- Joined
- Nov 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,839
- Reaction Score
- 2,355
Looks like Maggie Lucas found a home with the Indiana Fever.
I see that Phoenix cut Krystal Thomas. They only have two centers: Griner and Kobryn. Compare that to Chicago, which has Fowles, Gaitling and Goodlett. Does this mean that Phoenix is going to depend on BG to play a lot of minutes or that they are once again going to ignore the center position and once again depending on the guards to do most of the scoring? I think it will be another season in which Griner will be lucky to get off 10 shots a game.
Korbryn as your number 2????? yikes. Liked her on the Storm but Krystal Thomas seems a much better option (also ex Storm and played well for you guys last year). Hope someone takes her.
Here are some observations about the final rosters that fall under the heading of "marketing value vs. on-court value":
1. Courtney Paris made the Tulsa Shock roster (again);
2. Allie Quigley appears to have made the Chicago Sky's roster (again) -- she is now a 5-year veteran despite hardly ever playing. If you don't recall who she is, she was the best player on the DePaul team that almost beat UConn in Maya's freshman year.
3. And Kelly Faris made the Sun roster -- hopefully that is not for the same reason as the two preceding.
But I think it is safe to say that in all of these cases, marketing considerations (fan interest and enthusiasm) played a role in these roster decisions, as much or more than the player's current contribution on the court.
I disagree on Allie Quigley. she may not light up the WNBA but she is solid when in there. She does a good job in her limited role.
Here are some observations about the final rosters that fall under the heading of "marketing value vs. on-court value":
1. Courtney Paris made the Tulsa Shock roster (again);
2. Allie Quigley appears to have made the Chicago Sky's roster (again) -- she is now a 5-year veteran despite hardly ever playing. If you don't recall who she is, she was the best player on the DePaul team that almost beat UConn in Maya's freshman year.
3. And Kelly Faris made the Sun roster -- hopefully that is not for the same reason as the two preceding.
But I think it is safe to say that in all of these cases, marketing considerations (fan interest and enthusiasm) played a role in these roster decisions, as much or more than the player's current contribution on the court.
I guess my expectations are not that high for her. Last year was good for her 3.8 ppg in 9.4 min is fine for me. Also that was her only year in Chicago. I in no way think she is the best player on the floor but she contributes when she plays (at least last year).Quigley is supposed to be a sniper off the bench/designated shooter/three-point specialist, in her limited role. In five years, she is shooting 32.9 percent from the floor and 31.1 percent from three.
I would not define that as doing a "good job in a limited role."
I don't think there is any doubt- the WBA seams to go out of there way to be sure many player of similar talent end up where the may have a local appeal to the fan base!Here are some observations about the final rosters that fall under the heading of "marketing value vs. on-court value":
1. Courtney Paris made the Tulsa Shock roster (again);
2. Allie Quigley appears to have made the Chicago Sky's roster (again) -- she is now a 5-year veteran despite hardly ever playing. If you don't recall who she is, she was the best player on the DePaul team that almost beat UConn in Maya's freshman year.
3. And Kelly Faris made the Sun roster -- hopefully that is not for the same reason as the two preceding.
But I think it is safe to say that in all of these cases, marketing considerations (fan interest and enthusiasm) played a role in these roster decisions, as much or more than the player's current contribution on the court.
You guys don't think all the trades and draft picks that either end up close to home, or where they played in college, are totally by chance? Wow- it's so obvious to me. When there are players of relatively equal talent, and role players, I think there is a "monster conspiracy" to make it happen whenever they can do it. I think it happens all the time and I think it's a good thing.But I think it is safe to say that in all of these cases, marketing considerations (fan interest and enthusiasm) played a role in these roster decisions, as much or more than the player's current contribution on the court.
Doubt it... unless you can count me the number of Depaul and/or Oklahoma fans that decide to attend games to watch former players sit on the bench....