RealGM

yosemiteben wrote:

Robot Rock wrote:I'll never understand people giving MKG seven years to break out but wanting Monk traded after two.

I think that's because MKG was consistently productive at one part of the game whereas Monk has had major issues on both ends.

Didn't Melo put like 60 on his head and we all tried to deflect the blame?

Robot Rock wrote:

yosemiteben wrote:

Robot Rock wrote:I'll never understand people giving MKG seven years to break out but wanting Monk traded after two.

I think that's because MKG was consistently productive at one part of the game whereas Monk has had major issues on both ends.

Didn't Melo put like 60 on his head and we all tried to deflect the blame?

Is your position that MKG was not more consistent defensively his first two years than Monk is offensively?

yosemiteben wrote:

Robot Rock wrote:

yosemiteben wrote:I think that's because MKG was consistently productive at one part of the game whereas Monk has had major issues on both ends.

Didn't Melo put like 60 on his head and we all tried to deflect the blame?

Is your position that MKG was not more consistent defensively his first two years than Monk is offensively?

Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking if that's what you got from my original post.

My position is that MKG got far more time to shine and did absolutely nothing with it, but Monk somehow was supposed to be traded two months into his rookie season and CERTAINLY by now, entering his third season with no proven player ahead of him at his position during a time in which we're supposedly trying to see what we have with young players who haven't been given an opportunity.

Robot Rock wrote:

yosemiteben wrote:

Robot Rock wrote:
Didn't Melo put like 60 on his head and we all tried to deflect the blame?

Is your position that MKG was not more consistent defensively his first two years than Monk is offensively?

Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking if that's what you got from my original post.

What I got from your post was that Melo scored a lot of points on MKG once, which didn't seem particularly relevant to my point that MKG was more consistent defensively than Monk is offensively (or defensively).

Do you think MKG was not a positive defensive player his first two years? Because Monk has been a significant net negative on both ends.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I'm as big as fan of Monk as anybody, but the writing is on the wall. We've had 2 coaches that have not been able to find a place for Monk on the roster. Maybe 3rd time is a charm? But it's probably not going to be here.

Are people suggesting that because in the past we’ve kept drafted players with “high upside” on the roster for years and years and years while waiting, hoping and praying that it’ll eventually “click” for them and they’ll live up to some weird ceiling we’ve created for them that they never come even remotely close to hitting that we should continue to keep drafted players with “high upside” on the roster for years and years and years while waiting, hoping and praying that it’ll eventually “click” for them and they’ll live up to some weird ceiling we’ve created for them that they never come even remotely close to hitting?

Great idea to keep committing the same mistakes over and over.

Especially when you are bashing the players we’ve applied this approach to previously.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The difference is that MKG showed some serious chops with various elements of the game. Heck he even developed a WET midrange jumper so it stood to reason he could develop a passable 3pt shot eventually. MKG is elite at certain things like defending the rim, offensive rebounding putbacks, grab & gos to go from d-reb to transition, etc

Monk has never shown any semblance of productivity. The guy has been human excrement on the court..

BigRedDog wrote:The difference is that MKG showed some serious chops with various elements of the game. Heck he even developed a WET midrange jumper so it stood to reason he could develop a passable 3pt shot eventually. MKG is elite at certain things like defending the rim, offensive rebounding putbacks, grab & gos to go from d-reb to transition, etc

Monk has never shown any semblance of productivity. The guy has been human excrement on the court..

Is this satire?

BigSlam wrote:Are people suggesting that because in the past we’ve kept drafted players with “high upside” on the roster for years and years and years while waiting, hoping and praying that it’ll eventually “click” for them and they’ll live up to some weird ceiling we’ve created for them that they never come even remotely close to hitting that we should continue to keep drafted players with “high upside” on the roster for years and years and years while waiting, hoping and praying that it’ll eventually “click” for them and they’ll live up to some weird ceiling we’ve created for them that they never come even remotely close to hitting?

Great idea to keep committing the same mistakes over and over.

Especially when you are bashing the players we’ve applied this approach to previously.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean currently, not previously.

Robot Rock wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:The difference is that MKG showed some serious chops with various elements of the game. Heck he even developed a WET midrange jumper so it stood to reason he could develop a passable 3pt shot eventually. MKG is elite at certain things like defending the rim, offensive rebounding putbacks, grab & gos to go from d-reb to transition, etc

Monk has never shown any semblance of productivity. The guy has been human excrement on the court..

Is this satire?

MKG did shoot a pretty high percentage midrange early on his career. His 3rd year, he was shooting 52.4% from 10-14 feet, which was near the top of the NBA. For comparison, Steph Curry shot 52.9% from 10-14 feet that year.

Last year, all his stats fell off a cliff though.

Here's the biggest reason why you can't compare Monk to MKG. Monk is obviously supposed to be high octane offense. His defense is subpar at best. But, take a look at these stats and you'll see Monk has shown absolutely nothing thus far.

Monk:


Compare that to MKG, who at least looked playable

MKG:

316Hornets wrote:Here's the biggest reason why you can't compare Monk to MKG. Monk is obviously supposed to be high octane offense. His defense is subpar at best. But, take a look at these stats and you'll see Monk has shown absolutely nothing thus far.

Monk:


Compare that to MKG, who at least looked playable

MKG:

yeah this prettty much summarizes exactly what i was saying. MKG has had his ups and downs. He has glaring deficiencies but also some pretty obvious strengths as a player.

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue Monk has been better than MKG. MKG showed some real flashes his rookie and sophomore campaign before the game started shiifting further from his strengths and the injuries mounted.

The game hasn't moved away from what Monk does well. He just doesn't do anything well.

BigRedDog wrote:

316Hornets wrote:Here's the biggest reason why you can't compare Monk to MKG. Monk is obviously supposed to be high octane offense. His defense is subpar at best. But, take a look at these stats and you'll see Monk has shown absolutely nothing thus far.

Monk:


Compare that to MKG, who at least looked playable

MKG:

yeah this prettty much summarizes exactly what i was saying. MKG has had his ups and downs. He has glaring deficiencies but also some pretty obvious strengths as a player.

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue Monk has been better than MKG. MKG showed some real flashes his rookie and sophomore campaign before the game started shiifting further from his strengths and the injuries mounted.

The game hasn't moved away from what Monk does well. He just doesn't do anything well.

I can't forget his 25 points game against miami in the Playoffs. I was SO HYPED haha.

lol rename this thread "We Don't Want The Monk (Give Up The Monk): The Malik Monk Thread"

I think that everyone here would be more than happy if Monk proved all his doubters wrong.

I just don't see any way an objective assessment of Monk's actual on the court performance over all games justifies much hope though. Combine that with all the off the court stuff this summer (not really seeing him working out with the other young players, not being willing to do any summer league, etc.) and there seems to be little reason to expect any kind of meaningful improvement in his game.

Regarding MKG - there was no question he was working to get better. He was talked about as being a big part of the team's good chemistry. His off the court demeanor also was very likable. I can't speak for anyone else but I cut him some slack because of all that. Ironically MKG's lack of progress is also one reason I expect less out of Monk. We've seen failure before.

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote:I think that everyone here would be more than happy if Monk proved all his doubters wrong.

I just don't see any way an objective assessment of Monk's actual on the court performance over all games justifies much hope though. Combine that with all the off the court stuff this summer (not really seeing him working out with the other young players, not being willing to do any summer league, etc.) and there seems to be little reason to expect any kind of meaningful improvement in his game.

Regarding MKG - there was no question he was working to get better. He was talked about as being a big part of the team's good chemistry. His off the court demeanor also was very likable. I can't speak for anyone else but I cut him some slack because of all that. Ironically MKG's lack of progress is also one reason I expect less out of Monk. We've seen failure before.

I agree on many points. I also don't see a lot of meaningful connections between the two guys. One is a number 2 pick the other late lottery. One is a forward the other a combo guard. One was seriously injured repeatedly and with terrible timing (every time he was improving his game, BAM, out for months) but got lots of playing time and steady but mediocre results. The other has been healthy but is very inconsistent in both minutes played and erratic in play.

I want Monk, We want the Monk......BUT he has not shown a lot to get excited about so far in both attitude and results. That needs to change this year.

Robot Rock wrote:

BigSlam wrote:Are people suggesting that because in the past we’ve kept drafted players with “high upside” on the roster for years and years and years while waiting, hoping and praying that it’ll eventually “click” for them and they’ll live up to some weird ceiling we’ve created for them that they never come even remotely close to hitting that we should continue to keep drafted players with “high upside” on the roster for years and years and years while waiting, hoping and praying that it’ll eventually “click” for them and they’ll live up to some weird ceiling we’ve created for them that they never come even remotely close to hitting?

Great idea to keep committing the same mistakes over and over.

Especially when you are bashing the players we’ve applied this approach to previously.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean currently, not previously.

I think there are two camps:

Camp A: (seemingly championed by fats), has never really given him a chance despite showing random flashes of brilliance and have been down on him from the start. MKG Love Dome members have co-residency in Camp A for some unknown reason. It appears that the colossal failure that was the MKG Experiment has made some members overly critical towards other draftees for some unknown reason.

Camp B: cautiously optimistic post-draft, but wary of his physical limitations, expected him to be a big time shooter/sparkplug/microwave/super-sub type of player. Slowly but surely soured on him over time as his production has not improved and his attitude seems less than desirable.

At the end of the day, every player taken should be considered a vacuum selection. Giving MKG way more time than he needed to prove himself doesn't mean we should (or should not) do the same for Monk. At some point, the team leadership needs to become better at internal scouting and know when to cut loss on missed picks. Re-signing exceedingly mediocre draft picks (MKG, Cody, Biz kind of) has a large part to do with the house of pain the team has currently built themselves.

It doesn't seem like Monk has the talent, or frankly, the **** to improve. I hope he proves me wrong this year but I had higher hopes for him prior to. If he doesn't show anything noteworthy soon. I'm cool with shipping him out at the first opportunity

I'm pretty neutral on Monk. It wouldn't really bother me to trade him got draft consideration or to keep him, I don't feel strongly that he'll be successful or that he'll fail.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I just don't endorse trading him before the season begins. See where we are in January.

Robot Rock wrote:I just don't endorse trading him before the season begins. See where we are in January.

Yeah I think I agree with that, but at the same time if some team is a believer and is willing to send a solid offer to us I'd seriously consider it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk