Burke "I"m hearing between #2 and #6"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

I think we can argue as fans that we have no idea how much they have invested in Rivers. Could be a lot or could be a little. Only people that know that are people like Dell and Monty.

---

No an investment is something tangible. Money, high draft pick, change of roster/coach to suit the player, traded assets to acquire the player. The only thing we can say the team has invested in Rivers is the 10th pick. Now whether or not he's a big part of the plan moving forward we don't know.

Size matters... I will keep saying this.. If we pass on Trey Burke and he becomes Chris Paul, John Stockton, Mark Price, Steve Nash or even Isaiah Thomas. Cool. Those guys won a total of TWO championships in about 60 seasons of brilliant, HALL OF FAME level, sublime play. 6'1 PGs, on a good day, who don't have the ability to overwhelm you athletically haven't swung titles since Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman. If we had a roster that was simply a PG away...then maybe... just maybe..I'd say go with it. But we don't. We need size and/or superb athletes, especially at the point of attack.

I love me some CJ McCollum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

No an investment is something tangible. Money, high draft pick, change of roster/coach to suit the player, traded assets to acquire the player. The only thing we can say the team has invested in Rivers is the 10th pick. Now whether or not he's a big part of the plan moving forward we don't know.

---

Investments do not have to be tangible. A draft pick is not tangible.

This argument isn't legit. Every team would take a great PG on their team. If we could do the 2005 draft over again their not one person that would take Bogut or Williams over Paul. Outside of John Stockton out of all the all-time great PG's who had a championship level team? Jordan the all-time greatest won 0 titles with out Pippen. LeBron couldn't win until his team overall talent was raised significantly. The idea that because a great PG hasn't won therefore there's no need to have one is very shortsighted IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

Investments do not have to be tangible. A draft pick is not tangible.

---

It's not tangible in the literal sense. Most money isn't tangible if we want to use the word as it's defined. I'm using tangible as something that can be accounted for.

And as fans we can't account for the majority of the stuff that happens in the organization, we have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

And as fans we can't account for the majority of the stuff that happens in the organization, we have no idea.

---

They could already have a guy they want and it's none of the big 6. They could have a love jones for Shabazz for whatever reason.

That's what makes it so exciting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

And as fans we can't account for the majority of the stuff that happens in the organization, we have no idea.

---

I understand what you're saying. My point is in this day and age of complete coverage of sports if the team had made significant investments in Rivers we would at least something we could point to that supports that idea.

Nothing to really see here. His agent looked at who needs a pg the most and named us and Orlando. No one has a clue if we even view PG as a huge need. I still feel Monty hasn't given up on Austin at PG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

This argument isn't legit. Every team would take a great PG on their team. If we could do the 2005 draft over again their not one person that would take Bogut or Williams over Paul. Outside of John Stockton out of all the all-time great PG's who had a championship level team? Jordan the all-time greatest won 0 titles with out Pippen. LeBron couldn't win until his team overall talent was raised significantly. The idea that because a great PG hasn't won therefore there's no need to have one is very shortsighted IMO.

---

By short-sighted, what you really mean is fair. No its not fair. And nobody knows this more than the little guys. The argument is legit because its been proven time and again. John Stockton went 16th. Mark Price 25th. Steve Nash 15th. Chris Paul was passed over by 2 clearly inferior players and another PG. At this point its not even an argument. Its fact.

Thank you for bringing up MJ and Lebron. Because they are exactly the reason guys like Stockton, Nash, Price, Paul, and every other uber little guy will struggle to win titles. MJ and Lebron...and Magic and Durant, Manu etc. They can give you nearly the same amount of playmaking and offensive orchestration while also creating mismatches on the defensive end. That's what makes building a finely tuned championship caliber team around the little guy so darn difficult. You have to have an insanely athletic team with defenders capable of playing 3 or 4 guys...think Dennis Rodman in the 80's/90s being able to guard Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen or MJ.

John Stockton could not guard a limited Ron Harper in the post.. He'd have trouble keeping Shane Battier of the boards. He'd get killed trying to stop Thabo Sefolosha from finishing at the rim in transition. Danny Green would shoot right over top of him. These are the secondary matchups that these super wings create....

How does this relate to Trey Burke? I don't think he's as good as the uber little guys I just mentioned. So, why even go there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

It's not tangible in the literal sense. Most money isn't tangible if we want to use the word as it's defined. I'm using tangible as something that can be accounted for.

---

I'm not one to jump on stuff like this, but you just didn;'t use the right word here. I get your meaning now though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

They could already have a guy they want and it's none of the big 6. They could have a love jones for Shabazz for whatever reason.

That's what makes it so exciting.

---

The allure of the unknown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by All Metro

Nothing to really see here. His agent looked at who needs a pg the most and named us and Orlando. No one has a clue if we even view PG as a huge need. I still feel Monty hasn't given up on Austin at PG.

---

I mean I get the love for Austin Rivers, but what has he shown to anyone on here that he is a quality PG starter in the NBA??? Let's look at his numbers:

GP MPG FGM-FGA FG% 3PM-3PA 3P% FTM-FTA FT% RPG APG BLKPG STLPG PFPG TOPG PPG
61 23.2 2.4-6.4 .372 0.5-1.4 .326 1.0-1.8 .546 1.8 2.1 0.1 0.4 2.0 1.2 6.2

Even in college he shot only 43% from the field. HIS FT% IS 55%!!!!!! He only shot 67% from FT in college. I'd like him better as the 6-7 man of the bench, to be (or try to be) a scoring punch from the bench. He is not a quality PG in the NBA, he's just not. watching him through out the year he was careless with the ball, and seemed to end up on the floor 70% of the time. Either trying to get a ball he lost or just flat out falling over his own feet.

I'm not saying Trey Burke is what we need for this team. It's obvious we need a SF, but since Porter won't be there I dont see us drafting a SF. Shabazz is a good player, but i doubt Monty or Demps want to deal with his attitude. I wouldnt mind Zeller or dipo, but I think if Burke is there we draft him as BPA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by All Metro

Nothing to really see here. His agent looked at who needs a pg the most and named us and Orlando. No one has a clue if we even view PG as a huge need. I still feel Monty hasn't given up on Austin at PG.

---

You make it sound as so mutually exclusive. As if drafting Burke removes all need for Austin or something. There's basketball enough for both to coexist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebelman

I don't see Burke being that much of an improvement over Greivis

---

You're entitled to your opinion, but my God is this an awful quote. If we draft Burke, this may be my first sig on this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebelman

I don't see Burke being that much of an improvement over Greivis

---

This is just blasphemy.

The Burke hype is pretty intense around these parts. I feel like Lillard doing well this year and Burkes nice run in the tourney are fresh on peoples minds and helping his case. I really think the guy will be a starter, but I feel his ceiling is fairly low for a starting point guard, an "eh" defender with a great shot? See Jameer Nelson. Ty Lawson and Mike Conely get thrown around, but Burke is missing some big parts of his game those guys have, namely the strong defense and elite quickness. I mean people are criticizing Kyler for saying he heard DJ Augustin comps? Are we that in love with him that we have to defend him if a national writer doesn't think that high of him?

I by no means have the final say in who we draft, but I personally would rather draft someone with a higher ceiling than Burke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsPaulyP

Its not wise to waste money (and a lot of money at that) on players that dont deserve it.

---

I just don't get this boards fascination with Jennings. He's so overrated, and is nothing more than a chucker at this point. He's he's still young and might improve, but you don't pay max money for an unproven player. He's a career <40% shooter, and all he does is shoot. Terrible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

People Demps traded for Grevis Vasquez and for Quincy Pondexter at that. Is GV a Demps/Williams type of defender?

---

No, I think Monty has made that pretty clear.

Demps also did not make the trade to have GV as our answer to the PG position for the next 7 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DefensiveMind

Size matters... I will keep saying this.. If we pass on Trey Burke and he becomes Chris Paul, John Stockton, Mark Price, Steve Nash or even Isaiah Thomas. Cool. Those guys won a total of TWO championships in about 60 seasons of brilliant, HALL OF FAME level, sublime play. 6'1 PGs, on a good day, who don't have the ability to overwhelm you athletically haven't swung titles since Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman. If we had a roster that was simply a PG away...then maybe... just maybe..I'd say go with it. But we don't. We need size and/or superb athletes, especially at the point of attack.

---

Tony Parker has 3 (don't think he was there for the 1st one but he may of been) and he's listed at 6'2. He's also known to be a weak defender. Just sayin....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaisingTheBar

This is just blasphemy.

---

I think his point is that he doesn't expect Burke to be a good defender in this league... which simply means Burke has to be better than 14/9/4 & 43% FG% to be better than Vasquez. Is that worth spending the 6th pick on a player?

I keep seeing arguments for Chris Paul to take Burke... but Paul did it all with Wake Forest and had no help. Burke had plenty of help. Burke is much more likely to be Mike Conley (minus the athleticism) or Jonny Flynn than to be Chris Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

I just don't get this boards fascination with Jennings. He's so overrated, and is nothing more than a chucker at this point. He's he's still young and might improve, but you don't pay max money for an unproven player. He's a career <40% shooter, and all he does is shoot. Terrible

---

THIS

There's no board fascination. It's really just me and a few other guys that would take a flyer on him. I'm a bit of a risk taker like that. I believe in a change of scenery being huge influences for people. Jennings, Tyreke, DeMarcus Cousins (especially Cousins). The new setting, a newly invigorated franchise could be just the spark. Plus, if they act up, we'll just sic Drew Brees on 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

You make it sound as so mutually exclusive. As if drafting Burke removes all need for Austin or something. There's basketball enough for both to coexist.

---

I guess it all depends. If we draft Burke no way we keep 3 pg's (not even including Roberts). We need to find one position for Rivers and have him stick with it. Maybe we draft Burke and move Vasquez to SF or trade him. Maybe we draft Burke and move Rivers to SG or back up PG (2 young PGS? doubt it).

I think from what Monty has said in the past about having a big athletic PG, Burke doesn't fit that bill. Maybe he has changed his perspective since then.

I just feel that adding Burke will force some positional adjustments that we may not be ready to make at this point in time. If they feel Burke is the real deal though, then they won't hesitate because I have a feeling he will be there at #6.