Ben Simmons Thread (READ FIRST POST)

[winforlose]

To all the pro Simmons trade people, what is the expected return on investment? Losing Beasley is obviously going to cost you more points than Simmons scores. You are also severely limiting your options for several years with Simmons salary. How many more steals and stops do you expect to get with Simmons? Is it simply that you believe Simmons plus MCD turns us into a defensive powerhouse? I am just not seeing the value of a max contract as a fourth best player. This is the same argument when people say Wiggins is better with GSW core three plus Wiseman. Yes he performs better but he is clearly not worth the money. Especially on a team that won’t go 30 million over the tax line to buy wins.

Salaries for Top 4 options:
Warriors: $139,367,788
Nets: $139,015,583
Bucks: $120,578,558
Clippers: $112,442,707
Towns / Edwards / Russell / Simmons: $104,913,516

Why are you only looking at points scored for Beasley? Is he guaranteed to average 20 ppg if here again but as a 4th option himself? Or is it more realistic that he ends up in the 16-18 ppg range (which is right around Simmons' career average)? Then what about the difference of an extra 4 rebounds and 5 assists that Simmons provides over Beasley? Then what about the defensive impact?

Actually Beasley is far more likely to score more than 20 per game. As a catch and shoot 3 point shooter he takes pressure of KAT, Dlo, Ant and the paint in general (cannot camp out with shooters all around the perimeter.) If Beasley is allowed to catch and shoot he has shown the ability to drop 16 in a quarter. The only times he struggles is when he is the focus of the defense and that simply cannot happen when playing with guys like KAT and Dlo (not to mention what Ant could contribute by driving and kicking.) I could easily see Beasley averaging 25 as a third/fourth option given his sharpshooting.

But, let’s accept your premise and assume he is averaging 16. Points being equal Beasley makes everyone else better. Simmons makes Ant significantly worse because he will always be facing a big on every single drive. He forces KAT to stand behind the 3 point line instead of at the Elbow because now both opposing bigs are guarding the lane. Rebounding might be improved with Ben but I still think we can get someone else via instead or make up the missing stats with a deeper and better bench. Overall, Simmons would need to basically radically increase his numbers in steals, blocks, and rebounds to be worth his money, especially on a team like ours which is built around shooters.

[Dewey]

To all the pro Simmons trade people, what is the expected return on investment? Losing Beasley is obviously going to cost you more points than Simmons scores. You are also severely limiting your options for several years with Simmons salary. How many more steals and stops do you expect to get with Simmons? Is it simply that you believe Simmons plus MCD turns us into a defensive powerhouse? I am just not seeing the value of a max contract as a fourth best player. This is the same argument when people say Wiggins is better with GSW core three plus Wiseman. Yes he performs better but he is clearly not worth the money. Especially on a team that won’t go 30 million over the tax line to buy wins.

Salaries for Top 4 options:
Warriors: $139,367,788
Nets: $139,015,583
Bucks: $120,578,558
Clippers: $112,442,707
Towns / Edwards / Russell / Simmons: $104,913,516

Why are you only looking at points scored for Beasley? Is he guaranteed to average 20 ppg if here again but as a 4th option himself? Or is it more realistic that he ends up in the 16-18 ppg range (which is right around Simmons' career average)? Then what about the difference of an extra 4 rebounds and 5 assists that Simmons provides over Beasley? Then what about the defensive impact?

Actually Beasley is far more likely to score more than 20 per game. As a catch and shoot 3 point shooter he takes pressure of KAT, Dlo, Ant and the paint in general (cannot camp out with shooters all around the perimeter.) If Beasley is allowed to catch and shoot he has shown the ability to drop 16 in a quarter. The only times he struggles is when he is the focus of the defense and that simply cannot happen when playing with guys like KAT and Dlo (not to mention what Ant could contribute by driving and kicking.) I could easily see Beasley averaging 25 as a third/fourth option given his sharpshooting.

But, let’s accept your premise and assume he is averaging 16. Points being equal Beasley makes everyone else better. Simmons makes Ant significantly worse because he will always be facing a big on every single drive. He forces KAT to stand behind the 3 point line instead of at the Elbow because now both opposing bigs are guarding the lane. Rebounding might be improved with Ben but I still think we can get someone else via instead or make up the missing stats with a deeper and better bench. Overall, Simmons would need to basically radically increase his numbers in steals, blocks, and rebounds to be worth his money, especially on a team like ours which is built around shooters.

I see Beasley up and down with 10-25 a night pending defense… 15 average.

I see Simmons off the elbows where he can facilitate and cut. Or another offense is the gopher offense… 3-out Kat at the elbows and Simmons clock-to-clock. Two systems that will work with current roster. Defensively I think he would raise the team bar. If he is consistently above average and Finch presses others to match it’s more wins.

[Merc_Porto]

Also, the idea of add and subtract points, steal, assists, etc by what the player is averaging is actually funny tbh...
I'm sure nobody does that... Not even Rosas

Can you imagine the Lakers doing those counts when they traded for Anthony Davis for example?

[Krapinsky]

To all the pro Simmons trade people, what is the expected return on investment? Losing Beasley is obviously going to cost you more points than Simmons scores. You are also severely limiting your options for several years with Simmons salary. How many more steals and stops do you expect to get with Simmons? Is it simply that you believe Simmons plus MCD turns us into a defensive powerhouse? I am just not seeing the value of a max contract as a fourth best player. This is the same argument when people say Wiggins is better with GSW core three plus Wiseman. Yes he performs better but he is clearly not worth the money. Especially on a team that won’t go 30 million over the tax line to buy wins.

First of all, to get Simmons you're not going to lose only Beasley. McDaniels and maybe Dlo (doubt they want him) has to go too.
Second, how you are limiting your options? With Ben you have your big-3 right there. All of them with 25yo or less.
2 of them are under contract for another 4 years and the other for more 3 years. You built around those 3.

Yes, with Ben, Pat you could turn into a defensive powerhouse.
2 of the best defenders in the league right there.

Is very simple IMO...
Ben - Ant - KAT »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» Dlo - Kat - Ant - McDaniels - Beasley

It blows my mind how Ben is being so underrated.
4th star? Seriously? fourth best player?

He would be the 4th or 5th option on this team. Should he take more shots than any of Kat, DLo, Ant? I'll cover you. The answer is no.

And you don't give that much up for Simmons.

It seems you and winforlose only see the game of basketball through the prism of shooting and that’s all that matters. Simmons might take less shots, but he’ll be a focal point of the offense. Was John Stockton the 4th option because he passes the ball to his teammates? Was Magic Johnson on the showtime Lakers not worth a max contract because he took less shots than some of his teammates. Its like you two don’t understand the concept of a point guard that isn’t in the vein of Steph, Dame, or Kylie.

[Klomp]

Actually Beasley is far more likely to score more than 20 per game. As a catch and shoot 3 point shooter he takes pressure of KAT, Dlo, Ant and the paint in general (cannot camp out with shooters all around the perimeter.) If Beasley is allowed to catch and shoot he has shown the ability to drop 16 in a quarter. The only times he struggles is when he is the focus of the defense and that simply cannot happen when playing with guys like KAT and Dlo (not to mention what Ant could contribute by driving and kicking.) I could easily see Beasley averaging 25 as a third/fourth option given his sharpshooting.

But, let’s accept your premise and assume he is averaging 16. Points being equal Beasley makes everyone else better. Simmons makes Ant significantly worse because he will always be facing a big on every single drive. He forces KAT to stand behind the 3 point line instead of at the Elbow because now both opposing bigs are guarding the lane. Rebounding might be improved with Ben but I still think we can get someone else via instead or make up the missing stats with a deeper and better bench. Overall, Simmons would need to basically radically increase his numbers in steals, blocks, and rebounds to be worth his money, especially on a team like ours which is built around shooters.

Everything you said in the first paragraph is true, but that doesn't mean it will translate into 20 ppg. It's more about the lack of volume than it is the consistency as a third or fourth option. You're just not getting the same volume of looks, so I don't see it unless they're averaging 140 ppg as a team night-in, night-out.

For as good as the numbers looked for Beasley as a 20 ppg scorer with 40% 3-point shooting, I find it interesting that his offensive rating on Basketball Reference was only 109. To put it in context, it's the same rating as Josh Okogie. JJ Redick, someone Beasley should emulate, only had three seasons below 117 after his first three seasons in the league.

[Klomp]

But, let’s accept your premise and assume he is averaging 16. Points being equal Beasley makes everyone else better. Simmons makes Ant significantly worse because he will always be facing a big on every single drive. He forces KAT to stand behind the 3 point line instead of at the Elbow because now both opposing bigs are guarding the lane. Rebounding might be improved with Ben but I still think we can get someone else via instead or make up the missing stats with a deeper and better bench. Overall, Simmons would need to basically radically increase his numbers in steals, blocks, and rebounds to be worth his money, especially on a team like ours which is built around shooters.

People bring up defenders sagging off Simmons like they think Towns, Edwards and Russell haven't been playing next to Vanderbilt, Rubio and Okogie.

[Krapinsky]

Also, the idea of add and subtract points, steal, assists, etc by what the player is averaging is actually funny tbh...
I'm sure nobody does that... Not even Rosas

Can you imagine the Lakers doing those counts when they traded for Anthony Davis for example?

I’m glad I’m not the only one scratching my head here. I feel like I’m on a yahoo fantasy bball forum. Can you imagine all the points, rebounds, and blocks Rosas could get if he signed Hassan Whiteside?

[KGdaBom]

To all the pro Simmons trade people, what is the expected return on investment? Losing Beasley is obviously going to cost you more points than Simmons scores. You are also severely limiting your options for several years with Simmons salary. How many more steals and stops do you expect to get with Simmons? Is it simply that you believe Simmons plus MCD turns us into a defensive powerhouse? I am just not seeing the value of a max contract as a fourth best player. This is the same argument when people say Wiggins is better with GSW core three plus Wiseman. Yes he performs better but he is clearly not worth the money. Especially on a team that won’t go 30 million over the tax line to buy wins.

We get Simmons he might just be our first best player. Definitely better than Russell and maybe better than KAT and Edwards.

[Klomp]

Also, the idea of add and subtract points, steal, assists, etc by what the player is averaging is actually funny tbh...
I'm sure nobody does that... Not even Rosas

Can you imagine the Lakers doing those counts when they traded for Anthony Davis for example?

I’m glad I’m not the only one scratching my head here. I feel like I’m on a yahoo fantasy bball forum. Can you imagine all the points, rebounds, and blocks Rosas could get if he signed Hassan Whiteside?

It's about understanding what players can do in a role.

[Klomp]

A lot has been made of Simmons' usage in the clutch, which moved into the forefront in the playoffs. But a key difference between Philadelphia and Minnesota is seeing where that usage is going in the clutch. Philadelphia ran things through Embiid (38.5 usage). Minnesota runs things through D'Angelo Russell (39.6 usage). For Simmons and his skillset, it's easier for him to play off Russell than it is Embiid.

[SO_MONEY]

First of all, to get Simmons you're not going to lose only Beasley. McDaniels and maybe Dlo (doubt they want him) has to go too.
Second, how you are limiting your options? With Ben you have your big-3 right there. All of them with 25yo or less.
2 of them are under contract for another 4 years and the other for more 3 years. You built around those 3.

Yes, with Ben, Pat you could turn into a defensive powerhouse.
2 of the best defenders in the league right there.

Is very simple IMO...
Ben - Ant - KAT »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» Dlo - Kat - Ant - McDaniels - Beasley

It blows my mind how Ben is being so underrated.
4th star? Seriously? fourth best player?

He would be the 4th or 5th option on this team. Should he take more shots than any of Kat, DLo, Ant? I'll cover you. The answer is no.

And you don't give that much up for Simmons.

It seems you and winforlose only see the game of basketball through the prism of shooting and that’s all that matters. Simmons might take less shots, but he’ll be a focal point of the offense. Was John Stockton the 4th option because he passes the ball to his teammates? Was Magic Johnson on the showtime Lakers not worth a max contract because he took less shots than some of his teammates. Its like you two don’t understand the concept of a point guard that isn’t in the vein of Steph, Dame, or Kylie.

No, I was differentiating the difference between best player and option. DLo is a better option, Simmons is the better player, smarter anyways and plays defense. Regardless, production gets you paid, 4th options shouldn't make $35mil, defenders are cheap and the rest of his skill is mitigated by needing to take the ball out of the hands of your better options...it is kind of a catch-22.

[KGdaBom]

To all the pro Simmons trade people, what is the expected return on investment? Losing Beasley is obviously going to cost you more points than Simmons scores. You are also severely limiting your options for several years with Simmons salary. How many more steals and stops do you expect to get with Simmons? Is it simply that you believe Simmons plus MCD turns us into a defensive powerhouse? I am just not seeing the value of a max contract as a fourth best player. This is the same argument when people say Wiggins is better with GSW core three plus Wiseman. Yes he performs better but he is clearly not worth the money. Especially on a team that won’t go 30 million over the tax line to buy wins.

First of all, to get Simmons you're not going to lose only Beasley. McDaniels and maybe Dlo (doubt they want him) has to go too.
Second, how you are limiting your options? With Ben you have your big-3 right there. All of them with 25yo or less.
2 of them are under contract for another 4 years and the other for more 3 years. You built around those 3.

Yes, with Ben, Pat you could turn into a defensive powerhouse.
2 of the best defenders in the league right there.

Is very simple IMO...
Ben - Ant - KAT »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» Dlo - Kat - Ant - McDaniels - Beasley

It blows my mind how Ben is being so underrated.
4th star? Seriously? fourth best player?

When a guy cannot consistently free throw shoot, jump shoot, or 3 point shoot it limits your offense. Dlo, Ant, KAT are all better than Simmons on offense. Simmons is your fourth option if not your fifth. Simmons can only score at the rim. This is not a dispute, it is a fact. To properly use Simmons use must take the ball out of Ant and KAT’s hands. It is simply not an ideal fit. The argument in favor of worsening our offense is that you gain a lot on defense. I just don’t see how the equation balances, and I would simply not give away MCD to get Simmons as I believe MCD will become a better defender than Simmons give time.

There is more to offense than shooting and scoring. Creating/facilitating is huge. KAT is one of the very best offensive players in the league. He is clearly better of offense than Simmons. Ant could get there. Simmons is a better offensive player than Russell. Now look at the other side. Simmons buries all three of them. He would instantly be under consideration as our #1 star. Chances of McDaniels becoming a better defender are no more than 1 in a hundred.

[MN7725]

I've always seen Simmons as a bigger version of Westbrook (that doesn't jack up the bad shots), strongly positive offensive player because of the pressure he puts on the rim and pulling defenders away from teammates, and most importantly dominant transition player, which are the best offensive possessions other than maybe those from offensive rebounds

Simmons is always near the top of the league in all the 3pt creation stats with like Giannis, Luka, Lebron, etc, dude is a freight train getting to the paint and has top 1% court vision

Granted, this is negated if he's afraid of contact because of FT yips or shooting even the paint like he was at times in the playoffs


But I almost feel like I'm reading descriptions of Taj Gibson in some of these posts as a paint-bound offensive, good defensive player

[Klomp]

I've always seen Simmons as a bigger version of Westbrook (that doesn't jack up the bad shots), strongly positive offensive player because of the pressure he puts on the rim and pulling defenders away from teammates, and most importantly dominant transition player, which are the best offensive possessions other than maybe those from offensive rebounds

Simmons is always near the top of the league in all the 3pt creation stats with like Giannis, Luka, Lebron, etc, dude is a freight train getting to the paint and has top 1% court vision

Granted, this is negated if he's afraid of contact because of FT yips or shooting even the paint like he was at times in the playoffs


But I almost feel like I'm reading descriptions of Taj Gibson in some of these posts as a paint-bound offensive, good defensive player

Well said. People are trying to put him in boxes where he doesn't belong.

[Krapinsky]

But, let’s accept your premise and assume he is averaging 16. Points being equal Beasley makes everyone else better. Simmons makes Ant significantly worse because he will always be facing a big on every single drive. He forces KAT to stand behind the 3 point line instead of at the Elbow because now both opposing bigs are guarding the lane. Rebounding might be improved with Ben but I still think we can get someone else via instead or make up the missing stats with a deeper and better bench. Overall, Simmons would need to basically radically increase his numbers in steals, blocks, and rebounds to be worth his money, especially on a team like ours which is built around shooters.

People bring up defenders sagging off Simmons like they think Towns, Edwards and Russell haven't been playing next to Vanderbilt, Rubio and Okogie.

Lol

[SO_MONEY]

But, let’s accept your premise and assume he is averaging 16. Points being equal Beasley makes everyone else better. Simmons makes Ant significantly worse because he will always be facing a big on every single drive. He forces KAT to stand behind the 3 point line instead of at the Elbow because now both opposing bigs are guarding the lane. Rebounding might be improved with Ben but I still think we can get someone else via instead or make up the missing stats with a deeper and better bench. Overall, Simmons would need to basically radically increase his numbers in steals, blocks, and rebounds to be worth his money, especially on a team like ours which is built around shooters.

People bring up defenders sagging off Simmons like they think Towns, Edwards and Russell haven't been playing next to Vanderbilt, Rubio and Okogie.

The difference of course is they shoot better than Simmons or they don't live on the perimeter or they are not paid $35mil or they might be out of the NBA or on minimum or near minimum deals in the future.

[Note30]

First of all, to get Simmons you're not going to lose only Beasley. McDaniels and maybe Dlo (doubt they want him) has to go too.
Second, how you are limiting your options? With Ben you have your big-3 right there. All of them with 25yo or less.
2 of them are under contract for another 4 years and the other for more 3 years. You built around those 3.

Yes, with Ben, Pat you could turn into a defensive powerhouse.
2 of the best defenders in the league right there.

Is very simple IMO...
Ben - Ant - KAT »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» Dlo - Kat - Ant - McDaniels - Beasley

It blows my mind how Ben is being so underrated.
4th star? Seriously? fourth best player?

He would be the 4th or 5th option on this team. Should he take more shots than any of Kat, DLo, Ant? I'll cover you. The answer is no.

And you don't give that much up for Simmons.

It seems you and winforlose only see the game of basketball through the prism of shooting and that’s all that matters. Simmons might take less shots, but he’ll be a focal point of the offense. Was John Stockton the 4th option because he passes the ball to his teammates? Was Magic Johnson on the showtime Lakers not worth a max contract because he took less shots than some of his teammates. Its like you two don’t understand the concept of a point guard that isn’t in the vein of Steph, Dame, or Kylie.

You literally are picking players from an era where shooting wasn't anywhere close to as important as having a pure point guard. The fact that you have zero modern comparisons should spark some flags. Also pretty sure Stockton was usually was second in FG only to Karl Malone.

Name a PG in the current league who is moderately successful that isnt in that vein.

[KGdaBom]

He would be the 4th or 5th option on this team. Should he take more shots than any of Kat, DLo, Ant? I'll cover you. The answer is no.

And you don't give that much up for Simmons.

It seems you and winforlose only see the game of basketball through the prism of shooting and that’s all that matters. Simmons might take less shots, but he’ll be a focal point of the offense. Was John Stockton the 4th option because he passes the ball to his teammates? Was Magic Johnson on the showtime Lakers not worth a max contract because he took less shots than some of his teammates. Its like you two don’t understand the concept of a point guard that isn’t in the vein of Steph, Dame, or Kylie.

You literally are picking players from an era where shooting wasn't anywhere close to as important as having a pure point guard. The fact that you have zero modern comparisons should spark some flags. Also pretty sure Stockton was usually was second in FG only to Karl Malone.

Name a PG in the current league who is moderately successful that isnt in that vein.

They had a guy named Hornacek who scored about the same as Stockton IIRC. I would name Ben Simmons for one. Brogdon maybe. Halliburton. Just off the top of my head. Put no thought into it.

[Krapinsky]

He would be the 4th or 5th option on this team. Should he take more shots than any of Kat, DLo, Ant? I'll cover you. The answer is no.

And you don't give that much up for Simmons.

It seems you and winforlose only see the game of basketball through the prism of shooting and that’s all that matters. Simmons might take less shots, but he’ll be a focal point of the offense. Was John Stockton the 4th option because he passes the ball to his teammates? Was Magic Johnson on the showtime Lakers not worth a max contract because he took less shots than some of his teammates. Its like you two don’t understand the concept of a point guard that isn’t in the vein of Steph, Dame, or Kylie.

You literally are picking players from an era where shooting wasn't anywhere close to as important as having a pure point guard. The fact that you have zero modern comparisons should spark some flags. Also pretty sure Stockton was usually was second in FG only to Karl Malone.

Name a PG in the current league who is moderately successful that isnt in that vein.

I’m going to directly call you out here because you pretty clearly don’t do your research (too lazy?) and don’t know what you’re talking about (ignorant?). I was perplexed by the Stockton statement so I went through his entire career and I can confirm not once was he second on his team in FGA per game in his entire career. My guess is you grew up playing NBA Jam and that is the limit of your knowledge of Stockton as a player. Why you choose to engage posters on things you clearly know nothing about and are too lazy to research is your prerogative, but it’s not a great look and quite frankly pisses me off.

There are plenty of pure point guards (in that they look to pass first) still in the league, Paul, Rondo, Rubio, Lamelo, Simmons, among them. Regardless, I don’t get your point (and likely there is no point but to play devilz advocate) because there is no doubt that Simmons himself has been successful, a reality you can’t seem to accept, so not sure why we need to play the comparison game in the first place.

[Note30]

It seems you and winforlose only see the game of basketball through the prism of shooting and that’s all that matters. Simmons might take less shots, but he’ll be a focal point of the offense. Was John Stockton the 4th option because he passes the ball to his teammates? Was Magic Johnson on the showtime Lakers not worth a max contract because he took less shots than some of his teammates. Its like you two don’t understand the concept of a point guard that isn’t in the vein of Steph, Dame, or Kylie.

You literally are picking players from an era where shooting wasn't anywhere close to as important as having a pure point guard. The fact that you have zero modern comparisons should spark some flags. Also pretty sure Stockton was usually was second in FG only to Karl Malone.

Name a PG in the current league who is moderately successful that isnt in that vein.

I’m going to directly call you out here because you pretty clearly don’t do your research (too lazy?) and don’t know what you’re talking about (ignorant?). I was perplexed by the Stockton statement so I went through his entire career and I can confirm not once was he second on his team in FGA per game in his entire career. My guess is you grew up playing NBA Jam and that is the limit of your knowledge of Stockton as a player. Why you choose to engage posters on things you clearly know nothing about and are too lazy to research is your prerogative, but it’s not a great look and quite frankly pisses me off.

There are plenty of pure point guards (in that they look to pass first) still in the league, Paul, Rondo, Rubio, Lamelo, Simmons, among them. Regardless, I don’t get your point (and likely there is no point but to play devilz advocate) because there is no doubt that Simmons himself has been successful, a reality you can’t seem to accept, so not sure why we need to play the comparison game in the first place.

I know the rules say not to make **** personal, so I'm gonna let that **** slide. Yeah maybe FGs we're inaccurate because I'm remember Stockton putting up 18 and 11 on the regular, didn't think about FTs and ****. And yeah maybe I didn't research it down to each little stat, because that wasn't the point.

The point is if you want a good team your higher usage players have to be excellent shooters because of the time we live in.

Stockton was a decent shooter (underestimate, pretty sure he was 50-40-90), but he also played in a different era where the pick and roll was set in the midrange, because shooting 3's esp was not happening. The point was that it was a different era and he would probably thrive here too, but it doesn't change how he played the game would have to completely change. The fact that you took half a sentence and called it something that pissed you off is because it doesn't fit your narrative not mine.

So Paul and LaMelo are the only starters there, and both of them are amazing shooters. The other point guards on that list haven't had too many successful seasons.

I was/am a huge Rubio fan. The difference is that I wouldn't pay him the same money as Damian Lillard because he's not as good.

Define successful. Go on. What does that mean to you? Unsuccessfully making the ECF? If you're not getting past the second round in the East I wouldn't say you're successful.

We're a bottom feeder team and always have been outside of a few prime years with KG and a occasional season since. We literally have no scope of what success looks like for fanbase because we're so starved.

Laker fans talk about the 2014-18 years like some unimaginable plague, in reality its around 4 years and even then it's because Kobe was injury ridden and not the same for two of those seasons. Then they got LeBron and a year later won a chip.

Meanwhile for us 4 years is just a turning point for another rebuild.

I'm not saying why arent we the Lakers I'm just saying it's hard to understand what successful looks like when all you've seen is the dumps.

I wouldn't call Simmons "successful". Maybe at an individual level sure, multiple All Star and defensive first team appearances. But with the teams hes had and the lack of success in the postseason, meh.