Sunday, July 17, 2005

Roger Brown

Sunday Column.

The first bit that struck me was his 'Indians should consider trading CC for Dunn' blurb. I couldn't disagree more. While I agree Sabathia needs to step it up, I don't condon trading a 24 year old left handed starting pitcher. He's been on all-star teams. Dunn could be good too, but you keep any decent starter you got.

Also, part of me believes Brown indirectly answered one of my emails I sent to him.

The email:
First off, I live in both Hudson and Columbus (when I'm at OSU) and I try to read you column whenver possible.

On the Z stuff, I agree, he's imobile and a subpar defender. And I think the Cavs signed him for too long. (The 3 year $30 million deal would've been perfect).

My question about Z is what center should the Cavs have gone after instead? It's not exactly like Hakeem was sitting around waiting to be signed. All the
centers out there (Curry, Chandler and Dalambert) were restricted. Could they have been a better fit than Z (especially with Hughes's lack of jumpshot)?
Possibly. But say the Cavs offer Curry a contract and the Bulls take the full 15 days to match it, and while the Bulls are taking their time, Z signs for big bucks in Atlanta. So now the Cavs have no center at all.

I feel the same way about all the media reports of LeBron leaving for a bigger market. What magical market is this? The Knicks with 5 shooting guards and
no cap room? The Lakers with Kobe and Odom? The Bulls, who will soon have no cap room? The Clippers? Yea, I get it, Cleveland isn't perfect, but before we
talk about LeBron leaving for a bigger market, what city out there has a realisitic shot?

My point is, I agree, Z does have some major faults in his game, but I fail to see which centers the Cavs shoud have gone after instead.

Ben Cox
He never sent me a response, but this was in his column today:

Apparently, the Cavs didn't bother to aggressively pursue mobile free-agent centers Samuel Dalembert (Philadelphia) or Eddy Curry (Chicago) - both restricted free agents - because they were sure those teams would match any offers. But what's the purpose of having nearly $30 million in available money (as the Cavs had) if you don't even try to pursue young, talented players like Dalembert and Curry. At worst, force the hands of their teams, both of whom are Eastern Conference rivals of the Cavs. It's as though the Cavs were terrified of hearing "No" if they pursued Curry or Dalembert instead of taking a more pro-active and aggressive approach.

Now, I made this arugment about Joe Johnson and Larry Hughes a few weeks ago, and for the shooting guard situation, I still believe it. But for the center spot, I don't.

The Wizards had angered Hughes and the Suns haven't done anything with Johnson. I believe Hughes could've still been had, even if the Suns took all the time to sign Johnson (but the Cavs didn't, which is why they run a basketball team). But with Z and the centers? Teams don't give up on centers, they just don't. Big men are over paid in the NBA.
So if the Cavs go after Curry.
And the Bulls figuring it wouldn't be in their best interest to let one of their own players go to a team in their division, match the contract.
And while the Bulls are taking their time, Z is insulted that the Cavs are going after other players and takes a ton of money from Atlanta.
So now the Cavs have neither Z or Curry. Great.

No comments: