JJ or Matt?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

quote:

Originally posted by ezzzp:

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

 

But at the same time, if DeVos claims not to care, wants to win now, and really doesn't care about spending money, I wouldn't doubt JJ would be matched. Is he worth the approximate $30 mil we'd pay being over the cap? No, but if his mentality is "**** it", mine certainly isn't going to be different, especially since none of it is my money.

 

I wouldn't be mad if he came back either. But if I'm Otis, I'm picking my battles. In Q's press conference, Otis made various statements indicating that if he chose to ask Devos to sign JJ they would have to make that decision. I took that as he's not sure he wants to ask for that money because he's not sure that its worth it. To me that indicates that this move will have repercussions on further moves. If he asks to overspend for JJ he may not be able to ask to overspend later.

 

i agree. we need to have good forsight when throwing money around. Every move we make now effects the moves we can make in the future.

[Escobar06 2]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by Escobar06:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

All things equal? JJ.

 

However, I'd rather have Barnes at 3m than JJ at 7.

 

 

So you'd give up a player who has improved every season over a guy who has clearly maxed out and is only going to decline from this point forward? Sounds.....dumb. Give me the more talented guy for a few million more every day of the week.

 

JJ is, at best, an average NBA player who's about to be paid well above average NBA player money.

 

Seriously, this isn't rocket science.

 

 

You're right, it's not. Which is why it makes much more sense to pay a guy a million or two more than he's worth instead of paying a guy past his prime ANYTHING. The way I see it, every cent we'd pay Barnes would be a waste. Sure he played well at times, defensively, but even that part of his game regressed in the playoffs. Combine that with his nonexistent offense and I can't see why we'd ever keep him over a guy like JJ.

[BMP 424]

Well, keep in mind that barring any major trades, this is the team we will have for the next 2 years, so I doubt we would be needing to go into the luxury tax any more during those two years. After those two years are up, JJ's contract would be back to $5 mil.

 

 

Now, if Otis plans on grabbing a big time player and having to take a bad contract for it, then maybe signing JJ to that much money wouldn't be such a good idea.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Escobar06:

You're right, it's not. Which is why it makes much more sense to pay a guy a million or two more than he's worth instead of paying a guy past his prime ANYTHING.

 

By this logic, it's smarter to pay JJ 7m a season than it is to pay Steve Nash the veteran's minimum.

 

quote:

The way I see it, every cent we'd pay Barnes would be a waste.

 

I can use hyperbole too. That doesn't make the statement sound less ridiculous.

 

quote:

Sure he played well at times, defensively, but even that part of his game regressed in the playoffs.

 

Translation: I'm conveniently ignoring the first two playoff series in favor of viewing the entire playoffs as consisting of JUST the Boston series.

 

Except when it comes to JJ, because he mostly shot terribly that series. But we're ignoring that because he wound up shooting a ton of FTs in two of those games, so we can pretend that he played really well because his FGA to Pts ratio was disproportionately good, even though he was an offensive liability for most of those games, and a defensive liability constantly.

 

Also, I'm choosing to ignore the stats Joe Johnson put up on Barnes in the previous series, since it completely tears my argument a new *******.

 

quote:

Combine that with his nonexistent offense and I can't see why we'd ever keep him over a guy like JJ.

 

There needs to be an "Obvious role player is obvious" Jpeg to use as a response for posts like this. Bruce Bowen had less offense than Barnes does. I'd rather have prime Bruce Bowen than JJ as well.

[Murphy13 185]

So if we agree that Redick is an average player in this league DOM, we can agree that he is worth average money. The MLE is exactly that, the average player salary-which I believe is 5.8m this year, right? Redick's salary averages out to 6.3m a season.

 

So the question is: Is Redick worth the extra 500K per year?

 

Given the lack of quality left in this market, I would tend to lean in the favor of retaining his services...from a pure business perspective.

[HerdNation 0]

let's face it: this is all moot. Barnes isn't coming back. Thanks for the memories. GLTS.

[Murphy13 185]

Does anyone know of any team interested in Barnes for more than what we offered him? Dallas and GS come to mind, but GS just signed Dorrell Wright. And Dallas is trying to lure Shaq.

 

There are plenty of teams with their MLE/part of it. But realistically who is there that would provide Barnes with much more money? Throw in the chance to win and the number of teams gets even smaller. Any ideas on what teams are left?

 

I still think there is a chance we could get him the the 2m BAE. He might be pissed he couldnt get more, but I like the way the market is shaping up-especially if Shaq heads to DAL.

[Escobar06 2]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by Escobar06:

You're right, it's not. Which is why it makes much more sense to pay a guy a million or two more than he's worth instead of paying a guy past his prime ANYTHING.

 

By this logic, it's smarter to pay JJ 7m a season than it is to pay Steve Nash the veteran's minimum.

 

quote:

The way I see it, every cent we'd pay Barnes would be a waste.

 

I can use hyperbole too. That doesn't make the statement sound less ridiculous.

 

quote:

Sure he played well at times, defensively, but even that part of his game regressed in the playoffs.

 

Translation: I'm conveniently ignoring the first two playoff series in favor of viewing the entire playoffs as consisting of JUST the Boston series.

 

Except when it comes to JJ, because he mostly shot terribly that series. But we're ignoring that because he wound up shooting a ton of FTs in two of those games, so we can pretend that he played really well because his FGA to Pts ratio was disproportionately good, even though he was an offensive liability for most of those games, and a defensive liability constantly.

 

Also, I'm choosing to ignore the stats Joe Johnson put up on Barnes in the previous series, since it completely tears my argument a new *******.

 

quote:

Combine that with his nonexistent offense and I can't see why we'd ever keep him over a guy like JJ.

 

There needs to be an "Obvious role player is obvious" Jpeg to use as a response for posts like this. Bruce Bowen had less offense than Barnes does. I'd rather have prime Bruce Bowen than JJ as well.

 

 

 

As usual your posts are long, boring, and full of fluff. You throw out random nonsense, "stats" that nobody else cares about to pretend you know things others don't. It's like a lawyer who convinces himself that those who aren't lawyers chose something else because they weren't smart enough to go to law school. Completely ignoring the fact that maybe they just weren't interested in it. That pretty much sums up the majority of the nonsense you spew out, random meaningless garbage that only you are interested in.

 

Steve Nash is a legit superstar, has been for years. The fact that you'd even mention him in a Barnes/JJ debate proves there's no limit to your foolishness. I referred to a past his prime Matt Barnes, in no way is that even close to a past his prime Steve Nash. For you to bring that name up means you believe I'd make the same comment if Nash was the option rather than Barnes. To even think such a thing proves what anyone who pays attention already knows. You're an idiot.

 

 

I'm not "conveniently" ignoring anything in regards to our playoff run. Charlotte didn't have a single legit perimeter threat, their "offense" consisted of driving to the hoop in hopes of receiving a foul call. Yep, real difficult to defend, or not. The series was tough because of their defense, it had absolutely nothing to do with their offense and even less to do with the defense of the great Matt Barnes. Charlotte was atrocious offensively all season, look it up.

 

Apparently you haven't noticed so I'll enlighten you, we own Atlanta. Out of the nine times we played them last season we beat them by an average of around 30 points, ponder that for a bit. Matt Barnes or Barney, it doesn't matter..Atlanta wasn't going to win and it wasn't going to be close. Joe Johnson had a slew of open looks in that series...and missed nearly all of them. It's called losing before you step on the court. Yep, lot's of ignoring going on, you got that part right.

 

 

You finished as poorly as you started, mentioning Bruce Bowen in his prime, when Barnes isn't in his. If you're going to compare two players at least make it an equal comparison. Overall as a player JJ beats Barnes in virtually everything except rebounding. I'd love to be a GM in the NBA and have you be the GM of my rival, I can't imagine a better, or easier, situation. You can load up on all the Barnes' of the world, I'll take the guys with the more well rounded games, who are younger, and who've improved each year they've been in the league.

[OrlandoNative72 0]

quote:

Originally posted by TreyTime:

quote:

Originally posted by MagicDelight:

quote:

Originally posted by comf5.com/jonah:

jj would be so much more effective as a starter.. how about starting him instead of lewis... would be a more effective scorer from beyond the arc

 

Sounds good.

 

 

JJ at PF? Sign me up, this will be very interesting.

 

LOL! Thats funny.

Another problem is Lewis of the bench. That dude needs to be out there every single minute for the money he makes.

Could you imagine Gortat and lewis coming in off the bench? The most expensive subs in league!

My choice per the thread would be JJ. Time effort and money invested in him is great. Not to mention he is actual the poster boy for earning his way.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Escobar06:

As usual your posts are long, boring, and full of fluff. You throw out random nonsense, "stats" that nobody else cares about to pretend you know things others don't. It's like a lawyer who convinces himself that those who aren't lawyers chose something else because they weren't smart enough to go to law school. Completely ignoring the fact that maybe they just weren't interested in it. That pretty much sums up the majority of the nonsense you spew out, random meaningless garbage that only you are interested in.

 

And yet the senior posters on this board respect me, and think you're an idiot. Huh.

 

And not that it matters, because you're shouting at the wind at this point, but the "lawyer who thinks others aren't smart enough to be lawyers" metaphor isn't really apt. It's much closer to "lawyer who's really annoyed at non-lawyers trying to talk to him about law like they know what they're talking about."

 

quote:

Steve Nash is a legit superstar, has been for years. The fact that you'd even mention him in a Barnes/JJ debate proves there's no limit to your foolishness. I referred to a past his prime Matt Barnes, in no way is that even close to a past his prime Steve Nash. For you to bring that name up means you believe I'd make the same comment if Nash was the option rather than Barnes. To even think such a thing proves what anyone who pays attention already knows. You're an idiot.

 

Is Steve Nash not past his prime? Did you not say, and I quote: "it makes much more sense to pay a guy a million or two more than he's worth instead of paying a guy past his prime ANYTHING"?

 

So if I'm an idiot for taking the argument you presented to its logical conclusion, what does that make you?

 

quote:

I'm not "conveniently" ignoring anything in regards to our playoff run.

 

Yes, you are.

 

quote:

Charlotte didn't have a single legit perimeter threat,

 

What the ****? Stephen Jackson and Gerald ****ing Wallace aren't legit perimeter threats now?

 

quote:

their "offense" consisted of driving to the hoop in hopes of receiving a foul call.

 

Yes. They're perimeter offense is built around slashing wings. It's a pretty common thing. Good job pointing it out though.

 

quote:

Yep, real difficult to defend, or not.

 

Yes. I'm glad you've been able to spot that a slashing offense may or may not be difficult to defend. I'm glad we're covering all of our bases.

 

quote:

The series was tough because of their defense, it had absolutely nothing to do with their offense and even less to do with the defense of the great Matt Barnes. Charlotte was atrocious offensively all season, look it up.

 

Yeah, they were predominantly a defensive team, and even with their terrible offense they gave us a bit of a scare in a couple of those games.

 

I guess we're lucky that we had such a good perimeter defender as Matt Barnes to hold their two best offensive players below their season averages and percentages, Jackson staggeringly so, otherwise we might have lost a couple of those games.

 

quote:

Apparently you haven't noticed so I'll enlighten you, we own Atlanta. Out of the nine times we played them last season we beat them by an average of around 30 points, ponder that for a bit.

 

We played them 8 times last season, not 9. And we lost one of those games.

 

quote:

Matt Barnes or Barney, it doesn't matter..Atlanta wasn't going to win and it wasn't going to be close. Joe Johnson had a slew of open looks in that series...and missed nearly all of them. It's called losing before you step on the court. Yep, lot's of ignoring going on, you got that part right.

 

I like this idea. Make an argument based on absolutely nothing, claim all evidence that your argument is wrong doesn't matter because the series was "[lost] before you step on the court", then insult the other person. Let me try:

 

"JJ has never made a real jumpshot in his life. All the jumpshots he did make don't count. You're more useless than Mel Gibson's ex."

 

How was that?

 

 

quote:

You finished as poorly as you started, mentioning Bruce Bowen in his prime, when Barnes isn't in his.

 

You can switch my statement to "Bruce Bowen when Bowen was just past his prime" or "Bruce Bowen at age 30" if you like. It doesn't change my point at all. It just makes you look ridiculous and petty.

 

quote:

If you're going to compare two players at least make it an equal comparison.

 

But that's the problem: I can't magically make Matt Barnes white and remove his tattoos, which I'm frankly tired of pretending isn't the real argument here. If JJ was black, we'd be treating him like what he is: a not-as-good Courtney Lee. Redick is going to be overpaid this year for the same reason Turk was last year: GMs love players who are part of deep playoff runs and have short memories.

 

quote:

Overall as a player JJ beats Barnes in virtually everything except rebounding.

 

And defense, but don't feel bad about forgetting that one; it's only half the game.

 

quote:

I'd love to be a GM in the NBA and have you be the GM of my rival, I can't imagine a better, or easier, situation. You can load up on all the Barnes' of the world, I'll take the guys with the more well rounded games, who are younger, and who've improved each year they've been in the league.

 

I'd love to be an NBA GM against you. It's fun watching people overreact to the playoffs.

 

And why do you keep repeating the bolded statement like it's significant? If a player goes from being the worst player in the D-league to the second worst player in the D-league his first year, and then to the third worst in the D-league the following year, then the 4th worst and so on, he may be improving every year, but he still sucks. The fact that JJ has gone from being a gigantic liability to being a decent contributor for an NBA team in the course of 4 years is all well and good, but the fact that he's improved doesn't matter; only the amount in which he's improved, which still has him as "decent backup player'.

 

And murphy, I don't feel like writing a second post for this, but I'd agree that Redick is about average for a shooting guard, but the average salary for a shooting guard is lower than the league average, because big men get paid so much more than wings. I'd peg Redick between 4 and 4.5, so paying him between 2 and 2.5m a year more than he's worth is a bit silly to me.

[BMP 424]

[Escobar06 2]

I'm not copying all of that garbage. Just your typical fluff. You're the kind of person who can talk for hours and not say a thing, usually that's reserved for chics but you clearly qualify.

 

Gerald Wallace is a perimeter threat as much as Rondo is. Stephen Jackson is a career 42 percent shooter. Spare me with the exaggerated emphasis on these two.

 

Regarding your ridiculous Nash comparison, this is a thread about BARNES and JJ. I assumed you were smart enough to realize that the player I was referring to as past his prime was, you know...Barnes. I already think you're an idiot, but if you believe I meant ANY player in the NBA past his prime should not be signed then you have reached a whole new level of dumb. Read the words, and then comprehend them. You're so eager to start your novels you forget to do that at times.

 

 

We played Atlanta nine times, once in preseason. How can a stat geek like you forget something as obvious as that? Even what you're "good" at, you aren't so good at. Usually I'd ignore the preseason, but considering we blew them out in that game, after blowing them out several times last year and then countless times this year...it became worth mentioning. It's called a trend.

 

 

In the most important series of the year, against Boston, how did Barnes do? That's all I care about. I saw a journeymen defensive "specialist" provide absolutely nothing when it mattered the most. When you are a one trick pony, which Barnes is, and that one trick isn't working on that particular day...what do you provide to the team? In your own words JJ has gone from "gigantic liability" to "decent backup", what evidence do you have to show that he won't keep improving? Clearly you seem to think he's reached his peak, why else would you claim he'd be overpaid if we matched the deal?

 

In other words, what kind of fool makes a claim about a player whose ceiling has yet to be determined? ESPECIALLY in favor of a guy who has shown all he has to offer, and it wasn't that great. People talk about him improvING for a reason, it's continuous. When it stops people will stop saying it. Meanwhile you can go focus on your boy Barnes who'll be playing on what...his 8th team in eight years? Man, the league must not recognize the kind of player Barnes is...maybe you should send out a memo.

 

 

Edit: Btw, congrats on the message board "respect", that gave me a chuckle. So, thanks. At least you've come to terms with why you come to this place. My guess is your friend...err friends g0t sick of hearing your "ideas", so you figured you'd look elsewhere for that "respect".