KiwiMatt wrote:Another Thornton debate! I don't mind the guy but his contract stinks.
sjm34 wrote:Cam, Thornton is making 8.2 this season and 8.7 next season versus DW at 5.3 and 6.8, so quite a bit more. Both are overpaid for what they are contributing. Thornton is not a good defender and does tend to put up some bad shots, so I am not sure how long he would last before entering Adelman's doghouse. I just don't see him as a good fit for our team. That being said, I also don't see Hayes being a fit either because he has nobody to pass to on our second unit.
The bad game against Houston didn't change our percentages by even 1% point, so I doubt we dropped from 15 to 21 due to one bad game. Either way I wouldn't call it a strength.
Camden wrote:markkbu wrote:Cam......do you have any clue why Thornton isn't getting more burn in Sac. I'm thinking that the guy is a bit of a malcontent, I could be wrong on that.
Considering the youth of our team, I'd be hesitant to to bring in a player that might set bad examples for our younger players. I think that our team is finally heading in the right direction, and I think that, in the long run, we will be better off "staying the course" than adding a questionable personality.
Thornton's averaging 28 minutes per game, but he's been benched the last three games and I have yet to read an answer why. Jimmer replaced him in the rotation. At least that should signify that he's available...
What young players do we have that he could have a negative impact on? Shved and Shabazz? If anything I actually think Adelman, K-Mart, Rubio and Love would be good for Thornton. Look at SAC's locker room. Cousins (wouldn't let Thomas shake CP3's hand after a game), Isaiah Thomas, Landry, Salmons, Vasquez. Who's the leader there? In my opinion, they don't have one so it's not like Thornton's teammates are a good impact on him. I never read anything bad about him when he was the Bayou Bomber in New Orleans. Really think the guy needs a different team.
I can understand why people would say they don't want him, but I would disagree and say that he'd be a good pickup.
sjm34 wrote:I am not a Thornton fan. As Mark mentioned he does have some emotional issues from time to time, he makes too much money for what he gives, and like DW is really struggling this season. Maybe a change of scenery is all he needs, but I sure don't want to be paying more money out on a chance he will improve. His one saving grace in my eyes, is his 3 pt shooting, but according to Cam we have already corrected that weakness.
Would you rather have D-Will or Thornton, sjm? Even if I agreed with you in that he has emotional issues, he's overpaid and that he's struggling this season, the one thing he would bring to this team that D-Will can't is depth at SG and reliable shooting from outside. If you want to be technical about it, D-Will's also the things you named as well. He doesn't have his head right to reach his potential (character flaw), he's way overpaid and he's struggled this year.
Last in 3pt-shooting last year. Much improved this year. That once weakness is now a strength this year. I don't see why you feel like I'm wrong on that when the numbers are undeniable. Also, teams can never have enough shooters. Thornton would still help this team with his shooting even though we aren't weak in that area as opposed to last year.
markkbu wrote:Camden wrote:markkbu wrote:Cam......do you have any clue why Thornton isn't getting more burn in Sac. I'm thinking that the guy is a bit of a malcontent, I could be wrong on that.
Cam, your argument makes sense to me. And, i think that he would improve our 3 pt shooting. (he's been a pretty good 3 pt shooter most all his career). And, like you said, a change in location might be good for him.
Going from 28 mpg to 0 seems odd, but he might not be right for that team....and Sac might want to get rid of him.....and they might want some more competition at PF.
It just seems a bit risky to me, to bring in the 3rd largest salary on the team as a backup SG. If there is any impression that he might be a negative lockroom influence, then I don't want him. If not, then I am I would mildly lean toward picking him up, just cause I don't think that we will get much out of D-Will while he is here.
I would rather us make relatively low risk moves as we move our organization to respectability.
Nobody knows why Sacramento does many of the things it does. From the top of the organization to the end of the bench, that organization has been in shambles for years now.
In fact, I think it's one of the most poorly constructed teams I've seen (this side of the Kahn/Rambis-era Wolves). As for negative locker room influence, if Rubio, Love, Pekovic, Martin et al are influenced by an unabashed gunner off the bench... this team has greater issues than we've addressed.
I don't like a lot of things about Thornton. I don't know if has handles good enough to be able to create offense with the second unit... or whether he'd simply be Martin's backup. But I do know one thing:
- He offers more value to this Wolves team right now than Williams and Muhammad do for about the same amount of money. Are there better options? Hopefully.
But if the reality is Chuck Hayes instead... please let me dream... even if it's only an inconsistent, one-dimensional gunner who'd I hate to watch play most nights.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:markkbu wrote:Camden wrote:markkbu wrote:Cam......do you have any clue why Thornton isn't getting more burn in Sac. I'm thinking that the guy is a bit of a malcontent, I could be wrong on that.
Cam, your argument makes sense to me. And, i think that he would improve our 3 pt shooting. (he's been a pretty good 3 pt shooter most all his career). And, like you said, a change in location might be good for him.
Going from 28 mpg to 0 seems odd, but he might not be right for that team....and Sac might want to get rid of him.....and they might want some more competition at PF.
It just seems a bit risky to me, to bring in the 3rd largest salary on the team as a backup SG. If there is any impression that he might be a negative lockroom influence, then I don't want him. If not, then I am I would mildly lean toward picking him up, just cause I don't think that we will get much out of D-Will while he is here.
I would rather us make relatively low risk moves as we move our organization to respectability.
Nobody knows why Sacramento does many of the things it does. From the top of the organization to the end of the bench, that organization has been in shambles for years now.
In fact, I think it's one of the most poorly constructed teams I've seen (this side of the Kahn/Rambis-era Wolves). As for negative locker room influence, if Rubio, Love, Pekovic, Martin et al are influenced by an unabashed gunner off the bench... this team has greater issues than we've addressed.
I don't like a lot of things about Thornton. I don't know if has handles good enough to be able to create offense with the second unit... or whether he'd simply be Martin's backup. But I do know one thing:
- He offers more value to this Wolves team right now than Williams and Muhammad do for about the same amount of money. Are there better options? Hopefully.
But if the reality is Chuck Hayes instead... please let me dream... even if it's only an inconsistent, one-dimensional gunner who'd I hate to watch play most nights.
Just to be clear, Abe, I haven't seen anyone supporting Hayes for Williams straight up...Sac would have to include a protected 1st round pick. They're not likely at all to not lottery protect it, and they will probably be a lottery team for awhile, so any pick would likely be a high pick 3 years in the future. Delayed gratification to be sure, but that deal would give us more than Derrick is currently giving us.
longstrangetrip wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:markkbu wrote:Camden wrote:markkbu wrote:Cam......do you have any clue why Thornton isn't getting more burn in Sac. I'm thinking that the guy is a bit of a malcontent, I could be wrong on that.
Just to be clear, Abe, I haven't seen anyone supporting Hayes for Williams straight up...Sac would have to include a protected 1st round pick. They're not likely at all to not lottery protect it, and they will probably be a lottery team for awhile, so any pick would likely be a high pick 3 years in the future. Delayed gratification to be sure, but that deal would give us more than Derrick is currently giving us.
No. I get that. But we've been told this Wolves team is trying to build NOW. To win NOW.
Another "promise of hope" trade does nothing for me. And, I doubt it does much for at least one of the team's most prominent players who will have an opportunity to walk from the organization before the Wolves ever get that pick.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
No. I get that. But we've been told this Wolves team is trying to build NOW. To win NOW.
Another "promise of hope" trade does nothing for me. And, I doubt it does much for at least one of the team's most prominent players who will have an opportunity to walk from the organization before the Wolves ever get that pick.
sjm34 wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:
No. I get that. But we've been told this Wolves team is trying to build NOW. To win NOW.
Another "promise of hope" trade does nothing for me. And, I doubt it does much for at least one of the team's most prominent players who will have an opportunity to walk from the organization before the Wolves ever get that pick.
Abe, the problem I have with trades to help the team now really don't guarantee anything for the future when Love would be re-signing. If I am a player looking at extending, the more important aspect for me would be what the team would look like during my extension. We need to make the playoffs to give Love and Ricky a taste of that and show them that the talent is here, but right now most of the team will be expiring about the start of Love's new deal, and we all know how we end up overpaying for guys. Why would Love think that the wolves would be able to keep the team intact. Not to mention that Martin will be that much older, and probably less productive. To me the most important factors are spending the money to build the team, and having assets to improve in the future.
If this team can't make the PO's with the talent they currently have this season, then I don't think it matters, and we should start thinking rebuild again.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:sjm34 wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:
No. I get that. But we've been told this Wolves team is trying to build NOW. To win NOW.
Another "promise of hope" trade does nothing for me. And, I doubt it does much for at least one of the team's most prominent players who will have an opportunity to walk from the organization before the Wolves ever get that pick.
Abe, the problem I have with trades to help the team now really don't guarantee anything for the future when Love would be re-signing. If I am a player looking at extending, the more important aspect for me would be what the team would look like during my extension. We need to make the playoffs to give Love and Ricky a taste of that and show them that the talent is here, but right now most of the team will be expiring about the start of Love's new deal, and we all know how we end up overpaying for guys. Why would Love think that the wolves would be able to keep the team intact. Not to mention that Martin will be that much older, and probably less productive. To me the most important factors are spending the money to build the team, and having assets to improve in the future.
If this team can't make the PO's with the talent they currently have this season, then I don't think it matters, and we should start thinking rebuild again.
Do you think this fanbase would tolerate another rebuild?
It's been 10 years. To give up before at least giving it a legit shot? Apathy is ready and waiting...
Even if it's not in the "best" long-term interest in the on-the-court product, the subsequent PR hit of the Wolves basically saying "We know you waited a decade, and have received nothing in return, but we have a plan this time and know what we're doing this time. Can you stick with us for another few years? We promise this time we have promise. Promise!"