Izzo to Stay at Sparty

• KR1245

  

  thedynasty1998;392561 wrote:So because Jamison was played out of position, we should give him a pass? No. He was brought in to improve the team, and he didn't. Is that Mike Browns fault? Maybe, but it's more Ferry. It's no secret that the Cavs needed someone to space the floor and open up lanes for Lebron. If they didn't think Jamison could do that, then it makes the trade even that much worse.
  
  Stoudemire would have worked because he can knock down the 15 footer and also can play and score without the ball.
  
  When you call someone arguagly the second most valuable, it means to me they are also the second best. Maybe I'm wrong in that. But I don't think he's either. Like I said, you are saying Varejao is Cleveland's second most valuable, where does he rank on other playoff teams? I don't know if there was another playoff team that you could say, "Varejao, if on that team, is their second most valuable player."

  
  Jamison can spread the floor more than Amare can. He has a bettter jumper and more range.Its sounds like the argument you're making is that any trade that doesnt lead to a title is a bad trade. The Cavs needed some frontcourt scoring so they went out and got it. You cant fault Danny Ferry for trying to make the team better, bottom line is that Antawn Jamison made the Cavs a better team. I cant stand the "lets play it safe and prepare for next year" mentality.
• jordo212000

  

  Initially I thought the Jamison trade was great. I thought he would put them over the top. However he never really meshed. Ferry tried his best to get Lebron another piece.
  
  However, there is no getting around the fact that the trade is not doing the Cavs any favors for the future. Jamison is owed a ton of money and now the Cavs aren't able to really go out and add another great player. They're stuck with Jamison for better or for worse.
• SportsAndLady

  

  I am (maybe) one of the few who are happy with Jamison on the team..just unhappy with how he is utilized.
  
  Brown trying to make Jamison a spot up, 3 point (!!!) shooter was borderline clinical.
  
  You don't make a unique player into a "normal" player...just let him do his thing.
• thedynasty1998

  

  KR1245;392611 wrote:Jamison can spread the floor more than Amare can. He has a bettter jumper and more range.Its sounds like the argument you're making is that any trade that doesnt lead to a title is a bad trade. The Cavs needed some frontcourt scoring so they went out and got it. You cant fault Danny Ferry for trying to make the team better, bottom line is that Antawn Jamison made the Cavs a better team. I cant stand the "lets play it safe and prepare for next year" mentality.

  Jamison isn't necessarily a better shooter than Amare, and Amare is made for the pick and roll. You pickup Amare and you run pick and roll all day with him and Lebron. That's unstoppable.
  
  And no, I'm not saying that a trade that doesn't lead to a title is a bad trade. I'm saying taking on a player who the Wizards were willing to give away to anyone willing to take him, who is overpaid, who is an average player at his position and who is undersized, is a bad trade.
  
  I don't think you understand how bad his contract is. He's due $28 million over the next two years. And I don't know how many times I have to say it, but if the Cavs didn't make that trade, they have that money to spend in free agency and still have a first round pick. Now the Cavs are handcuffed and are stuck with the current roster.
• thedynasty1998

  

  SportsAndLady;392638 wrote:I am (maybe) one of the few who are happy with Jamison on the team..just unhappy with how he is utilized.
  
  Brown trying to make Jamison a spot up, 3 point (!!!) shooter was borderline clinical.
  
  You don't make a unique player into a "normal" player...just let him do his thing.

  This was Lebron's team and you make moves that fit into what Lebron does. They needed someone to space the floor. They didn't need a back to the basket undersized PF. That's another reason why it was such a bad trade. Ferry knew that Mike Brown was all about defense, yet he brings in a bad defensive player who is primarily a back to the basket player. It just didn't make any sense then, and it doesn't make any sense now.
  
  You can't say, it wasn't a bad trade because Jamison wasn't used right. It was a bad trade because 1. Jamison isn't what the Cavs needed and 2. his contract sucks.
• SportsAndLady

  

  thedynasty1998;392643 wrote:This was Lebron's team and you make moves that fit into what Lebron does. They needed someone to space the floor. They didn't need a back to the basket undersized PF. That's another reason why it was such a bad trade. Ferry knew that Mike Brown was all about defense, yet he brings in a bad defensive player who is primarily a back to the basket player. It just didn't make any sense then, and it doesn't make any sense now.
  
  You can't say, it wasn't a bad trade because Jamison wasn't used right. It was a bad trade because 1. Jamison isn't what the Cavs needed and 2. his contract sucks.

  
  Jamison isn't a great defender..but he isn't bad. Sure, KG put up some decent numbers..but that's because he shot the ball 20 times a game. Jamison is a fine undersized defender, to say he is a bad defender is crazy.
  
  Jamison IS what the Cavs need, if they utilize him how he was utilized in Washington where he put up 20 and 10 in the postseason.
  
  You don't see Phil Jackson making Pau Gasol into an "american" style PF..no, he lets him do his thing as a "european" type PF. He doesn't change his game because it's Kobe's team, so your first sentence makes next to no sense.
• thedynasty1998

  

  The Lakers run the triangle offense and it's not built around Kobe. The Cavs run a "Give the ball to Lebron and let him make a play" offense.
  
  Jamison is undersized, which makes him a bad defender. Look at the good PF's in the NBA and tell me which one's you like your chances with. Stoudemire, Gasol, Boozer, Garnett, Zach Randolph, Aldridge, Bosh, Dirk and Duncan. Jamison just can't guard any of the good PF's in the NBA.
• SportsAndLady

  

  But Jamison DID guard Garnett, for the most part, and did a decent job. Again, when Garnett is 8/20 with 20 points, that is "average" defending.
  
  And are you insinuating that Jamison isn't a good PF?
• thedynasty1998

  

  I'm saying Jamison is an average starting PF, and someone who clearly isn't worth $28 million over the next two years. If the Cavs had gotten him for say $8-$9 million, I'd say it's an okay move. But to pay him $13 million next year is outrageous. I guess I'm just saying to put it in perspective.
  
  In the Cavs vs. Boston series
  Jamison - 11.8 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 42% in 33 minutes
  Garnett - 18.8 ppg, 8 rpg, 52 % in 32 minutes
  
  Garnett vs. Miami - 16 ppg, 9 rpg, 52% in 34 minutes
  Garnett vs. Orlando - 10 pgg, 8 rpg, 39% in 33 minutes
  Garnett vs. LA - 15 ppg, 6 rpg, 49% in 31 minutes
  
  So, no I wouldn't say Jamison did a decent job. Garnett had his best performance of the playoffs against Cleveland and Jamison. And Jamison was brought in to score the ball and he got outscored by Garnett, who is Boston's 4th offensive option.
  
  Hardly what I would call decent.
• SportsAndLady

  

  thedynasty1998;392724 wrote:I'm saying Jamison is an average starting PF, and someone who clearly isn't worth $28 million over the next two years. If the Cavs had gotten him for say $8-$9 million, I'd say it's an okay move. But to pay him $13 million next year is outrageous. I guess I'm just saying to put it in perspective.
  
  In the Cavs vs. Boston series
  Jamison - 11.8 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 42% in 33 minutes
  Garnett - 18.8 ppg, 8 rpg, 52 % in 32 minutes
  
  Garnett vs. Miami - 16 ppg, 9 rpg, 52% in 34 minutes
  Garnett vs. Orlando - 10 pgg, 8 rpg, 39% in 33 minutes
  Garnett vs. LA - 15 ppg, 6 rpg, 49% in 31 minutes
  
  So, no I wouldn't say Jamison did a decent job. Garnett had his best performance of the playoffs against Cleveland and Jamison. And Jamison was brought in to score the ball and he got outscored by Garnett, who is Boston's 4th offensive option.
  
  Hardly what I would call decent.

  
  So many more variables went into those stats then just straight up "Garnett vs Jamison for all 30 minutes" vs "Garnett vs orlando, Miami, etc."
  
  I have not and never will claim Jamison is a good defender, just not that he is awful. I remember a lot of Garnett's points came from no back side help for Jamison..it was mentioned time and time again on here that Shaq was too slow to help Jamison on the backside so Doc Rivers would throw those lobs over Jamison's head to KG for an open dunk.
  
  And besides, we're talking about a couple points a game difference..his other stats were the same, except for maybe 2 or 3 more points per game.
  
  Doesn't mean Jamison isn't a decent defender.
• thedynasty1998

  

  You claim in one post, "Jamison DID guard Garnett, for the most part, and did a decent job". And now you are saying, "So many more variables went into those stats" once I throw out some stats to prove that he wasn't that effective. And you say, he gets 20 points on 8/20 shooting. Well guess what, he shot 52% while Jamison, the offensive player (Garnett is known for his defense) shot 42%. Garnett beat Jamison at his own game.
  
  Of course there are variables, but they were matched up with each other for most of the minutes they were on the court together. The NBA is all about individual matchups, and this is one that the Cavs didn't do well in.
  
  And then to say, "Rivers would throw those lobs over Jamison's head" just further proves my point. I don't think Jamison is a bad defender due to effort, I said he's a bad defender because of his size. He's just not big enough (tall or strong) to compete with the top PF's in the NBA. And if he's not that, then why do you pay him as if he is?
• SportsAndLady

  

  thedynasty1998;392757 wrote:You claim in one post, "Jamison DID guard Garnett, for the most part, and did a decent job". And now you are saying, "So many more variables went into those stats" once I throw out some stats to prove that he wasn't that effective. And you say, he gets 20 points on 8/20 shooting. Well guess what, he shot 52% while Jamison, the offensive player (Garnett is known for his defense) shot 42%. Garnett beat Jamison at his own game.
  
  Of course there are variables, but they were matched up with each other for most of the minutes they were on the court together. The NBA is all about individual matchups, and this is one that the Cavs didn't do well in.
  
  And then to say, "Rivers would throw those lobs over Jamison's head" just further proves my point. I don't think Jamison is a bad defender due to effort, I said he's a bad defender because of his size. He's just not big enough (tall or strong) to compete with the top PF's in the NBA. And if he's not that, then why do you pay him as if he is?

  
  Jamison could be 7'11...with no backside help, he's gonna give up baskets. That's not difficult to comprehend.
• thedynasty1998

  

  No, it's about positioning. If you allow Garnett to create enough space when fronting him, you give up the lop. And if you are getting beat by the lob, you play behind him.
• SportsAndLady

  

  thedynasty1998;392792 wrote:No, it's about positioning. If you allow Garnett to create enough space when fronting him, you give up the lop. And if you are getting beat by the lob, you play behind him.

  
  Maybe Brown's defensive philosophy was to front him, and rely on backside help...which never came
• thedynasty1998

  

  You are really stretching here. I provided stats to show that Jamison played Garnett worse than any other PF he's faced, when you claimed he did a decent job.
  
  If allowing 19 and 8 is decent against an aged defensive minded PF, then you are right.
• SportsAndLady

  

  thedynasty1998;392858 wrote:You are really stretching here. I provided stats to show that Jamison played Garnett worse than any other PF he's faced, when you claimed he did a decent job.
  
  If allowing 19 and 8 is decent against an aged defensive minded PF, then you are right.

  
  Just because Garnett put up better stats against Jamison doesn't clearly mean Jamison is a bad defender. He did do a decent job. If he gave up 30 points a game to Garnett, then okay yeah he did a terrible job. But 18 points a game, when you're shooting so many shots is, imo, a decent job.
• thedynasty1998

  

  Garnett is a defensive minded player. He put up his best stats of the postseason against Jamison. Of course he's not scoring 30 a game, because he's not asked to do that.
  
  But did you ever think he got more shots because Rivers said, let's attack their weakest defensive players. That's why Rondo went off and Garnett went off.
  
  I can't believe that I'm having to make an argument that Jamison isn't a good defender. I think it was a widely known fact?
• SportsAndLady

  

  WHen have I ever said he is a good defender?
  
  I am just saying he isn't awful like you are insinuating he is.