lilfishi22 wrote:bwgood77 wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:I have a very hard time picturing Bender or Chriss being more than bench players at this point. The number of players who enter the league young, do nothing for a few years and then turns things around are very rare. To point to any one player like a Butler, Oladipo, Aaron Gordon and say, hey they were called busts and look at them now, that's arguing against statistics. I think we have to be open to the idea that every day that goes by without seeing reasonable improvement in their games, the chances of becoming even serviceable bench players diminishes. The fact is for every Butler, Dipo and Gordon's there's a whole lot more Vesley's, Thomas Robinson's and Len's.
I also find the notion that we (maybe not the fans but the front office) drafted Bender with the mindset that we were looking for a (very) good role player kind of amusing. When you draft that high and on a rebuilding team, why would you draft a high risk European player with (elite) role player potential?
Just because you are a role player, doesn't mean you can't be an elite player. Draymond Green, for example, is an elite role player. That would be the type of high end best case scenario for Bender. A guy that has great length and can defend all kinds of players on the interior and the perimeter, hit 3s, make good passes, etc.
I think most of us knew Bender and Chriss both had high boom/bust potential. We also knew they were both extremely young and raw. I didn't think either would see much court time as a rookie, and that they'd gradually get playing time this year. I'm somewhat shocked (though not really because it always happens) that people expected a lot quickly with these guys. Most all the other guys in that draft were more ready now.
The truth is, there are only about 5 players from each draft that are starters on average. The very best players in the league have been in the league about 15 years. There are 150 starting spots in the league, so in the last 15 drafts, there is an average of 5 players starting from each draft. The meat of it being drafts from probably 5-8 years ago, right in the middle.
If you can get a solid long term rotation player from a draft you are doing fairly well. If you can get a solid long term starter that very good. A star is rare. Star and all star get thrown around too easily. It takes damn good picks to find all stars. In the past 20 years we've drafted two. Both of them were top 10 picks.
I'll be more than happy if one player becomes a long term solid starter and one a long term solid rotation player. If they both could become long term starters or one or especially both could end up being an all star that would be phenomenal.
I mean the expectations placed seems to be absurdly high. I'm sure people would be disgusted at this point had we taken Kris Dunn or Jamal Murray as well. We could have taken Hield, who is the most solid currrent player in that range, but the guy was a 4 year college player who was still a soph or jr in college when he was these guy's age. We already had Booker.
It's not like other guys from that draft taken 4 or below are lighting the world on fire. Sabonis looks good, but he was also more ready.
I don't know what will come of these guys, but it's still way too early to judge what they ultimately will become. We hardly even have players who get them the ball much at this point.
I don't understand why when people argue that it's premature to judge what these guys will be that it assumes the thought is that they will be stars. It's not.
Draymond Green is a helluva player, an absolute diamond in the rough but if I wanted a Draymond Green type player, I want to find that guy in the mid-late lotto, not at #4. No, other players drafted after Bender haven't been lighting it up either (Dunn and Murray) but Bender has shown very little and we're at the point where we're talking about Bender's role player potential. When we drafted Bender, I definitely wasn't thinking, I sure hope we get a role player.
At this point, I just think it's very unlikely for either guys to be a long term starter, let alone long term rotation player and that's reinforced by the belief that if you don't show anything by the end of the second season, the chances of you suddenly turning it on from there on is extremely low. Even players who have shown some promise in their first two seasons still aren't necessarily expected to see success.
My argument is that, if we don't think they'll be major contributors (not even talking about being a star at this point) on this team in the future then we should definitely consider packaging them (not necessarily both) in a deal if a good deal does come along. While I think it's a mistake to write them off as contributors at this early point in their 2nd season, I also believe it's an equally big mistake if we choose to ignore the signs of a below average NBA player (low motor, low BBIQ, lack of aggressiveness). I hope I am wrong but if I'm not, I don't want us to realise we drafted duds 4 year down the line.
They probably have very limited value in trade any time soon until they produce and are more effective and if that happens, then it might not be the best idea to trade him. Sure, theoretically, if we could get a great player in exchange for a few of our under performing pieces, if the player wasn't on the downside of his prime, I might not be opposed to such a trade.
There is a very good chance Sarver feels the way some of the people who want some sort of trade and immediate success to happen, and pressure McD into making any move, and it could end up being another Brandon Knight fiasco. I don't see any big difference makers likely on the trade market. If they are put on the trade block, I'm guessing they will be guys past (and probably well past) their prime.
