Batum will sign first lucrative offer sheet

[craigehlo]

Snapper Jones laughed at the idea of Batum getting more than $6m/per.

He could very well get nearly twice that.

I was with Snapper on this one. Jason Quick just mentioned on the BFT that the Blazer would immediately match an offer for him in the $9.5 mil range. That number for Batum is simply insane.

Do any of the teams with major cap room need a SF is my question?

 

[Rhal]

I was with Snapper on this one. Jason Quick just mentioned on the BFT that the Blazer would immediately match an offer for him in the $9.5 mil range. That number for Batum is simply insane.

Do any of the teams with major cap room need a SF is my question?

bobcats and raptors off the top of my head. raptors have eyes for everyone and the bobcats I have no clue what the geck they are going to do.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[South East]

I know there is no real GM right now but if the Blazers let Batum walk for nothing everyone in the front office should be fired immediately. Not because Batum is so great or they should match anything but because they could have got some good pieces for him the last couple of trade deadlines and decided to keep Batum instead. If everyone on this board knew that Batum would get a decent contract then the Blazers should have known it to, especially at this years deadline. If there was any inclination that they wouldn't match then they should have traded him. The Blazers got a lotto pick for Wallace and you know they could have gotten another 1 or 2 along with some expiring contracts or they may have even been able to get a guy like Dragic (if they wanted) or another point guard. Regardless of what you think Batum is worth if he walks for nothing heads better roll!

 

[Ed O]

If it's just getting a body to play there, then ALL the positions are easy to fill.

Are you saying that swing men aren't easier to find than big men or PGs?

If you are saying that, then I think you're wrong. Sorry.

Ed O.

 

[RR7]

Are you saying that swing men aren't easier to find than big men or PGs?

If you are saying that, then I think you're wrong. Sorry.

Ed O.

yes, see my post above. Depending on what you want those players to do. But there are better PGs, Cs, and most certainly PFs in the league right now than wing players, but still the perception is passed that wing players are a dime a dozen.

 

[Ed O]

yes, see my post above. Depending on what you want those players to do. But there are better PGs, Cs, and most certainly PFs in the league right now than wing players, but still the perception is passed that wing players are a dime a dozen.

Better than what?

More good centers (relative to other centers) than good small forwards relative to small forwards?

More good point guards (relative to other point guards) than good small forwards relative to small forwards?

I don't think so.

Ed O.

 

[Rhal]

Better than what?

More good centers (relative to other centers) than good small forwards relative to small forwards?

More good point guards (relative to other point guards) than good small forwards relative to small forwards?

I don't think so.

Ed O.

I completely disagree

Wing Players are the most shallow positions with the fewest elite players in them. SF/SG have very few Elites after the top while the other positions are very deep

Lets consider PER
Since the average PER is 15 for a starter lets see how many players with a Per of 15 or higher are at each position
PG: 30
C: 27
PF: 38
SG: 23
SF: 18
We can even go deeper, since per is a 36 stat lets take out all players who averaged under 25m a game.
SF: 15
PG: 26
PF: 27
C: 20
SG: 18
How about how each position has out of the top 100
PG: 27
SG: 9
SF: 11
PF: 32
C: 22
Why don't we take a look at the names of the top 10 of each position

Top 10 PG
CP3
Rose
Westbrook
Parker
Irving
Curry
Williams
Nash
Lou Williams
Lin
Lawson
Lowery
added 2 more just because Lin/Curry had so limited games this year.

Top 10 SG
Wade
Ginobli
Bryant
Harden
Johnson
Ellis
Thorton
Kevin Martin
Paul George
Billups
Gerald Green
Added 1 more due to Billups going down

Top 10 SF
Lebron
Durant
Carmelo
Pierce
Granger
Gay
Iggy
Batum
Leonard
Dunleavy

Top 10 PF
Love
Griffen
LA
Faried
Millsap
Dirk
Cousins
Wright
Anderson
Josh Smith
Ilysova
Pau Gasol
Added a few more due to 2 guys avg under 20m a game

Top 10 C
Howard
Bynum
Jefferson
Duncan
Monroe
Nikola Pekovic
Gortat
Splitter
McGee
Noah
Hibbert
Tyson Chandler
Added 1 due to Splitter playing so few minutes

SF and SG are by far the weakest depth wise in the league. They get shallow very quickly and aside from the star studded top of each there is very little to be impressed with. The theory of "oh we can get a good person at the wing easily" is very wrong.

 

[THE HCP]

I completely disagree

Wing Players are the most shallow positions with the fewest elite players in them. SF/SG have very few Elites after the top while the other positions are very deep

Lets consider PER
Since the average PER is 15 for a starter lets see how many players with a Per of 15 or higher are at each position
PG: 30
C: 27
PF: 38
SG: 23
SF: 18
We can even go deeper, since per is a 36 stat lets take out all players who averaged under 25m a game.
SF: 15
PG: 26
PF: 27
C: 20
SG: 18
How about how each position has out of the top 100
PG: 27
SG: 9
SF: 11
PF: 32
C: 22
Why don't we take a look at the names of the top 10 of each position

Top 10 PG
CP3
Rose
Westbrook
Parker
Irving
Curry
Williams
Nash
Lou Williams
Lin
Lawson
Lowery
added 2 more just because Lin/Curry had so limited games this year.

Top 10 SG
Wade
Ginobli
Bryant
Harden
Johnson
Ellis
Thorton
Kevin Martin
Paul George
Billups
Gerald Green
Added 1 more due to Billups going down

Top 10 SF
Lebron
Durant
Carmelo
Pierce
Granger
Gay
Iggy
Batum
Leonard
Dunleavy

Top 10 PF
Love
Griffen
LA
Faried
Millsap
Dirk
Cousins
Wright
Anderson
Josh Smith
Ilysova
Pau Gasol
Added a few more due to 2 guys avg under 20m a game

Top 10 C
Howard
Bynum
Jefferson
Duncan
Monroe
Nikola Pekovic
Gortat
Splitter
McGee
Noah
Hibbert
Tyson Chandler
Added 1 due to Splitter playing so few minutes

SF and SG are by far the weakest depth wise in the league. They get shallow very quickly and aside from the star studded top of each there is very little to be impressed with. The theory of "oh we can get a good person at the wing easily" is very wrong.

Damn man..... Nice research, but when was the last time you got laid?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Damn man..... Nice research, but when was the last time you got laid?

When was the last time you were away from home?

 

[Blaze01]

I completely disagree

Wing Players are the most shallow positions with the fewest elite players in them. SF/SG have very few Elites after the top while the other positions are very deep

Lets consider PER
Since the average PER is 15 for a starter lets see how many players with a Per of 15 or higher are at each position
PG: 30
C: 27
PF: 38
SG: 23
SF: 18
We can even go deeper, since per is a 36 stat lets take out all players who averaged under 25m a game.
SF: 15
PG: 26
PF: 27
C: 20
SG: 18
How about how each position has out of the top 100
PG: 27
SG: 9
SF: 11
PF: 32
C: 22
Why don't we take a look at the names of the top 10 of each position

Top 10 PG
CP3
Rose
Westbrook
Parker
Irving
Curry
Williams
Nash
Lou Williams
Lin
Lawson
Lowery
added 2 more just because Lin/Curry had so limited games this year.

Top 10 SG
Wade
Ginobli
Bryant
Harden
Johnson
Ellis
Thorton
Kevin Martin
Paul George
Billups
Gerald Green
Added 1 more due to Billups going down

Top 10 SF
Lebron
Durant
Carmelo
Pierce
Granger
Gay
Iggy
Batum
Leonard
Dunleavy

Top 10 PF
Love
Griffen
LA
Faried
Millsap
Dirk
Cousins
Wright
Anderson
Josh Smith
Ilysova
Pau Gasol
Added a few more due to 2 guys avg under 20m a game

Top 10 C
Howard
Bynum
Jefferson
Duncan
Monroe
Nikola Pekovic
Gortat
Splitter
McGee
Noah
Hibbert
Tyson Chandler
Added 1 due to Splitter playing so few minutes

SF and SG are by far the weakest depth wise in the league. They get shallow very quickly and aside from the star studded top of each there is very little to be impressed with. The theory of "oh we can get a good person at the wing easily" is very wrong.

You left out a lot of good players....Maybe they didn't make your list b\c of injury, b\c thier young and playng behind another player etc...

Eric Gordon? - Stephon Curry? - Jason Terry? - Tyreke Evans? - DeMar DeRozan? - Ray Allen? - Evan Turner? - Luol Deng? - Gerald Wallace? -Danilo Gallinari? - Josh Smith? - Rodney Stuckey?

I would also add guys like : Paul George - OJ Mayo - Tony Allen - Arron Afflalo - Klay Thompson - Thaddeus Young - to that list.

 

[Mediocre Man]

You left out a lot of good players....Maybe they didn't make your list b\c of injury, b\c thier young and playng behind another player etc...

Eric Gordon? - Stephon Curry? - Jason Terry? - Tyreke Evans? - DeMar DeRozan? - Ray Allen? - Evan Turner? - Luol Deng? - Gerald Wallace? -Danilo Gallinari? - Josh Smith? - Rodney Stuckey?

I would also add guys like : Paul George - OJ Mayo - Tony Allen - Arron Afflalo - Klay Thompson - Thaddeus Young - to that list.

He ranked them by PER. The guys you mention had lower PER

 

[RR7]

curry, smith and george are on there.

 

[RR7]

and it also leaves off many good bigs. Point is there are many more bigs and PGs with above average PERs than there are wing players, which would seem to support that it is easier to find an average to above average big or PG than it is a wing, but still wing players get calleda dime a dozen. It started a while back, and is one of those things that is now just repeated without any support, seemingly.

 

[bigbailes]

You left out a lot of good players....Maybe they didn't make your list b\c of injury, b\c thier young and playng behind another player etc...

Eric Gordon? - Stephon Curry? - Jason Terry? - Tyreke Evans? - DeMar DeRozan? - Ray Allen? - Evan Turner? - Luol Deng? - Gerald Wallace? -Danilo Gallinari? - Josh Smith? - Rodney Stuckey?

I would also add guys like : Paul George - OJ Mayo - Tony Allen - Arron Afflalo - Klay Thompson - Thaddeus Young - to that list.

a few of those guys are on that list and a few of your guys could be taken off as good players. i gotta agree here, the perception is that SG/SF are deep positions stems from them being top heavy, at least IMO. that and the fact that they use to be stack positions. PG and PF to me are the ones that are the most plentiful at this point.

 

[Rhal]

Damn man..... Nice research, but when was the last time you got laid?

That research took less of my time then me and your wife spent in your bed last night.

 

[RedHotRollin]

If the Blazers had a competent GM, this wouldn't be an issue. Whitsitt could get him to delay.

 

[Ed O]

and it also leaves off many good bigs. Point is there are many more bigs and PGs with above average PERs than there are wing players, which would seem to support that it is easier to find an average to above average big or PG than it is a wing, but still wing players get calleda dime a dozen. It started a while back, and is one of those things that is now just repeated without any support, seemingly.

You're coming at it from a flawed direction. Different positions have different average PER... a PG has the ball in his hands a lot more than a wing player, for example, so he gets a lot more opportunities to get assists. A big guy gets more rebounds. That other positions have more players get higher than 15 PER in a single season doesn't do much, if anything, to prove anything.

A wing player is average size (for the NBA). Average size is, almost by definition, most abundant. Shooting guards and small forwards are interchangable at a much higher rate than any other two positions... power forwards and centers can be swapped, but not as often.

I'm sorry that you don't believe that swing players are the easiest to come by. It seems pretty obvious to me.

(Not to say that GREAT swing players are easy to come by, but great players at any position are pretty rare.)

Ed O.

 

[Tince]

What team is going to lock up $8-$10M in their cap space in the first three days of FA for a player that will never play for them? Think of all the players these teams might lose in that 72 hour span.

 

[Ed O]

What team is going to lock up $8-$10M in their cap space in the first three days of FA for a player that will never play for them? Think of all the players these teams might lose in that 72 hour span.

Yep. Excellent point. I'm sure Batum's agent knows/fears that, too, and it's probably fueling whatever attitude he's displaying leading up to free agency... impotence sucks. Or so I hear.

Ed O.

 

[jlprk]

Nic had the 8th highest PER at SF. Would be 8th at SG. Would be 23rd at PG. 29th at PF, and 19th at C.

Because he has high shooting percentages becsuse he hardly ever shoots.

 

[RR7]

You're coming at it from a flawed direction. Different positions have different average PER... a PG has the ball in his hands a lot more than a wing player, for example, so he gets a lot more opportunities to get assists. A big guy gets more rebounds. That other positions have more players get higher than 15 PER in a single season doesn't do much, if anything, to prove anything.

A wing player is average size (for the NBA). Average size is, almost by definition, most abundant. Shooting guards and small forwards are interchangable at a much higher rate than any other two positions... power forwards and centers can be swapped, but not as often.

I'm sorry that you don't believe that swing players are the easiest to come by. It seems pretty obvious to me.

(Not to say that GREAT swing players are easy to come by, but great players at any position are pretty rare.)

Ed O.

You still offer up next to nothing as to why you think it's the easiest position to fill. Other than that it is average size. Except that all NBA players are above AVERAGE, so it seems the shortest players would be the easiest to fill. Other than height, though.....it is just because it is?

 

[jlprk]

You still offer up next to nothing as to why you think it's the easiest position to fill. Other than that it is average size. Except that all NBA players are above AVERAGE, so it seems the shortest players would be the easiest to fill. Other than height, though.....it is just because it is?

A coach can change his system to enable mediocre-shooting wings to get customized shooting position to make them look better than they are. The coach can easily stock SF with wannabe PFs and SG with wannabe PGs.

 

[Blaze01]

You're coming at it from a flawed direction. Different positions have different average PER... a PG has the ball in his hands a lot more than a wing player, for example, so he gets a lot more opportunities to get assists. A big guy gets more rebounds. That other positions have more players get higher than 15 PER in a single season doesn't do much, if anything, to prove anything.

A wing player is average size (for the NBA). Average size is, almost by definition, most abundant. Shooting guards and small forwards are interchangable at a much higher rate than any other two positions... power forwards and centers can be swapped, but not as often.

I'm sorry that you don't believe that swing players are the easiest to come by. It seems pretty obvious to me.

(Not to say that GREAT swing players are easy to come by, but great players at any position are pretty rare.)

Ed O.

I agree it is much easier to find a serviceable SG\SF than it is to find a serviceable PG\C....just ask POR....

 

[RR7]

We had a "serviceable" PG, and have for a while. We haven't had a really good one we want to hold as PGOTF for years, but we had serviceable. same way we have a serviceable SG in Matthews, and had a serviceable SF in Webster when we had Roy here. Depends on how you want to define serviceable. Seems like people are ok with looking at serviceable at the SG position as just guys you can trot out there to be "3 and D" types, but then refuse to accept that someone like Kwame is a serviceable C because of his defense. There are plenty of serviceable Cs, and plenty of serviceable PGs. I'd argue there's more above average PGs and Cs and PFs than there are SGs and SFs, however. I'm not seeing an argument against that, other than no, it's just not the case.

 

[Ed O]

You still offer up next to nothing as to why you think it's the easiest position to fill. Other than that it is average size. Except that all NBA players are above AVERAGE, so it seems the shortest players would be the easiest to fill. Other than height, though.....it is just because it is?

I also pointed out that many (most, probably) wings can play SG or SF. That allows a player that is one-dimensional to get on the floor more easily (and be effective) if he's a swing player.

I don't really need to convince you, because most people would acknowledge that PG and big guys are positions of scarcity. The other positions, then, are easier to fill. That's the SG and SF spots. If you want to go against conventional wisdom: that's great. You might be right. I don't think that comparing number of players with more-than-average PER between positions is indicative one way or the other, though.

Ed O.

 

[RR7]

It's conventional wisdom because it just gets repeated with little to back it up. How are they positions of scarcity? What measure of player are they scarce of? All stars? HOFs? Top players on team? What makes the PG position scarce of serviceable players, and the wings not?
Yes, a lot of SGs can play SF and vice versa. Very similar to PFs and Cs. Or SFs and PFs. Or PGs and SGs. I don't see how SG and SF are any MORE interchangeable than PF and C, really.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Fun fact

Jerryd Bayless had a higher PER than Nicolas Batum last year. Just sayin....


Ooooh, also the guy we, in essence, traded him for

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Fun fact

Jerryd Bayless had a higher PER than Nicolas Batum last year. Just sayin....

Is PER normalized for arm length?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Is PER normalized for arm length?

Accounting for arm length, Bayless had the highest PER in league history

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Fun fact

Jerryd Bayless had a higher PER than Nicolas Batum last year. Just sayin....

the 17th highest per in the nba to be exact...for pgs