Moe Harkless

cedric76 · Post #1 » by **cedric76** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:47 pm

I really think this guy is gonna be a star, cant wait for him and AN to spend time in the gym this summer

Once Moe develop a good 3pt shot, defense will have to keep a guy on him and he ll be able to attack the basket if they get to close to him

Cant wait, future is bright

great frontcourt Moe+AN+Vuc, would be nice if we could get a shotblocking PF/C coming from the bench

as for backcourt, really hope we can get Marcus smart to run the show and have nelson as 6th man/captain of our young team

Go Magic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e7Hd04Vvfc

fendilim · Post #2 » by **fendilim** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:51 pm

he needs to improve his handles. otherwise he'd be just another ariza

KingRobb02 · Post #3 » by **KingRobb02** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:17 pm

Don't understand the love affair with this guy. He seems pretty below average. I know he's young, but being 19 doesn't make you good. A lot of what I see people saying is that if he can improve his handle and outside shot, he will be a very good piece, but can't you say that about every prospect. Like, couldn't an argument have been made that Jeryl Sasser would have been an all-star with a better jumper?

tiderulz · Post #4 » by **tiderulz** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:27 pm

It will take him more than one year i think to be good enough from 3 pt land to make teams respect him. Just from what I have seen and heard with his jump shot.

If he can just improve a bit on understanding of the game, which i think is happening, he will immediately become an energy defender off the bench. Continued development can help, but I think that is what he should be aiming for next year, that energy defender off the bench.

G-Heel · Post #5 » by **G-Heel** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:27 pm

KingRobb02 wrote:Don't understand the love affair with this guy. He seems pretty below average. I know he's young, but being 19 doesn't make you good. A lot of what I see people saying is that if he can improve his handle and outside shot, he will be a very good piece, but can't you say that about every prospect. Like, couldn't an argument have been made that Jeryl Sasser would have been an all-star with a better jumper?

I kinda agree with you about Harkless. Handle and outside shots are hard to improve. This is not 2K13 where you can send a player to perimeter shooting camp for a couple of years and he'll be an elite shooter. Many players never improve their shots. I think Harkless has the potential to be a pretty good player, maybe borderline all stars, but I'm not sold on him either -- he's far from a sure-thing.

fendilim · Post #6 » by **fendilim** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:47 pm

IIRC, the thing with Harkless is that he did change his shooting technique. So I'm not sure if he is still adjusting or not..

but to me, if he improves his motor, he could be another MKG. But I don't know if that can be improved...

Optimus_Steel · Post #7 » by **Optimus_Steel** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:47 pm

He is far from a sure thing but he has shown that he has 3pt range and can be a major disruptor on the defensive end.

BaunceyChillups · Post #8 » by **BaunceyChillups** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:52 pm

KingRobb02 wrote:Don't understand the love affair with this guy. He seems pretty below average. I know he's young, but being 19 doesn't make you good. A lot of what I see people saying is that if he can improve his handle and outside shot, he will be a very good piece, but can't you say that about every prospect. Like, couldn't an argument have been made that Jeryl Sasser would have been an all-star with a better jumper?

His athleticism/length + defensive potential alone will make him a solid player, if he adds any semblance of offense he can be pretty good.

KingRobb02 · Post #9 » by **KingRobb02** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:54 pm

BaunceyChillups wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:Don't understand the love affair with this guy. He seems pretty below average. I know he's young, but being 19 doesn't make you good. A lot of what I see people saying is that if he can improve his handle and outside shot, he will be a very good piece, but can't you say that about every prospect. Like, couldn't an argument have been made that Jeryl Sasser would have been an all-star with a better jumper?

His athleticism/length + defensive potential will make him a solid player alone, if he adds any semblance of offense he can be pretty good.

How are you not describing a 19 year old Trevor Ariza?

BaunceyChillups · Post #10 » by **BaunceyChillups** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:55 pm

KingRobb02 wrote:
BaunceyChillups wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:Don't understand the love affair with this guy. He seems pretty below average. I know he's young, but being 19 doesn't make you good. A lot of what I see people saying is that if he can improve his handle and outside shot, he will be a very good piece, but can't you say that about every prospect. Like, couldn't an argument have been made that Jeryl Sasser would have been an all-star with a better jumper?

His athleticism/length + defensive potential will make him a solid player alone, if he adds any semblance of offense he can be pretty good.

How are you not describing a 19 year old Trevor Ariza?

Ariza was a starter on a championship team

KingRobb02 · Post #11 » by **KingRobb02** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:23 pm

BaunceyChillups wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:
BaunceyChillups wrote:His athleticism/length + defensive potential will make him a solid player alone, if he adds any semblance of offense he can be pretty good.

How are you not describing a 19 year old Trevor Ariza?

Ariza was a starter on a championship team

So was Rick Fox. What's your point? Being the 6th best player on a championship team isn't really a high ceiling to reach for.

Orium · Post #12 » by **Orium** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:25 pm

Like many young prospects Moe thinks he can't improve unless he gets minutes. He's shown this attitude in one or two interviews I've seen of him. I know he's only 19, but that's the sort of thing that needs to change if he wants to be an NBA player. Just having the tools for success isn't enough.

Optimus_Steel · Post #13 » by **Optimus_Steel** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:28 pm

KingRobb02 wrote:
So was Rick Fox. What's your point? Being the 6th best player on a championship team isn't really a high ceiling to reach for.

That's terrible logic. A 6th man on a championship caliber team is a very productive player. You got guys like Manu, Odom, Terry who have been tremendous players being 6th men.

KingRobb02 · Post #14 » by **KingRobb02** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:32 pm

Optimus_Steel wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:
So was Rick Fox. What's your point? Being the 6th best player on a championship team isn't really a high ceiling to reach for.

That's terrible logic. A 6th man on a championship caliber team is a very productive player. You got guys like Manu, Odom, Terry who have been tremendous players being 6th men.

Didn't say 6th man. Just 6th best player. Manu, Odom, and Terry were all top level talents who chose to come off the bench. Their ceiling were substantially higher than 6th best player on a team. Trevor Ariza, on the other hand, was legitimately the 6th best player on the team. What I'm saying is that there is a place for guys like that in the NBA, but it's not amazing or anything to build around long-term.

BaunceyChillups · Post #15 » by **BaunceyChillups** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:39 pm

KingRobb02 wrote:[
So was Rick Fox. What's your point? Being the 6th best player on a championship team isn't really a high ceiling to reach for.

Ariza was arguably the 4th best player on that Laker team in the playoffs and they very likely would not have won Game 4 against the Magic without him. My point was obviously that Trevor Ariza was clearly a good enough role player to start on a championship team, don't get snippy with me just because you struggle with reading comprehension.

Also Rick Fox was already in his 30s and on the downside of his career when he was winning titles with the Lakers. He still had a productive 9/4/3 on good percentages in 2001, I think we'd all be happy if Moe could get average a statline like that for a season.

When you're rebuilding you try to acquire as many good pieces as you can, Moe has the potential to be a good piece. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Post #16 » by **Def Swami** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:54 pm

Paul George Rookie Year: 20.7 mpg, 45.3% fg%, 29.7% 3pt%, 1.3-1.7 ftm-a, 3.7 rpg, 1.1 apg, 0.4 bpg, 1 spg, 7.8 ppg
Nic Batum Rookie Year: 18.4 mpg, 44.6% fg%, 36.9% 3pt%, 0.5-0.7 ftm-a, 2.8 rpg, 0.9 apg, 0.5 bpg, 0.6 spg, 5.4 ppg

Both Batum and George (All-Star) have come a long way from their rookie seasons. Both entered the league at the age of 19. I agree that we can't really say whether Moe is going to be an all-star or not, but we can't say he'll be a scrub either. He is what he is this season. Remember, he was injured most of the off-season, training camp, and pre-season. I say give him a full off-season and let's see how he comes to Summer League this year.

KingRobb02 · Post #17 » by **KingRobb02** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:56 pm

BaunceyChillups wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:[
So was Rick Fox. What's your point? Being the 6th best player on a championship team isn't really a high ceiling to reach for.

Ariza was arguably the 4th best player on that Laker team in the playoffs and they very likely would not have won Game 4 against the Magic without him. My point was obviously that Trevor Ariza was clearly a good enough role player to start on a championship team, don't get snippy with me just because you struggle with reading comprehension.

Also Rick Fox was already in his 30s and on the downside of his career when he was winning titles with the Lakers. He still had a productive 9/4/3 on good percentages in 2001, I think we'd all be happy if Moe could get average a statline like that for a season.

When you're rebuilding you try to acquire as many good pieces as you can, Moe has the potential to be a good piece. It's really not that difficult to understand.

This topic is not an argument with you. The first line of this thread is "I really think this guy is gonna be a star." A line of 9/4/3 is not quite a star. No one argues that Ariza was the 4th best player on that team because I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that Bynum was better than him. If you want to say he won game 4 for them, I would say our poor free throw shooting and Derek Fisher won it for them, but fine role players come up big sometimes. Rick Fox was not on the downside of his career with the Lakers because he never had an upside in Boston. He was not very good but serviceable. For perspective, Luke Walton once average 11/4/5 for the Lakers. Would anyone here be happy with that as Moe's ceiling?

KingRobb02 · Post #18 » by **KingRobb02** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:07 pm

VGOSWAMI wrote:Paul George Rookie Year: 20.7 mpg, 45.3% fg%, 29.7% 3pt%, 1.3-1.7 ftm-a, 3.7 rpg, 1.1 apg, 0.4 bpg, 1 spg, 7.8 ppg
Nic Batum Rookie Year: 18.4 mpg, 44.6% fg%, 36.9% 3pt%, 0.5-0.7 ftm-a, 2.8 rpg, 0.9 apg, 0.5 bpg, 0.6 spg, 5.4 ppg

Both Batum and George (All-Star) have come a long way from their rookie seasons. Both entered the league at the age of 19. I agree that we can't really say whether Moe is going to be an all-star or not, but we can't say he'll be a scrub either. He is what he is this season. Remember, he was injured most of the off-season, training camp, and pre-season. I say give him a full off-season and let's see how he comes to Summer League this year.

Darius Miles Rookie Year:
19 years old, .505 FG 5.9 rpg 1.2 apg 1.5 bpg 0.6 spg 9.4 ppg (injury aside, never became more than an upside guy)

I agree with this. Batum was much better than his numbers his rookie year considering Nate made him start and guard the opposing team's best perimeter player. You have to compare him to guys like Kirelenko who weren't asked to score or rebound, just wreak havoc on the perimeter. But the leap for George between years 1 and 2 was closer to our situation with Moe this year. Both were pretty below average rookies, so whether or not Moe takes the next step comes down to whether or not he puts in the work will determine whether he is Paul George (++) or Darius Miles (--). I'm just saying there, is nothing in his game now that promises that he will be a "star" one day.

BaunceyChillups · Post #19 » by **BaunceyChillups** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:08 pm

KingRobb02 wrote:
BaunceyChillups wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:[
So was Rick Fox. What's your point? Being the 6th best player on a championship team isn't really a high ceiling to reach for.

Ariza was arguably the 4th best player on that Laker team in the playoffs and they very likely would not have won Game 4 against the Magic without him. My point was obviously that Trevor Ariza was clearly a good enough role player to start on a championship team, don't get snippy with me just because you struggle with reading comprehension.

Also Rick Fox was already in his 30s and on the downside of his career when he was winning titles with the Lakers. He still had a productive 9/4/3 on good percentages in 2001, I think we'd all be happy if Moe could get average a statline like that for a season.

When you're rebuilding you try to acquire as many good pieces as you can, Moe has the potential to be a good piece. It's really not that difficult to understand.

This topic is not an argument with you. The first line of this thread is "I really think this guy is gonna be a star." A line of 9/4/3 is not quite a star. No one argues that Ariza was the 4th best player on that team because I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that Bynum was better than him. If you want to say he won game 4 for them, I would say our poor free throw shooting and Derek Fisher won it for them, but fine role players come up big sometimes. Rick Fox was not on the downside of his career with the Lakers because he never had an upside in Boston. He was not very good but serviceable. For perspective, Luke Walton once average 11/4/5 for the Lakers. Would anyone here be happy with that as Moe's ceiling?

Bynum had a PER of 11.8 and played only 17 mpg in the playoffs, so you're wrong there. Ariza had a TS% of 61 in that playoff run as well, he stepped it up and was invaluable to that Laker team.

And Rick Fox averaged 15/5/4 in his last year in Boston; basically the same as JJ's numbers now. Fox was a productive player at one point and given the fact those Laker teams had Shaq and Kobe, he did what he was asked to do and was effective in that role.

Also 11/4/5 with elite defense on a winning team would be great for Moe.

KingRobb02 · Post #20 » by **KingRobb02** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:15 pm

BaunceyChillups wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:
BaunceyChillups wrote:
Ariza was arguably the 4th best player on that Laker team in the playoffs and they very likely would not have won Game 4 against the Magic without him. My point was obviously that Trevor Ariza was clearly a good enough role player to start on a championship team, don't get snippy with me just because you struggle with reading comprehension.

Also Rick Fox was already in his 30s and on the downside of his career when he was winning titles with the Lakers. He still had a productive 9/4/3 on good percentages in 2001, I think we'd all be happy if Moe could get average a statline like that for a season.

When you're rebuilding you try to acquire as many good pieces as you can, Moe has the potential to be a good piece. It's really not that difficult to understand.

This topic is not an argument with you. The first line of this thread is "I really think this guy is gonna be a star." A line of 9/4/3 is not quite a star. No one argues that Ariza was the 4th best player on that team because I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that Bynum was better than him. If you want to say he won game 4 for them, I would say our poor free throw shooting and Derek Fisher won it for them, but fine role players come up big sometimes. Rick Fox was not on the downside of his career with the Lakers because he never had an upside in Boston. He was not very good but serviceable. For perspective, Luke Walton once average 11/4/5 for the Lakers. Would anyone here be happy with that as Moe's ceiling?

Bynum had a PER of 11.8 and played only 17 mpg in the playoffs, so you're wrong there. Ariza had a TS% of 61 in that playoff run as well, he stepped it up and was invaluable to that Laker team.

And Rick Fox averaged 15/5/4 in his last year in Boston; basically the same as JJ's numbers now. Fox was a productive player at one point and given the fact those Laker teams had Shaq and Kobe, he did what he was asked to do and was effective in that role.

Also 11/4/5 with elite defense on a winning team would be great for Moe.

Bynum was also coming off a major injury in those playoffs. If you want to argue that Ariza was better for a 20 game stretch, then fine but I think most would say Bynum was the better player. You're right about Fox being above average, but I don't think he was ever good enough for you to say he fell off in his 30s or anything like that. He was still the same guy, just played a lot fewer minutes.