Does Utah hold the key to Cleveland's future?

[Chris]

You dont think he's playing Great for a rookie? especially a rookie's first games?
7 games @ 28mins, .488 FG, .531 3pt, 2 reb, 2 asists
those are pretty fucking good. Especially for a rookie whom everyone booed on draft night (i was at the Q, booing along with everyone). He has no rookie jitters, he plays some decent-good defense on top of his awesome offense stats.

Thus far, for a rookie, Waiters is GREAT.

I only commented on Gee being a great defender..which he is

He's not a great player. He's had two huge games that inflated his stats. You are premature if you are ready to say he is a top player in the NBA (aka, a great player). This isn't complex. Not only are those stats borderline unsustainable (namely due to his 3 pt percentages), but in the context of the discussion, which is how good is our team going forward, it just doesn't make sense to say we have a great player in Waiters because his first 7 games have been surprisingly good.

But we'll save it for the Waiters thread to debate whether or not he has arrived as an NBA superstar stud in his 7th game.

 

[AuxiliaryPie]

He's not a great player. He's had two huge games that inflated his stats. You are premature if you are ready to say he is a top player in the NBA (aka, a great player). This isn't complex. Not only are those stats borderline unsustainable (namely due to his 3 pt percentages), but in the context of the discussion, which is how good is our team going forward, it just doesn't make sense to say we have a great player in Waiters because his first 7 games have been surprisingly good.

But we'll save it for the Waiters thread to debate whether or not he has arrived as an NBA superstar stud in his 7th game.

i never said he is a "super star stud" or that his stats are maintainable. I said...FOR A ROOKIE, FOR THIS EARLY IN THE SEASON, HE IS GREAT. what is so hard to understand about that? If he fell off later in the season i would say "wow he fell off, remember how great he was in the first 7 games?". Great does not necessarily mean greatest of all time, like you assume it does. "Great" in our discussion is contextual and you are taking my usage of the term out of my context.

edit- Here is my context of the word "Great"
The progression of Good, Better, Best. The way I am using "Great" is analogous to "Better". He certainly isnt the "Best" in the league, but he is doing "Better" than most. Which in my opinion is great (especially for a rookie).

 

[Chris]

I meant great in terms of, a top player in the league, which he isn't. When you say "Waiters is great" that is how I took it (granted, you later on added the qualifier of "so far"). I guess we just have different definitions of it. Regardless, the Cavs starting lineup is watchable but it isn't really anything special as of yet.

Bored. Back to the Al Jefferson sweepstakes I suppose.

 

[AuxiliaryPie]

and that ladies and gentlemen is how to handle an internet dispute. a "thanks" for you good sir.

rabble rabble al jefferson rabble

If we trade for one or both of these guys, it makes us much better. Say we still get a top 15 pick (maybe more like a 20, idk this is my first year being really into the NBA), is a 15-20 pick enough to get a pretty good SF? Do we really need a star SF if Waiters pans out to be an all star?

 

[Chris]

and that ladies and gentlemen is how to handle an internet dispute. a "thanks" for you good sir.

rabble rabble al jefferson rabble

If we trade for one or both of these guys, it makes us much better. Say we still get a top 15 pick (maybe more like a 20, idk this is my first year being really into the NBA), is a 15-20 pick enough to get a pretty good SF? Do we really need a star SF if Waiters pans out to be an all star?

Anything outside of the top 5 in the NBA Draft and your chances of getting a star caliber player drops off a gigantic cliff. Even the top 5 is a trail of just as many busts as star caliber players. Much more perilous territory than say the NFL Draft.

Personally, I don't think we need a big time SF as much as we need one at the C or PF position. Especially if Waiters turns out to be an All Star.

 

[Jack Brickman]

He's not a great player. He's had two huge games that inflated his stats. You are premature if you are ready to say he is a top player in the NBA (aka, a great player). This isn't complex. Not only are those stats borderline unsustainable (namely due to his 3 pt percentages), but in the context of the discussion, which is how good is our team going forward, it just doesn't make sense to say we have a great player in Waiters because his first 7 games have been surprisingly good.

But we'll save it for the Waiters thread to debate whether or not he has arrived as an NBA superstar stud in his 7th game.

Isn't the fact that he has had two huge games already in his first seven games in the NBA a pretty good sign of things to come?

Also, I think you're confusing the phrase "Waiters has been playing great," which he has, for "Waiters is a superstar." No one is saying the kid is a superstar based on seven games. He has, however, been playing pretty great for a rookie that everyone said was a reach. He's arguably the second best rookie from his class so far, although obviously the season is still very young.

 

[Chris]

Isn't the fact that he has had two huge games already in his first seven games in the NBA a pretty good sign of things to come?

Also, I think you're confusing the phrase "Waiters has been playing great," which he has, for "Waiters is a superstar." No one is saying the kid is a superstar based on seven games. He has, however, been playing pretty great for a rookie that everyone said was a reach. He's arguably the second best rookie from his class so far, although obviously the season is still very young.

He said "Waiters is great" and later on added a qualifier. We already went over this. I think if he had been as great as you think, we probably wouldn't be 2-5, but yes he's had 2 very prolific games and hasn't played badly at all in the other 5, either.

Believe me, I'm happy with how he's performed so far. But no, I don't think our starting lineup is anything above average. If it was, we wouldn't be struggling. That's not to say record after 7 games is indicator of how good your team is, but for the Cavs, I think it'll turn out to be a rough indicator.

 

[Jack Brickman]

He said "Waiters is great" and later on added a qualifier. We already went over this. I think if he had been as great as you think, we probably wouldn't be 2-5, but yes he's had 2 very prolific games and hasn't played badly at all in the other 5, either.

Believe me, I'm happy with how he's performed so far. But no, I don't think our starting lineup is anything above average. If it was, we wouldn't be struggling. That's not to say record after 7 games is indicator of how good your team is, but for the Cavs, I think it'll turn out to be a rough indicator.

I'm of the opinion that we're 2-5 mostly because our bench is terrible. Our starters have been competitive in every game except the Chicago one, but our bench is incredibly gifted at throwing away leads and failing to keep things competitive. That's obviously by design, as this team is angling for another draft pick, but it doesn't change the fact that our bench is godawful.

We're also struggling because the team is so young. Our starting line-up only has one player with over three years of NBA experience. Our bench isn't much more seasoned. We have one rookie and two sophomores playing prominent minutes, and another rookie who, when he's healthy again, will probably get a minimum of twenty minutes a night. You don't win a lot of games in the NBA when your team is as inexperienced as ours is. They'll make mistakes, occasionally get blown out, and sometimes win games they have no business winning. That's how it goes for young teams. Waiters playing great [for a rookie] isn't going to change that unless he magically morphs into a veteran Dwyane Wade, which I find highly unlikely because, duh, he's a rookie.

 

[Chris]

I'm of the opinion that we're 2-5 mostly because our bench is terrible. Our starters have been competitive in every game except the Chicago one, but our bench is incredibly gifted at throwing away leads and failing to keep things competitive. That's obviously by design, as this team is angling for another draft pick, but it doesn't change the fact that our bench is godawful.

We're also struggling because the team is so young. Our starting line-up only has one player with over three years of NBA experience. Our bench isn't much more seasoned. We have one rookie and two sophomores playing prominent minutes, and another rookie who, when he's healthy again, will probably get a minimum of twenty minutes a night. You don't win a lot of games in the NBA when your team is as inexperienced as ours is. They'll make mistakes, occasionally get blown out, and sometimes win games they have no business winning. That's how it goes for young teams. Waiters playing great [for a rookie] isn't going to change that unless he magically morphs into a veteran Dwyane Wade, which I find highly unlikely because, duh, he's a rookie.

You'll find no argument that youth of the team and a horrendous bench factor into our struggles.

 

[Homestar]

thats all well and good, but dont say "Gee sucks" "Dont call Dion great" "TT is an enigma" when Gee has been stellar on defense, Dion is/has been great and TT is at worst an average power forward with a ton of athleticism. Ya dig?

I want us to have a good lotto pick for sure, but dont slam the only guys that have actually been playing well

I think Thompson is "at worst" a 2nd or 3rd string PF. So far, he has shown absolutely no signs of being a starter, unless it's on a team that is loaded in the other 4 positions. I give Grant grace on this pick, because, it's not like there was a lot else in this draft that is panning out. The only guy that seems obvious at this spot in a re-draft is the other Thompson (Klay.)

And you guys have already talked it out, but it's wayyyy too early to get excited either way about Waiters/Zeller. I think the calendar needs to turn to 2013 before we can get serious about analyzing them. Remember Dajuan Wagner and Lester Hudson had their moments. So did Karim Garica, but he probably wouldn't have the stamina for hoops.

 

[Jon]

I thought the semantic disagreement was uncovered and buried 5 posts back?

 

[Randolphkeys]

Why was Al Jefferson traded twice?

The way I remember is that his first trade might have been more about getting KG than getting rid of Al Jefferson.

The second time, was it a money thing? Kevin Love thing? I can't much remember the circumstances that well but ESPN started that trade's article with "In their quest to get more athletic, faster and financially flexible, the Minnesota Timberwolves were looking to move power forward Al Jefferson's slow-it-down, low-post game and chunky contract."

So is there any baggage with the trade history or is that just circumstances?

So getting back on topic, let's explore the career of Big Al. His first trade was nothing short of a compliment to his immense potential. He was the centerpiece of the KG trade back when KG was probably the best player in the NBA, along with two first round picks. Kevin McHale knows a thing or two about post players, and might have wanted to do the Celtics "a solid" while gaining a player who could dominate the offensive low block, but let's start to focus on the Minnesota Big Al.

So who was on the floor with Big Al in Minnesota? Randy Foye, Corey Brewer, and Antoine Walker were the core with Randy Whitman coaching. I already see some red flags. Then after they draft Love and trade for Mike Miller, Big Al tears his ACL. By the time Jefferson is healthy and Love is developing, they both look like offensively talented big men who are not willing to defend, both players who will ignore defensive assignments to get a better rebounding total. They didn't mesh well because they didn't do the dirty work.

Once Jefferson joins the Jazz, he is pretty much pigeon-holed as a semi-franchise guy. If he is the best player in your franchise, your team isn't very good. If he is your second or third best player, your team is going to be a contender. Lamar Odom and Jamison (in his prime) were semi-franchise guys. Roy Hibbert and Andrew Bynum are the next generation of semi-franchise guys.

So the Jazz see that they can be an 8th seed for a few years with Millsap and Jefferson, or they can start to rebuild. I think with Favors emerging, Jefferson is the guy to go. Again, if he is the best player on the Cavs, I'd be worried. With Kyrie on a rookie scale contract, I'm open minded.

 

[Homestar]

Randolph, that post was boner-inducingly good.

 

[RikSmits]

My biggest knock on Jefferson is his subpar defense. His stats may look okay, but he is really a liability to the team on D.
A friend of mine who is a Jazz fan can't stand Jefferson for that reason alone.

Having Big Al and Kyrie on the same team does not scream championship to me. Even if the other 3 on the floor are lockdown defenders, plugging two holes at once is just too much.

 

[Ohio]

So getting back on topic, let's explore the career of Big Al. His first trade was nothing short of a compliment to his immense potential. He was the centerpiece of the KG trade back when KG was probably the best player in the NBA, along with two first round picks. Kevin McHale knows a thing or two about post players, and might have wanted to do the Celtics "a solid" while gaining a player who could dominate the offensive low block, but let's start to focus on the Minnesota Big Al.

So who was on the floor with Big Al in Minnesota? Randy Foye, Corey Brewer, and Antoine Walker were the core with Randy Whitman coaching. I already see some red flags. Then after they draft Love and trade for Mike Miller, Big Al tears his ACL. By the time Jefferson is healthy and Love is developing, they both look like offensively talented big men who are not willing to defend, both players who will ignore defensive assignments to get a better rebounding total. They didn't mesh well because they didn't do the dirty work.

Once Jefferson joins the Jazz, he is pretty much pigeon-holed as a semi-franchise guy. If he is the best player in your franchise, your team isn't very good. If he is your second or third best player, your team is going to be a contender. Lamar Odom and Jamison (in his prime) were semi-franchise guys. Roy Hibbert and Andrew Bynum are the next generation of semi-franchise guys.

So the Jazz see that they can be an 8th seed for a few years with Millsap and Jefferson, or they can start to rebuild. I think with Favors emerging, Jefferson is the guy to go. Again, if he is the best player on the Cavs, I'd be worried. With Kyrie on a rookie scale contract, I'm open minded.

And Dion