Ruzious wrote:Induveca wrote:Hart reminds me of a smaller Otto Porter when I watch him play. He can be a middling shooter/glue guy but the effort/energy/consistency just isn’t there to become more.
But at his salary sure no complaints. He won’t make you cringe unlike Porter who has become a major financial burden.
You're both wrong.
Actually, Indy's conclusion is reasonable, but Hart is a player who doesn't lack any intangibles - his effort/energy/consistency is/are perfectly fine - as they were when he led Villanova to a National Championship - and he was easily the best player on that team. What he lacks is great athleticism and the ability to create his own shot and shots for others. I would have loved to get him, but PIF keeps lauding him likes he's a developing superstar, and he simply doesn't have that kind of ability. And he'll be 24 in March, so he's not a kid. He's less than 2 years younger than Otto. Ball is obviously (imo) a better talent than Hart.
Otto is a bit over-paid, but a healthy Otto is a very valuable player. Brooklyn signed him to the contract that the Wiz matched, so it's not like Otto wasn't very highly thought of around the NBA. I think the Wiz made the right decision in matching. Unfortunately, he hasn't been able to stay healthy. Now, if the Wiz medical reports showed these health issues, that's another story - and there was a report about a chronic hip issues, so I don't know.
Since I agree point by point with what you write here, Ruz, I'm not sure what I'm "wrong" about. But if I am, I won't have any trouble admitting it.
You are right: Hart is certainly not "a developing superstar." If something I said seemed to indicate I thought he was, then I expressed myself badly. Sorry.
What he is, however, is a solid NBA guard whose overall production is already well above average in only his second year. Because he is under contract through 21-22 at a total cost of $12.4m, he is an incredible bargain -- esp. given his current level of production in only his 2d year. & I hope you'll agree that Josh Hart does have some upside, room for more development.
Now, Lonzo Ball is also under contract through '21-22 -- but the total cost of his contract is $41.5m, & it rises in a hurry (last two years are over $25m vs. @$8m in Hart's case). As I said, he's been pretty good (& right on cue, he blew up last night vs. Sac'to). You are certainly correct that he has much more upside than Hart -- but he's not the bargain Hart is, obviously.
Especially not, btw, if you consider their costs compared to absolute minimum. You have to field 14 guys, & $1.5m @ the minimum for a body on your roster in your uniform. Thus, over 4 years Hart costs $6.5m over the minimum you'd have to spend. Whereas Ball costs @ $35m over that minimum.
Hart is especially valuable, because (as I wrote in a previous post) for your team to be really good in a sport with a salary cap, you must have players whose production is a bargain for how much they're paid. Hart is that in spades. Ball is a bigger talent with a bigger potential upside. But, he's also a bigger risk.
Make sense?
Of course I'd love to have them both!
). I would not trade Porter for Batum+1st unless that pick somehow helped us getting a terrific player.
