The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).

[BballTim]

again, he wasn't an obstacle to winning a Title and he was also on this roster too...

If the Cs were that worried about Eddie, they could have moved Pruitt and POB instead of Sam and POB to have more insurance at the PG spot.

anyway, I'm not arguing against the Mar signing. I think there are question about it in regards to filling a need and potentially diminishing a solid bench guy, but i understand the gamble.

the gamble i don't understand was signing Moore....for all the reasons i have stated.

  Scal wasn't an obstacle to our winning the title last year. And you do realize that they were planning on getting Marbury when they traded Sam instead of Pruitt, right?

when did i say Scal was an obstacle to winning a Title last year? did he even play?

  No, he didn't play. That was my point. House didn't play in every playoff game because of known weaknesses in his game. So it's not necessarily true that we can win a title with him as the backup pg. They brought in Cassell last year at least in part because they knew that House had issues. They're playing Eddie mainly at the 2 this year and Doc's commented on how he's much more effective there. Yet you claim that we had no need for a backup pg when we signed Marbury because we had House on the roster.

[winsomme]

again, he wasn't an obstacle to winning a Title and he was also on this roster too...

If the Cs were that worried about Eddie, they could have moved Pruitt and POB instead of Sam and POB to have more insurance at the PG spot.

anyway, I'm not arguing against the Mar signing. I think there are question about it in regards to filling a need and potentially diminishing a solid bench guy, but i understand the gamble.

the gamble i don't understand was signing Moore....for all the reasons i have stated.

  Scal wasn't an obstacle to our winning the title last year. And you do realize that they were planning on getting Marbury when they traded Sam instead of Pruitt, right?

when did i say Scal was an obstacle to winning a Title last year? did he even play?

  No, he didn't play. That was my point. House didn't play in every playoff game because of known weaknesses in his game. So it's not necessarily true that we can win a title with him as the backup pg. They brought in Cassell last year at least in part because they knew that House had issues. They're playing Eddie mainly at the 2 this year and Doc's commented on how he's much more effective there. Yet you claim that we had no need for a backup pg when we signed Marbury because we had House on the roster.

first, they are not playing Eddie "mainly" at the two.

second, we had Eddie and Sam on the roster. they replaced Sam with Mar. clearly an upgrade, but they could have chosen to keep Sam, release or move Pruitt and then target another position.

anyway, like i already said, my problem is not with the Mar signing, it's the Moore....

[BballTim]

again, he wasn't an obstacle to winning a Title and he was also on this roster too...

If the Cs were that worried about Eddie, they could have moved Pruitt and POB instead of Sam and POB to have more insurance at the PG spot.

anyway, I'm not arguing against the Mar signing. I think there are question about it in regards to filling a need and potentially diminishing a solid bench guy, but i understand the gamble.

the gamble i don't understand was signing Moore....for all the reasons i have stated.

  Scal wasn't an obstacle to our winning the title last year. And you do realize that they were planning on getting Marbury when they traded Sam instead of Pruitt, right?

when did i say Scal was an obstacle to winning a Title last year? did he even play?

  No, he didn't play. That was my point. House didn't play in every playoff game because of known weaknesses in his game. So it's not necessarily true that we can win a title with him as the backup pg. They brought in Cassell last year at least in part because they knew that House had issues. They're playing Eddie mainly at the 2 this year and Doc's commented on how he's much more effective there. Yet you claim that we had no need for a backup pg when we signed Marbury because we had House on the roster.

first, they are not playing Eddie "mainly" at the two.

second, we had Eddie and Sam on the roster. they replaced Sam with Mar. clearly an upgrade, but they could have chosen to keep Sam, release or move Pruitt and then target another position.

anyway, like i already said, my problem is not with the Mar signing, it's the Moore....

  The fact that Tony Allen's often the main ballhandler when Eddie's in the game says about all you need to know about that. If you think that Eddie's such a great backup pg that we didn't need Marbury I'm not going to waste my time discussing it.

[winsomme]

again, he wasn't an obstacle to winning a Title and he was also on this roster too...

If the Cs were that worried about Eddie, they could have moved Pruitt and POB instead of Sam and POB to have more insurance at the PG spot.

anyway, I'm not arguing against the Mar signing. I think there are question about it in regards to filling a need and potentially diminishing a solid bench guy, but i understand the gamble.

the gamble i don't understand was signing Moore....for all the reasons i have stated.

  Scal wasn't an obstacle to our winning the title last year. And you do realize that they were planning on getting Marbury when they traded Sam instead of Pruitt, right?

when did i say Scal was an obstacle to winning a Title last year? did he even play?

  No, he didn't play. That was my point. House didn't play in every playoff game because of known weaknesses in his game. So it's not necessarily true that we can win a title with him as the backup pg. They brought in Cassell last year at least in part because they knew that House had issues. They're playing Eddie mainly at the 2 this year and Doc's commented on how he's much more effective there. Yet you claim that we had no need for a backup pg when we signed Marbury because we had House on the roster.

first, they are not playing Eddie "mainly" at the two.

second, we had Eddie and Sam on the roster. they replaced Sam with Mar. clearly an upgrade, but they could have chosen to keep Sam, release or move Pruitt and then target another position.

anyway, like i already said, my problem is not with the Mar signing, it's the Moore....

  The fact that Tony Allen's often the main ballhandler when Eddie's in the game says about all you need to know about that. If you think that Eddie's such a great backup pg that we didn't need Marbury I'm not going to waste my time discussing it.

how many times do i have to say that my problem is not with the Marbury singing...? I already said Mar was an upgrade over Eddie. what more do you want?

was it a need on the grand scale of things?  fine...yes. but on "need" alone, it was behind replacing PJ and Posey because we already had the two players who filled that PT on our Title winning squad with Sam and Eddie....

I'm not saying exclusively that they should have stuck with Sam and Eddie. I'm saying they could have...we are now going to have to wait and see if Mar's increased ability will make up for not filling a clearer need where the back up options are IMO a lot more dicey (ie backup SF)...

[winsomme]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

[KJ33]

As Danny always says in response to any question he receives about team "needs", "I want guys who can play, whatever their position".  The NBA is unique in that there are many different ways to skin a cat, the key is having high quality players who can play well together.  Any detailed comparison to last year's pieces, or even theoretical pieces, misses this main point. 

Now one could argue that Joe Smith let's say, is a better player than Marbury, something I, and I know Danny would disagree with, but frontcourt vs. backcourt is not a consideration if there is a considerable talent upgrade available.  Seeing our team as thin up front or at the wing as the sole reason to go after bigs and wings, regardless of their quality, has been rejected in DA's philosophy in favor of obtaining impact players no matter what their position, which he believes Marbury is. 

I think DA did not see any huge upgrades to what he already has talent-wise, not position-wise, to justify bringing in someone new to the mix besides Moore and Marbury.  The fit is oh so important in a winning team, it is a delicate balance.  The only circumstance that can justify upsetting it is if you can significantly upgrade your talent, which I believe DA thinks he did in swapping out POB and Cassell for Moore and Marbury.  In fact, it is still going to be a struggle to fit those 2 guys in, but the risk is worth it. Adding a mediocre big or wing that does not significantly upgrade the talent already on the roster, just complicates the fit issue, but without the benefit of having better talent.

[BballTim]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

  Your point is that since Sam and Eddie were in the playoffs last year, even though neither of them was good enough to hold down the spot, and neither of them have been able to hold down the spot this year, we don't have a need at backup pg? I give up.

[winsomme]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

  Your point is that since Sam and Eddie were in the playoffs last year, even though neither of them was good enough to hold down the spot, and neither of them have been able to hold down the spot this year, we don't have a need at backup pg? I give up.

No. My point is that they were good enough to hold down the position on a team that won the Title (not just "in the playoffs").

Thus making it less of a need....

[BballTim]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

  Your point is that since Sam and Eddie were in the playoffs last year, even though neither of them was good enough to hold down the spot, and neither of them have been able to hold down the spot this year, we don't have a need at backup pg? I give up.

No. My point is that they were good enough to hold down the position on a team that won the Title (not just "in the playoffs").

Thus making it less of a need....

  Last year's over. Sam probably averaged like 14/6 on the Clips before he was bought out. This year Danny remarked the fact that Pruitt was outplaying Sam as a reason we decided to trade him. Again, I disagree that backup pg was not an area of need.

[winsomme]

did we sign Mar primarily because we needed a back up PG or because he was the best talent out there....

I mean, what other PGs were we targeting just in case Mar didn't get bought out?

Isn't it more likely that PG was lower on the list of needs but Danny chose Mar because he was the better talent?

[winsomme]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

  Your point is that since Sam and Eddie were in the playoffs last year, even though neither of them was good enough to hold down the spot, and neither of them have been able to hold down the spot this year, we don't have a need at backup pg? I give up.

No. My point is that they were good enough to hold down the position on a team that won the Title (not just "in the playoffs").

Thus making it less of a need....

  Last year's over. Sam probably averaged like 14/6 on the Clips before he was bought out. This year Danny remarked the fact that Pruitt was outplaying Sam as a reason we decided to trade him. Again, I disagree that backup pg was not an area of need.

fine. but was it more of a need than backup SF?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

  Your point is that since Sam and Eddie were in the playoffs last year, even though neither of them was good enough to hold down the spot, and neither of them have been able to hold down the spot this year, we don't have a need at backup pg? I give up.

No. My point is that they were good enough to hold down the position on a team that won the Title (not just "in the playoffs").

Thus making it less of a need....

  Last year's over. Sam probably averaged like 14/6 on the Clips before he was bought out. This year Danny remarked the fact that Pruitt was outplaying Sam as a reason we decided to trade him. Again, I disagree that backup pg was not an area of need.

fine. but was it more of a need than backup SF?

In my opinion, and that of many others... YES.

[winsomme]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

  Your point is that since Sam and Eddie were in the playoffs last year, even though neither of them was good enough to hold down the spot, and neither of them have been able to hold down the spot this year, we don't have a need at backup pg? I give up.

No. My point is that they were good enough to hold down the position on a team that won the Title (not just "in the playoffs").

Thus making it less of a need....

  Last year's over. Sam probably averaged like 14/6 on the Clips before he was bought out. This year Danny remarked the fact that Pruitt was outplaying Sam as a reason we decided to trade him. Again, I disagree that backup pg was not an area of need.

fine. but was it more of a need than backup SF?

In my opinion, and that of many others... YES.

considering we don't have a backup SF and we won a Title with the backup PGs already on the roster, I just don't see the argument for backup PG being more of a need that backup SF.

[BballTim]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

  Your point is that since Sam and Eddie were in the playoffs last year, even though neither of them was good enough to hold down the spot, and neither of them have been able to hold down the spot this year, we don't have a need at backup pg? I give up.

No. My point is that they were good enough to hold down the position on a team that won the Title (not just "in the playoffs").

Thus making it less of a need....

  Last year's over. Sam probably averaged like 14/6 on the Clips before he was bought out. This year Danny remarked the fact that Pruitt was outplaying Sam as a reason we decided to trade him. Again, I disagree that backup pg was not an area of need.

fine. but was it more of a need than backup SF?

  Maybe, but that wasn't really your point.

[winsomme]

Look at it this way, BBall:

which of these elements of our bench is playoff tested?

Eddie and Sam at backup PG
Scals and TA as backup SF


and remember I'm only bringing this up to address the question of "need" not the overall decision to sign Marbury....

  Your point is that since Sam and Eddie were in the playoffs last year, even though neither of them was good enough to hold down the spot, and neither of them have been able to hold down the spot this year, we don't have a need at backup pg? I give up.

No. My point is that they were good enough to hold down the position on a team that won the Title (not just "in the playoffs").

Thus making it less of a need....

  Last year's over. Sam probably averaged like 14/6 on the Clips before he was bought out. This year Danny remarked the fact that Pruitt was outplaying Sam as a reason we decided to trade him. Again, I disagree that backup pg was not an area of need.

fine. but was it more of a need than backup SF?

  Maybe, but that wasn't really your point.

Well we have made a lot of points in this thread. I'm not sure which one you are referring to.

In regards to Mar, I said that that i am not against the signing. But i think it was not filling a "clear need" because we already had backup PGs that were good enough to play the position on a Title winning club and was made because he was the best talent available.

now the question is whether or not the talent is going to make up for not filling the bigger need....

you can slice and dice it however you want BBall, but that is the point i was making in regards to the Mar signing. If it seems that i was saying differently before, then this is me clarifying it.