TMC wrote:You gotta be kidding on this one. All your points about Pietrus are valid, but most dissapointing than Dunleavy?. No way.
Well, now that I think about it, you may be right, as Dun has been awful before nad we didn't have any knind of hope for him at the beginning of the season, so, in fact, he hasn't disappointed at all...
You answered your own question. I didn't buy into Mike Dunleavy being a better player for more than about 2 weeks. Mickael Pietrus, on the other hand, I expected to be better the entire off-season. In my eyes, he had a bigger fall. As bad as Dunleavy's been, you can always just shake your head and say "that's Mike... always up and down". Pietrus is different. He improved a lot last season and showed flashes of brilliance that seemed to get more and more frequent as the season went on. I expected at least 15 a game from him (especially in the improved minutes he's been getting! He plays about 30 minutes a game now, right?).
I think JSW brings up a good point about how good Calbert's been... but, in my eyes, he's always been bringing this sort of thing to the table. Sure mid-range, slight post ability, and steady defense. He's rock solid most nights, and nothing's really changed this season. I've always believed in him because he's played well during his minutes for the Warriors (especially back in the Speedy Claxton days). He hasn't been more of a bonus than Fisher, Murphy, or Baron in my opinion, though.
And Chris Taft still seems ineffective to me, Thunder. Don't get me wrong; he's leaps and bounds ahead of what I thought he WOULD be... but I think the title "biggest bonus" should go to a guy who's helping us win games and, at the moment, I dunno if we could really say Taft's been helping us with that. Showing flashes of what he will become? Absolutely. But I wouldn't call him our best surprise this season (not even over Diogu, who's doing more with his minutes than Taft did).