Gordon Hayward to visit Hornets next week.

[wingswithsting]

You are deeply under rating MKG. You truly don't have a clue what this kid could be at 23 do you??

We would regret giving this kid up for a Hayward, Stevenson or Hendo if this scenario were to happen.

Agreed

[Herbert The Love Bug]

You offer Hayward what ever amount it will take.

None of the elite superstars are coming to Cha anytime soon.

And for that reason you need good versatile smart players.

Get rid of Hendo and roll with a wing rotation of Hayward, MKG, and Hairston.

Kemba / Livingston

Hayward / Hairston

MKG / Hairston

Zeller / Vonleh / Biz

Al / Vonleh / Bach

Much much better and deeper team. Not to mention more exciting.

Pretty stupid post all around

Sent from my SCH-I545 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[ThinkAboutIt]

You are deeply under rating MKG. You truly don't have a clue what this kid could be at 23 do you??

We would regret giving this kid up for a Hayward, Stevenson or Hendo if this scenario were to happen.

 

Conjecture. But at least you said, "could," yet somehow you think talking about what MKG "could be" is more legitimate than arguments about what HBJB "could be." 

 

How many years did you give MKG to develop a shot when he was about to be drafted, and does he look like he's on schedule for that? If that kind of sign and trade went down, I'd rather trade Zeller than MKG, myself, but wouldn't lose any sleep over either. 

 

Since trading a young player means you're "giving up on" them, how would you feel about "giving up on" Zeller, as opposed to MKG?

[Jakob]

For the 1000th time, you can play any player anywhere you want to play them. Doesn't mean that's where they should be played.

 

I have explained why I would rather have Stephenson than Hayward. (PPG matters less to me than %'s. Stephenson was the 4th option for most of the season for the Pacers behind George, West and Hibbert, and like DraftXPress shows in their breakdowns, Stephenson shot 54% from 2pts and 35% from 3pts, while Hayward was were 45% and 30%, respectively.)

 

If they bring Hayward in here, he should play SF even if that means moving MKG to SG despite the fact that he can't shoot. Individually, Hayward plays better at SF than SG. If he played mostly at SG last season, that probably explains why his FG and 3pt %s both dropped, and is probably a product of who was guarding him at that position. Hayward tended to win his SF matchups the year Jefferson was there and lose his SG matchups, even though the Jazz's lineup with him at SG did better, which likely has more to do with who else was in that lineup, since he did slightly worse individually.  

 

Him averaging more than Stephenson, like I said, is a product of the fact that he was more of a primary option than Stephenson tended to be. Stephenson's percentages were higher, so him averaging less, simply means he took less shots, aka, got fewer opportunities. 

I agree with Hayward playing SF. Mentioning moving MKG to SG makes you look hypocritical. like you said.. "you can play any player anywhere you want to play them. Doesn't mean that's where they should be played."

[carpanfan96]

You are deeply under rating MKG. You truly don't have a clue what this kid could be at 23 do you??

We would regret giving this kid up for a Hayward, Stevenson or Hendo if this scenario were to happen.

I'm like MKG's biggest fan on this forum. Lol I know what MKG means to the defense and what he could become. I just think the benefits of Lance at SG and Hayward at SF playing natural positions added with Big Al and Kemba plus what it would do for the franchise outweigh the potential that MKG might reach. That's a deep playoff team in the east, maybe a finals team depending on Miami.

Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

[carpanfan96]

I agree with Hayward playing SF. Mentioning moving MKG to SG makes you look hypocritical. like you said.. "you can play any player anywhere you want to play them. Doesn't mean that's where they should be played."

MKG for as big as he is has the speed and athleticism to play the 2 on defense and if he develops a shot, he could play the 2 on offense as well. But he would have to develop a semi reliable 3pt shot as well to play the 2 offensively.

Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

[ThinkAboutIt]

I agree with Hayward playing SF. Mentioning moving MKG to SG makes you look hypocritical. like you said.. "you can play any player anywhere you want to play them. Doesn't mean that's where they should be played."

 

It doesn't make me hypocritical. MKG should not be played at the SG, but if you're going to sign Hayward to a big contract, then he needs to play the position that suits him the best, meaning based on the domino effect, you then need to figure out what to do with MKG.

 

MKG could play a Tony Allen (Memphis) role at SG, which I think is more acceptable than Hayward at SG. If not that, then MKG needs to go to the bench or be traded, either of which would make some around here lose their sh!t. 

 

I met them in the middle.

 

Hayward and MKG don't have the same kind of game. 

 

A Tony Allen role for MKG isn't a terrible idea. 

[WOW!!]

Conjecture. But at least you said, "could," yet somehow you think talking about what MKG "could be" is more legitimate than arguments about what HBJB "could be."

How many years did you give MKG to develop a shot when he was about to be drafted, and does he look like he's on schedule for that? If that kind of sign and trade went down, I'd rather trade Zeller than MKG, myself, but wouldn't lose any sleep over either.

Since trading a young player means you're "giving up on" them, how would you feel about "giving up on" Zeller, as opposed to MKG?

Half the time it took Gerald Wallace to get one. The kid was 18 when we drafted him. I'm willing to give him his rookie contract like most teams should do. Special when he has been such a asset in other areas of the team.

I'd personally would trade Cody before MKG because MKG has more upside. But it would be a mistake to give up on either before their rookie contracts have ended. They both were top 5 picks.

[WOW!!]

I'm like MKG's biggest fan on this forum. Lol I know what MKG means to the defense and what he could become. I just think the benefits of Lance at SG and Hayward at SF playing natural positions added with Big Al and Kemba plus what it would do for the franchise outweigh the potential that MKG might reach. That's a deep playoff team in the east, maybe a finals team depending on Miami.

Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

That team isn't as good as you think it will be.

Another thing that makes MKG so good for team is his willingness to do all the dirty work. I don't think Gordon or Stephenson is willing to take a back seat to each other. 1 of the wing guys has to sacrifice his offense for the team.

Lance may have been willing to that with Paul Geroge but I doubt he is for Gordon.

[WOW!!]

MKG for as big as he is has the speed and athleticism to play the 2 on defense and if he develops a shot, he could play the 2 on offense as well. But he would have to develop a semi reliable 3pt shot as well to play the 2 offensively.

Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

It really doesn't matter what positional title you put on them. When they are on the court together. Hayward will get offensive plays ran for him and MkG will guard the best offensive wing on the other team. With them 2 together the SG and SF positions will be interchangeable.

So your whole thing about who can and can't play a position is irrelevant.

[ThinkAboutIt]

Half the time it took Gerald Wallace to get one. The kid was 18 when we drafted him. I'm willing to give him his rookie contract like most teams should do. Special when he has been such a asset in other areas of the team.

I'd personally would trade Cody before MKG because MKG has more upside. But it would be a mistake to give up on either before their rookie contracts have ended. They both were top 5 picks.

 

Gerald Wallace didn't develop a shot on his first team.

 

You only give him his rookie contract to get it together if his value towards the end of it isn't going to drop too much in case you want to move him for something better right now. 

 

It's only been two seasons. That's probably too early to trade him unless you believe what you're getting back is so good that you can't pass it up, but after his third season, he probably will be traded if his production doesn't increase significantly.

 

Three seasons is enough time to make a decision without feeling like the player has lost too much (potential) value, or that you haven't given him a fair chance. 

[carolina-chuck]

MAX100000000000

[TheMaulClaw]

Our 2nd and third option now is so awesome we should stand pat? The playoffs got embarassing quick on offense when Kemba was not on. Other than MKG with his one game no one else stood up. Josh McRoberts was our best player for most the series btw..

We can sign Hayward and Lance and if Big Al goes down in the playoffs we're still toast.

[WOW!!]

Gerald Wallace didn't develop a shot on his first team.

You only give him his rookie contract to get it together if his value towards the end of it isn't going to drop too much in case you want to move him for something better right now.

It's only been two seasons. That's probably too early to trade him unless you believe what you're getting back is so good that you can't pass it up, but after his third season, he probably will be traded if his production doesn't increase significantly.

Three seasons is enough time to make a decision without feeling like the player has lost too much (potential) value, or that you haven't given him a fair chance.

Like I said his rookie contract.