Chanel Bomber wrote:cgmw wrote:nedleeds wrote:
Sure but chasing the play-in and a massive sodomization from the Bucks/Nets in the 1st round is the wrong move. We keep these 2-3 year players and never develop or play the majority of them. Knowing many will be and never get a second contract. But we don't even try. Obi gets like 9 minutes. Why even use a roster spot on 1st rounders? Grimes will be back to DNP Coach is an Orc once Rose returns.
Exactly.
My preferred strategy would have been:
1) Straight up tank for high lotto picks until you hit a bonafide franchise legacy player like Patrick; OR
2) Hybrid approach, but with a developmental coach plus veteran SUPPORT players, not feature players like Randle, Kemba, Rose, Fournier, and even Burks (the way Thibs uses him anyway). Meaning, your high picks are marketed and treated like your marquee players on the cultural hierarchy. Basically the same as tanking.
As it stands, the very obvious plan here is for Leon “Rolodex” Rose to use all these pieces to pull off a godfather trade, likely timed in conjunction with a tandem FA signing. Only question I have is whether Dolan has the patience to keep waiting on it.
Meanwhile, fools on boards like this will continue drinking the Kool-Aid that Thibs has any intention of featuring/developing guys like Cam.
Let's keep it constructive.
I agree with most of what you say but where I disagree is that I think the young players also have to be held accountable. I don't think it's smart to put them in a position to fail repeatedly in an on-ball role out of some idea that the reps alone will make them proficient in it.
I don't think it's good for their psyche, or their development, or locker room chemistry.
Young players also need to be protected from their own inadequacies to some extent, until they are ready.
So I don't mind that Rose came in and ran the offense a lot of the time.
And I don't mind giving - say - RJ fewer opportunities as an on-ball player until he becomes more efficient in this role and earns more touches.
What I have a problem with, is when players have shown to be effective in certain scenarios, yet still aren't given a chance to express themselves in an on-ball role. That's where things get dodgy to me, and coaches get exposed.
Yeah, I dialed back the language on that last paragraph to include myself in the “fools” category. All of us want to believe, no matter how salty we get.
I’m actually okay with the current regime, which I consider a full-fledged “evil empire” all on the same “win-now” page. If you’re stuck with Dolan as owner, then it makes more sense to have an unqualified player-agent POBO because his main job is to give Dolan what he wants—veteran stars. It also makes sense to have a hard-nosed “win now” coach because Dolan wants at-least 8 seed respectability.
I think it’s an idiotic approach, but I don’t own a basketball team. I’m just a 30+ year ticket-holder junkie who’s likely been paying closer attention to it than our lackey owner.
As for “on ball” I’ll leave that to you and the rest of the hoops scouts out there. To me, the job is to hire the best FO and coaching personnel possible to make those kinds of nuanced hoops decisions.
As it stands, my unqualified observation is that Thibs relies on propping up one or two mostly iso scorers to grind out regular season wins, which gives us virtually no chance in the playoffs. But like I said, that seems to be the institutional mandate so at least the whole FO/coaching/ownership group is on the same page.
If Cam can flash as a dominant iso scorer/shot creator, then maybe Thibs will stick with him and maybe Perry will pay him. But personally I’d take the odds on Thibs burying Cam behind Fournier/Burks.
"Sell the team. Sell the team. Sell the team."
