Author Topic: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely  (Read 14606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2015, 06:38:43 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
The problem is that he has a qualifying offer next year of $7.88 million, which is a little nerve racking.  Someone could offer him $10 m and then he could just leave for nothing.
Because you wouldn't match $10 mil for a competent seven footer?! Please.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #31 on: February 14, 2015, 12:21:26 AM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6108
  • Tommy Points: 559
Kanter is a big body, and he young, but he's not a rim protecter at all as of yet. He averages less than 1 block a game. He's also not a real good rebounder 7.5 a game, good but not top 20. I haven't seen enough of his interior defense to comment. 

Honestly, I'm not sure he's the guy to go after. 

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #32 on: February 14, 2015, 01:29:53 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Kanter is a big body, and he young, but he's not a rim protecter at all as of yet. He averages less than 1 block a game. He's also not a real good rebounder 7.5 a game, good but not top 20. I haven't seen enough of his interior defense to comment. 

Honestly, I'm not sure he's the guy to go after.
I would go after him, then hire Robert Parish as a big man coach.

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2015, 07:14:48 AM »

Offline tyrone biggums

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1457
  • Tommy Points: 91
I think people think this guy is soft. I don't know if its just perception or what but from the games I've seen him play not as bad as advertised. I also wouldn't put a ton of stock in his career so far with all of the changes in Utah the last few years. Send him to a competent organization and he's going to flourish. Maybe not multiple all star games or anything crazy (although that doesn't take much in the East) but he's going to be good somewhere especially since he is only 22 and still improving.

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2015, 07:28:27 AM »

Offline playdream

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1665
  • Tommy Points: 88
If you can get him cheap then get him, otherwise No

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2015, 07:37:34 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
No long term deal.

He can not be a starting center for a contender.


He needs to come to terms he is a career backup

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2015, 08:15:23 AM »

Offline dreamgreen

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3558
  • Tommy Points: 182
No long term deal.

He can not be a starting center for a contender.


He needs to come to terms he is a career backup

I don't know, right now I could see him and Zeller being a good 1-2 punch for us at center.

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2015, 09:10:15 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
If we are going after a disgruntled soon to be free agent I'd much rather have them target Reggie Jackson than Kanter.

Why? We need size and Kanter is younger and has more upside.
We need lots of things. In terms of size, we need shot blocking not just a big guy and Kanter doesn't provide shot blocking.

Reggie can score by driving the ball to the hoop, which is our biggest need next to rim protection.

We are bad at scoring in isolation, scoring with the ball handler in pick and roll and scoring efficiently in transition. Reggie should be able to help in all those categories.
Why do we need shot blocking?  The Miami Heat won back to back titles with Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade as their team leading shot blockers (1.4 and 1.3 per game).  Even the Spurs had Duncan at 1.9 and like no one else at 1.  Tyson Chandler 1.1 blocks per game during Dallas title season.  Lakers must have had elite shot blockers, right?  Wrong?  Pau at 1.7 and Bynum at 1.8 were their leaders for both titles.  Our Celtics must have had elite shot blockers, nope, Perkins led the way at 1.5 per game.  The 06-07 Spurs and Duncan at 2.4 a game was the last time a champion had its regular season leader above 2 a game (he was 5th that year). 

Shot blocking isn't very important as stats for title contenders as stats go.  What you do need are interior defenders, something Boston does not have and of which Kanter is not, but a shot blocker is significantly overrated.  That said Kanter is a legit 7 footer with a decent offensive and rebounding game and would be worth something like Bass and the Clippers pick.
So I made the mistake of typing shot blocking when I meant rim protection. You are right we don't need shot blocking we need people who can prevent players from scoring in the paint on us.

Citing two examples of championship teams who won the title without great rim protection doesn't mean we don't need rim protection. (also I'd have to check the numbers but I'm pretty sure both those teams defended the rim without blocking a ton of shots or at least created enough turnovers to make up for a lack of rim protection).

Our biggest needs are rim protection and shot creation with the dribble, please let me know what you think our biggest needs are rather than just citing two examples of teams that (potentially) succeeded without being good at those things.
two examples?  The last time a team won a championship with a top 5 shot blocker or even someone above 2 a game was almost a decade ago.  There was a decent little string prior to that, but the Bulls won 6 championships without a shot blocker and with limited interior defense (aside from Rodman).  Prior to the Bulls were the Bad Boy Pistons, no real good shot blockers on those teams (though a ton of interior toughness and defense).  The last two Showtime Lakers, no good shot blockers as Kareem was no longer that guy.  Even Parish and McHale weren't exactly plus shot blockers.  Defenders, yes, shot blockers no.  I'm not even sure most of those teams had guys you would call rim protectors.  Great interior defenders, sure, rim protectors not so much. 

You win titles when you have better players.  Trying to find players that fit some mold of what you think wins titles, especially when that isn't true historically, is just silly.  Duncan, Shaq, and Hakeem were great players, that is why their teams won titles, it isn't because Duncan, Shaq, and Hakeem were great shot blockers. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2015, 09:19:43 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Kanter is a big body, and he young, but he's not a rim protecter at all as of yet. He averages less than 1 block a game. He's also not a real good rebounder 7.5 a game, good but not top 20. I haven't seen enough of his interior defense to comment. 

Honestly, I'm not sure he's the guy to go after.
Kanter only plays 27 minutes a game though.  He is at 10.4 rebounds per 36 minutes.  His RB% is 16.9 (this year), which isn't bad considering he plays with Favors and Gobert, who are also both solid rebounders.  As a comparison Sullinger's RB% this year is 15.7% and is at 10.2 per 36.  In other words, Kanter, who plays with better rebounders than Sullinger still gets a higher percentage of possible rebounds and slightly more per minute of game action. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2015, 09:23:13 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
The last time a team won a championship with a top 5 shot blocker or even someone above 2 a game was almost a decade ago

That is one aspect of defense, he and Sully do not do any well save rebound defensively.  KG back in the day was a pretty good shotblocker.    Add all the championships and you'll more with good C than bad.

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2015, 09:36:34 AM »

Offline Celts Fan 508

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1159
  • Tommy Points: 54
Kanter's per 36 minutes stats would be 18.4 points and 10.4 rebounds (I think the rebounds would go up leaving Utah as they have Gobert and Favors getting most of the rebounds. 

However, looking at some of the metrics, it looks like Kanter is a below average to average player.  His OWS is 1.4 and his DWS is .8 with a total Win Share of 2.2.  His WS/48 is .081 (which is well below average) and his OBPM is -1.3 while his DBPM is -4.5 which shows that he is a below average defensive player.   Although Kanter has a VORP of -.8 which makes him more valuable than a replacement player.  After looking at these stats I would pass on Kanter and save the players and cap space for someone who can make more of a difference, particularly on the defensive side. 
2019 historical draft.  Pick 12

Tim Duncan, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Scottie Pippen, Willis Reed, Mitch Richmond, Sam Jones, Dan Majerle, Bob Cousy, Rasheed Wallace, Shawn Kemp, Marcus Camby

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2015, 10:15:01 AM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17837
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
So do they like him or do they like him?

Like like.
so... its LIKE like like?
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2015, 11:03:45 AM »

Offline Jonny CC

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 960
  • Tommy Points: 76
Kanter's per 36 minutes stats would be 18.4 points and 10.4 rebounds (I think the rebounds would go up leaving Utah as they have Gobert and Favors getting most of the rebounds. 

However, looking at some of the metrics, it looks like Kanter is a below average to average player.  His OWS is 1.4 and his DWS is .8 with a total Win Share of 2.2.  His WS/48 is .081 (which is well below average) and his OBPM is -1.3 while his DBPM is -4.5 which shows that he is a below average defensive player.   Although Kanter has a VORP of -.8 which makes him more valuable than a replacement player.  After looking at these stats I would pass on Kanter and save the players and cap space for someone who can make more of a difference, particularly on the defensive side.

Unfortunately, his CVS, IBM, and T&A numbers are all BS.    ???
Before a game on Christmas against the Pacers, Bird told Chuck Person that he had a present for him. During the game, Bird shot a 3-pointer in front of Person. Immediately after releasing the ball, Bird said to Person, "Merry F!#*ing Christmas!" and then the shot went in.

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2015, 11:26:22 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Kanter for a second and Bass I'd do. Bass would help them and we can see Kanter for a bunch of games before giving him good $. Also it moves KO back to PF behind Sully. I don't know if Jazz would take the deal but Bass does fit them if they resign him it works out well.

Re: C's interested in Kanter per Blakely
« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2015, 08:08:31 PM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6108
  • Tommy Points: 559
If we are going after a disgruntled soon to be free agent I'd much rather have them target Reggie Jackson than Kanter.

Why? We need size and Kanter is younger and has more upside.
We need lots of things. In terms of size, we need shot blocking not just a big guy and Kanter doesn't provide shot blocking.

Reggie can score by driving the ball to the hoop, which is our biggest need next to rim protection.

We are bad at scoring in isolation, scoring with the ball handler in pick and roll and scoring efficiently in transition. Reggie should be able to help in all those categories.
Why do we need shot blocking?  The Miami Heat won back to back titles with Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade as their team leading shot blockers (1.4 and 1.3 per game).  Even the Spurs had Duncan at 1.9 and like no one else at 1.  Tyson Chandler 1.1 blocks per game during Dallas title season.  Lakers must have had elite shot blockers, right?  Wrong?  Pau at 1.7 and Bynum at 1.8 were their leaders for both titles.  Our Celtics must have had elite shot blockers, nope, Perkins led the way at 1.5 per game.  The 06-07 Spurs and Duncan at 2.4 a game was the last time a champion had its regular season leader above 2 a game (he was 5th that year). 

Shot blocking isn't very important as stats for title contenders as stats go.  What you do need are interior defenders, something Boston does not have and of which Kanter is not, but a shot blocker is significantly overrated.  That said Kanter is a legit 7 footer with a decent offensive and rebounding game and would be worth something like Bass and the Clippers pick.
So I made the mistake of typing shot blocking when I meant rim protection. You are right we don't need shot blocking we need people who can prevent players from scoring in the paint on us.

Citing two examples of championship teams who won the title without great rim protection doesn't mean we don't need rim protection. (also I'd have to check the numbers but I'm pretty sure both those teams defended the rim without blocking a ton of shots or at least created enough turnovers to make up for a lack of rim protection).

Our biggest needs are rim protection and shot creation with the dribble, please let me know what you think our biggest needs are rather than just citing two examples of teams that (potentially) succeeded without being good at those things.
two examples?  The last time a team won a championship with a top 5 shot blocker or even someone above 2 a game was almost a decade ago.  There was a decent little string prior to that, but the Bulls won 6 championships without a shot blocker and with limited interior defense (aside from Rodman).  Prior to the Bulls were the Bad Boy Pistons, no real good shot blockers on those teams (though a ton of interior toughness and defense).  The last two Showtime Lakers, no good shot blockers as Kareem was no longer that guy.  Even Parish and McHale weren't exactly plus shot blockers.  Defenders, yes, shot blockers no.  I'm not even sure most of those teams had guys you would call rim protectors.  Great interior defenders, sure, rim protectors not so much. 

You win titles when you have better players.  Trying to find players that fit some mold of what you think wins titles, especially when that isn't true historically, is just silly.  Duncan, Shaq, and Hakeem were great players, that is why their teams won titles, it isn't because Duncan, Shaq, and Hakeem were great shot blockers.


There's a lot of difference between not having a dominating shot blocker, and be totally helpless in the middle and at the rim.