RealGM

yosemiteben wrote:

Robot Rock wrote:

yosemiteben wrote: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

One of the biggest reasons we are where we are (two years away from being good enough to be called a dumpster fire) is that we consistently buy high and sell low. Continuing that process is not conducive to improvement.

I'd argue the opposite. What player have we sold low on, in the sense that we traded him and then he blew up somewhere else?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

We've bought high on MKG (spending the second overall pick on him) and we have no choice but to sell low or give him away at season's end.

We invested so much into turning Kemba into a superstar and we got Terry Rozier for $58 million out of it. That's what I mean by buying high and selling low. It may not literally be the act of buying, but it's the process of making a major investment and receiving a paltry return.

That's why I advocate waiting on Monk. If we sell now, it makes no sense because he could come out and light it up the first couple months of the season. Is that realistic? Probably not, but the possibility remains that a 21-year-old SG with a lightning-rod skill for scoring could solve issues beyond netting us a second-round pick or two.

Robot Rock wrote:

yosemiteben wrote:

Robot Rock wrote:
One of the biggest reasons we are where we are (two years away from being good enough to be called a dumpster fire) is that we consistently buy high and sell low. Continuing that process is not conducive to improvement.

I'd argue the opposite. What player have we sold low on, in the sense that we traded him and then he blew up somewhere else?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

We've bought high on MKG (spending the second overall pick on him) and we have no choice but to sell low or give him away at season's end.

We invested so much into turning Kemba into a superstar and we got Terry Rozier for $58 million out of it. That's what I mean by buying high and selling low. It may not literally be the act of buying, but it's the process of making a major investment and receiving a paltry return.

That's why I advocate waiting on Monk. If we sell now, it makes no sense because he could come out and light it up the first couple months of the season. Is that realistic? Probably not, but the possibility remains that a 21-year-old SG with a lightning-rod skill for scoring could solve issues beyond netting us a second-round pick or two.

I'm 100% down with your argument that we've invested too much and gotten too little back in the past with players.

Where you lose me is using that as a basis to support investing more in Monk. I mean this seems like you want to do the thing you just said has gotten is in trouble in the past?

And again, I'm not opposed to keeping him, I just don't think I understand your argument.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we "invest more in Monk" IE, give him an extension. We have already made our investment in him, I think Robot is just saying it makes a lot more sense to see what that investment really is before dumping it. The fact is, while he has been far from stellar, he also hasn't really had a chance. I'm sorry but I'd rather give the guy a look during a down season than just dump him for a second rounder or something. If someone came to us with a good deal would I trade him? Of course. But his value is viewed pretty low around the league so it makes more sense to give him a shot and see if he cant recoup some of that value. We have nothing to lose in doing that, its no like him getting 20+ min a game is going to hamper development of some young stud we have on the bench this season.

CatgutStitches wrote:I don't think anyone is suggesting we "invest more in Monk" IE, give him an extension. We have already made our investment in him, I think Robot is just saying it makes a lot more sense to see what that investment really is before dumping it. The fact is, while he has been far from stellar, he also hasn't really had a chance. I'm sorry but I'd rather give the guy a look during a down season than just dump him for a second rounder or something. If someone came to us with a good deal would I trade him? Of course. But his value is viewed pretty low around the league so it makes more sense to give him a shot and see if he cant recoup some of that value. We have nothing to lose in doing that, its no like him getting 20+ min a game is going to hamper development of some young stud we have on the bench this season.

That’s what I’m saying. At least through January. What’s he gonna do? Cost us some wins? LOLOLOL

Turning down offers for Monk is a way of investing in him though. That's kinda my point.

This is my biggest reason to doubt Monk, for better or worse. He just doesn't seem to be involved with the other young guys and that makes me question things.

TBF, PJ doesn't really get photoed with the "core" either

PJ has had barely any time to bond with the other guys. He has an excuse for not hanging out. Monk though? That's a different story, but some people prefer to be alone so it's not necessarily indicative that Monk doesn't care.

https://www.nba.com/hornets/video/teams/hornets/2019/08/14/2770735/1565821374179-190814-foodlion-malikdwayne-2770735

Just throwing it out there... Taken straight off the hornets website

I get it, he's not in the gym here with Bacon. But i think its unfair to say that hes not involved with this young core. Especially when Bacon has tweeted about him recently. I don't think Monk is purposely distancing himself from the "core" because hes a loner. If he's not with them in every picture, maybe its because hes really trying to focus and work on his game. Just a thought.

He was with them at Bacs birthday party at some club last night.

I guess I have an outlier opinion - I don't care at all whether Monk is friends and hangs out with the other young guys. I mean yeah it's fun for them to be buds, but as long as he works hard to improve it doesn't matter too much to me where he does it. I have some co-workers I spend a lot of time with and we get along great but I don't feel obligated to spend a huge chunk of my personal time with them.

Just my 2 cents.

Hornet Mania wrote:Monk needs to play in a modern offense where the pace is quick and the ball doesn't stop. He needs the floor spaced so he can get either open threes, clear driving lanes, or one dribble into a wide-open midrange shot, that is his game. I'm firmly convinced that if he played with a garbage squad who at least pushed the pace, like Phoenix, he'd look much better. If he played on a good team, like GS or Houston, who plays a fast style he'd contribute less but still likely look far better.

Much like Braggins menioned with Frank/Cody/MKG, Monk's development is being wasted. I think the common denominator conservative, and more importantly totally outdated, strategy. What good team in the NBA plays a style even somewhat similar to Cliff-ball (which is just a variation of Van Gundy ball)? No one. There's good reason for that, I think. The game has changed and we're trying to force new-age pegs into old-school holes and failing all sides miserably in the process.

Logged in just due to this post. I been in this thread from beginning to now just reading every single post. I went back into tape, even looked at clips like DX strengths and weaknesses and I stopped and said, damn, Malik Monk is kinda like Cam Reddish weakness wise. I see the same weakness at finishing in traffic. The same turnovers in traffic. The same bad contested shots and the struggle to draw fouls in traffic. Both were exclusively elite spacers which caught me off guard. I kept comparing Cam to Jamal Crawford in how he gets it when in reality, the player that's perfect was Malik Monk all of this time in terms of type of game. Cam is more advanced in terms of 3pt variance and his size helps him offensively but I see a ton of offensive similarities.

I been watching Monk. He clearly improved in year 2 in terms of playing in the half court set but his biggest issue I saw was he needed a PG who has a lot of offensive gravity which Kemba has but not to the benefit of his guards but of his bigs while Fox gravity benefits his wings more than his bigs which is why Hield/Bogi and others have career years with Fox. Monk is good but the situation hasn't been good for him in Charlotte and from the outside looking in, it's only getting worse.

He hasn't came close to his expected 38.8% projected numbers but he is shooting 9.4 and 10.2 3per36 so his numbers aren't too off. Outside of some rare guys like Bradley Beal, most guys lose on their projected % if they shoot a lot more than expected. Klay Thompson's per36 in college is identical to his career totals so numbers do translate.

The big thing I noticed was how steep his FG% decline was. 45% to 35% of unheard of with decent mins and not some 3.4 mpg nonsense. It was clear, he wasn't able to play his game.

Clifford success in Orlando tells me what I knew about him. He is a damn good coach, especially defensively but offensively, he leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know what Charlotte is doing. I don't see a clear plan either. It's not like I hated the picks. Malik Monk was a good pick. Miles Bridges was a great pick. P.J. Washington was a good pick. But sometimes, is that a good pick for your team is the question. I don't know if Charlotte done well at answering that. I honestly think Charlotte tanking in weak draft years was the biggest issue. As a Hawk fan, I know about that all too well in the early to mid 2000s.

yosemiteben wrote:"Monk isn't a PG, just a playmaker."

Discuss.

Does that just mean he has a bad handle?

No PG skills but has passing chops, usually out of the PnR and has good vision in general. That's usually what it means.

I don't think Monk has bad handles but he doesn't handle traffic and set defenses well.

1v1 or in space, his handles are damn good.

King Ken wrote:

yosemiteben wrote:"Monk isn't a PG, just a playmaker."

Discuss.

Does that just mean he has a bad handle?

No PG skills but has passing chops, usually out of the PnR and has good vision in general. That's usually what it means.

I don't think Monk has bad handles but he doesn't handle traffic and set defenses well.

1v1 or in space, his handles are damn good.

I can go along with this. Monk could be a PG in a lineup as long as there's another passer who handles the ball with him. Like everything with Malik, he *can* make some slick passes and set up teammates, just not consistently.

KEMBAtheMETEOR wrote:

King Ken wrote:

yosemiteben wrote:"Monk isn't a PG, just a playmaker."

Discuss.

Does that just mean he has a bad handle?

No PG skills but has passing chops, usually out of the PnR and has good vision in general. That's usually what it means.

I don't think Monk has bad handles but he doesn't handle traffic and set defenses well.

1v1 or in space, his handles are damn good.

as there's another passer who handles the ball with him.

so.... a PG?

SWedd523 wrote:

KEMBAtheMETEOR wrote:

King Ken wrote:No PG skills but has passing chops, usually out of the PnR and has good vision in general. That's usually what it means.

I don't think Monk has bad handles but he doesn't handle traffic and set defenses well.

1v1 or in space, his handles are damn good.

as there's another passer who handles the ball with him.

so.... a PG?

or a superstar at another position that takes some of those PG duties

KEMBAtheMETEOR wrote:

SWedd523 wrote:

KEMBAtheMETEOR wrote:as there's another passer who handles the ball with him.

so.... a PG?

or a superstar at another position that takes some of those PG duties

I felt the perfect fit for him would have been in Philly with Ben Simmons, Embiid, Ersan and Robert Covington a couple of years ago. Where he would always have space to operate in and the gravity of others would make it impossible to focus on him

Monk only makes one pass. He dribbles to his right and then passes over his shoulder or head to someone on his left. Sometimes it results in a pretty sweet play as he's able to hit one of the big men cutting to the rim. But often it's just super predictable and a turnover waiting to happen. He needs to start showing some more variety in his playmaking.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

100%

Borrego said that Monk added 20 pounds of muscle.

?s=19