Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Playing our youth is a win win for everyone.

Eazy-E

By Eazy-E,
in Charlotte Hornets

Recommended Posts

Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
Posted

The starting line up for the rest of the season should look something like Kemba-Malik-Miles-Frank-Cody. All of these guys should be getting around 30 minutes a game. Graham and Bacon should be getting some second unit minutes. Guys like Parker, Marvin, and Batum should not be getting major minutes anymore.

At this point it would be hard to be much worse than we already are. Best case is our young guys step up and we miraculously make the playoffs. Worst case is we lose out and increase our lottery odds. It would be tanking without actually trying to tank and our young guys would get some much needed experience and maybe actually develop for once.

Try to re-sign Kemba and possibly Frank. Let Lamb walk, decline Parker's option, and do what ever you can to try and trade Biz, Batum. If we can't, buy them out. Pray Marv and MKg decline their player options but if they don't you can still try and trade them as they will be decent expiring contracts.

Roll with the same starting line up next season along with a new first rounder and maybe another if we are able to trade anyone.

We still need to try to win but we need to be doing it with our young draft picks not washed up vets on bloated contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
  • Author
Posted
22 minutes ago, rhyslloyd said:

I'm with you here.  I definitely want to see what the young guys can do just so we know for sure, but I honestly don't think it's much.   

That is my point. They literally can’t be any worse. If we had played the starting lineup I mentioned all season, I bet our win total difference would only be around +/- 5 games. 

I mean our highest paid player who plays the second most minutes on the team doesn’t even average 10 points. His defensive impact and thing like that are not enough to offset his offensive shortcomings. So on the analytical side of things, if a player takes on the same role, plays worse defense but scores more points they even each other out. Basically we still suck. So why not play the young player with potential?

This goes back to not understanding why we dont just trade out first round picks every year. We draft these players and let them rot on the bench and never develop them and just consider them busts. It’s not like we’re a 50+ win team and our expensive vet players are actually any good. People are already calling Monk a bust. I can almost guarantee you if we drafted Mitchell he would be in the exact same position as Monk here. Instead he is thriving in Utah. Do you really think Clifford would have taken minutes from Batum and given them to a rookie last year?

This is why after we re-signed Batum I wanted to trade the pick we used on Monk to trade for Lou Williams because it was almost a guarantee who ever we drafted wouldn’t play their rookie year. So for a team always talking about trying to make the playoffs it made absolutely no sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
  • Author
Posted
30 minutes ago, Thelt said:

I suspect this will happen if we lose a few more games.  I do not think they are ready to give up on the playoffs yet.  Giving up too soon might have a big negative impact on our chances at retaining Kemba. 

Not making any moves at the trade deadline might come back to bite us. 

This isn’t giving up on the playoffs. It is our last hope at actually trying to make them. We already know we have a very slim chance at making it with guys like Batum and Marvin starting, but rolling with the young guys is a complete unknown. Regardless If we win out or lose every game, the outcome is a good thing for the future of this team. We either get a good draft pick or make the playoffs, all while our youth gets some much needed experience.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhyslloyd Enthusiast

rhyslloyd

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Eazy-E said:

That is my point. They literally can’t be any worse. If we had played the starting lineup I mentioned all season, I bet our win total difference would only be around +/- 5 games. 

I mean our highest paid player who plays the second most minutes on the team doesn’t even average 10 points. His defensive impact and thing like that are not enough to offset his offensive shortcomings. So on the analytical side of things, if a player takes on the same role, plays worse defense but scores more points they even each other out. Basically we still suck. So why not play the young player with potential?

This goes back to not understanding why we dont just trade out first round picks every year. We draft these players and let them rot on the bench and never develop them and just consider them busts. It’s not like we’re a 50+ win team and our expensive vet players are actually any good. People are already calling Monk a bust. I can almost guarantee you if we drafted Mitchell he would be in the exact same position as Monk here. Instead he is thriving in Utah. Do you really think Clifford would have taken minutes from Batum and given them to a rookie last year?

This is why after we re-signed Batum I wanted to trade the pick we used on Monk to trade for Lou Williams because it was almost a guarantee who ever we drafted wouldn’t play their rookie year. So for a team always talking about trying to make the playoffs it made absolutely no sense.

 

For sure.  Batum's deal is the real albatross here. 

I'll admit I'm one of the ones who hasn't been impressed at all by Monk (granted, in a small sample because he doesn't play), and Bridges might as well start throwing the ball at the rim one handed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, rhyslloyd said:

For sure.  Batum's deal is the real albatross here. 

I'll admit I'm one of the ones who hasn't been impressed at all by Monk (granted, in a small sample because he doesn't play), and Bridges might as well start throwing the ball at the rim one handed.

And the sad thing is the guys who are making 5 times as much as them with 10 years of experience aren’t really doing any better but they still get to play.

Why aren’t they getting benched for playing like poo every night?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
djp14 Community Regular

djp14

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Eazy-E said:

 They literally can’t be any worse.

Record wise, probably not. But it's probably a difference between losing games by 4 pts versus losing them by 16.

Right now they're only 1 game out of the playoffs. Barring an extended losing streak, I don't see them throwing in the towel anytime soon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
M_Loop Newbie

M_Loop

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, My Goodness My Guinness said:

Please lord we better keep Bacon. Ever since he’s begun starting we’ve been winning

good replacement for Lamb, size at the SG/SF
room to improve
on the rookie contract

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...