I’m no fan of Yaxel, but this is blatantly incorrect. Most college teams don’t trot out freshmen unless they’re NBA bound. Teams are mostly playing sophomores, juniors, and seniors. You’d have a better point if you said he was doing this against poor competition - which Saint Louis was. The player he dunked on is probably a future accountant.
We can agree to disagree on this point, as we have for years. There is a new class of freshmen every year. The best go to the NBA after one season, leaving the sophomore class weaker than it was as a freshman class. After the sophomore year, another scrape happens, leaving the junior class even weaker than it was as a freshman class.
We can agree to disagree on how misleading it is to say that Yaxel was going against a team full of 18 year olds… sure. That was an unnecessary hyperbole, is all I’m saying.
They’re not garbage, but to extrapolate a further large development jump is probably unwise. My opinion, which you do not share, is that they are what they are. Looking,and saying they’re really good, and could be great is a mistake that multiple GMs have made.
I'd agree with what you say if we're talking about prospects who would likely spend most of their rookie scale contracts recovering or developing rather than being productive and you get little to nothing out of it. But if you think you have a gem and you feel like they can contribute during their rookie contract, just take them and deal with it later.
Then you let him go, having used up all of his cheap rookie contract years. Honestly, throwing a MAX contract at that archetype is a mistake you should let someone else make. Bam’s contract is one of the worst in the league.
But that's the point, right? If you're drafting raw toolsy players and developing them, then their impact is probably going to be less in their cheap rookie years. I use JQ as a prime example because not only is he super raw, but he's also got major injury concerns as well. But in order to develop them, you've got to give them minutes where they are usually going to be a negative on the court. For every Carter Bryant, you might have to put up with 4 years of Tidjane Salaun or Cody Williams-level impact. Jalen Duren was a negative impact player for his first two years, became net neutral his third year, and is now an all-star his fourth year just in time for when you have to pay him a bunch of money. I guess you can sign and trade these guys, but you're still losing value over the course of their cheap rookie contract.
You get four years of cheap. If he doesn’t pop,you get him cheap on the follow on. If he does, you probably still get two cheap high production years. If he’s terrible, you let him roll off. Honestly,you won’t get stuck with a Salaun. If we drafted Malaki or Blake now,they wouldn’t get all of their options picked up. That was a case of roster filling on a tanking team.
But how is that...having to trade out a talent ..a liability? If the Spurs can't afford to keep Quantaince or a talent like that because they can't afford him..they can always sell him high and use that trade for high draft picks which they can use for trades too, right? I see no downside/risk in talking a talent who then hits at a good time but gets unaffordable.
Can he defend tho?
No he cannot. He'd be third-string bench fodder on the Spurs or any other contending team for that reason. He turns 24 in September and is a below-average athlete by NBA standards, which is why he'll be a 2nd round Pick. But for a 3rd stringer, you could do worse than a 6'8 knock-down shooter tbh.
I think my point is that the argument of "Maxime didn't want to come here so we didn't draft him" is based on a very specific set of static assumptions.
This is the way
I think this is a really important point but also highlights how there is a practical limit to stacking your team up through successive tank jobs.
Just another Drew Timme... slow, unathletic... FIFTH YEAR SENIOR...
