tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758702.post3306025382663018796..comments2023-11-05T01:50:45.024-08:00Comments on Supersonicsoul - The Sonics Blog!: Predicting Chris WilcoxPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07413382016761430333noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758702.post-84927402641421406472007-08-22T12:54:00.000-07:002007-08-22T12:54:00.000-07:00Okay, I'll admit that Antonio Daniels might begin ...Okay, I'll admit that Antonio Daniels might begin to fade as a player during the next couple of seasons. In addition, Daniels is the sort of gutsy, indomitable player who's body could wear down due to the rigors of playing hard-nosed basketball.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, though, it'll be interesting to see how Daniels performs in the near future.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Brendan Haywood, he's the type of skilled defensive player who doesn't receive enough credit. Hell, if it weren't for Haywood's questionable character, then attempting to acquire him would be a no-brainer.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, as it concerns interior players in the NBA, the following my recently revised list -- which, by the way, is in descending order -- of the most undervalued man-to-man, one-on-one low-post and/or high-post defenders.<BR/><BR/>15. Andrew Bogut (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 52.1%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -0.2%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 110.7; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -4.6; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +3.7)<BR/><BR/>14. Nick Collison (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 50.6%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -2.6%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 110.4; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -3.2; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +2.0)<BR/><BR/>13. Zaza Pachulia (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 50.1%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -0.4%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 107.4; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -4.7; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +4.7)<BR/><BR/>12. Maybyner "Nenê" Hilario (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 49.3%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -1.1%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 104.9; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -3.6; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +3.2)<BR/><BR/>11. Emeka Okafor (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 49.0%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -2.6%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 106.4; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -5.8; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +3.1)<BR/><BR/>10. P.J. Brown (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 47.5%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: +0.4%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 98.4; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -3.5; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +2.2)<BR/><BR/>9. Andris Biedrins (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 50.1%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -1.2%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 106.8; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -4.6; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +6.9)<BR/><BR/>8. Antonio McDyess (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 46.3%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -2.6%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 102.7; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -4.0; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +6.1)<BR/><BR/>7. Kurt Thomas (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 47.8%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -2.1%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 103.8; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -4.9; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +4.3)<BR/><BR/>6. Erick Dampier (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 47.4%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -0.7%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 101.8; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -4.4; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +7.3)<BR/><BR/>5. Brendan Haywood (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 50.7%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -1.8%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 108.1; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -6.6; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +4.0)<BR/><BR/>4. Radoslav Nesterovic (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 48.7%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -2.8%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 103.2; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -6.0; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +3.4)<BR/><BR/>3. Jason Collins (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 48.3%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -1.3%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 103.2; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -7.5; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +4.9)<BR/><BR/>2. Jarron Collins (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 49.3%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -0.4%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 101.4; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -8.9; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +3.4)<BR/><BR/>1. Joel Przybilla (Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 48.5%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: -2.8%; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 104.1; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -8.4; On-Court/Off-Court Net +/- Production: +2.5)<BR/><BR/>The one thing that each of those ten defensive stalwarts have in common is a positive on-court/off-court net +/- production rating; thus, regardless of any shortcomings on offense, they're all exceptional defenders who provide a tangible contribution for their respective teams.<BR/><BR/>Yet, as it is, that quality usually goes unheralded by not only casual fans, but also most sportswriters within the mainstream media—which is a downright shame.<BR/><BR/>In contrast to the ol' adage, ultimately, ignorance is not bliss.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758702.post-69739349055000880842007-08-22T10:11:00.000-07:002007-08-22T10:11:00.000-07:00AK....I like AD & agree he can be a productive pla...AK....<BR/><BR/>I like AD & agree he can be a productive player. I loved him when he was with the Sonics. But at 32 I would not bring him in as a key component of rebuilding the Sonics - especially given his 3 more years of salary totalling about 18 million.<BR/><BR/>We can agree to disagree on haywood - I don't get to excited about your statistics - I've seen him play & I think he is a mediocre nothing of an NBA player - along with being a questionable locker-room guy as you mention.<BR/><BR/>Trades are fun to discuss & speculate on etc. - I'm just saying Luke & wilcox for Haywood & AD had zero appeal to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758702.post-89149618413488943252007-08-22T09:17:00.000-07:002007-08-22T09:17:00.000-07:00"And Haywood is - well - crappy. I mean - he sucks..."<I>And Haywood is - well - crappy. I mean - he sucks - period.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Nope, Brendan Haywood -- regardless of his reported attitude problems, which are a legitimate point of contention -- has been a great defender and an all-around proficient player thus far throughout his career.<BR/><BR/>2006-2007: Net +/- Production: +4.0 & Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -6.6<BR/><BR/>2005-2006: Net +/- Production: +1.3 Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -4.1<BR/><BR/>2004-2005: Net +/- Production: +11.5 & Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -9.9<BR/><BR/>2003-2004: Net +/- Production: +5.1 & Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -5.1<BR/><BR/>2002-2003: Net +/- Production: +1.9 & Opponents' Net Points Per 48 Minutes: -2.6<BR/><BR/>In this case, the reality about Haywood's undeniable abilities thoroughly trumps your baseless perception of him.<BR/><BR/>I, however, will admit that my wariness toward acquiring Haywood -- which is due to his off-court issues with Etan Thomas over playing time -- would probably prevent me from pulling the trigger on such a deal.<BR/><BR/>"<I>AD is old & getting older - does not fit at all with trying to build around K. Durrant. Great Guy - solid Back-Up PG - but with 3 years left on his salary - not interested. I would not trade Luke straight up for AD.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Antonio Daniels, 32, was a productive ball-handler (Assists Per 48 Minutes: 7.9 & Hands Rating: 22.3), passer (Assists To Turnover Ratio: 4.2 & Passing Rating: 10.4), shooter (Effective Field-Goal Percentage: 46.8% & Free-Throw Shooting Percentage: 83.2%), slasher (21.7% Of Field-Goal Attempts Resulted In A Foul), and defender (Opponent Efficiency Rating: 13.9) last season.<BR/><BR/>Undoubtedly, Daniels is head-and-shoulders more skillful than fellow combo guard Delonte West—especially at running the point.<BR/><BR/>During the 2006-2007 playoffs, by the way, Daniels had a divine run that everyone should analyze for themselves. Indeed, anyone who claims that Daniels is an over-the-hill has-been is sorely mistaken.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758702.post-88483588239989789342007-08-21T22:49:00.000-07:002007-08-21T22:49:00.000-07:00AK... just to add to the conversation... Trading f...AK... just to add to the conversation... Trading for Haywood & A. Daniels makes no sense.<BR/><BR/>AD is old & getting older - does not fit at all with trying to build around K. Durrant. Great Guy - solid Back-Up PG - but with 3 years left on his salary - not interested. I would not trade Luke straight up for AD.<BR/><BR/>And Haywood is - well - crappy. I mean - he sucks - period.<BR/><BR/>Luke played great the first 2 months last year - got in a funk with injuries & Hill's stupid rotations. Luke bears some resposibiltiy for sure in that - but the whole team was screwed up & Hill was clueless.<BR/><BR/>Luke is younger & still has upside IMO. He's had 3 coaches in 4 years. Young PG's take time to develop - patience - hard for us fans to give him but I'd be patient with Luke & give him this year to take his game up a level with a new coach. I would not give up on Luke for a career back-up PG who is in his 30's with 3 years & about 18 million left on his contract. I love AD & think he is a quality professional. But I don't trade him for Luke.<BR/><BR/>Wilcox has been inconsistent etc. -but no way I trade him for Haywood.<BR/><BR/>The JO trade idea is interesting & has merrit Rock - I doubt Presti will do it but it is interesting. Indy likley wants to deal JO - don't know if they would take what you suggest > I see no way they take Wally S. - just no way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758702.post-24361973585910704892007-08-21T18:35:00.000-07:002007-08-21T18:35:00.000-07:00AK 1984, that is a nice trade proposal. I have bee...AK 1984, that is a nice trade proposal. <BR/><BR/>I have been advocating a bolder approach - trading for Jermaine Oneal. I would give up 4 of our 5 picks next year plus the Phoenix 2010 #1 pick plus Wally, Watson on Wilkins. Indiana would probably demand Thomas or Wilcox be included (or Luke or Petro or Sene). I would still do the trade.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758702.post-65066660612484266572007-08-21T15:06:00.000-07:002007-08-21T15:06:00.000-07:00I think you're right that it's a pipe dream. It's ...I think you're right that it's a pipe dream. It's a good trade for the Sonics because AD would be a nice fit for this team, and Haywood is a good shot-blocker, but then you've got new problems:<BR/><BR/>-How do you divide up minutes between Swift, Collison, Haywood, and Kurt Thomas at the 5? It's already crowded there, and if you figure Swift gets 20-25 minutes, Collison 25-30, and Thomas about 18, that doesn't leave much left for Brendan.<BR/><BR/>-I don't know that Luke is a great fit for Washington. Arenas is such a commanding figure on offense that he needs a player more like AD alongside him than someone like Luke. <BR/><BR/>Still, the Sonics ought to explore every option they can with Luke or Wilcox, because it's obvious that the team has too many players that will need minutes this year.<BR/><BR/>Also, I think Swifty is going to start at center. You've got to figure that Presti wants to see him get an opportunity to prove that he's ready to be an NBA center.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758702.post-48935437778665773762007-08-21T13:55:00.000-07:002007-08-21T13:55:00.000-07:00As it stands with the present roster construction,...As it stands with the present roster construction, I've got Chris Wilcox and Nick Collison penciled in at 32 minutes per game apiece at center and power forward, respectively, with Robert Swift and Kurt Thomas as their respective backups.<BR/><BR/>On offense, Wilcox is an athletic freak who excels in the fast break (Effective Field-Goal Percentage On Dunks: 88.7%). Moreover, he's a more effective shooter in the low-post (Effective Field-Goal Percentage On Close Shots: 56.7%) than along the high-post (Effective Field-Goal Percentage On Jump Shots: 31.4%).<BR/><BR/>Defensively, though, Wilcox indolence has stunted his all-around growth as a player (Opponent Efficiency Rating: 20.7; Opponents' Points Per 100 Possessions: 112.2; Opponents' Net Points Per 100 Possessions: +1.5; Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: 52.3%; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: +2.1%).<BR/><BR/>I, therefore, advocated signing Wilcox to no more than the one-year, $3.6 million qualifying offer that he was tendered during the last off-season. Currently, I totally support Sam Presti dealing him elsewhere for a dominating defensive presence in the interior.<BR/><BR/>For example, a trade whereby the Seattle Supersonics send Wilcox ($6,500,000) and Luke Ridnour ($3,250,000 Incoming Salary & $6,500,000 Outgoing Salary) [Base Year Compensation Player] to the Washington Wizards for Antonio Daniels ($5,800,000) and Brendan Haywood ($5,000,000) would be a tremendous upgrade not only on defense, but also for the half-court offense.<BR/><BR/><A>http://realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=4188824</A><BR/><BR/>That's just a pipe dream, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com