khans2k5 wrote:Kawhi couldn't shoot or really dribble coming out of college. The Spurs could train Wiggins into a superstar. They've already done it once with a guy with a very similar skill profile. Wiggins has the same demeanor as Kawhi. The only way that happens though is if Kawhi forces his way out. I don't know who else would offer what for Kawhi, but Wiggins being locked in would certainly help our case to give them a long-term replacement for Kawhi. People act like Kawhi was an elite prospect who would have reached this level on his own and he likely just wouldn't have. He went to the best development team in the league who was built to correct his flaws and he could be brought along slowly as Duncan's career was coming to a close. The Spurs made Kawhi into what he is and I have no doubt they could do the exact same to Wiggins in time.
I remember Kawhi coming out of college. I liked him a lot, but never expected him to be the great player he's become. So I haven't forgotten that he wasn't an elite prospect back then. But he was known at the time for being for being hyper-competitive and tough. I also remember that he had great hands -- unusually big for a wing. He wasn't known for his ballhandling, but he had the hands to become a good ballhandler. Wiggins and Leonard do not have the same demeanor. Both are quiet, but Leonard is tough, fierce and driven all the time. That was his reputation coming out of college and that's what he's been since coming to the NBA. Scouting reports questioned Wiggins motor when he was at Kansas and, not surprisingly, those questions persist 4 years into Wiggins' NBA career.
Pop is terrific at getting the most out of his players, but the front office has been equally terrific at drafting talent with the key attributes necessary to become great players. I don't think Wiggins has what it takes for Pop to turn him into a great player. I could be wrong. I'll say this. If the Spurs take that deal, it means one of two things. Either Leonard has serious long-term physical issues or the Spurs truly believe Pop can turn Wiggins into a great player. And if the Spurs believe Pop can do that, probably can. That's why I'd be reluctant to do the deal. I'd assume that a yes from the Spurs means it's a deal we shouldn't make. :)
khans2k5 wrote:Kawhi couldn't shoot or really dribble coming out of college. The Spurs could train Wiggins into a superstar. They've already done it once with a guy with a very similar skill profile. Wiggins has the same demeanor as Kawhi. The only way that happens though is if Kawhi forces his way out. I don't know who else would offer what for Kawhi, but Wiggins being locked in would certainly help our case to give them a long-term replacement for Kawhi. People act like Kawhi was an elite prospect who would have reached this level on his own and he likely just wouldn't have. He went to the best development team in the league who was built to correct his flaws and he could be brought along slowly as Duncan's career was coming to a close. The Spurs made Kawhi into what he is and I have no doubt they could do the exact same to Wiggins in time.
I remember Kawhi coming out of college. I liked him a lot, but never expected him to be the great player he's become. So I haven't forgotten that he wasn't an elite prospect back then. But he was known at the time for being for being hyper-competitive and tough. I also remember that he had great hands -- unusually big for a wing. He wasn't known for his ballhandling, but he had the hands to become a good ballhandler. Wiggins and Leonard do not have the same demeanor. Both are quiet, but Leonard is tough, fierce and driven all the time. That was his reputation coming out of college and that's what he's been since coming to the NBA. Scouting reports questioned Wiggins motor when he was at Kansas and, not surprisingly, those questions persist 4 years into Wiggins' NBA career.
Pop is terrific at getting the most out of his players, but the front office has been equally terrific at drafting talent with the key attributes necessary to become great players. I don't think Wiggins has what it takes for Pop to turn him into a great player. I could be wrong. I'll say this. If the Spurs take that deal, it means one of two things. Either Leonard has serious long-term physical issues or the Spurs truly believe Pop can turn Wiggins into a great player. And if the Spurs believe Pop can do that, probably can. That's why I'd be reluctant to do the deal. I'd assume that a yes from the Spurs means it's a deal we shouldn't make. :)
I just remember Pop saying early in his rookie year saying he was going to be a star. It seemed like a bit of a joke at the time even with Pop saying it. I do think Wiggins is a worthwhile comp to Leonard it's just that their initial development curve was completely opposite. Bad team good team role player star scorer. It feels like Wiggins now is playing sort of the role he should have been from the start. Peoplehave now expected this guy to be a high level scorer and when e doesn't do that every night it's terrible. Meanwhile is his other stuff coming along? It SEEMS that way but I haven't been paying as much attention lately. Thibs seems to believe in Wiggins. He doesn't have quite the same amount of "we'll if _____ says it then ok" but Thibs doesn't BS around either. It has some significance. The bottom line for so many players is if they keep developing. There is still so much room for Andrew to go.
khans2k5 wrote:Kawhi couldn't shoot or really dribble coming out of college. The Spurs could train Wiggins into a superstar. They've already done it once with a guy with a very similar skill profile. Wiggins has the same demeanor as Kawhi. The only way that happens though is if Kawhi forces his way out. I don't know who else would offer what for Kawhi, but Wiggins being locked in would certainly help our case to give them a long-term replacement for Kawhi. People act like Kawhi was an elite prospect who would have reached this level on his own and he likely just wouldn't have. He went to the best development team in the league who was built to correct his flaws and he could be brought along slowly as Duncan's career was coming to a close. The Spurs made Kawhi into what he is and I have no doubt they could do the exact same to Wiggins in time.
I remember Kawhi coming out of college. I liked him a lot, but never expected him to be the great player he's become. So I haven't forgotten that he wasn't an elite prospect back then. But he was known at the time for being for being hyper-competitive and tough. I also remember that he had great hands -- unusually big for a wing. He wasn't known for his ballhandling, but he had the hands to become a good ballhandler. Wiggins and Leonard do not have the same demeanor. Both are quiet, but Leonard is tough, fierce and driven all the time. That was his reputation coming out of college and that's what he's been since coming to the NBA. Scouting reports questioned Wiggins motor when he was at Kansas and, not surprisingly, those questions persist 4 years into Wiggins' NBA career.
Pop is terrific at getting the most out of his players, but the front office has been equally terrific at drafting talent with the key attributes necessary to become great players. I don't think Wiggins has what it takes for Pop to turn him into a great player. I could be wrong. I'll say this. If the Spurs take that deal, it means one of two things. Either Leonard has serious long-term physical issues or the Spurs truly believe Pop can turn Wiggins into a great player. And if the Spurs believe Pop can do that, probably can. That's why I'd be reluctant to do the deal. I'd assume that a yes from the Spurs means it's a deal we shouldn't make. :)
I just remember Pop saying early in his rookie year saying he was going to be a star. It seemed like a bit of a joke at the time even with Pop saying it. I do think Wiggins is a worthwhile comp to Leonard it's just that their initial development curve was completely opposite. Bad team good team role player star scorer. It feels like Wiggins now is playing sort of the role he should have been from the start. Peoplehave now expected this guy to be a high level scorer and when e doesn't do that every night it's terrible. Meanwhile is his other stuff coming along? It SEEMS that way but I haven't been paying as much attention lately. Thibs seems to believe in Wiggins. He doesn't have quite the same amount of "we'll if _____ says it then ok" but Thibs doesn't BS around either. It has some significance. The bottom line for so many players is if they keep developing. There is still so much room for Andrew to go.
Wiggins biggest issue isn't maximizing his talent, but maximizing the number of games per year in which he feels like using it. It's been said here a number of times, staying healthy is a valuable talent, but if you're always healthy, but not always engaged in the game how much value does it really have?
khans2k5 wrote:Kawhi couldn't shoot or really dribble coming out of college. The Spurs could train Wiggins into a superstar. They've already done it once with a guy with a very similar skill profile. Wiggins has the same demeanor as Kawhi. The only way that happens though is if Kawhi forces his way out. I don't know who else would offer what for Kawhi, but Wiggins being locked in would certainly help our case to give them a long-term replacement for Kawhi. People act like Kawhi was an elite prospect who would have reached this level on his own and he likely just wouldn't have. He went to the best development team in the league who was built to correct his flaws and he could be brought along slowly as Duncan's career was coming to a close. The Spurs made Kawhi into what he is and I have no doubt they could do the exact same to Wiggins in time.
I remember Kawhi coming out of college. I liked him a lot, but never expected him to be the great player he's become. So I haven't forgotten that he wasn't an elite prospect back then. But he was known at the time for being for being hyper-competitive and tough. I also remember that he had great hands -- unusually big for a wing. He wasn't known for his ballhandling, but he had the hands to become a good ballhandler. Wiggins and Leonard do not have the same demeanor. Both are quiet, but Leonard is tough, fierce and driven all the time. That was his reputation coming out of college and that's what he's been since coming to the NBA. Scouting reports questioned Wiggins motor when he was at Kansas and, not surprisingly, those questions persist 4 years into Wiggins' NBA career.
Pop is terrific at getting the most out of his players, but the front office has been equally terrific at drafting talent with the key attributes necessary to become great players. I don't think Wiggins has what it takes for Pop to turn him into a great player. I could be wrong. I'll say this. If the Spurs take that deal, it means one of two things. Either Leonard has serious long-term physical issues or the Spurs truly believe Pop can turn Wiggins into a great player. And if the Spurs believe Pop can do that, probably can. That's why I'd be reluctant to do the deal. I'd assume that a yes from the Spurs means it's a deal we shouldn't make. :)
I just remember Pop saying early in his rookie year saying he was going to be a star. It seemed like a bit of a joke at the time even with Pop saying it. I do think Wiggins is a worthwhile comp to Leonard it's just that their initial development curve was completely opposite. Bad team good team role player star scorer. It feels like Wiggins now is playing sort of the role he should have been from the start. Peoplehave now expected this guy to be a high level scorer and when e doesn't do that every night it's terrible. Meanwhile is his other stuff coming along? It SEEMS that way but I haven't been paying as much attention lately. Thibs seems to believe in Wiggins. He doesn't have quite the same amount of "we'll if _____ says it then ok" but Thibs doesn't BS around either. It has some significance. The bottom line for so many players is if they keep developing. There is still so much room for Andrew to go.
Wiggins biggest issue isn't maximizing his talent, but maximizing the number of games per year in which he feels like using it. It's been said here a number of times, staying healthy is a valuable talent, but if you're always healthy, but not always engaged in the game how much value does it really have?
More value than not being able to play at all. I agree with your point about him giving effort more consistently although I also think it's absolutely fair to say Wiggins needs to and has his whole career needed to improve various skills that aren't where they need to be. To me even if he played his butt off all the time he still would t be able to just take over like a star player all the time. He would be doing a lot more stuff though and that's what people want to see. I think he has done more this year though. Let's see if he develops in any of these areas.
We surely could have outbid Cleveland for Clarkson and Nance while providing the cap flexibility Los Angeles wanted. We missed that opportunity, I believe.
Camden0916 wrote:We surely could have outbid Cleveland for Clarkson and Nance while providing the cap flexibility Los Angeles wanted. We missed that opportunity, I believe.
Cam we did not have the expiring contracts the Cavs had.
Camden0916 wrote:We surely could have outbid Cleveland for Clarkson and Nance while providing the cap flexibility Los Angeles wanted. We missed that opportunity, I believe.
Cam we did not have the expiring contracts the Cavs had.
Ehh, we could have offered Aldrich, Bjelica and our OKC first-round pick for Clarkson and Nance. The Lakers would have cut Aldrich, though I'm not sure exactly what date, and had a $2M cap hit next season. Bjelica is a RFA, so they could have either let him walk or even matched him after their priority free agents found different homes. And lastly, that Oklahoma City pick (top-15 protected) is a lot more valuable than Cleveland's top-three protected pick this year.
And yes, I would have made that trade. I think Clarkson is the next candidate to be in the Sixth-Man of the Year discussion for the next handful of years and I think Nance provides the necessary traits (defense, rebounding, opportunistic scoring, energy) you look for in a go-to backup big, spot-starter.
Just those two players being added to the roster completely changes this team for the better and both provide the youth that keeps our "window of opportunity" in play.
Camden0916 wrote:We surely could have outbid Cleveland for Clarkson and Nance while providing the cap flexibility Los Angeles wanted. We missed that opportunity, I believe.
Cam we did not have the expiring contracts the Cavs had.
Ehh, we could have offered Aldrich, Bjelica and our OKC first-round pick for Clarkson and Nance. The Lakers would have cut Aldrich, though I'm not sure exactly what date, and had a $2M cap hit next season. Bjelica is a RFA, so they could have either let him walk or even matched him after their priority free agents found different homes. And lastly, that Oklahoma City pick (top-15 protected) is a lot more valuable than Cleveland's top-three protected pick this year.
And yes, I would have made that trade. I think Clarkson is the next candidate to be in the Sixth-Man of the Year discussion for the next handful of years and I think Nance provides the necessary traits (defense, rebounding, opportunistic scoring, energy) you look for in a go-to backup big, spot-starter.
Just those two players being added to the roster completely changes this team for the better and both provide the youth that keeps our "window of opportunity" in play.
Camden0916 wrote:We surely could have outbid Cleveland for Clarkson and Nance while providing the cap flexibility Los Angeles wanted. We missed that opportunity, I believe.
Cam we did not have the expiring contracts the Cavs had.
Ehh, we could have offered Aldrich, Bjelica and our OKC first-round pick for Clarkson and Nance. The Lakers would have cut Aldrich, though I'm not sure exactly what date, and had a $2M cap hit next season. Bjelica is a RFA, so they could have either let him walk or even matched him after their priority free agents found different homes. And lastly, that Oklahoma City pick (top-15 protected) is a lot more valuable than Cleveland's top-three protected pick this year.
And yes, I would have made that trade. I think Clarkson is the next candidate to be in the Sixth-Man of the Year discussion for the next handful of years and I think Nance provides the necessary traits (defense, rebounding, opportunistic scoring, energy) you look for in a go-to backup big, spot-starter.
Just those two players being added to the roster completely changes this team for the better and both provide the youth that keeps our "window of opportunity" in play.
I would have liked that deal.
Cavs offer is way better. They get a free look at a guy who was 5th in the MVP last year. They get the 1st that at the time of the trade was identical to the OKC pick.
They also would have 2 mil of Aldrich money next year and every dime matters.
Camden0916 wrote:We surely could have outbid Cleveland for Clarkson and Nance while providing the cap flexibility Los Angeles wanted. We missed that opportunity, I believe.
Cam we did not have the expiring contracts the Cavs had.
Ehh, we could have offered Aldrich, Bjelica and our OKC first-round pick for Clarkson and Nance. The Lakers would have cut Aldrich, though I'm not sure exactly what date, and had a $2M cap hit next season. Bjelica is a RFA, so they could have either let him walk or even matched him after their priority free agents found different homes. And lastly, that Oklahoma City pick (top-15 protected) is a lot more valuable than Cleveland's top-three protected pick this year.
And yes, I would have made that trade. I think Clarkson is the next candidate to be in the Sixth-Man of the Year discussion for the next handful of years and I think Nance provides the necessary traits (defense, rebounding, opportunistic scoring, energy) you look for in a go-to backup big, spot-starter.
Just those two players being added to the roster completely changes this team for the better and both provide the youth that keeps our "window of opportunity" in play.
I would have liked that deal.
Cavs offer is way better. They get a free look at a guy who was 5th in the MVP last year. They get the 1st that at the time of the trade was identical to the OKC pick.
They also would have 2 mil of Aldrich money next year and every dime matters.
Ok you got there adding Belly. I wouldn't do that but we have been through that. I agree they get a free look at IT and his cap hold will be relatively low so if he shows something (not sure at this point) it could be good for them. I was thinking about the Cavs deals this morning driving to work and even though i thought the Cavs didn't need to add a 1st rounder to the Lakers deal stillcoming our with the players they did only basically giving up assets of Crowder and a first rounder plus expering contracts is pretty good. Would you rather give up a 1st rounder this year or a couple 2nd rounders in later years when you might be terrible?
