Update: It is time to trade Scottie Barnes before it's too late!

[NinjaBro]

If Scottie plays like he did yesterday he can stay a little bit longer.

[YogurtProducer]

"bArGs 2.0!!"

You really gotta laugh at people trying to make the comparison.

Yeah, no matter what one has to say about Scottie in terms of criticism, he's FAR better than Bargs. Like, unutterably ahead of Bargnani in terms of utility and potential.

I dont think anyone ever thought he was anywhere near Bargs talent or impact wise, at least from what I saw

[YogurtProducer]

The funniest thing about the victory laps from last night is they are just as irrational as thinking Scottie was cooked after a bad preseason game. He is NOT going to score 12 points a night on transition on 100% shooting. Giannis for example only scored 7.8 a night in transition last year

But I did love the shot diet he took. Not in love with the mid range he is still throwing up as it is not sustainable to me, but I did really like the defence and leaking out like he did IS a skill so that shouldn't be overlooked either really.

But like I said before, Scottie with better shot selection and engaged defence is a really good player. Probably not a 22/6/9 guy all year, but still a good piece to have, and definitely worth the price tag.

[tsherkin]

I dont think anyone ever thought he was anywhere near Bargs talent or impact wise, at least from what I saw

I agree. Apart from perhaps one or two aggressive Negative Nancies who will always be there for any player, I think the issue with Scottie has always centered around his scoring. Most people seem quite content to recognize his D and rebounding, mostly his passing, and his general utility (give or take his contract). Nothing like "goodness gracious, this is one of the worst draft selections at slot ever" as there was with Bargs.

Scottie's much better.

[gerrit4]

The funniest thing about the victory laps from last night is they are just as irrational as thinking Scottie was cooked after a bad preseason game. He is NOT going to score 12 points a night on transition on 100% shooting. Giannis for example only scored 7.8 a night in transition last year

But I did love the shot diet he took. Not in love with the mid range he is still throwing up as it is not sustainable to me, but I did really like the defence and leaking out like he did IS a skill so that shouldn't be overlooked either really.

But like I said before, Scottie with better shot selection and engaged defence is a really good player. Probably not a 22/6/9 guy all year, but still a good piece to have, and definitely worth the price tag.

Totally. I don't think he'll get that easy of looks, but I loved the shot diet and the role. It felt less like we're trying to force him into the starring role, and more like we're trying to showcase what he's really good at. We hopefully won't need to rely on him for the same type of tough shots - we have Ingram for that, and hopefully a more consistent lineup of guys like RJ, IQ, Jakob etc who can create a bit more and help find easier looks.

[Appostis]

You really gotta laugh at people trying to make the comparison.

Yeah, no matter what one has to say about Scottie in terms of criticism, he's FAR better than Bargs. Like, unutterably ahead of Bargnani in terms of utility and potential.

I dont think anyone ever thought he was anywhere near Bargs talent or impact wise, at least from what I saw

No but they are comparing "excuses". Barnes has had a far more accomplished career then Bargs had already. Using him as any aspect of a comparison is a joke.

Clueless folks using it

[tsherkin]

No but they are comparing "excuses". Barnes has had a far more accomplished career then Bargs had already. Using him as any aspect of a comparison is a joke.

Clueless folks using it

Well, to be fair, the level of excuses coming from SOME posters was pretty brutal, and quite similar to the mental gymnastics involved in excusing Bargs over his tenure with us. It was bad, but it was also not widespread, so there's that.

The funniest thing about the victory laps from last night is they are just as irrational as thinking Scottie was cooked after a bad preseason game. He is NOT going to score 12 points a night on transition on 100% shooting. Giannis for example only scored 7.8 a night in transition last year

But I did love the shot diet he took. Not in love with the mid range he is still throwing up as it is not sustainable to me, but I did really like the defence and leaking out like he did IS a skill so that shouldn't be overlooked either really.

But like I said before, Scottie with better shot selection and engaged defence is a really good player. Probably not a 22/6/9 guy all year, but still a good piece to have, and definitely worth the price tag.

Yeah, when he locks in defensively and isn't tasked with creating too much of his own offense, he's a quality contributor across a bunch of different categories.

Totally. I don't think he'll get that easy of looks, but I loved the shot diet and the role. It felt less like we're trying to force him into the starring role, and more like we're trying to showcase what he's really good at. We hopefully won't need to rely on him for the same type of tough shots - we have Ingram for that, and hopefully a more consistent lineup of guys like RJ, IQ, Jakob etc who can create a bit more and help find easier looks.

His shot volume will hopefully fluctuate as the quality of those looks ebbs and flows, you know? Get him out on the break all you like, but let his total FGA drop when those types of opportunities and other similar stuff isn't quite as available. That's more what Ingram is for, after all.

[YogurtProducer]

His shot volume will hopefully fluctuate as the quality of those looks ebbs and flows, you know? Get him out on the break all you like, but let his total FGA drop when those types of opportunities and other similar stuff isn't quite as available. That's more what Ingram is for, after all.

Yep - the thing is he can come out tomorrow and play the exact same game and end up with 8 points. The guy scored 12 in transition, and shot 100% from the mid range on 3 shots. That type of shot diet is going to lead to nights where he still plays fine, but gives you 6 points.

I am sure a lot of posters will still be taking a victory lap when that happens.

To me, the points don't matter as much as how he plays. What type of shots he takes, whats his energy level like on D, etc.

[tsherkin]

Yep - the thing is he can come out tomorrow and play the exact same game and end up with 8 points. The guy scored 12 in transition, and shot 100% from the mid range on 3 shots. That type of shot diet is going to lead to nights where he still plays fine, but gives you 6 points.

I'm very okay with that. It's essentially what I've been hoping we could do with him, but haven't had the roster to permit. He isn't a good on-ball scorer, but he does have offensive strengths when stronger guys are leading the way and if things break out to provide certain sets.

And ultimately, if he can pick his spots offensively around BI, Ingram and whomever else is showing up at the moment, then he can conserve his energy to focus on being a strong defender for us, as well as keying the break. The contract is what it is now, I don't know that I love it, but I must also confess that my appreciation for contract values in the modern NBA is pretty weak. The numbers seem huge and I always forget how they compare in terms of proportion of cap to older eras. So I'm hoping to just focus on his actual play this year and see if he can maintain a level of consistency in approach and value, you know?

[LarSiN]

"bArGs 2.0!!"

I like how people say this as if Bargs 2.0 might not be either Bargs with defense or Bargs with even better scoring, and as if that's not a high rizz center in the current NBA.

Yeah, no. They were saying "It's Bargs all over again", which was ludicrous in the moment & even moreso now

[YogurtProducer]

Yep - the thing is he can come out tomorrow and play the exact same game and end up with 8 points. The guy scored 12 in transition, and shot 100% from the mid range on 3 shots. That type of shot diet is going to lead to nights where he still plays fine, but gives you 6 points.

I'm very okay with that. It's essentially what I've been hoping we could do with him, but haven't had the roster to permit. He isn't a good on-ball scorer, but he does have offensive strengths when stronger guys are leading the way and if things break out to provide certain sets.

to be clear - I was not trying to say it was a bad thing or anything that it will fluctuate, it just also should be noted that he didn't do anything last night that showcased any new skills or anything - he just thrived in a smaller role and against a team that looked completely lost defensively and in transition.

And ultimately, if he can pick his spots offensively around BI, Ingram and whomever else is showing up at the moment, then he can conserve his energy to focus on being a strong defender for us, as well as keying the break. The contract is what it is now, I don't know that I love it, but I must also confess that my appreciation for contract values in the modern NBA is pretty weak. The numbers seem huge and I always forget how they compare in terms of proportion of cap to older eras. So I'm hoping to just focus on his actual play this year and see if he can maintain a level of consistency in approach and value, you know?

I really have said from day 1 that Barnes even if he plateaus is going to be a fine contract. A superb defender who can fit in most offences that already got shooting, is going to be just fine.

He isnt a superstar, so we shouldn't make him "untouchable", but he is still a hell of a player to have.

[YogurtProducer]

"bArGs 2.0!!"

I like how people say this as if Bargs 2.0 might not be either Bargs with defense or Bargs with even better scoring, and as if that's not a high rizz center in the current NBA.

Yeah, no. They were saying "It's Bargs all over again", which was ludicrous in the moment & even moreso now

I'd love to see a post where anyone said its Bargs all over again.

I feel like this is all based on my one comment that said the excuses people make are Bargs-esque. Which is completely different than saying Barnes = Bargs

[tsherkin]

to be clear - I was not trying to say it was a bad thing or anything that it will fluctuate, it just also should be noted that he didn't do anything last night that showcased any new skills or anything - he just thrived in a smaller role and against a team that looked completely lost defensively and in transition.

No, I'm with you. He had an awesome game. And if he plays that game a hundred times, the specific opportunities which came up would fluctuate in volume and his total volume of shots and points would change pretty drastically. And I'm 100% okay with that. You give him the opportunities which make sense, and feed him when he's doing well, but you don't forcefeed him shots just Cuz Reasons (TM), particularly of the possession types he doesn't handle well. There's nothing wrong with running him out in transition, nor getting him assisted buckets inside, nor even sending him some post-ups, etc, etc, etc.

We know what he's good at and what he's not. So some nights, we can get him those looks he's good at, and some nights, not so much. I'm okay with that. As long as we aren't trying to force him to a given level of shooting volume, nor force-feeding him the sets he doesn't handle well, what happens game to game is fine. I'm okay with variance in his scoring totals, and I'm okay with a lower scoring volume while simultaneously still being comfortable with his quality as a player, you know?

I really have said from day 1 that Barnes even if he plateaus is going to be a fine contract. A superb defender who can fit in most offences that already got shooting, is going to be just fine.

He isnt a superstar, so we shouldn't make him "untouchable", but he is still a hell of a player to have.

When he's deployed well, he's a very useful player to have with the right roster environment, for sure. We keep coming back to it, but the Iggy comparison isn't a bad one, and we know Iggy's value.

[Got Nuffin]

to be clear - I was not trying to say it was a bad thing or anything that it will fluctuate, it just also should be noted that he didn't do anything last night that showcased any new skills or anything - he just thrived in a smaller role and against a team that looked completely lost defensively and in transition.

No, I'm with you. He had an awesome game. And if he plays that game a hundred times, the specific opportunities which came up would fluctuate in volume and his total volume of shots and points would change pretty drastically. And I'm 100% okay with that. You give him the opportunities which make sense, and feed him when he's doing well, but you don't forcefeed him shots just Cuz Reasons (TM), particularly of the possession types he doesn't handle well. There's nothing wrong with running him out in transition, nor getting him assisted buckets inside, nor even sending him some post-ups, etc, etc, etc.

We know what he's good at and what he's not. So some nights, we can get him those looks he's good at, and some nights, not so much. I'm okay with that. As long as we aren't trying to force him to a given level of shooting volume, nor force-feeding him the sets he doesn't handle well, what happens game to game is fine. I'm okay with variance in his scoring totals, and I'm okay with a lower scoring volume while simultaneously still being comfortable with his quality as a player, you know?

I really have said from day 1 that Barnes even if he plateaus is going to be a fine contract. A superb defender who can fit in most offences that already got shooting, is going to be just fine.

He isnt a superstar, so we shouldn't make him "untouchable", but he is still a hell of a player to have.

When he's deployed well, he's a very useful player to have with the right roster environment, for sure. We keep coming back to it, but the Iggy comparison isn't a bad one, and we know Iggy's value.

Agreed with all this. In another thread i argued that he was most similar to Aaron Gordon if Gordon had more elite ball handling and passing at his size - and got hosed down to which i cbf replying, but honestly to me that’s an awesome (and quite rare) player to have.

Let him play his natural game and be great at it. Kyle Lowry never had the tools to be a first option superstar either.

His path to eclipsing that to being a first option everything player would be a consistent and deadly 3 ball, but with his form im not sure i ever see it unfortunately.

[tsherkin]

Agreed with all this. In another thread i argued that he was most similar to Aaron Gordon if Gordon had more elite ball handling and passing at his size - and got hosed down to which i cbf replying, but honestly to me that’s an awesome (and quite rare) player to have.

Mmm. Gordon is a more athletic player who has 3 straight postseasons of strong complementary 3pt shooting (mostly from the corner, of course). And he does a little of what Scottie does in terms of advancing the ball, pushing in transition, etc, before moving over into an off-ball role. He's a guy who very clearly understands his niche, and has the tools to do it very well. Where by contrast, Scottie's a lot less athletic, a lot better a defender and much less skillful from 3.

Let him play his natural game and be great at it. Kyle Lowry never had the tools to be a first option superstar either.

100%. Scottie needs a lot of role optimization because he isn't a superstar. And Lowry wouldn't have been well-suited as a 25+ ppg scorer, although he did successfully touch 21-22 ppg for us in consecutive seasons and was quite efficient about it. And an excellent playmaker, and a quality, high-effort defender.

His path to eclipsing that to being a first option everything player would be a consistent and deadly 3 ball, but with his form im not sure i ever see it unfortunately.

Even a 3 wouldn't make him a smart choice as a 1st option, though it would make it far easier to sell him as a 15+ FGA/g guy and second option, for sure. I think we just need to stop forcing shots to him and let him focus on his strengths, which he certainly has.

[Clay Davis]

"bArGs 2.0!!"

I like how people say this as if Bargs 2.0 might not be either Bargs with defense or Bargs with even better scoring, and as if that's not a high rizz center in the current NBA.

Yeah, no. They were saying "It's Bargs all over again", which was ludicrous in the moment & even moreso now

The modifier "2.0" does not mean and has never meant "all over again"; I have never seen some thing X described as "X 2.0" without implying that it is an upgraded version of X. This is the rizz of version control.

[LarSiN]

Dunno what to tell you bud, but that's what happened