tcheco wrote:One_and_Done wrote:tcheco wrote:
Most teams are trying to be contenders, no? or trying to tank
Spurs added a broken player in fox and maxed him out already, you are right, we shouldn't trade for another one. Hopefully one of Harper and Castle are not broken forever like Vassel and Keldon. Thank god we have Wemby at least, but not sure he will stay long with such questionable moves made these last years.
I do think Castle will be a good defensive player with a questionable jumper, but at least his finishing at the rim has to improve, but as a rookie he does get a pass for that.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what a broken players is. It does not mean 'this guy isn't perfect'. No player is perfect. It means that the player has serious issues in his game that inhibits his ability to properly perform his supposed role on the team, to the point that he warps the optimal function of your team. As a result, the team has a ceiling on how much they can succeed. These guys are typically found posting low calories numbers for play-in/treadmill teams, e.g. Demar, Giddey, Barnes, etc.
Fox is not a broken players. His skillset works just fine for his role. He is a high PnR point guard and speedster. His 3pt shooting could be better, but it's been fine for the role he is in. Over the last 3 years Fox has shot 34% from 3s on 6.4 attempts per game, with alot of those shots being high difficulty attempts. Again, that's fine. The only issue is he's now a bit duplicative of Harper (and to a lesser extent Castle), which the Spurs had no way of knowing when they traded for him and promised to max him.
The likely outcome is that Fox or Castle will be moved a few years down the track, once Harper has matured.
I don't get how Vassell or Keldon are broken either, unless you mean 'they're not as talented as I'd like'. The skillset each of them has is fine for their ideal role. In Keldon's case that's energy guy off the bench, and for Vassell it's as a potential 3&D wing, which he mostly has. He could stand to be healthier, and a little better on D, but nothing about his skillset is broken. He just needs to stay healthy, and be more consistent, and he has a role on a good team.
Barnes's shot is broken, and he needs the ball on offense despite being a bad offensive player. That warps your team in a bad way, and there's really no reason to think it's likely to get fixed at this stage.
I think you have a mistunderstanding on your own take on Broken players honestly.
Fox is a perfect example following your descriptions in this thread. He is an offensive mainly PG that has league average PG TS%, he posted 6.3 assists to 2.8 turnover, really subpar honestly. He doesnt space the floor in a team that badly needs it. He wouldnt start in any NBA championship team in these last 10 years except over a retiring minimum salary Rondo. Add to that the fact that he will be Spurs highest salary until Wemby gets a supermax, it's really horrible, Its sad that Spurs decided to destroy Wembys window during his rookie contract.
Vassel is a max contract player that can only score and has a below league average TS%. How many winning teams have a player in Vassels role that earns his money and is as bad as him at his main strenght? None.
Keldon is a end of bench ok player, so it is expected that he is not great, I will give you that.
Barnes shot is as broken as Fox, is a better defender, can play multiple positions, can rebound better than Sochan, has similar assist to TO ration than Fox, he can fit in multiple winning teams that doesnt have TERRIBLE spacing with their Guards like the Spurs.
You talk about players that dont add to winning, but Fox was great at carrying the Kings to nowhere until Sabonis arrived, he could score a lot with terrible efficiency, and not a single soul in the world think the Spurs made a good move getting him. At least no one that is sane enough
If a guy can shoot 34% off a high volume of attempts, with a healthy dose of those attempts being high difficulty shots, then he is a 3pt threat. It’s that simple. Fox is also doing that in an environment where his starting 5 man can’t shoot 3s, which stuffs up some of his spacing. I don’t think saying “he has league average TS%” is helpful (over what sample I’m not sure; but you need to factor in the guys role too).
If you think Fox is going to regress, or that 34% 3pt shooting is over his head, then that’s possible. Sometimes players regress. This player type especially is a risk as they get older. The energy to take a 3pt shot, with full extension and movement, takes a lot out of you. Westbrook is a good example of a waterbug type guard whose shooting regressed, and if that happens the Spurs should move Fox ASAP. I am judging him on the player he has been, and won’t assume regression until he is healthy and has such issues.
The hyperbole about Fox not starting for a single title team is misleading and somewhat comic. Here are some starting guards for title teams over the last 10 years; KCP (for the Nuggets and the Lakers), JR Smith (for the Cavs), and Jrue Holiday (for the Celtics and Bucks). The only reason I’m not listing more names is because 3 of the title teams had Steph Curry, one of the top 10 players of all-time, so of course they aren’t starting Fox over him, but that’s hardly a criticism of Fox. Another title team has Shai at the point. Meanwhile, here are point guards who started on the losing teams in the finals; Gabe Vincent, Marcus Smart, washed George Hill, 33 yr old Goran Dragic/20 year old Tyler Herro, 32 yr old Kyle Lowry, etc. Fox would definitely start over most of those guys.
I also don’t see how the Fox trade has any real impact on the Spurs contending with Wemby. They have plenty of money and assets to do what they want to, and if Fox plays the way he has over the last 3 years he will be a big help with that, even if they move him down the road.
You then compare Barnes and Fox, saying each has a shot as broken as the other, which is ridiculous. Fox has a clear role on a contender; play a lot of high PnR, with Fox either exploding to the basket, taking a 3, or diming up the roll/pop man. He’s good enough on D not to be a big liability for his position, and because he’s the guy running your offense he creates his own gravity, which makes his shooting slightly less important than for, say, your teams small forward.
If you don’t think “a single soul” thought the Spurs made a good move to get Fox at the time, you obviously weren’t following the news at the time, because the exact opposite is true. Most thought it was a great move for them.
