[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: geiger, etc.



   From: Charles Jowett <jowett_charles@waters.com>
   Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:57:41 -0500

   >Geiger is a journeyman power forward pretending to be a center
   Playing for two teams in 6 years (3 years for each team) does
   not make him a journeyman.

I was puzzled by this remark until I realized that you didn't know
what "journeyman" meant.

"Journeyman" does not mean that he takes a lot of journeys.  It means
that he's OK, but nothing special.  Here's the definition from
Webster's dictionary:

2 : an experienced reliable worker or performer especially as
distinguished from one who is brilliant or colorful <a good journeyman
trumpeter -- New Yorker> <a journeyman outfielder>

   >For the year, he's averaging 11pts, and 6.5 rebounds.  He's not that 
   >much better than Knight, if at all better.
   11.0 and 6.5 doesn't sound very impressive until you consider the fact
   that he's only averaging 23.3 minutes per game.  In the 95-96 season,
   when he averaged 30.5 minutes per game, he avaeraged 11.2 ppg and 
   8.4 rpg.

   For comparisson, Andrew DeClercq averages 18.2 mpg, 5.5 ppg and 
   4.7 rpg.  Banana Boy (Travis Knight) averages 20.2 mpg, 6.7ppg and
   5.1 rpg.

   By any means of comparisson, Geiger is clearly better than either 
   DeClercq or Knight.

   BTW:  Everytime I watch DeClercq and Knight, I can't help thinking of 
   Mark Acres and Brad Lohaus.

Geiger is OK.  If we didn't have DeClercq and Knight, it might be
reasonable to try to get him.  Unfortunately, he's going to ask for
around $5 million/year, which is too high -- to compare, that's what
we're paying Anderson, who is a potential All-Star level point guard.

I think we'd be better off trying to develop Knight and DeClercq than
to waste salary cap on Geiger.  Knight makes $2 million, and DeClercq
makes $1.2 million.  Either Knight or DeClerq could easily be as good
as Geiger in a year or two, and their relatively low salaries make
them more attractive as trade bait further down the line.

-Andy