Wait? So you think anybody cares that he should have been drafted top 15 in a draft 3 years ago? Why would they when they can see what player he is now? Why would anybody care about minutes played when trading for a guy or for value, either you like the guy or you don't it does not matter how many minutes he played on another team because you should have your own ideas of how many minutes he should play.
Tate does have a high skill level as a playmaker and a defender. KJ does not have tremendous upside, he does one thing at a high level, run and jump, the 2 most readily available skills available. KJ would not get consistent minutes from the heat nor the suns he would be getting garbage minutes, name anybody on those teams who is in the rotation that he would replace?
This thread highlights that KMJr is a polarizing player--exciting athleticism combined with an improved shot at 21 has me rethinking trading him. Considering who's interested in him, as someone pointed out, should also be reason to pause and think through any deal offered. Some interesting points made in the comparison with Tate. They're really different players and both can play bench/spot start roles. If KMJr or Tate can help us deal EG and get a better overall return, then Stone probably has to do it. However, giving either play away at this stage isn't wise.
You basically admit that he has high-level upside athletically, which is a good start. He is also an above-average 3pt shooter, has good BB IQ in terms of playing within the flow of the team, not being caught out of position or playing undisciplined, and gets his points very efficiently (TS% of 59 and 60 his first two years). He probably won't become a playmaker, it is true. But he plays the 3/4. We're describing an extremely valuable role player at the very least, a legitimate starter on most teams. With his profile he can fit on pretty much any roster in the league. He doesn't have any glaring weaknesses. Given his athleticism I think its fair to assume he'll get better defensively with more experience. On the Suns he would probably take Crowder's role. In Miami, JBut doesn't like having to play the 4 spot so that's probably a contributing factor to their interest.
Huh? The dude has gotten consistent minutes averaging 21minutes in 45 games as a rookie and 23minutes in 79 games in year two. Acting like he was jilted or relegated to the bench is disingenuous.
What does him having high level upside athletically have to do with anything? Him being a above average 3 pt shooter is debatable because he does not have the number of attempts to say that or the history and he has not done it in crunch situations. He does not have a high BB IQ and in the pre season he is jacking up a lot of shots and many of them are bad and not in the flow. Nothing he does is extremely valuable everything he does offensively is because of others, and we have two other guys who play the same position that do almost everything better than he does, especially on defense. He does have glaring weaknesses HE IS BAD DEFENSIVELY, he can't create his own shot and he is a tweener who really does not have a position. Crowder is much better defensively and is a better all around offensive player. He would never play in Miami because he is bad at defense and is not so good at defense to overcome that, if the benched Duncan Robinson why would you think they would not bench KMJ? So why are Tari and Smith as rookies already much better at defense than KMJ if all it takes is experience? It's amazing how these fringe type guys get a cult following, and people always default to best case scenarios when the truth is staring them in the face.
Where is the evidence of this? Is there any non "looked up a bunch of stuff on bb reference" evidence of this? Like outside commentators or something? Again, my only experience that I recall is highlight reel type blocks. That doesn't make him a good on-ball defender but again, i don't recall him as being particularly bad compared to the rest of the Rockets players last season. The whole team was broken and sucked. Even veterans with solid reputations like Gordon were terrible. I just don't get where this comes from. I also think his ceiling (very athletic, plays much bigger than 6-6 due to his leaping ability) gives him a lot of upside here.
KJM’s main weakness is his hands And handle All that altheticism is moot if he gets stripped on the way up . it factors in to not making him a good passer / creator . defensively . I’m not sure he has a “weakness” he’s just not good . he gets some nice highlight blocks , but a flashy block does not equal good D . He needs a few more years of seasoning . Imo not worth developing (aka giving PT ) over tari , bari , Tate , sengun , garuba , jc and prolly a few more .
How good is Tate defensively? From when I watch, Tate is a lot better than KMJ as defense tends to fall apart (i.e., even worse than it was) when Tate leaves for KMJ. I've always taken it that Tate is above average and KMJ is below average. I'm not comfortable with saying how good Tate would be defensively if KMJ is assumed to be average instead of bad. Also, KMJ is still young. The assumption should be he's bad on defense unless there's actually statistical evidence like stuff on bb reference (not including traditional stats like steals and blocks).
This is pretty simple to measure via on-off. The Rockets defense is almost unchanged when Martin is on and off the court. Goes from 117.4 with him off (worst in the league) to 118.5 (also, worst in the league). So, I guess you can say it gets slightly worse, but, not by much. Offense is actually where they get a bit of a gain (111 on, 107 off.) Tate's on-off is basially a mirror image. Overall Martin was +2.6 net to Tate's -1.1 net. However, like I said, using team stats on a team designed to be bad is pretty weird in this context, so I wouldn't read to much into it. But, if the slight decline is "falling apart" due to Martin, it's more than made up for by the offensive gains.
I think you have to ask yourself, if he was in the draft now, where would he get taken? I think he’s a mid first round talent easily. If you look at what he has already accomplished in the NBA at 21 years of age, I’d rather have a known commodity like that over the unknown of a late first round draft pick. None of it really matters if he doesn’t want to be here though.
He has two years left on his deal whereas a rookie would have many more. How much money are we tying up in KJ? Would it be better to have a rookie on a bargain deal for 5 years or KJ on a mid level deal? Considering the increasing logjam at forward and other more important players we have to pay in the coming years, I'd rather have the pick.
That is fair. I don’t know what is offered. Most with foresight wanted Tate gone so we were not put in this situation. Clutch went so far to make a thread stating as much. Tate was resigned because he was not traded. Stone has done a great job. Constructive criticism is holds on to players to long.
I would keep Martin, because he is part of this Athletic Team we have. This is JALEN GREEN TEAM! He needs people to play with his athletic capabilities. Martin can shoot, jump and run. He is just a guy who can come off the bench, shoot the threes and run and gun. Keep him.
His play has been impressive. With Tate, Eason, and KMJ - you have to really start figuring out what to do with EG and Mathews as there just aren't enough minutes to go around.
