Printable View
you said Brogs was nothing more then a spot up shooter and that Bullock could offer us the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by still a fan
you said Frank could easily be replaced by a vet min guy? and have been calling him "gone" for years, you still are saying the knicks wouldnt and shouldnt offer the QO, and didnt even think he was worth the 6.2m option
i could go on and on about guys like Vonleh, Burke, Dre, Van Fleet...etc... we just disagree on guys we should target or keep.
This dead horse keeps coming back to life..Quote:
Originally Posted by nycericanguy
I remember the posts. Brogdon was way overpaid, wasn’t going to be good without Giannis, etc..
Regardless of how good you think he is, or don’t, he’s a valuable strong starter on good teams, with any kind of players next to him. We needed that
Stumbled upon this on Reddit, hopefully this puts the nail in the coffin for this debate:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadyOne
To this man, I say bravo because he was absolutely spot on. 3/45 or 4/60 seemed reasonable for Brogdon, 4/85 was a massive overpay.Quote:
Malcolm Brogdon is a good basketball player. He is probably a very good starter with a nice two-way game, and he's in his early prime. He'd be a great acquisition at like $15m a year if he were unrestricted.
However, too many people are overrating his defense and overrating his 3 point shooting in talking themselves into chasing an important role player on a contender in a cushy situation who happens to be restricted at any cost.
Shooting
Malcolm Brogdon only takes wide open 3s. 3.1 of his 3.8 3PAs per game are uncontested. He takes 0.7 attempts a game with a defender within 6 feet. In this context, his 40% 3P% is really not impressive at all. Rondo looks like a great 3 point shooter the past six or so seasons because he gets a ton of uncontested open looks. Hey, guess what - Rondo takes a higher ratio of contested looks (29%) than Brogdon does (18.4%). That's an extremely low ratio.
Guys who shoot 40% with less than half, a third, a quarter of their shots being uncontested, and twice the three point ratio - that's legitimately impressive. Pretty much every big high volume 3 point shooter - Curry, Klay, Khris, hell even old Wes Matthews - actually commands major defensive attention so isn't shooting a ton of uncontested shots relative to the total. This is why Brogdon's 50/40/90 thing doesn't blow me away. 40% on threes isn't that hard if you only take open ones and passing up on contested ones.
Brogdon is Milwaukee's fourth option on offense and draws the weakest defender because he's the only one out of Bledsoe, Middleton and Giannis who can't create his own offense. As opponent double Giannis and Middleton, he gets open looks. He'd get open looks here too next to Luka and KP, for sure, but the idea we should max him on the basis of his three point shooting is just stupid. We could tell any semi-decent shooter "hey, avoid taking any 3s if you're defended" and most could probably hit 40%.
Defense
Brogdon is a good defender, but he's not elite nor will be the anchor of your defense.
He's also on a team stacked with good to great defenders - Bledsoe, Snell, Middleton and Giannis are all excellent. However, Brogdon really struggles to keep in front of smaller and faster defenders. He's not extremely fast. One of the main points of signing a nominal PG is because Luka can't defend elite PGs. Guess what - neither can Brogdon. That's why the Bucks got Bledsoe. So let's be real here - Brogdon is a wing and not a PG, and he's not necessarily taking the other team's best player when Middleton might be doing that if they are bigger. Brogdon pretty much sticks with SGs. All his defensive stats are pumped up by being on a great defensive team. He's not having to cover for his teammates' weaknesses.
On both ends of the court, Brogdon is in a cushy situation that makes him look better than he actually is. In a bigger role, he might be exposed.
Other factors
When you combine the fact that his defense and shooting doesn't seem so amazing in context with his age (not young enough to bank on a massive upside), injury history (missed half a season last year and over 20 games this year) and his restricted status (on a team that may decide to match all offers because they're already in contention and he's still early prime), Brogdon is a really horrible target for us.
If we overpay, he will never be able to live up to that contract.
If we don't, Milwaukee probably matches.
So why are we wasting our time repeating our Parsons mistake? Brogdon is the guy you target after all the other options have been exhausted, and even then you do so carefully and not desperately.
EDIT: The most damning part of all: with a defender within 6 feet Malcolm Brogdon's 3P% is...31.1% - and that's ALL under "defender within 4-6 feet", which is still considered "open". The dude gets spooked if a guy is remotely close to him. His 45.7% on wide open shots is plenty good, but that explains why his 3P% falls to 40% in spite of the high ratio of wide open shots. He's shooting 31.1% on the remaining 18% of contested shots he takes.
He is:
1) Not a PG (getting assists playing pick and roll with Sebonis all game doesn’t make you a PG)
2) Overrated shooter (as his 31.3 3PT% this season shows)
3) Injury prone (missed 17 more games this season)
Overall he would have been a mediocre fit at best here, and at that price tag we could get someone much better. Look at how all the 3 point shooters we acquired have struggled here? (Bullock, Ellington, etc). Brogdon probably would have been even worse shooting here. The only thing that would have been a welcome addition is his excellent FT%, but that’s not worth $21M per.
So yes, playing with the Bucks and Giannis clearly masked his flaws and he got paid handsomely for it by the Pacers. Glad we weren’t the ones to make that mistake.
Nope..it doesn’t
But that’s fine. We aren’t getting him, it’s over. I still stand by the fact he’s good. Would have been good for us. Was playing very well on Indiana prior to injuries, and now a change in personnel. Saw him play plenty, I know what I saw. Clearly there’s a differing of opinions. It’s over, can we not bring him up. Just like you feel Wood is a superstar, I think Brogdon is good. Think he would have been good here. My opinions have been proven correct. We see a MVP unhappy about a guy not staying, and another good team paying him and trading for him. But he’s not good enough to play for our terrible team with no PG or SG?
There’s really no need to go further. It’s ok. It’s kind of exactly like the few of us that thought THJ was a good player, in a bad role. He’s proving that now. No use crying over spilled milk. Ban the use of his name going forward..
If Brogdon is a 31% 3PT shooter on limited volume, he pretty much sucks for us, I’m sorry. How does that help us or RJ? Just because we don’t have great options doesn’t mean you overpay for a decent misfit player who has limited upside and is extremely injury prone (out of the season with torn quad tendon).
I’ll take someone like Beasley 100 times out of 100 over him. Or save the cap for someone that’s actually worth it. The Pacers actually gave up their 1st round pick this year and two future 2nd rounders too lol. Can you prove that he’s actually good?
The picks were overkill, and unnecessary. He’s just a good all-around pro. Good at a bunch of things. He fits next to anyone. Fundamentally sound, smart, good attitude. Has been used to winning. We couldn’t use that?Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungStuna
Him last year has nothing to do with this offseason. And yes, I want Beasley, wanted him all along. But the two aren’t related.
I’m not saying he’s bad, but he’s doesn’t fit everywhere. Especially for that price tag. Over the course of his entire career, he is unable to hit 3s unless he’s wide open (6ft+). I thought it was just a one year fluke, but it’s not. That’s why he doesn’t take more 3s, because his efficiency will plummet when he’s forced to shoot with someone near him. He’s not close to a true talent 40% 3PT shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadyOne
He relates to Beasley because if we had Brogdon, we probably wouldn’t be able to sign Beasley. And even if we did, we would basically have 3 shooting guards on the roster with no one who can guard PGs or play a real PG.
yea he is good and that is what I said based on the past and exactly what Young just posted I stand by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadyOne
I'd take him on our team, that is saying much now is it?
I also said Knicks really didn't have a shot and we can beat that dead horse to death......
If Rican wants me to go in the closet he better be careful lol.......this is a forum he's said some wild things as well.
Brogs was a RFA and is a good player..........but do you notice when he's out that PG's step up in big ways and have had some really good games and seems anyone with the ball gets assists on that team, even Sabonis had 15 assist games and multiple double digit assist games does that make him a PG?
Have you seen guy's in Indy and the assists they all get, I mean guys step in the 2nd and even 3rd string pg's put up double digit assists and get 20 points when he don't play.Quote:
Originally Posted by nycericanguy
As I just stated Sabonis has gotten 15 assists in a game, he's not a PG.
Per 36 min did you know Brogs is 8.4 assists yet TJ is 9.6?
I would still love to have Brogs on the team for exactly the same reasons he is a good defender, willing passer and can shoot the open three.
Now he's a PG and shooting just over 30%, this is your great shooter shooting less than league average, shooting Frank's numbers that is crazy. 16/7 does not warrant what he got paid.
I liked him at around 15m and as a wing, he'd be great here in that role and situational PG. yes I said all that.
He's a good player but I don't feel we had a shot at him.
You want to keep going into the past? I can play that game and yet I won't.
Trey, keep it up he at that time i'll still stand by he was the best PG at the time.
Vonleh? All I said at one point was he was playing well and someone at that time will offer him the mini MLE type money, what was wrong with that, didn't know after that he'd have a tail spin lol
Bullock till he got here was Brogs, he was a very good shooter, are you going to sit there and tell me what happened to very good shooters till they get here absolutely wouldn't happen to Brogs?
I talked about Frank being replaced by min players last year, yea I did and at one point his biggest fan (you) were even down on him.
Frank and I'll go on was outplayed by a G-league player and I'm sorry you still can't accept this fact but for that stretch he was and it wasn't close, Allen by far out played him, so yea last year he easily could have been replaced by a vet min player and the team would have been no worse, you think without Frank we lose more than 17 games lol?
VanFleet is a very good PG, and totally not what you think he is. Dre is a beast and can still help the right team, and don't be a fool you know I wanted Dre for Randle lol........
You want to keep going lets go back to 2008 while we are at it? Rican you need to get over the fact that right now Frank is not a great player and in my opinion he may have a place here but from the dog's day I said as a wing and a situational player getting 20 min per.
I said that three years ago and I'm off by how many seconds? I wish the kid well but I'm not going to sit here and pretend like he's the next coming. He has to prove a lot more.
You and I, it all comes down to Frank..........because it's always Frank conversations then you try to go into the closet and pull out dirty laundry and fabricate it.
It's old, so just stop and stay in the present.........
Now the future I'm even more interested in Bogs and Beasley but at the same time feel the same way as Brogs they will be almost impossible to get in FA. So want to now fabricate how I feel about those two players?
Here is today, you want to discuss I'm more than willing to converse........I think Knicks have a good shot at both Wood and Harris.........if they feel Beasley is going to be that much a difference maker then they have to anti up for the big bucks or like Brogs it may just take overpaying and a S&T costing us a pick......they may just work for us in a big way.
.
lol missed it by that much.......Quote:
Originally Posted by smood999
my simple point was we disagree on players 90% of the time. the guys I like you generally don't and vice versa. it's fine to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by still a fan
but your wrong, I like Frank but not at 8mil that don't mean I don't like him, I like him a lot, great kid and plays hard, but from a business standpoint I can't like him like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by nycericanguy
I like Brogs but not how you do.
I love Mitch, you don't like Mitch?
I like Bogs, but thinking we have chance and liking him are two different stories.
I do like Wood for a 24 year old so if you don't okay we disagree on him.
We have disagreed but don't make it from a like or dislike standpoint........I even remember Timmy I love Timmy the person, and player but not for 18m or that signing at the time that was the disagreement.
So please don't misconstrue liking a player vs how I or you like him, big difference.
Are there any optimist in this forum? I need somebody to make me feel that Dennis Smith can rebound from this dreadful season and reach his ceiling.
On another note, I would take Teague & Dragic over Van Fleet