PG: Royally flushed in Sacramento

[TorontoBarneys]

We need Scottie and IQ back soon. Put on the mask and let's go.

[DelAbbot]

This is not close to being exactly right, more like mostly wrong. Firstly, if this is year 1 of the rebuild as claimed then what the heck were we doing between 2021-23?

No, it's not year 1. We've been rebuilding since 2021 when we tanked, got Barnes, Lowry left and we rebuilt featuring Siakam/ FVV/ OG. Then we waited till their contracts were set to or already expire only to realize it wasn't working then hit the reset button continuing the rebuild under BBQ. So you can say this is year 1 of BBQ but we've been rebuilding for 4 about years now.

The post-championship rebuild was supposed to be 2020/2021 (Tampa tank) and 2021/2022 ("Growing pains"). And Masai planned that rebuild as a mix of competing with PS/FVV/OG while rebuilding the next wave of young players SB/PA/MF/DB. Masai first made the mistake of overrating that young core, as only SB remains with us today. Masai also made the second mistake of competing while rebuilding, by selling down a pick to go for 2022 playoffs, as well as selling another FRP to go for 2023 playoffs. Both mistakes necessitated a restart of the post-championship rebuild beginning in 2023-2024, which is year 1 of the 2nd post-championship rebuild - this season is year 2 of this 2nd post-championship rebuild.

One of Masai's mantra is building a winning culture. If we tank the next 2 years as you guys want, that makes 3/5 of Barnes' career being tank years. How is a winning culture built when our franchise leader has only 1 winning season and 1 playoff appearance in 5 years? Can the team just flip the switch to winning after 3 straight tanking years? Will Barnes accept so many tank years? I highly doubt it. We are not tanking next year.

Masai's mantra of building a winning culture is all hype and PR. He obviously doesn't believe it during asset accumulation phase, when he blatantly tanked in Tampa (resulted in SB) as well as last season (0 result). So he doesn't believe winning culture takes priority over accumulating talents & assets.

[ironmanm20]

Wow! I rarely post, but I am so sick of these whiners in every thread pointing out why Scottie isn’t our franchise leader. Tell me, what kind of stats would you prefer he be putting up? Would you all have complained if we had prime Steve Nash? Defensive sieve, his absolute best offensive season he averaged 18.8 points, he took 5 years in the NBA before he even managed to crack double digit scoring, 10 years to hit the 18.8ppg high mark of his career, 9 years to crack double digit assist average for a season as a pg. Somehow that translated into an 8 time All-Star, 7 time All-NBA, and 2 time MVP. That being said, our fourth year player who averaged 19.9ppg, 6.1 assists per game, 8.2 rebounds per game, 1.3 steals per game and 1.5 blocks per game last season (and holding close to those numbers in the small sample of this season) is a loser who could never be a franchise leader. Not every player has to be prime Michael Jordan to be a leader. Be a real fan. Stop with these stupid takes that are egregiously wrong.

[dTox]

F*** Vivek

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using RealGM mobile app

[tsherkin]

A big, carefully chosen word, yes. I find it absurd to think Scottie isn't on the level of any of BOS's 4, and comparing him to Westbrook (because of the word "Triple Double") is honestly laughable, their games/mentality couldn't be more different.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I respectfully reject your hypothesis

Yes, stylistically they are different. My point was that peak Westbrook was a lot better, and that triple doubles don't actually mean anything. "Flirting with triple doubles" doesn't mean anything if the player doesn't actually have impact registered, and Scottie's isn't strong. And yeah, he's considerably worse than Tatum. Brown, White, sure, he's a lot closer, as they both have the luxury of filling secondary roles and fitting into a niche.

I guess I'm just not as high on Derrick White as you are. He's very good of course, but I think Barnes has a better all around game

I think Barnes' potential is higher than Brown or White, yes. I meant only that he is closer to them than to Tatum. Scottie is a good player; it is relevant to remember that my critiques of him are specifically related to operating as a focal offensive player. I think he'd be a great #3 and is young enough that he might develop into a #2.

[ATLTimekeeper]

On this team I think Scottie has the best ability to be that go to option in the clutch, but is the worst option to run the ball through during the game. It's a strange dynamic, but his ability to hit jumpers from different parts of the court and pass the ball make him ideal for late game decision making. So, in that sense he's closer to Tatum than a Derrick White.

Where I think he struggles is with focus, and driving the ball. So, if you gave him a 20FGA a game diet he's going to waste a lot of time trying to get to spots where he can get into his moves. His handle just has to get better.

To compare it directly with Tatum, that was a significant flaw of his for most of his early career and only in the past two years has he worked on it enough that he is a consistent threat to get downhill (and that's with 5 outs). Scottie has a lot of growth left that we can look forward to.

[Tacoma]

This is not close to being exactly right, more like mostly wrong. Firstly, if this is year 1 of the rebuild as claimed then what the heck were we doing between 2021-23?

No, it's not year 1. We've been rebuilding since 2021 when we tanked, got Barnes, Lowry left and we rebuilt featuring Siakam/ FVV/ OG. Then we waited till their contracts were set to or already expire only to realize it wasn't working then hit the reset button continuing the rebuild under BBQ. So you can say this is year 1 of BBQ but we've been rebuilding for 4 about years now.

The post-championship rebuild was supposed to be 2020/2021 (Tampa tank) and 2021/2022 ("Growing pains"). And Masai planned that rebuild as a mix of competing with PS/FVV/OG while rebuilding the next wave of young players SB/PA/MF/DB. Masai first made the mistake of overrating that young core, as only SB remains with us today. Masai also made the second mistake of competing while rebuilding, by selling down a pick to go for 2022 playoffs, as well as selling another FRP to go for 2023 playoffs. Both mistakes necessitated a restart of the post-championship rebuild beginning in 2023-2024, which is year 1 of the 2nd post-championship rebuild - this season is year 2 of this 2nd post-championship rebuild.

One of Masai's mantra is building a winning culture. If we tank the next 2 years as you guys want, that makes 3/5 of Barnes' career being tank years. How is a winning culture built when our franchise leader has only 1 winning season and 1 playoff appearance in 5 years? Can the team just flip the switch to winning after 3 straight tanking years? Will Barnes accept so many tank years? I highly doubt it. We are not tanking next year.

Masai's mantra of building a winning culture is all hype and PR. He obviously doesn't believe it during asset accumulation phase, when he blatantly tanked in Tampa (resulted in SB) as well as last season (0 result). So he doesn't believe winning culture takes priority over accumulating talents & assets.

I view last year a reset (Siakam/FVV to BBQ), a continuation of the rebuild that started in 2020. We never stopped rebuilding.

A little iffy on the contention that winning culture is all a PR thing. I was questioning the thought of tanking 3 straight years until 2026/27 season. By then, it means we would've tanked 4 of the past 6 seasons. That would rival Hinkie's 76'ers infamous "The Process" and now Embiid, while being an MVP, is not known as being a winner.

The exception, as tsherkin posed a question in another thread, is what if Barnes isn't the franchise player that we hope he'd become? IF true, then I would agree tanking next season as well may be warranted. By rebuilding under BBQ, we need to give it a chance. Otherwise, what the heck is Masai doing?

[JB7]

The exception, as tsherkin posed a question in another thread, is what if Barnes isn't the franchise player that we hope he'd become? IF true, then I would agree tanking next season as well may be warranted. By rebuilding under BBQ, we need to give it a chance. Otherwise, what the heck is Masai doing?

They keep trying to build Barnes' value to the point where he could be traded for a disgruntled star, if he isn't consider the franchise player.

Teams are always looking for the player they can turn into a star.

[Ell Curry]

Is he our franchise leader?

The assumption and hope is he will. If not then it's back to square one and the term "they're mostly nailing it" is true only in the context of another nail in the coffin.

So now we are looking more at being good for a long time and being more like we were in the Demar era: a threat to exit the first round every year and sometimes hit the ECFs. Which is a lot of fun. That's about as good as it gets when you don't have an ATG talent on your squad... unless you can leverage assets and circumstances (such as a discontented star) to GET such a player, as we did with Kawhi. ANd that's cool, man. I'd love to have a 90s/early 00s Utah/Portland thing going on.

NBA history strongly supports a "top 10 player by 25-26, maybe win your first title at 27 or 28."

But it's not like those Portland teams, for example, had no chance. They genuinely could have won a title.

And those Demar teams had pretty meh frontcourts overall:

-Ibaka, a good versatile starter who wasn't a liability on either end, no issues here really.
-JV was a good offensive player but he could never, ever defend a pick and roll in space
-Siakam and OG were good young bench guys, not yet the 40M+ starters they would become.
-Lots of Carroll, CJ Miles as the main guys guarding Lebron. Carroll had the rep, but straight up wasn't good here.

And also, Demar was historically bad in the playoffs for a top guy.

I do think that if Barnes is our #1 guy, we're gonna need to be a top 5 defence to have a puncher's chance. But the early draft vibes seem pretty good for us getting a quality perimeter player.

[tsherkin]

NBA history strongly supports a "top 10 player by 25-26, maybe win your first title at 27 or 28."

Look at the last quarter century. All of those guys were showing it way earlier. Even the HS guys.

But it's not like those Portland teams, for example, had no chance. They genuinely could have won a title.

In no way was I crapping on those Portland teams. Both Portland and Utah very long runs of success, and a couple of good chances to potentially win, no doubt. Portland had good distributed talent. Utah had a good star pair and a strong system.

And also, Demar was historically bad in the playoffs for a top guy.

Yes, he was quite brutal in the playoffs. Scottie has a very good chance to be a better player than Demar, even if he is unlikely to peak similarly as a RS scorer.

I do think that if Barnes is our #1 guy, we're gonna need to be a top 5 defence to have a puncher's chance. But the early draft vibes seem pretty good for us getting a quality perimeter player.

I have a very favorable view of Barnes in most roles other than "focal offensive player," in case I have not made that clear. I think quite well of him as long as we don't task him with holding down the fort as a focal scorer.

Wow! I rarely post, but I am so sick of these whiners in every thread pointing out why Scottie isn’t our franchise leader. Tell me, what kind of stats would you prefer he be putting up? Would you all have complained if we had prime Steve Nash?

This is a false equivalency.

Defensive sieve, his absolute best offensive season he averaged 18.8 points, he took 5 years in the NBA before he even managed to crack double digit scoring, 10 years to hit the 18.8ppg high mark of his career, 9 years to crack double digit assist average for a season as a pg. Somehow that translated into an 8 time All-Star, 7 time All-NBA, and 2 time MVP.

Tell me you don't understand playmaking and overall offensive impact without saying as much...

That being said, our fourth year player who averaged 19.9ppg, 6.1 assists per game, 8.2 rebounds per game, 1.3 steals per game and 1.5 blocks per game last season (and holding close to those numbers in the small sample of this season) is a loser who could never be a franchise leader. Not every player has to be prime Michael Jordan to be a leader. Be a real fan. Stop with these stupid takes that are egregiously wrong.

They are not egregiously wrong. You are flagrantly ignoring efficiency and skill set and you don't like hearing things you disagree with. That isn't the same thing.

[Ell Curry]

NBA history strongly supports a "top 10 player by 25-26, maybe win your first title at 27 or 28."

Look at the last quarter century. All of those guys were showing it way earlier. Even the HS guys.

But it's not like those Portland teams, for example, had no chance. They genuinely could have won a title.

In no way was I crapping on those Portland teams. Both Portland and Utah very long runs of success, and a couple of good chances to potentially win, no doubt. Portland had good distributed talent. Utah had a good star pair and a strong system.

And also, Demar was historically bad in the playoffs for a top guy.

Yes, he was quite brutal in the playoffs. Scottie has a very good chance to be a better player than Demar, even if he is unlikely to peak similarly as a RS scorer.

I do think that if Barnes is our #1 guy, we're gonna need to be a top 5 defence to have a puncher's chance. But the early draft vibes seem pretty good for us getting a quality perimeter player.

I have a very favorable view of Barnes in most roles other than "focal offensive player," in case I have not made that clear. I think quite well of him as long as we don't task him with holding down the fort as a focal scorer.

Yeah, we basically agree. It would be surprising if Scottie develops the offensive skill to be a #1 option, but if he keeps developing, he could be co-best player on a great team with a great scorer (or very good scorer and playmaker) who maybe doesn't impact the game defensively the same way, like a Maxey/Trae/Fox level of point guard who outscores him by 5-7 a night but isn't really a better player overall due to their lack of defensive impact.

We'd definitely need great depth, coaching and 3+D guys (which we're light on, we have Dick and Quickley to hit 3s but our perimeter D is probably going to be terrible until we add a proper talented defender of guards/smaller wings) around Barnes and his co-star.

So yeah, as always, I hope we tank, we badly need a proper co-star for Scottie. Would be more than worth including another first rounder and either Barrett or Poeltl if that got us a guy we truly believed could be that guy.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, we basically agree. It would be surprising if Scottie develops the offensive skill to be a #1 option, but if he keeps developing, he could be co-best player on a great team with a great scorer (or very good scorer and playmaker) who maybe doesn't impact the game defensively the same way, like a Maxey/Trae/Fox level of point guard who outscores him by 5-7 a night but isn't really a better player overall due to their lack of defensive impact.

Indeed, he does work well with enough different types that he opens a bunch of doors for us.

[ironmanm20]

NBA history strongly supports a "top 10 player by 25-26, maybe win your first title at 27 or 28."

Look at the last quarter century. All of those guys were showing it way earlier. Even the HS guys.

But it's not like those Portland teams, for example, had no chance. They genuinely could have won a title.

In no way was I crapping on those Portland teams. Both Portland and Utah very long runs of success, and a couple of good chances to potentially win, no doubt. Portland had good distributed talent. Utah had a good star pair and a strong system.

And also, Demar was historically bad in the playoffs for a top guy.

Yes, he was quite brutal in the playoffs. Scottie has a very good chance to be a better player than Demar, even if he is unlikely to peak similarly as a RS scorer.

I do think that if Barnes is our #1 guy, we're gonna need to be a top 5 defence to have a puncher's chance. But the early draft vibes seem pretty good for us getting a quality perimeter player.

I have a very favorable view of Barnes in most roles other than "focal offensive player," in case I have not made that clear. I think quite well of him as long as we don't task him with holding down the fort as a focal scorer.

Wow! I rarely post, but I am so sick of these whiners in every thread pointing out why Scottie isn’t our franchise leader. Tell me, what kind of stats would you prefer he be putting up? Would you all have complained if we had prime Steve Nash?

This is a false equivalency.

Defensive sieve, his absolute best offensive season he averaged 18.8 points, he took 5 years in the NBA before he even managed to crack double digit scoring, 10 years to hit the 18.8ppg high mark of his career, 9 years to crack double digit assist average for a season as a pg. Somehow that translated into an 8 time All-Star, 7 time All-NBA, and 2 time MVP.

Tell me you don't understand playmaking and overall offensive impact without saying as much...

That being said, our fourth year player who averaged 19.9ppg, 6.1 assists per game, 8.2 rebounds per game, 1.3 steals per game and 1.5 blocks per game last season (and holding close to those numbers in the small sample of this season) is a loser who could never be a franchise leader. Not every player has to be prime Michael Jordan to be a leader. Be a real fan. Stop with these stupid takes that are egregiously wrong.

They are not egregiously wrong. You are flagrantly ignoring efficiency and skill set and you don't like hearing things you disagree with. That isn't the same thing.

Interesting how you do the same thing to support your own opinions. I’m sure we could both pull stats all day long to make arguments back and forth. Thankfully you didn’t bother to give any. Regardless, I appreciate your lesson. I was unaware that my years of playing, coaching and watching the game amounted to me not understanding playmaking and overall offensive impact. I wasn’t making a one-to-one comparison, I was making a commentary on the fans who complain on this board. I also wasn’t saying that Scottie should be our #1 option (which Nash wasn’t either), you don’t have to be to be the team leader. As a side note, I’m pretty certain Scottie’s efficiency and playmaking would look so much better with Amare, Marion, Johnson, Bell, etc. running beside him. Unfortunately we had a bunch of iso heavy players previously, and currently have approximately 0 all-stars surrounding him. But hey, what do I know?

[tsherkin]

As a side note, I’m pretty certain Scottie’s efficiency and playmaking would look so much better with Amare, Marion, Johnson, Bell, etc. running beside him.

Maybe. Playing with them wouldn't suddenly change his skillset, but perhaps the gravity of those other guys might help. Ultimately, he still doesn't have game between 10 feet and the 3pt line and he's fairly inconsistent from 3 at this point in his career. He's an acceptable but unremarkable FT shooter. Prior to this season, he wasn't getting calls, but he also wasn't stunning at the skillset of drawing fouls. Little bit of both. So all those little things which go into efficiency aren't really there for him.

Meantime, to address your oddly acerbic response.

You were complaining about posters noting that Scottie isn't our franchise leader. I understood that. Then you made an argument complaining about stats and Nash, to which I responded specifically. But Nash and Barnes don't equate well. Yes, Nash didn't score a ton, but he was also dramatically superior to Scottie and actually sat at the helm of the offense in a highly-effective manner, so he isn't a good comparison point for someone like Barnes. Nash was both efficient and a much, much better playmaker and game manager. And he was able to put pressure on a defense much more consistently and much more effectively with his dynamic dribble game. There's a sufficiently large separation between the two of them in enough areas that they don't equate well at all.

Would Scottie throw down more assists with Amare and Marion? Yeah, probably. Would he look like Nash? No, of course not. I'm not even sure why you'd bring that up. Nash was able to do effective things with Channing Frye, Grant Hill, Jared Dudley and a rotating crew of injured/traded guys. At 36. He just isn't a particularly strong point of comparison for someone like Scottie.

I understand you're not comparing them individually. Nash was obviously a lot better than Scottie. But as far as being a team leader, he can wave towels all he likes, but if he isn't good enough to be the focal player, labeling him our "franchise leader" is moot. Because what is he leading? Morale on the bench, perhaps, but nothing more. It's an empty label if the guy isn't driving you on the court.

Meantime, as far as the comparison to Nash... where's the comparison? Where's the utility of that analogy? I grok that you are not comparing them directly, but nothing equates. Nash led Phoenix when he was an MVP-level player in charge of the offense. He was an All-Star before that. Even when he was a quieter player in Dallas under Dirk in a non-optimized role, he was showcasing his skillset to a degree which we don't see from Scottie. So the idea that he might explode into something which follows Nash's delayed career narrative also doesn't track in similar fashion. There's nothing there which really rings in similar fashion, which is why I called it a false equivalency.

If you're trying to get me to acknowledge that we aren't optimally built around Scottie, I already have, many times. And like I said in the post you quoted (the bit you ignored), I think well of Scottie in a supporting role. But if a title is the focus, then he hasn't shown anything like the skillset necessary to be the guy you build around. That's not really a subtle thing. You need to be exceptional for that to be the case, and he isn't to the prerequisite degree at this time. That isn't really a contentious statement. He's got lots of tools, lots of skills, lots of ways to contribute. But he isn't going to be an efficient volume scorer without some large changes, and he isn't the level of playmaker necessary to overcome that deficiency. His D, his rebounding, the playmaking he does provide, all of that is helpful stuff. And in a more optimized role, he could look better as a scorer. But again, title-level centerpieces look good individually even when they're surrounded by trash.