Should we sign Lance Stephenson if we are inactive during the deadline?

[Guest]

As AHF pointed out Stephen Jackson was never a locker room problem, however as soon as he  created friction in the Spurs locker room in his 2nd stint with the team about playing time, Pop dumped him right before the playoffs. 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

3 hours ago, Hawkmoor said:

I dont particularly want Lance, but if the Hawks wanted him, thats too much.  Moose or Splitter and a pick is all they would get.

What you mean "too much?"  Moose is barely a NBA player.  Splitter's injury makes him expendible.  And 85% of 2nd round picks fail to even stay in the league 3 years, let alone be a rotation player.

So now we're coveting Moose and low 2nd round picks, after wanting to "blow" it up?

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

What you mean "too much?"  Moose is barely a NBA player.  Splitter's injury makes him expendible.  And 85% of 2nd round picks fail to even stay in the league 3 years, let alone be a rotation player.

So now we're coveting Moose and low 2nd round picks, after wanting to "blow" it up?

 

The original Lance deal was for Frye. So it seems LAC are looking for a shooting big. Splitter can't help but Moose might. 

For the record, I'm no Lance fan.

[RedDawg#8]

Perhaps our group of laid back, sleep walking through games, lack of fire, TEAM players could use an A-hole on the roster to jolt them from time to time. As long as he plays within the system, is willing to share the ball and play solid individual and team defense which by all accounts appears he is more than capable of doing then I can live with whatever feelings he hurts inside the locker room. Our guys are soft as is, one tough guy could change the entire dynamic. You saw what adding one talented head case to a group of professionals and journeymen did for Detroit back in the day

[macdaddy]

5 minutes ago, RedDawg#8 said:

Perhaps our group of laid back, sleep walking through games, lack of fire, TEAM players could use an A-hole on the roster to jolt them from time to time. As long as he plays within the system, is willing to share the ball and play solid individual and team defense which by all accounts appears he is more than capable of doing then I can live with whatever feelings he hurts inside the locker room. Our guys are soft as is, one tough guy could change the entire dynamic. You saw what adding one talented head case to a group of professionals and journeymen did for Detroit back in the day

While agree with the sentiment 100% and think we should give Lance a shot, it was different with the Pistons and Rasheed because he was the most talented player on the team.   That wouldn't be the case with Lance.  

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

While agree with the sentiment 100% and think we should give Lance a shot, it was different with the Pistons and Rasheed because he was the most talented player on the team.   That wouldn't be the case with Lance.  

I'm gonna go with 

1. Billups

2. Rip

3. Wallace/Sheed

[RedDawg#8]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Yes.  The brawl is all you have to work with there.  By that rationale there are a ton of "bad guys" like Jermaine O'Neal, Ben Wallace, Reggie Miller, Chauncey Billups, etc. who were all suspended as part of that incident.

The reality is that Jackson was not a real problem in terms of on court chemistry or lockerroom chemistry.  Jackson was easy to fit in on the court - a highly efficient shooter who spread the floor, didn't dominate the ball and played D.  He was, as you say, a "great teammate"  who was well liked in the locker room.

I'm happy to listen to an argument that Lance's chemistry problems are overblown but this is a terrible comparison.

I never said that Jackson nor Lance was a bad guy. I just think the negative perception of Lance is overblown. He was a vital piece for the best non-Lebron eastern conference team in recent memory since the Big-3 era Celtics. I think he had too high of expectations in Charlotte, I knew he wouldn't perform to the level of that contract. I cant explain LAC. But if he came here he would be asked to do exactly what he did well in Indy, nothing more like Cha, nothing less like LAC. He could be the kind of tough, glue piece we lost in Carroll. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by RedDawg#8

[Hawkmoor]

3 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

What you mean "too much?"  Moose is barely a NBA player.  Splitter's injury makes him expendible.  And 85% of 2nd round picks fail to even stay in the league 3 years, let alone be a rotation player.

So now we're coveting Moose and low 2nd round picks, after wanting to "blow" it up?

 

Too much because of the fact that the Hawks are thin upfront. Whos left behind Horford if they do that deal?

[Duff_Man]

16 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

As AHF pointed out Stephen Jackson was never a locker room problem, however as soon as he  created friction in the Spurs locker room in his 2nd stint with the team about playing time, Pop dumped him right before the playoffs. 

 

So he was "never a locker room problem" until he became a locker room problem?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

13 hours ago, Hawkmoor said:

Too much because of the fact that the Hawks are thin upfront. Whos left behind Horford if they do that deal?

It's still the same though.  Moose is barely a NBA player.  Give Edy the 10 - 15 minutes that Moose will get now.  If he develops into a guy who can defensive rebound and alter shots, he'd be much more of an asset than the jumpshooting Muscala.   And we can always bring in a scrub big body, if need be.

Heck, Bud has even played Millsap some at center in small ball lineups.

No such thing as giving up too much, when the guy wasn't an integral part of the team to begin with.

[macdaddy]

15 hours ago, Spud2Nique said:

I'm gonna go with 

1. Billups

2. Rip

3. Wallace/Sheed

Well i'd make a lot of arguments of why this order is messed up but since you equated Ben and Rasheed on a talent level this is either a joke or you have something against Sheed.