If it is legit that the C's are looking at Rasheed (and I think it probably is), I'm also worried about this team slipping into a "This year's former All-Star rental" mode with free agent acquisitions.
We need to try to take advantage of our narrow championship window, but we can't always plan on aging name players being a magic bullet. Historically, that hasn't worked too often. I wouldn't mind a solid vet or two, but if this team doesn't find some youth and athleticism over the offseason too, I'm gonna be a lot more worried about our future.
1. Doc has said his primary problem with last year's team was that it was too young and immature come playoff time. After KG's injury, the locker room leadership included Pierce and Ray, which is good, but also Rondo and Perk, two young guys with dominant personalities who Doc thought regressed in the leadership department due to the fact that there was so much youth and immaturity - Davis, Powe, TA, Walker, Pruitt, Giddens - around them. He thought the presence of leaders like Posey and Brown (and KG) was sorely missed. While Marbury is a veteran, he has never been known as a good leader and it seems was so focused on just fitting in and not making waves that I doubt he ever really spoke up and tried to be a leader. And Moore failed so spectactularly (and has so little past success) that it's hard to look at him as a leader.
2. We need to try to take advantage of our narrow championship window, but we can't always plan on aging name players being a magic bullet. Historically, that hasn't worked too often.
Have to strongly disagree here. 1 out of 1 or 2 ain't bad. Last year, while we brought in Marbury and Moore at the deadline, we really tried to go with youth as our bench instead of veteran leaders. That didn't work as most of them (O'Bryant, Pruitt, Walker, Giddens, TA) didn't work out or weren't ready.
That doesn't mean Sheed is the right guy necessarily (though I would be strongly in favor of him or McDyess joining and while for equal money I'd go with Sheed, I'd lean toward Dyess for less money), I'm just saying I disagree with this particular analysis.
Yeah, after thinking it over a bit and reading the thoughts of others, a healthy and motivated Sheed would be a better fit here than I'm giving him credit for. I just don't see him coming here for less than the MLE at the very least, and I don't think it's worth the risk. He was pretty lousy most of the year for Detroit - maybe some of that was due to realizing it was a lost season for them, but maybe not. We won't know for sure til the cash is committed.
As for the "Aging Vet of the Year" stuff, I'm just wary of constantly chasing fading name players to fill gaps. Reminds me a little too much of the Yankees. Sure, PJ did a great job in spots, but Cassell and Marbury were both basically duds. As for your mention of leadership, if one of our Big 3 goes down it will hurt our veteran leadership, but there's no way we're winning a title without all three anyway. A good veteran presence off the bench would be a nice addition, but Sheed's not exactly known as a stabilizing influence on the floor. Plus, I'm talking about pursuing younger but somewhat established players (someone like Ariza, though I don't think we can get him) with all or some of our MLE - our young bench guys this year were either 2nd round picks who hadn't played much, a lottery pick who looked and played like a bust, or Tony Allen.
Bottom line, I want to see us add some solid backup vets, but I also want us to improve our long term core with some of our exceptions, not just sign aging talent that we're hoping will have something left in the tank come May and June. If signing Sheed costs us a chance to add some legit long-term help, I'm against it.
Topic: I'm thinking C's are thinking Rasheed Wallace (merged) (Read 9200 times)