The Brandon Jennings Conundrum (Day 30)

raferfenix · Post #1181 » by **raferfenix** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:31 pm

Jennings / Mayo would be a nasty chucker backcourt combo.

Henson needs shots.

It's like we learned nothing from Mo / Redd, much less Brandon / Monta.

TchenBucks · Post #1182 » by **TchenBucks** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:33 pm

SkilesTheLimit wrote:
Mayo isn't close to an all-star. Even if 2-3 SG's in the conference get hurt.

I do not think that can be said with certainty. Neither can the fact I feel he will be an All-Star.

Bottom line, he has had many stories come out recently about the insane pressure he put on himself. And how he feels so much better and focused now. And honestly, being in a small market with little media should help that even further. This kid averaged 18.9ppg or something like that as a rookie, then dealt with random position changes and such which was a terrible decision by the Grizz.

He still shows flashes of that Elite potential that made him the #3 pick. Every draft class has 3-4 players that bloom late. Mayo easily has the tools to be one of the few from his class to achieve this.

Or, he can stay what he is, a solid spot up shooter with two decent combo moves to help him get a good shot off. Get you 16ppg on 44% shooting, and call it a day.

Still a good signing either way at only 8m

TchenBucks · Post #1183 » by **TchenBucks** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:35 pm

raferfenix wrote:Jennings / Mayo would be a nasty chucker backcourt combo.

Henson needs shots.

It's like we learned nothing from Mo / Redd, much less Brandon / Monta.

Mayo is not a chucker.

And though Jennings was, I honestly feel coaching demanded it from him. Not saying he would not shoot a lot anyways, but he took bad shots very often because of bad offense.

What I hate about Jennings is the post All-Star game fall apart. Should he fix that and actually play a full season, he is a legit PG. Not a Star, but he is clearly a top 10 talent with a bottom 500 mind set, fix that mind set, and you got a top 10 talent worthy of being #2 or #3 on a solid team.

giraldo5 · Post #1184 » by **giraldo5** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:35 pm

TchenBucks wrote:
smauss wrote:If they do sign him to a long term contract, can anyone think of a worse, and more wasted off-season than this?

I can think of several,

Signing Gooden to 5yrs.

Gadzuric to 5yrs.

Simmons to 4yrs I believe.

Anthony Mason

Trading for SJax

Maggette

Yeah, there have been many worse offseason's.

Jennings and Mayo are likely what they are, unlike the thoughts of many on here, potential All-Stars if one of the top 2-3 guys gets hurt in their conference. Basically, each is grouped up with a bunch of others in the 8-12 range at their position.

Thought you said Hammond has only made two two bad deals, yet you just listed three.

TchenBucks · Post #1185 » by **TchenBucks** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:36 pm

Fresh_Prince12 wrote:I wish jennings would just sign a 3/18 kind of deal. he'll get paid and it would be an attractive contract so if he turned his play around they're would be plenty of suitors. Also a short enough deal where he cans still get that max contract if he could actually earn that kind of money

He is only 23 after all, even after a 5 yr deal, he could sign multiple near max deals yet. I can see him playing until he is 34 or 35.

Weird thinking about him as an adult though.......

TchenBucks · Post #1186 » by **TchenBucks** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:37 pm

giraldo5 wrote:
TchenBucks wrote:
smauss wrote:If they do sign him to a long term contract, can anyone think of a worse, and more wasted off-season than this?

I can think of several,

Signing Gooden to 5yrs.

Gadzuric to 5yrs.

Simmons to 4yrs I believe.

Anthony Mason

Trading for SJax

Maggette

Yeah, there have been many worse offseason's.

Jennings and Mayo are likely what they are, unlike the thoughts of many on here, potential All-Stars if one of the top 2-3 guys gets hurt in their conference. Basically, each is grouped up with a bunch of others in the 8-12 range at their position.

Thought you said Hammond has only made two two bad deals, yet you just listed three.

No, I listed moves WORSE THEN THIS OFFSEASON, not terrible moves.

The trade for Sjax was actually a decent move at the time because we had our eyes set on a good pick, Tobias Harris, but obviously trading him out for a rental was just flat out horrible.

TchenBucks · Post #1187 » by **TchenBucks** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:39 pm

msiris wrote:And he already turn down 10 a year. Why would he change his mind? And do not tell me he is coming to his senses. When has he done that?

I would change my mind when I get a face check that everyone in my ballpark is getting between 7 and 9.

giraldo5 · Post #1188 » by **giraldo5** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:39 pm

TchenBucks wrote:
giraldo5 wrote:
TchenBucks wrote:
I can think of several,

Signing Gooden to 5yrs.

Gadzuric to 5yrs.

Simmons to 4yrs I believe.

Anthony Mason

Trading for SJax

Maggette

Yeah, there have been many worse offseason's.

Jennings and Mayo are likely what they are, unlike the thoughts of many on here, potential All-Stars if one of the top 2-3 guys gets hurt in their conference. Basically, each is grouped up with a bunch of others in the 8-12 range at their position.

Thought you said Hammond has only made two two bad deals, yet you just listed three.

No, I listed moves WORSE THEN THIS OFFSEASON, not terrible moves.

The trade for Sjax was actually a decent move at the time because we had our eyes set on a good pick, Tobias Harris, but obviously trading him out for a rental was just flat out horrible.

Hi Nick

WRau1 · Post #1189 » by **WRau1** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:39 pm

Would have rather had Klay Thompson.

TchenBucks · Post #1190 » by **TchenBucks** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:40 pm

giraldo5 wrote:
Hi Nick

You guys are hilarious with all this nonsense talk about FO people posting here.

I like it though, has been good comedy for me as I stalked around this board for the last decade.

TchenBucks · Post #1191 » by **TchenBucks** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:41 pm

WRau1 wrote:Would have rather had Klay Thompson.

I agree with that, and sadly he was on the radar. But Tobias and Klay are going to likely wind up being equal talents.

Neither is going to be anything more then an average starter.

SkilesTheLimit · Post #1192 » by **SkilesTheLimit** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:46 pm

Let the Bucks propaganda machine continue.

Hey look at our poop. We polished it and added some parsley on top. Don't you like it now? You should.

SkilesTheLimit · Post #1193 » by **SkilesTheLimit** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:47 pm

TchenBucks wrote:
WRau1 wrote:Would have rather had Klay Thompson.

I agree with that, and sadly he was on the radar. But Tobias and Klay are going to likely wind up being equal talents.

Neither is going to be anything more then an average starter.

Tobias will not be more than an average starter? That's what Hammond must tell you every day at work. He figures if he says it enough it will be true.

WRau1 · Post #1194 » by **WRau1** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:47 pm

Klay is already above avg because he has an elite NBA skill.

Baddy Chuck · Post #1195 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:47 pm

TchenBucks wrote:
WRau1 wrote:Would have rather had Klay Thompson.

I agree with that, and sadly he was on the radar. But Tobias and Klay are going to likely wind up being equal talents.

Neither is going to be anything more then an average starter.

I'd very much argue that both players are already better then average starters.

step3profit · Post #1196 » by **step3profit** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:51 pm

Baddy Chuck wrote:I'd very much argue that both players are already better then average starters.

They're definitely better than average Bucks starters.

sdn40 · Post #1197 » by **sdn40** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:02 pm

I still think with a change in coaches, and his age, there is still a chance for the guy. I'd be a defiant malcontent with Skiles in my face for four years too. The upside is still better than any guy we can ever get in FA. This franchise has to take a few calculated risks and you cant tell me this one is any more risky than any of the others we've taken.

glenn · Post #1198 » by **glenn** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:14 pm

TchenBucks wrote:
giraldo5 wrote:
Hi Nick

You guys are hilarious with all this nonsense talk about FO people posting here.

I like it though, has been good comedy for me as I stalked around this board for the last decade.

I don't know about FO accusations, but I was starting to wonder if you were getting paid to be here or something. 124 posts in less that two complete days? That's some dedication.

step3profit · Post #1199 » by **step3profit** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:15 pm

glenn wrote:I don't know about FO accusations, but I was starting to wonder if you were getting paid to be here or something. 124 posts in less that two complete days? That's some dedication.

It's almost twirlian.

yoshii8 · Post #1200 » by **yoshii8** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:25 pm

glenn wrote:
TchenBucks wrote:
giraldo5 wrote:
Hi Nick

You guys are hilarious with all this nonsense talk about FO people posting here.

I like it though, has been good comedy for me as I stalked around this board for the last decade.

I don't know about FO accusations, but I was starting to wonder if you were getting paid to be here or something. 124 posts in less that two complete days? That's some dedication.

Yeah, that's odd. You've been lurking for a long time, and never posted, but in two days you've decided to post 124 times. Interesting.

What should the Bucks do with Jennings?