Knicks · Bucks can wait to get rid of Greg Monroe (page 2)

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:Monroe has great advanced stats, so therefore he must be great.

you would come to that conclusion if you were a novice.

Luckily our coach who has a very deep understanding of advanced stats and advanced player evals, and who is one of the biggest proponents of advanced metrics, is not a novice.

And, Monroe's advanced stats are not great.

Do you think *HE* thinks the Knicks improved at PG from last year?

grow up .... you seem like a good guy but this is childish to keep bringing up when you already asked numerous times and I gave my answer.

I am sure the he think a helluva lot more like me than you. He would also understand an answer the first time.

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:Monroe has great advanced stats, so therefore he must be great.

you would come to that conclusion if you were a novice.

Luckily our coach who has a very deep understanding of advanced stats and advanced player evals, and who is one of the biggest proponents of advanced metrics, is not a novice.

And, Monroe's advanced stats are not great.

Do you think *HE* thinks the Knicks improved at PG from last year?

grow up .... you seem like a good guy but this is childish to keep bringing up when you already asked numerous times and I gave my answer.

I am sure the he think a helluva lot more like me than you. He would also understand an answer the first time.

Sorry... I don't remember? What was the answer?

Ill admit.. I am totally trolling you here, but the fact remains and you have earned it. You made 1000 anti Rose points demonstrating how terrible he is, but refused to simply answer my yes or no question asking your opinion on the Knicks improvement (or lack) at the PG position.

You think Jeff would prefer Rose or Calderon? Not being a novice and all...

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:Monroe has great advanced stats, so therefore he must be great.

you would come to that conclusion if you were a novice.

Luckily our coach who has a very deep understanding of advanced stats and advanced player evals, and who is one of the biggest proponents of advanced metrics, is not a novice.

And, Monroe's advanced stats are not great.

Do you think *HE* thinks the Knicks improved at PG from last year?

grow up .... you seem like a good guy but this is childish to keep bringing up when you already asked numerous times and I gave my answer.

I am sure the he think a helluva lot more like me than you. He would also understand an answer the first time.

Sorry... I don't remember? What was the answer?

Ill admit.. I am totally trolling you here, but the fact remains and you have earned it. You made 1000 anti Rose points demonstrating how terrible he is, but refused to simply answer my yes or no question asking your opinion on the Knicks improvement (or lack) at the PG position.

You think Jeff would prefer Rose or Calderon? Not being a novice and all...

Of course Rose because of the potential upside even if chances are slim but at least there is a chance.

Giving up Rolo and Grant in the process is something that if he even agreed to it, he will regret.

Do you think that this was a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better?

All these Monroe posts reminds me of all the Chris Webber to NY threads on the old espn Knicks boards. At least Webber was worth the attention when he was healthy.

mreinman wrote:Do you think that this was a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better?

I believe the only fair way to look at it is to look at the bigger picture, but more importantly, to give it time.

Does Grant develop into a player?

If Rose does not perform as needed in 2016-17, is the cap space the swap frees up put to good use next year?

You seem to be prejudging this in binary fashion on one criterion when we should be waiting to evaluate the result accounting for all the different moving parts.

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:Do you think that this was a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better?

I believe the only fair way to look at it is to look at the bigger picture, but more importantly, to give it time.

Does Grant develop into a player?

If Rose does not perform as needed in 2016-17, is the cap space the swap frees up put to good use next year?

You seem to be prejudging this in binary fashion on one criterion when we should be waiting to evaluate the result accounting for all the different moving parts.

Better job articulating than I did, but this is it. This is why I wanted to bludgeon you into a yes or no (binary) answer.

When the trade broke I did not like it. I thought we traded two players trending upward (Grant's play and Rolo's value). However if you recall those threads I also said I would wait and see. Not all costs are the same, much of good teambuilding vs. bad teambuilding is understanding the market, and if you look at these offseason moves it shows Phil understands the market.

We upgraded PG.
We upgraded SG.
We upgraded the bench.
We upgraded the talent level of our prospects (I value Willy/Kuz slightly higher than Grant/Early)
We too a risk at center replacing a dependable player with one that is more skilled but has injury concerns for sure.

So yes.. this is a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better, because the Knicks GOT better, and Rose helped bring in other players as well. Also Rose didn't play that poorly last year. Somehow this context is so screwed up. Rose played poorly in his role. That role was as a 1/1A type scorer, primary ball handler and floor general. Rose was asked to be a star and he was just OK.

Thing is we don't NEED Rose to be an MVP to see massive gains at the PG position. Just play in the offense and be Derrick Rose. JH knows how to free Rose up to make better use of his scoring. The point is simple... Rose gives the coach a thousand options that Calderon doesn't, because Rose is a superior player than Calderon. Do we really need last year's #s to establish that?

On the other side of the Monroe thing, what a job Stan Van Gundy has done in evaluating the talent in Detroit. This guy didn't care that he was letting Monroe and Josh Smith go for nothing, he was confident they were better without them and he was right. While not making huge splashes, he is steadily turning things around there and has compiled a nice mix of talent with good upside. Most of his questionable moves turned out to be very good decisions. I still think i would rather have Winslow than Stanley Johnson, but we won't know for sure what will happen there until a few years down the road.

fishmike wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:Do you think that this was a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better?

I believe the only fair way to look at it is to look at the bigger picture, but more importantly, to give it time.

Does Grant develop into a player?

If Rose does not perform as needed in 2016-17, is the cap space the swap frees up put to good use next year?

You seem to be prejudging this in binary fashion on one criterion when we should be waiting to evaluate the result accounting for all the different moving parts.

Better job articulating than I did, but this is it. This is why I wanted to bludgeon you into a yes or no (binary) answer.

When the trade broke I did not like it. I thought we traded two players trending upward (Grant's play and Rolo's value). However if you recall those threads I also said I would wait and see. Not all costs are the same, much of good teambuilding vs. bad teambuilding is understanding the market, and if you look at these offseason moves it shows Phil understands the market.

We upgraded PG.
We upgraded SG.
We upgraded the bench.
We upgraded the talent level of our prospects (I value Willy/Kuz slightly higher than Grant/Early)
We too a risk at center replacing a dependable player with one that is more skilled but has injury concerns for sure.

So yes.. this is a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better, because the Knicks GOT better, and Rose helped bring in other players as well. Also Rose didn't play that poorly last year. Somehow this context is so screwed up. Rose played poorly in his role. That role was as a 1/1A type scorer, primary ball handler and floor general. Rose was asked to be a star and he was just OK.

Thing is we don't NEED Rose to be an MVP to see massive gains at the PG position. Just play in the offense and be Derrick Rose. JH knows how to free Rose up to make better use of his scoring. The point is simple... Rose gives the coach a thousand options that Calderon doesn't, because Rose is a superior player than Calderon. Do we really need last year's #s to establish that?

Rose played as bad as a player can play last year. I see that this is where we are miles apart. If Rose plays like that then this trade was a disaster. That is why I maintained that Jose though awful hurt his team less.

You and others keep saying that Rose bought in other players, I don't really buy that, and if you would prove that Noah is here because of him that does not get me liking it more because I am skeptical (at best) at the Noah signing as well.

The argument that we have cap room if Rose fails and we move on ... this I don't get at all. We could have had this anyway, no?

To me, there is a 5:1 chance that Rose is mostly the same and we let him walk. Those are not good enough odds / reach that we gave up valuable assets.

Also, I was not a big fan of Grant like most here were but I would have liked to have seen him with JH and utilized the way he plays best, in the PnR.

Was the Rose trade a devastating one? I would assume that it was not since Grant has not shown that he can be good and Rolo was still making 14 million, while that is a bargain, he is not a great fit for a JH run offense. If we get 2 good years out of Noah then I can live with losing Rolo even if Rose ends up being a Dud (as he was last year).

Again, for Jose straight up, of course I make this trade in a nano second. Giving up Rolo and Grant IMHO, will end up being a really bad trade. And of course the scariest scenario is that Rose plays well enough (at that does not take much the way some of you have judged his last season play), and we max him out ... UGH!! That would be Amare II ...

All that being said, this will be an exciting season. I predicted 45 wins which I think is generous but it could a bit better too and it could be much much worse. Loads of new variables and unknowns that need to click.

Knixkik wrote:On the other side of the Monroe thing, what a job Stan Van Gundy has done in evaluating the talent in Detroit. This guy didn't care that he was letting Monroe and Josh Smith go for nothing, he was confident they were better without them and he was right. While not making huge splashes, he is steadily turning things around there and has compiled a nice mix of talent with good upside. Most of his questionable moves turned out to be very good decisions. I still think i would rather have Winslow than Stanley Johnson, but we won't know for sure what will happen there until a few years down the road.

+1

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:Do you think that this was a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better?

I believe the only fair way to look at it is to look at the bigger picture, but more importantly, to give it time.

Does Grant develop into a player?

If Rose does not perform as needed in 2016-17, is the cap space the swap frees up put to good use next year?

You seem to be prejudging this in binary fashion on one criterion when we should be waiting to evaluate the result accounting for all the different moving parts.

Better job articulating than I did, but this is it. This is why I wanted to bludgeon you into a yes or no (binary) answer.

When the trade broke I did not like it. I thought we traded two players trending upward (Grant's play and Rolo's value). However if you recall those threads I also said I would wait and see. Not all costs are the same, much of good teambuilding vs. bad teambuilding is understanding the market, and if you look at these offseason moves it shows Phil understands the market.

We upgraded PG.
We upgraded SG.
We upgraded the bench.
We upgraded the talent level of our prospects (I value Willy/Kuz slightly higher than Grant/Early)
We too a risk at center replacing a dependable player with one that is more skilled but has injury concerns for sure.

So yes.. this is a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better, because the Knicks GOT better, and Rose helped bring in other players as well. Also Rose didn't play that poorly last year. Somehow this context is so screwed up. Rose played poorly in his role. That role was as a 1/1A type scorer, primary ball handler and floor general. Rose was asked to be a star and he was just OK.

Thing is we don't NEED Rose to be an MVP to see massive gains at the PG position. Just play in the offense and be Derrick Rose. JH knows how to free Rose up to make better use of his scoring. The point is simple... Rose gives the coach a thousand options that Calderon doesn't, because Rose is a superior player than Calderon. Do we really need last year's #s to establish that?

Rose played as bad as a player can play last year. I see that this is where we are miles apart. If Rose plays like that then this trade was a disaster. That is why I maintained that Jose though awful hurt his team less.

You and others keep saying that Rose bought in other players, I don't really buy that, and if you would prove that Noah is here because of him that does not get me liking it more because I am skeptical (at best) at the Noah signing as well.

The argument that we have cap room if Rose fails and we move on ... this I don't get at all. We could have had this anyway, no?

To me, there is a 5:1 chance that Rose is mostly the same and we let him walk. Those are not good enough odds / reach that we gave up valuable assets.

Also, I was not a big fan of Grant like most here were but I would have liked to have seen him with JH and utilized the way he plays best, in the PnR.

Was the Rose trade a devastating one? I would assume that it was not since Grant has not shown that he can be good and Rolo was still making 14 million, while that is a bargain, he is not a great fit for a JH run offense. If we get 2 good years out of Noah then I can live with losing Rolo even if Rose ends up being a Dud (as he was last year).

Again, for Jose straight up, of course I make this trade in a nano second. Giving up Rolo and Grant IMHO, will end up being a really bad trade. And of course the scariest scenario is that Rose plays well enough (at that does not take much the way some of you have judged his last season play), and we max him out ... UGH!! That would be Amare II ...

All that being said, this will be an exciting season. I predicted 45 wins which I think is generous but it could a bit better too and it could be much much worse. Loads of new variables and unknowns that need to click.

Your arguments make more sense in piecemeal. Taken as a whole, I lose the connective tissue.

On one hand you criticize the quality of his game last year, but on the other indicate he is a clear upgrade from Calderon (which contradicts the notion he was as bad as a player could be) and recognize Grant was not someone to rely on at the top of your depth chart.

You also say if KNicks get two years worth of decent Noah (and that Lopez wasn't a good fit in JH's offense) the trade was worthwhile, even if Rose is worst case scenario. So what happens if they get two good years of Noah and Rose isn't worse case scenario? Clearly you've accounted for some upside here, perhaps significant upside.

This to me sounds like someone whose reasoning indicates being more pragmatically okay with the trade than his summarization indicates.

So what's the major downside here? Grant developing at a far greater pace than Holiday and some hypothetical, unspecified trade value of Lopez?

I wouldn't call the Rose trade a disaster unless Grant becomes an all-star. I'm pretty pessimistic about Rose, but if he's an average player than New York will be better with him than with Calderon. In fact, I think the point to the trade and the Jennings deal is to take a stab ar Westbrook in the off season. I liked what Lopez did, but he's an average player and the Knicks used him as a trade asset to take a gamble on Rose.

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:Do you think that this was a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better?

I believe the only fair way to look at it is to look at the bigger picture, but more importantly, to give it time.

Does Grant develop into a player?

If Rose does not perform as needed in 2016-17, is the cap space the swap frees up put to good use next year?

You seem to be prejudging this in binary fashion on one criterion when we should be waiting to evaluate the result accounting for all the different moving parts.

Better job articulating than I did, but this is it. This is why I wanted to bludgeon you into a yes or no (binary) answer.

When the trade broke I did not like it. I thought we traded two players trending upward (Grant's play and Rolo's value). However if you recall those threads I also said I would wait and see. Not all costs are the same, much of good teambuilding vs. bad teambuilding is understanding the market, and if you look at these offseason moves it shows Phil understands the market.

We upgraded PG.
We upgraded SG.
We upgraded the bench.
We upgraded the talent level of our prospects (I value Willy/Kuz slightly higher than Grant/Early)
We too a risk at center replacing a dependable player with one that is more skilled but has injury concerns for sure.

So yes.. this is a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better, because the Knicks GOT better, and Rose helped bring in other players as well. Also Rose didn't play that poorly last year. Somehow this context is so screwed up. Rose played poorly in his role. That role was as a 1/1A type scorer, primary ball handler and floor general. Rose was asked to be a star and he was just OK.

Thing is we don't NEED Rose to be an MVP to see massive gains at the PG position. Just play in the offense and be Derrick Rose. JH knows how to free Rose up to make better use of his scoring. The point is simple... Rose gives the coach a thousand options that Calderon doesn't, because Rose is a superior player than Calderon. Do we really need last year's #s to establish that?

Rose played as bad as a player can play last year. I see that this is where we are miles apart. If Rose plays like that then this trade was a disaster. That is why I maintained that Jose though awful hurt his team less.

You and others keep saying that Rose bought in other players, I don't really buy that, and if you would prove that Noah is here because of him that does not get me liking it more because I am skeptical (at best) at the Noah signing as well.

The argument that we have cap room if Rose fails and we move on ... this I don't get at all. We could have had this anyway, no?

To me, there is a 5:1 chance that Rose is mostly the same and we let him walk. Those are not good enough odds / reach that we gave up valuable assets.

Also, I was not a big fan of Grant like most here were but I would have liked to have seen him with JH and utilized the way he plays best, in the PnR.

Was the Rose trade a devastating one? I would assume that it was not since Grant has not shown that he can be good and Rolo was still making 14 million, while that is a bargain, he is not a great fit for a JH run offense. If we get 2 good years out of Noah then I can live with losing Rolo even if Rose ends up being a Dud (as he was last year).

Again, for Jose straight up, of course I make this trade in a nano second. Giving up Rolo and Grant IMHO, will end up being a really bad trade. And of course the scariest scenario is that Rose plays well enough (at that does not take much the way some of you have judged his last season play), and we max him out ... UGH!! That would be Amare II ...

All that being said, this will be an exciting season. I predicted 45 wins which I think is generous but it could a bit better too and it could be much much worse. Loads of new variables and unknowns that need to click.

Your arguments make more sense in piecemeal. Taken as a whole, I lose the connective tissue.

On one hand you criticize the quality of his game last year, but on the other indicate he is a clear upgrade from Calderon (which contradicts the notion he was as bad as a player could be) and recognize Grant was not someone to rely on at the top of your depth chart.

You also say if KNicks get two years worth of decent Noah (and that Lopez wasn't a good fit in JH's offense) the trade was worthwhile, even if Rose is worst case scenario. So what happens if they get two good years of Noah and Rose isn't worse case scenario? Clearly you've accounted for some upside here, perhaps significant upside.

This to me sounds like someone whose reasoning indicates being more pragmatically okay with the trade than his summarization indicates.

So what's the major downside here? Grant developing at a far greater pace than Holiday and some hypothetical, unspecified trade value of Lopez?

the downside is that Rose does not beat the 5:1 and is a crappy player or even worse, he is ok and we sign him and get screwed, Noah continues to decline as he has and we are stuck with him for 4 years, Grant ends up being decent, Rolo continues to play like he has for the last few years, etc ...

each scenario is not equally weighted.

Rose is not an upgrade over calderon, he has upside which calderon has zero of. And, even if was an upgrade, how does it contradict the notion that Rose has been a bad player? Jose sucks.

So yes, there is a potential upside here if things fall into place but I think that odds are stacked against that happening. For now, I will just hope that it can at least be a push.

y2zipper wrote:I wouldn't call the Rose trade a disaster unless Grant becomes an all-star. I'm pretty pessimistic about Rose, but if he's an average player than New York will be better with him than with Calderon. In fact, I think the point to the trade and the Jennings deal is to take a stab ar Westbrook in the off season. I liked what Lopez did, but he's an average player and the Knicks used him as a trade asset to take a gamble on Rose.

you just mentioned Rolo as if he was a throw in to the Jose - Rose trade. You are pessimistic about rose but IF he is an average player he is better than Calderon? Of course he is but we threw in Grant and Rolo too. And people keep saying that Lopez is average but that is because nobody ever really understood and/or appreciated what he brought. Rolo is definitely an above average player.

fishmike wrote:Monroe has great advanced stats, so therefore he must be great.

SOME of his advanced stats are strong. Others look really bad. The man he guarded shot over 50% according to the tracking data. His opponent production (82games) is pretty bad (19.6) though he still managed to produce more than he gave up. Overall, any metrics expert should be able to take into consideration the mixture of positives and negatives that Monroe brings. It's evident in his stats and the eyeball observations too.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:Monroe has great advanced stats, so therefore he must be great.

you would come to that conclusion if you were a novice.

Luckily our coach who has a very deep understanding of advanced stats and advanced player evals, and who is one of the biggest proponents of advanced metrics, is not a novice.

And, Monroe's advanced stats are not great.

Do you think *HE* thinks the Knicks improved at PG from last year?

grow up .... you seem like a good guy but this is childish to keep bringing up when you already asked numerous times and I gave my answer.

I am sure the he think a helluva lot more like me than you. He would also understand an answer the first time.

Sorry... I don't remember? What was the answer?

Ill admit.. I am totally trolling you here, but the fact remains and you have earned it. You made 1000 anti Rose points demonstrating how terrible he is, but refused to simply answer my yes or no question asking your opinion on the Knicks improvement (or lack) at the PG position.

You think Jeff would prefer Rose or Calderon? Not being a novice and all...

I think his answer was that it's not an upgrade if Rose plays the same as last year. Yeah, I get it - you want him to guess whether it's going to be an upgrade next year not a reflection on last year from him. But this back and forth is getting a bit old at this point.

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:Do you think that this was a good trade if Rose does not get significantly better?

I believe the only fair way to look at it is to look at the bigger picture, but more importantly, to give it time.

Does Grant develop into a player?

If Rose does not perform as needed in 2016-17, is the cap space the swap frees up put to good use next year?

You seem to be prejudging this in binary fashion on one criterion when we should be waiting to evaluate the result accounting for all the different moving parts.

I dont believe that--I think Rose playing well and staying healthy is darn near crucial. This whole thing could implode if he isnt good and our back end that is supposed to be the guys around KP for the future-- Ndour Plumlee and Baker--good luck with that one. If Rose is healthy and good--the team will be good--if not we wont. Rose is incredibly key

mreinman wrote:the downside is that Rose does not beat the 5:1 and is a crappy player or even worse,

I don't know what 5:1 is. Can you explain?

If its odds, can you explain in a way that isn't made up?

Rose is not an upgrade over calderon, he has upside which calderon has zero of. And, even if was an upgrade, how does it contradict the notion that Rose has been a bad player?

It does not.

It contradicts this notion.

"Rose played as bad as a player can play last year."

Taken at face value, you are saying he was the worst player in the NBA last season.

Is that not what you meant?

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:the downside is that Rose does not beat the 5:1 and is a crappy player or even worse,

I don't know what 5:1 is. Can you explain?

If its odds, can you explain in a way that isn't made up?

Rose is not an upgrade over calderon, he has upside which calderon has zero of. And, even if was an upgrade, how does it contradict the notion that Rose has been a bad player?

It does not.

It contradicts this notion.

"Rose played as bad as a player can play last year."

Taken at face value, you are saying he was the worst player in the NBA last season.

Is that not what you meant?

5:1 is random odds that I made up for argument sake.

any player with a WS48 like his who plays zero defense and played the minutes he played and put up the number of shots he puts up (and misses) is hurting his team as much as one possibly can. The worst in the NBA? C'mon ... no need to grasp at straws when a player is that bad. And, lets not forget that this player is also pretty much a getting paid like a max to play horribly.

Not sure if you are arguing with my take or just trying to pick on my wording.

mreinman wrote:

y2zipper wrote:I wouldn't call the Rose trade a disaster unless Grant becomes an all-star. I'm pretty pessimistic about Rose, but if he's an average player than New York will be better with him than with Calderon. In fact, I think the point to the trade and the Jennings deal is to take a stab ar Westbrook in the off season. I liked what Lopez did, but he's an average player and the Knicks used him as a trade asset to take a gamble on Rose.

you just mentioned Rolo as if he was a throw in to the Jose - Rose trade. You are pessimistic about rose but IF he is an average player he is better than Calderon? Of course he is but we threw in Grant and Rolo too. And people keep saying that Lopez is average but that is because nobody ever really understood and/or appreciated what he brought. Rolo is definitely an above average player.

Rolo is not a special player. I liked what he brought, too, but he was and is a replacable part by any statistical or talent metric. In fact, the Knicks replaced him with a better player if Noah can stay healthy (which I think he will).

My opinion is closer to "we swapped Lopez and throw-ins to make the money work for Rose and a draft pick." I don't get the emotional attachment behind Lopez here.

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:the downside is that Rose does not beat the 5:1 and is a crappy player or even worse,

I don't know what 5:1 is. Can you explain?

If its odds, can you explain in a way that isn't made up?

Rose is not an upgrade over calderon, he has upside which calderon has zero of. And, even if was an upgrade, how does it contradict the notion that Rose has been a bad player?

It does not.

It contradicts this notion.

"Rose played as bad as a player can play last year."

Taken at face value, you are saying he was the worst player in the NBA last season.

Is that not what you meant?

5:1 is random odds that I made up for argument sake.

I know, making odds up doesn't make for a good argument, is the point.

any player with a WS48 like his who plays zero defense and played the minutes he played and put up the number of shots he puts up (and misses) is hurting his team as much as one possibly can. The worst in the NBA? C'mon ... no need to grasp at straws when a player is that bad. And, lets not forget that this player is also pretty much a getting paid like a max to play horribly.

Not sure if you are arguing with my take or just trying to pick on my wording.

Your wording is your take. We're all just words on a screen. Not sure why I'm not suppose to take them literally.

When pressed, it seems you've chosen to be a fierce critic of the trade and of Rose, but you don't really sound that convinced yourself. Seems like you're talking yourself into it more than anything.

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

mreinman wrote:the downside is that Rose does not beat the 5:1 and is a crappy player or even worse,

I don't know what 5:1 is. Can you explain?

If its odds, can you explain in a way that isn't made up?

Rose is not an upgrade over calderon, he has upside which calderon has zero of. And, even if was an upgrade, how does it contradict the notion that Rose has been a bad player?

It does not.

It contradicts this notion.

"Rose played as bad as a player can play last year."

Taken at face value, you are saying he was the worst player in the NBA last season.

Is that not what you meant?

5:1 is random odds that I made up for argument sake.

I know, making odds up doesn't make for a good argument, is the point.

any player with a WS48 like his who plays zero defense and played the minutes he played and put up the number of shots he puts up (and misses) is hurting his team as much as one possibly can. The worst in the NBA? C'mon ... no need to grasp at straws when a player is that bad. And, lets not forget that this player is also pretty much a getting paid like a max to play horribly.

Not sure if you are arguing with my take or just trying to pick on my wording.

Your wording is your take. We're all just words on a screen. Not sure why I'm not suppose to take them literally.

When pressed, it seems you've chosen to be a fierce critic of the trade and of Rose, but you don't really sound that convinced yourself. Seems like you're talking yourself into it more than anything.

its a puzzle that needs to be pieced together.