February Games Discussion Thread

[DamnYanks2]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

Kawhi is just not a leader type and thats okay, not every superstar needs to be a leader (not being a leader is more common than you'd think with superstars imo). The problem is availability and consistency but thats not something all of us didn't already know.

Great points.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[King_B_Mack]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

Dude was putting up 19 and 9 in year 2 and he’s a bust? That makes no sense man I’m sorry [emoji23]. He’s 25 right now, could be 5 years away from his peak and he’s 25 & 9 as an All-Star and a number 1 on a current playoff team..

Idk what you expect a number 7 pick to typically be, but if the “norm” is any time you have the 7th pick you should land a superstar who is a franchise altering player by his 3rd season then I think you just have ridiculously weird expectations.

Here’s a run of players taken 7th somewhat recently..

Hinrich, Deng, Villanueva, Foye, C Brewer, E Gordon, Steph Curry, G Monroe, Biyombo, H Barnes, B McLemore, J Randle, Mudiay, J Murray, Carter Jr, C White, K Hayes, Kuminga..

Bro even Steph wasn’t substantially better in his first couple years and they are both making their first All-Star appearance at 25 years old.

OJ don’t sit here and read no damn box score to me bro. I actually watch every Bulls game. Especially if you’re gonna half tell a story. 19 and 9 in year 2 (18.7 but I digress) in 52 games played, 51 games started and how’d that year 3, 4 and 5 look? Don’t worry I got you

14.7 and 6.3 in 50 games played and 50 games started

13.6 and 5.3 in 51 games played and 26 games started. But wait why he only started 26 games? Oh yeah that’s right he got benched because he couldn’t make open shots to save his life, played with zero aggression and couldn’t stay healthy.

14.8 and 5.7 in 61 games played and 61 games started.

Those are significant drop offs from that second year. He was a bust for us, period. That’s fine tho because he’s been able to bounce back. They aren’t a current playoff team tho, they’re 11th in the west. They had a hot start and are coming back down to earth. He’s the best player on a bad team putting up numbers. Not the first guy in history to do that and certainly won’t be the last. Let’s see how he does when other guys of significance are around him in a few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[ProfessaPackMan]

February Games Discussion Thread

Extra long post ahead quoting King, GG and dub, y’all been warned

Spoiler

However being a bust doesn't mean you can eventually become the player that you were originally projected to be or a good player with a long career. It's not a death knell to your career.

I get that.

My thing is why do we HAVE to label someone a bust right away? What’s the rush to call someone that when we all know that it takes most players a few years to actually develop their game, especially at the big man(PG is the other one where it takes time to grow and develop at the position, just like being a Qb in the NFL)position and there’s plenty of evidence to show that.

If you're getting traded before hitting the end of that rookie contract outside of a Andrew Wiggins situation you are a wasted draft pick for the team that drafted you.

Again, this is where context(which I know Sports fans hate applying but in this case, it can’t be ignored)matters because each situation is different.

Even in the examples I mentioned, Russell is probably the only one that would fit *close* to it seeing how his first few years in the league started up until his last year and a half in BK when it finally clicked for him, became an All Star and got paid.

But the others though:

-Harden got traded because their Owner was cheap and didn’t want to pay him in addition to paying KD, Russ and I believe Ibaka if I’m not mistaken. Dude was a critical part of the that OKC Team, the best 6th man in the league at that time and one of their 3 best players on that team, so we know for a fact he’s not a bust based on the evidence then and since then as well. He pretty much became a franchise player, just for a different team.

-Derrick Favors got traded not because he wasn’t good for the Nets, but because they had an opportunity to add an elite player to their team(Deron Williams was arguably one of top 2 PGs in the league at the time with CP3 being the other). Favors got to thrive in Utah since he had a competent coaching staff that allowed him to develop while Deron looked good for a little bit before starting his decline and being out of the league by like 2016-17(?)while Favors is/was still going and having a solid career.

-Lonzo and Ingram got moved because not because of their game and they weren’t good(because it was still TBD at the time even though OJ thought Ingram was 92.3% trash haha)but because AD wanted out, Bron didn’t want to waste his years with any youngins and if you want a player of AD’s caliber, it’s going to cost you and those 2 players, along with Josh Hart and draft picks was/is the price you pay.

Ingram got paid by NO right after being traded there and has been an all star caliber player for them since he’s been there because he was on a team that was going to allow him to develop whereas in LA, that probably wasn’t going to happen.

Lonzo’s case is interesting because he was traded to NO because he was solid when he got there, then got his role changed to a 3 and D role but had his best year(at the time)that same year. He became a restricted FA, got traded and paid by y’all, was making an impact on the team, only to get hurt and remain injured since.

Again, doesn't mean you can't bounce back from that and become a good player in the league and in some cases a great player, but you were in fact a bust.

I feel like the disconnect for me is the whole “You didn’t sign a contract extension with the team that drafted you, so you’re a bust” part(let me know if I’m missing something and I apologize in advance).

I’ll use an example: let’s say the Nets drafted Paolo Banchero. He has a great rookie year and ends up winning ROTY, has another good year and misses out on being chosen to the all star. That offseason, the Nets decide they want to go star hunting and have their sights on Luka but the price to get him is Banchero, another young player and endless draft picks because that’s the price you pay to get an elite talent like that.

Nets/Mavs make that trade, Luka is Luka for the Nets(which means we probably still find a way to screw it up lol)and Paolo keeps cooking and gets his first NBA contract extension not from the team that drafted him but from the Mavs. Would you still consider him a bust(or a “wasted draft pick”)in this instance because he’s not getting paid by the team that used their draft pick on him?

In this scenario I would differentiate between a team missing on their pick or the pick just not working out vs a bust.



I thought a bust was just a guy that didn't live up to his potential. You can become a solid role player and be considered a bust if you were selected #1 overall for example. Obviously there are degrees of just how much of a bust you would be, but the principle is the same.



Outside of that, there are several scenarios where a guy on a rookie deal can get traded for reasons other than failing to live up to expectations.

I’m pissed I didn’t read the rest of the thread, only to type out that long *** essay when you essentially said the same thing in fewer words than me [emoji23]

I’m on the same page as you though but I’d still lean more towards giving guys some time first, more than a year or two and hopefully they don’t get injured or end up in ****ty situations(and yes all of this matters in regards to player development no matter how hard any of us wants to ignore it).

But we all know that in the NBA Draft, outside of the top 3-5, everything else is pretty much role player city(as far as realistic expectations)with the hope they can turn into something more. Once you’re in the 2nd rd, you’ll be happy with get ANY type of production even though the odds are realllllll slim at that point.

My thing is, if a guy is legit, he's going to show it relatively quickly, and it's not going to be dependent on the right team at the right time. There are so many players through the years that people are convinced would have broken out and been relevant had a team given them enough run. They blame the team, coach, GM, whatever. Give Player X 35 minutes a game and let him shoot it 20 times, you'll see, etc.

Not sure the first part is true because we’ve seen guys do that, only to not match it or keep it up for the rest of their career.

The last part is definitely not true because that stuff absolutely matters for developing a young player.

[ProfessaPackMan]

February Games Discussion Thread

Basically I typed all that to say context and nuance should still matter in sports conversations. There’s too much information out here for the discourse to be black/white.

Unless y’all want everyone to be like the Skips, Colin, Shannon and Screamin A’s of the world where they just saying any and everything with using lazy *** arguments to support their case just to tell a bunch of randoms that they’re right, lol

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

This y’all soft *** league:

https://twitter.com/thenbacentral/status/1626594718854574080?s=46&t=rB_jPp1dQwdK7H1gsPYYsQ

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

Actually King, after thinking about it some more, I do see where you’re coming from(in regards to Wiseman)and don’t really disagree with you because you are right.🤝🏾

For whatever reason, he didn’t workout there and by definition, he would be a bust for GSW. Now he could still go and cook in Detroit but it won’t change the fact that it didn’t workout in Golden State. And that’s a fair take to have.

I think for me, I was too focused on the word “bust” and took it as he won’t ever be able to shake that label again, when that’s not the case nor what you’re saying.

I still stand by everything else but I’ll cede that one to you, sir.

[dubcity]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

To me the term "bust" is all about the value the team that drafted him got based on the spot he was picked. Did he give them #2 overall value? Will he at some point? Doubtful to me, but that's a different thing. And it's not because teams aren't going to give him enough run to prove it. It's not these teams' responsibility to prove that he can put up individual stats, to somehow prove people on Twitter right about what he can do individually in the right situation, at the cost of being a bad team and changing coaching philosophy.

[ojandpizza]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

I think for me, I was too focused on the word “bust” and took it as he won’t ever be able to shake that label again, when that’s not the case nor what you’re saying.

That's because this entire conversation started as calling him a bust. Not being the wrong pick for the team, not failure to immediately develop and provide value in year two. You're focused on the word because that literally was the word, all this other stuff is not what a "bust" is typically referred to as. Literally nobody calls Chauncey Billups a bust. Was he maybe the wrong pick for Boston and a guy that all of Boston, Toronto, Denver didn't give enough time to see what he could become, sure. That doesn't make HIM a bust, maybe just makes him the wrong pick and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

To me the term "bust" is all about the value the team that drafted him got based on the spot he was picked. Did he give them #2 overall value? Will he at some point? Doubtful to me, but that's a different thing. And it's not because teams aren't going to give him enough run to prove it. It's not these teams' responsibility to prove that he can put up individual stats, to somehow prove people on Twitter right about what he can do individually in the right situation, at the cost of being a bad team and changing coaching philosophy.

To be clear, you’re speaking strictly on Wiseman and not rookies/young players in general, correct?

[ojandpizza]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

OJ don’t sit here and read no damn box score to me bro. I actually watch every Bulls game. Especially if you’re gonna half tell a story. 19 and 9 in year 2 (18.7 but I digress) in 52 games played, 51 games started and how’d that year 3, 4 and 5 look? Don’t worry I got you

14.7 and 6.3 in 50 games played and 50 games started

13.6 and 5.3 in 51 games played and 26 games started. But wait why he only started 26 games? Oh yeah that’s right he got benched because he couldn’t make open shots to save his life, played with zero aggression and couldn’t stay healthy.

14.8 and 5.7 in 61 games played and 61 games started.

Those are significant drop offs from that second year. He was a bust for us, period. That’s fine tho because he’s been able to bounce back. They aren’t a current playoff team tho, they’re 11th in the west. They had a hot start and are coming back down to earth. He’s the best player on a bad team putting up numbers. Not the first guy in history to do that and certainly won’t be the last. Let’s see how he does when other guys of significance are around him in a few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Please feel free to correct any and everybody from now on when they call 9.7 a 10 lol. My bad, you got me.

Playing 50 games in year 3 also isn't much of an issue when you only have like 60 games regardless because of the pandemic.

Bulls played him off the bench more when they added Thad Young and preferred that experience, defense, spacing. Not being aggressive enough, having a good off ball game, all of that is completely normal for a 3rd year player, and coming off the bench with a role is still completely normal for a 3rd year player. Bulls went a direction that didn't' suit him as much, that is normal too. All of this is normal.

He hasn't JUST put up good stats on bad teams since then. He started for Cleveland as more of a SF role, something Chicago didn't want him to be. He flourished in that role. They lost the play-in but were 8th, basically a playoff team in 99% of all other seasons. He also flourished in Utah when they were a playoff level team too. Regardless of where they stand now and where they finish after trading all their vets and playing the young guys.

You can mention all the little things he didn't do well, pretty much every non-superstar doesn't do all those things well in year 3 either. Again your standards of expecting a 7th pick to come in and be dominant aren't realistic. I just listed off 20 years of number 7 picks and Steph is literally the only star.

[ggsimmonds]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

We can disconnect the player from the pick. Team X drafts Joe Shmo with the 4th pick and it doesn't work out so they trade him in year 3 for draft capitol and/or another player.

I get what King is saying that the 4th pick for that team was a bust, but that doesn't make Joe Shmo himself a bust.

To OJs point yes, I started this by saying Wiseman was a bust. I'm willing to stand by that until he proves otherwise. No one is drafted #2 overall in the hope that one day they could "be active" in games and score 11 points. But I also see the valid point that it may be too soon to label him as such (has he even played a full season of games yet?)

But I'm comfortable giving him the label because that is what GSW did, and based on his trade value so has the rest of the league. I get wanting to wait before calling him a bust, but I feel like if we wait too long then the conversation becomes just a bunch of Captain Obvious's

[ggsimmonds]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

To me the term "bust" is all about the value the team that drafted him got based on the spot he was picked. Did he give them #2 overall value? Will he at some point? Doubtful to me, but that's a different thing. And it's not because teams aren't going to give him enough run to prove it. It's not these teams' responsibility to prove that he can put up individual stats, to somehow prove people on Twitter right about what he can do individually in the right situation, at the cost of being a bad team and changing coaching philosophy.

Here's my question with that, a team drafts a guy 3 overall. Middle of his rookie season he becomes the centerpiece of a trade to acquire an MVP caliber player.

But he fizzles out with his new team and is out of the league within 5 years.

Did his original team get good value for his pick?
Did he live up to expectations and potential?

[dubcity]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

Here's my question with that, a team drafts a guy 3 overall. Middle of his rookie season he becomes the centerpiece of a trade to acquire an MVP caliber player.



But he fizzles out with his new team and is out of the league within 5 years.



Did his original team get good value for his pick?

Did he live up to expectations and potential?

How did he play in that first year with the team that drafted him? I'm assuming he would have played well enough if that trade happened. I'd say as a draft pick he wasn't a bust, but his career was a quick rise and fall. The team that drafted him did well with that pick.

[ProfessaPackMan]

February Games Discussion Thread

I get wanting to wait before calling him a bust, but I feel like if we wait too long then the conversation becomes just a bunch of Captain Obvious's

I guess my counterpoint to this would be “So what?”

Not like anything is gained from being right and nothing is lost from being patient. The only downside would be “The convo is no fun if we have to always wait before forming an opinion”, but that wouldn’t be a bad thing considering the high # of **** opinions that get tossed out regularly.

But I’m probably alone and naive in that thinking lol

[ggsimmonds]

Re: February Games Discussion Thread

How did he play in that first year with the team that drafted him? I'm assuming he would have played well enough if that trade happened. I'd say as a draft pick he wasn't a bust, but his career was a quick rise and fall. The team that drafted him did well with that pick.

The primary point I was trying to get at what I think there's more nuance to it so that we can't make a blanket statement like a bust comes down to the value the team that drafted him got.

Lets fast forward ten years and Wiseman is on the tail end of his career. Imagine he went on to be a productive role/bench player with Detroit and peaked as a potential 6th MOY candidate.

To GSW, he's a bust.

To the broader basketball universe opinions may be mixed. Some say bust others not. I would think though that even those who say he's a bust would concede that he's a mild bust at worst.

But to the Pistons, he's certainly not a bust. For what they hoped to get from the trade he would arguably be a gem.

That's one player but 4 different value judgements on him.

Imagine if the Trailblazers drafted Greg Oden but before training camp they traded him for Carmelo Anthony and then once he reached Denver his career followed the same injury ridden trajectory. Under your definition of bust is Greg Oden no longer a bust?

I think context is important enough where we cannot create a simple rule for who is and isn't a bust.

I guess my counterpoint to this would be “So what?”

Not like anything is gained from being right and nothing is lost from being patient. The only downside would be “The convo is no fun if we have to always wait before forming an opinion”, but that wouldn’t be a bad thing considering the high # of **** opinions that get tossed out regularly.

But I’m probably alone and naive in that thinking lol

Its the value of a conversation. There's no value if I were to post "you know I think Kwame Brown is a bust" or on the other end, "I think Joker is an MVP caliber player." That doesn't lead to any kind of discourse. If we just sit here and exchange universally agreed upon opinions there's no value in that imo.

There's this happy medium where you can both be patient and give enough time, while not waiting until something is already an established fact (as much as this kind of thing can be called a fact at least).

I don't think we can reach consensus on how much time must pass before we reach that happy medium. Maybe in part because it could vary from one situation to the next (that dreaded context).

I'm mostly zeroing in on OJ's early comment that we can't label a guy a bust until we know he won't have a successful career. That's one end of the extreme, maybe someone would argue that my labeling Wiseman a bust is on the other extreme of not giving nearly enough time. That's a fair criticism.

But to me the label is tentative. Joker is an MVP caliber player as long as he plays to the level of an MVP. Likewise Wiseman is a bust as long as he fails to play to the level expected of a #2 overall pick. Three years from now he can make an all star appearance and no longer be a bust. I don't have a problem with that approach, but some people view the label of bust as having finality to it. I can see why those people prefer to wait longer.