RealGM

I have seen quite a few Nuggets poster suggest trading Trey Lyles, pointing out his lack of defense, etc . Lyles has come into TC in the best shape of his young career, has improved hi defense, has shown consistency throughout the preseason yet he still takes flak. Most even say that he can't be the PFOTF, foremost because of his lack of defense. I think he could become the starter if needed (although I think Vanderbilt may fill that role eventually)

To be fair, I have proposed trades with Trey myself but rather using his value to gain a superstar, not just to move on from him.

Am I off base, or is there something underlying here ??

Jokic, Murray, and Harris are locked for trades, 2019 FRP is already traded, Millsap, Plumlee, and Barton are under strong contracts hard to trade, and Porter value until he proves he can play is weak. So, Lyles is right now our the only real asset, no surprise he is often part of Nuggets fans trade ideas.

If there exist some irrational negativity about Lyles, I guess it is connected with Donovan Mitchell deal, but Lyles is last to be blamed for that. He actually improved last season over all expectations.

Modern fans want 15 superstars on their team and anyone that isn't a superstar, they want gone. That's a generalization but there's some truth to it. Role players are no longer valued.

Will Lyles be the starting PF on a championship contender? I don't think so, but he might be if the other four starters can carry the team. He's versatile and there's value to that. I definitely think he's worth keeping, but if we can trade him as part of a package that brings a significant upgrade, I'm cool with that.

NuggetsWY wrote:Modern fans want 15 superstars on their team and anyone that isn't a superstar, they want gone. That's a generalization but there's some truth to it. Role players are no longer valued.

Will Lyles be the starting PF on a championship contender? I don't think so, but he might be if the other four starters can carry the team. He's versatile and there's value to that. I definitely think he's worth keeping, but if we can trade him as part of a package that brings a significant upgrade, I'm cool with that.

While I am sure that plenty of fans would love 15 superstars on the roster, that is not what the big issue is with Lyles for me and most others I have seen discuss him.
It comes down to money. Teams cannot have 4 bench guys averaging $12+ million a year each while having 3-4 all star type talents. This year the Kroenkes gave up 3 picks to dump salary, sure it is only for next year 1st and a couple of 2nds, but how many times are we going to see them give up assets to cut money?
So the question is where do you see the fit If Lyles can improve defensively and hold down both the backup forward slots, than he could be worth the money. If you think he can start along with Murray/Harris/ and jokic than you can pay him. Especially if Porter Jr works out, I don’t see the fit with the starters, you need a scrappy defender that will do the dirty work, and I just never see Lyles being that guy.
Jokic, Murray, and Harris will be eating up 70% of the salary cap long term. Add in Barton and you are at 85% of the cap. Meaning if you bring back Lyles on anything more than a 1 year deal than the most you will have to spend on a starting quality forward is going to be the MLE in 2 years and you will likely be in the tax and paying the taxpayer MLE. You are also going to have to find a backup Center as well, as Plumlee will expire.
Lyles is a very good scorer, if his defense can improve and he can play throughout the season at both forward spots like he has this preseason he would work off the bench. He may be worth keeping. However if he shows he can only play PF and you do not see him as the long term starter, than it is better to trade him and get something worthwhile so that you can find a better long term fit with your starters.

The Rebel wrote:

NuggetsWY wrote:Modern fans want 15 superstars on their team and anyone that isn't a superstar, they want gone. That's a generalization but there's some truth to it. Role players are no longer valued.

Will Lyles be the starting PF on a championship contender? I don't think so, but he might be if the other four starters can carry the team. He's versatile and there's value to that. I definitely think he's worth keeping, but if we can trade him as part of a package that brings a significant upgrade, I'm cool with that.

While I am sure that plenty of fans would love 15 superstars on the roster, that is not what the big issue is with Lyles for me and most others I have seen discuss him.
It comes down to money. Teams cannot have 4 bench guys averaging $12+ million a year each while having 3-4 all star type talents. This year the Kroenkes gave up 3 picks to dump salary, sure it is only for next year 1st and a couple of 2nds, but how many times are we going to see them give up assets to cut money?
So the question is where do you see the fit If Lyles can improve defensively and hold down both the backup forward slots, than he could be worth the money. If you think he can start along with Murray/Harris/ and jokic than you can pay him. Especially if Porter Jr works out, I don’t see the fit with the starters, you need a scrappy defender that will do the dirty work, and I just never see Lyles being that guy.
Jokic, Murray, and Harris will be eating up 70% of the salary cap long term. Add in Barton and you are at 85% of the cap. Meaning if you bring back Lyles on anything more than a 1 year deal than the most you will have to spend on a starting quality forward is going to be the MLE in 2 years and you will likely be in the tax and paying the taxpayer MLE. You are also going to have to find a backup Center as well, as Plumlee will expire.
Lyles is a very good scorer, if his defense can improve and he can play throughout the season at both forward spots like he has this preseason he would work off the bench. He may be worth keeping. However if he shows he can only play PF and you do not see him as the long term starter, than it is better to trade him and get something worthwhile so that you can find a better long term fit with your starters.

Very true - but the current Nuggets management likes to overpay the players they like. IMO that's what they did for the last few years.

NuggetsWY wrote:

The Rebel wrote:

NuggetsWY wrote:Modern fans want 15 superstars on their team and anyone that isn't a superstar, they want gone. That's a generalization but there's some truth to it. Role players are no longer valued.

Will Lyles be the starting PF on a championship contender? I don't think so, but he might be if the other four starters can carry the team. He's versatile and there's value to that. I definitely think he's worth keeping, but if we can trade him as part of a package that brings a significant upgrade, I'm cool with that.

While I am sure that plenty of fans would love 15 superstars on the roster, that is not what the big issue is with Lyles for me and most others I have seen discuss him.
It comes down to money. Teams cannot have 4 bench guys averaging $12+ million a year each while having 3-4 all star type talents. This year the Kroenkes gave up 3 picks to dump salary, sure it is only for next year 1st and a couple of 2nds, but how many times are we going to see them give up assets to cut money?
So the question is where do you see the fit If Lyles can improve defensively and hold down both the backup forward slots, than he could be worth the money. If you think he can start along with Murray/Harris/ and jokic than you can pay him. Especially if Porter Jr works out, I don’t see the fit with the starters, you need a scrappy defender that will do the dirty work, and I just never see Lyles being that guy.
Jokic, Murray, and Harris will be eating up 70% of the salary cap long term. Add in Barton and you are at 85% of the cap. Meaning if you bring back Lyles on anything more than a 1 year deal than the most you will have to spend on a starting quality forward is going to be the MLE in 2 years and you will likely be in the tax and paying the taxpayer MLE. You are also going to have to find a backup Center as well, as Plumlee will expire.
Lyles is a very good scorer, if his defense can improve and he can play throughout the season at both forward spots like he has this preseason he would work off the bench. He may be worth keeping. However if he shows he can only play PF and you do not see him as the long term starter, than it is better to trade him and get something worthwhile so that you can find a better long term fit with your starters.

Very true - but the current Nuggets management likes to overpay the players they like. IMO that's what they did for the last few years.

Oh, c'mon WY, what team/company LIKES to overpay. More realistic they feel they HAVE to overpay to compete because they're a mid-market team and coming by upper-end talent isn't as easy as it is to teams like LA .

The Rebel wrote:Jokic, Murray, and Harris will be eating up 70% of the salary cap long term. Add in Barton and you are at 85% of the cap. Meaning if you bring back Lyles on anything more than a 1 year deal than the most you will have to spend on a starting quality forward is going to be the MLE in 2 years and you will likely be in the tax and paying the taxpayer MLE. You are also going to have to find a backup Center as well, as Plumlee will expire.
Lyles is a very good scorer, if his defense can improve and he can play throughout the season at both forward spots like he has this preseason he would work off the bench. He may be worth keeping. However if he shows he can only play PF and you do not see him as the long term starter, than it is better to trade him and get something worthwhile so that you can find a better long term fit with your starters.

70% seems like a bit of an exageration for just Jokic ($27M), Murray (est $20M) and Harris ($17M) is $64M and the cap is estimated at $109M is about 58% and that doesn't encompass the luxury cap apron. Also that Murray estimate won't come into reality until 2020 when the cap is estimated at $118M. Even then, both Plumlee and Millsap (should he play out his contract) should come off the bench opening up $45M. A good capologist should be able to make it work

I can see the concern, but it's not like KSE is hurting for money, especially if we're getting into the playoffs. I really can't see Lyles getting more than $8-10M per year as a RFA, which seems reasonable for the versatility and consistency he appears to be maturing into. And from what I've seen, his defense is getting better, not Millsap good but better and improving at 23yo. They are also a lot of competition for FA money, unless Lyles avgs 15+/9+ he'll be in our scope, we do value loyalty

skywalker33 wrote:

NuggetsWY wrote:

The Rebel wrote:While I am sure that plenty of fans would love 15 superstars on the roster, that is not what the big issue is with Lyles for me and most others I have seen discuss him.
It comes down to money. Teams cannot have 4 bench guys averaging $12+ million a year each while having 3-4 all star type talents. This year the Kroenkes gave up 3 picks to dump salary, sure it is only for next year 1st and a couple of 2nds, but how many times are we going to see them give up assets to cut money?
So the question is where do you see the fit If Lyles can improve defensively and hold down both the backup forward slots, than he could be worth the money. If you think he can start along with Murray/Harris/ and jokic than you can pay him. Especially if Porter Jr works out, I don’t see the fit with the starters, you need a scrappy defender that will do the dirty work, and I just never see Lyles being that guy.
Jokic, Murray, and Harris will be eating up 70% of the salary cap long term. Add in Barton and you are at 85% of the cap. Meaning if you bring back Lyles on anything more than a 1 year deal than the most you will have to spend on a starting quality forward is going to be the MLE in 2 years and you will likely be in the tax and paying the taxpayer MLE. You are also going to have to find a backup Center as well, as Plumlee will expire.
Lyles is a very good scorer, if his defense can improve and he can play throughout the season at both forward spots like he has this preseason he would work off the bench. He may be worth keeping. However if he shows he can only play PF and you do not see him as the long term starter, than it is better to trade him and get something worthwhile so that you can find a better long term fit with your starters.

Very true - but the current Nuggets management likes to overpay the players they like. IMO that's what they did for the last few years.

Oh, c'mon WY, what team/company LIKES to overpay. More realistic they feel they HAVE to overpay to compete because they're a mid-market team and coming by upper-end talent isn't as easy as it is to teams like LA .

I understand that, but overpaying for players that are perpetually injured like Arthur, Gallinari, & Chandler should be reserved for serious contenders. It wasn't a major issue because nobody of significance wanted to play for us anyway. But signing them to multi-year contracts limits what a team can do.

I'm not a fan of Barton as a starter at SF but in my opinion he's a great backup SF and if we didn't have Harris, a great starting SG (as well as backup). I feel like they overpaid him this year just because it didn't seem like anyone else was overly interested in him. Yet it isn't a cap-killing contract. It's probably only $5-6m over where I thought he should be and perhaps I was wrong. I only wish it had been two years, perhaps even more dollars, but shorter and an extra year as a team option, not a player option.

Let your stars dictate, but not the 4th & 5th starters and certainly not bench players.

As Rebel has pointed out; Jokic, Harris, Murray will take up 3/4 of the cap space in the near future. So other players need to be signed with that in mind. If we are willing to pay cap-penalties, then we can keep Millsap one more year. Even if we renegotiate on the team option, he'll no doubt push us over the cap. If we sign a significant forward (or perhaps Porter becomes a major star), a fourth big contract takes us to the cap and all other contracts are over the cap --- meaning double/triple their actual dollars.

So far, the Nuggets haven't hurt themselves (much) with their cap-management (unless they could have found a big star with the dollars they spent on non-Allstars). But just like a team needs to learn how to win, a front office needs to learn how to manage cap issues and they just haven't shown that they understand that.

Well, at least one guy may see eye-to-eye with me....LOL

https://nugglove.com/2018/10/14/trey-lyles-denver-nuggets-lineup/

skywalker33 wrote:

The Rebel wrote:Jokic, Murray, and Harris will be eating up 70% of the salary cap long term. Add in Barton and you are at 85% of the cap. Meaning if you bring back Lyles on anything more than a 1 year deal than the most you will have to spend on a starting quality forward is going to be the MLE in 2 years and you will likely be in the tax and paying the taxpayer MLE. You are also going to have to find a backup Center as well, as Plumlee will expire.
Lyles is a very good scorer, if his defense can improve and he can play throughout the season at both forward spots like he has this preseason he would work off the bench. He may be worth keeping. However if he shows he can only play PF and you do not see him as the long term starter, than it is better to trade him and get something worthwhile so that you can find a better long term fit with your starters.

70% seems like a bit of an exageration for just Jokic ($27M), Murray (est $20M) and Harris ($17M) is $64M and the cap is estimated at $109M is about 58% and that doesn't encompass the luxury cap apron. Also that Murray estimate won't come into reality until 2020 when the cap is estimated at $118M. Even then, both Plumlee and Millsap (should he play out his contract) should come off the bench opening up $45M. A good capologist should be able to make it work

I think you are dramatically underrating Murray's next contract, if he continues at even close to the progression he showed last year than I do not see anyway he signs an extension for less than his full max deal of 25% of the cap or $29.5 million his 1st year. You are also ignoring the incentives in Harris's deal, which can easily put his contract to $21 million per year as soon as this year and will likely be $22 million the following year. Jokic will be at $27.5 million next season as well, the following year he will be at $29.5. So no it is no exaggeration that 2 years from today they are taking up more than 70% of the cap if the cap meets projections they are at 68.7% of the cap, and the cap has not met projections in 2 of the last 3 years. Add in the current guaranteed deals of $20.5 million and the cap holds for 4 players and our 1st round pick at $5.7 million or so, and you are at $106.2 million with Plumlee, Millsap, Juancho, Beasley, Lyles, Craig, Thomas, and the 2 way contracts all expiring between then and now.

Meaning that your lineup is
Murray/ Morris
Harris/Barton
Porter JR
Vanderbuilt
Jokic

With $12 million or only $2.5 million more than the MLE to get a starting PF, backup C, and backup SF with no moves between now and then.

Obviously if Porter JR, Welsh, and Vanderbuilt work out than we are fine, but reality is that 2 are major injury risks and the other a late 2nd round pick. Last year good starting PFs all seemed to sign well above MLE deals, with Favors signing for $16 million a year. Taj Gibson signed for $14 million per a year ago, and Julius Randle sign for $8.8 million after having his 1st good year. You are not getting a starting quality PF for less than the MLE, which will be $9.5 million in 2 years.

skywalker33 wrote:I can see the concern, but it's not like KSE is hurting for money, especially if we're getting into the playoffs. I really can't see Lyles getting more than $8-10M per year as a RFA, which seems reasonable for the versatility and consistency he appears to be maturing into. And from what I've seen, his defense is getting better, not Millsap good but better and improving at 23yo. They are also a lot of competition for FA money, unless Lyles avgs 15+/9+ he'll be in our scope, we do value loyalty

Next year there will be 6 times more available cap space than this year, which will put it near the 2016 cap space that so many had. Even if Lyles only maintains the stats and advanced stats that he had last year for this season he will get at least the MLE. Reality is if he has improved he will get a $15 million per year deal from someone as they will have to spend the cap space.

Next summer is also the only year we are likely to have the cap space to sign a starting quality PF before Murray gets his extension. IF we opt out of Millsap's deal and renounce Lyles we have $15 million or so in cap space, if we keep Lyles than we will have the MLE.

Last year Jerami Grant and Randle signed for basically MLE money, next summer that is likely not going to get even that quality of player.

Fact of the matter is that you cannot tie up more than MLE money to a backup single position player if you want a great team. Lyles is not a fit with the starters in my eyes, and he has not shown the positional ability to play 2 positions in meaningful minutes. Meaning you are tying up your 1 chance to add proven starting level talent to the team so that you can pay a backup PF above MLE money for his 15-20 minutes per night.

It is not about how much money the Kroenkes have, it is about building the roster so that you can make moves in the future and fill holes when needed while not burying yourself in luxury tax killing all flexibility for a backup 1 position player.

Well, I have a hard time seeing Murray getting a full max, can't see him making more than Jokic. Miles Turner just got 4yr $80M which is close to what I expect Murray to get unless he jumps up to the 24ppg+ range and I don't see that happening this year. Guess we'll just have to see how it turns out, don't we.

This is the resource I am using for my math calculations, right or wrong I feel it's close. I can't speculation at incentives or bonuses, so I'll project only what is known.

https://earlybirdrights.com/salary-cap/den/

Murray's deal won't come into effect until 2020 whereas this says the cap will be at $118M, again not that far-fetched of an estimate

At that cap, 70% of the cap would be $82,600,000. If Jokic is $28.680.000 and Harris is going to make $19,161,000. For those 3 to make 70% Murray would have to make $34, 759,000 and that isn't reasonable. At 60% the cap is looking to be $70,800,000 and Murray would make closer to $22,960,000 much more realistic IMO. As WY has stated, the FO has to manage the cap sometime rather than letting the cap get away from them, this seems to be doing just that.

skywalker33 wrote:Well, I have a hard time seeing Murray getting a full max, can't see him making more than Jokic. Miles Turner just got 4yr $80M which is close to what I expect Murray to get unless he jumps up to the 24ppg+ range and I don't see that happening this year. Guess we'll just have to see how it turns out, don't we.

Yeah, you're right there but there was a recent survey of GMs that said Murray was most likely to have a breakout season. We'll see. I don't believe we should give any player more than other teams would pay the same guy.

Since this thread was started about Lyles, I can see him getting something similar to the 4-yr $45M Larry Nance Jr just got. Nance is considered a starter so I don't see Lyles exceeding that

I think a lot of people started off anti-Lyles because of the colossal mistake the FO made in getting too cute and hoping OG would slide to #23. If that maneuver had paid off nobody would mind Lyles at all, but it didn't so Lyles became a target of the vitriol.

nomansland wrote:I think a lot of people started off anti-Lyles because of the colossal mistake the FO made in getting too cute and hoping OG would slide to #23. If that maneuver had paid off nobody would mind Lyles at all, but it didn't so Lyles became a target of the vitriol.

That's exactly my thoughts as well. TC should have move up a couple of spots (we had the 2nds to do it) to secure OG instead of being passive based on his injury.

skywalker33 wrote:

nomansland wrote:I think a lot of people started off anti-Lyles because of the colossal mistake the FO made in getting too cute and hoping OG would slide to #23. If that maneuver had paid off nobody would mind Lyles at all, but it didn't so Lyles became a target of the vitriol.

That's exactly my thoughts as well. TC should have move up a couple of spots (we had the 2nds to do it) to secure OG instead of being passive based on his injury.

In my mind, it's worse than just Lyles vs. Anunoby. While the Nuggets have drafted some reasonably decent players, what they haven't done is drafter athletic players. The players that will work best with Jokic are athletic players that will cut and drive. Lyles isn't a bad choice but Lydon + Lyles is still not as nice a fit as Anunoby. Two-for-one can be nice and Lyles & Lydon are nice players but they are not the best fit for the Nuggets IMO. Consider also the Nuggets have enough young depth. What they need is the best possible players - not quantity.

Consider also that Malone does not appear to be adept at developing young players. Jokic, Harris, Murray all seem to have had to fight to prove themselves capable players. Lyles is still questionable but looking decent. Meanwhile Beasley seems to be stagnant (although showing progress this year - we'll see if he gets PT during the season though). Lydon hasn't had a chance to show much. Craig had some short bursts and that was it. Hernangomez gets short chances but shows no real improvement. Where's the development? What the Nuggets need to do is acquire the best possible young players or their picks will sit on the bench. Anunoby might have gotten more PT than Lyles and certainly has great potential upside.

NuggetsWY wrote:

skywalker33 wrote:

nomansland wrote:I think a lot of people started off anti-Lyles because of the colossal mistake the FO made in getting too cute and hoping OG would slide to #23. If that maneuver had paid off nobody would mind Lyles at all, but it didn't so Lyles became a target of the vitriol.

That's exactly my thoughts as well. TC should have move up a couple of spots (we had the 2nds to do it) to secure OG instead of being passive based on his injury.

In my mind, it's worse than just Lyles vs. Anunoby. While the Nuggets have drafted some reasonably decent players, what they haven't done is drafter athletic players. The players that will work best with Jokic are athletic players that will cut and drive. Lyles isn't a bad choice but Lydon + Lyles is still not as nice a fit as Anunoby. Two-for-one can be nice and Lyles & Lydon are nice players but they are not the best fit for the Nuggets IMO. Consider also the Nuggets have enough young depth. What they need is the best possible players - not quantity.

Consider also that Malone does not appear to be adept at developing young players. Jokic, Harris, Murray all seem to have had to fight to prove themselves capable players. Lyles is still questionable but looking decent. Meanwhile Beasley seems to be stagnant (although showing progress this year - we'll see if he gets PT during the season though). Lydon hasn't had a chance to show much. Craig had some short bursts and that was it. Hernangomez gets short chances but shows no real improvement. Where's the development? What the Nuggets need to do is acquire the best possible young players or their picks will sit on the bench. Anunoby might have gotten more PT than Lyles and certainly has great potential upside.

WTF ???? That's one of Malone's few strengths !!! That's one of the most Malone-hatred thing I've seen you write and it's far from the truth. He may be bad at the X's and O's but at least give him credit for what he does do well. And how did Jokic, Murray and Harris have to "fight" to prove themselves ?? Should they just deserve to get PT based on the draft status , perhaps their "potential" ?? ALL players need to prove themselves otherwise they ride the bench or get cut.

Not only did Malone help develop Jokic, Harris, Lyles and Murray, he helped elevate IT's and Cousins game in SAC. Murray got PT in his first year despite missing his first 22 shots, Harris' first year under Malone was like day and night compared to his rookie year. Beasley may have taken longer but even so, the player has to show they're ready, he hadn't (hasn't ?) yet but signs are there. And Juancho, he got a fair amt of PT his rookie year then got sick with mono the following year, hard to develop a player who physically CAN'T compete and how can you blame Malone for that ?. And Lydon is buried behind good players

I believe the Nuggets HAVE been putting good player around Joker. You can't include Harris (although he fits well) because he was drafted prior to Jokic. Murray looks ideal with Jokic, Lyles can play with him. Millsap isn't the athletic PF he used to be but that was a great pick up. And if Barton isn't athletic enough for you, take another gander. Don't tell me they aren't building properly around Jokic based upon them NOT drafting Mitchell, total cop out IMO ! Look at all the shooters he has in Murray, MPJ, Barton, Harris, Lydon, Hernanjomes...they all open up the paint for Joker to post up and pass in, generally do that Joker magic.

As for not drafting Mitchell, not hard to see that TWELVE other teams besides the Nuggets pass on him too, there was no NEON sign saying "STAR" on that halo of his. If it was so apparent he'd of been a top2 pick and this conversation would be moot.

skywalker33 wrote:

NuggetsWY wrote:

skywalker33 wrote:That's exactly my thoughts as well. TC should have move up a couple of spots (we had the 2nds to do it) to secure OG instead of being passive based on his injury.

In my mind, it's worse than just Lyles vs. Anunoby. While the Nuggets have drafted some reasonably decent players, what they haven't done is drafter athletic players. The players that will work best with Jokic are athletic players that will cut and drive. Lyles isn't a bad choice but Lydon + Lyles is still not as nice a fit as Anunoby. Two-for-one can be nice and Lyles & Lydon are nice players but they are not the best fit for the Nuggets IMO. Consider also the Nuggets have enough young depth. What they need is the best possible players - not quantity.

Consider also that Malone does not appear to be adept at developing young players. Jokic, Harris, Murray all seem to have had to fight to prove themselves capable players. Lyles is still questionable but looking decent. Meanwhile Beasley seems to be stagnant (although showing progress this year - we'll see if he gets PT during the season though). Lydon hasn't had a chance to show much. Craig had some short bursts and that was it. Hernangomez gets short chances but shows no real improvement. Where's the development? What the Nuggets need to do is acquire the best possible young players or their picks will sit on the bench. Anunoby might have gotten more PT than Lyles and certainly has great potential upside.

WTF ???? That's one of Malone's few strengths !!! That's one of the most Malone-hatred thing I've seen you write and it's far from the truth. He may be bad at the X's and O's but at least give him credit for what he does do well. And how did Jokic, Murray and Harris have to "fight" to prove themselves ?? Should they just deserve to get PT based on the draft status , perhaps their "potential" ?? ALL players need to prove themselves otherwise they ride the bench or get cut.

Not only did Malone help develop Jokic, Harris, Lyles and Murray, he helped elevate IT's and Cousins game in SAC. Murray got PT in his first year despite missing his first 22 shots, Harris' first year under Malone was like day and night compared to his rookie year. Beasley may have taken longer but even so, the player has to show they're ready, he hadn't (hasn't ?) yet but signs are there. And Juancho, he got a fair amt of PT his rookie year then got sick with mono the following year, hard to develop a player who physically CAN'T compete and how can you blame Malone for that ?. And Lydon is buried behind good players

I believe the Nuggets HAVE been putting good player around Joker. You can't include Harris (although he fits well) because he was drafted prior to Jokic. Murray looks ideal with Jokic, Lyles can play with him. Millsap isn't the athletic PF he used to be but that was a great pick up. And if Barton isn't athletic enough for you, take another gander. Don't tell me they aren't building properly around Jokic based upon them NOT drafting Mitchell, total cop out IMO ! Look at all the shooters he has in Murray, MPJ, Barton, Harris, Lydon, Hernanjomes...they all open up the paint for Joker to post up and pass in, generally do that Joker magic.

As for not drafting Mitchell, not hard to see that TWELVE other teams besides the Nuggets pass on him too, there was no NEON sign saying "STAR" on that halo of his. If it was so apparent he'd of been a top2 pick and this conversation would be moot.

Gary Harris pre and post-Malone is a pretty damn good example of what a difference Malone can make.

I would submit Malone did not do well with Nurkic and initially, he did not do well with Jokic. He tried to make those two work together. He wanted Jokic to be a PF and that slowed down Jokic's development. Even when Jokic showed up big-time in December, Malone still tried to change Jokic and call plays and run the offense through Nelson then Barton. That hindered Jokic's development. In Jokic's rookie year, he averaged 4 assists per game and the next two years 6.3 & 6.7. If Malone had been developing Jokic, there wouldn't be such a big jump. He was still trying to make Jokic into a traditional center and/or PF. He still likes to play Jokic with Plumlee and clearly Plumlee is a pure center - that still makes Jokic a PF.

The Nurkic situation was a no-win for Malone. Probably for any coach. You had 2 starting level center, one of whom is a superior talent but willing to play off the bench, and another who is a bitch diva unwilling to play 2nd fiddle to the extent that he'd essentially quit and force a trade.

So he tries to start them both- and it worked at the end of the first season for 3-4 games- and went with it for another 20 games the following season until it was clear it wouldn't work. Is that really Malone's fault?

Beyond that though claiming that he stifled Jokic's development inherently negates the possibility that he could have been helping Jokic in other ways- just not the ways that are evident to arm chair quarterbacks who have zero idea of what happens behind the scenes.