Food for thought: Terrence Jones can block shots

You will be prompted to login with your forum username. Please login and return to this page to leave a comment.

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  I don't think we will even get Dwight so I don't even both talking about him (I don't even click on the Dwight thread when there's a new post), butin my eyes Dwight is a top 3 playerin this league when healthy. Even though Smith is a better fit initially, a healthy Dwight is definately worth shifting our team around to make him fit.

  With that being said, I agree that we will be contenders with Josh Smith. We will definately win a championship by 2016 with him.

• thejohnnygold says 2 months ago

  I don't like it much either, but the bottom line is he IS that good.

• Jason says 2 months ago Am I the only one here who wants no part of Dwight Howard but wants to go all in for J Smooth? To me it's simple. We already have a title contending center while we have a bunch of scrub PFs (speaking of their current production). I believe that we can be contenders with a starting 5 of Asik, Josh Smith, Parsons, Harden, and Lin.
• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  Haha I know, I'm just thinkingthere are people who aren't part of the choir yet who might overhear and start singing along lol

• thejohnnygold says 2 months ago

  Again--I'm with ya. You make a good point about Pau--maybe he could spend some time playing back-up center and the rest at PF. Gives us options and doesn't take away as many minutes from the youngsters. I'm just throwing this out as an option I would be ok with....I didn't like it as a trade, but on the amnesty, with the discount, it has some merit.

  Aside from that you know I'm down with J-Smith--you're preachin to the choir! :)

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  It would depend on the match-up, there are nights Pau is good defensively and nights he gets abused. In a league full of mobile forwards,considering the fact Pau isgetting older and slower,I think Pau Gasol is becoming more and more suitable to play the 5than he is the 4.

  Also, think about the match-ups in our conference. Who would you rather have guard these guys:

  Ibaka/Durant

  Blake

  Faried

  Earl Clark/Jamison

  Patterson

  Anthony Davis

  David Lee

  Dirk

  Love

  Scola

  I would rather have Josh Smith defend that bunch any day of the week. No disrespect to Pau who used to be the best PF in the league, but the game is changing and I would rather stay ahead of the times than behind it.

• thejohnnygold says 2 months ago

  You and me both! Still, I think pairing Pau with Asik isn't terrible defensively. Should actually be pretty decent. If somebody can convince Harden to D up then I think we'll be in business!

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  As crazy as it sounds, I would prefer Josh Smith. I like the idea of us becoming one of the best defenses in the league while also improving offensively. And getting Pau will require us to change too much of our offense, he isn't a perfect fit.

• thejohnnygold says 2 months ago

  Assuming LA amnesties Pau, would you like him on the Rox for one year instead of going after J-Smith?

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  I like the idea of ryan anderson pairing back up with Dwight--it makes some sense. Even better if he can get us some offensive rebs. I'm not sure we could construct a good trade though...I'd rather see T-Jones and D-Mo shoot about 1,000,000 threes this Summer and come back with that securely in their arsenals.

  A million threes can only do so much when someone doesn't have a good stroke. I don't think Terrence Jones has a good stroke. D-Mo on the other hand definately does. With that being said, I'd rather get someone to helphold the fort down for 2-4 years while D-Mo puts in the work.

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  Regardless of whether or not it was a "dig", it was a serious question. All you had to do was answer it and move on, I would have been fine with a yes or a no.

• thejohnnygold says 2 months ago

  I wonder how much we lose on second chance points, because Ryan Anderson seems to have no problem getting a good amount off offensive boards despite stretching the floor.

  I like the idea of ryan anderson pairing back up with Dwight--it makes some sense. Even better if he can get us some offensive rebs. I'm not sure we could construct a good trade though...I'd rather see T-Jones and D-Mo shoot about 1,000,000 threes this Summer and come back with that securely in their arsenals.

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  Yeah, all I did was cite a stat,I didn't make anyridiculous statements but you're implying I did. And I didn't chew anyones head off but you're implying I did. All I'm trying to do here is not make a big deal out of something that doesn't need tobe a big deal, so I'm really hopingwe can quickly conclude the matter and move on from here.

  Rather than reminding everyone that small sample sizes exaggerate results every single time I cite a stat, I've put it as a friendly reminder in my sig.Will that suffice? A yes or no answer will be fine.

  Where did I say you made a ridiculous statement? I said it was merely misleading without the context, and it was. Repeatedly saying Millsap is good at 3 pointers w/ various 3 pt % stats without mentioning that he's taken like a dozen or fewerall season(at a 33% clip no less) is misleading. It'd be like if I said I want LMA because of his newfound ability to shoot 3's (when he's shot like 2 and made 1...having 50% shooting %).

  If you really wanted to move on, maybe you shouldn't have had a dig at the end of your last statement:

  I don't think obvious things should need to be stated, but I'd rather not argue about it, I'll try to remember to point out that sample size matters next time. Unless, would it be okay if I just write it in mysignatureinstead of having to write it over and over again?

  Again, it'd only be prudent to mention small sample size when there actually is one. Or don't, and then also don't take offense when someone else just mentions it.

  Whether or not you take the 60% out of context and go "overboard" is up to you imo. There's alot of smart guys at Red94, there's no need to remind them that sample size matters (or at least I hope so).

  I get it, lots of smart people on red94. For some reason, people keep finding the need to remind me of that. But there's clearly been way too much friction coming from my side as of late, and I don't see that helping anyone. So before I wear out my own patience and positive constitution...I'm done.

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  I wonder how much we lose on second chance points, because Ryan Anderson seems to have no problem getting a good amount off offensive boards despite stretching the floor.

• thejohnnygold says 2 months ago

  There is truth on both sides of this PF thing--whether to stretch or not to stretch....I totally agree that the stretch PF gives us a boost on offense. I think we lose a bit on second-chance points, but we might gain a bit on our transition D. The interior PF gives us a post option, second chance points, the ability to play inside-out, and typically (not always) better D. Why can't we just get a 7' PF with a sweet stroke out to 25' that boards like a demon, passes like Magic, and defends like a tasmanian devil on speed?

• Jason says 2 months ago

  Here is a list of the top PFs in the game. This is in no particular order.
  
  Kevin Love (Barkley's pick)
  LaMarcus Aldridge
  David Lee
  Pau Gasol
  David West
  Carmelo Anthony
  Serge Ibaka
  Blake Griffen
  Chris Bosh
  Carlos Boozer
  Greg Monroe
  Tobias Harris
  Kenneth Fariad
  Dirk
  
  And id take everyone over Smith or Millsap

  
  I wouldn't
• thejohnnygold says 2 months ago

  I think we're all projecting our sub-conscious disgust at James Harden's bad defense and inconsistent shooting... :D

• miketheodio says 2 months ago

  
  
  
  There was a point in the season where we scored 120+ points 4 games in a row against good defensive teams. That was when we had Patterson. I think it's obvious we're better offensively with that kind of floor spacing, Harden's numbers have noticeably dropped since we traded Patterson.

  
  And if the guy scores well in transition, plays d well, gets rebounds, and can pass a bit? Don't get Hung up on the 3 ball.
• Rahat Huq says 2 months ago

  Can't we all just get along?

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  Yeah, all I did was cite a stat,I didn't make anyridiculous statements but you're implying I did. And I didn't chew anyones head off but you're implying I did. All I'm trying to do here is not make a big deal out of something that doesn't need tobe a big deal, so I'm really hopingwe can quickly conclude the matter and move on from here.

  I have no problem withreminding everyone everytime I cite a small sample that small sample sizes exaggerate effects, but I'm just wondering if it's okay thatI put it as a friendly reminder in my sig instead as I find that more convenient.Will you allow me that convenience? A yes or no answer will be fine.

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  Lets move on.

  Doesn't even have to be a sig. I would just state it when you're making a conclusion off a small sample size. Not everything is based off of a small sample size. Or don't state it -- that is fine too, just don't chew off the head of the person who then points it out...

  ex: if Lin only made 2 three pointers, but nailed both, I would not say, "Look at his stats guys -- Lin is our best 3 pt shooter, he's 100% from behind the arc!" without saying, "Though that's only based off 2 shots." I wouldn't need that disclaimer if he had taken say, 100 of those shots.

  Heck, again, I don't even need that disclaimer in either situation, as long as I don't get all defensive when someone else mentions it.

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  I don't think obvious things should need to be stated, but I'd rather not argue about it, I'll try to remember to point out that sample size matters next time. Unless, would it be okay if I just write it in mysignatureinstead of having to write it over and over again?

  If you honestly think touting Millsap in a positive light by saying, "Hey, he's shooting 60% from the corner in 3's! I like him a lot!" without saying that he's only taken like a handful of them all season...is not misleading or necessary as it should be "obvious"...then there's no more to even talk about. Not bringing context into light to make your point seem more favorable than it is is of course misleading. Is it fair game for you to do that? Of course! It'd just bebetter if you put it into context, but hardly necessary. What I don't get is why you have to then be angry when I pointout that sample size matters. Not saying it yourself is fine, but I don't know why you need to throw a fit when someone else points it out.

  I swear, people need to be a bit more secure and confident. It's more becoming.

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  I don't think obvious things should need to be stated, but I'd rather not argue about it, I'll try to remember to point out that sample size matters next time. Unless, would it be okay if I just write it in my signature instead of having to write it over and over again?

• rockets best fan says 2 months ago

  I don't think obvious things should need to be stated, but I'd rather not argue about it, I'll try to remember to point out that sample size matters next time. Unless, would it be okay if I just write it in mysignatureinstead of having to write it over and over again?

  obvious to who.......you? I agree with phaketrash making misleading comments then getting pissed because someone didn't see it the same as you is shortsighted

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  Really? So to be allowed to state misleading comments now, all we have to assume is that the other party is smart enough to decipher it? That is quite a burden to put on them, but more importantly, lets you get away with a lot. Come now, you can't honestly believe that stating something misleading and having someone else "take it out of context" is all on them lol. Not saying one can't say misleading comments, but if they then get called out on it, I mean, then you get called out on it haha.

  Of course you should remind them that the sample size is small. That'd be good form when putting forth a point, or else it just makes it look weaker in retrospect. It isn't somehow always necessary, but it'd be better if contextwere given, wouldn't you agree?

  I think in Millsap's case, him developing a decent 3 pt shot that can help spread the floor is very realistic. Not sure if his % on long-two's, however, necessarily is the best evidence of it. Couldn't we then say LMA is a 3 pt threat, or able to easily develop a 3 pt threat? Do you think he could?

  I don't think obvious things should need to be stated, but I'd rather not argue about it, I'll try to remember to point out that sample size matters next time. Unless, would it be okay if I just write it in mysignatureinstead of having to write it over and over again?

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  Wish we could somehow swing a trade for Ryan Andersen, but NO will not give him up unless they getting quite a haul back.

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago
  

  Why are people so obsessed with getting a 4 that can shoot the 3? I understand the benefits but it isn't a requirement to win. What if the guy has other skills that compensate for the lack of that ability?

  There was a point in the season where we scored 120+ points 4 games in a row against good defensive teams. That was when we had Patterson. I think it's obvious we're better offensively with that kind of floor spacing, Harden's numbers have noticeably dropped since we traded Patterson.

• rockets best fan says 2 months ago

  Tobias Harris? Really? There are other arguables on that list IMO, but TOBIAS HARRIS?!! Come on, I know he's played well since the trade, but someone has to score and someone has to get rebounds. He's shooting in the mid-40's (worse if you take out his first 6 games where he made everything). It's not like he's setting the world on fire. There is just no one else on the team who can score. If you are talking about ability for the money you may (I don't think so, but I respect your opinion) have more of an argument, but as a pure player it is not close.

  just shows you what I think of j-smith :lol:

• miketheodio says 2 months ago Why are people so obsessed with getting a 4 that can shoot the 3? I understand the benefits but it isn't a requirement to win. What if the guy has other skills that compensate for the lack of that ability?
• Ostrow says 2 months ago

  Tobias Harris? Really? There are other arguables on that list IMO, but TOBIAS HARRIS?!! Come on, I know he's played well since the trade, but someone has to score and someone has to get rebounds. He's shooting in the mid-40's (worse if you take out his first 6 games where he made everything). It's not like he's setting the world on fire. There is just no one else on the team who can score. If you are talking about ability for the money you may (I don't think so, but I respect your opinion) have more of an argument, but as a pure player it is not close.

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  Whether or not you take the 60% out of context and go "overboard" is up to you imo. There's alot of smart guys at Red94, there's no need to remind them that sample size matters (or at least I hope so). Regardless, 36-71fg (50.7%) on long twos in the corner--that's nothing to scoff at. All he needs to do is step back a little further and turn those two's into threes. My estimation that he could shoot 40% on corner threes with 100-200 wide open shots is not unrealistic with all things considered.

  Really? So to be allowed to state misleading comments now, all we have to assume is that the other party is smart enough to decipher it? That is quite a burden to put on them, but more importantly, lets you get away with a lot. Come now, you can't honestly believe that stating something misleading and having someone else "take it out of context" is all on them lol. Not saying one can't say misleading comments, but if they then get called out on it, I mean, then you get called out on it haha.

  Of course you should remind them that the sample size is small. That'd be good form when putting forth a point, or else it just makes it look weaker in retrospect. It isn't somehow always necessary, but it'd be better if contextwere given, wouldn't you agree?

  I think in Millsap's case, him developing a decent 3 pt shot that can help spread the floor is very realistic. Not sure if his % on long-two's, however, necessarily is the best evidence of it. Couldn't we then say LMA is a 3 pt threat, or able to easily develop a 3 pt threat? Do you think he could?

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  I agree. He should be able to develop it even further. lol just don't want to go overboard w/ the 60% statement -- reminds me of how we all take turns hailing the second coming of our new PF after one or two games, or Bev's 100+ PER at one point (from like 2 games) lol.

  Whether or not you take the 60% out of context and go "overboard" is up to you imo. There's alot of smart guys at Red94, there's no need to remind them that sample size matters (or at least I hope so). Regardless, 36-71fg (50.7%) on long twos in the corner--that's nothing to scoff at. All he needs to do is step back a little further and turn those two's into threes. My estimation that he could shoot 40% on corner threes with 100-200 wide open shots is not unrealistic with all things considered.

• rockets best fan says 2 months ago

  Here is a list of the top PFs in the game. This is in no particular order.
  
  Kevin Love (Barkley's pick)
  LaMarcus Aldridge
  David Lee
  Pau Gasol
  David West
  Carmelo Anthony
  Serge Ibaka
  Blake Griffen
  Chris Bosh
  Carlos Boozer
  Greg Monroe
  Tobias Harris
  Kenneth Fariad
  Dirk
  
  And id take everyone over Smith or Millsap

  totally agree......I wouldn't take milsap or j-smith over any of the above except maybe boozer

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  Yeah but like I said, he will get more open looks in Houston just like Patterson did. And just inside those corners Millsap is 36-71 (50.7%) so I'm confident he can knock it down in the corner just like Patterson can. We're looking at a rich man's Patterson here on both ends of the floor.

  I agree. He should be able to develop it even further. lol just don't want to go overboard w/ the 60% statement -- reminds me of how we all take turns hailing the second coming of our new PF after one or two games, or Bev's 100+ PER at one point (from like 2 games) lol.

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  Yeah but like I said, he will get more open looks in Houston just like Patterson did. And just inside those corners Millsap is 36-71 (50.7%) so I'm confident he can knock it down in the corner just like Patterson can. He's a rich man's Patterson through and through.

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  My mistake, it's actually 60% on corner threes :D

  http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=200794

  And I think he will get alot more wide open looks in Houston. Back in 2011 (when Deron Williams was still a Jazz) Millsap made 39% of his threes.

  Millsap is definitely getting there on 3's. He's a very hard worker, and noticeably develops his game. It is like he picks up a new thing every yr and gets better at that one thing. Know who else does that? LBJ :P

  But the sample size for his 3's are still pretty small, and taken in context, not super great yet. He's 33% from 3 pt range this season, which is aight, and he attempts so few. This is the season where he's attempted the most 3's, and he still averages out to 0.5 three pointers a game in attempts (he's only attempted 37 all season). That means he shoots 1 three pointer like every other game lol...while making one every 6 games (he's only made 12 all season).

• Steven says 2 months ago Here is a list of the top PFs in the game. This is in no particular order.
  
  Kevin Love (Barkley's pick)
  LaMarcus Aldridge
  David Lee
  Pau Gasol
  David West
  Carmelo Anthony
  Serge Ibaka
  Blake Griffen
  Chris Bosh
  Carlos Boozer
  Greg Monroe
  Tobias Harris
  Kenneth Fariad
  Dirk
  
  And id take everyone over Smith or Millsap
• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  My mistake, it's actually 60% on corner threes :D

  http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=200794

  And I think he will get alot more wide open looks in Houston. Back in 2011 (when Deron Williams was still a Jazz) Millsap made 39% of his threes.

• Jason says 2 months ago

  I wouldn't say "perfectly" unless he consistently knocks down those 3's, but he will definately help us enough on both ends (especially defense) to go from pretenders to contenders. To be honest, I'm learning towards the idea of Millsap rather than Josh Smith just because of the 3's (Millsap is makig 50% of his corner threes this season).

  
  Wow, I didn't realize Milsap could hit threes. I'll have to look at his stats.
• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  I wouldn't say "perfectly" unless he consistently knocks down those 3's, but he will definately help us enough on both ends (especially defense) to go from pretenders to contenders. To be honest, I'm learning towards the idea of Millsap rather than Josh Smithjust because of the 3's (Millsap is makig 50% of his corner threes this season). As for Dwight, I don't want to get my hopes up so I won't bother talking about him.

• Jason says 2 months ago But I believe that a starting front court of Asik and Josh Smith is better than a starting front court of Dwight Howard and Terrence Jones. Howard may be the better player, but I actually believe that Josh Smith makes us the better team due to what we already have at C and PF. Not to mention that J Smooth fits into our system perfectly. Get it done Morey!
• thejohnnygold says 2 months ago

  Getting back to this value concern...I think we can all agree that Dwight Howard + T-Jones on the roster is more valuable than Josh-Smith + T-Jones. Now, is Josh Smith + T-Jones better than Cap space + t-Jones? Yes. Again, I just love the options we are sitting on....there just isn't a move that is "bad". Even if Josh Smith is not a top 5 PF...who cares...I agree with 2016 that in our system he will be maximized as a player and his play will elevate the team as a whole. <---That is my main concern. I'd be happy to see Smith become a facilitator in the offense and average 10/10/10 for the season. That would be sweet. B) I'd love to run the offense through the high post the way sacramento did with Webber...They had a zillion different plays they ran from that set...a lot of them are on youtube. I think we have the personnel to do a similar version--especially if D-Mo can get back on track as his passing skills would make it even better.

• rockets best fan says 2 months ago

  imo j-smith has never been a top five PF and will never be a top 5 PF. his bball IQ won't let him :blink:

• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  I thought Josh Smith was a top 5 PF last season, but this season he hasn't been as good. I think he will be a top 5 PF again in the Rockets system.

• rockets best fan says 2 months ago

  Regardless of who is and isn't the poor man's somebody, we're basically talking about player value vs contract. Obviously the good players on rookie contracts are going to be the cheaper alternative, but I don't see why we should use that premise to avoid signing a top 5 PF who can help us win a championship. If we were comparing between contracts where a resign has already happened that would make more sense.

  j-smith a top 5 PF? what about LMA, love, z-bo, garnet, Duncan, dirk, faried, blake,.......he wouldn't be in front of any of these players imo

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  Regardless of who is and isn't the poor man's somebody, we're basically talking about player value vs contract. Obviously the good players on rookie contracts are going to be the cheaper alternative, but I don't see why we should use that premise to avoid signing a top 5 PF who can help us win a championship. Refusing to sign an experienced stud just because you have a player still on his rookie contract doesn't make sense to me. If we were comparing between contracts where a resign has already happened that would make more sense.

  I see your point, and in that case, it'd be true, but I don't know if it is entirely applicable here. It is because if we do believe that the rookie player can fulfill most of what the expensive player brings, we could spend that same pool of money on someone else, thus creating more value, right?

  If a top 5 PF costs x dollars and brings y value, that y may be diminished by the rookie player's presence, and hence spending x dollars on another player that brings y + 10 value makes more sense (assuming this option is available). This is all rather moot in my opinion though because I don't think TJones is near JSmoove's level and I think JSmoovedoes bring 10x more value than TJones (by value, I don't mean being better), and even if he didn't, I don't know if there's another option out there thatis this "y + 10" choice. But you're right on the general idea that comparing those on rookie contracts to another player who costs more due to seniority is probably more misleading than helpful at times lol.

• Jason says 2 months ago

  Regardless of who is and isn't the poor man's somebody, we're basically talking about player value vs contract. Obviously the good players on rookie contracts are going to be the cheaper alternative, but I don't see why we should use that premise to avoid signing a top 5 PF who can help us win a championship. If we were comparing between contracts where a resign has already happened that would make more sense.

  
  Agreed
• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  Regardless of who is and isn't the poor man's somebody, we're basically talking about player value vs contract. Obviously the good players on rookie contracts are going to be the cheaper alternative, but I don't see why we should use that premise to avoid signing a top 5 PF who can help us win a championship. If we were comparing between contracts where a resign has already happened that would make more sense.

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  Yeah, a lot will depend on his profession from year one to year two. The problem though is that we won't know about this before having to make a decision on J Smooth. I believe though that Morey has some advanced stats on Josh Smith to really like him. I mean, he's essentially wanted to attain him ever since becoming our GM so there must be a specific reason that maybe we can't see. I do know that J Smooth can hit the corner three (I believe at a 38% clip if I remember correctly) which is something Morey looks for. I don't see Terrence Jones having this ability nor do I see T Jones having the 4 assts per game ability, which is an underrated aspect of Josh Smith's game.

  38% from the right wing actually, but yes, I agree that the assists are a big difference. Smith can drive and kick it out and even pass it out of the post. TJones has not shown any real passing abilities yet.

• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  I think your logic is flawed. Following your thoughtprocess we should get rid off Lin because he costs 8x as much as Beverley.

  Is it? I don't think Beverley is the poor man's Lin though...lol. If we accept the hypothesis that TJones is somehow "the poor man's Josh Smith," it would make paying Josh Smith 10x as much not necessarily a smart move. Some multiple greater would still make sense, because on some level he is simply better (and there is a threshold question you could look at -- whether the difference at some points 'tips' us over a boundary), but I don't think the original line of thinking is necessarily flawed at all (if you assume the basic premise).

  So yes, if we believe that Bev is "the poor man's Lin" (I don't think so), and if Lin is not the requisite multiples better in value, then it would be more prudent to move him. The difference in a trade, however, is the value you get back has to be compared to what you've giving out. With JSmith, it is whether we sign him or not, so it is a different thought experiment. Here, what we're weighing is what we could do with that amountinsteadand how much value that would create (in addition to whatever value having a poor man's JSmoove in TJones gives us). Whatever maximizes this figure = win.

• Jason says 2 months ago

  I don't necessarily disagree with you, but this point might be a bit flawed. If he's the poor man's Josh Smith, it means Josh Smith costs a lot more. 10x as much almost. I don't know if he'd bring 10x the value, even if we both prefer the "real deal."

  
  Yeah, a lot will depend on his profession from year one to year two. The problem though is that we won't know about this before having to make a decision on J Smooth. I believe though that Morey has some advanced stats on Josh Smith to really like him. I mean, he's essentially wanted to attain him ever since becoming our GM so there must be a specific reason that maybe we can't see. I do know that J Smooth can hit the corner three (I believe at a 38% clip if I remember correctly) which is something Morey looks for. I don't see Terrence Jones having this ability nor do I see T Jones having the 4 assts per game ability, which is an underrated aspect of Josh Smith's game.
• 2016Champions says 2 months ago

  I don't necessarily disagree with you, but this point might be a bit flawed. If he's the poor man's Josh Smith, it means Josh Smith costs a lot more. 10x as much almost. I don't know if he'd bring 10x the value, even if we both prefer the "real deal."

  I think your logic is flawed. Following your thoughtprocess we should get rid off Lin because he costs 8x as much as Beverley.

• Steven says 2 months ago

  I still want Josh Smith. Terrence Jones is essentially a poor man's Josh Smith, but I prefer the real deal.

  
  Josh Smith is the old man's Terrence Jones.
• phaketrash says 2 months ago

  I still want Josh Smith. Terrence Jones is essentially a poor man's Josh Smith, but I prefer the real deal.

  I don't necessarily disagree with you, but this point might be a bit flawed. If he's the poor man's Josh Smith, it means Josh Smith costs a lot more. 10x as much almost. I don't know if he'd bring 10x the value, even if we both prefer the "real deal."

• Jason says 2 months ago I still want Josh Smith. Terrence Jones is essentially a poor man's Josh Smith, but I prefer the real deal.