You say numbers aren't everything but that's all you mention in your post.
you talk about his PER (i dont pay attention at all to this irrelevant stat), minutes, pts, height, free throws, number of games, you even mention his age.
Number aren't everything, but when your numbers are this terrible, there's a good chance you aren't very good. He's not an overwhelmed high schooler. He's played 115 NBA games and was supposed to be NBA ready as a rookie. He's been nothing short of awful.
If you say numbers dont mean everything, then how can you claim that Rush's career has been horrible so far. Seems like you clearly haven't watched anyPacers game's over the last 2 years.
Um, because they don't mean *everything*, but they do mean *a lot*. It takes an awful lot of intangibles to make up for bad stats. Running around for 25 MPG not scoring, not rebounding and not passing... you better be All-NBA defense material or you belong on the bench.
If I didn't know anything about the Celtics, and I payed more attention or just looked at the numbers for KG, I would be questioning who is smoking what in Boston. Kevin Garnett, only 15/7/2......34yrs old.....for $24 million+?? Injuries??
But we all know, there are things KG brings to this team in particular that dont and cant be displayed by numbers and stats.
Um, no. KG brought Boston a championship and he did it putting up big numbers. Try 18/9/3 with 3 blocks/steals in just 32 minutes per game plus All-NBA defense. 2 years later and yes, he's overpaid. But he's still a good player and puts up good numbers which still stack up favorably against young PFs like LaMarcus Aldridge or Michael Beasley.
We often like to glamorize the "intangibles" of players we like, but there is only so much that doesn't show up on the stat sheet. KG has put up some of the best *numbers* in NBA history. In short, he's nothing like Brandon Rush. Bad analogy.
Same thing with Brandon Rush, he does things for the pacers in particular that dont and cant be shown through stats. you'd have to watch multiple Pacers games to see why Larry and the rest of the organization is high on him.
And what exactly are those things? Because it's not scoring, rebounding or passing. His defense is decent for a young player, but he's not exactly a stopper. He's certainly not a team leader. So what does he do, dive for a couple of balls? High-five with super efficiency? Catch fire once every 5th game? Fact is, he has potential. But his actual performance to date has been bad, and focusing on the few glimmers you get to see as a Pacers fan doesn't change that.
Sometimes i think we as Celtics fans get slightly spoiled having so many good players on one team who all play a valuable role in the success the Celts have. That when we look at other teams players, who may only have 1 legitimate All-Star on the entire roster, we undervalue the non-All Star players to that team, because we compare them to what we(the celtics) have on our team.
What I'm saying is the pacers are going to want something of considerable value, in giving up their only young player with any upside.
Brandon Rush doesn't stack up very well against 90% of the starters in the league. It's not just the Celtics.
Teams always value their underachieving young talent higher than any other team, because they are hoping to recoup some value, and they witness all the little flashes of brilliance along the way. Even Marcus Banks got 170+ games to prove himself in Boston. He was pretty good on a few individual nights, like when he snared 7 steals in one game. But overall, he has always be lousy.
Don't get me wrong, it's possible that he'll "figure it out" and end up being a good player. 15/6 and a defensive stopper is possible, even in the near future. HOWEVER, there's not getting around the fact that he's been very bad so far.
CLEARLY, I have been misinterpreted and misunderstood. The original post was asking, if the pacers would do a deal somewhere along the lines of TJ Ford and Rush for Tony and JR.
Me Living in Indiana, I gave my input, based on what I see in the Pacers games, and what I hear from Larry and the organization, what i read in the paper, and what is said by Coach o'brien.
In reference to the KG analogy, I used the numbers 15/7/2 because thats what he has avg. since Rush has been in the League. And if you read thoroughly, I said, "If I didnt know anything about the Celtics. and only looked at the numbers". I was only making a point about, only looking at numbers and nothing else. I was not comparing KG's numbers to Rush's.
I was making a point or an example of only looking at the numbers and nothing else, and then making an argument or decision based soley on those numbers, without investigating further into what those numbers mean. And the investigating in this case means, watching multiple Pacers games. and then forming a conclusion.
THe Analogy, was more about how a team values its players
Not, KG and Rush are the same caliber of players. That doesn't even make sense for anyone to write that.
I was responding and letting someone know, that here in Indiana, The Pacers organization is high on Brandon Rush, and really believe in him. But when you look at his stats, they are similar to Tony Allen's. However Larry Bird would not do that trade, because Rush's value to the Pacers is more than what he provides stat-wise. Which is why they wouldn't do the deal that was proposed at the beginning of this thread topic.
I feel sorry for you, if you took the time to respond to a post you thought was about Brandon Rush being better or more valuable than Kevin Garnett. I would not have even responded to something crazy like that if it were me.
And most of all, I certainly wouldn't post anything like that, because Kevin Garnett is my favorite player, and always has been. Ever since He, Steph, and Googs were up in Minny. runnin' things.
Topic: Trade idea to acquire Brandon Rush (Read 9515 times)