Originally Posted by KBlack25
Brook Lopez drops 36pts on 44% shooting versus the New York Knicks. Throws in 6 rebounds, one block (and change), while hitting 84+% from the line.
Lopez drops 19 & 4 against us in 34 minutes.
Brook drops 26 & 9 on 52% shooting. Threw in a block and 3 assists to go along with that.
He drops another double digit score on us with 27. Granted he only had 2 rebounds but shot 64% in 32 minutes of action.
Do I need to contrast this with what our center(s) dropped? Don't think so.
Again, Lopez isn't the end all be all, and quite frankly the larger point is that a serviceable big is paramount when building a winner.
We don't talk about a second year player and say "what has he done"- we talk about his potential. At 7'0 240lbs he avg. 15.5 & 7 in college- more than serviceable, plenty of potential.
As I've said the center position takes longer to develop in comparison to others. Hence why he should of and could of been a project when we decided to rebuild. And as a rookie his acquisition can be looked at from a financially strategic perspective. Its better to acquire a big body and mold him through the draft and reduce the risk and cost involved by doing so via trade or free agency.
When "building a team" is decided, and considering the historic time table as well as abundant costs of this vital cog, it becomes apparent that a team should take advantage if said player becomes available in the draft, if only for size and depth.
At 6'10 220 Gallo avg. 13 & 3 in Italy. So who was softer? And what does soft have to do with anything? Is this boxing or MMA?
The fact remains that in player valuation the bigger picture suggests Gallinari types are more attainable than Lopez types. Added Lopez types become more in demand, more expensive, and less available over time. They appreciate whether by demand, performance, or lack of supply.
When we agree that "we need a center"- we agree that "we had access to a center". Thats all. Dribble or drivel, it all equates to mistakes in valuation.
The same mistake you make by presenting this "soft" angle. What's soft is our defense along with Jared Jeffries. What's soft is our ability to recognize we had a fine center available two years ago and realize now we are still paying for that mistake. And what's "hard" and another unmentioned fact is the "hard" Gallo broke his back early and played in 28 games, was replaced, and we still are having this discussion.
I wonder why?