On Sep 5, 11:08 am, Greg Lentz <nodamns...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Frank Rizzo
>
>
>
> <champ91...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 4, 3:14 pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Rizzo
>
> >> <champ91...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 4, 2:51 pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:34:07 -0700 (PDT), Frank Rizzo
>
> >> >> <champ91...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sep 3, 7:23 pm, poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <ronaldinho_m-B2F49C.10355403092...@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
>
> >> >> >> Ron <ronaldinh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > So I get back from being out of touch for a week and THIS is the news,
> >> >> >> > no Monta, the team investigating him, and ... wow.
>
> >> >> >> > Frack.
>
> >> >> >> > I happened to be a little more optimistic about this team than most
> >> >> >> > going into this season, but now? No way. To say nothing of this
> >> >> >> > question: is this injury severe enough that Monta may never recover his
> >> >> >> > explosiveness?
>
> >> >> >> > Would you pay $66m for Monta without his explosiveness?
>
> >> >> >> > Maybe we are cursed.
>
> >> >> >> > -Ron
>
> >> >> >> Even with his explosiveness it was a questionable deal.
>
> >> >> >I think it was a deal they had to do.
>
> >> >> Why?
>
> >> >Well, they had just lost Baron Davis due to a money issue. If they
> >> >don't pony up and tie up their young "core" group, I think they could
> >> >turn back the clock to the Sleepy Floyd era in terms of talent/effort/
> >> >fan base.
>
> >> Sleepy Floyd went to the playoffs.
>
> >> > At least by re-upping AB and Monta they say, we're not
> >> >cheap, just not stupid enough to give Baron a long term deal. They
> >> >kind of put themselves in a bad position by having to do it, but I
> >> >think they didn't really have a lot of choices at that point.
>
> >> Well, they could have signed and traded Monta. I certainly wouldn't
> >> advocate letting him go without compensation, but there were other options
> >> as well. The problem with Monta is that he's not a point guard, so
> >> investing too much money in him is problematic.
>
> >I agree on his deficiencies. I think they were presented with limited
> >options just because of timing. What trade offers could they have
> >pursued? WHo knows. Maybe not much. In any event, there are probably
> >more scenarios that I would have done that deal at that point in time,
> >than realistic scenarios where I wouldn't have. Sure if someone
> >offered me a trade for Derek Rose I would have done it, but that
> >wasn't happening. Monta got the same kind of money that Childress got
> >overseas, so it isn't way off base.
>
> Well, keep in mind that overseas, they have to overpay because all things
> being equal, guys would rather be here than there.
>
> Monta may be one of those guys that you can't get back as much in trade as
> he's actually worth to your team because he's an in-between player.
>
> >Of course now they need a PG who
> >can guard a SG. That's why I like Livingston at 6'7" if reasonably
> >healthy.
>
> Just because Livingston is tall doesn't mean he's a good defender of
> shooting guards. If he has the same attitude towards defense than Monta
> or Baron had last year, then having a taller point guard doesn't help.
> --
> Greg Lentz
No, I've seen enough of Livingston. He's a player. If he is
healthy. Decent defender. He's a competitor.