations.
Contrast that to the Lakers. Smush's contract ends soon. Farmar is a rookie. I still don't understand why Shammond got signed when Sasha does the same exact role. None of these heads really standout among each other considering how tight the race is just for Parker's and Farmar's minutes. Banks would've been in the middle of that race, plus insurance for the Laker team down the line if Smush wanted to leave for greener pastures contract-wise. PJ doesn't mind running 10 players deep.
The Suns want to save money, yes, but not at the expense of just giving away talent.
Want Banks? Give them a 2nd rounder, expiring contract, and maybe cash. Easy pickings.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THE_SHOES
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 29556
Location: Taiwan
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | History tells me that the Lakers rather pay Smush in the offseason than trade for Marcus' contract. Smush has earned a raise with the Lakers while Marcus has earned hype through Laker message boards.
|
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, the troof!
Will Laker fans ever get over Marcus Banks? Mitch has...Let it go ya'll...Let it go....
_________________
"According to ESPN.com's conference projections, the Lakers will finish 12th in the West, which prompted Bryant to tweet earlier this offseason, "12th I see.." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29057
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I only wanted Banks if we got a 1st rounder out of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shnjb
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2002
Posts: 13320
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come to think of it, the Suns have both of the PGs some Laker fans used to drool over on the bench.
I don't know how much of an improvement Banks would be but man, how nice would it have been to get Barbosa instead of COOK? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lionballer7
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 1684
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shnjb wrote: | Come to think of it, the Suns have both of the PGs some Laker fans used to drool over on the bench.
I don't know how much of an improvement Banks would be but man, how nice would it have been to get Barbosa instead of COOK? |
Oh don't get me started with that blunder...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLT
Star Player
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1025
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Let me think about itNO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
