Author Topic: Why not Louis Amundson  (Read 2245 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Why not Louis Amundson
« on: July 27, 2010, 04:46:02 PM »

Offline EJPLAYA

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3816
  • Tommy Points: 127
It appears the Suns are going to let this guy walk. Assuming that we could sign him for vet minimum wouldn't he be a nice hustle player off the bench? 4 pts and 4 boards in 13 min a game isn't bad for a bench guy. He's a thin 6'9 so would likely be a wing guy. Considering what we have available at low money I think he'd fit in nicely. I have been impressed with the guy every time the Suns have played us. 

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2010, 04:50:04 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Because he will likely get (and want) more than the minimum.  If he would come for the minimum, he would be an excellent backup big man (not sure where the idea of him being a wing came from).

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2010, 04:51:43 PM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52801
  • Tommy Points: 2568
Amundson has about 10 different teams interested in his services.

I wouldn't be optimistic about the Celtics landing him since they can't offer more money and are only offering a small amount of playing time (none when Perk gets back on the court).

But yeah, I'd absolutely love to have him here. Amundson would be an excellent signing.

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2010, 04:54:05 PM »

Offline EJPLAYA

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3816
  • Tommy Points: 127
Because he will likely get (and want) more than the minimum.  If he would come for the minimum, he would be an excellent backup big man (not sure where the idea of him being a wing came from).

He just doesn't seem big enough physically to be a big. Maybe a smaller PF, but he just seems to me to be more of a wing type slasher than a traditional big man. Putting up 4 boards a game I guess he likely gets in there a bit. I think from the weak side mostly though. Just my impression.

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2010, 04:56:06 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Because he will likely get (and want) more than the minimum.  If he would come for the minimum, he would be an excellent backup big man (not sure where the idea of him being a wing came from).

He just doesn't seem big enough physically to be a big. Maybe a smaller PF, but he just seems to me to be more of a wing type slasher than a traditional big man. Putting up 4 boards a game I guess he likely gets in there a bit. I think from the weak side mostly though. Just my impression.


he can't defend 3s. he's a 4 with the ltd ability to guard a few 5s.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2010, 05:08:24 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Because he will likely get (and want) more than the minimum.  If he would come for the minimum, he would be an excellent backup big man (not sure where the idea of him being a wing came from).

He just doesn't seem big enough physically to be a big. Maybe a smaller PF, but he just seems to me to be more of a wing type slasher than a traditional big man. Putting up 4 boards a game I guess he likely gets in there a bit. I think from the weak side mostly though. Just my impression.

He's 6'9" with a 7 foot wingspan and very good ups. He's a good PF with the ability to guard perimeter 5's and undersized 5's.

His rebound per minute and rebound percentages are top notch, like top 20 in the league.

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2010, 05:18:18 PM »

Offline bballee

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 119
  • Tommy Points: 18
I was kinda excited to see the Suns were letting him walk also.  Interested enough to do some looking--he's half an inch shorter than Big Baby and has almost no offensive skills.  Love his hustle and rebounding but don't think there is a place on this year's roster for such a one-dimensional player.

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2010, 05:22:31 PM »

Offline Greenbean

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3739
  • Tommy Points: 418
I love this guy. I think he can get more than the min though.

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2010, 05:37:23 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Because he will likely get (and want) more than the minimum.  If he would come for the minimum, he would be an excellent backup big man (not sure where the idea of him being a wing came from).

He just doesn't seem big enough physically to be a big. Maybe a smaller PF, but he just seems to me to be more of a wing type slasher than a traditional big man. Putting up 4 boards a game I guess he likely gets in there a bit. I think from the weak side mostly though. Just my impression.

He's 6'9" with a 7 foot wingspan and very good ups. He's a good PF with the ability to guard perimeter 5's and undersized 5's.

His rebound per minute and rebound percentages are top notch, like top 20 in the league.
He's 34th in the league in rebound rate, just a notch below Perkins.

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2010, 05:41:29 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Surprised the Suns are letting Amundson go - he'd be a solid 4th big until Perk returns, then an excellent 5th big afterward.

But as others have said, he'll likely get more money, and definitely more PT, elsewhere.  So we probably have no shot.

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2010, 05:50:26 PM »

Offline KCattheStripe

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10726
  • Tommy Points: 830
Because he will likely get (and want) more than the minimum.  If he would come for the minimum, he would be an excellent backup big man (not sure where the idea of him being a wing came from).

He just doesn't seem big enough physically to be a big. Maybe a smaller PF, but he just seems to me to be more of a wing type slasher than a traditional big man. Putting up 4 boards a game I guess he likely gets in there a bit. I think from the weak side mostly though. Just my impression.

He's 6'9" with a 7 foot wingspan and very good ups. He's a good PF with the ability to guard perimeter 5's and undersized 5's.

His rebound per minute and rebound percentages are top notch, like top 20 in the league.


And you were worried about my CBlog team's rebounding last year.

Re: Why not Louis Amundson
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2010, 05:51:37 PM »

Offline cdif911

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4868
  • Tommy Points: 43
he'd be perfect...moneywise unlikely unfortunately
When you love life, life loves you right back