Lauri:' I can make the comeback'

[Indomitable]

But then why is he still on the roster? They should move him if that’s the thought.

Because they will see if he can actually play Center. Maybe he will find away to punish teams for putting a sf on him. They have nothing to lose in evaluating the roster.

What are the Bulls missing out on? His value will be the same in Feb if he is the same player he has been for 4 years. This about evaluation. You act like the Bulls are in the planning on competing for the title.

He had value earlier this offseason, particularly before the draft. That is what they have to lose and have lost. We already know he can’t play center.

He had crap value.

[Louri]

But then why is he still on the roster? They should move him if that’s the thought.

Because they will see if he can actually play Center. Maybe he will find away to punish teams for putting a sf on him. They have nothing to lose in evaluating the roster.

What are the Bulls missing out on? His value will be the same in Feb if he is the same player he has been for 4 years. This about evaluation. You act like the Bulls are in the planning on competing for the title.

He had value earlier this offseason, particularly before the draft. That is what they have to lose and have lost. We already know he can’t play center.

Who "we"? Lauri said in interviews that he has asked to play minutes at C next season. He said ok. Atleast "we" doesn't mean AK and Donovan.

[cjbulls]

Because they will see if he can actually play Center. Maybe he will find away to punish teams for putting a sf on him. They have nothing to lose in evaluating the roster.

What are the Bulls missing out on? His value will be the same in Feb if he is the same player he has been for 4 years. This about evaluation. You act like the Bulls are in the planning on competing for the title.

He had value earlier this offseason, particularly before the draft. That is what they have to lose and have lost. We already know he can’t play center.

He had crap value.

Mid FRP isn’t crap value. As a tool to move up to picks 1-3 isn’t crap value. It’s not ideal, but better than losing him for nothing.

[dougthonus]

There's much less evidence for that (i.e. none whatsoever) than there is for the FO dangling both Zach and Wendell.

I explicitly said they explored value on all players. Why do you think there is more evidence that the did this for Zach/WCJ but not Lauri? That makes little sense. They said they were evaluating the entire roster. I'd assume part of that is seeing value on the entire roster.

I'm not really sure why it's so hard to accept that the new FO may in fact consider Lauri a building block worth keeping - instead of an "asset" getting turned into a draft pick or something at some point.

Well they more or less said they're evaluating everyone and everything. Based on their words, it is safe to say that they are not yet convinced as anyone as a building block (or convinced anyone must go).

[dougthonus]

I mean the bolded is a pure guess since we heard nothing about Lauri in trade rumors (only that hey wanted to keep him over other players)

This is why I used the the phrase "guess" to describe my own thoughts. I don't think I was being even remotely ambiguous here.

and we know several teams trying to move their picks and/or planning for a current run like the Celtics with #14. So do you consider a mid 1st pick as very poor?

I would have moved Lauri for #14 in this draft. I doubt it was on the table, but maybe, Lauri would be an intriguing fit in Boston with their current roster.

It’s clear they don’t have a predetermined outcome but they just kicked the can down the road which is highly likely to result in an overpay or a loss of the asset for nothing. They bought themselves a lottery ticket that seems highly unlikely to truly pay off.

I agree with this. That's why I have theorized there was not good value to do something now, because it makes less sense to do do this plan unless the alternatives were very poor or unless they actually feel strongly about the players they are keeping.

[cjbulls]

Because they will see if he can actually play Center. Maybe he will find away to punish teams for putting a sf on him. They have nothing to lose in evaluating the roster.

What are the Bulls missing out on? His value will be the same in Feb if he is the same player he has been for 4 years. This about evaluation. You act like the Bulls are in the planning on competing for the title.

He had value earlier this offseason, particularly before the draft. That is what they have to lose and have lost. We already know he can’t play center.

Who "we"? Lauri said in interviews that he has asked to play minutes at C next season. He said ok. Atleast "we" doesn't mean AK and Donovan.

Whenever given the opportunity he gets destroyed. 82 games runs PER by position. His PER jumps from 18.3 to 21.3 when he moves from PF to C.

But his opponent jumps from 21.5 to 31.9.

Some reporter has posted other similar damaging stats last year, maybe it was KC Johnson. He just gets crushed and can’t defend any decent Center. Or any average center for that matter.

[Louri]

He had value earlier this offseason, particularly before the draft. That is what they have to lose and have lost. We already know he can’t play center.

Who "we"? Lauri said in interviews that he has asked to play minutes at C next season. He said ok. Atleast "we" doesn't mean AK and Donovan.

Whenever given the opportunity he gets destroyed. 82 games runs PER by position. His PER jumps from 18.3 to 21.3 when he moves from PF to C.

But his opponent jumps from 21.5 to 31.9.

Some reporter has posted other similar damaging stats last year, maybe it was KC Johnson. He just gets crushed and can’t defend any decent Center. Or any average center for that matter.

Whole team was mess. Remember that there was Kris Dunn and Shaq Harrison starting at SF?

[cjbulls]

It’s clear they don’t have a predetermined outcome but they just kicked the can down the road which is highly likely to result in an overpay or a loss of the asset for nothing. They bought themselves a lottery ticket that seems highly unlikely to truly pay off.

I agree with this. That's why I have theorized there was not good value to do something now, because it makes less sense to do do this plan unless the alternatives were very poor or unless they actually feel strongly about the players they are keeping.

I can’t subscribe to that theory. It seems to imply no one was willing to offer a FRP or other young asset (Lonzo Ball type) for Lauri. Luke Kennard went for the 19th pick.

[dougthonus]

I agree with this. That's why I have theorized there was not good value to do something now, because it makes less sense to do do this plan unless the alternatives were very poor or unless they actually feel strongly about the players they are keeping.

I can’t subscribe to that theory. It seems to imply no one was willing to offer a FRP or other young asset (Lonzo Ball type) for Lauri. Luke Kennard went for the 19th pick.

Kennard arguably had a better season than Lauri last year and may have had similar value around the league and may have been a better roster fit for the Clippers to where they preferred Kennard to Lauri, though I agree, I would have thought Lauri would have higher value of the two. Their contractual situation is similar.

[Louri]

Some good takes here in this topic. Will be fun to see how they will age in few weeks.

[cjbulls]

I agree with this. That's why I have theorized there was not good value to do something now, because it makes less sense to do do this plan unless the alternatives were very poor or unless they actually feel strongly about the players they are keeping.

I can’t subscribe to that theory. It seems to imply no one was willing to offer a FRP or other young asset (Lonzo Ball type) for Lauri. Luke Kennard went for the 19th pick.

Kennard arguably had a better season than Lauri last year and may have had similar value around the league and may have been a better roster fit for the Clippers to where they preferred Kennard to Lauri, though I agree, I would have thought Lauri would have higher value of the two. Their contractual situation is similar.

Here's another flawed player in the same value range as Lauri, Aaron Gordon, who is on a 4/76 deal. From today's Zach Lowe article

https://tv5.espn.com/basketball/story/_/id/30449408/nba-redeem-team-six-players-ready-bounce-back-season

Several -- maybe as many as 10, maybe more -- called Orlando to express interest in trading for Gordon during the recent transaction period, sources said. Minnesota was one, sources said, and Gordon would fit there in a supporting role alongside high-volume playmakers and one of the greatest shooting bigs ever in Karl-Anthony Towns. How might Gordon look in Portland, playing off two elite guards and a snazzy-passing center in Jusuf Nurkic? What about as the nominal center in small-ball Brooklyn lineups featuring Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, and two other perimeter guys? But Orlando held firm, and Gordon remains.

Now we cannot see the offers and Gordon has different flaws, but 10 teams are inquiring about Aaron Gordon but there is no real market for Lauri? That's too much for me to believe. And if they like him that much, then extend him alreadyh. Instead, they are just burning the asset or overpaying for it later.

[TheFinishSniper]

Teams are interested in Gordon because he is seen as comodity. They know what he is and while his deal is slight overpay his contract expires in 2 years. You can work with that. Moving possibly similar deal with full 4 years guaranteed has a lot less suitors. I am fine going route where Bulls are forced to match offer. He isnt any better than Bogdanovic.

[chefo]

The reason I'm optimistic is because coach D is one of the most practically minded coaches, who teaches well, going back to his Gator days.

He understands that the best opportunity is a function of what your players are good at, which is 180 of the Bulls offensive philosophy from last year, which put them in 3 distinct groups--ball handler & initiator of the set, pick-setter and 3 spacers, two on the weak side and one on the strong. Lauri got dumped in the third category all year, as the Bulls used exclusively their C on the floor as the pick setter.

That's about the dumbest thing you can do because you take away both the pick and roll option away from him (where he can use his athleticism), and the pick and pop (where he can use his shooting) and where he KNOWS he'll get the ball in a good spot, if the ball handler gets doubled.

We must have been one of the few teams where we did not make the other team choose which one of our two best weapons they have to guard and which one they had to leave open. To have a quick firing 7 footer and not pop with him all the freakin' time is just idiotic. If nothing else, if would have made Zach's job that much easier when he wouldn't have to get doubled on every play in the 4th. I don't think people fully appreciate just how awfully simplistic and underthought our philosophy on O was.

Anyhow, coach D says he likes to exploit mismatches--and here's the thing--Lauri is a walking mismatch. He has a quick and very high release to where very few guys can get to him, if he gets even any daylight. Hoiberg stole some of the sets the Knicks used to run for Porzingis (which were Reggie Miller sets), and Lauri effin' thrived in them. Let him handle the ball in the P&R, like he did his first two years. Let him come of off-ball screens, like his two years. His second year the Raps sent Ibaka to chase him 30 feet away from the hoop whenever he went. If the opposing team KNOWS you're trying to run sets for him, they will overload the D trying to stop it. That will give Zach that much more breathing room because he can usually get by his man effortlessly, and if the weakside D is worried about a Lauri off-ball screen, there'll be nobody waiting for Zach in the paint.

To me, Lauri is a walking mismatch every time he crosses half-court. Doesn't matter who guards him--use him as the pick setter, with Zach handling. Make the D have to choose between one of the two, as opposed to having WCJ's man cheat all the time. Run him off ball, which are SG sets. He can do it, he has done it before, it ain't rocket science. But a good coach (even a bad one like Hoiberg) would recognize that by the very fact that they're running these sets, they amplify Lauri's gravity and make life easier on everybody else.

Coach D should tell Lauri and the team, the following:
*Set1: Set the screen--if the lane is clear, roll; if it's packed, pop
*Set2: Run off an elbow screen--if the help shows, cut hard and you get a dunk. If they don't, you have an open 3
*Set3: Here's the ball at the elbow--if you're guarded by a big, head fake and drive on that possession; if by a small, give him a half turn and shoot a short jumper; he can't stop you; if they can't stop you, we'll keep on doing it until they adjust and put a bigger guy on you. If they do, immediately go back to Set2. Bigger guys don't usually know how to defend if they're the ones getting screened; expect an open 3 on the next couple of possessions
*If they adjust and guard you with a basketball midget who can chase you around screens, time for Set4--one of our small guards will screen for you on the baseline--if your defender gets stuck, you have an open 10ft jumper to make; if he doesn't, he's already a step behind. If they don't double you immediately, just bully your way to a layup. If you get doubled, our guard will swing it to the opposite wing, and another swing pass later and the guard who set the screen for you has an open 3 in the weakside corner, which is a great outcome of a possession.
Set5:.. you get the idea.

I mean come on, that's like Basketball for Dummies 101.

On D, I think Lauri would make an abysmal C. He's not long, nor wide, nor has any instincts to defend like a big. Have him guard one of the other team's wings. I noticed that he gets up quickly to contest and he's a really tall dude, so from the eye test people really struggled shooting on top of him. I have not really seen anybody abuse him because he seems to be a very decent on-ball defender and moves his feet well. That would imply that you need a 3 like our new rook who can play big on D next to him. But make him roam--the closer you put him to being the first and designated helper, the more the D will look like Swiss cheese. Not much point in doing that.

[chefo]

That whole thing about needing a post game to score on shorter (not necessarily that much lighter) players is a myth. As a matter of fact, post-ups are probably the least efficient way of scoring from down low or mid-post, unless you're a HOF level talent like Ewing, Shaq, Dream, Mailman or Sir Charles.

Let's get that out of the way--Lauri will likely NEVER be that kind of scorer. That doesn't mean you can't punish teams for guarding an athletic 7 footer in a million different ways. I started playing ball in the early 90s, and watched a lot of tape to see how players moved around the court. The way it was done in Europe versus the NBA was night and day... mostly because in Europe you rarely had HOF-level bigs and you could pack the paint with an honest zone and not be penalized for it.

The NBA now plays much more European-like basketball than 20 or 30 years ago. Both on O and on D, with obvious exceptions being any team LeBron is on. But I think a whole generation of coaches have kind of forgotten the basics of how you feed a tall big because I don't see it very often these days.

I mean, how many times have you seen one of our guards do the Stockton/Malone down screen at the baseline? If you guard a 7 footer with a 6'6 guy and he gets screened by a 6'4 guy being guarded by a 6'2 guy, all it takes is a mediocre lob to Lauri to get a dunk or a layup. How many times have we seen a high-low? Rolo used to do it fairly often with Lauri--this thing is like free cheese if your other big can make a FT jumper and there is no way to guard it unless you collapse the entire D on Lauri. It furthermore helps him because he can leverage down with an elbow in his defender's back, rather than trying to back down a player that is likely as strong and has a lower center of gravity. How about putting him at the elbow for an ISO versus at the 3? I mean, it's a dribble and a dunk or a semi-open jumper, if the defender is smaller.

There are a score of ways to get somebody like Lauri the ball in motion cutting to the hoop where a small can pretty much do nothing about it if Lauri rises up for a layup or a 8 ft floater.

Some of that stuff people used to run for Dream, Admiral, Bird, McHale, Mailman. I know it takes discipline to do that regularly and understanding of the pecking order on a team, but Lauri is not some kind of stiff who won't convert, especially if he's being guarded by a SF.

Here's the big BUT. Last year, the system BY DESIGN excluded ALL of the above from the playbook because it did not fit the 3&Layups system. Lauri got the ball, like EVERY other spacer on the team, at the 3 point line.

Before Giannis, I can't recall ANY player that was close to 7 feet who could drive into traffic with success from there. It's 3 or 4 dribbles for the big. Unless the other team was extremely undisciplined, that would mean the paint would be packed a second into the drive.

There's a reason a bunch of the all-time greats got the ball in the mid-post and the elbow, preferably. It wasn't because players and coaches 40 years ago were dumb. For an agile, non-Shaq, big that's the optimal place because if gives the scorer a lot of options depending on who's guarding him. A slow, big--one dribble and attack the basket. A shorter big--rise up for a 15 ft jumper. An even smaller wing or a G--either, depending on how strong the defender is.

I mean, everybody who's ever played organized ball understands the above on some level. Just 15 years ago Dirk made a freakin' living in the mid-post. Yeah, he could shoot, but his sweet spot were his little fadeaways and driving, if they put a big on him.

Anyhow, coach D has probably forgotten more about ball than I'll ever know, so my guess is that he'll find a way to get a 7 footer who can both do 360 dunks AND shoot 7 3s a game at a decent clip to play better than last year.

If you can lock up Lauri before he goes back to being a 20/8 player for 15-17M / year, you do it because if coach D resurrects Lauri's career, you'll have to pay him 10 more per than that.

The general problem is the large quantity of 6'8" or 6'9" guys around the league who are athletic. Lauri generally tends to struggle to shoot over them with his jumper and he can't take them off the dribble. Without some ability to use his height to get off a good shot, Lauri can largely be neutralized by small ball.

As you note, it doesn't have to be traditional post play. The old Dirk stuff in the high to mid post would be awesome. He just needs something in his pocket to consistently punish teams for putting a PWill type on him.

Overall, Lauri needs to be a 5. That's his best position on offense. He pulls the opposing center out to the 3p line and if the guy gets too close, he can drive by him. He doesn't have to change a thing and he is effective. Unfortunately, then the defensive problem gets exacerbated. Ideally you want your center to be able to body up other big men AND be a good help defender and Lauri is neither.

Lauri isn't a 4 in today's NBA on offense. While he might be fast for a 7 footer, he isn't fast for an NBA 4. As a 4, he is simply a pick and pop / stand around the arc guy.

Hopefully Lauri has been killing it for the last few months and comes out with a drastically improved game so we can all gush over how awesome he is and forget about this stuff.

I agree his best use on O is a primary pick-setter (C) and 1b option. On D, he's just an abysmal C. He needs to play with a couple of 6'8 wings next to him like Hucth (if he ever learns how to shoot) and PWill (same), who can play big on help D. To justify having to hide him on a wing on D, you really should feature him on O. It sadly means there's no place for a player like WCJ in that scenario.

[coldfish]

That whole thing about needing a post game to score on shorter (not necessarily that much lighter) players is a myth. As a matter of fact, post-ups are probably the least efficient way of scoring from down low or mid-post, unless you're a HOF level talent like Ewing, Shaq, Dream, Mailman or Sir Charles.

Let's get that out of the way--Lauri will likely NEVER be that kind of scorer. That doesn't mean you can't punish teams for guarding an athletic 7 footer in a million different ways. I started playing ball in the early 90s, and watched a lot of tape to see how players moved around the court. The way it was done in Europe versus the NBA was night and day... mostly because in Europe you rarely had HOF-level bigs and you could pack the paint with an honest zone and not be penalized for it.

The NBA now plays much more European-like basketball than 20 or 30 years ago. Both on O and on D, with obvious exceptions being any team LeBron is on. But I think a whole generation of coaches have kind of forgotten the basics of how you feed a tall big because I don't see it very often these days.

I mean, how many times have you seen one of our guards do the Stockton/Malone down screen at the baseline? If you guard a 7 footer with a 6'6 guy and he gets screened by a 6'4 guy being guarded by a 6'2 guy, all it takes is a mediocre lob to Lauri to get a dunk or a layup. How many times have we seen a high-low? Rolo used to do it fairly often with Lauri--this thing is like free cheese if your other big can make a FT jumper and there is no way to guard it unless you collapse the entire D on Lauri. It furthermore helps him because he can leverage down with an elbow in his defender's back, rather than trying to back down a player that is likely as strong and has a lower center of gravity. How about putting him at the elbow for an ISO versus at the 3? I mean, it's a dribble and a dunk or a semi-open jumper, if the defender is smaller.

There are a score of ways to get somebody like Lauri the ball in motion cutting to the hoop where a small can pretty much do nothing about it if Lauri rises up for a layup or a 8 ft floater.

Some of that stuff people used to run for Dream, Admiral, Bird, McHale, Mailman. I know it takes discipline to do that regularly and understanding of the pecking order on a team, but Lauri is not some kind of stiff who won't convert, especially if he's being guarded by a SF.

Here's the big BUT. Last year, the system BY DESIGN excluded ALL of the above from the playbook because it did not fit the 3&Layups system. Lauri got the ball, like EVERY other spacer on the team, at the 3 point line.

Before Giannis, I can't recall ANY player that was close to 7 feet who could drive into traffic with success from there. It's 3 or 4 dribbles for the big. Unless the other team was extremely undisciplined, that would mean the paint would be packed a second into the drive.

There's a reason a bunch of the all-time greats got the ball in the mid-post and the elbow, preferably. It wasn't because players and coaches 40 years ago were dumb. For an agile, non-Shaq, big that's the optimal place because if gives the scorer a lot of options depending on who's guarding him. A slow, big--one dribble and attack the basket. A shorter big--rise up for a 15 ft jumper. An even smaller wing or a G--either, depending on how strong the defender is.

I mean, everybody who's ever played organized ball understands the above on some level. Just 15 years ago Dirk made a freakin' living in the mid-post. Yeah, he could shoot, but his sweet spot were his little fadeaways and driving, if they put a big on him.

Anyhow, coach D has probably forgotten more about ball than I'll ever know, so my guess is that he'll find a way to get a 7 footer who can both do 360 dunks AND shoot 7 3s a game at a decent clip to play better than last year.

If you can lock up Lauri before he goes back to being a 20/8 player for 15-17M / year, you do it because if coach D resurrects Lauri's career, you'll have to pay him 10 more per than that.

The general problem is the large quantity of 6'8" or 6'9" guys around the league who are athletic. Lauri generally tends to struggle to shoot over them with his jumper and he can't take them off the dribble. Without some ability to use his height to get off a good shot, Lauri can largely be neutralized by small ball.

As you note, it doesn't have to be traditional post play. The old Dirk stuff in the high to mid post would be awesome. He just needs something in his pocket to consistently punish teams for putting a PWill type on him.

Overall, Lauri needs to be a 5. That's his best position on offense. He pulls the opposing center out to the 3p line and if the guy gets too close, he can drive by him. He doesn't have to change a thing and he is effective. Unfortunately, then the defensive problem gets exacerbated. Ideally you want your center to be able to body up other big men AND be a good help defender and Lauri is neither.

Lauri isn't a 4 in today's NBA on offense. While he might be fast for a 7 footer, he isn't fast for an NBA 4. As a 4, he is simply a pick and pop / stand around the arc guy.

Hopefully Lauri has been killing it for the last few months and comes out with a drastically improved game so we can all gush over how awesome he is and forget about this stuff.

I agree his best use on O is a primary pick-setter (C) and 1b option. On D, he's just an abysmal C. He needs to play with a couple of 6'8 wings next to him like Hucth (if he ever learns how to shoot) and PWill (same), who can play big on help D. To justify having to hide him on a wing on D, you really should feature him on O. It sadly means there's no place for a player like WCJ in that scenario.

Yeah, I'm not too high on WCJ at this point. He was really disappointing last year. While he has good help defense instincts, he fouls too much, has bad hands and virtually no offensive game. As negative as I am about Lauri, I'm more negative about WCJ and that's too bad because initially I had a positive opinion of Wendell.

[chefo]

The general problem is the large quantity of 6'8" or 6'9" guys around the league who are athletic. Lauri generally tends to struggle to shoot over them with his jumper and he can't take them off the dribble. Without some ability to use his height to get off a good shot, Lauri can largely be neutralized by small ball.

As you note, it doesn't have to be traditional post play. The old Dirk stuff in the high to mid post would be awesome. He just needs something in his pocket to consistently punish teams for putting a PWill type on him.

Overall, Lauri needs to be a 5. That's his best position on offense. He pulls the opposing center out to the 3p line and if the guy gets too close, he can drive by him. He doesn't have to change a thing and he is effective. Unfortunately, then the defensive problem gets exacerbated. Ideally you want your center to be able to body up other big men AND be a good help defender and Lauri is neither.

Lauri isn't a 4 in today's NBA on offense. While he might be fast for a 7 footer, he isn't fast for an NBA 4. As a 4, he is simply a pick and pop / stand around the arc guy.

Hopefully Lauri has been killing it for the last few months and comes out with a drastically improved game so we can all gush over how awesome he is and forget about this stuff.

I agree his best use on O is a primary pick-setter (C) and 1b option. On D, he's just an abysmal C. He needs to play with a couple of 6'8 wings next to him like Hucth (if he ever learns how to shoot) and PWill (same), who can play big on help D. To justify having to hide him on a wing on D, you really should feature him on O. It sadly means there's no place for a player like WCJ in that scenario.

Yeah, I'm not too high on WCJ at this point. He was really disappointing last year. While he has good help defense instincts, he fouls too much, has bad hands and virtually no offensive game. As negative as I am about Lauri, I'm more negative about WCJ and that's too bad because initially I had a positive opinion of Wendell.

Agreed on that as well. Guys like the Morris twins and others of that vein who can check a 4 or a 5 for 25-30 min a game but who can hang out as a spacer on O would look vastly better next to Lauri compared to WCJ. And, he'll look much better next to them because while they're chilling on the weak side waiting for an occasional open shot, Lauri gets to see his usage skyrocket. Even somebody smaller, but thick like a Jae Crowder. I think that's why PWIll got picked that high. They need one more like him next to Lauri and then Lauri can move to a full-time C on O and as you pointed out, that's when the D will really have to pick its poison.

Perhaps try it with Thad and Pwill, or Otto and Pwill, and see how it turns out.

[bullsnewdynasty]

The argument to move Lauri is that is reasonably likely that there's still some sucker team willing to give us a decent young asset/draft pick for him.

I wish his fans would realize that a PF who puts up 16/8 on 35% 3 pointers is literally a dime a dozen NBA PF. PF is probably the deepest position in the league.

If the Bulls do keep him, remember that Lauri has no excuses this year. No more early injuries, no more Boylen to scapegoat for the fact that he was grabbing 6 rebounds per game, and forgetting about the fact that he REGRESSED in his third year which is the breakout year for 99% of young players who become future all-stars.

[fleet]

With all the Noah news, it brought to mind the last front line that had some success in Chicago. Deng, Gibson, and Noah, those were some bad hombres. Lauri does not fit into that mindset, and I think I am correct in assuming that you need that mindset to have success. Lauri has talent, but the intangible things haven’t been demonstrated yet. If you tell me it’s in there, I’m on board. If not, then better to move on. Lauri can come off the bench on a good team.

[dougthonus]

Yeah, I'm not too high on WCJ at this point. He was really disappointing last year. While he has good help defense instincts, he fouls too much, has bad hands and virtually no offensive game. As negative as I am about Lauri, I'm more negative about WCJ and that's too bad because initially I had a positive opinion of Wendell.

Based on what he has shown to date, I agree. I think it will be incredibly telling if he comes into camp in shape or not. One thing I point out about WCJ is that he was not only hurt half his rookie year, but his entire rookie offseason. He never had an opportunity to really work on his game, and I thought he'd have a slow sophomore year because of it.

He then got hurt his sophomore year and we missed out on even more development time, but he's had all off-season to really work hard on his game now. There's a chance that he's going to look like an entirely different player when you see him this year because it will literally be the first extended opportunity he has had to work on his craft and start the season in great shape. If he doesn't, then you should give up on him nearly immediately though.

[ZOMG]

Yeah, I'm not too high on WCJ at this point. He was really disappointing last year. While he has good help defense instincts, he fouls too much, has bad hands and virtually no offensive game. As negative as I am about Lauri, I'm more negative about WCJ and that's too bad because initially I had a positive opinion of Wendell.

Based on what he has shown to date, I agree. I think it will be incredibly telling if he comes into camp in shape or not. One thing I point out about WCJ is that he was not only hurt half his rookie year, but his entire rookie offseason. He never had an opportunity to really work on his game, and I thought he'd have a slow sophomore year because of it.

He then got hurt his sophomore year and we missed out on even more development time, but he's had all off-season to really work hard on his game now. There's a chance that he's going to look like an entirely different player when you see him this year because it will literally be the first extended opportunity he has had to work on his craft and start the season in great shape. If he doesn't, then you should give up on him nearly immediately though.

My list of expectations for Wendell is short and reasonable, IMO. He needs to:

1) take and make open shots
2) stop fouling all the time

I'm not looking for him to transform into Draymond Green, a ballhandling big or some "offensive hub". I think all that stuff is a mirage.

Carter was obviously drafted as a modern "big" who could spread the floor, on the back of his small volume 3pt shooting at Duke. Then, when he came in and rather shockingly turned out to be a non-shooter in the NBA, people started squinting hard and seeing all kinds of hidden qualities in him. I guess it's just natural.

Wendell is a pretty smart dude who does have an instinct for finding the parts of the floor where the D is scrambling. His passing CAN be an advantage, but as I wrote in another thread, he needs to be something of a shooting threat to open up the lanes.