WildWolf2813 wrote:I think it should hit everyone today that Andrew Wiggins will never make an all-star team
Wiggins is 23. Most of the current all-stars are 28+ in their prime. They're all gonna age out when he becomes that 28 year old guy in his prime. I wouldn't call it given how young he is relative to the current crop of top players. He's gonna have a good sized window to make some all-star teams.
So we have to wait 9 years for one of our "cornerstones" to finally vye for an all-star spot? Can't you see how low the bar has been set now for someone we considered a franchise level prospect?
I mean he was a borderline All-Star 2 years ago averaging 23/4/2.5 on 46/35.5/75 splits before the all-star break. We have a stacked roster. Numbers get sacrificed when you have as much talent as we do in the starting lineup and unless you shoot like Klay or defend like Draymond it's gonna be hard to stick out as a 3rd All-Star on this team. Not to mention the nomination is a joke in this conference now given how stacked it is. There's going to be multiple all-star players who don't get to go to the game because of how stacked the conference is. Just because he probably won't make the team in the next 5 years doesn't equate to the level of play automatically not being all-star worthy. So yes it may take 9 years for a cornerstone to battle for that spot, but that's not saying much when you are competing with Lebron, Durant, PG13, Harden, Jimmy, Klay and more just for a spot. Mike Conley has never made an All-Star game, yet he's the second piece on a consistently really good Memphis team. Is he not a cornerstone just because he is missing an acolade? Jimmy barely made the team and he's a top 15 player in the NBA. A western conference all-star in 2018-19 is likely gonna be an all-NBA player at the end of the year that's how stacked it is.
I'm more interested in Andrew Wiggins being a consistently above replacement level player at this point... and not even thinking about him making an All Star Game.
Age 23. 25. 28. We can't keep using the "but he's young" excuse if it doesn't come with marked improvement along the way... especially with all the younger talent joining the league every year that is playing better.
Sounds like Belly might sign a long term deal with the Kings now. He has always been a family guy so he wants a multi year deal. Hope all goes well for him.
kekgeek1 wrote:Sounds like Belly might sign a long term deal with the Kings now. He has always been a family guy so he wants a multi year deal. Hope all goes well for him.
That might just explain why we sign tolliver instead of belly. A lot of us seems confused as to why we sign tolliver for more money than what belly initially agreed to with the sixers for the same 1 year deal. Belly clearly wanted a long term deal to stabilize his young family and we clearly only wanted to do a 1 yr deal. Family always comes first so hope belly do what is right for his.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm more interested in Andrew Wiggins being a consistently above replacement level player at this point... and not even thinking about him making an All Star Game.
Age 23. 25. 28. We can't keep using the "but he's young" excuse if it doesn't come with marked improvement along the way... especially with all the younger talent joining the league every year that is playing better.
I'm with you on this Abe. Becoming a net positive player would be a big breakthrough for Wiggins and the team. And yes, we're close to that point where the "he's young" explanation no longer holds up.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm more interested in Andrew Wiggins being a consistently above replacement level player at this point... and not even thinking about him making an All Star Game.
Age 23. 25. 28. We can't keep using the "but he's young" excuse if it doesn't come with marked improvement along the way... especially with all the younger talent joining the league every year that is playing better.
Most of us continued believing Rubio would turn the corner right up until the end. I think Wiggins has a much shorter leash with fans because Rubio never really improved, or came close to reaching our expectations of him. That's not to say Wiggins has earned more leash than he's being given anymore than it would be accurate to say he'd earned a max contract.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm more interested in Andrew Wiggins being a consistently above replacement level player at this point... and not even thinking about him making an All Star Game.
Age 23. 25. 28. We can't keep using the "but he's young" excuse if it doesn't come with marked improvement along the way... especially with all the younger talent joining the league every year that is playing better.
Most of us continued believing Rubio would turn the corner right up until the end. I think Wiggins has a much shorter leash with fans because Rubio never really improved, or came close to reaching our expectations of him. That's not to say Wiggins has earned more leash than he's being given anymore than it would be accurate to say he'd earned a max contract.
He has a much shorter leash because he's being paid nearly $30 mil per season to essentially be what Jimmy Butler is and he hasn't shown anything that leads us to believe that he'll reach those expectations. Guys, it's ok to to have high expectations for players and not accept anything less from your cornerstones.
"I mean he was a borderline All-Star 2 years ago averaging 23/4/2.5 on 46/35.5/75 splits before the all-star break."
The irony is too great in this post. It wasn't long ago that khans used the "good stats, bad team" argument against my case for Buddy Hield, but since it benefits Andrew Wiggins in this singular topic it's okay.
That's not to discredit his argument here, though I think it is a humongous reach to say Wiggins has been anywhere near All-Star level. I just think there are situations where good players can be found on bad teams. Sometimes it happens that way. I think we'd all agree with that as long as our biases stay out of the discussion.
Camden0916 wrote:"I mean he was a borderline All-Star 2 years ago averaging 23/4/2.5 on 46/35.5/75 splits before the all-star break."
The irony is too great in this post. It wasn't long ago that khans used the "good stats, bad team" argument against my case for Buddy Hield, but since it benefits Andrew Wiggins in this singular topic it's okay.
That's not to discredit his argument here, though I think it is a humongous reach to say Wiggins has been anywhere near All-Star level. I just think there are situations where good players can be found on bad teams. Sometimes it happens that way. I think we'd all agree with that as long as our biases stay out of the discussion.
Sure. 13/4/2 coming off the bench is definitely the same at 23/4/2.5 against starters. What was I thinking? It's not like only 2 players who scored more than him didn't make the All-Star game in Lillard and Towns and the other 13 were All-Stars. That definitely means he was never close. All those other good stats bad teams guys seem to be missing here for some reason. If someone has to score even on bad teams, why is the top of the league not loaded with good stat bad team guys sprinkled in with all-stars? Because it's not an average joe just needs his opportunity to drop 23 a night thing. That's just more than putting up stats on a bad team because most guys on bad teams just can't do that even with the opportunity.
Camden0916 wrote:"I mean he was a borderline All-Star 2 years ago averaging 23/4/2.5 on 46/35.5/75 splits before the all-star break."
The irony is too great in this post. It wasn't long ago that khans used the "good stats, bad team" argument against my case for Buddy Hield, but since it benefits Andrew Wiggins in this singular topic it's okay.
That's not to discredit his argument here, though I think it is a humongous reach to say Wiggins has been anywhere near All-Star level. I just think there are situations where good players can be found on bad teams. Sometimes it happens that way. I think we'd all agree with that as long as our biases stay out of the discussion.
Sure. 13/4/2 coming off the bench is definitely the same at 23/4/2.5 against starters. What was I thinking? It's not like only 2 players who scored more than him didn't make the All-Star game in Lillard and Towns and the other 13 were All-Stars. That definitely means he was never close. All those other good stats bad teams guys seem to be missing here for some reason. If someone has to score even on bad teams, why is the top of the league not loaded with good stat bad team guys sprinkled in with all-stars? Because it's not an average joe just needs his opportunity to drop 23 a night thing. That's just more than putting up stats on a bad team because most guys on bad teams just can't do that even with the opportunity.
Maybe.
But NBA history is littered with "good stats on bad teams" sorts of guys... especially over 1/2 a season. The Wolves have had multiple guys that fit the bill.
It's an actual thing. Wiggins might be more than that. We don't know. What we do know for certain is that he wasn't even remotely close to an All Star while on a pretty good team last year. In fact, his stats took a hit.
