*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (7 Viewers)

[Abraham]

To each his own. I was pretty low (and completely wrong) on Harden becoming the Man. I thought he would have had a significant decrease in his efficiency and have an upside of Joe Johnson and downside of Ben Gordan. Those guys get big money and don't exactly lead you to championships. I'd much rather have the big who is going to give you 16-20/10 and a couple blocks (which I think Valanciunas will get to in a few years) than a less than efficient wing.

Agree. Never saw Harden as Gordon but thought Johnson or Ellis was reasonable - a guy that chucks it a lot and sometimes gets hot. He's been better than that and is not really tradeable. But I agree that 6 months ago there was very little reason to dog on a GM that held on to a 20 year old 7 footer over a wing player.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

The Oklahoma City Thunder spoke to the Toronto Raptors about a trade centered on James Harden for Jonas Valanciunas.

The Raptors 'quickly rebuffed' the interest from Sam Presti in the trade.

The Thunder eventually traded Harden to the Rockets while also acquiring the Raptors' lottery guaranteed pick.

Valanciunas averaged 8.9 points and 6.0 rebounds in 23.9 minutes per game during his rookie season.

Via Bill Simmons/ESPN

This has blown up on the Raptors boards but it really shouldn't surprise anyone as Colangelo is a horrible, horrible GM when it comes to player evaluation. He's probably still going to get an extension.

Hind sight is awesome isn't it?

If he had actually hit on one or two draft picks or signings, I might have given him the benefit of the doubt here. But he is basically 0 for everything so far in his tenure in Toronto.

Oh he has been terrible. But not giving up Valanciunas and a lottery pick for Harden at the time is completely defensible.

We don't know that they asked for a lottery pick as well. I would think they asked for Val and Davis or Derozan or both. If they asked for Val and a lottery pick, I would agree with you. Harden for Val and Derozan, or even Val, Derozan, and Davis however, is a no brainer.

The problem with this, is that me, you and all the morons going irrate on message boards had NO IDEA about Valanciunas. None. Zero. They may have seen a couple international games from an 18-19 year old big. Hardly enough to form an opinion. Meanwhile, we didn't hear a single bad thing said about the pick when it happened and there have been plenty of reports saying he would have been the #2 pick last year if he was eligible.

Exactly. I'm thankful Harden is on the Rockets but even the most enthusiastic homer would tell you no one expected him to be this good. 20 points a few assist and a few boards with room to grow? Yes. 26 / 6 / and 5 with no decent shooters to pass to but Parsons and Delfino? I don't even think Morey expected that.

Jonas is a 20 year old 7 footer who has been highly thought of for 4 or 5 years. Since February he has the look of a guy that might be 18/9/2blocks, which is the type of player that is hard to come by. In hindsight trading for Harden would have been a good idea. Knowing what we knew then, no so much. ANd I won't be the least bit shocked to see Jonas be an all NBA center by the time he is Harden's age in 4 years.

Agree with both. Didn't see Harden being this good. I think the offense they have in place is a huge help for him.

Jonas was definitely a bright spot down the stretch for Toronto and has a good looking future. Kind of reminds me of Asik but, you know, he has hands.

 

[hxperson]

The Oklahoma City Thunder spoke to the Toronto Raptors about a trade centered on James Harden for Jonas Valanciunas.

The Raptors 'quickly rebuffed' the interest from Sam Presti in the trade.

The Thunder eventually traded Harden to the Rockets while also acquiring the Raptors' lottery guaranteed pick.

Valanciunas averaged 8.9 points and 6.0 rebounds in 23.9 minutes per game during his rookie season.

Via Bill Simmons/ESPN

This has blown up on the Raptors boards but it really shouldn't surprise anyone as Colangelo is a horrible, horrible GM when it comes to player evaluation. He's probably still going to get an extension.

Hind sight is awesome isn't it?

If he had actually hit on one or two draft picks or signings, I might have given him the benefit of the doubt here. But he is basically 0 for everything so far in his tenure in Toronto.

Oh he has been terrible. But not giving up Valanciunas and a lottery pick for Harden at the time is completely defensible.

We don't know that they asked for a lottery pick as well. I would think they asked for Val and Davis or Derozan or both. If they asked for Val and a lottery pick, I would agree with you. Harden for Val and Derozan, or even Val, Derozan, and Davis however, is a no brainer.

The problem with this, is that me, you and all the morons going irrate on message boards had NO IDEA about Valanciunas. None. Zero. They may have seen a couple international games from an 18-19 year old big. Hardly enough to form an opinion. Meanwhile, we didn't hear a single bad thing said about the pick when it happened and there have been plenty of reports saying he would have been the #2 pick last year if he was eligible.

That's a fair point. Its not how I would manage a franchise but I guess it is defensible. I do really like Valanciunas and his play in the last two months of the season makes me think he's got multiple All star games in his future.

To each his own. I was pretty low (and completely wrong) on Harden becoming the Man. I thought he would have had a significant decrease in his efficiency and have an upside of Joe Johnson and downside of Ben Gordan. Those guys get big money and don't exactly lead you to championships. I'd much rather have the big who is going to give you 16-20/10 and a couple blocks (which I think Valanciunas will get to in a few years) than a less than efficient wing.

I always saw Harden as a Paul Pierce clone with slightly better athleticism. He's always had a great ability to get to the basket and draw contact like Pierce, along with a good 3 point shot. He's been more efficient in Houston than I thought he would be, however, as I had suspected his efficiency in OKC might have been due to playing with strong teammates.

 

[Abraham]

Jonas was definitely a bright spot down the stretch for Toronto and has a good looking future. Kind of reminds me of Asik but, you know, he has hands.

Asik with an offense is a top-5 center EASILY.

 

[Kev4029]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column.

Greivis Vasquez (50) - Hes a nice passer but hes not a very good basketball player and he can't defend or score, plus hes 26 years old so he is just about at the pinnacle of his play anyway. Hes below the Ramon Sessions (less than a year older than Vasquez) /Jeremy Lin tier of PGs.

Klay Thompson (47) - He regressed in his second year, and can't do much with the ball other than shoot it. There are probably at least 15 or 20 better players at his position and SG is not an especially deep position.

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column.

Greivis Vasquez (50) - Hes a nice passer but hes not a very good basketball player and he can't defend or score, plus hes 26 years old so he is just about at the pinnacle of his play anyway. Hes below the Ramon Sessions (less than a year older than Vasquez) /Jeremy Lin tier of PGs.

Klay Thompson (47) - He regressed in his second year, and can't do much with the ball other than shoot it. There are probably at least 15 or 20 better players at his position and SG is not an especially deep position.

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

The Jeremy Lin of 2013? I didn't catch any Orlando games (thankfully) but Harris was instrumental in my fantasy league title.

 

[Abraham]

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

Disagree. He's only 20 so there is room for growth. 17, 8.5, and 2 to go with a block and a half each game is pretty good.

 

[scoobus]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column.

Greivis Vasquez (50) - Hes a nice passer but hes not a very good basketball player and he can't defend or score, plus hes 26 years old so he is just about at the pinnacle of his play anyway. Hes below the Ramon Sessions (less than a year older than Vasquez) /Jeremy Lin tier of PGs.

Klay Thompson (47) - He regressed in his second year, and can't do much with the ball other than shoot it. There are probably at least 15 or 20 better players at his position and SG is not an especially deep position.

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

Agreed on all accounts, especially Vasquez.

 

[Kev4029]

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

Disagree. He's only 20 so there is room for growth. 17, 8.5, and 2 to go with a block and a half each game is pretty good.

What do you see as his ceiling? Tweener 3/4 types pretty much grow on trees and the only three who I can think of that have had a real impact (something that you would possibly call a top 50 player) are Shawn Marion, Antwan Jamison and Paul Millsap. Harris is nowhere near as skilled as Millsap or Jamison and he is nothing even close to the athlete and defender Marion was. For the most part tweeners are meant for a bench role similar to Thad Young.

For the sake of Simmons and his column, do you think that if Orlando was offered Faried, Valenciunas, Drummond, Kanter or even some of his honorable mention guys like Gallinari, Pierce, MKG, Gordon Hayward, Mike Conley Jr or just about any of the other 15 guys he mentioned that they would decline that trade? #### no. Putting Harris that high is crazy.

 

[Kev4029]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column.

Greivis Vasquez (50) - Hes a nice passer but hes not a very good basketball player and he can't defend or score, plus hes 26 years old so he is just about at the pinnacle of his play anyway. Hes below the Ramon Sessions (less than a year older than Vasquez) /Jeremy Lin tier of PGs.

Klay Thompson (47) - He regressed in his second year, and can't do much with the ball other than shoot it. There are probably at least 15 or 20 better players at his position and SG is not an especially deep position.

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

The Jeremy Lin of 2013? I didn't catch any Orlando games (thankfully) but Harris was instrumental in my fantasy league title.

Pretty much other than at least Lin plays an important position. SFs are probably the most replacable position in the NBA.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Kind of surprised that Simmons didn't give Amir Johnson an honorable mention. The "horrible" contract that he was given is looking pretty good right now. Hard to believe that he is only 25 (26 in May) and has 8 years in the league under his belt. Always near the top of the league is FG% and TS%. Good rebounding numbers. Got his foul issues under control (though he still led the league this year). Showing some 3 point range down the stretch this year. His On/Off numbers are ridiculous:

<pasting code now really sucks so I'm just going to put this link here>

I doubt anyone in the league can match those numbers (ETA: LeBron +15.2, Johnson +15.3). He'll never get much attention though because he'll never be more than a 12-13 ppg guy.

 

[DrJ]

4. Kevin Garnett (Celtics), 3 years, $36 million
3. Tim Duncan (Spurs): 3 years, $30.4 million

You know what's amazing about these guys other than the stuff you already knew was amazing? It's Year 18 for Garnett and Year 16 for Duncan, although Duncan is older by 3.5 weeks (they're both 36). Including playoffs, they've logged over 100,000 minutes combined already. They played 40 minutes a night at their peaks; now they play 30 minutes a night. But check out their per-36-minute numbers for this season and their careers as a whole.

Duncan, 2013: 20.3 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 4.2 SBPG,7 49% FG, 81% FT, 23.8 PER
Duncan, career: 20.6 PPG, 11.5 RPG, 3.1 APG, 3.1 SBPG , 51% FG, 69% FT, 24.7 PER
Garnett, 2013: 17.9 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 2.7 APG, 2.5 SBPG, 50% FG, 78% FT, 19.4 PER
Garnett, career: 19.0 PPG, 10.4 RPG, 3.9 APG, 2.8 SBPG, 50% FG, 79% FT, 23.2 PER

Isn't that crazy? They're playing 25 percent less, but with little to no difference in per-minute efficiency and no real signs of decline. Even better, they took hometown discounts so their teams could build around them a little more easily. You know, like what Kobe did with the Lakers — only the exact opposite.

 

[Premier]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

 

[Premier]

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

Disagree. He's only 20 so there is room for growth. 17, 8.5, and 2 to go with a block and a half each game is pretty good.

What do you see as his ceiling? Tweener 3/4 types pretty much grow on trees and the only three who I can think of that have had a real impact (something that you would possibly call a top 50 player) are Shawn Marion, Antwan Jamison and Paul Millsap. Harris is nowhere near as skilled as Millsap or Jamison and he is nothing even close to the athlete and defender Marion was. For the most part tweeners are meant for a bench role similar to Thad Young. For the sake of Simmons and his column, do you think that if Orlando was offered Faried, Valenciunas, Drummond, Kanter or even some of his honorable mention guys like Gallinari, Pierce, MKG, Gordon Hayward, Mike Conley Jr or just about any of the other 15 guys he mentioned that they would decline that trade? #### no. Putting Harris that high is crazy.

I'm sure they would do Drummond or Kanter or Valen. Pierce? WTF would they want with Pierce? Conley? No. Hayward? No.

 

[Abraham]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

 

[Mile High]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Never seen him play either and bad teams have players who put up stats. Premier seems to know basketball and likes him so I'll roll with that.

 

[Kev4029]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

 

[Kev4029]

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

Disagree. He's only 20 so there is room for growth. 17, 8.5, and 2 to go with a block and a half each game is pretty good.

What do you see as his ceiling? Tweener 3/4 types pretty much grow on trees and the only three who I can think of that have had a real impact (something that you would possibly call a top 50 player) are Shawn Marion, Antwan Jamison and Paul Millsap. Harris is nowhere near as skilled as Millsap or Jamison and he is nothing even close to the athlete and defender Marion was. For the most part tweeners are meant for a bench role similar to Thad Young. For the sake of Simmons and his column, do you think that if Orlando was offered Faried, Valenciunas, Drummond, Kanter or even some of his honorable mention guys like Gallinari, Pierce, MKG, Gordon Hayward, Mike Conley Jr or just about any of the other 15 guys he mentioned that they would decline that trade? #### no. Putting Harris that high is crazy.

I'm sure they would do Drummond or Kanter or Valen. Pierce? WTF would they want with Pierce? Conley? No. Hayward? No.

What is the ceiling for Harris? I just don't see a very high ceiling for a player that can't shoot and can't guard either position he would play.

 

[Abraham]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

 

[Kev4029]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column.

ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

 

[Abraham]

Oh, I see. Yes, does seem a stretch that he would be in the "second best player on the team" role if Leonard and parsons (two other quality small forwards, albeit with different skills) don't make the cut.

As a note, Jonas is way too low. There aren't twenty five player in the league that Toronto would trade him for.

 

[Premier]

ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

This is extremely disingenuous and you know it. He was strapped to the Bucks bench with no chance to play meaningful minutes for 85% of the year.

 

[Britney Spears]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column. ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

Not necessarily disagreeing with some of the Tobias negatives, but he's shown major talent flashes in a very short amount of time, and he's very young. IMO many teams would give up quite a lot for that based on the upside. Could he plateau or turn into someone like Jason Thompson? Absolutely. But we know upside is highly valued and he's shown it.

 

[Premier]

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

Disagree. He's only 20 so there is room for growth. 17, 8.5, and 2 to go with a block and a half each game is pretty good.

What do you see as his ceiling? Tweener 3/4 types pretty much grow on trees and the only three who I can think of that have had a real impact (something that you would possibly call a top 50 player) are Shawn Marion, Antwan Jamison and Paul Millsap. Harris is nowhere near as skilled as Millsap or Jamison and he is nothing even close to the athlete and defender Marion was. For the most part tweeners are meant for a bench role similar to Thad Young. For the sake of Simmons and his column, do you think that if Orlando was offered Faried, Valenciunas, Drummond, Kanter or even some of his honorable mention guys like Gallinari, Pierce, MKG, Gordon Hayward, Mike Conley Jr or just about any of the other 15 guys he mentioned that they would decline that trade? #### no. Putting Harris that high is crazy.

I'm sure they would do Drummond or Kanter or Valen. Pierce? WTF would they want with Pierce? Conley? No. Hayward? No.

What is the ceiling for Harris? I just don't see a very high ceiling for a player that can't shoot and can't guard either position he would play.

He shot 47% from the field with the Magic. His FT with MIL this year was 89%. Dipped to 72 with the magic. He was 82 last year as well. Let's just call it around 80 and call it a day. Either way, I don't see how he's a terrible shooter.

 

[DrJ]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column.

ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

 

[DrJ]

Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

Disagree. He's only 20 so there is room for growth. 17, 8.5, and 2 to go with a block and a half each game is pretty good.

What do you see as his ceiling? Tweener 3/4 types pretty much grow on trees and the only three who I can think of that have had a real impact (something that you would possibly call a top 50 player) are Shawn Marion, Antwan Jamison and Paul Millsap. Harris is nowhere near as skilled as Millsap or Jamison and he is nothing even close to the athlete and defender Marion was. For the most part tweeners are meant for a bench role similar to Thad Young. For the sake of Simmons and his column, do you think that if Orlando was offered Faried, Valenciunas, Drummond, Kanter or even some of his honorable mention guys like Gallinari, Pierce, MKG, Gordon Hayward, Mike Conley Jr or just about any of the other 15 guys he mentioned that they would decline that trade? #### no. Putting Harris that high is crazy.

I'm sure they would do Drummond or Kanter or Valen. Pierce? WTF would they want with Pierce? Conley? No. Hayward? No.

What is the ceiling for Harris? I just don't see a very high ceiling for a player that can't shoot and can't guard either position he would play.

Difficult to say at 20 years of age. If we say there's a 1% chance that he becomes an All-Star, that's a lottery ticket worth owning based on his contract number. To me that's the premise of the ranking and a lot of these rankings in this article.

 

[Kev4029]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column.

ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA.

You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

 

[Premier]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column. ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA. You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

What's the last sentence mean? You think the magic are going to stop drafting or trying to sign guys because they have Harris now?You're really all over the place here.

 

[Kev4029]

ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

This is extremely disingenuous and you know it. He was strapped to the Bucks bench with no chance to play meaningful minutes for 85% of the year.

His full season numbers (or career numbers for that matter), advanced and per36, were very similar to his Orlando numbers other than his increased usage and decreased efficiency with Orlando.

I don't think there is a way to talk you out of your Harris love, just like many people last year with Lin, because you saw a few huge games and feel like he is better than his numbers say. This is also similar to all the Kobe fans that you bash, the numbers say he is a poor player at the end of games but they see him make so many end of game shots that they feel he is great.

Harris is a nice player, who will get better, but he will never be a difference maker. The Magic basically traded Reddick for a player who will be as important as Reddick, just on a much cheaper contract with more years left to play.

 

[Kev4029]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column. ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA. You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

What's the last sentence mean? You think the magic are going to stop drafting or trying to sign guys because they have Harris now?You're really all over the place here.

If you think the Magic should treat Harris as a top prospect in the NBA, they are going to be awful for years, until they get lucky again and draft somebody like Howard.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Oh, I see. Yes, does seem a stretch that he would be in the "second best player on the team" role if Leonard and parsons (two other quality small forwards, albeit with different skills) don't make the cut.As a note, Jonas is way too low. There aren't twenty five player in the league that Toronto would trade him for.

He is low but it isn't really surprising. Toronto gets very little media attention, they were well out of the playoff race and he didn't really have any big games to get noticed. His best game was probably vs WAS, 24/10 16/18 FT. Outside that game, he only cracked 20 points once and that was early in the year. As much as Simmons loves basketball, I doubt he watched any Raptor games down the stretch. Tough to appreciate a young big if you don't see them play.

 

[DrJ]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column.

ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA.

You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

There's only so many exceptional or even good players to go around. That what makes guys that have a non zero chance of being good to exceptional while costing almost nothing worthwhile assets.

 

[Kev4029]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column.

ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA.

You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

There's only so many exceptional or even good players to go around. That what makes guys that have a non zero chance of being good to exceptional while costing almost nothing worthwhile assets.

This is why I've been asking, what is his ceiling. If his ceiling is something slightly better than Al Harrington (which I think is what Abe was suggesting), then hes not anywhere near a top 50 asset. I don't think that just because hes a decent player with a cheap contract that he should be a great asset. A player of his current ability is easy to find, to make him untradable the Magic have to be sure he is going to be a stud sometime soon. That isn't happening. How many teams are looking to trade for Jeremy Lin or Landry Fields after they played great for 30 games?

 

[DrJ]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column. ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA. You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

What's the last sentence mean? You think the magic are going to stop drafting or trying to sign guys because they have Harris now?You're really all over the place here.

If you think the Magic should treat Harris as a top prospect in the NBA, they are going to be awful for years, until they get lucky again and draft somebody like Howard.

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature.

Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Bargnani for Harris?

 

[Kev4029]

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature.

Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

You mean other than his mentions of MKG, Klay Thompson, Andre Drummond, Jonas V, Kanter, Favors, Cousins, Hayward, plus the other guys that he'll put in his top 40 or whatever (Irving, Wall, Davis, etc).

You're right, he would be a lottery pick this year, probably somewhere around the 10-12 range. Kinda proves my point. An extra million or two in salary over a couple years changes nobody's trade value.

 

[Juxtatarot]

So...the playoffs start soon.

 

[DrJ]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column.

ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA.

You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

There's only so many exceptional or even good players to go around. That what makes guys that have a non zero chance of being good to exceptional while costing almost nothing worthwhile assets.

This is why I've been asking, what is his ceiling. If his ceiling is something slightly better than Al Harrington (which I think is what Abe was suggesting), then hes not anywhere near a top 50 asset. I don't think that just because hes a decent player with a cheap contract that he should be a great asset. A player of his current ability is easy to find, to make him untradable the Magic have to be sure he is going to be a stud sometime soon. That isn't happening. How many teams are looking to trade for Jeremy Lin or Landry Fields after they played great for 30 games?

Someone was willing to give Lin a pretty big contract, so I would presume that there would have been a number of teams willing to trade for him if he had the contract of Harris. Most likely he never becomes great, odds of any player taken outside of the top few picks is slim. But teams aren't looking to have fire sales on their late lottery picks, because there is a non zero chance they are eventually good or great.

I don't think it's entirely fair to put an absolute ceiling on a 20 year old player. The couple percent chance that a late lottery pick actually becomes good gives them value far beyond what they're likely to contribute to your squad from day 1.

 

[Kev4029]

So...the playoffs start soon.

Leaving to go hit some bars prior to the Nuggets game here in about 20 minutes, then have tickets for the game today.

I'm pretty pumped.

 

[Premier]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column. ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA. You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

What's the last sentence mean? You think the magic are going to stop drafting or trying to sign guys because they have Harris now?You're really all over the place here.

If you think the Magic should treat Harris as a top prospect in the NBA, they are going to be awful for years, until they get lucky again and draft somebody like Howard.

Wat

 

[DrJ]

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature.

Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

You mean other than his mentions of MKG, Klay Thompson, Andre Drummond, Jonas V, Kanter, Favors, Cousins, Hayward, plus the other guys that he'll put in his top 40 or whatever (Irving, Wall, Davis, etc).

You're right, he would be a lottery pick this year, probably somewhere around the 10-12 range. Kinda proves my point. An extra million or two in salary over a couple years changes nobody's trade value.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding his column - he did format this incredibly poorly. Still, it seems to me that any guy that would be a lottery pick tomorrow and actually makes less than one probably holds some decent value. Those are the types of players/contracts that any rebuilding team should love to have. Is that "top 50", "top 100". I dunno, I haven't really put a TON of thought into this. But it doesn't seem strange that these sorts of players would make a list of the more valuable assets in the league. Outside of landing a top pick or signing a guy to a max deal in FA, there's not a lot of ways to land guys who have the sort of ceiling you're looking for outside of getting lucky with enough Harris type players.

You look at a team like the Bulls and how do they land enough talent to get themselves over the hump (assuming Rose is back all good). Hope Jimmy Butler develops into something special, get lucky on the Bobcats pick, hope that Mirotic pans out. There's not a heck of a lot of ways to get yourself a top player, so any chance is worth something.

 

[Premier]

I couple guys that I think stand out on Simmons' column. Tobias Harris (42) - With the Magic he has a TS% of .524 (not very good), a PER of 17.0 and statistically, nothing that stands out as more than something between nice role player and mediocre starter. Plus hes an awful shooter and a poor defender. A couple big games have people thinking he is much better than he is.

He's 20 playing his first real nba action. You're not really looking at the whole picture here.

Agreed. Just because small forward is deep doesn't mean you can pick any guy and call it even. He is 20 and playing well. Reminds me a bit of al Harrington, although I've admittedly only seen highlights.

Minus the shooting ability or the defense (Harrington was a very good defender in his early 20s). And reminding you of Al Harrington isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the 42nd best asset in the NBA.

Guy has had a 15 year career. Could do worse.

Agreed. And I could easily see Harris having a similar career. That's a very nice career (and you are right, their games are pretty similar) but that is not a top 42 asset in the NBA type of career. Being the 42nd best asset in the NBA means that most teams have only one better asset on their team. That would be similar to something like owning the 3rd or 4th pick in a random draft. I'm not arguing that hes not a nice player or that the Magic didn't make a good trade just that he should be more like the 100th best asset not something mentioned in this column. ETA: He had the 185th best WS/48 this season, the 112th best PER, and 184th in TS% among players with 500 minutes on the season.

The contract is part of what plays into this. I think the basic premise is that he's really cheap to keep around, and there's a greater than 0% chance he could develop into one of the top 50 or so players in the league based on skill at some point in the future. You don't have to be one of the top 2 players on a team for this to be the case - you just have to have a nice contract and have potential to be if things pan out. Kobe Bryant is a lot more skilled and anyone would take him ahead of Harris on that basis, but when you consider one guy is getting old and has a bazillion dollar contract while the other makes nothing and has some upside, Harris could be considered "a more valuable" asset from the contract perspective.

We had a similar argument earlier in the season with Abe calling Parsons the best contract in the NBA. You don't win meaningful games with decent players with very good contracts, you win games with exceptional players. Kobe is a guy you build around, Harris, even if he hits his ceiling of something like Paul Millsap, is a guy you use to build around. But in the meantime, you get two years of a player on a cheap contract that is something slightly better than a league average player building toward something that could someday, if everything breaks just right, be the 4th best player on a championship team. If you guys think that is a better asset than nearly 400 other players in the NBA, I'm not sure what to tell you. I guess have fun watching the Magic continue to be the worst team in the NBA for the next 5 years.

What's the last sentence mean? You think the magic are going to stop drafting or trying to sign guys because they have Harris now?You're really all over the place here.

If you think the Magic should treat Harris as a top prospect in the NBA, they are going to be awful for years, until they get lucky again and draft somebody like Howard.

Wat Edit for some substance: A) I've never said he was a top prospect in the nba. I think he had a very good 6 weeks with Orlando and has some major upside given his youth, body and scoring ability. He's a big fluid kid who can move. You can use that. He's also shown some very good rebounding ability which shows me he doesn't shy away from action. B) what does my opinion have to do with the future of the magic? You realize I'm not Rob Hennigan right?

 

[thecatch]

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature. Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

You mean other than his mentions of MKG, Klay Thompson, Andre Drummond, Jonas V, Kanter, Favors, Cousins, Hayward, plus the other guys that he'll put in his top 40 or whatever (Irving, Wall, Davis, etc). You're right, he would be a lottery pick this year, probably somewhere around the 10-12 range. Kinda proves my point. An extra million or two in salary over a couple years changes nobody's trade value.

i don't necessarily disagree with you about Harris, but IMO if you were to put together your top 50 list, it would have guys toward the bottom that would be open to a similar line of criticism. There's only so many exceptional guys in the league.

 

[Premier]

Also, I don't see the Harrington comp. I don't feel like looking up his numbers, but I doubt Harrington ever approached 8 boards a game. Maybe I'm wrong, but I could see Tobias keeping it at that level.

He looks more like Carmelo out there body wise and shooting stroke. And before anybody flips out, I definitely am not saying he has a Carmelo upside.

 

[Mile High]

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature.

Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

You mean other than his mentions of MKG, Klay Thompson, Andre Drummond, Jonas V, Kanter, Favors, Cousins, Hayward, plus the other guys that he'll put in his top 40 or whatever (Irving, Wall, Davis, etc).

You're right, he would be a lottery pick this year, probably somewhere around the 10-12 range. Kinda proves my point. An extra million or two in salary over a couple years changes nobody's trade value.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding his column - he did format this incredibly poorly. Still, it seems to me that any guy that would be a lottery pick tomorrow and actually makes less than one probably holds some decent value. Those are the types of players/contracts that any rebuilding team should love to have.

Still not sure what his column is about. He has him lower then Faried for no other reason then he doesn't think Faried should be compared to a young Dennis Rodman?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature.

Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

You mean other than his mentions of MKG, Klay Thompson, Andre Drummond, Jonas V, Kanter, Favors, Cousins, Hayward, plus the other guys that he'll put in his top 40 or whatever (Irving, Wall, Davis, etc).

You're right, he would be a lottery pick this year, probably somewhere around the 10-12 range. Kinda proves my point. An extra million or two in salary over a couple years changes nobody's trade value.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding his column - he did format this incredibly poorly. Still, it seems to me that any guy that would be a lottery pick tomorrow and actually makes less than one probably holds some decent value. Those are the types of players/contracts that any rebuilding team should love to have.

Still not sure what is column is about. He has him him lower then Faried for no other reason is he doesn't think should be compared to a a young Dennis Rodman?

Yeah, I don't think there is any team that trades players 43-50 for Harris while Orlando probably does; especially Faried, Kanter, Valanciunas and Drummond (ignoring that they have Vucevic and redundancy . The other guys (Thompson, Vasquez, Butler, Parsons) are just young, league average players with potential upside but will likely never be more than league average.

 

[the moops]

Also, I don't see the Harrington comp. I don't feel like looking up his numbers, but I doubt Harrington ever approached 8 boards a game.

7.1 per 36 for his career.

 

[DrJ]

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature.

Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

You mean other than his mentions of MKG, Klay Thompson, Andre Drummond, Jonas V, Kanter, Favors, Cousins, Hayward, plus the other guys that he'll put in his top 40 or whatever (Irving, Wall, Davis, etc).

You're right, he would be a lottery pick this year, probably somewhere around the 10-12 range. Kinda proves my point. An extra million or two in salary over a couple years changes nobody's trade value.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding his column - he did format this incredibly poorly. Still, it seems to me that any guy that would be a lottery pick tomorrow and actually makes less than one probably holds some decent value. Those are the types of players/contracts that any rebuilding team should love to have.

Still not sure what is column is about. He has him him lower then Faried for no other reason is he doesn't think should be compared to a a young Dennis Rodman?

Yeah, I don't think there is any team that trades players 43-50 for Harris while Orlando probably does; especially Faried, Kanter, Valanciunas and Drummond (ignoring that they have Vucevic and redundancy . The other guys (Thompson, Vasquez, Butler, Parsons) are just young, league average players with potential upside but will likely never be more than league average.

To me it looks like there's some chance Butler could develop into a poor man's Scottie Pippen. That's where the value of these sorts of guys comes in.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature. Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

You mean other than his mentions of MKG, Klay Thompson, Andre Drummond, Jonas V, Kanter, Favors, Cousins, Hayward, plus the other guys that he'll put in his top 40 or whatever (Irving, Wall, Davis, etc). You're right, he would be a lottery pick this year, probably somewhere around the 10-12 range. Kinda proves my point. An extra million or two in salary over a couple years changes nobody's trade value.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding his column - he did format this incredibly poorly. Still, it seems to me that any guy that would be a lottery pick tomorrow and actually makes less than one probably holds some decent value. Those are the types of players/contracts that any rebuilding team should love to have.

Still not sure what is column is about. He has him him lower then Faried for no other reason is he doesn't think should be compared to a a young Dennis Rodman?

Yeah, I don't think there is any team that trades players 43-50 for Harris while Orlando probably does; especially Faried, Kanter, Valanciunas and Drummond (ignoring that they have Vucevic and redundancy . The other guys (Thompson, Vasquez, Butler, Parsons) are just young, league average players with potential upside but will likely never be more than league average.

To me it looks like there's some chance Butler could develop into a poor man's Scottie Pippen. That's where the value of these sorts of guys comes in.

I'd be quite confident in saying he'll develop into a good role player but doubtful of much more. And yes, there is value in a good role player but that value isn't one of the top 50 assets in the league, regardless of salary. Right now, he brings exactly what Matt Barnes does. Barnes is cheaper and has a ton of experience. All Butler has on him is youth.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting - in fact I don't even think that's what this article is suggesting. He intentionally left out lottery picks on their first contract and things because that's "too easy". This is more of a best of the rest type of deal - scrappers that make less money than their play would suggest they should and guys that have a chance to develop into something but were low picks still playing on their first contract. It doesn't place him above 400 other assets or anything of that nature. Let's say we put Harris in the draft for this upcoming year, where does he go? He'd be a lottery pick I would imagine. A late lottery pick that makes less than other late lottery picks is worth more than they are. I'm not quite getting what the big debate is about here.

You mean other than his mentions of MKG, Klay Thompson, Andre Drummond, Jonas V, Kanter, Favors, Cousins, Hayward, plus the other guys that he'll put in his top 40 or whatever (Irving, Wall, Davis, etc). You're right, he would be a lottery pick this year, probably somewhere around the 10-12 range. Kinda proves my point. An extra million or two in salary over a couple years changes nobody's trade value.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding his column - he did format this incredibly poorly. Still, it seems to me that any guy that would be a lottery pick tomorrow and actually makes less than one probably holds some decent value. Those are the types of players/contracts that any rebuilding team should love to have.

Still not sure what is column is about. He has him him lower then Faried for no other reason is he doesn't think should be compared to a a young Dennis Rodman?

Yeah, I don't think there is any team that trades players 43-50 for Harris while Orlando probably does; especially Faried, Kanter, Valanciunas and Drummond (ignoring that they have Vucevic and redundancy . The other guys (Thompson, Vasquez, Butler, Parsons) are just young, league average players with potential upside but will likely never be more than league average.

To me it looks like there's some chance Butler could develop into a poor man's Scottie Pippen. That's where the value of these sorts of guys comes in.

I'd be quite confident in saying he'll develop into a good role player but doubtful of much more. And yes, there is value in a good role player but that value isn't one of the top 50 assets in the league, regardless of salary. Right now, he brings exactly what Matt Barnes does. Barnes is cheaper and has a ton of experience. All Butler has on him is youth.

Butler shot 3s better this year than any of Barnes' seasons. He gets to the line more frequently. His free throw percentage was better than any of Barnes' years. He's a better defender. His game still is developing while Barnes' isn't. Exactly what holes do you see in Butler's game? And about salary, Butler only makes $3M over the next two years.