Trade Batum

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Batum plays good positional defense. His defensive weakness if his lack of strength. He'll always be a weakling.
Click to expand...
If this is the logic driving your OP, I'm thinking you're dead wrong. Pretty much every guy gains strength as they get into their mid-20s... thats just how physiology works. He'll probably never be a bruiser like Cunningham, but he will get significantly stronger. Chances are that Batum is going no where else soon so this will be an interesting aspect of his development to keep tabs on.

STOMP
 
STOMP said:
If this is the logic driving your OP, I'm thinking you're dead wrong. Pretty much every guy gains strength as they get into their mid-20s... thats just how physiology works. He'll probably never be a bruiser like Cunningham, but he will get significantly stronger. Chances are that Batum is going no where else soon so this will be an interesting aspect of his development to keep tabs on.

STOMP
Click to expand...

I suspect you may be right about not trading Batum. I think that both Cunningham & Batum will improve. I also think that, in time, Cunningham will be our starting SF and Batum's trade value may not be as high as it is right now.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
OK, a very good post (nice to find someone who can actually think around here). Also, I have to say that Batum being a sometimes "stopper" is a point. However, that doesn't mean he's THE stopper. I also saw him get torched to the melting point last year as well. I know people will see the thread title and not even think about it, but it makes sense.


My primary point was that to get better as a team we have to trade something better than Bayless or Rudy. And since we have better replacements for Batum than any of our other starters, he's the logical choice.
Click to expand...

You're on people for their ability to "think?" I find that amazingly ironic.

As for your point that we have better replacements for Batum than any of our other starters, you're high. Dante is a power forward, Martell is a headcase, Rudy is too small and frail to play at small forward, and Nic is our best perimeter defender -- the team's weakest area on defense. If you want a replacement for Miller or at backup center, worry about that in another year, but team's aren't going to be parting with their elite point guards or big men even for Nic. If we want replacements then they will probably come through the draft or maybe in the form of Petteri a year down the line at point.

Hell, I'd go so far to say that of all the players on this team the only truly untouchables are Roy and Nic.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
I suspect you may be right about not trading Batum. I think that both Cunningham & Batum will improve. I also think that, in time, Cunningham will be our starting SF and Batum's trade value may not be as high as it is right now.
Click to expand...

I would bet the house that Cunningham will never be our starting SF, if you paid attention when watching the team you'd notice he played PF. He didn't play SF at all this past season. You might as well say we should trade Oden since Bayless will be a starter someday.
 
Draco said:
I would bet the house that Cunningham will never be our starting SF, if you paid attention when watching the team you'd notice he played PF. He didn't play SF at all this past season. You might as well say we should trade Oden since Bayless will be a starter someday.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. He played a lot of SF and it's his natural position. He's going to be a pretty player in this league. Maybe not an all-star, but a good player.
 
Nikolokolus said:
As for your point that we have better replacements for Batum than any of our other starters, you're high.
Click to expand...

Baloney. Let's look at starter replacements...

If we lose:

Oden, we have an aging Camby and an injured Godzilla. That's not too bad, actually.

LA, we have Pendegraph and Howard

Roy, we have Rudy & Bayless

Miller, we have (maybe) Miles.

Batum, we have Cunningham and Webster.

Clearly, we can stand to lose Batum more so than any other starter.

And please don;t insult me with "Bayless is a PG" crap.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Not true at all. He played a lot of SF and it's his natural position. He's going to be a pretty player in this league. Maybe not an all-star, but a good player.
Click to expand...

http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR11.HTM

Sorry but your just making facts up again. Cunningham played PF exclusively in 20 different lineups.

Martell Webster played 25 minutes at PF on a unit with Miller-Bayless-Roy-Webster-Howard. I sure wouldn't say Martell can play PF even though he played far more at that position than Cunningham did at SF.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Let me ask this:

Would you trade Batum & Rudy for Tony Parker?
Click to expand...

no. Not because I think Parker isn't worth trading for, or a valuable PG, but because I think we could get him for less than that.

the Spurs have a decent PG now (Hill), and trading them a SF that fits into their mold perfectly? And Rudy too?

Seems a little Kiki to me.

Joel, Martell and Miller, sure.
 
Draco said:
http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR11.HTM

Sorry but your just making facts up again. Cunningham played PF exclusively in 20 different lineups.

Martell Webster played 25 minutes at PF on a unit with Miller-Bayless-Roy-Webster-Howard. I sure wouldn't say Martell can play PF even though he played far more at that position than Cunningham did at SF.
Click to expand...

And Bayless was forced to play PG and he is not a PG. Howard was forced to play center and he's not a center. Bottom line- Cunningham is a SF. Get over it.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
And Bayless was forced to play PG and he is not a PG. Howard was forced to play center and he's not a center. Bottom line- Cunningham is a SF. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Cunningham can't shoot the three, he can't handle the ball, and doesn't have the lateral quickness to defend SF's. He made ONE 3pt shots in 4 years of college. He played all his minutes at PF, he has never played minutes at SF in high school, college, or the pro's. So until he actual proves he can play at the SF position I won't "get over it" and assume some internet poster's desire to trade our starting SF will make Cunningham succeed at something he's never done at all in his career.

I'm fine with trading Batum if we get a better talent in return, but trading him under the expectation that other players will be successful in a position they've never played ANY minutes at is delusional.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
And Bayless was forced to play PG and he is not a PG. Howard was forced to play center and he's not a center. Bottom line- Cunningham is a SF. Get over it.
Click to expand...
How you get to your bottom line is (again) based on some shoddy logic... nothing points to it and the examples you site don't relate.

Bayless was a PG in HS and runs the point more then not in the league... size wise thats where he matches up best which is why he primarily guards other PGs (which he does pretty well). Backup centers are Juwan's size more often then not and he's played a ton of 5 during his career. DC has pretty much only guarded other backup PFs... thats not by accident. While he's proven capable of hitting an open 18 footer, dude hasn't shown much ability with the ball in his hands or the agility to stay with wings... you are aware that the 3 often gets switched over to guarding guards right?

STOMP
 
I think Cunningham could and should be a SF, but I know he currently isn't and has never been a SF.

Draco said:
Cunningham can't shoot the three, he can't handle the ball, and doesn't have the lateral quickness to defend SF's. He made ONE 3pt shots in 4 years of college.
Click to expand...

Considering that many of Cunningham's mid-range jumpers he made last year would be three pointers in college makes me believe he can extend his range to the NBA three point line. He may not be able to shoot threes, but to me it as just as likely that he just chose not to because of the role he was supposed to play. Again, I think the same thing can go for ball handling. The few times he dribbled he looked like he was in complete control. Batum almost never handles the ball, but a lot of people here think he is amazing ball handler. I just flat out disagree with you saying he doesn't have the lateral quickness to defend SFs. That's just not what my eyes tell me.
 
Draco said:
I would yesterday.

No way the Spurs make that trade.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was ABM's idea and I posted it for him. I think they might as they have a good PG and Parker is complicating things. They can get a decent SF and another Euro that can shoot.
 
Blazinaway said:
Bad thread idea to begin with, what a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But here's a breaking news flash for you.... this is what's called a message board. It's where people exchange ideas and what-ifs... apparently it's a new concept to you. Get used to it. This is one of the more plausible ideas on the board.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
I think Cunningham could and should be a SF, but I know he currently isn't and has never been a SF.



Considering that many of Cunningham's mid-range jumpers he made last year would be three pointers in college makes me believe he can extend his range to the NBA three point line. He may not be able to shoot threes, but to me it as just as likely that he just chose not to because of the role he was supposed to play. Again, I think the same thing can go for ball handling. The few times he dribbled he looked like he was in complete control. Batum almost never handles the ball, but a lot of people here think he is amazing ball handler. I just flat out disagree with you saying he doesn't have the lateral quickness to defend SFs. That's just not what my eyes tell me.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

One thing Batum does do well is that when plays go by him, he follows the play and sometimes gets a block from behind. It's great defense and I hope others on the team are paying attention.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Actually, it was ABM's idea and I posted it for him. I think they might as they have a good PG and Parker is complicating things. They can get a decent SF and another Euro that can shoot.
Click to expand...

Actually, you posted it before I really finished thinking through the scenario during our discussion. What I told you was, any deal that might bring Parker here would have to include (via this trade or another separate one) moving Miller. There's no way in Hades that Miller and Parker co-exist.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Baloney. Let's look at starter replacements...

And please don;t insult me with "Bayless is a PG" crap.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but Jerryd played much more PG than Dante played SF. He basically split his minutes b/w the two positions, and had a +.4 PER differential when he played at both positions. Dante played solely PF and had a PER differential of -2.1 (in 17% of the team's minutes, so it's not a small sample size).
 
Also, I just don't see how you go from being an honorable mention small-ball PF in college to starting SF in the League. Not many players follow that career path, especially when you came out as a college senior. He's only 4 months younger than Webster and almost two years older than batum
 
BrianFromWA said:
I hate to say it, but Jerryd played much more PG than Dante played SF. He basically split his minutes b/w the two positions, and had a +.4 PER differential when he played at both positions. Dante played solely PF and had a PER differential of -2.1 (in 17% of the team's minutes, so it's not a small sample size).
Click to expand...

Actually Cunningham did play some SF. And I'm not talking about players playing out of position. Bayless was brutal at PG and he is never gong to be a true PG in the NBA. He's, at best, a combo guard.

But the point of the thread remains the same. It seems to me we will not advance very far in the playoffs unless we have a good PG. A veteran PG. We have Miller at present, but we need to look past him. The only tradable player we have that won't hurt us to lose is Batum as wed have adequate backups to replace him.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Maybe. But here's a breaking news flash for you.... this is what's called a message board. It's where people exchange ideas and what-ifs... apparently it's a new concept to you. Get used to it. This is one of the more plausible ideas on the board.
Click to expand...

LOL, I have no problem with you posting this, but as I said when I voiced "my opinion" - I think it's a bad idea and waste of time. And IMO it's NOT one of the "more plausible" ideas on the board - it's one of the worst, again IMO.
 
While I agree that Cunningham didn't play SF last year, I also agree that he could--in a lineup where both the guards can shoot the three. DC has a very Jerome Kersey feel to me (with less athleticism). I don't think we have a player who is a good defensive matchup against all the small forwards in the league. Some are big and strong, and others are small and quick; you can't win every matchup. That said, DC has a good mid-range game, makes smart plays, and seems to attack the boards well--I think he would bring a valuable skill-set to the 3 spot if he were to play there. However, we all know that the SF in Nate's system MUST be able to hit the corner three, and until/unless DC demonstrates that ability, Batum is not yet expendable.
 
Did you forget that Batum got 2 points in the NBA all defensive voting by the 30 NBA coaches?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
While I agree that Cunningham didn't play SF last year, I also agree that he could--in a lineup where both the guards can shoot the three. DC has a very Jerome Kersey feel to me (with less athleticism). I don't think we have a player who is a good defensive matchup against all the small forwards in the league. Some are big and strong, and others are small and quick; you can't win every matchup. That said, DC has a good mid-range game, makes smart plays, and seems to attack the boards well--I think he would bring a valuable skill-set to the 3 spot if he were to play there. However, we all know that the SF in Nate's system MUST be able to hit the corner three, and until/unless DC demonstrates that ability, Batum is not yet expendable.
Click to expand...
I've no definitive proof that the SF has to be able to hit the 3 ball to play for Nate, should I? He was starting Nic before that was anything close to a proven fact. Pretty much every NBA coach wants multiple deep threats to spread the D out with. I'm sure that Nate could live with someone who brought other skills to the table especially if (as you said) he had guards who were solid deep threats and (even more so) he didn't have another better option.

If the GM trades away Batum for a PG and Martell (knock on wood) rebreaks his foot days before the season, 3 ball or not Dante sees a ton of time at SF... where else could Nate turn? I don't think his game is suited for the wing as he seems to be carrying too much weight/muscle to keep up with wings on D but of course he could refocus his training on becoming faster/leaner. It seems like a stretch but necessity is the mother of invention.

STOMP
 
Blazinaway said:
LOL, I have no problem with you posting this, but as I said when I voiced "my opinion" - I think it's a bad idea and waste of time. And IMO it's NOT one of the "more plausible" ideas on the board - it's one of the worst, again IMO.
Click to expand...

OK, you're worng, but at least we can discuss it. (ok, ok, that's a joke)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top