I'm attempting to figure this out...are you saying that Roy and LMA turned into "not worth it" players because we're 10-11 now? I mean, I get that your bias is towards w-l record (as evidenced in our Kevin Love discussions), but if you truly believed that, wouldn't you have to look at the team's record of 8-8 with our "normal" lineup and say that Roy and LMA can't possibly be worth it? Or are you saying that as well, just that it's covered up by this being a Matthews thread?
I value them extremely highly...it's pretty much all I care about. It's just clear to me that wins are achieved by teams, not individuals...and if I want to see the Blazers win a lot, that desire is best served by the team accumulating as many talented individuals as possible. I don't think the way to evaluate talent on the individual level is wins and losses...that could lead to tragic decisions like maxing out Derek Fisher.
Also, I'm pretty stoked to have a player of Wes' caliber making over the next 4 years of his prime less than 6M per.
I also don't think that saying a player is worth his contract while playing on a losing team is a solid decision. Whatever, though.
To you, yes. You said you care about W's and L's. I believe you, since you also espoused this opinion (in paraphrase here) that Kevin Love's PER wasn't worth the toilet paper it was written on b/c he couldn't get off the bench of a 15-win team--he just isn't a great player. Your direct quotes were "20ppg/3r/1ast on a .400 team is pretty much worthless". Well, Roy and LMA have also been playing on that same .400 team, playing about the same level as Wesley, and being paid a lot more. Are they even more worthless now, also? And if so, what happened to them where their games went from being all-star or near-all-star level last year to worthless now. Or, if not, why are you holding Matthews to a standard you're not holding Roy and LMA to? Seems like a simple question. Not sure it's worth a wtf/babble, but whatever.
PapaG accomplished his goal in yet another thread... sucking a few posters into a ridiculous argument where he continues to change the point of the discussion. Oh yeah...
Wesley Matthews has played well this year. But as to whether or not he's "worth" his contract, let's ask--how would the team be performing without him? More importantly, how would ticket sales be without him? Is his presence on the roster worth 500 tickets/game? 1000? What's the average price of a ticket? What about related concession sales? Merchandise sales? Advertising? Is there any chance that his presence on the team is worth $6M/year in revenue to the club? IMO, probably not. I'm glad he's on the team.
Wes is playing great. He's definitely worth the contract he has and he's definitely a starter. He proved his worth as a starter last season with Utah and he's just going to get better. I absolutely LOVED it when we signed him and was extremely worried that Utah would match. I'm glad they didn't.
I'd like to see a Miller/Matthews/Batum starting perimeter, with Roy as the scoring punch off the bench. If he's only temporarily down (as some believe, myself not included), he can work himself back to normal status from that role and then take over a starting spot. If he's permanently no longer the same old Roy, then a bench scorer is a reasonable role for him long-term anyway.
I would like to see that as well. The thing I like about Mathews is he has a strong all around game and he is efficient, and he is physical. To me the only thing he needs to continue to work on, is his passing and his ability to generate his own shot. I think the passing will come as he gets used to the system and players here. I think he will get the generate his own shot down better after he works with Bayno for a season or two.
As long as teams continue to double Roy I would keep him starting. Once they stop then off the bench might be best.
Several times when we were on our runs, I would sigh every time Roy would call for the ball and bring it up the court or get it at the top of the key. I realize he still has the ability to make big shots, but I just don't want him out there most of the time.
This makes absolutely ZERO sense (but, at least you're consistent). First, Wesley Matthews isn't playing in a 0.400 team. The team was 10-11 when you made that post. That's 0.476, not 0.400. They are now 11-11. Since you seem to have trouble with simple math, that's 0.500. Second, Mattews was starter, as a rookie, on a 53-win Utah team last season. Again for your benefit, that's 0.646. Matthews has clearly improved over his rookie performance, yet his team is winning fewer games. By your logic, that makes him a worse player this year than last. Is that true? Fuck no it isn't. What's different is he had better teammates and a better coach last year in Utah than he does this year in Portland. Basetball is a team, sport and better TEAMS win more games. When putting down players you don't like, you constantly and deliberately overlook the fact that basketball is a team sport. You've done it in Matthews case, you did it in Andre Miller's case and you've done it in Kevin Love's case. Did Kobe Bryant suddenly start sucking when the Lakers traded Shaq and they dropped from 56 wins and a trip to the finals to 34 wins and missing the play-offs? No, it would be stupid to claim he did. His advanced stats remained remarkably consistent. What changed was his teammates. They weren't nearly as good. In addition to losing Shaq, he also lost Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Rick Fox and Derek Fisher. Did Kobe suddenly become good again when the Lakers traded their left over garbage for Pau Gasol? No, once again, it wasn't Kobe that changed, it was the quality of his teammates. "Blaming" Wesley Matthews for the Blazer one game under 0.500 record (at the time of your post) is assinine and exhibits an extreme case of tunnel vision. Basketball is a team sport. Evaluating an individual player's worth, based on team won:loss record, without considering the quality of his teammates is just plain stupid. Did Pau Gasol instantly become 2.6x as good when he was traded from a Memphis team that would win 22 games to a Lakers team that would win 57? Did Kevin Garnett instantly become 2.2x as good at the age of 31 when he was traded from the 30-win Timberwolves who couldn't make the play-offs to the 66-win Celtics who won an NBA title? No, that's ludicrous. Gasol and Garnett didn't change, they just got MUCH better teammates. So, stop stupidly pretending individuals play in a vacuum. They don't, they are part of a team. Pretending their worth is determined largely by team record, without considering their teammates is the weakest argument I've ever seen you make PapaG, and that's saying a lot. BNM
