You've already heard the argument, and it's a pretty rock-solid one. Again, he wasn't the Knicks GM at the time most of these trades were made. Nor am I sure he was even the coach when they made some of the trades that resulted in the loss of their first rounder like in 1998 (btw, I should say that JVG really didn't play Sean Marks very much - especially later in 1998 when he was packaged along with spry youngster Charles Oakley to Toronto in exchange for grizzled veteran Marcus Camby.) Anyway, if we're going to call coaches rookie haters who won't play them we're going to have to give Rudy that label who traded many over his tenure in Rocket land - of course he wasn't the GM either - but...
Well, he does play and then start Strickland (although being an emergency situation), who sucked. End of argument.
I think it's something he has from his days under Pat Riley. Riley was notorious for not wanting rookies on his team or in his lineup. I think Van Gundy has this in his mind too, he's just not as extreme as Riley. I'm sure if Van Gundy had a rookie worth a damn, he'd play him.
OK so Van Gundy's track record in Houston is now a grand total of one first round pick traded as part of the Glen Rice deal - the first year in which we were pick-less was the result of the Francis trade.
The day he plays a rookie or shows signs of developing a young talent I will change it. I bet Barrett is about to hit the IR. BTW, We still have the 1st round pick for him to trade during the offseason.
"develop young talent" is a stupid phrase that Van Gundy bashers like to use. Rudy didn't "develop" talent. Management drafted some players who were talented and worked hard and prospered, and some that didn't. It wasn't because of any "developing" of Rudy's that Steve Francis became an all star or Sam Cassell or whatever. Coaches in the NBA don't develop talent. This is a players league, either they have it and apply themselves and prosper or they don't.
Ask Byron Scott what, how to develop young players? Do you think Richard Jefferson wasn't going to be a good player unless he played for Scott? Kenyon Martin? What are you getting at? What role did Scott play in their development? These guys were excellent players from about the first day they took the floor for the Nets. I'll tell you what doesn't look so hot: the argument that JVG trades "all" of the Rockets first round picks - which was based on the fake rumor that we sent a first rounder to New York today- when in fact we did the opposite. We didnt' trade picks to New York, we traded for a second rounder from New York.
Would you have played Boki in front of T-Mac or JJ? Would you have played Gaines in front of Sura or Wesley? Bottom line is, you only play a rookie if he's ready to play. Not just because sometime down the line he might become a decent player. JVG hasn't been given any Jermaine O'Neal or Zach Randolph in Portland situations. He just hasn't had any good, unproven rookies to play. You don't force a rookie who isn't ready to play into the starting lineup of a playoff contender (which JVG has always had). It's a pretty simple concept, I think. Name one NBA player who was forced into the starting lineup too early and became a better player because of it. The only one I can think of is Dirk, and he got benched pretty quickly by Nellie when it became clear that he wasn't ready.
"I didn't put him into good situation by playing him at SG, it may hinder his development" -- see where I'm getting at? Coachs may not develop talent, but they do develop players. Yours is a serious overstatement. And I've said it. He played Strickland, which is a serious blow to your "rock-solid" argument.
No, sorry. It's not the end of the story. The STORY is this. If an NBA player comes in, and is of the caliber of say.....Tyron Lue....you say, "Ok, I'll give him a shot." But guess what? After a while that player kinda hits a wall. He's not going to get much better. Then, let say you get a player named Sam Cassell. And that player, who is a little different than Lue in talent (wouldn't ya say?), ends up getting better and better each and every year. How? By being involved in all the Rox's training camps and practices, spending time with trainers on the team each year. Then, each game he'll get a little more PT. It's a normal progression. If he does NOT show improvements, even with all this training....well.... There's only so much you can do with a player. If he has the talent and skills. Well, then he'll take (listen and learn) what the coach shows him and grow as a player. This idea that a coach is SUPPOSED to turn every single rookie that comes into the league into some type of Cat Mobley is crazy. Saying "Developing a player" is just an easy way to gloss over the details of all that goes into how/who/when/why a player is able to get better. Do you think that just uttering the phrase "develop young man!" is going to make that player better? We're not talking about a magic dust, here. You have to realize that a coach's job is to win a title. And if once in a while a diamond in the rough rookie comes along (usually a 1st round PICK!), then you play that guy. But it's UP that THAT player to show the improvement. If he keeps making mistakes, over and over....well. It's just not worth it. Note: A 2006 draft pick is NOT a guarantee that he'll play on any team, much less ours. The PLAYER is in charge of his own destiny. If he shows improvement, he'll get PT. If not....fade to black.
I think some of us here are confusing "rookies" with "good players." Sometimes, you'll get a rookie that is a big time name; like LeBron, Amare, Yao or say.....Oakafor. But lets not kid ourselves. Low 1st rounders or 2nd rounders are all *risks!* Sometimes you'll get lucky with a Cassell, Nick Van Excel or Mobley. But those are rare. Most just wallow in the lower end of the spectrum and become bench warmers if that.
JuanValdez, you make a good observation....and...Yes, this is true. But ask yourself what you would do in a coaches situation, bust after bust, after bust, after bust....? How many jobs would you get fired over? It's about risk assessment. Like I said before. Sometimes you will get lucky with a good 2nd rounder that actually shows potential and proves it. But most of the time not. Well, unless you get a high 1st rounder rookie. But that's a lotto pick. Kinda different that what we are talking about.
I once bought a Yugo. I spent thousands of dollars customizing it and "developing" it. It's still a Yugo.
I have no clue what you are talking about. But I find it quite funny that you think Byron Scott is a player developer. Please elaborate as to the other player development coaches in the league and why, I need to know this information. Why, because we have 29% shooting hotshot rookie Andre Barrett in reserve who Van Gundy is ignoring? ARe you freaking serious? Even if Barrett IS worth a damn as an NBA player, he hasn't exactly been buried. Oh, and in the last two games, Strickland has played 41 minutes total, Barret has played 34 minutes, he's not getting a chance?
I don't know about that... A lot of very good players have come from the late 1st, early 2nd round from just the last couple years... Kirilenko, Redd, Boozer, Parker, Dalembert, Arenas, Tinsley, Josh Howard, Ginobili, Prince... Some quality players if you know where to look. I wouldn't disregard a first rounder, even a late one, as quickly as that. Just my opinion.
