Malcolm Brogdon Thread

[M-C-G]

My friend is going to get a chance to meet Brogdon tomorrow. Anything in particular he should ask him?

Btw, it seems the NBA leaks the winner of ROY to corporate partners at least a week before they officially announce it. Either that or some are really confident in guessing the winner.

The atmosphere at these corporate meet-and-greets usually isn't conducive to getting much deeper than how do you like Milwaukee, what are you working on this summer type of questions.

I'd ask him what he's reading these days or how his back is.

This is taking place in an East Asian country at a publicity event, and my friend speaks less than perfect English, so perhaps Brogs will be a little more loose lipped than in a standard setting, figuring none of what he says will get back to anyone. But since its Brogdon we're taking about, he probably won't be able to get much out of him.

Probably is very gabby speaking fluent mandarin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrWood]

Same with guys like Miles Plumlee. The nice part is with 2nd rounders.. you just saved 44M for about the same amount of winshares over 3 years.. and you have all that cap space to spend on a player that is worth it.

Yeah, if your objective is to have the lowest salary, 2nd round picks are a great idea. If your objective is to win, playing 2nd round picks is usually a bad idea. I liked the 4 guys the bucks "picked" in the second round the last two years (counting Thornwell this year and McCaw last year), and those guys would be fine as rotational players (I think - - obviously the jury is still out on the 2017 draftees). Most second round picks are not playable for significant minutes.

No, the objective is to have your money tied up in your top 3-4 core players with the rest of the roster filled with draftees (1sts and 2nds) and minimum level FAs. It is quite simple TBH. NBA GMs are too often trying to compensate for another win or two in the very next season at the expense of their salary cap composition. Essentially, they are trying to keep their jobs, not doing what is right for the franchise.

Ah, you're smarter than every existing GM?
Filling up your 10-15th roster spots with draftees makes sense. Unless you are drafting more intelligently than any living GM, your model is not wise.

[Diggr14]

Yeah, if your objective is to have the lowest salary, 2nd round picks are a great idea. If your objective is to win, playing 2nd round picks is usually a bad idea. I liked the 4 guys the bucks "picked" in the second round the last two years (counting Thornwell this year and McCaw last year), and those guys would be fine as rotational players (I think - - obviously the jury is still out on the 2017 draftees). Most second round picks are not playable for significant minutes.

No, the objective is to have your money tied up in your top 3-4 core players with the rest of the roster filled with draftees (1sts and 2nds) and minimum level FAs. It is quite simple TBH. NBA GMs are too often trying to compensate for another win or two in the very next season at the expense of their salary cap composition. Essentially, they are trying to keep their jobs, not doing what is right for the franchise.

Ah, you're smarter than every existing GM?
Filling up your 10-15th roster spots with draftees makes sense. Unless you are drafting more intelligently than any living GM, your model is not wise.

Your core players can be acquired by FA or trade. It's not entirely about the draft. But you really shouldn't invest significant money in guys like Dellavadova, Henson, Plumlee, Snell.. ect.

And yes, I think quite a bit of people here are more intelligent than several GMs in the league. You fail to realize that many of these guys are just from the right families or had the right opportunities and pedigree. It has nothing to do with how smart they were or how good at managing a roster they are.

[Kolkmania]

Sixers played like a 50 win team with Joel Embiid on the court and were almost just as bad as last year when he was off.

They were 13-18 when Embiid played.
Since the NBA doesn't play 120 game seasons, the sixers were not a 50 win team with him on the court.

I said with Joel Embiid on the court, not the games he played in. Sixers had a 107.0 ORtg and 102.2 DRtg with Embiid, a +4.8 Rtg, that's Jazz, Clippers, Celtics territory.

To illustrate the massive difference, without him the team had ORtg and DRtg of 103.3 and 111.6 DRtg, a -13.1 on/off difference.

[FlagsFlyForever]

Sixers played like a 50 win team with Joel Embiid on the court and were almost just as bad as last year when he was off.

They were 13-18 when Embiid played.
Since the NBA doesn't play 120 game seasons, the sixers were not a 50 win team with him on the court.

I said with Joel Embiid on the court, not the games he played in. Sixers had a 107.0 ORtg and 102.2 DRtg with Embiid, a +4.8 Rtg, that's Jazz, Clippers, Celtics territory.

To illustrate the massive difference, without him the team had ORtg and DRtg of 103.3 and 111.6 DRtg, a -13.1 on/off difference.

I was Team Embiid before his draft and I would still trade Jabari for him in a heartbeat, but people have to understand his stats were inflated last season. Embiid played 31 games on the season, averaged 25 minutes per game, didn't play in back to backs, and he played 22 games at home and only 9 road games.

[Kolkmania]

They were 13-18 when Embiid played.
Since the NBA doesn't play 120 game seasons, the sixers were not a 50 win team with him on the court.

I said with Joel Embiid on the court, not the games he played in. Sixers had a 107.0 ORtg and 102.2 DRtg with Embiid, a +4.8 Rtg, that's Jazz, Clippers, Celtics territory.

To illustrate the massive difference, without him the team had ORtg and DRtg of 103.3 and 111.6 DRtg, a -13.1 on/off difference.

I was Team Embiid before his draft and I would still trade Jabari for him in a heartbeat, but people have to understand his stats were inflated last season. Embiid played 31 games on the season, averaged 25 minutes per game, didn't play in back to backs, and he played 22 games at home and only 9 road games.

No doubt. Doesn't negate the effect that his on/off, DFG% at the rim, BLK%, TS% with skyhigh USG%, etc. were absolutely incredible, but it's much easier to do with limited minutes.

I'll leave you guys alone. Looking forward to the Sixers - Bucks games the next 10 years, will be interesting to see our young cores develop into conference powerhouses.

[ReasonablySober]

No, the objective is to have your money tied up in your top 3-4 core players with the rest of the roster filled with draftees (1sts and 2nds) and minimum level FAs. It is quite simple TBH. NBA GMs are too often trying to compensate for another win or two in the very next season at the expense of their salary cap composition. Essentially, they are trying to keep their jobs, not doing what is right for the franchise.

Ah, you're smarter than every existing GM?
Filling up your 10-15th roster spots with draftees makes sense. Unless you are drafting more intelligently than any living GM, your model is not wise.

Your core players can be acquired by FA or trade. It's not entirely about the draft. But you really shouldn't invest significant money in guys like Dellavadova, Henson, Plumlee, Snell.. ect.

And yes, I think quite a bit of people here are more intelligent than several GMs in the league. You fail to realize that many of these guys are just from the right families or had the right opportunities and pedigree. It has nothing to do with how smart they were or how good at managing a roster they are.

FWIW, I wouldn't include Snell in that group. Three of those guys put up below average numbers or showed 'flashes'. Snell just had a very good season, is just entering his prime, and has the exact skills you want in a modern day wing with his shooting, athleticism, switching ability, etc. I think there's still some skills there he could add as well.

Maybe this bites me in the ass one day, but I have no problem including him as a core piece.

[Ron Swanson]

There was no way Embiid's numbers were ever gonna be sustainable considering his absurd usage (36%), turnovers (5.8 per 36) and foul rate (5.4 per 36). Weird how Westbrook had hundreds of articles devoted to his triple-double "stat-padding" but Embiid put up one of the most blatant stat-padding seasons of all-time.

[sidney lanier]

There was no way Embiid's numbers were ever gonna be sustainable considering his absurd usage (36%), turnovers (5.8 per 36) and foul rate (5.4 per 36). Weird how Westbrook had hundreds of articles devoted to his triple-double "stat-padding" but Embiid put up one of the most blatant stat-padding seasons of all-time.

Good post. Remember too that Embiid played 23 minutes a game in college, so there should be no reasonable expectation that his cameo performances in the NBA represent either an aberration as to his durability or a harbinger of sustained excellence. Play full games and we'll talk.

I'm sure Embiid's stats weren't padded deliberately, but it works out that way when people are eager to do a straight-line extrapolation and assume that what they see is going to be what they get when things spread out.

As we old men say around the pinochle table, they all look good until the Spanx come off.

[emunney]

So Brogdon in his interview talked about what he's working on this summer:

1) Finishing with off hand.
2) Passing with off hand.
3) 3pt shooting.

No substitute for intelligence and great fundamentals. He *is* going to get better.

[jute2003]

He's an old man by rookie standards but he's to smart and motivated to not at least refine his game. experience goes a long ways.

[skones]

So Brogdon in his interview talked about what he's working on this summer:

1) Finishing with off hand.
2) Passing with off hand.
3) 3pt shooting.

No substitute for intelligence and great fundamentals. He *is* going to get better.

I would think he's putting a lot of work into speeding up his release. A quicker release allows him to take advantage of his strength going to the hoop that much more.

[Bernman]

So Brogdon in his interview talked about what he's working on this summer:

1) Finishing with off hand.
2) Passing with off hand.
3) 3pt shooting.

No substitute for intelligence and great fundamentals. He *is* going to get better.

Manu came into the NBA at 25 and averaged 8, 2, and 2 his first year. Next year he averaged 13, 5, and 4. He just kept up the ascent.

I see a lot of similarities between Brogdon and Manu, i.e.: court vision, maturity, ball skills, defensive commitment, decent shooting, sneaky athleticism, size, etc. Don't see why Brogdon can't keep improving for a few years, and be a major asset for a decade more, just because he's 24 already. He's got a body and controlled game that should age well. He's still relatively inexperienced at the top level and getting more comfortable in being one of the leaders on the team.

I would put him in with Middleton as a guy that, while not untouchable, because of his contract, perceived ability around the league, and still having some upside left; I'd have a hard time envisioning a realistic deal where I would move him. Even if his best role may ultimately be 6th man like Manu. He's not really an ideal starting 1 or 2 I think. More a guy who can play those roles while still you probably being fine.

[SupremeHustle]

After seeing him play I'd put money on him improving a lot. Brogdon is the kind of guy you bet on in any endeavor.

[Prez]

A quicker shot release especially off the dribble takes him from solid starter to possible fringe all-star. Maybe not in raw stats, but easily impact.

[emunney]

Ah, you're smarter than every existing GM?
Filling up your 10-15th roster spots with draftees makes sense. Unless you are drafting more intelligently than any living GM, your model is not wise.

Your core players can be acquired by FA or trade. It's not entirely about the draft. But you really shouldn't invest significant money in guys like Dellavadova, Henson, Plumlee, Snell.. ect.

And yes, I think quite a bit of people here are more intelligent than several GMs in the league. You fail to realize that many of these guys are just from the right families or had the right opportunities and pedigree. It has nothing to do with how smart they were or how good at managing a roster they are.

FWIW, I wouldn't include Snell in that group. Three of those guys put up below average numbers or showed 'flashes'. Snell just had a very good season, is just entering his prime, and has the exact skills you want in a modern day wing with his shooting, athleticism, switching ability, etc. I think there's still some skills there he could add as well.

Maybe this bites me in the ass one day, but I have no problem including him as a core piece.

You don't want a modern day wing to be able to dribble or create offense?

Here's my problem with the whole 3D craze: it is no longer the loophole it once was. These guys are being valued appropriately or even overvalued now. 3 and D is essentially the bare minimum skillset to be playable as a perimeter player. It's a stopgap skillset. There was a time when you could get these guys for a bargain due to their limitations, yet plug-and-play and not kill your lineup. But now that everybody wants them and they're getting paid, they provide you with no advantage. Nothing has changed basketball wise, it's just that their economics have caught up to their contributions. You used to be able to scrimp on money with a couple of these guys, but there's no such advantage to them anymore.

[ReasonablySober]

If he was a playmaker I imagine he'd be paid significantly more (double?) than the Bucks are paying him.

[emunney]

If he was a playmaker I imagine he'd be paid significantly more (double?) than the Bucks are paying him.

How does that make this contract any less a tether to 40 wins?

[ReasonablySober]

If he was a playmaker I imagine he'd be paid significantly more (double?) than the Bucks are paying him.

How does that make this contract any less a tether to 40 wins?

I'd say Giannis is the tether to 40 wins.

[emunney]

If he was a playmaker I imagine he'd be paid significantly more (double?) than the Bucks are paying him.

How does that make this contract any less a tether to 40 wins?

I'd say Giannis is the tether to 40 wins.

I don't follow.