RE: Rogers vs Stewart

[John Lyell <Jlyell@concentric.net>]

I would take Stewart, I think Rogers knees are shot.  Stewart is real raw but has a good attitude, is exciting and would be a
great fit with a running team.  Battie would add a little more offense.

Olden Polynice is another Center out there , but I doubt he could hack Pitino's workouts.

 


On Tuesday, January 12, 1999 11:15 AM, peter delevett [SMTP:pdelevett@amcity.com] wrote:
> For those of you (like me) who might sometimes say, "Gee, I wonder what would
> have happened if the Celtics had hung onto Roy Rogers," I thought I'd offer up
> this interesting comparison.
> 
> ROGERS: 6'10, 238 pounds, 25 years old
> As a rookie in 96-97, he put up the following stats: 82 g, 22.5 mpg, 50.5% fg,
> 57.4% ft, 2 BPG, 6.6 PPG, 4.7 RPG (1.7 ORB)
> Last season, of course, Rogers was injured and played only 15 games.
> 
> MICHAEL STEWART: 6'10, 230 pounds, 24 years old
> Here's his line as a rookie in 97-98: 81 g, 21.7 mpg, 48% fg, 46% ft, 2.4 BPG,
> 4.6 PPG, 6.6 RPG (2.4 ORB)
> 
> My point is, they are pretty much the same player. If we are able to land
> Stewart, as Pete Vecsey & others are saying, at the very least we would add a
> solid shotblocker and rebounder. We would, of course, have to part with
> Popeye. Here's how his numbers compare:
> 
> POPEYE JONES: 6'8, 250 pounds (though I've read he's dropped down to ca. 235),
> 28 years old
> In 97-98, he played 14 games: 25 mpg, 41% fg, 74% FT, .2 BPG, 8.6 PPG, 7.3 RPG
> (3.6 ORB).
> In 96-97, he played 79 games: 30 mpg, 48% fg, 81% FT, .5 BPG (career high),
> 7.8 PPG, 8.6 RPG (3.4 ORB).
> 
> So, Stewart would give us a younger and taller (though slighter) player who
> can block shots much better but is a slightly worse rebounder and dismal at
> the line. 
> 
> The other question is Stewart's affordability. Under the new CBA, the median
> salary is about $1.3 million. Depending on who else is bidding for him, we
> might not have to shell out that much, or we might have to pay more. He earned
> about $275,000 last year (didn't we all?), and the minimum he can make this
> year is $350,000. Pops earned $1.8 mil last year, I believe; not counting him,
> or our two cap exceptions, I believe we have about $1.7 million under the cap.
> 
> Though I know he is anathema to some on this list, I would still throw out
> Matt Geiger's name. With his size, he will be a much better post defender than
> any of the above, something important for us to remember if we don't want to
> see Ewing and Mourning abusing Stewart down low this season:
> 
> MATT GEIGER: 7'1, 248 pounds, 29 years old
> 1997-98: 78 g, 23.6 mpg, 50% fg, 72% ft, 1.1 BPG, 11.3 PPG, 6.7 RPG (2.5 ORB).
> He's better at the line than Stewart, equivalent on the boards and enough of a
> scorer to keep defenses honest. On the other hand, he blocked half as many
> shots, and last year was a career year for him in that department (his career
> average is .7). I guess in part it comes down to the question of what's more
> valuable defensively: a shot blocker or a big, low-post body. 
> 
> Geiger, as has been noted, earned $1.4 mil last year and wants $2.8 mil for
> this year, though he might accept a slight hometown discount.
> 
> Man, I wish the cap had gone up to $34 million! Then we might have the room to
> get two of these guys. IMO, adding Geiger, Popeye & Pierce to last year's team
> gurantees us the playoffs.