Poll: What has been Danny's best recent move?

[indeedproceed]

No matter what current slumps may be its gotta be Rasheed. WIthout him we're not talking title...Especially with the big infant's shenanigans.

[Roy Hobbs]

C'mon, Roy, don't do me like this: Those are all good options, but I think they're all playing for second to 1A and 1B in my book: Not re-signing Mikki Moore and Stephon Marbury.

 

-sw

Haha.  What about 1AI, the decision not to sign Iverson?

[gpap]

I know it's early, but I wanted to see what people were thinking about Danny's off-season / early season moves.

I think I'd probably rank them in this order:

1) Signing Marquis Daniels -- for what he's earning, he's been a steal.

2) Signing Shelden Williams -- see above.  A very pleasant surprise, on a minimum contract.

3) Signing Rasheed Wallace.  He's out of shape and shoots too many threes, and has been very inconsistent.  That's why I have him ranked third, but in terms of impact, he could end up number one.

4) Re-signing Glen Davis.  Look, I know he acted like an idiot, but two years, $6 million is a good contract for somebody of BBD's talent level.  The guy frustrates me, but he's a pretty good player.

5) Drafting Lester Hudson.  I didn't expect anything with the 58th pick in the draft, but this kid has surprised me.  I doubt he's ever a difference maker or more than a fringe player, but he's performed better than expected.

6) Declining J.R. Giddens' option.  All the moves above this one are, in my opinion, positive ones.  This one is perfectly neutral, as I think it was an absolute no-brainer.  Drafting Giddens was a moderate mistake, but being smart enough to cut bait is smart.

7) Signing Rajon Rondo.  Before people complain, keep in mind that the poll is "to date".  So far, Rondo doesn't seem to have improved much from last year, and arguably, he may have regressed.  He's shown me very little to suggest that he's worthy of an $11 million per year contract.  I thought the deal was fair (if a bit high) at the time, but so far (i.e., "to date"), Rajon has underperformed.

If we re-visit these choices, I'm sure they'll change wildly by the end of the season.  At this point in time, though, that's how I see it.

Let's go easy on Rasheed Wallace, please. I don't think anybody was complaining in the first 5 or 6 games when Rasheed was shooting threes like crazy and putting up points. I think Sheed was BY FAR the best offseason move done by any team. To judge him that objectively/harshly 11 games into the season is really unfair and I think inaccurate.

[Roy Hobbs]

I know it's early, but I wanted to see what people were thinking about Danny's off-season / early season moves.

I think I'd probably rank them in this order:

1) Signing Marquis Daniels -- for what he's earning, he's been a steal.

2) Signing Shelden Williams -- see above.  A very pleasant surprise, on a minimum contract.

3) Signing Rasheed Wallace.  He's out of shape and shoots too many threes, and has been very inconsistent.  That's why I have him ranked third, but in terms of impact, he could end up number one.

4) Re-signing Glen Davis.  Look, I know he acted like an idiot, but two years, $6 million is a good contract for somebody of BBD's talent level.  The guy frustrates me, but he's a pretty good player.

5) Drafting Lester Hudson.  I didn't expect anything with the 58th pick in the draft, but this kid has surprised me.  I doubt he's ever a difference maker or more than a fringe player, but he's performed better than expected.

6) Declining J.R. Giddens' option.  All the moves above this one are, in my opinion, positive ones.  This one is perfectly neutral, as I think it was an absolute no-brainer.  Drafting Giddens was a moderate mistake, but being smart enough to cut bait is smart.

7) Signing Rajon Rondo.  Before people complain, keep in mind that the poll is "to date".  So far, Rondo doesn't seem to have improved much from last year, and arguably, he may have regressed.  He's shown me very little to suggest that he's worthy of an $11 million per year contract.  I thought the deal was fair (if a bit high) at the time, but so far (i.e., "to date"), Rajon has underperformed.

If we re-visit these choices, I'm sure they'll change wildly by the end of the season.  At this point in time, though, that's how I see it.

Let's go easy on Rasheed Wallace, please. I don't think anybody was complaining in the first 5 or 6 games when Rasheed was shooting threes like crazy and putting up points. I think Sheed was BY FAR the best offseason move done by any team. To judge him that objectively/harshly 11 games into the season is really unfair and I think inaccurate.

Are you really criticizing me for judging him objectively?

In evaluating players, I weighed things like expectations, salary, etc.  Rasheed is averaging 9.7 points on 40.8% shooting, while hanging out on the perimeter.  For what we're paying him, I have him behind both Daniels and Williams.

Here's how they compare in terms of production:  Link.

In terms of production vs. salary, I think it's fair to rank Rasheed third.

[Steve Weinman]

C'mon, Roy, don't do me like this: Those are all good options, but I think they're all playing for second to 1A and 1B in my book: Not re-signing Mikki Moore and Stephon Marbury.

 

-sw

Haha.  What about 1AI, the decision not to sign Iverson?

You'll tell me of I'm too little faith, but I'm waiting until AI is else-wise (yes, I made up that term as kind of an alternate jersey for "otherwise") employed to count that one.

-sw

[Eja117]

I'm amazed that almost nobody is picking Rondo. Getting him for 11mill is like getting Chris Paul for 15.

Then I guess I'd go with Sheed. He could have gone anywhere, but came here, and I think brings vital depth

3 I go with BBD.

4 I go with Marquis. It's just another example of aiming high and going to get a good guy, but it's just a one year deal so I'm not considering it some all time great move or anything

5 Lester. Very very hard to get anything at all with such a late pick

6 Sheldon. I think we just got lucky here and his performance is at least slightly coming in garbage time and that BBD is capable of beating him out

7. Giddens. No brainer. A lose lose situation.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm amazed that almost nobody is picking Rondo. Getting him for 11mill is like getting Chris Paul for 15.

Are you suggesting he's underpaid?  Because, based on performance, I'd put him closer to Jose Calderon than I would Chris Paul or Deron Williams.

Hopefully he gets better, but so far, his play hasn't justified $11 million per season.

[Eja117]

I'm amazed that almost nobody is picking Rondo. Getting him for 11mill is like getting Chris Paul for 15.

Are you suggesting he's underpaid?  Because, based on performance, I'd put him closer to Jose Calderon than I would Chris Paul or Deron Williams.

Hopefully he gets better, but so far, his play hasn't justified $11 million per season.

Ok. Let me slightly revise.

It would be like if Chris Paul had a bad first two and a half weeks to a season and they signed him for $15mill per for 5 years.
So I guess I would say they definitely got him at a home town discount below market value deal

[Roy Hobbs]

So I guess I would say they definitely got him at a home town discount below market value deal

I hope you're right, but Rondo is *really* going to have to pick up his play to make 5 years, $55 million look like a bargain.

[indeedproceed]

I'm amazed that almost nobody is picking Rondo. Getting him for 11mill is like getting Chris Paul for 15.

Are you suggesting he's underpaid?  Because, based on performance, I'd put him closer to Jose Calderon than I would Chris Paul or Deron Williams.

Hopefully he gets better, but so far, his play hasn't justified $11 million per season.

Ok. Let me slightly revise.

It would be like if Chris Paul had a bad first two and a half weeks to a season and they signed him for $15mill per for 5 years.
So I guess I would say they definitely got him at a home town discount below market value deal

Assuming he improves or at least regains round 1 form from last season, it's a steal no question.

I still say sheed though. I never thought we were going to lose Rondo

[Eja117]

So I guess I would say they definitely got him at a home town discount below market value deal

I hope you're right, but Rondo is *really* going to have to pick up his play to make 5 years, $55 million look like a bargain.

Maybe one possible difference between us is that you thought he was being signed to a large deal as a sign of what he was expected to become, but I thought the deal was based on what he had done up to now. I thought he was underpayed the last few years

[Roy Hobbs]

So I guess I would say they definitely got him at a home town discount below market value deal

I hope you're right, but Rondo is *really* going to have to pick up his play to make 5 years, $55 million look like a bargain.

Maybe one possible difference between us is that you thought he was being signed to a large deal as a sign of what he was expected to become, but I thought the deal was based on what he had done up to now. I thought he was underpayed the last few years

I'm not sure if this is what you're suggesting, but I don't think a team should ever pay a player simply out of fairness, or whatever the concept is, to reward them for their past play.  Contracts should only be based upon the present and the future.  If they were underpaid in the past, that's really not the team's problem, and I think it's irresponsible to over-compensate somebody just because of past performance.

[Fafnir]

So I guess I would say they definitely got him at a home town discount below market value deal

I hope you're right, but Rondo is *really* going to have to pick up his play to make 5 years, $55 million look like a bargain.

Maybe one possible difference between us is that you thought he was being signed to a large deal as a sign of what he was expected to become, but I thought the deal was based on what he had done up to now. I thought he was underpayed the last few years

I'm not sure if this is what you're suggesting, but I don't think a team should ever pay a player simply out of fairness, or whatever the concept is, to reward them for their past play.  Contracts should only be based upon the present and the future.  If they were underpaid in the past, that's really not the team's problem, and I think it's irresponsible to over-compensate somebody just because of past performance.

I think Rondo played at a 8 million or so dollar level last year. So far he hasn't been at that level this year, but he's been pretty good until the last 3 games or so.

We'll see how it goes.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm amazed that almost nobody is picking Rondo. Getting him for 11mill is like getting Chris Paul for 15.

Are you suggesting he's underpaid?  Because, based on performance, I'd put him closer to Jose Calderon than I would Chris Paul or Deron Williams.

Hopefully he gets better, but so far, his play hasn't justified $11 million per season.

Ok. Let me slightly revise.

It would be like if Chris Paul had a bad first two and a half weeks to a season and they signed him for $15mill per for 5 years.
So I guess I would say they definitely got him at a home town discount below market value deal

Assuming he improves or at least regains round 1 form from last season, it's a steal no question.

I still say sheed though. I never thought we were going to lose Rondo

Here's the question:  what's closer to the "true" Rondo, the player he's been the past several seasons (which is a pretty good player) or the player from the Chicago series (who was a superstar for the first five games or so)?

I just don't assume that we're ever going to see that player on a consistent basis. 

[Eja117]

So I guess I would say they definitely got him at a home town discount below market value deal

I hope you're right, but Rondo is *really* going to have to pick up his play to make 5 years, $55 million look like a bargain.

Maybe one possible difference between us is that you thought he was being signed to a large deal as a sign of what he was expected to become, but I thought the deal was based on what he had done up to now. I thought he was underpayed the last few years

I'm not sure if this is what you're suggesting, but I don't think a team should ever pay a player simply out of fairness, or whatever the concept is, to reward them for their past play.  Contracts should only be based upon the present and the future.  If they were underpaid in the past, that's really not the team's problem, and I think it's irresponsible to over-compensate somebody just because of past performance.

I agree with you there. What I'm saying is the best indicator of future performance is past performance. I think Chris Paul will probably average in the 20ppg range this year cause that's what he did last year. I think Rondo will average in the 10-12ppg range this year cause that's what he did last year. What he is doing now isn't surprising to me, and wouldn't surprise me if he continues to do it, and would be earning his contract to me. I didn't expect him to sign for 11mill and then suddenly turn all-nba