|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 20, 2005 16:52:26 GMT -5
If you believe all that you read on the internet and in the sports section in local papers, you are thinking that Mark Blount is going to be traded at some point before the season starts.
He's had a sulky attitude after former coach, Jim O'Brien, resigned from the team and he had a sulky attitude last year, after taking a 42 million dollar contract extension in the offseason, despite claiming that he was 99% sure he wasn't coming back to Boston because of what Danny Ainge was doing here.
Doc has said that he had to treat Blount differently than the others, but toward the end of the season, Blount's negative attitude must have worn Rivers out because he was barely getting any playing time.
So when I read that Blount could possibly moved, I am not doubting that possibility. Whether it be a move to relieve some roster space or whether its to get rid of a bad apple, Blount may not be in Boston next year.
So where would he go?
|
|
|
|
Post by VI_CelticsFan on Aug 20, 2005 18:03:30 GMT -5
Chicago might need a center because of Curry's heart problem. Maybe we could net Antonio Davis and a pick for blount.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 20, 2005 18:29:56 GMT -5
You know, I didn't want to bring up that name because of the negative response I got for talking about him 2 weeks ago, but Curry is a guy who could be looked at. Right now, he's forced to take Chicago's 6+ million dollar contract extension beause no one else seems to be interested in him because of his heart condition.
Well, Blount is also making about the same amount of money as that, but Mark's contract has substantially more years.
If we can move Blount's long contract for Curry, that could get rid of that problem. But Chicago probably wouldn't be up for just that because if they just let Curry go, they'd save money. But they also have Antonio Davis and his contract ends after this season. Now, would Chicago be happy with losing both Curry and Davis for absolutely nothing? I don't think so, especially since they are a team on the rise.
Blount, Borchardt, and Woods for Curry and a 1st or 2 2nd rounders would be enticing. It'll reduce our overcrowded roster and give Chicago 2 cheaper big men to replace Curry and an aging Davis after this season ends. Maybe they'd want better players than Borchardt and Woods, so Banks may possibly have to be included. But seeing how Ainge signed Will Bynum, maybe he's ready to make a move like this which will send both Blount and Banks (2 guys with the initial M.B) out of town. Plus, Chicago could be losing Chris Duhon, so they may be looking for a replacement backup PG.
Oh well, just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Aug 20, 2005 19:40:47 GMT -5
Id say the only we could get the Bulls to bite on a mark Blout trade is if we traded our TE to a team for a player Chi wants, then we package said player with Blount for Antonio Davis. That way, salaries would work, and Chi would have some incentive to do this trade. And IMO, Eddie Curry = Crap City. 5.4 rbg in a breakout year, PLUS a heart condition, both literally and figuretively? No thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by meltinjohn on Aug 20, 2005 19:47:35 GMT -5
Duhon is back with the bulls. Don't you read the news? About Banks, I dont expect to see him moved. I expect to see 4 young pg's in Boston now.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 20, 2005 19:49:13 GMT -5
Yes, his stats may not be pretty, but the potential is there. That's the key, "potential". He's got big time potential still not harnessed. He's got the ability to be a big time scorer and big time rebounder. But he just needs a coach and coaching staff who can get it out of him. He's still very young and can still turn his career around.
He's a different story from Kwame and Mark Blount. Neither of those guys have the potential ability to be dominant players. Eddie Curry does. But so far, his career stats have not been any better than either of those guys. But you got to look at the potential. Its a medium sized risk to bring him in because he's not going to get max money. But the reward we could see from him becoming the player he can be is tremendous.
|
|
|
|
Post by meltinjohn on Aug 20, 2005 20:12:26 GMT -5
Please lay off already. Eddie eats too much fraahd chicken.
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Aug 20, 2005 20:56:02 GMT -5
If we could get him for mega cheap for not many years, Id do it. The dude has some talent. But, he has no heart. He is going to demolish whatever team finally signs him to a lengthy contract next year. Hes got enough talent to blind GMs into overlooking his obvious shortcomings. I mean, he's young enough to turn his career around and become a HOFer, but I doubt it. Let someone else take that risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Aug 20, 2005 21:45:14 GMT -5
Im gonna start this off by saying that I am in no way endorsing this idea, Im just bored at work and throwing it out there.
You know what prolly be the best way to increase Blount's value? Trade Wash the TE for Chucky Atkins. Have those two on the court together whenever theyre out there. Adkins was the perfect PG for Blount b/c he sets up a fine pick n roll, which gets the Mark Blount offensive jaggernaut off and running. Plus, for those of you that want use to have a good year, we played some decent basketball the last time Chucky was here, at least during the regular season.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 20, 2005 22:06:08 GMT -5
I actually like Chucky. When he came over to us, he got the team running. I even watched him with the Lakers last year, and he was steady. He can definitely help a team become more uptempo, although he won't look like Jason Kidd in the process. But he can push the ball, and if guys are running with him, he can look fairly decent. He can also shoot the ball (though its streaky) and he can set up players with pick and rolls.
As for a veteran presence who can help our young PG's get through rough patches, I'd prefer Chucky over Dickau.
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Aug 20, 2005 22:14:55 GMT -5
I would prolly prefer Chucky over Dickeau as well, plus chuckster contract is up after this year. Adkins would still take too many minutes away from our young PGs, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 20, 2005 22:22:06 GMT -5
Maybe initially. But with the youth movement in mind, Rivers will do his best to give West and the rest get a fair share of playing time (hopefully).
|
|
|
|
Post by meltinjohn on Aug 21, 2005 1:36:03 GMT -5
Dickau is still the best choice regardless. This team needs no veteran pg's. GP rubbed off enough on the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Aug 21, 2005 1:51:16 GMT -5
One the subject of Dickeau, is his signing a sure deal yet? If it is anyone able to find some info on the contract?
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 21, 2005 1:59:02 GMT -5
No, its not official. So far, the only concluding evidence we have that Dickau could be coming here is what the Herald reported some "sources" have said. Nothing concrete at the moment.
|
|
