thedynasty1998;392561 wrote:So because Jamison was played out of position, we should give him a pass? No. He was brought in to improve the team, and he didn't. Is that Mike Browns fault? Maybe, but it's more Ferry. It's no secret that the Cavs needed someone to space the floor and open up lanes for Lebron. If they didn't think Jamison could do that, then it makes the trade even that much worse.

Stoudemire would have worked because he can knock down the 15 footer and also can play and score without the ball.

When you call someone arguagly the second most valuable, it means to me they are also the second best. Maybe I'm wrong in that. But I don't think he's either. Like I said, you are saying Varejao is Cleveland's second most valuable, where does he rank on other playoff teams? I don't know if there was another playoff team that you could say, "Varejao, if on that team, is their second most valuable player."

KR1245;392611 wrote:Jamison can spread the floor more than Amare can. He has a bettter jumper and more range.Its sounds like the argument you're making is that any trade that doesnt lead to a title is a bad trade. The Cavs needed some frontcourt scoring so they went out and got it. You cant fault Danny Ferry for trying to make the team better, bottom line is that Antawn Jamison made the Cavs a better team. I cant stand the "lets play it safe and prepare for next year" mentality.

SportsAndLady;392638 wrote:I am (maybe) one of the few who are happy with Jamison on the team..just unhappy with how he is utilized.

Brown trying to make Jamison a spot up, 3 point (!!!) shooter was borderline clinical.

You don't make a unique player into a "normal" player...just let him do his thing.

thedynasty1998;392643 wrote:This was Lebron's team and you make moves that fit into what Lebron does. They needed someone to space the floor. They didn't need a back to the basket undersized PF. That's another reason why it was such a bad trade. Ferry knew that Mike Brown was all about defense, yet he brings in a bad defensive player who is primarily a back to the basket player. It just didn't make any sense then, and it doesn't make any sense now.

You can't say, it wasn't a bad trade because Jamison wasn't used right. It was a bad trade because 1. Jamison isn't what the Cavs needed and 2. his contract sucks.

thedynasty1998;392724 wrote:I'm saying Jamison is an average starting PF, and someone who clearly isn't worth $28 million over the next two years. If the Cavs had gotten him for say $8-$9 million, I'd say it's an okay move. But to pay him $13 million next year is outrageous. I guess I'm just saying to put it in perspective.

In the Cavs vs. Boston series
Jamison - 11.8 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 42% in 33 minutes
Garnett - 18.8 ppg, 8 rpg, 52 % in 32 minutes

Garnett vs. Miami - 16 ppg, 9 rpg, 52% in 34 minutes
Garnett vs. Orlando - 10 pgg, 8 rpg, 39% in 33 minutes
Garnett vs. LA - 15 ppg, 6 rpg, 49% in 31 minutes

So, no I wouldn't say Jamison did a decent job. Garnett had his best performance of the playoffs against Cleveland and Jamison. And Jamison was brought in to score the ball and he got outscored by Garnett, who is Boston's 4th offensive option.

Hardly what I would call decent.

thedynasty1998;392757 wrote:You claim in one post, "Jamison DID guard Garnett, for the most part, and did a decent job". And now you are saying, "So many more variables went into those stats" once I throw out some stats to prove that he wasn't that effective. And you say, he gets 20 points on 8/20 shooting. Well guess what, he shot 52% while Jamison, the offensive player (Garnett is known for his defense) shot 42%. Garnett beat Jamison at his own game.

Of course there are variables, but they were matched up with each other for most of the minutes they were on the court together. The NBA is all about individual matchups, and this is one that the Cavs didn't do well in.

And then to say, "Rivers would throw those lobs over Jamison's head" just further proves my point. I don't think Jamison is a bad defender due to effort, I said he's a bad defender because of his size. He's just not big enough (tall or strong) to compete with the top PF's in the NBA. And if he's not that, then why do you pay him as if he is?

thedynasty1998;392792 wrote:No, it's about positioning. If you allow Garnett to create enough space when fronting him, you give up the lop. And if you are getting beat by the lob, you play behind him.

thedynasty1998;392858 wrote:You are really stretching here. I provided stats to show that Jamison played Garnett worse than any other PF he's faced, when you claimed he did a decent job.

If allowing 19 and 8 is decent against an aged defensive minded PF, then you are right.