knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

mreinman wrote:haven't seen him play but the advanced stats on him are really ugly.

They guy had a 3.2-1 TO ratio last year--his first year and shot 44% as a 6-5 PG with really good skills. You need to be able to see the talent and it's pretty easy with him. Phil likes big smart PG's and he would immediately be a guy who could help us and at the same time be a piece for the long term future.

5 assist per 36 minutes is not too good.

48.6 TS is terrible and even worse than Felton.

He is a bad FT shooter and a terrible 3 point shooter.

Again, I have not seen him, all I have is his stats to go on.

How is his defense?

He did well in college, in all the areas you're referring to...so the talent is certainly there. As an NBA rookie he didnt shoot nearly enough to gauge statistically. Imo i see a Tony Wroten situation developing with him and would love to acquire him for a 2nd rounder.

He played 1300 minutes last year. That is significant minutes for a rookie.

The minutes dont matter though, you're posting stats when he has limited attempts to base them on.

By your logic Steve Nash should have quit the NBA after his third year since .471TS% just aint gonna cut it.

Nice analogy.

yet your beating down a rookie?

I did not beat down a rookie.

I want to know what is seen that is so impressive (eye test) to overcome bad stats.

Is his defense great? Is he a great passer? Glue guy?

Do you feel empowered when you reply to post like an azzhole?

Not really, but do you feel empowered to use stats while admitting you aint seen him at all? Did you at least watch the kid in college...he was very good there, everyone dont translate to the NBA immediately, thats why I used the Nash example.

It was based to help you understand such things, but it really doesnt matter, this is the second time of recent note you're using stats and havent watched the subject your bashing.

looked at his college stats and he was pretty efficient.

This one is on me. Should have looked at his college numbers before commenting on his 1300 minutes as a rookie.

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

mreinman wrote:haven't seen him play but the advanced stats on him are really ugly.

They guy had a 3.2-1 TO ratio last year--his first year and shot 44% as a 6-5 PG with really good skills. You need to be able to see the talent and it's pretty easy with him. Phil likes big smart PG's and he would immediately be a guy who could help us and at the same time be a piece for the long term future.

5 assist per 36 minutes is not too good.

48.6 TS is terrible and even worse than Felton.

He is a bad FT shooter and a terrible 3 point shooter.

Again, I have not seen him, all I have is his stats to go on.

How is his defense?

He did well in college, in all the areas you're referring to...so the talent is certainly there. As an NBA rookie he didnt shoot nearly enough to gauge statistically. Imo i see a Tony Wroten situation developing with him and would love to acquire him for a 2nd rounder.

He played 1300 minutes last year. That is significant minutes for a rookie.

The minutes dont matter though, you're posting stats when he has limited attempts to base them on.

By your logic Steve Nash should have quit the NBA after his third year since .471TS% just aint gonna cut it.

Nice analogy.

yet your beating down a rookie?

I did not beat down a rookie.

I want to know what is seen that is so impressive (eye test) to overcome bad stats.

Is his defense great? Is he a great passer? Glue guy?

Do you feel empowered when you reply to post like an azzhole?

No need to use names at this point in life? Nate Wolters is a nice player who I think can become a really good NBA player. He has a lot of skills for his size(nearly 6-5) for the PG position he played very well for a rookie and was a superstar in college. Going on stats only as a rookie to base whether you might want someone or not is really tough. You have two people telling you they see the guy as a nice player worthy of trading for within reason and making him the 2nd string PG.

For instance--maybe we can flip Prigoni to Minnesota right now with 1.5mm to give them the vet PG they might need since they lost Rubio(and hes paid fully for the year). They flip Milwaukee a 2 and we add in another 1mm. Because we are over the cap the 2.5mm we just flipped out and Wolters smaller contract--we'd actually MAKE money and get the PG we want. Would Milwaukee take Mimmy's #2 pick next year + 1mm for Wolters--Im sure his agent would want to do the deal. That would help all three team's

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

mreinman wrote:haven't seen him play but the advanced stats on him are really ugly.

They guy had a 3.2-1 TO ratio last year--his first year and shot 44% as a 6-5 PG with really good skills. You need to be able to see the talent and it's pretty easy with him. Phil likes big smart PG's and he would immediately be a guy who could help us and at the same time be a piece for the long term future.

5 assist per 36 minutes is not too good.

48.6 TS is terrible and even worse than Felton.

He is a bad FT shooter and a terrible 3 point shooter.

Again, I have not seen him, all I have is his stats to go on.

How is his defense?

He did well in college, in all the areas you're referring to...so the talent is certainly there. As an NBA rookie he didnt shoot nearly enough to gauge statistically. Imo i see a Tony Wroten situation developing with him and would love to acquire him for a 2nd rounder.

He played 1300 minutes last year. That is significant minutes for a rookie.

The minutes dont matter though, you're posting stats when he has limited attempts to base them on.

By your logic Steve Nash should have quit the NBA after his third year since .471TS% just aint gonna cut it.

Nice analogy.

yet your beating down a rookie?

I did not beat down a rookie.

I want to know what is seen that is so impressive (eye test) to overcome bad stats.

Is his defense great? Is he a great passer? Glue guy?

Do you feel empowered when you reply to post like an azzhole?

Not really, but do you feel empowered to use stats while admitting you aint seen him at all? Did you at least watch the kid in college...he was very good there, everyone dont translate to the NBA immediately, thats why I used the Nash example.

It was based to help you understand such things, but it really doesnt matter, this is the second time of recent note you're using stats and havent watched the subject your bashing.

looked at his college stats and he was pretty efficient.

This one is on me. Should have looked at his college numbers before commenting on his 1300 minutes as a rookie.

BigDaddyG wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

mreinman wrote:haven't seen him play but the advanced stats on him are really ugly.

They guy had a 3.2-1 TO ratio last year--his first year and shot 44% as a 6-5 PG with really good skills. You need to be able to see the talent and it's pretty easy with him. Phil likes big smart PG's and he would immediately be a guy who could help us and at the same time be a piece for the long term future.

5 assist per 36 minutes is not too good.

48.6 TS is terrible and even worse than Felton.

He is a bad FT shooter and a terrible 3 point shooter.

Again, I have not seen him, all I have is his stats to go on.

How is his defense?

He did well in college, in all the areas you're referring to...so the talent is certainly there. As an NBA rookie he didnt shoot nearly enough to gauge statistically. Imo i see a Tony Wroten situation developing with him and would love to acquire him for a 2nd rounder.

He had a solid year for a rookie and you figure his stats will improve. He ended the year with a PER of 12.7 and, if you look at his splits on ESPN, you'll see that he started slowly and ended the year on a positive note. I think Wolters has a chance to be good. I just don't think Milwaukee wants to get rid of him. I think Mayo and Bayless are probably their first choices.

They have a lot of $$$$ and trade assets they have invested into the 1 guard. They have an up and coming PG who is going no where in Brandon Knight. He is their PG for a LONG time. That automatically brings you down to the back up. If anyone has watched--they use both Mayo and Giannis at the back up 1. Again they have just a great deal of assets $ into these next two players. They also signed Kendall Marshall and Nate--both of who do not play.

Nate deserves to be a guy who is a second string PG who *could* turn into a darn good starting 1 after a couple of years. He's really got incredible handle for his size 6-5--watch him, he's definitely one of the best ballhandlers in the NBA. He's going to be able to guard and rebound at that size within a team's system and he did shoot over .80% from the FT line with many att and accept one bad year shot close to 39% on avg from 3 in his other 3 years. I mean this was basically a 20-5-6 player in college in a slower type system.

As I see it--we really need 3 new PG's. Ill use Calderon while he is here. To me Larkin is gonzo and Pablo really should not be here. We need two new PG's and if somehow we can bring in Nate within reason-it would be one heckuva grab for us.