Keegan Murray

[A_dub06]

Maybe I’m being overly critical but I disagree that it’s not about the awesome things he’s done, I think it is. If you take picking Cade out of the equation since every team would’ve done so anyway I think what’s left ranges from below average to slightly above average, but falling in below average area. When he’s used cap space it’s been used poorly. What happened when he had a truck load of it? More stop gap overpaid role players that require compensation to dump when they don’t work out?

The more I go over this in my head I’m definitely nitpicking since we are hasn’t had a long tenure, but I’ve definitely disliked almost all of his moves and don’t trust him with cap space.

Time will tell I guess…

I'm curious, how has he used the cap space poorly? They currently have among the most cap space in the league and have no long term commitments on the books so your statement about his poor cap management is a bit confusing to me.
One can argue that the stretches were pointless but they're really inconsequential and aren't inhibiting the Pistons from making major moves in any way whatsoever. Trading Bruce Brown was a headscratcher but not a really big deal in the long run. Plumlee trade was a bit odd but, again, really inconsequential in the long run.

I'm not saying that Weaver hasn't made a few minor mistakes here and there nor am I saying that he has done anything major in a positive way to earn the utmost trust in him "Trust in Weaver etc." but I'm just not seeing much to really dislike about his tenure thus far.
We all wanted a true rebuild for the longest time and that's exactly what we're getting. He literally blew up the past regime entirely in less than 2 years and has a roster with plenty of young talent and cap space going forward to add to it. Now the REAL work begins and the next few offseasons will shape his legacy as a result.

As I’ve already said, he signed Plumlee (which wasn’t he dumped the following season which required a 2nd round pick) which shows that was a mistake, KO hasn’t worked out and CJ didn’t require a guaranteed 2nd yr on his deal. In the small amount of moves he’s made, none of those deals were smart or worth the money meaning we could’ve used it to crate value aka take on a bad contract and get draft capital in return.

I haven’t said let’s fire Weaver, I’ve simply said that he has made poor decisions with cap space so far, nowhere have I said they were franchise crippling moves. Based off this small sample size I’m not filled with positivity when I think of the amount of cap space we have coupled with the free agent crop. If he signs a couple of small upgrade players to $10-$12m+ a year deals, that’s big amount of cap wasted and will probably raise our floor lowering our draft pick next year. I don’t want marginal upgrades, I want to build via the draft another year and after next years draft go all out and sign the guys we want. I know it’s a pipe dream but a team consisting of Cade, hopefully Sharpe or whatever player we get with #5, hopefully an improved Bey and Stewart, Incoming young player via a grant trade and Webenyama/Scoot/next years pick is much more attractive for free agents and will look like a team on the up that they can jump in on. Cade is the only player we have with star potential, we need another before we can look like a team that’s ready to start pushing up the ladder for home court advantage as opposed to another team getting bounced in the 1st round.

[DetroitDon15]

It’s not an exciting pick but could be a logical one.

I’d be okay with it as long as we don’t also re-up Grant.

I’d prefer Ivey over Murray. I also agree that Murray isn’t the pick if Grant is still here.

I'd like Ivey, but I don't really view this as a choice between the two of them. Ivey will be picked before 5 IMO. Either one of the top 3 will reach on him or the Kings will take him.

I’m not convinced that the Kings take Ivey with Fox still on board. I could see them moving the pick. I just think that Murray is perfect fit need wise for the kings. I’m hoping that is the direction that they go.

[Rodman]

I was watching Pro Day workouts of sharpe and I am still enamored with his possibilities as a bucket maker. I was impressed with his ability to get a good shot off posting up at his size. Then I looked at Keegan Murray's Pro Day film and I began to Envision what he would look like as a 2 guard . He's a a 3-level scorer can stretch the floor and would be a nightmare matchup for smaller guards. His handles seem to be better than Klay Thompson. If Ivey is off the board if Sharpe is too big of a reach what do you think of Murray as a 2 guard? I am not impressed with Murray as a forward but as a shooting guard maybe. His strengths would be similar to klay Thompson. Constant movement

[keepitrealhomes]

I was watching Pro Day workouts of sharpe and I am still enamored with his possibilities as a bucket maker. I was impressed with his ability to get a good shot off posting up at his size. Then I looked at Keegan Murray's Pro Day film and I began to Envision what he would look like as a 2 guard . He's a a 3-level scorer can stretch the floor and would be a nightmare matchup for smaller guards. His handles seem to be better than Klay Thompson. If Ivey is off the board if Sharpe is too big of a reach what do you think of Murray as a 2 guard? I am not impressed with Murray as a forward but as a shooting guard maybe. His strengths would be similar to klay Thompson. Constant movement

I always thought it was more likely that he’d spend some time at the 2 rather than the small ball 5 like some analysts suggest.

[Pharaoh]

Personally don't see Murray as 2 or a small ball 5.

Think he'll spend the vast majority of his time at the 3/4 and Bey will slide to the 2 at times.

That said I still want Daniels based on the stuff I've seen. He's a big 3/2 with playmaking abilities and we need all the playmakers we can get on the floor IMO

Then again we don't play the way I'd prefer so maybe Murray is the better selection

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[zeebneeb]

Personally don't see Murray as 2 or a small ball 5.

Think he'll spend the vast majority of his time at the 3/4 and Bey will slide to the 2 at times.

That said I still want Daniels based on the stuff I've seen. He's a big 3/2 with playmaking abilities and we need all the playmakers we can get on the floor IMO

Then again we don't play the way I'd prefer so maybe Murray is the better selection

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

What way would you prefer the Pistons to play? With set plays, and actual coaching?

Good luck with that.

[Homelander87]

Murray is absolutely a 3. Too slow for the 2 and too small for the 4 or 5

[BDM22]

Murray is absolutely a 3. Too slow for the 2 and too small for the 4 or 5

Murray will absolutely be able to play the 4.

[Sort]

Murray will need to bulk up some down low to handle positional battles, but he's a four. Pistons switch a lot, so positions simply don't matter much in the half court with the team as its coached right now.

There will be two areas that will be the most important for Murray if we do draft him. One will be how well his defense develops and the other is his passing. He's used to playing with space at Iowa, but he will have to pass more to be effective offensively and his defense just needs to do well to keep him on the court.

The other potential plus with someone like Murray is that he's going to outplay his contract. Someone like Sharpe will be a net negative next year even if he does work out.

[Crymson]

Let's get certain misconceptions out of the way: Murray is not a three-level scorer (he showed no aptitude for midrange offense at Iowa), and his handle on the drive is currently bad. Unequivocally bad. That's a big part of why he struggled to get past even bad NCAA defenders on the drive, and it's a big part of why his ability to create offense in the halfcourt at the NBA level is very much in question. If he can't create offense in the halfcourt, then he's a role player. I don't think a role player on offense who isn't an elite defender is a good return on #5, particularly for a team like the Pistons which certainly needs more high-end talent. I'm not sure that a role player on offense who DOES play elite defense would be a good option for the Pistons at #5.

What’s worse is drafting an unproven player based on “potential” (read: athleticism but lack of demonstrated skill) who busts.

I'd say that Mathurin has both demonstrated skill and more upside than Murray. He also provides elite athleticism, which this starting lineup desperately needs.

Anyway, would you rather gamble on upside---this team certainly needs more high-end talent---or go with the safe pick in a guy like Murray, whose like, unless he becomes drastically better at creating in the halfcourt, could simply be had in free agency?

Murray is absolutely a 3. Too slow for the 2 and too small for the 4 or 5

6'8"ish and 225 with a 6'11" wingspan is by no means too small to play at power forward, and he's got the size and length to play minutes as small-ball center in certain situations.

There is certainly no prospect of him playing shooting guard.

[zeebneeb]

This just keeps getting better. Now Murray is too small to play the 4(good grief), and Mathurin is nothing but Pope, so it appears it's Ivey or bust.

It was easier with the #1 pick and concensus.

[Kalamazoo317]

Still on record as thinking Mathurin will end up better than Ivey. If we end up picking Ivey, though, I'm going to immediately be in his camp over Math's, though.

[Manocad]

Let's get certain misconceptions out of the way: Murray is not a three-level scorer (he showed no aptitude for midrange offense at Iowa), and his handle on the drive is currently bad. Unequivocally bad. That's a big part of why he struggled to get past even bad NCAA defenders on the drive, and it's a big part of why his ability to create offense in the halfcourt at the NBA level is very much in question. If he can't create offense in the halfcourt, then he's a role player. I don't think a role player on offense who isn't an elite defender is a good return on #5, particularly for a team like the Pistons which certainly needs more high-end talent. I'm not sure that a role player on offense who DOES play elite defense would be a good option for the Pistons at #5.

What’s worse is drafting an unproven player based on “potential” (read: athleticism but lack of demonstrated skill) who busts.

I'd say that Mathurin has both demonstrated skill and more upside than Murray. He also provides elite athleticism, which this starting lineup desperately needs.

Anyway, would you rather gamble on upside---this team certainly needs more high-end talent---or go with the safe pick in a guy like Murray, whose like, unless he becomes drastically better at creating in the halfcourt, could simply be had in free agency?

I was referring to Sharpe. And no, I wouldn't gamble on "upside" because I don't equate "can jump really high" with "upside." Murray scored 23.5 PPG in a tough conference. That's upside in my book.

[DetroitDon15]

Let's get certain misconceptions out of the way: Murray is not a three-level scorer (he showed no aptitude for midrange offense at Iowa), and his handle on the drive is currently bad. Unequivocally bad. That's a big part of why he struggled to get past even bad NCAA defenders on the drive, and it's a big part of why his ability to create offense in the halfcourt at the NBA level is very much in question. If he can't create offense in the halfcourt, then he's a role player. I don't think a role player on offense who isn't an elite defender is a good return on #5, particularly for a team like the Pistons which certainly needs more high-end talent. I'm not sure that a role player on offense who DOES play elite defense would be a good option for the Pistons at #5.

What’s worse is drafting an unproven player based on “potential” (read: athleticism but lack of demonstrated skill) who busts.

I'd say that Mathurin has both demonstrated skill and more upside than Murray. He also provides elite athleticism, which this starting lineup desperately needs.

Anyway, would you rather gamble on upside---this team certainly needs more high-end talent---or go with the safe pick in a guy like Murray, whose like, unless he becomes drastically better at creating in the halfcourt, could simply be had in free agency?

I was referring to Sharpe. And no, I wouldn't gamble on "upside" because I don't equate "can jump really high" with "upside." Murray scored 23.5 PPG in a tough conference. That's upside in my book.

I agree that I am passing in Sharpe. Dude skipped college and his high school career was not on par with Kobe/LeBron skill/hype. I’m not risking that type of chance in the lotto. Taking Hayes over Halliburton was mistake enough for me. If we take Murray, I see him at three, bey at 2 and Cade at one.

[bstein14]

Murray is absolutely a 3. Too slow for the 2 and too small for the 4 or 5

Murray is slightly bigger than Bey, who played the 4 a lot this season when Grant was down. Some people here actually think Bey's best NBA position is PF. Murray also got about twice as many rebounds per minute as Bey when comparing their sophomore seasons.

I'd be pretty surprised, in a league continuing to go smaller and smaller... if Murray doesn't play a fair bit of PF in his career in the NBA.

[Jsindto]

Let's get certain misconceptions out of the way: Murray is not a three-level scorer (he showed no aptitude for midrange offense at Iowa), and his handle on the drive is currently bad. Unequivocally bad. That's a big part of why he struggled to get past even bad NCAA defenders on the drive, and it's a big part of why his ability to create offense in the halfcourt at the NBA level is very much in question. If he can't create offense in the halfcourt, then he's a role player. I don't think a role player on offense who isn't an elite defender is a good return on #5, particularly for a team like the Pistons which certainly needs more high-end talent. I'm not sure that a role player on offense who DOES play elite defense would be a good option for the Pistons at #5.



I'd say that Mathurin has both demonstrated skill and more upside than Murray. He also provides elite athleticism, which this starting lineup desperately needs.

Anyway, would you rather gamble on upside---this team certainly needs more high-end talent---or go with the safe pick in a guy like Murray, whose like, unless he becomes drastically better at creating in the halfcourt, could simply be had in free agency?

I was referring to Sharpe. And no, I wouldn't gamble on "upside" because I don't equate "can jump really high" with "upside." Murray scored 23.5 PPG in a tough conference. That's upside in my book.

I agree that I am passing in Sharpe. Dude skipped college and his high school career was not on par with Kobe/LeBron skill/hype. I’m not risking that type of chance in the lotto. Taking Hayes over Halliburton was mistake enough for me. If we take Murray, I see him at three, bey at 2 and Cade at one.

That could be a pretty damn bad defensive lineup. Bey is fine guarding 3s, but he would get torched trying to guard 2s. I think Murray will be fine IMO guarding 4s, but I'll need to see him guarding 3s first. Probably better than Bey guarding 2s. That's the part of the equation that I see being a potential defensive disaster. I'd just go Cade at 1/2, Bey at 3, Murray at 4, and rotation at the other 1/2 spot. Honestly best case is you trade Grant for a top 10 pick and get Mathurin/Daniels/Sharpe. Because then you have your backcourt mate with Cade. All 3 work with him IF they end up working out in general. ie Daniels' 3 ball is fine and Sharpe actually is good in year 2/3.

[zeebneeb]

Yeah, if Grant is moved for 7/8/9/10, the hope is that you select Murray, and then also grab Mathurin/Sharpe.

That would be ideal, and to me at least, better then a top 3 pick.

I can't even imagine landing two of these guys. Per chance to dream...

[Kalamazoo317]

Unless Banchero drops. I think there's a world in which it happens.

[Jsindto]

Yeah, if Grant is moved for 7/8/9/10, the hope is that you select Murray, and then also grab Mathurin/Sharpe.

That would be ideal, and to me at least, better then a top 3 pick.

I can't even imagine landing two of these guys. Per chance to dream...

The only thing better than that is if they actually can just sign Ayton outright and the Suns don't try to get him for anything other than maybe flipping a couple of expirings to maintain their over the cap figure. If you somehow came out with Murray/Mathurin/Ayton in and Grant out, you're honestly set up for a 2nd round level team in 2023-24 if both Murray/Mathurin hit. Would be an incredible turnaround. 2022-23 would still probably be a play-in type team because you're starting two rookies. But that's still phenomenal obviously.

Having said that, my ultimate dream is Ivey at 5, a wing with a Grant trade, and you somehow get Ayton for basically nothing somehow. That'd be incredible.

[Jsindto]

Unless Banchero drops. I think there's a world in which it happens.

Drops to 5? I see no world where that happens. I can see you thinking that SAC wouldn't want him because of Sabonis, but if it's Paolo at 4 instead of Ivey, that will be INCREDIBLY easy to trade that pick. So if Weaver wants him, he'd have to give up Grant at a minimum, if not more.

If you tell me that Grant and 5 nets you Paolo, I probably do that. I wouldn't for Ivey, but would for one of the big men if they fall to 4.