Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TrueMagicFan07

Magic Vs Thunder - Wednesday, January 22nd @ 7:00 PM

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Fultz4thewin said:

Ainge has a weird blind spot with centers. It's why they went into the season thinking Kanter was the answer. 

Yeah but he knows he needs a low usage center. Not an high usage one that doesn’t contribute anything if he isn’t leading the team in scoring. He wants to win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Magicman28 said:

Yeah but he knows he needs a low usage center. Not an high usage one that doesn’t contribute anything if he isn’t leading the team in scoring. He wants to win. 

I don't think he knows that. For like 3 years we've gotten Boston Vucevic rumors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fultz4thewin said:

I don't think he knows that. For like 3 years we've gotten Boston Vucevic rumors. 

He does or else it would’ve happened. Probably rather have Bamba at this point.

I’m telling you, Vuch is Greg Monroe. We’re stuck with him and we could wind up doing the same with Fournier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Magicman28 said:

Yeah the Vuch in his contract year. Not the Vuch before and now.

There's not been a considerable difference between contract year Vucevic and current year Vucevic. 

You can be pessimistic about a deal but the possibility exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fultz4thewin said:

There's not been a considerable difference between contract year Vucevic and current year Vucevic. 

You can be pessimistic about a deal but the possibility exists. 

Not considerable but there’s a difference. Plus Brown’s value has risen since last year. 
 

It’s not pessimistic. It’s realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fultz4thewin said:

Nobody said that

Let me find the quote. Bare with me. Unless it was fake. It was from Kevin O'Connor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing with trading Vucevic. I don't know what his value is. Neither does anyone else who isn't an NBA GM. Some of them probably don't. But here's the thing:

We've proven at this point that he can play good enough defense that you can build a good defense with him in the lineup. We weren't sure of that before Clifford. That doesn't mean he's a positive defensive player. But he was on a team last year that had only two good defenders in the lineup and still was a good defensive team. That means you don't have to surround him with all-world defenders like the Celtics did with Isaiah Thomas, just to have a decent defense. You just need the right system when he's on the floor. So it's reasonable there's more interest in Vuc than there once was.

Before last year, and really before this year, Vuc was not a reliable 3-point threat. Last year he was solid, but not at enough volume to be sure. Now he's shooting nearly five 3's a game, and hitting at a solid percentage. More value, even though his overall shooting #s are down, because he opens up what you can do with him on offense. How many C's in the league can operate at range, at mid-range, and down low, all with solid efficiency? Again, more value than before.

Vuc's rebounding is very good. You can rely on him to be your only major defensive rebounder and it'll be fine. Surprisingly, this wasn't a sure thing even two years ago. The reason is that he was coming off a very mediocre rebounding year, only a year removed from an abysmal rebounding year during the Skiles season. Now, those years look more like anomalies, with two more solid rebounding seasons. He's not Drummond, but no one is Drummond. More value than any other time we were shopping him (I don't believe we were really shopping him at the deadline last year).

On the other hand, his contract is pretty big. It goes down year-to-year, which is a major plus. I love that the current management group seems to love to do that, because it makes players' contracts look more tradeable. But $28 million for a C is a bunch of money. That contract will look solid if he's still playing this well in a year and a half. But I think it will be hard to sell a team on a questionable defensive C even at $26 million unless he's playing at last year's insane offensive efficiency.

He's soft. Everyone in the league knows he's soft. Marc Gasol exposed that for everyone to see last year in the playoffs. If someone didn't know before that, they know now. So until he can prove that he can score on Gasol, he's going to be labeled soft. On the plus side, all he has to do is go off in one of our remaining Toronto games. The only one left this year (hopefully) is the final game of the season. Put up big numbers against Toronto, that will go a long way for his reputation.

Any speculation on what his value is by us fans is just that: speculation. And that's fine. The Celtics have been rumored for years to like him. There's plenty of reasons he would fit well with their situation. I think he would be more valuable to them than Gordon Hayward, all things considered. The Kings make all kinds of crazy moves, and they've been rumored before to like him. There is an argument that if he had value, he would have been traded when he was making much less. There is an argument that he had less value back then. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

Lastly, I don't think Vuc is a guy we HAVE to trade. Even if he plays out his contract, that basically just means Bamba didn't work out. Sucks, but Vuc is not a bad C. He's not holding us back. Him and Fournier together, though. We all know that duo needs to be broken up for the young guys to thrive. I still don't like the Idea of trading Gordon before we see what he is without Euroball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fultz4thewin said:

That's not what that means. Making a deal today, good or bad, limits your opportunity for the future. So you shouldn't just make a move for the sake of making one. It has to fit a plan.

1) I don't see how making a good deal could limit opportunity for the future. Not more than some moves we already made, at least.

2) We already discussed that the plan isn't 100% sure to be a good one. There're real concerns here.

3) I would definitely make a move to finally change that roster/style that's not helping either our results and the growth of the young group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Justin Jaudon said:

Here's the thing with trading Vucevic. I don't know what his value is. Neither does anyone else who isn't an NBA GM. Some of them probably don't. But here's the thing:

We've proven at this point that he can play good enough defense that you can build a good defense with him in the lineup. We weren't sure of that before Clifford. That doesn't mean he's a positive defensive player. But he was on a team last year that had only two good defenders in the lineup and still was a good defensive team. That means you don't have to surround him with all-world defenders like the Celtics did with Isaiah Thomas, just to have a decent defense. You just need the right system when he's on the floor. So it's reasonable there's more interest in Vuc than there once was.

Before last year, and really before this year, Vuc was not a reliable 3-point threat. Last year he was solid, but not at enough volume to be sure. Now he's shooting nearly five 3's a game, and hitting at a solid percentage. More value, even though his overall shooting #s are down, because he opens up what you can do with him on offense. How many C's in the league can operate at range, at mid-range, and down low, all with solid efficiency? Again, more value than before.

Vuc's rebounding is very good. You can rely on him to be your only major defensive rebounder and it'll be fine. Surprisingly, this wasn't a sure thing even two years ago. The reason is that he was coming off a very mediocre rebounding year, only a year removed from an abysmal rebounding year during the Skiles season. Now, those years look more like anomalies, with two more solid rebounding seasons. He's not Drummond, but no one is Drummond. More value than any other time we were shopping him (I don't believe we were really shopping him at the deadline last year).

On the other hand, his contract is pretty big. It goes down year-to-year, which is a major plus. I love that the current management group seems to love to do that, because it makes players' contracts look more tradeable. But $28 million for a C is a bunch of money. That contract will look solid if he's still playing this well in a year and a half. But I think it will be hard to sell a team on a questionable defensive C even at $26 million unless he's playing at last year's insane offensive efficiency.

He's soft. Everyone in the league knows he's soft. Marc Gasol exposed that for everyone to see last year in the playoffs. If someone didn't know before that, they know now. So until he can prove that he can score on Gasol, he's going to be labeled soft. On the plus side, all he has to do is go off in one of our remaining Toronto games. The only one left this year (hopefully) is the final game of the season. Put up big numbers against Toronto, that will go a long way for his reputation.

Any speculation on what his value is by us fans is just that: speculation. And that's fine. The Celtics have been rumored for years to like him. There's plenty of reasons he would fit well with their situation. I think he would be more valuable to them than Gordon Hayward, all things considered. The Kings make all kinds of crazy moves, and they've been rumored before to like him. There is an argument that if he had value, he would have been traded when he was making much less. There is an argument that he had less value back then. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

Lastly, I don't think Vuc is a guy we HAVE to trade. Even if he plays out his contract, that basically just means Bamba didn't work out. Sucks, but Vuc is not a bad C. He's not holding us back. Him and Fournier together, though. We all know that duo needs to be broken up for the young guys to thrive. I still don't like the Idea of trading Gordon before we see what he is without Euroball.

Vuch is here. It is what it is. I just want Fournier gone. A different direction. Like you said, break up that duo. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luke_FfS said:

1) I don't see how making a good deal could limit opportunity for the future. Not more than some moves we already made, at least.

2) We already discussed that the plan isn't 100% sure to be a good one. There're real concerns here.

3) I would definitely make a move to finally change that roster/style that's not helping either our results and the growth of the young group.

1. Let's say we trade for James harden today. He asks for a trade and we cash in our trade assets for him. Then in the summer giannis becomes available. We can't trade for giannis because we spent all of our trade stuff on harden. Every move you make today limits every future move you can make. That's not to say you don't make a good deal by holding out for a great one but you have to keep that limitation in mind going forward. 

2. I'm not talking about a specific plan, just we need to have a plan. We can't make moves just for the sake of making moves. We can change the plan we have but there has to be some sort of roadmap. 

3. Sure. If it's the right move. A positive one. One that doesn't kill the team for the rest of the season or give us a long term contract that we don't really want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×