IT's ceiling?

[SacKingZZZ]

IT is ready but he is playing the wrong role. That is where the "hate" comes from. Every bit of horrible you call McLemore on Defense, IT is just as bad if not worse.

That's not true at all. Even it if was, which it's not, Isaiah puts up 20 points on 45% FG, which makes up for it.

Here is the problem, and it's really the same problem this team has had for a number of years. It needs to find the right system and build the right team around it's chosen and most talented building blocks. Now, who is that? If Gay and Cousins are rated above IT in that sense then other moves need to be made around them to accommodate them. Adding another gunning, high usage, undersized production PG is probably not that guy. You have to put players around Cousins and Gay that help with their weaknesses and as I mentioned in another post IT's inability to switch on defensive assignments is going to severely limit this teams defensive capabilities. If this team had a true paint plugger behind IT it would be one thing, but it's the same thing as having a legit stopper in front of Cousins.

Now, there is a chance they could find a balance by sticking all defense at SG and PF and keep IT, we'll see. Just have to hope the 'ol W's brass calling the shots isn't planning on sticking the same types of teams on the floor Petrie has the last few years as they lust after numbers that can't be recreated in just any situation.

[SacKingZZZ]

Something we haven't learned starting from Tyreke, then Jimmer, then Thomas Robinson, and now McLemore, is we need to decide early on if a player is worth developing or not. The longer we hold onto them, the lower their value will fall. Yes, the player could develop in the end, but if not we end up with absolutely nothing (kind of like what we've been getting). Our organization needs to be decisive and live with the consequences. It makes almost no sense to trade a rookie 1-2 years down the road because he'll have essentially zero value by then.

I disagree that we didn't decide this, though. After Reke's incredible rookie year we decided to try to develop him. Before TRob's rookie year was out we decided to trade him. And this FO has said numerous times we're going to develop Bmac. Jimmer is the only one we never really decided either way and screwed up, but that was botched the minute we drafted him.

I think our management has been decisive in their support of Bmac, it's just in the opposite direction that you would like. But I also don't think they are leaving him off the table if they can use him to acquire something else they value. If and when that time comes, I believe they will be decisive. AKA Kevin Love.

The real true issue in most of these scenarios is the environment you bring them into. You can't expect a TRob to develop by playing 5th wheel around bigs who do basically the same thing. That's the problem you get into when you are trying to win now and develop. Do that with players who have little to no expectations, not top 10 picks. Especially when they don't fill your needs. This is also why they have to be cognizant of who they draft this year and how they fit. Either make way for the player to develop or move them, simple as that. Don't draft them and watch them tank under your watch. I said the same thing right when TRob was drafted and consider me shocked how that turned out, not.

[Big_Cat]

Something we haven't learned starting from Tyreke, then Jimmer, then Thomas Robinson, and now McLemore, is we need to decide early on if a player is worth developing or not. The longer we hold onto them, the lower their value will fall. Yes, the player could develop in the end, but if not we end up with absolutely nothing (kind of like what we've been getting). Our organization needs to be decisive and live with the consequences. It makes almost no sense to trade a rookie 1-2 years down the road because he'll have essentially zero value by then.

I disagree that we didn't decide this, though. After Reke's incredible rookie year we decided to try to develop him. Before TRob's rookie year was out we decided to trade him. And this FO has said numerous times we're going to develop Bmac. Jimmer is the only one we never really decided either way and screwed up, but that was botched the minute we drafted him.

I think our management has been decisive in their support of Bmac, it's just in the opposite direction that you would like. But I also don't think they are leaving him off the table if they can use him to acquire something else they value. If and when that time comes, I believe they will be decisive. AKA Kevin Love.

I don't agree. I feel like our previous management (we still need to give the new group 1 year or so to decide), didn't really put any players we drafted in a position to succeed. To me it was always our team trying to be greedy. We'd partially want to contend if we could, but wasn't willing to sacrifice youth talent in order to contend (ie if we traded Reke after his ROY season and obtain a few veterans to put around Kevin Martin). We always looked to draft "NBA ready" players such as Thomas Robinson and Jimmer, in hopes of being able to compete immediately, opposed to players who were more raw and would take longer to develop.

Even the players we brought in, both through the draft and free agency, we didn't create a system or the subsequent moves required to make the roster balance and to have a "team." Instead, we mostly just brought in guys and hoped they would "fit"...kind of like the child who jams blocks into his toy instead of finding the right shape for each hole.



If we are committed to a roster with Isaiah either as our starting SG or our supersub, then we NEED to ensure our other players, future draft picks, etc. all are cohesive of having Isaiah and DeMarcus. That could mean parting ways with Rudy Gay simply to make our roster work.



To me. Our biggest problem the past 5-6 years is we haven't been willing to commit to rebuilding or contending. We've been far too greedy. In one eye we want to desperately make the playoffs and in the other eye we're greedily eyeing our new "shinny rookie toy." The rookies we've been drafting almost has never fit with the rest of the roster, nor have we made the required moves to ensure that the new rookie does fit (ie, a Isaiah and McLemore backcourt is simply not going to work defensively unless we have a legitimate/elite shotblocker/post defender). Draft. Rudy Gay. Kevin Love. Isaiah Thomas. Ben McLemore. Whatever. We need to figure out what we want, which players will be our focal point, and remove EVERYTHING ELSE that DOESNT FIT.

[SmellingColors]

Something we haven't learned starting from Tyreke, then Jimmer, then Thomas Robinson, and now McLemore, is we need to decide early on if a player is worth developing or not. The longer we hold onto them, the lower their value will fall. Yes, the player could develop in the end, but if not we end up with absolutely nothing (kind of like what we've been getting). Our organization needs to be decisive and live with the consequences. It makes almost no sense to trade a rookie 1-2 years down the road because he'll have essentially zero value by then.

I disagree that we didn't decide this, though. After Reke's incredible rookie year we decided to try to develop him. Before TRob's rookie year was out we decided to trade him. And this FO has said numerous times we're going to develop Bmac. Jimmer is the only one we never really decided either way and screwed up, but that was botched the minute we drafted him.

I think our management has been decisive in their support of Bmac, it's just in the opposite direction that you would like. But I also don't think they are leaving him off the table if they can use him to acquire something else they value. If and when that time comes, I believe they will be decisive. AKA Kevin Love.

I don't agree. I feel like our previous management (we still need to give the new group 1 year or so to decide), didn't really put any players we drafted in a position to succeed. To me it was always our team trying to be greedy. We'd partially want to contend if we could, but wasn't willing to sacrifice youth talent in order to contend (ie if we traded Reke after his ROY season and obtain a few veterans to put around Kevin Martin). We always looked to draft "NBA ready" players such as Thomas Robinson and Jimmer, in hopes of being able to compete immediately, opposed to players who were more raw and would take longer to develop.

Even the players we brought in, both through the draft and free agency, we didn't create a system or the subsequent moves required to make the roster balance and to have a "team." Instead, we mostly just brought in guys and hoped they would "fit"...kind of like the child who jams blocks into his toy instead of finding the right shape for each hole.



If we are committed to a roster with Isaiah either as our starting SG or our supersub, then we NEED to ensure our other players, future draft picks, etc. all are cohesive of having Isaiah and DeMarcus. That could mean parting ways with Rudy Gay simply to make our roster work.



To me. Our biggest problem the past 5-6 years is we haven't been willing to commit to rebuilding or contending. We've been far too greedy. In one eye we want to desperately make the playoffs and in the other eye we're greedily eyeing our new "shinny rookie toy." The rookies we've been drafting almost has never fit with the rest of the roster, nor have we made the required moves to ensure that the new rookie does fit (ie, a Isaiah and McLemore backcourt is simply not going to work defensively unless we have a legitimate/elite shotblocker/post defender). Draft. Rudy Gay. Kevin Love. Isaiah Thomas. Ben McLemore. Whatever. We need to figure out what we want, which players will be our focal point, and remove EVERYTHING ELSE that DOESNT FIT.

OK yeah then I agree. I was understanding you to say on an individual player basis our FO wasn't decisive in determining whether to keep a player or not with regard to maximizing trade value. I don't think we have had that kind of indecisiveness with the players you mentioned. But I completely agree that what follows is fitting the pieces together and deciding what to cut. We certainly haven't done that.

We've been going through something like an identity crisis. The Maloofs weren't committed to any kind of long term success because they had so many financial issues to deal with. Those 5-6 years put us back a lot of potential. Then we have the whole ownership turnover and went through our first year with that group. And now we head into our second draft with the FO with a ton of possibilities for putting together a team. We're at a turning point in developing what kind of basketball we're going to play and a lot rides on this draft to establish that.