The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Salary restrictions aside, even if they jazz could sign David Lee, should they? Or do you think that Lee and Millsap would be too similar? Would it also cause chemistry problems for our team?
Would Lee and Millsap be too reptitive?
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
Hopper
Banned
I think Lee would be the last guy to cause chemistry problems on a team. In the sophomore game where he ended up bein MVP, all his teammates decided beforehand that they were going to set him up for that award because they liked him.
He would be repetitive to about the same degree that Boozer is. He aint zakly what the Jazz need most, but any team would want him, all else being equal.
He would be repetitive to about the same degree that Boozer is. He aint zakly what the Jazz need most, but any team would want him, all else being equal.
Lee is a nice guy to have on any team. I just don't want him on this one for the money he'll likely cost.
Here's me changing my tune a little; if his salary starts under 8 figures, I could be talked into taking on the most efficient finisher in pick-and-roll plays in the league. The fact that he doesn't have anything else to his game besides a canned open-jumper isn't good. And the fact that NY used him as their garbage man for their chucking, the finisher for the PnR with amazing floor space, and playing at a silly pace of play doesn't bode well for his gaudy numbers on a losing team (although he was their best player by far).
Here's me changing my tune a little; if his salary starts under 8 figures, I could be talked into taking on the most efficient finisher in pick-and-roll plays in the league. The fact that he doesn't have anything else to his game besides a canned open-jumper isn't good. And the fact that NY used him as their garbage man for their chucking, the finisher for the PnR with amazing floor space, and playing at a silly pace of play doesn't bode well for his gaudy numbers on a losing team (although he was their best player by far).
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Under 10? Sure. Doesn't help playing big teams, though. Maybe he'd be fine guarding Bynum, Gasol, Yao, Duncan and the like. Doubtful, though.
Boozer is a much, much, much more potent and better player than Lee is. They both suck at D, but while Lee produces what he does with insane space while having a speed mismatch to his advantage and is the only player on that team that even tries to play at the rim, Boozer has more weapons than anyone at the PF position in the NBA outside of possibly Nowitski. Boozer's a terrific post-player, vastly underrated passer, and absolutely fluid in any pick game (roll or pop) while not afforded the spacing or pace of play luxury.
Lee is not as good as Boozer at all. He's a situational player completely, and when I see him make a pretty move without anyone setting the table for him, I might crap my pants. Lee has been more durable and he doesn't seem to be a douche, though, so score those for him.
I just wish he could play defense....sigh.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
Lee would be a mistake IMO.
Lost_Jazz_Fan
Member
I love PM's game and if David Lee is basically a clone when it comes to hustle and style I say bring him on board. There is nothing wrong with having two PF's who hustle all night long and crash the boards like mad men. I think he'd fit in great on the team, even as a starter along side Millsap.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Yes, this would be a complete and utter waste of money.
David Stern
Well-Known Member
Yes, sign Lee if at all possible.
vslice02
Well-Known Member
A sign-and-trade involving Boozer and Lee makes no sense. If we're letting Boozer walk because we don't want to go over the luxury tax and commit to a longterm big-money contract to a PF who can't carry a team to a championship, why do the same for Lee who may be healthier but is not the low-post scorer and pick-and-pop player Boozer is? He's also an even worse shotblocker and given the pace at which the Knicks play Lee isn't the scorer & rebounder Boozer is either.
I'd rather sign Boozer to a 6-year deal than Lee to a 5. With Lee or Boozer, the only solution to not being $8-12 million over the tax is to lose future assets and trade Kirilenko for peanuts.
I'd rather sign Boozer to a 6-year deal than Lee to a 5. With Lee or Boozer, the only solution to not being $8-12 million over the tax is to lose future assets and trade Kirilenko for peanuts.
There is something wrong with tying up massive cap money for two guys that are absolute PFs with no real positional versatility at all (the Knicks being forced to play him at that slot doesn't make him a C). At least Boozer has believable length and strength to play against many Cs, besides that he's also what David Lee dreams he was.