Reply With Quote
I'll certainly say that Banchero's D & Rebounding is a concern for me... The reason he's in my first tier is that he is a true #1 offensive option, making his own and others shots. Jabari isn't, he's a guy who gets set up with shots by someone else.
He’s looking at counting stats.
I'll certainly say that Banchero's D & Rebounding is a concern for me... The reason he's in my first tier is that he is a true #1 offensive option, making his own and others shots. Jabari isn't, he's a guy who gets set up with shots by someone else.
It should. Those salaries start ballooning. It's not that hard to get rid of McDermott's salary. It's much harder to get rid of huge ones.
@ 120% of the rookie scale you are talking 10mm first year, 13mm year 4 for the number 1 pick.
It’s not hard to get rid of a rookie’s salary either. Don’t pick up the option. Where is this large increase you are talking about?
https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/info/rookie_scale
I see that, but I've watched a ton of Jabari in the last few weeks and there was no other player in college this year who could so easily pull up and shoot over a defender right in front of him, sometimes with a fake, a step back, or a jab step, but often even without that. The ease with which he can get quality three point looks is pretty amazing to me, even as the focus of the opposing team's defense.
So you're saying you'd want to draft Jabari Smith and get rid of him after a few years?
You are slow.
You argued the rookie scale balloons and “its hard to get rid of huge ones” while arguing McDermott’s salary is easy to get out of. If for some reason Jabari Smith was a total bust his salary would be smaller than McDs and just as easy if not easier to not pick up his 4th yr option.
Last edited by KingKev; 05-07-2022 at 02:00 PM.
No -- you're missing the point.
Read again the discussion, mate. That's not what he's saying.
I’m not. You are more comfortable with the deal we gave McDermott this summer than Jabari Smith because in your opinion those contracts balloon and huge contracts are hard to get out of.
Yes. Jabari Smith is an attractive player... to a certain point. Of course it'd be great to have a tall, great-shooting wing who can play very good perimeter defense. But is that all he is? He's not a three level scorer, he's not even a two level scorer. If we want to say he's Rashard Lewis, great. That's a player we could definitely use. But Rashard Lewis was regarded as a horrible contract back in the day. Yes, he'd be even more on point in today's offenses, but will that be all he can do?
I literally don't care about McDermott in this conversation. My point is where do you go when Jabari Smith, picked at #1-4, starts ballooning in terms of salary beyond what he does? Will you be regretting not drafting someone else - the Holmgren or the Banchero?
So, yes, you're missing the point. In the first years, Smith is probably a good fit, an exceptional role player who fixes a major need. But then what? Can he actually become adequate inside the arc? Can he do the bare minimum in creating his own shot? Or did you actually muff the pick?
What is this ballooning? I posted the rookie scale. It features small yearly increases.
So I understand now that your argument is that you don’t think Jabari Smith is a top 4 pick. You are en led to your opinion.
Just to be clear, the fourth-year option for a first-overall pick this year is more than McD's salary. They're close enough for it to not matter, but it's higher.
Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think the Spurs are worried about the money owed to a pick in terms of that player being an albatross. It's true that a truly awful player making that much would be negative value and that even a decent player could be overpaid at that level. But who cares? Many teams have overpaid players on their team. It's not the hardest thing to swap them around. As an expiring with "potential", the player will almost certainly at least be considered near-neutral ballast. Think Bagley from this past year.
If the Spurs have a specific plan to spend cap space this off-season, then they might find it easier to do so if they have a ninth-overall pick rather than a first-overall pick. If they think the draft is flat, the extra money might affect their plans enough that they would want to trade down. But that's the only scenario I could imagine where the Spurs wouldn't be doing backflips over winning the lottery again.
If the best the draft has to offer is a Rudy Gayesque player who falls in love too often with taking inefficient, contested shots—then he should be the pick. If it’s a stronger draft than that, then other players should be the pick.
I think all 3 of Banchero, Chet and Smith have question marks.
Rudy Gayesque is a low blow though lol.
Rudy Gay isn’t a low blow. He was a borderline All Star during the first half of his career. Just because we know how he turned out (lack of success as a primary option) doesn’t negate how he was viewed for much of his career. People see a shooter and set the highest possible ceiling on them. He’s obviously not KD, so what is he? Yes, people are saying how good of a 3 pt shooter he is, but what exactly from his existing skills will carry him to be a top 25 NBA player in this league? Maybe Paul George is his ceiling? But Paul is much more explosive than Jabari. Rashard isn't a top player in today’s league even if you add defense.
Rudy had a solid career start to finish but Smith is probably already a better 3pt shooter and defender. It’s tough to see anyone in this draft become a top 25 player currently but this is often the case with many drafts. Last years draft was forecasted to be really poor and by the end if this season was looking pretty good.
You’ve put your stake in the sand which is understandable I guess we will have to see a few years from now how these guys pan out.
This guy is Mr. Opposite, like the Indian in “Little Big Man” who did everything backwards.
Jabari’s 6’10” but he’s a great three-point shooter (.420%). He’s 6’10” but he’s an 80% free throw shooter. But he’s also 6’10” and he’s only a 43.5% two-point shooter. Crazy.
Most guys that come to the Spurs can do everything but shoot. Then Chip takes over. With this guy, they probably wouldn’t even let Chip look at him. Don’t touch him. Pop would probably make Chip run out of the facility.
Regarding the negatives, a few things should be noted in Jabari’s defense. First, he’s young – the youngest of the Big Three Bigs in this draft. Jabari is also younger than Jaden Ivey, Johnny Davis, Keegan Murray, Bennedict Mathurin, TyTy Washington, Malaki Branham, Ochai Agbaji, Blake Wesley, Tari Eason, Mark Williams, Kendall Brown, MarJon Beauchamp, Jaden Hardy, Max Christie, Dyson Daniels, Kennedy Chandler, Jalen Williams, Walker Kessler, EJ Liddell, and Patrick Baldwin (among many others). (On the other hand, he’s a whole week older than a guy I kinda like, Jeremy Sochan.)
Second, college basketball isn’t the ideal stage for him to show any penetration skills he has. The short three-point line and myriad of sophisticated hybrid zone-based defenses (way more elaborate and exotic than those in the NBA) don’t help. It’s hard for a big to get to the basket against those packed-in schemes. And often times you only see them once, especially against out of conference teams in the NCAA Tournament. The court is generally more open in the NBA and there aren’t as many dudes defending you just because they’re big hard-working physical guys who will someday chase a career in coaching (or insurance). The guys defending you in the NBA are mostly there because they can fill it up. (The difference between what bigs do in college and the NBA is crazy, both ways. Shooters can become post guys and post guys can become shooters. Karl Anthony Townes scored 10.3/game in college and shot 25% from three. Joel Embiid scored 11.2/game in college and shot 20% from three. Look at them now.)
Third, the highlights of Jabari getting to the hole and scoring are promising. He looks good when he actually does it – it’s not like he doesn’t have the physical skills, quickness, etc. (And, after all, he did score 16.9/game.)
So why the 43.5% success rate inside the arc? There is no easy answer. JeffDuncan suggests that he’s not bad from most of two-point land but is terrible on the baseline and finishing at the rim. He may be getting swarmed on drives and forced outside by packed-in defenses then shooting off-balance from the baseline. If so, he may have more open room to operate in the NBA. Maybe. In any event, a good three-point shooter who also shoots 80% from the line should be able (eventually) to become a good baseline shooter.
As for failing to finish, that might be fixed by experience and coaching. This would be the perfect project upon which Manu could earn his coaching stripes – Jabari may need Manu’s input way more than Chip’s, an unusual phenomenon in Spursland. In any event, a lot of young talented players have a hard time finishing at the rim, even after wowing everybody to get there in the first place, even when finishing is a way bigger part of their game than Jabari’s. Our own Dejounte Murray, for example, struggled for years to finish even though that was a way bigger part of his game than Jabari’s. But he eventually got it. Because he was relentless and just kept trying.
Which brings us to the next criticism – it has been suggested that Jabari may be soft. That’s a legitimate concern – if that’s the case, all bets are off. But in watching him, that doesn’t jump out at you. He defends well and looks like he’s moving with a purpose. His body is young and somewhat willowy, but I don’t think he is (or will be) soft.
It appears at least conceivable that Jabari will be one of that rare breed -- a better player in the NBA than in college. It’s a different game. College rewards outside shooting by its short three-point line and packed-in defenses. Jabari responded to those rules by becoming a great outside shooter. But a truly high-end player will respond to, and adapt to, his cir stances. I think his talent may encompass way more than what we’ve seen up to now.
In short, I’m not saying the Spurs should take Jabari Smith over Banchero or Holmgren. It’s a close call with many arguments in all directions (but I do hope that, somehow, that question becomes relevant). All I’m saying is that to declare that his ceiling is that of a high-end role player seems a bit premature at this point.
Come to think of it, Tim Duncan was way better in the NBA than international ball (FIBA), even though the players he faced in the NBA were generally better. And come to think of it, FIBA also had a short-porch and played lot of zone. (And, no, I’m not saying Jabari Smith will become the next Tim Duncan, or anything close. He won’t.)
As to Jabari, only time will tell, but so far I kind of like what I see.
Awesome work. Much appreciated.
A couple of questions that I’m having a hard time answering with Smith, that perhaps some who are comfortable being the #1 pick can assist with:
1. How does Smith generate Offensive advantages if his shot isn’t falling?
2. Is he a guy who “gets off” on shooting contested jumpers and such is it to the point that he’s unable to differentiate a good from bad shot?
This is probably going to bite me in the butt somewhat but I actually prefer Ivey and Murray ahead of him atm
I like Smith alot..2nd on my BB ahead of Chet and behind Banchero.. that said, all 3 are close...all have things that are concerning and all have an attribute that's really enticing... I couldn't gripe if we got anyone of the 3...
If his shots aren't falling he's still playing plus defense.A couple of questions that I’m having a hard time answering with Smith, that perhaps some who are comfortable being the #1 pick can assist with:
1. How does Smith generate Offensive advantages if his shot isn’t falling?
2. Is he a guy who “gets off” on shooting contested jumpers and such is it to the point that he’s unable to differentiate a good from bad shot?
This is probably going to bite me in the butt somewhat but I actually prefer Ivey and Murray ahead of him atm
I like a guy that has no fear of pulling up in the face of the defense, with his kind of percentage, but also the NBA is going to create a whole different plate of opportunities for him as opposed to how college was played.
Thanks for the response. I worry about guys who consistently hunt for difficult shots. It either suggests to me that -
A) They are unable to create advantages off the catch/dribble/post-up,
B) The game comes so effortlessly to them, they genuinely can’t differentiate between a good and bad shot, or
C) There’s a thrill to hitting those tough ones, a feeling of self-affirmation that fuels a cyclical adrenaline hit
I agree with the main discussion. Smith meets the immediate need and Spurs would be thrilled to get him. He has the sweetest stroke but will his game evolve to a multi-dimentional player which one expects from a overall #1 pick? Because I think right now he fits seamlessly with Poeltl, with Jac learning mire post-moves and a willing passer. But in time, you want your goto scorer to be the focal point of your offense. Right now it’s a toss between Banchero, the traditional big who can generate his own shots and facilitate, or Chet who has the best overall skills of all. Big problem, but a nice one IF Spurs are fortunate to get. Btw, #1 after rolling 5 times today.
Honestly that's the kind of questions I'm not sure college basketball can totally answer. Those guys are still young and raw and can massively improve or reveal themselves in many areas. Some good shooters in college couldn't throw it in the ocean in the NBA and vice and versa... I think that's what spurs have always looked first... portential and personality to improve. TP was barely taking jump shots in his first year but working with Chip he developed a reliable mid range jumper. Nephew wasn't finished either, hence he felt at 15...A couple of questions that I’m having a hard time answering with Smith, that perhaps some who are comfortable being the #1 pick can assist with:
1. How does Smith generate Offensive advantages if his shot isn’t falling?
2. Is he a guy who “gets off” on shooting contested jumpers and such is it to the point that he’s unable to differentiate a good from bad shot?
This is probably going to bite me in the butt somewhat but I actually prefer Ivey and Murray ahead of him atm
That would be too easy otherwise, right? That's the reason why there are busts and overlooked college players every year. Personality, professionalism and will to improve, assumion potential is there, are sometimes as important than raw skills.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions