- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lol Hayes is JaVale McGee 2.0
Posted on 6/20/19 at 9:35 pm to SammyTiger
Posted on 6/20/19 at 9:35 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
We got a good 3 point shooter at 17 and a rim protector at 8 and got rid of Solo.
Just yesterday this board said that they should hold onto him because an expiring is so valuable at the deadline.
1
Posted on 6/20/19 at 9:37 pm to Marley504
Such compelling counter-points around here.
Posted on 6/20/19 at 9:38 pm to Bronc
quote:Is hitting 74/100 FTs a fluke?
Such compelling counter-points around here.
Posted on 6/20/19 at 9:41 pm to Eman5805
I think the key to Hayes being something solid is gaining weight and muscle.
He's athletic and with the way we play is a good fit. Never thought about it but ESPN compared him to Tyson Chandler. Good comp and I think he has potential to be that.
I have always thought TC was solid in his role.
He's athletic and with the way we play is a good fit. Never thought about it but ESPN compared him to Tyson Chandler. Good comp and I think he has potential to be that.
I have always thought TC was solid in his role.
Posted on 6/20/19 at 9:44 pm to Bronc
quote:
Such compelling counter-points around here.
the draft is literally still going on and you are upset
you wont be able to judge this offseason for another 3 years or so. there is nothing to argue
Posted on 6/20/19 at 9:47 pm to Eman5805
quote:
Is hitting 74/100 FTs a fluke?
Cody Zeller hit 75% in college, Kyle O'Quinn hits 80%. What is your point?
I've said before, I don't hate Hayes, I hate the high opportunity cost. No one has made a coherent, slightly convincing case as to how this trade was a clear cut winner for the Pels? Why Hayes is a better prospect than Hunter, Garland, or Culver, or a better fit.
What Jackson's median projection gives you can be had on the cheap in the NBA(good defense, average to below average rebounding, and no real offensive game). I think he does have a solid ceiling, but not higher than people we gave up to take him. Same goes for Alexander.
Posted on 6/20/19 at 10:24 pm to Bronc
Agree, defensive bigs can be found all day around the nba. Can get Dedmon, Noel, McGee, looney etc and get assets if u take on Whiteside. Prefer to gamble on Garland on the off chance he turns into Lilkard or McCollum.
Posted on 6/21/19 at 3:10 am to Bronc
Look it’s clear you liked Garland. Fine. That’s your opinion. But to pretend you can even begin to approximate the “opportunity cost” of not drafting a 19-year-old point guard who played five college games before tearing his knee is crazy.
Like the old saying goes nobody knows nuthin’ for sure. Could Garland turn out to be the next Lillard? Sure. But it’s more likely he’ll turn out to be the next Nick Van Exel. Griff wanted an athletic big to pair with Zion. Me too. I had Hayes as our pick after a trade down days ago. But I also had us taking Brandon Clarke with ATL’s second pick, who I think will be very good, and we passed right over him for NAW. Do I think I was right? Of course I do! But chances are the professionals are right, or have a much better chance of being right.
And that’s all this is: chance and probability. Which means even if you turn out to be right, you were probably just lucky...so relax a little bit.
Like the old saying goes nobody knows nuthin’ for sure. Could Garland turn out to be the next Lillard? Sure. But it’s more likely he’ll turn out to be the next Nick Van Exel. Griff wanted an athletic big to pair with Zion. Me too. I had Hayes as our pick after a trade down days ago. But I also had us taking Brandon Clarke with ATL’s second pick, who I think will be very good, and we passed right over him for NAW. Do I think I was right? Of course I do! But chances are the professionals are right, or have a much better chance of being right.
And that’s all this is: chance and probability. Which means even if you turn out to be right, you were probably just lucky...so relax a little bit.
Posted on 6/21/19 at 4:45 am to New City Champ
Again, no one seems able to articulate a clear or compelling case for why this trade was the clear positive move the defenders argue vociferously as if it was.
If all you can do is attack me and make appeals to uncertainty as a way to dismiss my concerns, it right there exposes how weak the defense of this move seems to be. As it doesn’t actually make a case for this move and just applies dismissive logic rooted in the basic unpredictability that you could apply to anything in the NBA.
Hayes is a player, with a median trajectory of defensively focused, offensively limited big man, at the most easily replaceable position in the league today. All teams in the conference finals and beyond demonstrated this.
Again, I don’t hate Hayes, but his positional value over replacement is amongst the lowest in the league these days. Unless the guy becomes a stretch 5, and given he didn’t even hit a jumper last season it will be an uphill battle to say the least(Cheick also hits 75% of his FT’s and had a slight jumper coming and still can’t hit the three at a respectable rate), he is going to have to be Tyson Chandler good, or Zion becomes a reliable three point shooter, or Ingram and Ball develop a three or get moved, to be a long-term piece that will justify a spot that will cost what his second contract is likely to cost assuming the median best case projection happens.
Garland does have all star potential and Hunter had one of the higher floors in the draft. And while I’m not as high on him, if I am looking five years out, and I am considering the limitations of a roster due to cap and how I would prioritize money around Zion, do I want to be giving an expensive second contract to an offensively limited big, or a great shot creator and pure shooter on or off the ball? Or a guy like Hunter that is capable of defending multiple positions and knocking down the three reliably from the hardest position to find and retain talent? Who is the better development prospects there?
I’m ok being wrong on this, but I suspect a couple seasons from now the fog is going to lift and people are going to recognize the limitations of this jump shooting deficient roster and putting a guy that clogs up the paint next to Zion, Jrue, Ingram, and Ball.....and giving up the 4th spot to take him and a solid bench prospect to do it.
If all you can do is attack me and make appeals to uncertainty as a way to dismiss my concerns, it right there exposes how weak the defense of this move seems to be. As it doesn’t actually make a case for this move and just applies dismissive logic rooted in the basic unpredictability that you could apply to anything in the NBA.
Hayes is a player, with a median trajectory of defensively focused, offensively limited big man, at the most easily replaceable position in the league today. All teams in the conference finals and beyond demonstrated this.
Again, I don’t hate Hayes, but his positional value over replacement is amongst the lowest in the league these days. Unless the guy becomes a stretch 5, and given he didn’t even hit a jumper last season it will be an uphill battle to say the least(Cheick also hits 75% of his FT’s and had a slight jumper coming and still can’t hit the three at a respectable rate), he is going to have to be Tyson Chandler good, or Zion becomes a reliable three point shooter, or Ingram and Ball develop a three or get moved, to be a long-term piece that will justify a spot that will cost what his second contract is likely to cost assuming the median best case projection happens.
Garland does have all star potential and Hunter had one of the higher floors in the draft. And while I’m not as high on him, if I am looking five years out, and I am considering the limitations of a roster due to cap and how I would prioritize money around Zion, do I want to be giving an expensive second contract to an offensively limited big, or a great shot creator and pure shooter on or off the ball? Or a guy like Hunter that is capable of defending multiple positions and knocking down the three reliably from the hardest position to find and retain talent? Who is the better development prospects there?
I’m ok being wrong on this, but I suspect a couple seasons from now the fog is going to lift and people are going to recognize the limitations of this jump shooting deficient roster and putting a guy that clogs up the paint next to Zion, Jrue, Ingram, and Ball.....and giving up the 4th spot to take him and a solid bench prospect to do it.
Posted on 6/21/19 at 5:06 am to Bronc
Yeah I'm not sure about this pick either bro
Posted on 6/21/19 at 8:01 am to Bronc
First, we needed a C. This guy has tremendous upside and has the necessary athleticism to play D on PnR. He is a respectable FT shooter. He is young and still growing. He is still learning the position. He also doesnt have to be ready to start right away, as the Pels arent expecting a ring right away.
You say we cant stretch the D with current players. As you broke it down, seems reasonable. But it is disingenous to assume that is our final roster. We have plenty of cap space to scoop FAs and trades are still certainly possible.
No one knows if this was the best move yet and we wont for 3-5 years but there is plenty of upside to it. I choose to be optimisitic about it.
You say we cant stretch the D with current players. As you broke it down, seems reasonable. But it is disingenous to assume that is our final roster. We have plenty of cap space to scoop FAs and trades are still certainly possible.
No one knows if this was the best move yet and we wont for 3-5 years but there is plenty of upside to it. I choose to be optimisitic about it.
Posted on 6/21/19 at 8:51 am to Milesahead
Do we have confirmation that Hayes was the target that we "thought would be there" when making the trade?
What if Griff thought Culver would make it, but got screwed after Minny jumped us?
What if Griff thought Culver would make it, but got screwed after Minny jumped us?
Posted on 6/21/19 at 8:55 am to RogerTempleton
fricked up by not getting Garland, plain and simple.
Posted on 6/21/19 at 9:22 am to Bronc
We received 8, 17, 35(almost another first), dumped Hill(worth a first), and a future Cavs protected first. You could argue we got the worth of 5 first round picks for one, and we have to explain why this trade was “worth” it.
You really know we made it as a team when we start having posts like these.
Garland is a SG that is too small to be a PG much less SG. Not even mentioning the fact he is coming off a knee injury and effectively had no college experience. He will be a complete liability on defense every time he steps on the court, and he has no experience or profile as a distributor. The kid is skilled, but he has a better chance of being Jared Bayless than he does Damian Lillard IMO.
Hunter is the one we should be talking about, but he is such a clone of Harrison Barnes. A better small ball four than anything. But a good player, no doubt.
You really know we made it as a team when we start having posts like these.
Garland is a SG that is too small to be a PG much less SG. Not even mentioning the fact he is coming off a knee injury and effectively had no college experience. He will be a complete liability on defense every time he steps on the court, and he has no experience or profile as a distributor. The kid is skilled, but he has a better chance of being Jared Bayless than he does Damian Lillard IMO.
Hunter is the one we should be talking about, but he is such a clone of Harrison Barnes. A better small ball four than anything. But a good player, no doubt.
Posted on 6/21/19 at 9:35 am to Jon1798
Hill is not worth a first to dump.
He’s an expiring. Those are solid assets in a league that is constantly trying to shed bad salary to add short term talent. Let alone attaching a first to remove(especially when we have no pressing need to dump him anyways).
And the NBA draft is quality over quantity.
There is a significant drop off in talent in the aggregate after 5.
Griffin certainly thinks that the value of who you could get at 4 is no greater than what you could get at 8 and 17. He clearly does.
I fundamentally disagree and time will tell what approach is right. I think Bayless is a fair floor for Garland, but I think his upside is all star and based on demonstrated skill set alone should be better than Bayless. I also think Hayes floor is bench journeyman and Europe, and his ceiling is probably Myles Turner or Chandler. But I am more skeptical of Hayes reaching close to his. As he is far more raw and bust prone.
I’m rooting for Hayes to be all the things people hope he can be, I’m just not confident his peak for this team is much more than defensive role player that is going to spend significant time on the bench because he lacks the spacing Zion will need to operate at his peak. Especially if Jrue, Ball, and Ingram remain on this team.
He’s an expiring. Those are solid assets in a league that is constantly trying to shed bad salary to add short term talent. Let alone attaching a first to remove(especially when we have no pressing need to dump him anyways).
And the NBA draft is quality over quantity.
There is a significant drop off in talent in the aggregate after 5.
Griffin certainly thinks that the value of who you could get at 4 is no greater than what you could get at 8 and 17. He clearly does.
I fundamentally disagree and time will tell what approach is right. I think Bayless is a fair floor for Garland, but I think his upside is all star and based on demonstrated skill set alone should be better than Bayless. I also think Hayes floor is bench journeyman and Europe, and his ceiling is probably Myles Turner or Chandler. But I am more skeptical of Hayes reaching close to his. As he is far more raw and bust prone.
I’m rooting for Hayes to be all the things people hope he can be, I’m just not confident his peak for this team is much more than defensive role player that is going to spend significant time on the bench because he lacks the spacing Zion will need to operate at his peak. Especially if Jrue, Ball, and Ingram remain on this team.
This post was edited on 6/21/19 at 9:40 am
Posted on 6/21/19 at 9:45 am to jmcwhrter
quote:
Do we have confirmation that Hayes was the target that we "thought would be there" when making the trade? What if Griff thought Culver would make it, but got screwed after Minny jumped us?
Considering how full we are from 1-3, I don't think he would have been targetting Culver.
Goga at 8 would have been better if targetting a centre connsidering his range and array of post moves. Fits better in the modern NBA imo
This post was edited on 6/21/19 at 9:48 am
Posted on 6/21/19 at 9:47 am to RogerTempleton
Cm'on AD, let it go. We've moved on from you.
Posted on 6/21/19 at 10:35 am to JabarkusRussell
Sure but the value of an expiring is getting that money off your books.
That’s why he’s valuable in a trade.
That’s why trading him is good for us.
We have 31 million to spend and we don’t need a lot of players.
Plus MAW is exactly what we need. He’s a very good catch and shoot perimeter shooter.
His strength are what we need and his weaknesses aren’t what we need.
That’s why he’s valuable in a trade.
That’s why trading him is good for us.
We have 31 million to spend and we don’t need a lot of players.
Plus MAW is exactly what we need. He’s a very good catch and shoot perimeter shooter.
His strength are what we need and his weaknesses aren’t what we need.
Posted on 6/21/19 at 10:38 am to Bronc
Cap space is worth more than an expiring. That’s just a fact. We are an under the cap team, and can absorb a traded player over having to send back dead salary. Or more likely we sign a FA. Players like Hill are dumped with a first every year. The Nets trading Crabbe being the most notable this season.
And the significant drop off after 5, when not taking into account the actual draft class I whole heartedly disagree with. But the rest I largely agree.
And the significant drop off after 5, when not taking into account the actual draft class I whole heartedly disagree with. But the rest I largely agree.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News