Covington is an average three point shooter ('17 was his first season below average). He has great length and is solid to good on defense. Is he a starter on a playoff team? Dunno. Maybe not. But he's making only $1.5M... on one of the league's very best deals.
Monk is almost the opposite. He looks better than Covington. But many believe his defense is going to be an issue in the NBA. As for Rubio and Ball... I think every team is taking Ball even with the uncertainty of a rookie and his annoying dad.
AND... then you have the Simmons thing. Is he a full-time PG? Maybe not. But passing is one of his best skills. Shooting is not. So with Rubio... the 76ers two primary ballhandlers would struggle to shoot.
I know Hinkie is gone. But Ball seems like the basketball analytics wet dream prospect.
I guess my thoughts on it are that Covington has 1.5 offensive win shares in his entire career. All he can do offensively is spot up from 3 and he's an average 3pt shooter. Other than that he averages 1.5 assists per game and shoots under 40% from inside the arc. His total win shares are at 9.2 in 4 seasons. You compare him to Ricky who has 23.2 total win shares in 6 seasons and that's a huge increase (per year Ricky is providing twice the win shares as Covington on average). Ricky is a better player than Covington by a decent chunk.
Then you compare Ball and Monk as prospects. Neither are going to be good defenders. Ball is more of a playmaker and Monk is a superior scorer. On a team with 1 guy who scored more than 15 PPG and he didn't even play half the season, that team desperately lacks a scoring punch which is what Monk does at a high level. So while Ball is a better propsect overall, it's arguable that Monk is a better fit in Philly to give them a high end scorer on the perimeter and he's not that far behind Ball as a prospect.
I think the upgrade from Ricky to Covington is bigger than Ball to Monk. So it's not as lopsided as you guys make it out to be IMO.
In a vacuum, Rubio is a more impactful player. Obviously. But how many teams in the NBA wouldn't even want to go near Rubio? For better or worse, he simply doesn't fit how some teams want to play.
Most teams, however, could use a long, rangy 3-and-D guy at 1/10 the price of Rubio.
And after years of "just stay patient with us" mantras from the club, will Philly fans be cool with the team trading the #3 pick (and possible franchise type player) for a lower pick and a guy perceived by many (right or wrong) as a below average starting PG?
Covington is an average three point shooter ('17 was his first season below average). He has great length and is solid to good on defense. Is he a starter on a playoff team? Dunno. Maybe not. But he's making only $1.5M... on one of the league's very best deals.
Monk is almost the opposite. He looks better than Covington. But many believe his defense is going to be an issue in the NBA. As for Rubio and Ball... I think every team is taking Ball even with the uncertainty of a rookie and his annoying dad.
AND... then you have the Simmons thing. Is he a full-time PG? Maybe not. But passing is one of his best skills. Shooting is not. So with Rubio... the 76ers two primary ballhandlers would struggle to shoot.
I know Hinkie is gone. But Ball seems like the basketball analytics wet dream prospect.
I guess my thoughts on it are that Covington has 1.5 offensive win shares in his entire career. All he can do offensively is spot up from 3 and he's an average 3pt shooter. Other than that he averages 1.5 assists per game and shoots under 40% from inside the arc. His total win shares are at 9.2 in 4 seasons. You compare him to Ricky who has 23.2 total win shares in 6 seasons and that's a huge increase (per year Ricky is providing twice the win shares as Covington on average). Ricky is a better player than Covington by a decent chunk.
Then you compare Ball and Monk as prospects. Neither are going to be good defenders. Ball is more of a playmaker and Monk is a superior scorer. On a team with 1 guy who scored more than 15 PPG and he didn't even play half the season, that team desperately lacks a scoring punch which is what Monk does at a high level. So while Ball is a better propsect overall, it's arguable that Monk is a better fit in Philly to give them a high end scorer on the perimeter and he's not that far behind Ball as a prospect.
I think the upgrade from Ricky to Covington is bigger than Ball to Monk. So it's not as lopsided as you guys make it out to be IMO.
Excellent comment on Ricky's value Khans, glad to see you are finally coming around on him. I think we should keep him AND try to get Covington, wouldn't you agree? ;)
(P.S. I don't think win shares does justice to one's ability to guard people. Covington's value to the Wolves is his fit as a defensive wing, something we don't have right now and desperately need).
Covington is an average three point shooter ('17 was his first season below average). He has great length and is solid to good on defense. Is he a starter on a playoff team? Dunno. Maybe not. But he's making only $1.5M... on one of the league's very best deals.
Monk is almost the opposite. He looks better than Covington. But many believe his defense is going to be an issue in the NBA. As for Rubio and Ball... I think every team is taking Ball even with the uncertainty of a rookie and his annoying dad.
AND... then you have the Simmons thing. Is he a full-time PG? Maybe not. But passing is one of his best skills. Shooting is not. So with Rubio... the 76ers two primary ballhandlers would struggle to shoot.
I know Hinkie is gone. But Ball seems like the basketball analytics wet dream prospect.
I guess my thoughts on it are that Covington has 1.5 offensive win shares in his entire career. All he can do offensively is spot up from 3 and he's an average 3pt shooter. Other than that he averages 1.5 assists per game and shoots under 40% from inside the arc. His total win shares are at 9.2 in 4 seasons. You compare him to Ricky who has 23.2 total win shares in 6 seasons and that's a huge increase (per year Ricky is providing twice the win shares as Covington on average). Ricky is a better player than Covington by a decent chunk.
Then you compare Ball and Monk as prospects. Neither are going to be good defenders. Ball is more of a playmaker and Monk is a superior scorer. On a team with 1 guy who scored more than 15 PPG and he didn't even play half the season, that team desperately lacks a scoring punch which is what Monk does at a high level. So while Ball is a better propsect overall, it's arguable that Monk is a better fit in Philly to give them a high end scorer on the perimeter and he's not that far behind Ball as a prospect.
I think the upgrade from Ricky to Covington is bigger than Ball to Monk. So it's not as lopsided as you guys make it out to be IMO.
Excellent comment on Ricky's value Khans, glad to see you are finally coming around on him. I think we should keep him AND try to get Covington, wouldn't you agree? ;)
(P.S. I don't think win shares does justice to one's ability to guard people. Covington's value to the Wolves is his fit as a defensive wing, something we don't have right now and desperately need).
They're not gonna give up Covington for anything less than a starter. He's too good a value (not necessarily player) to trade for anything less. But he's also not worth Ricky alone and he's definitely not worth the 7th pick in this draft so I'm curious what you are trading to get him?
