Minnesota Sports Forum

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

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.

KiwiMatt wrote:Belly to Sacramento on 3 year 20.5mil. Good for Belly.

Makes the Tolliver signing look not so bad.

crazy-canuck wrote:

KiwiMatt wrote:Belly to Sacramento on 3 year 20.5mil. Good for Belly.

Makes the Tolliver signing look not so bad.

20 mill in capspace and wasted. While other teams with capspace are picking up future picks in exchange for their space, kings blow it on bjelly and yogi.

They must have a plan or deal in place for a sf. They have nothing but bigs guards.

Camden0916 wrote:

crazy-canuck wrote:

KiwiMatt wrote:Belly to Sacramento on 3 year 20.5mil. Good for Belly.

Makes the Tolliver signing look not so bad.

20 mill in capspace and wasted. While other teams with capspace are picking up future picks in exchange for their space, kings blow it on bjelly and yogi.

They must have a plan or deal in place for a sf. They have nothing but bigs guards.

Hmmm... I know a SF they could target.

crazy-canuck wrote:

KiwiMatt wrote:Belly to Sacramento on 3 year 20.5mil. Good for Belly.

Makes the Tolliver signing look not so bad.

20 mill in capspace and wasted. While other teams with capspace are picking up future picks in exchange for their space, kings blow it on bjelly and yogi.

They must have a plan or deal in place for a sf. They have nothing but bigs guards.

monsterpile wrote:

crazy-canuck wrote:

KiwiMatt wrote:Belly to Sacramento on 3 year 20.5mil. Good for Belly.

Makes the Tolliver signing look not so bad.

20 mill in capspace and wasted. While other teams with capspace are picking up future picks in exchange for their space, kings blow it on bjelly and yogi.

They must have a plan or deal in place for a sf. They have nothing but bigs guards.

The Kings seem to just be collecting as many guys as they can get. It's a bit strange though. I mean when are all these guys gonna play? It seems weird that they ended up with a 3 year 20 million contract for Belly. It sounds like NBA teams thought he was too good to go back to Europe but it feels like the Kings might not have been bidding against to many other teams. What a saga that turned out to be. Belly ended up playing this game pretty well althlugh i don't think he was playing a game. He ended up with a pretty nice contract for 3 years.

PorkChop wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

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.

But don't we need him to fill those good stats to be a good team too? What comes first chicken or the egg?