Washington Post: RJ A "Great" Option For The Wizards

LUKE23 · Post #161 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:30 am

And let me say that I agree with the people that say RJ is a leader. I don't think that is worthless at all, it has value. I just think that as a player last year, RJ left a lot to be desired. Low efficiency, didn't really rebound or put much effort into rebounding, and his D was solid but not great. I don't think we'd be any worse overall starting LRMAM at SF, his natural position.

europa · Post #162 » by **europa** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:31 am

paulpressey25 wrote:
REDDzone wrote:Yea. Not to mention below average scoring efficiency, below average rebounding, average defense, and above average leadership intangibles should not cost 15 million a year.

Oh, he's way overpaid. Massively. No one is arguing that. But where I'll now diverge with Europa is that bringing RJ in to change the stench in the locker-room was a good thing, but then Hammond had to immediately then trade Redd because having both of those guys at their salaries was going to be a car wreck as it relates to the payroll.

Or he should have traded RJ at the deadline or he needs to get creative and find a way to continue improving the team this summer. The pressure's on Hammond, but the final chapter hasn't been written yet.

BDUB_30 · Post #163 » by **BDUB_30** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:38 am

LUKE23 wrote:And let me say that I agree with the people that say RJ is a leader. I don't think that is worthless at all, it has value. I just think that as a player last year, RJ left a lot to be desired. Low efficiency, didn't really rebound or put much effort into rebounding, and his D was solid but not great. I don't think we'd be any worse overall starting LRMAM at SF, his natural position.

I think this is where we have to add some context into the discussion and point out what we gave up to aquire RJ .

We gave up a negative asset , a liability ..and project player who may or may not ever develop.

I think when you put that into the mix it kind of makes the whole thing look alot more attractive . I do agree RJ wasnt all that spectacular , but in context , looking at what we gave up to get him , ill take it all day .. .ALLL DAY .

Post #164 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:38 am

LUKE23 wrote: I don't think we'd be any worse overall starting LRMAM at SF, his natural position.

I'm not sure on that. I want to see what we have in year two with LRMAM. He seemed to hit a wall with offensive ability as the year went on and was a pretty dismal scorer outside of being an occasional garbageman around the hoop. With Bogut unable to hit anything outside five feet, I'm not sure we can have a SF who isn't a good scorer.

midranger · Post #165 » by **midranger** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:40 am

paulpressey25 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote: I don't think we'd be any worse overall starting LRMAM at SF, his natural position.

I'm not sure on that. I want to see what we have in year two with LRMAM. He seemed to hit a wall with offensive ability as the year went on and was a pretty dismal scorer outside of being an occasional garbageman around the hoop. With Bogut unable to hit anything outside five feet, I'm not sure we can have a SF who isn't a good scorer.

We need a bruiser next to those two. Dump CV immediately.

LUKE23 · Post #166 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:41 am

With Bogut unable to hit anything outside five feet, I'm not sure we can have a SF who isn't a good scorer.

If our PF can score and we had LRMAM's D, I think we could. But given our current roster composition at PF (even if we draft one), I agree.

To me, my biggest worry at this point next year is PF. LRMAM is not one, and as of today, no other options exist on the roster.

BDUB_30 · Post #167 » by **BDUB_30** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:41 am

paulpressey25 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote: I don't think we'd be any worse overall starting LRMAM at SF, his natural position.

I'm not sure on that. I want to see what we have in year two with LRMAM. He seemed to hit a wall with offensive ability as the year went on and was a pretty dismal scorer outside of being an occasional garbageman around the hoop. With Bogut unable to hit anything outside five feet, I'm not sure we can have a SF who isn't a good scorer.

I think we can do it if we get more defense on the perimiter . We can supplement the loss of RJs scoring with more transition buckets .. the bucks had alot of room to improve there .

I want to see moute play his natural position . Watching him defend the oppositions best permiter wing makes me excited to be a bucks fan ... Watching moute try to box out Chris bosh just seems like such a waste of moutes best skill , permiter defense ..

BDUB_30 · Post #168 » by **BDUB_30** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:43 am

I mean leave it to the bucks to put their best permiter defender in the paint to wrestle nba bigs ...

LUKE23 · Post #169 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:44 am

BDUB_30 wrote:I mean leave it to the bucks to put their best permiter defender in the paint to wrestle nba bigs ...

Yep, LRMAM is so much more valuable for his perimeter D, and he can guard 2/3's better than 4's. I'm going to be pretty pissed if they throw LRMAM at PF next year.

europa · Post #170 » by **europa** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:48 am

If the Bucks had a PF who could defend worth a damn, they wouldn't have had to put M&M inside so much. Unfortunately, Villanueva is putrid defensively so M&M was the best option. That's one of the problems with having Villanueva around - you're forced to scramble defensively to make up for how awful he is.

(cue Press' this is why they should've drafted Lopez line)

LUKE23 · Post #171 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:51 am

That doesn't absolve Hammond from filling the PF position adequately. It will not be acceptable to me to just throw LRMAM there next year. It plays him out of position and it weakens an already very poor bench (pushing for worst bench in the league if LRMAM is starting).

Hammond in my eyes has to:

1. Re-sign Sessions
2. Upgrade starting PF (so not LRMAM)
3. Not blow the pick

Those are my minimum requirements for him this offseason.

europa · Post #172 » by **europa** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:52 am

LUKE23 wrote:That doesn't absolve Hammond from filling the PF position adequately.

I agree. This team has had a massive hole at PF for the past three seasons now. The previous regime failed badly to address it and Hammond failed badly last summer. Here's hoping he gets it right this summer.

Post #173 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:56 am

Frankly I just wish Kohl would spend the $12 million he needs to and keep the entire team intact for next year, draft the best guy at 10 and bring Ersan back.

This is just typical Bucks thinking. We'll destroy our depth and chemistry we tried to build last year to save this $12 million and in the end it will very much hurt our ability to make the playoffs.

If Hammond/Kohl don't feel that keeping CV/Sessions/10/Ersan are vitally important then they should just start the blow-up this summer. Why wait?

europa · Post #174 » by **europa** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:58 am

I'd be fine with that. Sit Hammond down and say here's the deal - we're keeping everyone and adding two picks. I'll pick up the check but if this team stinks by the deadline you MUST trade RJ or Redd or both to get under the tax or at least a lot closer to it.

I'd roll with that and see where it all led.

paul · Post #175 » by **paul** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:08 am

europa wrote:I'd be fine with that. Sit Hammond down and say here's the deal - we're keeping everyone and adding two picks. I'll pick up the check but if this team stinks by the deadline you MUST trade RJ or Redd or both to get under the tax or at least a lot closer to it.

I'd roll with that and see where it all led.

This is what I was saying they'd do about 3 months ago, but my thought now is that is what will be done minus CV. I think everyone else will be brought back, the picks will be made and Charlie will be sent off with our best wishes.
I don't know why, it's just what I've thought will happen for a fair while now.

europa · Post #176 » by **europa** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:09 am

paul wrote:
europa wrote:I'd be fine with that. Sit Hammond down and say here's the deal - we're keeping everyone and adding two picks. I'll pick up the check but if this team stinks by the deadline you MUST trade RJ or Redd or both to get under the tax or at least a lot closer to it.

I'd roll with that and see where it all led.

This is what I was saying they'd do about 3 months ago, but my thought now is that is what will be done minus CV. I think everyone else will be brought back, the picks will be made and Charlie will be sent off with our best wishes.
I don't know why, it's just what I've thought will happen for a fair while now.

That's been my take too. Dump Ridnour, re-sign Sessions, add the picks, bring over Ilyasova and see what that team can do. The key is to make sure you get two good players in the draft this year and not just one.

LUKE23 · Post #177 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:10 am

I will still be shocked if we go over the tax after we had an attendance drop again last year.

My guess is Redd/RJ are kept, they try and move Ridnour for salary relief to keep Sessions, and they keep the pick. If they can't get enough salary relief for Ridnour, they will let both CV and Sessions walk, keep Ridnour, and draft a PG. I don't think Ersan will be on the team next year either.

BDUB_30 · Post #178 » by **BDUB_30** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 3:12 am

Dumping Ridnour would mean that Skiles is ready to give this team to Ramon . I dont see that happening , and would be shocked if it did . I would love nothing more then to aquire a pg or have ramon step up and fill that role so we can cash in on Ridnours expiring .

But the bottom line is , that hasnt happend yet . I think were stuck with Ridnour until we find a capable nba starting pg . Say what ya want about Luke , but he can run the plays .. Ramon can not ....and Skiles has been on record saying exactaly that .

Fight the Tank · Post #179 » by **Fight the Tank** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 1:44 pm

I still think the Spurs/RJ trade would be the best way too solve all problems in one trade. Especially considering Luc and Joe at the SF.

I just want Bonner for sure coming back.

jerrod · Post #180 » by **jerrod** » Fri Jun 5, 2009 2:26 pm

europa wrote:I'd be fine with that. Sit Hammond down and say here's the deal - we're keeping everyone and adding two picks. I'll pick up the check but if this team stinks by the deadline you MUST trade RJ or Redd or both to get under the tax or at least a lot closer to it.

I'd roll with that and see where it all led.

i could live with that, i just don't see any chance that it happens.