For me it's not about operating in the same space since they are both stretch bigs and more about making a player the hub of your offense. If I'm paying KAT 50mil a season then I want him being the primary big man hub of the offense rather than a half hub. The same goes for Lauri. I don't think you get the best out of either guy in that situation. Cy mentioned that KAT is only taking 15 shots a game and Lauri is taking 16 and that is with both acting as the primary big man hub. Personally I don't think that is enough shots for either guy with how efficient they are. If I'm paying KAT 50mil then I want him north of 20 shots a game like Giannis and Embiid who are well above 20 when you add in how often they get to the line. In the end I don't think you are getting the best out of either player when paired together but you would be paying them superstar money. Probably close to 90mil combined for KAT and Lauri. On the other hand when you have a primary big man hub and a primary wing hub they are able to play off each other and it tends to bring out the best in both players. So in the end that is a long way of saying I'd much rather save my ammo for an elite wing coming on the market while trying to also obtain that guy through the draft which we have been quite successful in doing.The statement was “Having 2 scoring bigs at the 4 and 5 is not ideal. Can you think of any situation where you have 2 scoring bigs that are thriving at the same time? I can't really think of one right now.”
People don’t like the Twin Towers example, fine. But the idea that having your offense heavily coming from 4 and 5 is more operating off the antiquated notion that those guys are going to be occupying the same limited space, which isn’t really relevant or a concern with KAT and Lauri.
There are numerous reasons to not want to make a move for KAT. The offensive fit of our two best players being “bigs” isn’t a very strong one, though. And KAT and Lauri will occupy the same space exponentially less than Duncan and Robinson, or Barkley and Olajuwon, or whichever comparison.
But yeah, someone says they can’t think of a time when it was successful and **** me for thinking of a historic pairing. I guess I should’ve appealed to homeytennis’ G League examples of two bigs existing offensively.
That is a good call. Unfortunately we didn't get to see them together for long because of Cousins injury.He about AD and Cousins? It’s not an example of the team thriving, but the reasons why they sucked had nothing to do with both of them being bigs.
Are you saying that with the the current Jazz roster as the supporting cast?Lauri is not an offense hub. KAT can be. They compliment each other perfectly on offense. It would be elite offensively.
Assuming you keep Kessler (or pickup someone similar) both these guys can rotate and get minutes with him. He would average 20-25 a game. Depending on matchup's it could work well. I dont think either Lauri or KAT anymore are bad defenders just average. Closing games you can just play the matchups. Also its great with Lauri since he can play 3,4,5 in scenarios and KAT can play 4 or 5. If you add in a really good wing defender it could work well and the offense would be so efficient and great it could make up for an average defense. A guy like Hendricks could make the jump to be a really good fit with them as a 3D guy. You might just need one more really good guard. 2 versatile elite shooting 7' dudes is pretty easy to build around.I definitely agree with CY. An elite offense is elite, regardless of whether a max player meets the arbitrary metrics given to him. It's not just Lauri and KAT complementing each other in Hardy's offensive system. Sexton would be feasting like never before.
On the other hand, I'm worried about what kind of defense can be built around these three.
I think what was implied is defensively limited scoring bigs, since the discussion revolves around what we actually have and what we could add, so the question implied comparable to what we could have if we get KAT. Hence suggesting 2 HOF all-world defensive bigs feels extreme in the context of the discussion, regardless of their offensive prowessThe statement was “Having 2 scoring bigs at the 4 and 5 is not ideal. Can you think of any situation where you have 2 scoring bigs that are thriving at the same time? I can't really think of one right now.”
People don’t like the Twin Towers example, fine. But the idea that having your offense heavily coming from 4 and 5 is more operating off the antiquated notion that those guys are going to be occupying the same limited space, which isn’t really relevant or a concern with KAT and Lauri.
There are numerous reasons to not want to make a move for KAT. The offensive fit of our two best players being “bigs” isn’t a very strong one, though. And KAT and Lauri will occupy the same space exponentially less than Duncan and Robinson, or Barkley and Olajuwon, or whichever comparison.
But yeah, someone says they can’t think of a time when it was successful and **** me for thinking of a historic pairing. I guess I should’ve appealed to homeytennis’ G League examples of two bigs existing offensively.
This. Great post.For me it's not about operating in the same space since they are both stretch bigs and more about making a player the hub of your offense. If I'm paying KAT 50mil a season then I want him being the primary big man hub of the offense rather than a half hub. The same goes for Lauri. I don't think you get the best out of either guy in that situation. Cy mentioned that KAT is only taking 15 shots a game and Lauri is taking 16 and that is with both acting as the primary big man hub. Personally I don't think that is enough shots for either guy with how efficient they are. If I'm paying KAT 50mil then I want him north of 20 shots a game like Giannis and Embiid who are well above 20 when you add in how often they get to the line. In the end I don't think you are getting the best out of either player when paired together but you would be paying them superstar money. Probably close to 90mil combined for KAT and Lauri. On the other hand when you have a primary big man hub and a primary wing hub they are able to play off each other and it tends to bring out the best in both players. So in the end that is a long way of saying I'd much rather save my ammo for an elite wing coming on the market while trying to also obtain that guy through the draft which we have been quite successful in doing.
No. TJ would have considered KAT a star. It was definitely a sub all star based on how Tony was talking.Was KAT "the guy" Tony Jones and Ainge talked about?
No. TJ would have considered KAT a star. It was definitely a sub all star based on how Tony was talking.
I think Ainge was referring to pre-season but I would need to listen again to see if he was referring to in season. I think Holiday/Zinger/Dame are the Almost Ainge guys. I think Tony was something else at the deadline. I think there was literally a report (by Glen Taylor's people) that the broke boys were going to trim salary and move KAT. I honestly think that was part of the idea in acquiring Rudy is they weren't sold on having that contract through its completion.Forgot about that, makes me wonder if they're talking about the same guy then.
I do think KAT would fit Ainge's description of a guy would change your franchise. I didn't believe you about MIN trading KAT, but all the reports about the broke boy owners has me convinced you were right.
I think Ainge was referring to pre-season but I would need to listen again to see if he was referring to in season. I think Holiday/Zinger/Dame are the Almost Ainge guys. I think Tony was something else at the deadline. I think there was literally a report (by Glen Taylor's people) that the broke boys were going to trim salary and move KAT. I honestly think that was part of the idea in acquiring Rudy is they weren't sold on having that contract through its completion.