Bagley for Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles and multiple 2nds....

[Manocad]

I think most people, probably including Weaver, see Bagley as a stretch big.

He’s been referred to as a bigger Christian Wood in this thread.

He’s better when NOT shooting from the outside. But he does, and will.

If we can get him to stop shooting so much from outside 15-18 feet and play good D, I think he could be good here.

But if Weaver/Casey see him as a stretch big, that won’t happen.

I want to revisit this since you didn't actually answer my question.

You don't like the trade because the NBA trend is toward stretch 4's, and since Bagley isn't a good a stretch 4 as you see it, do you honestly think that Weaver traded for him with the intention of plugging him in as a stretch 4 that he'll fail as? Or does it make more sense that the intention would be to have Bagley do what he IS good at?

(Which is my contention of what the team needs, not another outside shooter)

Re-read my response.

Ok, since you don't want to provide the outright answer and simply want to allude to it with a little backpedal, I'll do it.

Bagley wasn't traded for to play a traditional stretch 4 role. He'll be expected to provide more of an inside presence which the team desperately needs on offense.

I don't care what other people have referred to him as since it has no bearing on how he plays. He averages 1.9 3-point attempts a game; while that clearly doesn't imply that he exists solely in the paint on offense, it sure as hell doesn't imply that he's a traditional stretch 4 who shoots a lot from outside. And his 2-point FG% is .538 so if he's shooting from outside as you say (but just not 3's), he's obviously pretty damn good at it meaning it can't be "too much." Now, I'm sure you know enough about basketball to know that NO ONE shooting primarily outside the paint is hitting at a .538 clip, meaning he's clearly taking most of his shots from inside the paint.

You don't trade for a guy who shouldn't be shooting outside to shoot outside, at least not until he's shown that he can efficiently. To assume otherwise by saying "I think Weaver sees him as a stretch big" is to basically call Weaver an idiot. And while you may not like all his moves, he's clearly not an idiot.

[MotownMadness]

Why don't everyone just wait and see how he does here? No need for possible crow eating from typing with your emotions over a 22 year old we got for scraps.

[Piston Pete]

I want to revisit this since you didn't actually answer my question.

You don't like the trade because the NBA trend is toward stretch 4's, and since Bagley isn't a good a stretch 4 as you see it, do you honestly think that Weaver traded for him with the intention of plugging him in as a stretch 4 that he'll fail as? Or does it make more sense that the intention would be to have Bagley do what he IS good at?

(Which is my contention of what the team needs, not another outside shooter)

Re-read my response.

Ok, since you don't want to provide the outright answer and simply want to allude to it with a little backpedal, I'll do it.

Bagley wasn't traded for to play a traditional stretch 4 role. He'll be expected to provide more of an inside presence which the team desperately needs on offense.

I don't care what other people have referred to him as since it has no bearing on how he plays. He averages 1.9 3-point attempts a game; while that clearly doesn't imply that he exists solely in the paint on offense, it sure as hell doesn't imply that he's a traditional stretch 4 who shoots a lot from outside. And his 2-point FG% is .538 so if he's shooting from outside as you say (but just not 3's), he's obviously pretty damn good at it meaning it can't be "too much." Now, I'm sure you know enough about basketball to know that NO ONE shooting primarily outside the paint is hitting at a .538 clip, meaning he's clearly taking most of his shots from inside the paint.

You don't trade for a guy who shouldn't be shooting outside to shoot outside, at least not until he's shown that he can efficiently. To assume otherwise by saying "I think Weaver sees him as a stretch big" is to basically call Weaver an idiot. And while you may not like all his moves, he's clearly not an idiot.

You’re grasping at straws. I agree with MotownMadness. Let’s just wait and see how this plays out and how Bagley fits here.

[Manocad]

Re-read my response.

Ok, since you don't want to provide the outright answer and simply want to allude to it with a little backpedal, I'll do it.

Bagley wasn't traded for to play a traditional stretch 4 role. He'll be expected to provide more of an inside presence which the team desperately needs on offense.

I don't care what other people have referred to him as since it has no bearing on how he plays. He averages 1.9 3-point attempts a game; while that clearly doesn't imply that he exists solely in the paint on offense, it sure as hell doesn't imply that he's a traditional stretch 4 who shoots a lot from outside. And his 2-point FG% is .538 so if he's shooting from outside as you say (but just not 3's), he's obviously pretty damn good at it meaning it can't be "too much." Now, I'm sure you know enough about basketball to know that NO ONE shooting primarily outside the paint is hitting at a .538 clip, meaning he's clearly taking most of his shots from inside the paint.

You don't trade for a guy who shouldn't be shooting outside to shoot outside, at least not until he's shown that he can efficiently. To assume otherwise by saying "I think Weaver sees him as a stretch big" is to basically call Weaver an idiot. And while you may not like all his moves, he's clearly not an idiot.

You’re grasping at straws. I agree with MotownMadness. Let’s just wait and see how this plays out and how Bagley fits here.

I’m the one grasping at straws? What the hell are you talking about? The whole premise of your criticism of the trade is that you think Weaver thinks Bagley is a stretch big and Bagley isn’t a good stretch big. I just gave you Bagley’s season stats which not only suggest that in no way does he play like a stretch big, but watching him actually play doesn’t suggest he plays like a stretch big, thus there is no logical reason to believe Weaver thinks he’s a stretch big or plans to use him as a stretch big, and therefore the criticism of Weaver on that basis is completely unwarranted.

You literally made the mother of all straw grasps.

[mattao313]

I think most people, probably including Weaver, see Bagley as a stretch big.

He’s been referred to as a bigger Christian Wood in this thread.

He’s better when NOT shooting from the outside. But he does, and will.

If we can get him to stop shooting so much from outside 15-18 feet and play good D, I think he could be good here.

But if Weaver/Casey see him as a stretch big, that won’t happen.

I think his best bet is to model his game after John Collins. Poor mans Collins would be a decent player.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

[Piston Pete]

Ok, since you don't want to provide the outright answer and simply want to allude to it with a little backpedal, I'll do it.

Bagley wasn't traded for to play a traditional stretch 4 role. He'll be expected to provide more of an inside presence which the team desperately needs on offense.

I don't care what other people have referred to him as since it has no bearing on how he plays. He averages 1.9 3-point attempts a game; while that clearly doesn't imply that he exists solely in the paint on offense, it sure as hell doesn't imply that he's a traditional stretch 4 who shoots a lot from outside. And his 2-point FG% is .538 so if he's shooting from outside as you say (but just not 3's), he's obviously pretty damn good at it meaning it can't be "too much." Now, I'm sure you know enough about basketball to know that NO ONE shooting primarily outside the paint is hitting at a .538 clip, meaning he's clearly taking most of his shots from inside the paint.

You don't trade for a guy who shouldn't be shooting outside to shoot outside, at least not until he's shown that he can efficiently. To assume otherwise by saying "I think Weaver sees him as a stretch big" is to basically call Weaver an idiot. And while you may not like all his moves, he's clearly not an idiot.

You’re grasping at straws. I agree with MotownMadness. Let’s just wait and see how this plays out and how Bagley fits here.

I’m the one grasping at straws? What the hell are you talking about? The whole premise of your criticism of the trade is that you think Weaver thinks Bagley is a stretch big and Bagley isn’t a good stretch big. I just gave you Bagley’s season stats which not only suggest that in no way does he play like a stretch big, but watching him actually play doesn’t suggest he plays like a stretch big, thus there is no logical reason to believe Weaver thinks he’s a stretch big or plans to use him as a stretch big, and therefore the criticism of Weaver on that basis is completely unwarranted.

You literally made the mother of all straw grasps.

You’ve been arguing with yourself for two pages….

[Liqourish]

I want to revisit this since you didn't actually answer my question.

You don't like the trade because the NBA trend is toward stretch 4's, and since Bagley isn't a good a stretch 4 as you see it, do you honestly think that Weaver traded for him with the intention of plugging him in as a stretch 4 that he'll fail as? Or does it make more sense that the intention would be to have Bagley do what he IS good at?

(Which is my contention of what the team needs, not another outside shooter)

Re-read my response.

Ok, since you don't want to provide the outright answer and simply want to allude to it with a little backpedal, I'll do it.

Bagley wasn't traded for to play a traditional stretch 4 role. He'll be expected to provide more of an inside presence which the team desperately needs on offense.

I don't care what other people have referred to him as since it has no bearing on how he plays. He averages 1.9 3-point attempts a game; while that clearly doesn't imply that he exists solely in the paint on offense, it sure as hell doesn't imply that he's a traditional stretch 4 who shoots a lot from outside. And his 2-point FG% is .538 so if he's shooting from outside as you say (but just not 3's), he's obviously pretty damn good at it meaning it can't be "too much." Now, I'm sure you know enough about basketball to know that NO ONE shooting primarily outside the paint is hitting at a .538 clip, meaning he's clearly taking most of his shots from inside the paint.

You don't trade for a guy who shouldn't be shooting outside to shoot outside, at least not until he's shown that he can efficiently. To assume otherwise by saying "I think Weaver sees him as a stretch big" is to basically call Weaver an idiot. And while you may not like all his moves, he's clearly not an idiot.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/marvin-bagley-shot-chart-by-season

You can even move it by year. He's never been a stretch 4. He is a inside the paint C who can hit the 3 but has a nice skillset inside. Which just so happens to be what we lack (length, inside scoring presence, lob threat, etc). Again, if people would actually WATCH HIM PLAY they would know that. I'm sure Weaver has watched him even if some posters here have not.

[kpt]

I just got around to watching some highlights of Bagley and I know they are highlights but what impressed me is his off the ball movement into open space that puts him at a place to score. Cade and killian will love this. He also handles the rock and Runs the floor well for a guy his size. Also his weak side help defense looked solid. Again I know these are highlights. And he was going against most centers from the other team so he looks to me more like a Center than A power forward.

[Liqourish]

I just got around to watching some highlights of Bagley and I know they are highlights but what impressed me is his off the ball movement into open space that puts him at a place to score. Cade and killian will love this. He also handles the rock and Runs the floor well for a guy his size. Also his weak side help defense looked solid. Again I know these are highlights. And he was going against most centers from the other team so he looks to me more like a Center than A power forward.

See!! Watching games helps know who players really are!! Kudos kpt for actually watching the guy.

[Manocad]

You’re grasping at straws. I agree with MotownMadness. Let’s just wait and see how this plays out and how Bagley fits here.

I’m the one grasping at straws? What the hell are you talking about? The whole premise of your criticism of the trade is that you think Weaver thinks Bagley is a stretch big and Bagley isn’t a good stretch big. I just gave you Bagley’s season stats which not only suggest that in no way does he play like a stretch big, but watching him actually play doesn’t suggest he plays like a stretch big, thus there is no logical reason to believe Weaver thinks he’s a stretch big or plans to use him as a stretch big, and therefore the criticism of Weaver on that basis is completely unwarranted.

You literally made the mother of all straw grasps.

You’ve been arguing with yourself for two pages….

Sure thing, chief.

[Manocad]

I just got around to watching some highlights of Bagley and I know they are highlights but what impressed me is his off the ball movement into open space that puts him at a place to score. Cade and killian will love this. He also handles the rock and Runs the floor well for a guy his size. Also his weak side help defense looked solid. Again I know these are highlights. And he was going against most centers from the other team so he looks to me more like a Center than A power forward.

See!! Watching games helps know who players really are!! Kudos kpt for actually watching the guy.

BINGO.

This?

I think most people, probably including Weaver, see Bagley as a stretch big.

He’s been referred to as a bigger Christian Wood in this thread.

He’s better when NOT shooting from the outside. But he does, and will.

If we can get him to stop shooting so much from outside 15-18 feet and play good D, I think he could be good here.

But if Weaver/Casey see him as a stretch big, that won’t happen.

Literally NONE of that is true or can be supported by evidence or any logic in any way, shape or form other than "he's better when NOT shooting from the outside." YEAH--THAT'S THE POINT. Yet he'd be expected by Weaver/Casey to shoot from outside...why again?

But in saying so I've been "arguing with myself."

[Piston Pete]

I just got around to watching some highlights of Bagley and I know they are highlights but what impressed me is his off the ball movement into open space that puts him at a place to score. Cade and killian will love this. He also handles the rock and Runs the floor well for a guy his size. Also his weak side help defense looked solid. Again I know these are highlights. And he was going against most centers from the other team so he looks to me more like a Center than A power forward.

See!! Watching games helps know who players really are!! Kudos kpt for actually watching the guy.

BINGO.

This?

I think most people, probably including Weaver, see Bagley as a stretch big.

He’s been referred to as a bigger Christian Wood in this thread.

He’s better when NOT shooting from the outside. But he does, and will.

If we can get him to stop shooting so much from outside 15-18 feet and play good D, I think he could be good here.

But if Weaver/Casey see him as a stretch big, that won’t happen.

Literally NONE of that is true or can be supported by evidence or any logic in any way, shape or form other than "he's better when NOT shooting from the outside." YEAH--THAT'S THE POINT. Yet he'd be expected by Weaver/Casey to shoot from outside...why again?

But in saying so I've been "arguing with myself."

Just keep going. You can make it to 3 pages

[Snakebites]

See!! Watching games helps know who players really are!! Kudos kpt for actually watching the guy.

BINGO.

This?

I think most people, probably including Weaver, see Bagley as a stretch big.

He’s been referred to as a bigger Christian Wood in this thread.

He’s better when NOT shooting from the outside. But he does, and will.

If we can get him to stop shooting so much from outside 15-18 feet and play good D, I think he could be good here.

But if Weaver/Casey see him as a stretch big, that won’t happen.

Literally NONE of that is true or can be supported by evidence or any logic in any way, shape or form other than "he's better when NOT shooting from the outside." YEAH--THAT'S THE POINT. Yet he'd be expected by Weaver/Casey to shoot from outside...why again?

But in saying so I've been "arguing with myself."

Just keep going. You can make it to 3 pages

No. He can't.

Well... he can't now.