Just wondering, how was Moe Harkless a starter for 3 years in Portland?

[kenwood3333]

If he is better than his current form, Portland may not be able to afford to keep him.

[contestedlayups]

Harrison Barnes was essentially the starter for GS for 4 years (2nd year started 1/3 of the games), and 1 of those years they won the championship and another they won 73 games. I think it was the same thing for Portland as it was for GS, basically that was the weakest spot in the starting lineup and a long athletic 6'9 guy to plug in there and play okay defense and asked to hit the occasional open 3 was enough to get by.

Harry Barnes was quite the recruit coming out of high school, and played at North Carolina, so the pedigree for Barnes was way better than Harkless, who played one year at St. Johns. Barnes was a glue guy by default, mainly because the Warriors didn't need him to score, and he proved he could score with Dallas. Harkless is more of a traditional glue guy who doesn't do too much incorrectly, and can guard, but is unlikely to get a bucket on his own on a bad team like Barnes. Harkless would still be a traditional glue guy wherever he went, which is never a bad thing, especially for good teams. Hence why he continued to start on Portland despite low counting stats.

[Duke4life831]

Harrison Barnes was essentially the starter for GS for 4 years (2nd year started 1/3 of the games), and 1 of those years they won the championship and another they won 73 games. I think it was the same thing for Portland as it was for GS, basically that was the weakest spot in the starting lineup and a long athletic 6'9 guy to plug in there and play okay defense and asked to hit the occasional open 3 was enough to get by.

Harry Barnes was quite the recruit coming out of high school, and played at North Carolina, so the pedigree for Barnes was way better than Harkless, who played one year at St. Johns. Barnes was a glue guy by default, mainly because the Warriors didn't need him to score, and he proved he could score with Dallas. Harkless is more of a traditional glue guy who doesn't do too much incorrectly, and can guard, but is unlikely to get a bucket on his own on a bad team like Barnes. Harkless would still be a traditional glue guy wherever he went, which is never a bad thing, especially for good teams. Hence why he continued to start on Portland despite low counting stats.

But the first part you're talking about is just hype and potential. They were both asked to play similar roles because both are limited players. While I agree Barnes can get a basket better than Harkless can, Barnes also showed that he cant do that at a high level. Barnes was an 18ppg scorer on average to slightly below average efficiency on a bad team. Sac got Barnes to play essentially play the same role he played in GS, be 6'8 athletic and play solid defense and hit the occasional open shot when you get it.

I would actually take Harkless on my team over Barnes. Harkless defense is actually legit, and the 37% vs 35% difference from 3 over the past 3 years isn't enough of a gap to make up for the defense Harkless has over Barnes.

[madmaxmedia]

Harrison Barnes was essentially the starter for GS for 4 years (2nd year started 1/3 of the games), and 1 of those years they won the championship and another they won 73 games. I think it was the same thing for Portland as it was for GS, basically that was the weakest spot in the starting lineup and a long athletic 6'9 guy to plug in there and play okay defense and asked to hit the occasional open 3 was enough to get by.

I guess if all you can do is defend a couple of positions, hit the corner 3, and maybe run well in transition then you're generally not going to be a significant negative. You may not be a big positive, but at least defenses can't collapse from you and offenses can't abuse you.

[contestedlayups]

Harrison Barnes was essentially the starter for GS for 4 years (2nd year started 1/3 of the games), and 1 of those years they won the championship and another they won 73 games. I think it was the same thing for Portland as it was for GS, basically that was the weakest spot in the starting lineup and a long athletic 6'9 guy to plug in there and play okay defense and asked to hit the occasional open 3 was enough to get by.

Harry Barnes was quite the recruit coming out of high school, and played at North Carolina, so the pedigree for Barnes was way better than Harkless, who played one year at St. Johns. Barnes was a glue guy by default, mainly because the Warriors didn't need him to score, and he proved he could score with Dallas. Harkless is more of a traditional glue guy who doesn't do too much incorrectly, and can guard, but is unlikely to get a bucket on his own on a bad team like Barnes. Harkless would still be a traditional glue guy wherever he went, which is never a bad thing, especially for good teams. Hence why he continued to start on Portland despite low counting stats.

But the first part you're talking about is just hype and potential. They were both asked to play similar roles because both are limited players. While I agree Barnes can get a basket better than Harkless can, Barnes also showed that he cant do that at a high level. Barnes was an 18ppg scorer on average to slightly below average efficiency on a bad team. Sac got Barnes to play essentially play the same role he played in GS, be 6'8 athletic and play solid defense and hit the occasional open shot when you get it.

I would actually take Harkless on my team over Barnes. Harkless defense is actually legit, and the 37% vs 35% difference from 3 over the past 3 years isn't enough of a gap to make up for the defense Harkless has over Barnes.

Regardless if Barnes can be efficient with his scoring, the fact is that he can do it. I've never seen the wiggle or moves from Harkless that Barnes can do to get a shot off over a defender contesting a shot. The majority of Harkless' points are from putbacks and corner 3's. When you're a top 5 recruit in a class, you're not making a living off of putbacks and corner 3's.

Basically all I'm saying is that Barnes shouldn't be compared with Harkless for the fact that if the top 4 options on a starting unit are injured on Sacramento and the Clippers, I would trust Barnes way more than I would Harkless to produce the scoring load. I can understand why you would take Harkless though, as he seems humble enough to not demand the ball, and that 0-105 2016 NBA Finals from Barnes surely left a bad taste in your mouth.

[madmaxmedia]

I will tell you what Maurice Harkless can do well- get you an extra 1st round pick to help land Paul George, to help land Kawhi Leonard.

[BIG Game]

My take is that, he covered for the defensive deficiency of Lillard and McCollum. He could cover three position SG/SF/PF, and could hit a three. Therefore, he could take though defensive assignments from Lillard or McCollum and space the floor on Offense. Also, they got him when he was still pretty young and wanted to see if he could develop.

[Duke4life831]

Harry Barnes was quite the recruit coming out of high school, and played at North Carolina, so the pedigree for Barnes was way better than Harkless, who played one year at St. Johns. Barnes was a glue guy by default, mainly because the Warriors didn't need him to score, and he proved he could score with Dallas. Harkless is more of a traditional glue guy who doesn't do too much incorrectly, and can guard, but is unlikely to get a bucket on his own on a bad team like Barnes. Harkless would still be a traditional glue guy wherever he went, which is never a bad thing, especially for good teams. Hence why he continued to start on Portland despite low counting stats.

But the first part you're talking about is just hype and potential. They were both asked to play similar roles because both are limited players. While I agree Barnes can get a basket better than Harkless can, Barnes also showed that he cant do that at a high level. Barnes was an 18ppg scorer on average to slightly below average efficiency on a bad team. Sac got Barnes to play essentially play the same role he played in GS, be 6'8 athletic and play solid defense and hit the occasional open shot when you get it.

I would actually take Harkless on my team over Barnes. Harkless defense is actually legit, and the 37% vs 35% difference from 3 over the past 3 years isn't enough of a gap to make up for the defense Harkless has over Barnes.

Regardless if Barnes can be efficient with his scoring, the fact is that he can do it. I've never seen the wiggle or moves from Harkless that Barnes can do to get a shot off over a defender contesting a shot. The majority of Harkless' points are from putbacks and corner 3's. When you're a top 5 recruit in a class, you're not making a living off of putbacks and corner 3's.

Basically all I'm saying is that Barnes shouldn't be compared with Harkless for the fact that if the top 4 options on a starting unit are injured on Sacramento and the Clippers, I would trust Barnes way more than I would Harkless to produce the scoring load. I can understand why you would take Harkless though, as he seems humble enough to not demand the ball, and that 0-105 2016 NBA Finals from Barnes surely left a bad taste in your mouth.

But its not useful. This is like what lots of people said about Wiggins a couple years ago. He's 21 and putting up 23 points a game, of course you give him the max. Cool he was putting up 23 points a game, but it was because he was taking 19 shots a game. Just like with Barnes, ya he can get you 18 shots a game, but its going to take him 15-16 shots to get there. That doesn't help the team.

In your scenario of if the top 4 options go down you would trust Barnes to handle the scoring load, the same result is going to happen, youre going to lose. This is why I would rather have Harkless than Barnes. The only thing Barnes has over Harkless really is his ability to create for himself, but if you find yourself in that position where Barnes is creating for himself, you're most likely screwed. So in a 3&D role which both get asked to play, give me Harkless.

[contestedlayups]

But the first part you're talking about is just hype and potential. They were both asked to play similar roles because both are limited players. While I agree Barnes can get a basket better than Harkless can, Barnes also showed that he cant do that at a high level. Barnes was an 18ppg scorer on average to slightly below average efficiency on a bad team. Sac got Barnes to play essentially play the same role he played in GS, be 6'8 athletic and play solid defense and hit the occasional open shot when you get it.

I would actually take Harkless on my team over Barnes. Harkless defense is actually legit, and the 37% vs 35% difference from 3 over the past 3 years isn't enough of a gap to make up for the defense Harkless has over Barnes.

Regardless if Barnes can be efficient with his scoring, the fact is that he can do it. I've never seen the wiggle or moves from Harkless that Barnes can do to get a shot off over a defender contesting a shot. The majority of Harkless' points are from putbacks and corner 3's. When you're a top 5 recruit in a class, you're not making a living off of putbacks and corner 3's.

Basically all I'm saying is that Barnes shouldn't be compared with Harkless for the fact that if the top 4 options on a starting unit are injured on Sacramento and the Clippers, I would trust Barnes way more than I would Harkless to produce the scoring load. I can understand why you would take Harkless though, as he seems humble enough to not demand the ball, and that 0-105 2016 NBA Finals from Barnes surely left a bad taste in your mouth.

But its not useful. This is like what lots of people said about Wiggins a couple years ago. He's 21 and putting up 23 points a game, of course you give him the max. Cool he was putting up 23 points a game, but it was because he was taking 19 shots a game. Just like with Barnes, ya he can get you 18 shots a game, but its going to take him 15-16 shots to get there. That doesn't help the team.

In your scenario of if the top 4 options go down you would trust Barnes to handle the scoring load, the same result is going to happen, youre going to lose. This is why I would rather have Harkless than Barnes. The only thing Barnes has over Harkless really is his ability to create for himself, but if you find yourself in that position where Barnes is creating for himself, you're most likely screwed. So in a 3&D role which both get asked to play, give me Harkless.

I never disagreed with you regarding Harkless' role as a 3&D player, but I do disagree with your comp to Harry Barnes, still. Two vastly different types of player, just based on how they were brought up and how they play the game. I do think Barnes is capable of being a true 3rd scoring option on a team though, and he likely will be on the Kings this season. Harkless could never be a 3rd option, but will be better as a starter assigned to cover the best perimeter/wing player of that night. Barnes' role now and for the rest of his prime will be as a 3rd option, which is what he should be.

[DusterBuster]

I think it was the same thing for Portland as it was for GS, basically that was the weakest spot in the starting lineup and a long athletic 6'9 guy to plug in there and play okay defense and asked to hit the occasional open 3 was enough to get by.

This.

[Pattycakes]

There's a reason Mo, Turner and Leonard are all gone. I’ll leave it at that. The fact we upgraded all these positions too makes it hilarious everybody has Portland outside of the West Top 4 somehow.

If we improved, it was only marginally. Utah, the Lakers and Clippers all improved significantly, and I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 jumped us.

Last season Denver and Golden State finished above us. The Warriors will be significantly worse this year, but I don't see any reason to think Denver drops off, so pencil them ahead of us.

Also, the finishes last year were razor thin, as they have been for years. The 8 seed and 2 seed were seperated by 6 games. So not much of a difference between the teams, random luck plays a big part in how things shake out. Last season Portland abused the Eastern conference to a 24-6 record. Do you see us replicating that? Because if we don't, we need to make up those wins in the West.

So I have us at the 5 seed. Could finish slightly higher or lower depending on circumstance, but 5 sounds right. I don't think fans of any team should be offended by where their teams are projected to finish. The projections don't matter at all. Last season, ESPN projected us to finish 10th, and the Lakers 6th. But instead, the Lakers finished 10th and we finished 3rd.

Your opinion and mine of marginal improvement are vastly different. The blazers polished off every flawed area of the roster it faced. We have 3 good scoring vet SGs, two decent SFs finally. Two top centers that once healthy actually can compete at the starting spot. Not a single player we lost really mattered but Curry and Kanter who we more than made up for resigning Hood and acquiring Bazemore/Whiteside and an older Simons. You can keep record of this post if needed, I got the Blazers as the 1/2 seed in pretty dominant fashion. Clippers will have a learning curve, Jazz are hit or miss at this point and Lakers will still be garbage somehow.

[whatchaknow]

Harkless really can’t defend anything but long wings to be honest. He’s pretty soft vs 4s and not near quick enough to defend points and smaller 2s. He’s got an underrated post game so you can’t just throw a guard on him defensively. But like others have said the effort comes and goes if it was always there he’d be a solid starter. If he has to come off the bench he’s gonna lose interest though so I don’t see him being a factor in LA

[Najee12]

One thing strange I find about Harkless is his 3pt% went up to 41% in one year then 27% the next. Any reason for that volatility, POR fans?

I call it a case of regression toward the mean, given that Moe Harkless is a career .323 3-point shooter.

Harkless and Al-Farouq Aminu are the definitions of role-playing, nondescript NBA forwards - decent to even above-average defenders, modest offensive players who don't hurt you if you have a strong enough team around them. Harkless is in the line of players such as the late Rasual Butler, James Posey and Marvin Williams -- solid seventh-man types who can come off the bench and contribute to a winning team but not someone for whom you give a bigger role.

[HotelVitale]

There's a reason Mo, Turner and Leonard are all gone. I’ll leave it at that. The fact we upgraded all these positions too makes it hilarious everybody has Portland outside of the West Top 4 somehow.

I mean, you all may have upgraded some but two other teams added first-ballot HOF players (with the Clips adding two of them), the team you tied with last year swapped in a PG that'll probably actually play more than 40 games, and another just below you (Utah) upgraded their weak spots by adding a couple of fringe all-stars and some other nice pieces. It hasn't exactly been a static conference this offseason.

[BNM]

Harkless really can’t defend anything but long wings to be honest. He’s pretty soft vs 4s and not near quick enough to defend points and smaller 2s. He’s got an underrated post game so you can’t just throw a guard on him defensively. But like others have said the effort comes and goes if it was always there he’d be a solid starter. If he has to come off the bench he’s gonna lose interest though so I don’t see him being a factor in LA

If you try to play Moe Harkless at the 4, you're going to get killed. Millsap absolutely abused both Harkless and Aminu in Games 1 - 5 of the POR v DEN series. If Stotts hadn't put Collins on Millsap in Games 6 and 7, POR loses that series.

[watpho71]

He's likely to start again this season with LAC beside Beverley, George and Kawhi. They refuse to include him in a trade for Iguodala, so it appears Harkless has some value in LA for the time being.

[realball]

There's a reason Mo, Turner and Leonard are all gone. I’ll leave it at that. The fact we upgraded all these positions too makes it hilarious everybody has Portland outside of the West Top 4 somehow.

Where have you upgraded? From Leonard to Whiteside and Turner to Bazemore I can see. But who did you replace Harkless with? Aminu?

[BNM]

He's likely to start again this season with LAC beside Beverley, George and Kawhi. They refuse to include him in a trade for Iguodala, so it appears Harkless has some value in LA for the time being.

Actually, I think he'll get about 40+ starts due to load management of Kawhi and PG13. In general, both stars will play against most good teams and they will take turns (more or less) resting against the sub-.500 teams. They will be good enough to beat those teams with only one of their superstars playing. In those games, Harkless will start. If Doc is clear with Moe about this upfront, you may get Motivated Moe for most of those starts. Given his defense and length, he's a good option as the "load management" third starter spelling Kawhi and PG13 as needed.

[Showdown]

Because he was good defensive player and because he had eriods during seasons where he looked like elite two way player. He is generally backup player on a contender, starter on mediocre team but since Portland couldn't afford better he was good enough and lot of times even very good.

[Showdown]

There's a reason Mo, Turner and Leonard are all gone. I’ll leave it at that. The fact we upgraded all these positions too makes it hilarious everybody has Portland outside of the West Top 4 somehow.

If we improved, it was only marginally. Utah, the Lakers and Clippers all improved significantly, and I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 jumped us.

Last season Denver and Golden State finished above us. The Warriors will be significantly worse this year, but I don't see any reason to think Denver drops off, so pencil them ahead of us.

Also, the finishes last year were razor thin, as they have been for years. The 8 seed and 2 seed were seperated by 6 games. So not much of a difference between the teams, random luck plays a big part in how things shake out. Last season Portland abused the Eastern conference to a 24-6 record. Do you see us replicating that? Because if we don't, we need to make up those wins in the West.

So I have us at the 5 seed. Could finish slightly higher or lower depending on circumstance, but 5 sounds right. I don't think fans of any team should be offended by where their teams are projected to finish. The projections don't matter at all. Last season, ESPN projected us to finish 10th, and the Lakers 6th. But instead, the Lakers finished 10th and we finished 3rd.

Denver were overachievers last year and their role players won't have same RS like last year, it was obvious in the PO that those players aren't that good. 4-5 seed this year is maximum what they can get .