CelticsStrong
Around the League => Transaction Ideas and Rumors => Topic started by: nostar on December 22, 2012, 03:29:01 AM
-
I had a thought today that the big guys who are worth going after are either not available or too expensive. That means that if we want a big guy we'll have to pay out the nose, probably for the tenure of Pierce/Garnett contracts. There are two guys who have contracts that exceed their current skill but are still very productive players. So here is my question:
Gasol or Stoudemire?
Now I know all of you super clever celticsbloggers are licking you're chops to post a "NEITHER" in this thread. Don't. It's not like either is likely and this is mostly a thread about the differences between the two and what each would add to our team.
Obviously a package of Green/Bass/Lee would have to be moved in either deal so make that assumption when posting comments.
My personal preference is Gasol. I think he loves playing in the post and has a more polished defensive game. Stoudemire is mostly just a muscle guy and his defensive is laughable.
I also think that Gasol's contract is only 2 years which means it expires with Pierce's. Stoudemire's is 3 years and would expire with KG.
There is, however, a compelling reason to pursue Stoudemire instead of Gasol. Stoudemire was on the trading block this summer wearing a "free" sign around his neck. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/sports/basketball/stoudemire-savior-of-knicks-now-presents-only-problems.html)
It might be possible to take on Stoudemire's contract (and insane injury risk) and get Brewer and Shumpert in return for a package of Green/Bass/Lee. They upgrade big time in Green, get a defensive minded guard in Lee and move Stoudemire for Bass. We maintain depth while upgrading our worst position. We also get a guy who can play big minutes while KG is sitting, not necessarily anchoring the defense, but floating the team offensively.
So again I ask all of you posters who are considering just posting a big NOPE to refrain from that and instead consider the options. If you had to choose one to deal for, who do you think gives us a better shot at #18?
-
If only it was amare from Phoenix, but still I'd prefer amare
-
Stoudemire is only 30 and he has a lot left in his tank.
-
Stoudemire is only 30 and he has a lot left in his tank.
I want nothing to do with that contract coupled with those knees and that back.
-
Gasol. Post player and longer. Not as much a health risk.
-
If I had a gun to my head I would choose Gasol over Stoudeamire.
I also saw Shumpert's name in the original post and pictured him locking down backcourts with Avery, man that would be sweet.
-
Stoudemire is only 30 and he has a lot left in his tank.
I want nothing to do with that contract coupled with those knees and that back.
What contract? It has little to no impact on us. It expires the same year KG's, Bass', and Terry's contract go off the books.
-
Gasol
-
There is, however, a compelling reason to pursue Stoudemire instead of Gasol. Stoudemire was on the trading block this summer wearing a "free" sign around his neck. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/sports/basketball/stoudemire-savior-of-knicks-now-presents-only-problems.html)
It might be possible to take on Stoudemire's contract (and insane injury risk) and get Brewer and Shumpert in return for a package of Green/Bass/Lee.
TP for the post.
Funny. Last night while perusing RealGM, I saw this same article referenced re Stat and especially thought of Scumpert, but.....
In order to alleviate the Knicks burden of a contract that they clearly want to dump, they have to pay, and aside from Stat, Schumpert and Brewer, they would have to throw in some combination of two or three of their next available first round picks (unconditional) and/or Copeland.
Big risk for us, But I think that I do this.
-
Amare. 8)
-
I would prefer the younger player that is more athletic with all things being equal, which is Amare.
Taking all things in consideration clouds the issue. Gasol has a better contract. Gasol is a better all around player. Amare would probably take less to acquire. Both have injury concerns, but Gasol is probably less a risk. One plays for the Knicks, the other the Lakers.
All things being considered, I guess I would rather have Amare. Seems like a riskier selection, but he probably has a higher upside and since Boston has no cap room anyway, the contract doesn't affect much.
-
I don't think either player is a realistic target for Boston.
-
I'd take the player that has played this season, Gasol.
-
Gasol. By a landslide. Much better all around player. Amare has gone under the knife too many times at this point in his career.
-
I don't think either player is a realistic target for Boston.
at least moneywise
This past summer, the Knicks offered Stoudemire to nearly every team in the league — “available for free,” as one rival executive put it. But they found no takers because of his diminished production, his health and his contract, which has three years and $65 million remaining (counting this season) and which is uninsured against a career-ending knee injury.
In February, the Knicks wanted to send Stoudemire to Toronto in a deal for Andrea Bargnani, a person briefed on the discussion said. But the proposal was vetoed by James L. Dolan, the Garden chairman, before it ever reached the Raptors (who would not have made the deal anyway, team officials there said).
Before that, the Knicks tried to package Stoudemire and Chandler in a bid to land Dwight Howard.
:'(
-
Honestly, I don't think skill-wise there's much competition. Amare put up good numbers in D'Antoni's system, in which he's a good fit, but Gasol anchored two championship teams and is only hindered right now by the same coach that made Amare anything (in my opinion). Gasol as an amazingly skilled center who's only real problem is that he's been next to another center for much of the past 5 years. Look how he did when Bynum was out with one of his many knee injuries.