rivers measured 6"5 at the combine, he is perfect SG size. he also ahd a 37 inch vertOriginally Posted by MonsterMash
 |
| . |
|
rivers measured 6"5 at the combine, he is perfect SG size. he also ahd a 37 inch vert
I'm not so sure I want to trade Greivis unless I get back real value. He's an excellent backup, capable of backing up 3 positions, on a reasonable contract. The only problem is we had him starting.
Simply everything up until this point is Rivers at PG from everything Rivers has said and from Monty talking about offseason workouts. Until I hear otherwise I have to believe they are grooming him as their PG. I'm also not of the opinion that Burke is on a tier by himself in this draft. Heck, the workouts could have been to make people THINK they have to jump up to get one of those players, while Dell and Monty don't need another look because they already know who they want.
Personally I have CJMCC and Porter ahead of Burke and I'm certain one of those two will be there when we pick. I see Burke as not as talented and not a good fit for us. He also does nothing for our biggest weakness, defense, and only adds scoring which we have enough of.
i take it back, at the combine rivers measured 6"5 sith a 37.5" vertical
also if we cant get equal value for GV i do like him as a backup, he can play pg, sg, sf. dell loves versatility
This is all speculation by me, but I'd like to get out from under EG's contract and pick up a solid vet SF if possible. Draft Burke, look to deal Gordon and groom Rivers to be your starting 2 guard of the future. Burke/Vasquez to start off the year until (if?) Rivers is ready to start, then make Vasquez your 6th man. I really think Burke/Rivers could compliment each other well as a future back court, should they both develop at a decent rate.
@DanielVeuleman
Fair enough on the opinion of Burke. On the other points, maybe it is a smokescreen but I don't think so ... I think they'd like to upgrade at PG and if Rivers continues to come along there, they can make a decision later on. Jarrett Jack is a point guard who plays the same position as Steph Curry in Oakland, and he played plenty of minutes WITH Curry ... granted, the rosters are constructed differently, but my point is if Rivers develops into a capable starter AND Gordon stays healthy, then yeah, you'd have to maybe address a logjam. I'd be thrilled if such a logjam existed ... we have a long way to go before that, though.
I agree that they'd take Porter ahead of Burke. I don't think they'd touch McCollum ... to me, he and Rivers project as very similar players, combo guards with scoring punch.
Burke doesn't address the defense, but he addresses a few other needs in a major way: outside shooting, turnover-avoidance, a fail safe if we lose Gordon (or trade him) again. We've always run a point-guard dominant offense under Williams; I think with a healthy Gordon, that changes, but if we do continue to run through the PG so much, Burke would probably improve us more immediately than anyone in the draft.
so would u be cool with drafting burke, signing iggy, and who would u trade EG for?
See I think that's where we disagree. I see CJMCC as far more of a safety net if Gordon doesn't work out. Plus the guy has proved he he can play on and off the ball, he can slash, pick and pop, great outside shooter, he's an above average rebounder, and unlike Burke is already at least decent on defense. All while having a 37% Usage rate last season. I think he is far more complimentary to Rivers / Gordon than Burke and adds a ton of versatility. Plus he's a 4 year starter so he's the most NBA ready guard in the draft a big plus for Monty I'm sure.
Still. I think we take a SF over him as well. If Porter is there I don't see how you pass him up. Heck I think they could make an argument for Bazz over Burke if Porter isn't there.
I still trade Gordon for Granger/23.
I haven't seen anything that makes me believe Gordon will ever be worth his salary. Therefor I'd rather get out of his contract and have a do over next offseason. You could allow Rivers to start at SG and bring Granger off the bench until he's healthy.
Iggy and Granger would also complement each other well at times, with Iggy sliding over to SG. And possibly Rivers able to slide over to PG at stretches too.
You create some really versatile line ups.
In this hypothetical, trade EG for Granger and a pick or something similar. He's expiring even if he stays unhealthy and pick up a pick. Resign Aminu. Go to war with a lineup of
Burke/Rivers/Roberts
Vasquez/Rivers
Granger/Aminu/Miller
Davis/Anderson/Thomas
Lopez/Smith
See if that team can do anything, and hope that Rivers develops into the 2 guard of the future with a ton of work. Then give Vasquez the combo guard off the bench role and start Rivers.
If they think Burke is the guy at pg and are sold on him. I can promise u that rivers being there isn't stopping them from doing it. Lol. Don't get the Monty and doc being friends thing too twisted. Rivers isn't locked in for nothing but a roster spot at this point. Yes he I proved slightly but lets be real here. He had a horrible season. I honestly think its gonna depend on who falls to us and if they fall to us. Meaning 1 of the top guys like porter, mclemore etc.
So basically give up Gordon for a guy who is way worse off in the injury dept. if he doesn't stay healthy atleast he's an expiring. So we basically then get an expiring for a young 24 top 5 sg in Gordon. Who is finally 100% healthy with no major surgerys. No thank you.
If we draft Burke, package Lopez and Vasquez for Pek in S&T
If only EG could stay healthy... If only Aminu could shoot the 3... If only Lopez rebounded in double figures...
All completely possible in the realm of things, but I sure wouldn't bet on any of them happening. But this is a Trey Burke thread. I was asked directly my opinion of a situation that involved Burke, so I answered. I don't really feel like debating the merits of trading Gordon again.
If Rivers wasn't part of our long term plan why did we waste a draft pick on him? He had a horrible season, yes. In a horrible situation. I'm simply not sold on Burke being the guy like some here.
Sounds like an excuse. What was his horrible situation? I think he is part of the long term plan, but has done nothing to show he can be the full time PG. As such, it would be nuts for the team to pass on Burke, if indeed they feel he is a future NBA starter. Rivers is a project at best at the PG position. He is probably better suited for a bench combo guard spot.
IMO, Vasquez starts from day 1. He's earned it. Burke will rotate with Roberts and Austin at PG, but Austin playing more SG in certain rotations. It's Vasquez's job to lose. Only way I see Burke starting if Vasquez isn't fully back from both ankles, or if he gets hurt during the season and Burke comes in and wows everyone.
What about the possibility of trading #6 to the Clips for Bledsoe? Would we DelMonty do it? Would he Clips do it? Would you do it?
Rivers was drafted as a project, and he can play both guard spots. He isn't going anywhere. Monty loves him, and for good reason. The kid has mad skills. They just need to be refined, and he needs to add a little weight. He'll be fine.
i love having rivers:
1. he could workout and be our PG
2. he could turn into the SG he always was and be insurance for Gordon
3. He could be our 6th man and get 30 minutes a night backing up the PG and SG positions
We are fine with Rivers, our future is bright.
No excuse. It's fact. He was drafted as a project at PG, and then asked to play starting SG. He wasn't ready, no one ever expected him to be ready and was asked to start because Gordon couldn't. It WAS a horrible situation for him. Based off of what is not a full PG? Oh you mean off of the fact that we've only seen him play PG for half a season. No joke, Rivers is a project. As everyone has stated since he was drafted. A multi year project. I'm not sure how you can judge him to be an off the bench player based off of one year in a multi year project when he got thrown into a horrible situation. Personally I think it's too early to judge him.
I see his potential as far higher than Burke's. The ONLY thing Burke has over Rivers is more years playing the PG positioning possibly a better shot atm. Rivers has more talent, better off the ball, a far far better step and can get to the rim at will, and is far better defensively. Time and weight is all Rivers needs.
I would do it even though I want the 6th pick. If I had to choose between Burke or Bledsoe for this team I would take Bledsoe. I think it would be a smart move for the Clips also by being a team with so many big salaries they could get a a guy they like a lot for the weakest position they have on a rookie salary. I would much rather work out a trade for Bledsoe and get the 6th pick but if not possible I would definitely be for acquiring Bledsoe with our pick.
i think both the pelicans and the clippers do it, they get someone who is considered cp3 like to learn behind cp3 and the pelicans get bledsoe, the defensive oriented PG the pelicans want to pressure the opponents PG and fits monty's system.
thing that sucks though if we could have burke on a rookie salary for 4 years but we would have to pay bledsoe prob 8 million a year for 4 years.
All this pg vs SG stuff is way overblown. In today's game all guards should all be able to run pnr and shoot. I like Burke BC he will create off pnr and score. Would love to keep GV too. Probably eventually more valuable as trade asset considering they have Roberts and Rivers.
Well the question was can he start not how many mins. If he preforms while and earn his spot Monty will play him. He's much more ready physically for the next level than Davis was last year and Davis started.
As far as mins it's hard to say. I think that largely depends on if we are moving GV or not. Mostly though it would depend on how quick Trey can pick up the offensives and defensives schemes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote