Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Reminder that Dell passed on Jamal Murray

Posted on 5/23/23 at 9:34 am
Posted by Townedrunkard
Member since Jan 2019
8664 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 9:34 am
How bad of a gm was he? Seeing guys that were on the Pels or should have been on the Pels be huge contributors to teams that are in the finals or have won some of the previous finals in AD and Jrue. I’m one of the big Griffin haters on here but damn he’s light years better than Dell.
Posted by Balsamic_duck
Member since Jun 2017
3050 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 9:42 am to
We would've traded him for cousins anyway.
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
94742 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 9:46 am to
quote:

We would've traded him for cousins anyway.


I’m not sure we get Cousins with Murray.

The Kings’ ownership is fricking nuts and thought Buddy was going to be the next Kobe, hence why they were willing to take him and a first for a superstar, albeit a tarnished one.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61432 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 9:50 am to
quote:

I’m not sure we get Cousins with Murray.


I agree, Murray was not the next Steph. That means we'd have Murray and whatever first we gave up for Cousins which is better in hindsight since DoItBig didn't work out. BUT it also probably means no winning the Zion lottery.

The question is, would Murray + Jrue have been good enough to keep the cowardly lion from crumbling under the pressure of needing to be a #1 and forcing his way into the comfort of LeBron's shadow?

If not Jrue + Murry + BI would still be a pretty good core.
This post was edited on 5/23/23 at 9:51 am
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
94742 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 9:54 am to
If hindsight is 20/20, we end up with Jrue, Murray, Bam Adebayo, and either AD or whoever we get for him such as BI.


That pick became Zach Collins and the next few guys were all guards such as Monk, Donovan Mitchell, etc, so Bam being a defensive big is likely someone we would have put next to AD.
Posted by CP3forMVP
Member since Nov 2010
14853 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 10:19 am to
I remember how much I liked Buddy, and I was still really pissed we picked him over Murray.
Posted by supe12sta12z
Tiger Town
Member since Apr 2012
10293 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 10:21 am to
let's pretend we were going to develop them properly and they become anywhere near as good they are with these good organizations.

Buddy Hield was a prime example of terrible development. Leaves and immediately becomes the confident flamethrower we thought we got when we drafted him.

This post was edited on 5/23/23 at 10:22 am
Posted by saintslsupels
Member since Jul 2014
1767 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 10:23 am to
quote:

I’m not sure we get Cousins with Murray. The Kings’ ownership is fricking nuts and thought Buddy was going to be the next Kobe, hence why they were willing to take him and a first for a superstar, albeit a tarnished one


Well crap that makes it even worse.
Posted by Townedrunkard
Member since Jan 2019
8664 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 12:03 pm to
quote:

We would've traded him for cousins anyway.


Think they were super high on Buddy. Dell would have either given up even more for Cousins, or Kings turn him down and Dell gets a rub of some of that Griff luck and not have something go through that he really really wanted that turned out to be a disaster.

Murray woukd probably still be a Pel right now.,
This post was edited on 5/23/23 at 12:07 pm
Posted by BigPerm30
Member since Aug 2011
25830 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 7:27 pm to
Dell did dumb shite but that wasn’t the dumbest. The dumbest was hiring Gentry for his fast pace offense then giving him cousins and AD. Head scratcher there.
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
66324 posts
Posted on 5/24/23 at 9:20 am to
I iften Play the “could we have drafted this guy?” Game.

Half the time we Just don’t have any picks because we wanted Jarred Blayless or something.
Posted by TeddyPadillac
Member since Dec 2010
25375 posts
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:02 am to
quote:

Buddy Hield was a prime example of terrible development. Leaves and immediately becomes the confident flamethrower we thought we got when we drafted him.



what?

We had Buddy for 52 games as a rookie.
He shot 24% from 3 in his first 20 games. oh no he's terrible.
He shot 43% from 3 in his next 32 games with us. yes he's awesome

First of all, he wasn't here long enough for us to develop anything, and the fact that he started out terrible but finished awesome would hint at actual development, even though it was only 52 games worth.
Posted by supe12sta12z
Tiger Town
Member since Apr 2012
10293 posts
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:16 am to
The guy was an NBA ready 22 year old and we managed to neuter him. He went to Sacramento and instantly put up better percentages on higher volume and production. It's pretty clear why they didn't bother using the draft during Demps stint here.

Both Murray and Adebayo needed development and nurturing with patience. They weren't getting it here.
Posted by TeddyPadillac
Member since Dec 2010
25375 posts
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:34 am to
Buddy was a sure thing in the lottery, and it's not often you can say that. He was never going to be a superstar, but his shooting was and still is elite, and it was easy to see it would translate to the NBA.

I was one that wanted Buddy over Murray, and for that reason. Murray had the higher ceiling without a doubt, but you knew who Buddy was going to be, and that is who he is.

Complaining about a rookie, regardless of age, struggling a bit in his first 20 games, then shooting lights out for the rest of his career is rather dumb.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about we neutered him. He played 16mpg in the first 20 games, and only started 1 game, and no he didn't shoot well. Do you not recall Trey just doing this?. He gets inserted into the starting lineup and starts playing 23mpg, and shoots 43% from 3 until we traded him.
Klay Thompson only played 16mpg in his first 20 games with the Warriors taking less than 3 3's a game, and only attempted 4 3's a game for that season. I guess the Warriors were neutering him too b/c their rookie seasons were very similar. Klay was a little over a month away from being 22 years old when he played his first NBA game
Posted by supe12sta12z
Tiger Town
Member since Apr 2012
10293 posts
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:51 am to
You proving my point. You're hellbent on focusing on the 3 ball, you overlook exactly what made him special at OU.

We absolutely neutered his on ball game, his freedom to pull up from the key, freedom to cut to the basket, and his movement from both inside the key to the perimeter. We mostly camped him on the perimeter but nothing like what he did at OU.

Sacramento immediately unleashed a lot of things he did at OU and he was wildly successful from day 1 there.
Posted by TeddyPadillac
Member since Dec 2010
25375 posts
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:15 am to
He’s never been that guy in the nba. He’s too small and not athletic enough. It’s why he didn’t have a high ceiling and a very high floor. He is an elite shooter with a very quick release, which was always going to translate.
Sacramento also sucked and had no one worth a shite on their team. Buddy was playing with two all stars and ball hog Tyreke and he actually didn’t start playing well until Jrue and Tyreke started playing as they both were injured to start the season, when Buddy struggled.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram