Camden0916 wrote:"but in the long haul that's the only way they can get better."
This narrative is false, though. You keep acting like increased playing time is the only way guys get better. You've done it for Bennett and LaVine. Guess what? Guys can actually get better with 20 MPG. It happens in the NBA, and it's widely done in Euro leagues. You don't actually have to move veterans for no reason other than to put more minutes on a guy that isn't ready or deserving. Let them battle it out.
You say our reasons for keeping him are temporary, and don't help the development of our young guys. I've argued this before, but it's ALWAYS good for young guys to have good veteran players around them. Guys that you know are consistent. Having young guys around other young guys, inconstancy with more inconstancy. Not the best formula for success. Just another part of your made-up narrative that young guys only develop with 30+ minutes. Frankly, it's bullshit.
Please name the star players in this league who came off the bench for 2+ years playing 20MPG's before getting their chance. I'd bet it's not a long list compared to the stars who were given the keys early and forced to get better on the fly. Newsflash, the way you get better is to actually play the game, not watch most of it from the bench. You call my narrative bullshit, then provide some names that proves your narrative isn't bullshit. And I'm not talking rotation players. I'm talking multi-time all-stars because that's what we need. Martin scores 20 a game, we lose 50+ games and how does that help our young guys again? Playing with a guy who consistently plays a major role in losing as your leading scorer? His leadership and consistency really helped us this year with all 16 games we won. He does nothing but score which Wiggins and Lavine had no problem doing down the stretch last year so again I ask. What does he actually help this team accomplish?
Perhaps those star players were given the keys early because they were actually really, really talented! I have a feeling Michael Jordan would have still become a star if he had averaged 18 MPG his first two seasons.
Turning your analogy on its head, I might suggest that the antidote to poor play is to simply give the guy more minutes. After all, how could anyone ever improve without getting the magical 20 MPG you have arbitrarily picked as the right number?
At any rate, here are a few so-so players that played ~ 20 minutes per game or less over their first two seasons:
Steve Nash
Zach Randolph
Al Jefferson
Draymond Green
Paul Millsap
Gerald Wallace
Andrew Bynum
There are others too. Undoubtedly you are right that most star players played more, but that's not because they were force-fed a bunch of minutes in year 2 or 3 of their career. They were actually really skilled players that earned those minutes.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:In the games when Wiggins was being assertive, I don't recall ever thinking, man I wish Martin would back off. I don't see that issue yet. I would explore dealing him strictly as a means to getting a valuable piece, however.
Phenom, I found myself wanting Martin to back off many times during the last few weeks of the season. When he wasn't siting out for one if his many maladies, he was shooting a poor percentage from behind the arc. Made me wonder why we would even want him. Khans makes a lot of good points. This isn't OKC or some title contender he's on. He proved to me last year that what he really wanted was to get his numbers on this talent deprived team. When his 3 isn't falling, what is he going to give you? Defense? No. Leadership? Hell no. Clutch play? Are you kidding me? He is a player who is very overrated by most of this board.
I guess there is a disconnect on why we are arguing about Martin being here. I was under the assumption that we were talking about Martin being in the way of Andrew's path to greatness. Shooting poorly within the offense is a different animal. I didn't think Martin got in his way. Wiggins averaged more than 16 shots per game in the last few weeks of the season and that was in the midst of a surge for FGA's from LaVine.
Camden wrote:I'm not sure why Martin's shooting form is being called into question. Sure, it's ugly. It also works for him. Is this what this debate is resorting to?
Sure it works for HIM, but would you teach your son to shoot that way? I think that's what I was saying.
Wait, does Kevin Martin's son play on the Wolves!?
Perhaps those star players were given the keys early because they were actually really, really talented! I have a feeling Michael Jordan would have still become a star if he had averaged 18 MPG his first two seasons.
Turning your analogy on its head, I might suggest that the antidote to poor play is to simply give the guy more minutes. After all, how could anyone ever improve without getting the magical 20 MPG you have arbitrarily picked as the right number?
At any rate, here are a few so-so players that played ~ 20 minutes per game or less over their first two seasons:
Steve Nash
Zach Randolph
Al Jefferson
Draymond Green
Paul Millsap
Gerald Wallace
Andrew Bynum
There are others too. Undoubtedly you are right that most star players played more, but that's not because they were force-fed a bunch of minutes in year 2 or 3 of their career. They were actually really skilled players that earned those minutes.
Goran Dragic
Eric Bledsoe
I think the major difference with LaVine is that he's a bigger project than most any player. Big skills on the kid, but very green.
Well, post all-star break Lavine averaged 14.2/4.2/3.9 on 43/38/87 splits in 29 MPG's. Martin was 20/2.3/3.6 on 42.7/39.3/88 splits this year in 34 MPG's. Lavine's April was 21.1/6.6/5.8 on 47/32.5/88.2 splits. His March was 13.3/3.8/3.3 on 39.8/42.6/86.2 splits. So he showed in March he has the ability to hit 3's at a good clip and in April he showed in big minutes he can score just as much as Martin while contributing more in other areas all while only being a worse 3pt shooter.
But he hasn't shown enough to earn the spot apparently. He only posted his best numbers at the end of the year playing out of position when most rookies don't have any gas left in the tank to keep putting up good numbers and he was playing 39 MPG's. He was playing with the same teammates as Martin and putting up close to or better numbers. So I guess I'm just thinking the guy who plays close to or better with the same teammates the last two months of the year who is also much younger has earned the spot in my mind. Lavine's best production came with more minutes and it was close to or better than his veteran counterpart playing next to him.
Camden wrote:khans, you're the CONTEXT man on this board. Don't act like Martin was the reason the Wolves won only 16 games. Doing so just shows you're stretching to make Martin the problem when he's not. Keep in mind we've all heard you say that the Wolves aren't really a 16-win team because of the horrific amount of injuries this team suffered. Nice try, though.
How about before jumping the gun, we establish LaVine as a positive role player first? He wasn't that last year and he actually was thrown in the fire for big minutes. You can't act like there's one road to success. That's FOOLISH. Jimmy Butler of all people was an All-Star this year. LaVine needs to develop his game year by year. As long as he does that, his game and elite athletic ability could turn him into a star. You rushing the process could just as easily make him flame out.
Also, trading Martin for the sole purpose of giving the starting spot to LaVine is an example of putting all your eggs into one basket. If it goes wrong, you've just created a massive hole in your lineup.
If LaVine proves to be better than Martin next year, then start him. Trading a player to open up more minutes for a guy when there's plenty to begin with is something I disagree with completely.
If it goes wrong you find out quicker that Lavine isn't a player as opposed to essentially just waiting it out in your example and finding out down the line that he can't play. You like to make decisions on guys right away so I don't see how this is a problem because you'll know if he is the solution or not right away. Then you plug Wiggins into the starting 2 spot and Bazz starts at the 3. Quick fix found. For a guy who argues Wiggins' best position is at the 2 right now, you don't give him a lot of credit to fill the hole that would be there with no Martin and a bad Lavine. Then you have to find another option anyway unless you plan to just keep hanging onto Martin until we find a suitable replacement which is hard to gauge if you only give his possible replacement 14 MPG's at that position to prove they are a better option.
There aren't plenty of MPG's available at the 2 which is where Lavine needs to play. Martin plays 34 MPG's. Wiggins gets some of that leftover time when he plays with Bazz so that leaves what, 10 MPG's for Lavine at the 2? Sounds like a great amount to determine if he is your 2 of the future. What's that? All that time also happens to be with a backup PG not named Ricky Rubio so you have to project in 10 MPG's with a backup PG if he is a good fit next to Ricky and Wiggins in the starting lineup based on little to no playing time with those 3 on the court. Sounds like a great plan to make an informed decision and a good opportunity for Lavine to earn the spot from Martin. Lavine and Martin can't both play 30 MPG's at the 2 so unless you want to keep up the Lavine playing out of position at PG experiment for most of his playing time going then Martin is blocking Lavine's playing time.
It's funny how someone brings up Korver as a really nice player while jabbing at Kmart. It wasn't more than a couple years ago Korver was just a shooter poor defender and had really lost value around the league. Altanta signed him and the last 2 years he is playing probably the best basketball of his career after looking like his value was fading. Kmart is a hell of a lot more talented than Korver he could be a very positive factor with a resurgence as well.
Is it really so awful to keep around a 20ppg scorer (signed to a reasonable contract) and the only guy on the team you can really for certain say he is a good shooter especially from the 3 point line? Sure you can trade away basically any player for the right price but Martin's ability to hit jump shots has to help spacing. I am in no hurry to move Martin. I think part of that is I don't think his value around the league all that high which is a product of him struggling to stay healthy. If you are a playoff team you can't count on him being available when it matters. Also rember back when a lot of us really wanted AK47 back but Flip wasn't willing to pay him? Flip is looking damn smart there he has played what like 50 games the past 2 seasons. Martin has played double that and you know like actually been productive.
J. O'neal is the classic example of a guy that didn't play much the first few years and turned out to be a heck of a player. Flip obviously loves Lavine I don't think he will have a hard time finding enough time on the court to develop his game.
In case anyone wants to get back on track let's say we take a trip into the future and we just found out on Twitter we signed NB to a 3 year deal for somewhere around the mid level per? Are you happy or not? Let's say for this hypothetical we didn't add a PF in the first round of the draft and so far no other significant changes to the roster. Me? I am happy. Not giddy or anything but pleased and intrigued.
Perhaps those star players were given the keys early because they were actually really, really talented! I have a feeling Michael Jordan would have still become a star if he had averaged 18 MPG his first two seasons.
Turning your analogy on its head, I might suggest that the antidote to poor play is to simply give the guy more minutes. After all, how could anyone ever improve without getting the magical 20 MPG you have arbitrarily picked as the right number?
At any rate, here are a few so-so players that played ~ 20 minutes per game or less over their first two seasons:
Steve Nash
Zach Randolph
Al Jefferson
Draymond Green
Paul Millsap
Gerald Wallace
Andrew Bynum
There are others too. Undoubtedly you are right that most star players played more, but that's not because they were force-fed a bunch of minutes in year 2 or 3 of their career. They were actually really skilled players that earned those minutes.
Goran Dragic
Eric Bledsoe
I think the major difference with LaVine is that he's a bigger project than most any player. Big skills on the kid, but very green.
I agree that minutes itself won't make players better. There are plenty of examples about players that got minutes right away but never got better and then there are players that played very little in first couple of seasons that still improved and earned their minutes.
Below more examples about all star (or near all star level) players that got around 20 minutes or less in at least their first two seasons:
Peja Stojakovic
Jermaine O'Neil
Tracy McGrady
Rashard Lewis
Hedo Turkoglu
Mehmet Okur
Michael Redd
Tyson Chandler
David West
Devin Harris
Marcin Gortat
J.J. Redick
Kyle Lowry
Arron Afflalo
DeAndre Jordan
Jeff Teague
Derrick Favors
Enes Kanter
And even guys like Kobe, Harden, Manu, Paul George and Jimmy Butler did play still less than 30 minutes in their 2nd season.
monsterpile wrote:In case anyone wants to get back on track let's say we take a trip into the future and we just found out on Twitter we signed NB to a 3 year deal for somewhere around the mid level per? Are you happy or not? Let's say for this hypothetical we didn't add a PF in the first round of the draft and so far no other significant changes to the roster. Me? I am happy. Not giddy or anything but pleased and intrigued.
I'd be ecstatic. It'd mean we plan on keeping him, and that's what I want. $5M per for the Euro League MVP? That's while the NBA cap is increasing after next season. It's a move that just makes too much sense not to happen especially when you consider that we have Payne and Bennett giving unproductive minutes and Garnett who's severely limited in what he can give you over the course of a season..
