Re: baker vs. rogers

["Lance Jacobson" <lancejacob@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Piotrowski writes:

    I know this Baker/Rogers thing has been a dead horse for a while, but
    this comment from CNN/SI's season preview caught my attention:

        >Their playoff success last year came because they acquired a quality
        >third scorer, Rodney Rogers, who was able to take some of the heat
        >off Pierce and Walker.
        >
        >Rogers is gone, however, and Vin Baker seems unlikely to fill the void.

Wow.  Kenny's gone, and Joe Gallagher's unlikely to fill the void.  I use compressed
foam for that.

Baker's going to be spending his time in a different area of the court.  He's a low
post player, and Rodney's not.  Points are not points--Baker is sure to get more
putbacks than Rodney on the offensive end.  In fact SWill replaces Rodney on the
offensive end, and Baker's an addition down low, where Battie never shined.

I agree that Vin's been able to hold numbers vs. Rodney even through a slump.  The
nice thing is that Baker can get easy baskets, whereas Rodney, at Center or PF had to
shoot from outside.  We already have Walker for that.  The biggest loss from Kenny's
departure is that Battie won't ever see the ball.  Of course, he may be gone if Sundov
can play at all.  We're playing a different style of game, with the ball spending more
time in the low post this year, giving a better view of the shooters.  If Sundov can
pass from the same spot, we'll a different ball movement creating the 3s, and a better
chance for rebounds.

The sad thing is that Baker costs 4 times as much as Rodney, and we could have had
them both.  Even if we insisted on staying under the tax, I'd rather have
Sundov/Baker/Rogers than Sundov/Baker/Battie