What's new
By:

Matt Thomas - Matty Ice

cctrackstar said:
who trades a knock down 3pt shooter for a future second from the current nba leader? maybe he has holes in his game, but shooting is one of the hardest things to learn. let's go development team! (i admit, i love these kinds of players)
Click to expand...
It’s the GSW pick we owned
 
Mentioned in another thread, his defense his horrendous. Very slow lateral foot speed. Nick Nurse did his best to play zone with him in and he still couldn't recover to his man. Hesitates to shoot unless wide open (but tends to make the contested shots he takes). Should excel in Jazz offense.

Unfortunately when he couldn't stay on the floor with one of the worst defensive teams in the league is a red flag. Hopefully Gobert can provide some better backup to allow the guy to provide positive net value. To date he has been a net negative and needs to improve defensive fundamentals to get court time.
 
TheGoldStandard said:
Mentioned in another thread, his defense his horrendous. Very slow lateral foot speed. Nick Nurse did his best to play zone with him in and he still couldn't recover to his man. Hesitates to shoot unless wide open (but tends to make the contested shots he takes). Should excel in Jazz offense.

Unfortunately when he couldn't stay on the floor with one of the worst defensive teams in the league is a red flag. Hopefully Gobert can provide some better backup to allow the guy to provide positive net value. To date he has been a net negative and needs to improve defensive fundamentals to get court time.
Click to expand...
Niang can be the Quin whisperer for him.
 
The Thriller said:
What does this mean for Oni and Hughes in particular? Seems to me like Hughes only chance to play was if we had injury and/or needed shooting. Which is how this guy will play, right? Just seems to me like we keep signing/trading for people who don’t actually address the glaring elephant in the room; wing defenders.
Click to expand...
Don't try to make sense of it or fit it into some master plan... I think sometimes we just do ****.
 
200.gif
 
A lot of thoughts on this as follows:

I've always been a big supporter of just getting the guy who shoots. Even guys who are perceived as being really bad players, if they're elite shooters there is a role for them, and even though people always say that, nobody really puts the rubber to the road, though there have been a few examples over the years and there are certainly being more and more examples recently. I really liked Korver before we got him the first time. Obviously he's got some other things to his game, but these guys can be valuable. Popovich has done a pretty good job in this regard. Bonner is not a good player, but SA knew how to use him to make this fit. I really liked a guy like Jason Kapono, and he admittedly at least got some burn. One guy I wanted before we got, but who ultimately didn't really play with us, is Steve Novak. For as much as Quin is touted to like shooting, and as much as we could have used it, he didn't use Novak. Seth Curry, as mentioned above, is a good example of this. People knew he was a good shooter. But he was able to float around on small deals and not have many people beating down his door, but now people respect him as a legitimate player and not just a 'me too' relative. I think the fact that we're seeing someone like Duncan Robinson start in the finals in his second year really helps break down some of the stigma. There's a big stigma against guys who are sharp shooters but with more limited all-around skill. Perhaps we'll even see this stigma swing the other way.

In any case, I like the move if we're committed to trying to see if this can be a legitimate resource, but the FO and coaching staff aren't always on the same page. Last year we all convinced ourselves that signing Rayjon Tucker was our loophole for 'having a first round pick' since we didn't really have any. Then we waived him in the summer. If we end up waiving this guy this summer, then giving up that second round pick will look really stupid. But if we like this guy enough that we're confident that we'd like him more than what's available with the second round pick, then that's cool. I'd say there's enough there that if we picked this guy up in the second round, I'd like it.

But, more importantly, this has to be a move totally separate from what we're doing this season. If this move at all affects any other move(s) we would make after this point, then this is a huge fail. If we're not going to sign a buyout guy that we otherwise would have if we had an available roster spot, then this move is stupid. It can both be a good move in a vacuum and a terrible move in context. I think that's the part some people ardently laying rose pedals for the FO miss.

When I was in residency you were not paid very well compared to how many hours you were putting in and compared to what you'd get paid after residency. Some residents moonlight, and make quite a bit more doing outside work. I ended up doing a lot of this. A lot of times, people would use the extra money to pay down student loans. I refused to do so, because moonlighting represented time away from my family. So if I was going to spend time away from family, I was going to use that money for us to do things together as a family, and a dollar to us then was worth a lot more than a dollar to us in the future, so it's easy to lose sight of that and pay down student loans (which isn't a bad thing, per se, just not the best when you look at the whole context). So, how valuable is someone like a Moe Harkless to us right now vs. a role-playing shooter a few years from now? If our window to compete is now, then a Moe Harkless now is worth a hell of a lot more than a Seth Curry in the future. We need to get over the hump.

This can all be irrelevant if we're willing to waive someone to sign another piece. But I'm still not convinced we do that.
 
With our roster, and our salaries, a good match that we didn't feel ambivalent about or suffer buyer's remorse down the line was going to be next to impossible to negotiate. This is a low risk and possible high reward play. Good size and athleticism - for what we paid I couldn't be happier. Nurse called the kid along with Terrence Davis the best shooters on his team, but qualified that by saying that they give up more than they score with careless mistakes on defense. As long as he has some heart and is willing to listen I think he's a keeper that will contribute later if not sooner.

Concerning the Thomas and Davis deals, it looks as though Toronto was trying to clear out some space for some incoming players in a lopsided Lowery deal that never actually materialized. Pretty sure that Ujiri might be feeling something akin to "Seller's Remorse" right about now.:rolleyes:
 
cctrackstar said:
who trades a knock down 3pt shooter for a future second from the current nba leader? maybe he has holes in his game, but shooting is one of the hardest things to learn. let's go development team! (i admit, i love these kinds of players)
Click to expand...
I don't know, maybe anticipating a lopsided Lowery deal that never materialized.
 
infection said:
A lot of thoughts on this as follows:

I've always been a big supporter of just getting the guy who shoots. Even guys who are perceived as being really bad players, if they're elite shooters there is a role for them, and even though people always say that, nobody really puts the rubber to the road, though there have been a few examples over the years and there are certainly being more and more examples recently. I really liked Korver before we got him the first time. Obviously he's got some other things to his game, but these guys can be valuable. Popovich has done a pretty good job in this regard. Bonner is not a good player, but SA knew how to use him to make this fit. I really liked a guy like Jason Kapono, and he admittedly at least got some burn. One guy I wanted before we got, but who ultimately didn't really play with us, is Steve Novak. For as much as Quin is touted to like shooting, and as much as we could have used it, he didn't use Novak. Seth Curry, as mentioned above, is a good example of this. People knew he was a good shooter. But he was able to float around on small deals and not have many people beating down his door, but now people respect him as a legitimate player and not just a 'me too' relative. I think the fact that we're seeing someone like Duncan Robinson start in the finals in his second year really helps break down some of the stigma. There's a big stigma against guys who are sharp shooters but with more limited all-around skill. Perhaps we'll even see this stigma swing the other way.

In any case, I like the move if we're committed to trying to see if this can be a legitimate resource, but the FO and coaching staff aren't always on the same page. Last year we all convinced ourselves that signing Rayjon Tucker was our loophole for 'having a first round pick' since we didn't really have any. Then we waived him in the summer. If we end up waiving this guy this summer, then giving up that second round pick will look really stupid. But if we like this guy enough that we're confident that we'd like him more than what's available with the second round pick, then that's cool. I'd say there's enough there that if we picked this guy up in the second round, I'd like it.

But, more importantly, this has to be a move totally separate from what we're doing this season. If this move at all affects any other move(s) we would make after this point, then this is a huge fail. If we're not going to sign a buyout guy that we otherwise would have if we had an available roster spot, then this move is stupid. It can both be a good move in a vacuum and a terrible move in context. I think that's the part some people ardently laying rose pedals for the FO miss.

When I was in residency you were not paid very well compared to how many hours you were putting in and compared to what you'd get paid after residency. Some residents moonlight, and make quite a bit more doing outside work. I ended up doing a lot of this. A lot of times, people would use the extra money to pay down student loans. I refused to do so, because moonlighting represented time away from my family. So if I was going to spend time away from family, I was going to use that money for us to do things together as a family, and a dollar to us then was worth a lot more than a dollar to us in the future, so it's easy to lose sight of that and pay down student loans (which isn't a bad thing, per se, just not the best when you look at the whole context). So, how valuable is someone like a Moe Harkless to us right now vs. a role-playing shooter a few years from now? If our window to compete is now, then a Moe Harkless now is worth a hell of a lot more than a Seth Curry in the future. We need to get over the hump.

This can all be irrelevant if we're willing to waive someone to sign another piece. But I'm still not convinced we do that.
Click to expand...
1616730170109.gif
 
@infection: The Jazz run a Spurs-like system, where ball movement, floor spacing and knock-down shooting are of paramount importance. The Jazz launch and make the most 3s in the league. That's clearly their offensive identity. The spacing then opens up the floor for high screen/roll actions that put the defense in a quandry--either they have to leave our shooters to defend the paint, or they give up shots at the rim. This year, unlike years in the past, the Jazz are encouraging shooting 3s in transition off of misses and makes as well.

The Jazz have so many shooters taking so many 3pt shots that it has the affect of spreading their risk should one or more of their players not shoot well. Last night, Jordan Clarkson shot 1-11 from 3pt range. Joe Ingles was 1-6. Yet despite those two going 2-17, the Jazz as a collective still shot 42% on 55 3PAs (22-53). The Jazz's 3pt shooting machine is designed for some guys to be hot and some guys to be cold, while still generating a nearly insurmountable mathematical advantage. (A team that shoots 40% on 40+ 3PAs generates 1.2 points per possession on those possessions, or a TS% of 60%.)

To that end, the Jazz bring in yet another guard who can generate and knock-down 3s with volume and further de-risk the 3pt shooting juggernaut, while keeping a defender glued to him. His lack of defense may limit his minutes and make him matchup dependent. However, the Jazz's defensive strategy is Rudy Gobert, and unless the other team has a player that can pull him away from the paint, Rudy helps mitigates our perimeter players' defensive limitations, and the net result is still positive.
 
Part of this was how bad the Stars stunk this year. You would think they would have had a player that would fill this role and not waste a draft pick, but nope. Hughes had better get it turned around or he won't be around when his contract expires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top