Bean Burrito / Nick Young Appreciation Thread.

[hands11]

The Bean chose a tough time to have an off night.

Lets just hope it was one off night.

Bean PER 17
McGee PER 19.7
Wall PER 18.3

Those are tops for the team.

Behind them are

Gil 14
Dray 14.6
Martin 14.7
Booker 13.5

Of all player who have played 10 games or more, who have the lowest PER ?

Yi 9.1

[Dat2U]

I'm all for Nick starting at SF for now. At least until Howard comes back and gets adjusted and in the flow of things. Right now, looking at our roster, Young is the best option at SF despite his size & shortcomings.

I'd go with this lineup:

PF Blatche / Booker / Yi
SF Young / Thornton / Gee
CE McGee / Seraphin / Armstrong / N'Diaye
SG Arenas / Martin
PG Wall / Hinrich

Lets go out there with guns blazing. This is our most potent lineup. Our best hope for offense . Arenas & Young's ability to stretch the floor will create space for Wall to operate. Hinrich, Martin & Thornton can try to provide scoring off the bench.

[Jimmy Recard]

Dat, i think Nick is PERFECT coming off the bench being used solely as a gunner (for now). He doesn't really strike me as a player that's effective playing in a structure where he has to contribute in the flow of the offense.You can't really systemize him, he's more of a baller than an NBA player. He's at his best when he comes in off the bench and Flip gives him the freedom to create his own offense. If he starts at SF, he becomes 3rd or 4th option behind Wall/Gil/Dray where he's no where near as effective. He's arguably our best one on one player right now.

Not only that, starting him would require him to contribute in other aspects of the game other than scoring, particularly rebounding, and we all know how horrid his rebounding is.

[nate33]

If Hinrich starts in the backcourt, we need Young's firepower at SF. If Wall and Gil start, we can get away with Gee or Thornton at SF and benefit from their superior toughness and rebounding.

[pancakes3]

He doesn't really strike me as a player that's effective playing in a structure where he has to contribute in the flow of the offense.You can't really systemize him, he's more of a baller than an NBA player. He's at his best when he comes in off the bench and Flip gives him the freedom to create his own offense. If he starts at SF, he becomes 3rd or 4th option behind Wall/Gil/Dray where he's no where near as effective. He's arguably our best one on one player right now.

i would have +1 you a few months ago but based on the minutes i've seen from Nick, he's completely different from the 1-on-1 player of seasons past. he's coming off screens on offense and fighting through screens on defense. he's scrapping for boards and loose balls, and is selective with his shots.

and @Nate, even if we do have wall/gil in the game, i still think Nick>Thornton simply for the 3 ball. I guess Martin is also valid. we need perimeter players on all 3 sides of the court to FORCE blatche to play inside.

[dobrojim]

^ plus the numbers he has had as a starter have been pretty solid.

The important thing right now is simply that he is getting
solid minutes every game, at least only limited by those
pretty rare occasions when he gets in foul trouble.

[Dat2U]

Dat, i think Nick is PERFECT coming off the bench being used solely as a gunner (for now). He doesn't really strike me as a player that's effective playing in a structure where he has to contribute in the flow of the offense.You can't really systemize him, he's more of a baller than an NBA player. He's at his best when he comes in off the bench and Flip gives him the freedom to create his own offense. If he starts at SF, he becomes 3rd or 4th option behind Wall/Gil/Dray where he's no where near as effective. He's arguably our best one on one player right now.

Not only that, starting him would require him to contribute in other aspects of the game other than scoring, particularly rebounding, and we all know how horrid his rebounding is.

I'm thinking about the starting lineup as opposed to the bench. Maybe being a gunner is Young's best role. I'm fine with that. But right now, the gaping hole at SF would seem to indicate he might do a better job there than anyone else we have.

If Young steals shots away from Dray then fine. Dray could use a few less shots. McGee doesn't need touches unless he's on the offensive glass or running the break. Gil has been quite passive anyways thus far. We need scoring. And right now, Nick is probably the best one to provide that.

[Severn Hoos]

I had definitely been in the trade Nick camp at the beginning of the season, but he has turned me around. Sort of. What I really want to see is the team sign him to a reasonable ($5M/yr?) deal for 3-4 years. It might happen anyway, if another team signs him to an offer sheet and the Wiz match.

Then, plug him in long-term as that supersub off the bench. He can still average 28-32 min, contend for 6MOY, play decent to solid defense, and shoot us into some games a la LA last week. I just don't think I'd put him in as my starting SG (except as a spot starter in case of injury) for the reasons Mosca states above. I want a solid defender, guy who can rebound & distribute in support of Wall. Or - I want Gil, if he gets back in the neighborhood of what he could do in the past.

Then, add a solid PF who can rebound & score in the post (Sullinger!) and move Dray to the bench. Nick & Dray could back up 4 positions between them, and both would be signed for years. In the frontcourt, I'd rather see Dray & KSera together, backing up _____ (Sullinger) & McGee together. Now that's a lineup I could get behind.

[nate33]

I had definitely been in the trade Nick camp at the beginning of the season, but he has turned me around. Sort of. What I really want to see is the team sign him to a reasonable ($5M/yr?) deal for 3-4 years. It might happen anyway, if another team signs him to an offer sheet and the Wiz match.

Then, plug him in long-term as that supersub off the bench. He can still average 28-32 min, contend for 6MOY, play decent to solid defense, and shoot us into some games a la LA last week. I just don't think I'd put him in as my starting SG (except as a spot starter in case of injury) for the reasons Mosca states above. I want a solid defender, guy who can rebound & distribute in support of Wall. Or - I want Gil, if he gets back in the neighborhood of what he could do in the past.

Then, add a solid PF who can rebound & score in the post (Sullinger!) and move Dray to the bench. Nick & Dray could back up 4 positions between them, and both would be signed for years. In the frontcourt, I'd rather see Dray & KSera together, backing up _____ (Sullinger) & McGee together. Now that's a lineup I could get behind.

Yup. I think that's the shortest way to a consistent playoff team:

PG Wall/low-minute vet
SG Gil/Young
SF ???/Young
PF ???/Blatche
C McGee/Seraphin

With the future SF being a quality "3&D" guy like Batum or Chandler, and the future starting PF being a low post bull who can rebound. The ceiling of our team will be dependent on the quality of players we obtain to fill those roles. We also need McGee to get better at pick-and-roll defense.

[Hoopalotta]

Now, of course all this would transpire after the new CBA comes in, but as of the current rules, if we do hit Nick with the Qualifying offer we basically don't have any cap space next offseason as Nick's cap hold would be at $7.9 million. Even if he inks for something reasonable, it's not likely to open dollars of any particular substance up for an actual acquisition.

It's also worth noting that he's probably not going to be able to keep up .56% shooting on long 2-point jumpers which will lead to his efficiency falling off a bit. That's not to say you don't do it, but it needs to be thrown out there (My take is Nick will probably be getting less than $5 million under the parameters of the next deal).

If we were interested in retaining Nick under the current rules, we probably just wouldn't renounce our mid-level exception, though that might not even exist next time around. Actually, even restricted free agency might not exist, though that's much less likely.

But if a contract is going to be offered to Nick it will change the whole structure of the 'Zardian Stratagem. Throw in a likely Javale extension not long after a Nick signing and we're most likely looking at the MLE (if it exists) in lieu of cap space for the foreseeable future (and Leonsis justifiably might not want to spend that given it's history). I'm also thinking that the MLE isn't going to get Wilson Chandler with how he's playing now, though a small forward being BPA in the draft also seems likely. There's some other MLE type wings available, though probably not as good as Chandler.

It'll be tricky going to line up all them ducks. Hinrich's deal in 2012 combined with that year's draft pick and or one of our youngsters might be option A,B & C if we're talking about an impact move. You actually have more flexibility if you're over the cap, willing to spend and juggling expirings rather than just sneaking under the cap line by a smidge over the MLE.

[nate33]

The way I see it, we have 3 options:

1. Dump Arenas mostly for 2011 or 2012 contracts. That leaves us with room to resign Young, extend McGee, sign an MLE-caliber starting SF like Chandler, and still have max cap space in 2012.

2. Keep Arenas. Resign Young. Sign a young starting-caliber SF for roughly MLE-caliber money (we might have to dump Hinrich for expirings at the Trade Deadline, depending on what the new cap number target is). Give up on free agency plans unless Arenas is somehow offloaded.

3. Keep Arenas. Go with the bare-bones free agency plan this summer. Do not resign Young. Do not resign Thornton or Howard. Sign only our draft picks, vet minimum players, and/or players on 1-year contracts. We'd still have max cap space (or close to it) in 2012 after accounting for McGee's cap hold.

My first preference is Option 1. My second preference is Option 2. Option 3 seems awful risky to me. I figure our odds of signing someone like Howard are so slim that it's not worth letting Young and possibly a good young player like Chandler get away. (Chandler is an interesting target because he's young, but the Knicks probably won't resign him because they're saving cap room for Melo or Paul. It's rare to be able to acquire a pretty good young player like that via free agency without having to offer a ridiculous front-loaded contract so the team won't match.)

[mhd]

WHat about this trade: Hinrich for D-Suck+Ajinca+Barea+Dallas 2011 1st rounder? Dallas has 2012 cap plans that stay intact, and they get a huge upgrade as a backup PG and SG in Hinrich.

We get cap space for the upcoming FA to resign N1 and perhaps go after Chandler.

[Hoopalotta]

The way I see it, we have 3 options:

1. Dump Arenas mostly for 2011 or 2012 contracts. That leaves us with room to resign Young, extend McGee, sign an MLE-caliber starting SF like Chandler, and still have max cap space in 2012.

2. Keep Arenas. Resign Young. Sign a young starting-caliber SF for roughly MLE-caliber money (we might have to dump Hinrich for expirings at the Trade Deadline, depending on what the new cap number target is). Give up on free agency plans unless Arenas is somehow offloaded.

3. Keep Arenas. Go with the bare-bones free agency plan this summer. Do not resign Young. Do not resign Thornton or Howard. Sign only our draft picks, vet minimum players, and/or players on 1-year contracts. We'd still have max cap space (or close to it) in 2012 after accounting for McGee's cap hold.

My first preference is Option 1. My second preference is Option 2. Option 3 seems awful risky to me. I figure our odds of signing someone like Howard are so slim that it's not worth letting Young and possibly a good young player like Chandler get away. (Chandler is an interesting target because he's young, but the Knicks probably won't resign him because they're saving cap room for Melo or Paul. It's rare to be able to acquire a pretty good young player like that via free agency without having to offer a ridiculous front-loaded contract so the team won't match.)

Yeah, I'm easily 1-2-3 by way of preference as well, though I'd also see if a BOYD for a late lottery pick is there in the '2' scenario (maybe the '1' scenario as well). And if Ted's gonna pull a Daddy Warbucks on us, we could still go MLE on a small forward under the '2' plan so long as the CBA allows it.

I must say that I really hate option 3 as, in addition to the points you referenced, I'm afraid that if McGee hits the open market he's going to get an absurd contract offer from a desperate bidder. If I recall correctly, Rudy Gay wanted something like $65 million when they were negotiating in 2009, Heisley balked and then he had to drop $82 million that next summer.

Possibly McGee will be unreasonable in his demands, but if we're looking at the Noah, Horford, Tyrus Thomas deals as general precedents (and by that I mean something in the middle for McGee), I'm easily all over that instead of hoping for a big ticket acquisition in 2012. By the time any decisions are made, the front office will know what the new CBA looks like too, so if the cap comes down and we won't have much 2012 cap space anyway, this also becomes an easier decision.

(Edit --> under the '2' scenario) I definitely would strongly consider not extending Young and targeting Wilson Chandler if it was a matter of one or the other (ideally his agent would say something through back channels early on to let us know). If we had Wilson instead of Nick already, nobody here would be talking about letting Wilson go and going after Nick. Nick's done a great job this year, but Chandler's just the better all around player and if his 3-ball continues to improve, he's just about perfect aside from maybe being more powerful than quick and having a mouth unkempt enough to nearly force a triceps removal on David Lee. A nice young veteran in the right age bracket is a hard get in free agency and he'll be right there for the taking unless something unforeseen happens (like if he gets traded). He's also a solid defensive rebounder to boot.

There's some good small forwards that are older and some respectable centers, but Wilson has to be the best fit for us unless we draft a small forward.

[MJG]

Would Dallas even want to trade just Stevenson for Hinrich at this point?

[Hoopalotta]

Would Dallas even want to trade just Stevenson for Hinrich at this point?

There'd need to be filler, but yeah, I think even that's questionable with combo-guard Rowdy Boobs coming back soon.

[pancakes3]

i'm buying low and selling high. someone just proposed a JR Smith for Nick Young straight up trade in my fantasy league and i'm taking it.

[fishercob]

I'm glad Nick is playing better and enhancing his value, but I still have huge reservations about committing long term resources to the kid. Two main reasons:

1) As Hoop points out (as have Mikey Prada, nivek, etc) his shooting acumen is likely not sustainable. He's shooting 56% on what NBA stat types refer to as "sh*t shots" -- those 16-23 footers. he's career 41% from there. He'll drop down closer to that range. Count on it.

2) Not trying to be mean, but by all accounts of those close to the team, Nick's a mental midget. Much of his success thus far seems to stem from the fact that his responsibilities have been so limited. To me, that's not the type of guy you go out of your way to keep. Ask yourself, would Young ever play big minutes in San Antonio, Orlando, Dallas, etc? I just never see him as a major rotation player on a contending team.

If we can keep him on the relative cheap, fine. If we can sell when his value is high, that works for me too. But $5M/yr over 3 or 4 years? Pass (ironical word usage intended).

[MJG]

i'm buying low and selling high. someone just proposed a JR Smith for Nick Young straight up trade in my fantasy league and i'm taking it.

I'd consider the idea of selling high in real life, if there are teams out there taking notice of N1. I generally like the guy, but I don't think he can play this well over the long haul. It really wouldn't surprise me if this stretch turns out to be the best stretch of his entire career. I don't think we should force the issue, but if there's interest, I hope we don't ignore it.

[nate33]

I'm glad Nick is playing better and enhancing his value, but I still have huge reservations about committing long term resources to the kid. Two main reasons:

1) As Hoop points out (as have Mikey Prada, nivek, etc) his shooting acumen is likely not sustainable. He's shooting 56% on what NBA stat types refer to as "sh*t shots" -- those 16-23 footers. he's career 41% from there. He'll drop down closer to that range. Count on it.

2) Not trying to be mean, but by all accounts of those close to the team, Nick's a mental midget. Much of his success thus far seems to stem from the fact that his responsibilities have been so limited. To me, that's not the type of guy you go out of your way to keep. Ask yourself, would Young ever play big minutes in San Antonio, Orlando, Dallas, etc? I just never see him as a major rotation player on a contending team.

If we can keep him on the relative cheap, fine. If we can sell when his value is high, that works for me too. But $5M/yr over 3 or 4 years? Pass (ironical word usage intended).

Fair points, all.

[Dat2U]

I'm glad Nick is playing better and enhancing his value, but I still have huge reservations about committing long term resources to the kid. Two main reasons:

1) As Hoop points out (as have Mikey Prada, nivek, etc) his shooting acumen is likely not sustainable. He's shooting 56% on what NBA stat types refer to as "sh*t shots" -- those 16-23 footers. he's career 41% from there. He'll drop down closer to that range. Count on it.

2) Not trying to be mean, but by all accounts of those close to the team, Nick's a mental midget. Much of his success thus far seems to stem from the fact that his responsibilities have been so limited. To me, that's not the type of guy you go out of your way to keep. Ask yourself, would Young ever play big minutes in San Antonio, Orlando, Dallas, etc? I just never see him as a major rotation player on a contending team.

If we can keep him on the relative cheap, fine. If we can sell when his value is high, that works for me too. But $5M/yr over 3 or 4 years? Pass (ironical word usage intended).

This is exactly where I'm at as well. It's far too early to start talking about an extension for Young. I've been shocked about his play but I'm hard pressed to believe he can keep it up. Time will tell though.