Official Speculation Thread ‘17-18’: XVIII: The Long Wait Continues

[pepe1991]

I just proved that it is not unrealistic.

I would even say Chauncey Billups is another. Maybe, Ben Wallace as well. udonis Haslem.

So 5 guys in league where 500 players play every year, over 20 years is realistic?

When was Haslem good? Guy's career season was 12 points at age 27, guy averaged 11 points in second season.
Wallace per 36 min or per 100 possession was pretty much same player from day one. Great rebounder,blocker and good at steals, had no offense. Even in his apsolute prime he averaged only 7,6 points but got all his value playing defense.

Billups averaged 11 points in rookie, 14 in second season. That's 3 points less than he did in year when they won championship. On same amount of shots. Guy just got more effective.


As i said, people have unrealistic expetations about development of players. It's not mad science job it's just getting players in better shape and putting them in positions where they are best at , on the floor. That's why you have players on same teams, about same age, who work with same coaches, one can have massive improvments other never gets any better. Case and point -Lamb traded for Harden, allegedly high upside guy at times, goes to best youth development in the world at that time, never actually gets better.

Same team that drafted Giannis drafted Thon Maker. Guy 3 years into nba bearly looks like functional player for G league, let alone nba. That's top 10 pick from 3 years ago, third string C today.

I am sure there were way more than 5 players.

¸
Sure thing ! Most players improve a bit. But development isn't tool that will turn scrub into Lebron James over one hard working summer.
As i said, player who is 22 probably plays basketball for 10 years at that point, it's not really reasonable to "teach" him something that he could not do before over few months.

i love to follow young kids career's and fast you figure that ones who break out as future nba players or future really good nba players, are pretty damn incredible from youth competitions.
If you track national team rosters from youth movments you'll figure most of today's stars were already best players of their generation in past.
World cup u 16 played in 2010 best players were : Drummond, Breadly Beal ( MVP ), MKG, Wiggins ( all nba players)
World cup u 16 2012 - Jabari Parker, Jah Okafor, Exum, Ben Simmons and others.

You get a point, most of future nba players are already before entering nba that much better than anybody from their age.
They keep growing as a players but it's unrealistic to expect somebody who bearly can do basics of offense ,despite playing basketball for decade, to get nba level good or star level great in few years ,if he never showed any signs of that talent in past.
Nobody expect Drummond to become knockdown shooter ,right?

[Catledge]

Sure thing ! Most players improve a bit. But development isn't tool that will turn scrub into Lebron James over one hard working summer.
As i said, player who is 22 probably plays basketball for 10 years at that point, it's not really reasonable to "teach" him something that he could not do before over few months.

i love to follow young kids career's and fast you figure that ones who break out as future nba players or future really good nba players, are pretty damn incredible from youth competitions.
If you track national team rosters from youth movments you'll figure most of today's stars were already best players of their generation in past.
World cup u 16 played in 2010 best players were : Drummond, Breadly Beal ( MVP ), MKG, Wiggins ( all nba players)
World cup u 16 2012 - Jabari Parker, Jah Okafor, Exum, Ben Simmons and others.

You get a point, most of future nba players are already before entering nba that much better than anybody from their age.
They keep growing as a players but it's unrealistic to expect somebody who bearly can do basics of offense ,despite playing basketball for decade, to get nba level good or star level great in few years ,if he never showed any signs of that talent in past.
Nobody expect Drummond to become knockdown shooter ,right?

I would add Kemba to the list of guys who made a jump in quality after being a limited player for several years. From his fourth year (age 24) to his seventh year, here are how some of his key stats developed:

ppg: 17.3 --> 22.1
3FG%: .304 --> .384
FG%: .385 --> .431
TS%: .486 --> .572
PER: 17.6 --> 20.6

I think it's fair to call this an improvement on the same type of player (assists, for instance, didn't change much), but that improvement is still a major one. I think if AG's 3pt shot improves to the same degree (gets up over 38%) and his decision making gradually improves over the next few years, then that's a pretty big-time player who is easily earning his contract.

It's possible to believe both 1) that AG is medium-unlikely to make that kind of jump and 2) that we might as well give him the chance to try in light of our other options.

EDIT: fixed quote formatting

[Skybox]

Most players after rookie year become some better versions of themselfs.
Pretty much all superstars break out from day one.

Having players like Oladipo,who break out in 5th or 6th year is exception, not rule. In whole league only him, Giannis and Leonard fit that mold and from different reasons. One didn't have work ethic to break sooner.
Giannis started to play basketball when he was freaking 14 , after 4 years he was in nba.
And Leonard played on contender and they didn't need to rush him or needed bigger production from him.

if you have , let's say 24 years old player, it's pretty unrealistic to expect him to learn over 4 months something new that he did not do before. You have to know that most of nba players started to play basketball at age of 8-10 . So by the time he is 24 he is already playing some sort of basketball for 14 years.

Tell that to Dennis Rodman

and how many Dennis Rodman's are there? as he said, its the exception, not the rule or expectation

I’m a huge fan of early, on-the-court Rodman...but he’s an outlier in every way. Nobody played like him...it’s now occurring to me that it’s odd that no one has tried to carve that niche out since. He was amazingly good at what he did and he didn’t try to do anything else. Nothing about his skills, priorities, insanity, unselfishness, or development curve can really be compared to anyone else.

[Skybox]

This development discussion is very good and the limitations, reasonable expectations, etc are understandable...one major curveball for this group of players, IMO, is the coaching/system carousel...for a LeBron-type Bball IQ, adaptation is a non-issue. For others of less savant-level intellect (AG, I think)...starting over every season is a huge setback. Kawhi is a good (opposite) parallel to AG. I don’t think KL is anywhere near the player he is today without Pop’s environment, patience and the shelter of Duncan’s SAS. He’s complete now but one could compare the two scenarios and consider how the steady curve of development could’ve been disrupted with our FO dumpster fire of this era. I like Clifford, in this respect, but it’s not overnight by a long shot.

[Skybox]

I don’t know that he’d have any interest but I’d like Noah as a big brother to Bamba/Isaac. Don’t know what it would take to clear Moz but I’ve always liked Noah’s fierceness, intelligence, and unselfishness...back to UF. He’s a NY city kid, very intelligent, well-read, etc - if he’s ready to transition to Udonis Haslem “player coach” role, I could see it. Not even thinking about court time, if he’s up for 20 mins, he could replace Vuc immediately and we steer to the future.

[fendilim]

This development discussion is very good and the limitations, reasonable expectations, etc are understandable...one major curveball for this group of players, IMO, is the coaching/system carousel...for a LeBron-type Bball IQ, adaptation is a non-issue. For others of less savant-level intellect (AG, I think)...starting over every season is a huge setback. Kawhi is a good (opposite) parallel to AG. I don’t think KL is anywhere near the player he is today without Pop’s environment, patience and the shelter of Duncan’s SAS. He’s complete now but one could compare the two scenarios and consider how the steady curve of development could’ve been disrupted with our FO dumpster fire of this era. I like Clifford, in this respect, but it’s not overnight by a long shot.

To be fair to Kawhi, he started his career already a good 3 point shooter. It took AG 3 years to get there.

Yes, the coaching carousel did have its effect. But I would think that part of the reason why someone like Gordon was moved to different roles is because he didn't really have any elite specialty when he entered the league. We also had an imbalance roster especially at his position.


If you look at guys like Evan or Vuc, or even Payton, they pretty much had the same role ever since (offense initiators) they arrived here, mainly because they didn't have much competition at the position they play at. Gordon was the one that got bounced around especially with Vogel trying to turn him into a Paul George which he clearly isn't.

[Skybox]

This development discussion is very good and the limitations, reasonable expectations, etc are understandable...one major curveball for this group of players, IMO, is the coaching/system carousel...for a LeBron-type Bball IQ, adaptation is a non-issue. For others of less savant-level intellect (AG, I think)...starting over every season is a huge setback. Kawhi is a good (opposite) parallel to AG. I don’t think KL is anywhere near the player he is today without Pop’s environment, patience and the shelter of Duncan’s SAS. He’s complete now but one could compare the two scenarios and consider how the steady curve of development could’ve been disrupted with our FO dumpster fire of this era. I like Clifford, in this respect, but it’s not overnight by a long shot.

To be fair to Kawhi, he started his career already a good 3 point shooter. It took AG 3 years to get there.

Yes, the coaching carousel did have its effect. But I would think that part of the reason why someone like Gordon was moved to different roles is because he didn't really have any elite specialty when he entered the league. We also had an imbalance roster especially at his position.


If you look at guys like Evan or Vuc, or even Payton, they pretty much had the same role ever since (offense initiators) they arrived here, mainly because they didn't have much competition at the position they play at. Gordon was the one that got bounced around especially with Vogel trying to turn him into a Paul George which he clearly isn't.

Agreed but you could also point to Vuc’s offensive role changes taking him from “should’ve been in All-Star” to scrub in a lot of fans eyes. Even just the turmoil of change (new Dad) is a factor for some. These are spoiled, adored kids for the most part. I agree that some would be much less affected than others...Evan, for example, seems mentally impervious- maybe being a foreign player, uprooted at a young age, traveling across the world, language/surroundings, etc is an advantage here. AG and Isaac, who were both such raw prospects needing development to suit their physical gifts jump out for me (I know Isaac is new but...)

[fendilim]

This development discussion is very good and the limitations, reasonable expectations, etc are understandable...one major curveball for this group of players, IMO, is the coaching/system carousel...for a LeBron-type Bball IQ, adaptation is a non-issue. For others of less savant-level intellect (AG, I think)...starting over every season is a huge setback. Kawhi is a good (opposite) parallel to AG. I don’t think KL is anywhere near the player he is today without Pop’s environment, patience and the shelter of Duncan’s SAS. He’s complete now but one could compare the two scenarios and consider how the steady curve of development could’ve been disrupted with our FO dumpster fire of this era. I like Clifford, in this respect, but it’s not overnight by a long shot.

To be fair to Kawhi, he started his career already a good 3 point shooter. It took AG 3 years to get there.

Yes, the coaching carousel did have its effect. But I would think that part of the reason why someone like Gordon was moved to different roles is because he didn't really have any elite specialty when he entered the league. We also had an imbalance roster especially at his position.


If you look at guys like Evan or Vuc, or even Payton, they pretty much had the same role ever since (offense initiators) they arrived here, mainly because they didn't have much competition at the position they play at. Gordon was the one that got bounced around especially with Vogel trying to turn him into a Paul George which he clearly isn't.

Agreed but you could also point to Vuc’s offensive role changes taking him from “should’ve been in All-Star” to scrub in a lot of fans eyes. Even just the turmoil of change (new Dad) is a factor for some. These are spoiled, adored kids for the most part. I agree that some would be much less affected than others...Evan, for example, seems mentally impervious- maybe being a foreign player, uprooted at a young age, traveling across the world, language/surroundings, etc is an advantage here. AG and Isaac, who were both such raw prospects needing development to suit their physical gifts jump out for me (I know Isaac is new but...)

I agree that Vuc role has changed dramatically being taken away from the post compared to the latter years, but he is still being relied as one of the default offensive options on the team. Same with Evan and Payton was someone who was given a lot of pick and roll opportunities.

[Skybox]

To be fair to Kawhi, he started his career already a good 3 point shooter. It took AG 3 years to get there.

Yes, the coaching carousel did have its effect. But I would think that part of the reason why someone like Gordon was moved to different roles is because he didn't really have any elite specialty when he entered the league. We also had an imbalance roster especially at his position.


If you look at guys like Evan or Vuc, or even Payton, they pretty much had the same role ever since (offense initiators) they arrived here, mainly because they didn't have much competition at the position they play at. Gordon was the one that got bounced around especially with Vogel trying to turn him into a Paul George which he clearly isn't.

Agreed but you could also point to Vuc’s offensive role changes taking him from “should’ve been in All-Star” to scrub in a lot of fans eyes. Even just the turmoil of change (new Dad) is a factor for some. These are spoiled, adored kids for the most part. I agree that some would be much less affected than others...Evan, for example, seems mentally impervious- maybe being a foreign player, uprooted at a young age, traveling across the world, language/surroundings, etc is an advantage here. AG and Isaac, who were both such raw prospects needing development to suit their physical gifts jump out for me (I know Isaac is new but...)

I agree that Vuc role has changed dramatically being taken away from the post compared to the latter years, but he is still being relied as one of the default offensive options on the team. Same with Evan and Payton was someone who was given a lot of pick and roll opportunities.

True...my greatest hope, and I’m not holding my breath, is that it LOOKS different this year. I’d love improvement but I’d love change first.

[tiderulz]

Tell that to Dennis Rodman

and how many Dennis Rodman's are there? as he said, its the exception, not the rule or expectation

I just proved that it is not unrealistic.

I would even say Chauncey Billups is another. Maybe, Ben Wallace as well. udonis Haslem.

Haslem did what he did for his career in year 2. Wallace in year 4. i'll give you Billups. congrats, 2 people in 2 years. again, its the exception

[Knightro]

Yep. Completely feel the same way. I'm not sure what makes this different than last season's "evaluation year."

To have any sort of positivity about this year being different than last year's evaluation year, you have to believe two things are true.

1. Injuries were the primary cause of last year's 25 win team.

2. Steve Clifford is a much better coach than Frank Vogel.

I do think injuries helped turn what should have been a low 30s win team last year into a 25 win team.

The Vogel to Clifford thing... who knows? I think the one thing Clifford won't do is tank later in the year. I think that alone could be worth 1-2 wins.

I'm pretty confident this team is going to win somewhere in the 30s.

And then heading into next year they're going to have some major roster turnover with all their free agents.

[PrimeThyme]

I'm close to 90% sure that this team wins 28 games this year. Luckily, in a weak tank race, that would firmly place us in the top 5.

[Xatticus]

and how many Dennis Rodman's are there? as he said, its the exception, not the rule or expectation

I just proved that it is not unrealistic.

I would even say Chauncey Billups is another. Maybe, Ben Wallace as well. udonis Haslem.

So 5 guys in league where 500 players play every year, over 20 years is realistic?

When was Haslem good? Guy's career season was 12 points at age 27, guy averaged 11 points in second season.
Wallace per 36 min or per 100 possession was pretty much same player from day one. Great rebounder,blocker and good at steals, had no offense. Even in his apsolute prime he averaged only 7,6 points but got all his value playing defense.

Billups averaged 11 points in rookie, 14 in second season. That's 3 points less than he did in year when they won championship. On same amount of shots. Guy just got more effective.


As i said, people have unrealistic expetations about development of players. It's not mad science job it's just getting players in better shape and putting them in positions where they are best at , on the floor. That's why you have players on same teams, about same age, who work with same coaches, one can have massive improvments other never gets any better. Case and point -Lamb traded for Harden, allegedly high upside guy at times, goes to best youth development in the world at that time, never actually gets better.

Same team that drafted Giannis drafted Thon Maker. Guy 3 years into nba bearly looks like functional player for G league, let alone nba. That's top 10 pick from 3 years ago, third string C today.

I think this is going to come down to who qualifies as a "superstar." It's a designation that annoys me because it's arbitrary and largely meaningless. Some players are anointed as superstars and given free rein from the moment they step foot into the league (e.g. Carmelo Anthony), though they might not actually be as effective as many other players that are never classified as superstars.

There was a time when I think your position would've held true, but that was some years back. Too many players are leaving college earlier and the gap between the collegiate level and the NBA has widened. It's pretty common these days that young players take a few years to make an impact at the NBA level.

It's interesting that you use Oladipo as an exception given that his per game numbers were far more impressive at the start of his NBA career than many of the other players on last year's All NBA list as he was thrust into a prominent role with Orlando starting in his rookie season. Even players like Harden, DeRozan, Walker, George, or Horford took quite a while before they were acknowledged as special players. There are a lot of players these days that take more circuitous routes to stardom though (Kyle Lowry, Jimmy Butler, Rudy Gobert, Goran Dragic, etc...).

Oladipo was actually a project when he was drafted. He wasn't a high usage player in college, but he had immense potential and showed rapid improvement at the college level. Aaron Gordon was certainly a project as well. Both players were tremendously athletic with high motors, but with underdeveloped skill sets that were going to take time to develop.

This is why it's so important to me that we see our young players getting minutes out of the gates. Everyone has a developmental curve. You have to give your players court time to determine whether or not and how quickly they are progressing. You make long term decisions based upon where you believe a player is on their developmental curve, what you believe their ceiling is, and how likely you believe it is that they reach that ceiling. The more you see of your prospects, the better equipped you are to make these decisions.

We clearly botched the Oladipo situation. Any retrospective analysis is simply rationalization. We committed to building around lower ceiling players and flipped Oladipo with a lottery pick in an effort to address their shortcomings. I see a lot of similarity in the Gordon situation. He isn't yet everything we hope he can be, but he has improved dramatically since he entered the league and I still see untapped potential there. I was happy with his extension and I am content to see how he continues to develop this year.

This all applies to Isaac and Bamba as well. It's way too early to make broad declarations of how good they will be in their primes as we have such little evidence with which to make such determinations.

[VFX]

Yep. Completely feel the same way. I'm not sure what makes this different than last season's "evaluation year."

To have any sort of positivity about this year being different than last year's evaluation year, you have to believe two things are true.

That depends entirely on whether or not you consider more wins, a playoff-less post season, and a lower draft pick, a success compared to last season. Clifford and a healthy roster is good, but still obviously not good enough. So we are looking at mediocre?

[BadMofoPimp]

Tell that to Dennis Rodman

and how many Dennis Rodman's are there? as he said, its the exception, not the rule or expectation

I’m a huge fan of early, on-the-court Rodman...but he’s an outlier in every way. Nobody played like him...it’s now occurring to me that it’s odd that no one has tried to carve that niche out since. He was amazingly good at what he did and he didn’t try to do anything else. Nothing about his skills, priorities, insanity, unselfishness, or development curve can really be compared to anyone else.

I was young but my pops played college ball and we we watched that draft he was jumping for joy when Rodman was drafted. I remember watching him develop from barely getting minutes as a scrawny SF to the player he became.

[MagicFan101]

I'm close to 90% sure that this team wins 28 games this year. Luckily, in a weak tank race, that would firmly place us in the top 5.

That’s fine with me.

I don’t see anyone from BIG becoming a super star but I do see them becoming a force in the NBA.

I have a close eye on Barrett and Reddish. Surely another name or two will join that list as the NCAA season gets into swing. I want an elite guard / wing prospect from this draft.

Next, I want a clear PG upgrade this offseason (if not earlier via trade). I don’t expect us to land Irving but there are a handful of names that would be upgrades to DJ and I do like DJ as our PG off the bench.

There you have it. That is the plan. A lot has to fall in our favor but nothing is unrealistic here. No one is saying sign Durant and Irving. Just upgrade a few prices and draft a potential franchise scoring guard.

[VFX]

I just proved that it is not unrealistic.

I would even say Chauncey Billups is another. Maybe, Ben Wallace as well. udonis Haslem.

So 5 guys in league where 500 players play every year, over 20 years is realistic?

When was Haslem good? Guy's career season was 12 points at age 27, guy averaged 11 points in second season.
Wallace per 36 min or per 100 possession was pretty much same player from day one. Great rebounder,blocker and good at steals, had no offense. Even in his apsolute prime he averaged only 7,6 points but got all his value playing defense.

Billups averaged 11 points in rookie, 14 in second season. That's 3 points less than he did in year when they won championship. On same amount of shots. Guy just got more effective.


As i said, people have unrealistic expetations about development of players. It's not mad science job it's just getting players in better shape and putting them in positions where they are best at , on the floor. That's why you have players on same teams, about same age, who work with same coaches, one can have massive improvments other never gets any better. Case and point -Lamb traded for Harden, allegedly high upside guy at times, goes to best youth development in the world at that time, never actually gets better.

Same team that drafted Giannis drafted Thon Maker. Guy 3 years into nba bearly looks like functional player for G league, let alone nba. That's top 10 pick from 3 years ago, third string C today.

I think this is going to come down to who qualifies as a "superstar." It's a designation that annoys me because it's arbitrary and largely meaningless. Some players are anointed as superstars and given free rein from the moment they step foot into the league (e.g. Carmelo Anthony), though they might not actually be as effective as many other players that are never classified as superstars.

There was a time when I think your position would've held true, but that was some years back. Too many players are leaving college earlier and the gap between the collegiate level and the NBA has widened. It's pretty common these days that young players take a few years to make an impact at the NBA level.

It's interesting that you use Oladipo as an exception given that his per game numbers were far more impressive at the start of his NBA career than many of the other players on last year's All NBA list as he was thrust into a prominent role with Orlando starting in his rookie season. Even players like Harden, DeRozan, Walker, George, or Horford took quite a while before they were acknowledged as special players. There are a lot of players these days that take more circuitous routes to stardom though (Kyle Lowry, Jimmy Butler, Rudy Gobert, Goran Dragic, etc...).

Oladipo was actually a project when he was drafted. He wasn't a high usage player in college, but he had immense potential and showed rapid improvement at the college level. Aaron Gordon was certainly a project as well. Both players were tremendously athletic with high motors, but with underdeveloped skill sets that were going to take time to develop.

This is why it's so important to me that we see our young players getting minutes out of the gates. Everyone has a developmental curve. You have to give your players court time to determine whether or not and how quickly they are progressing. You make long term decisions based upon where you believe a player is on their developmental curve, what you believe their ceiling is, and how likely you believe it is that they reach that ceiling. The more you see of your prospects, the better equipped you are to make these decisions.

We clearly botched the Oladipo situation. Any retrospective analysis is simply rationalization. We committed to building around lower ceiling players and flipped Oladipo with a lottery pick in an effort to address their shortcomings. I see a lot of similarity in the Gordon situation. He isn't yet everything we hope he can be, but he has improved dramatically since he entered the league and I still see untapped potential there. I was happy with his extension and I am content to see how he continues to develop this year.

This all applies to Isaac and Bamba as well. It's way too early to make broad declarations of how good they will be in their primes as we have such little evidence with which to make such determinations.

Couldn’t agree more with the bolded. I “get” why a coach like Clifford would decide not to play Bamba with JI much, or play Vuc with Bamba because he feels it’s a more effective lineup currently. However, he shouldn’t be in the position to do so at the expense of the future.

You look at a team like Boston last year with a solid lineup of players that a rookie wouldn’t dream of starting over. Injuries happen, and Tatum starts in Hayward’s place giving him as many minutes as he can handle. That was best case for Tatum IMO instead of playing limited bench minutes. Looking at Orlando, there is far less at stake starting the lottery selections. Win totals shouldn’t matter in the grand scheme of things to a team that finished bottom 5 in the league.

[PennytoShaq]

I don’t know that he’d have any interest but I’d like Noah as a big brother to Bamba/Isaac. Don’t know what it would take to clear Moz but I’ve always liked Noah’s fierceness, intelligence, and unselfishness...back to UF. He’s a NY city kid, very intelligent, well-read, etc - if he’s ready to transition to Udonis Haslem “player coach” role, I could see it. Not even thinking about court time, if he’s up for 20 mins, he could replace Vuc immediately and we steer to the future.

I dont think he can give 20 mins a game. I think we play Mozgod, who is getting paid a lot and is a better player anyway.

Id rather use an open roster spot from a trade to bring in a gleaguer, honestly.

[darthmerrick]

Hey Magic Johnny can you ask your source if this is true:

I heard Magic and Wolves did talk Mozgov, Fournier for Jimmy Butler and Dieng, but wolves insisted Bamba or JI be included?

[Blue_and_Whte]

Hey Magic Johnny can you ask your source if this is true:

I heard Magic and Wolves did talk Mozgov, Fournier for Jimmy Butler and Dieng, but wolves insisted Bamba or JI be included?

He'll no.

Sent from my VS501 using RealGM mobile app