Is it time to Consider a new Robin for Batman? (AD)

[Yanks2740]

Continuity is key. As tempting as it is to win now to "please AD", I think everyone needs to relax and be patient. Phoenix and OKC are currently on the brink of having locker room catastrophes due to a break in continuity.

[MichaelMcNamara]

LOL fair enough. Im just trying to be realstic as possible with players we can potentially grab that can GROW into a Robin.

So rare that a guy goes from solid to a borderline Hall of Famer. Usually, you know who those guys are very quickly in their careers and it is impossible to get that kind of guy. More likely, Pels will have to build a better version of that Mavs title team where AD is Dirk in that run

[Caffeinedisastr]

LOL fair enough. Im just trying to be realstic as possible with players we can potentially grab that can GROW into a Robin.

So you want to bring in someone
only to kill their parents in a terrible circus accident?

Not cool.

[Silverfoxx]

So you want to bring in someone
only to kill their parents in a terrible circus accident?

Not cool.

lol Sacrifices has to be made my friend.

[Silverfoxx]

So rare that a guy goes from solid to a borderline Hall of Famer. Usually, you know who those guys are very quickly in their careers and it is impossible to get that kind of guy. More likely, Pels will have to build a better version of that Mavs title team where AD is Dirk in that run

Im fine with that, and I dont think our Robin has to be a Borderline HOF'er. I think guys like Wesley Matthews, Brandin Kinght,Kemba Walker, etc can be a Robin to AD honestly. Im not asking for a top 5 player lol. The Thunder scored big time with AD and Westbrook.

[speedyG]

Jrue hasn't proven he is good enough to be Robin to begin with tho. Even when healthy. Not that I would trade him but if there is a chance to get a guy like that Dell should consider it.

I think someone like Lawson is a better player right now, he can get his own shot easier and isn't as inconsistent as Jrue.

[PelicansBay]

Considering what the team gave to acquire Holiday and his undeniable talent when healthy, he is the Pg for this team moving forward. Hopefully this injury isn't chronic and he will be a 100% after his recovery. I think his talent level shows that he would be an ideal third best player on a championship team.

So who could the team acquire as a true Robin to a AD's Batman? I doubt this late in the game we will be able to acquire this player before the deadline, maybe in the offseason we may be able to swing a deal for one of these supremely gifted players: Carmelo, Cousins, DeAndre Jordan, Monroe. Or maybe the solution is to add two players on par with Holidays skill level (like how the Spurs are put together). It seems that Dell attempted this with Tyreke and Gordon, I am not sure if they are ideal fits for this teams future championship aspirations. Adding a combination off these players would help: Batum, Mathews, Taj Gibson, Avery Bradley, Jordan Hill, Pekovic, Thadeus Young, Trey Burke.

[billfromfinance]

surely it would be easier to come up with a maintenance plan for Jrue than pull a magical robin from a hat? ease the intensity of his training, perhaps manage his minutes around B2B games and high workload weeks in the schedule. rather than medical say yep he's good and throw him straight back into the deep end. I'd rather run a Dwyane Wade type management and schedule and have him miss ~30 games at worst across the entire season, than push him hard for half a season and have him sitting out from January on-wards each season and missing ~50 games, or try and trade him when teams are going to low ball us.

[iNolaNightmare]

Best "Robin" I can think of would be Paul George. And I just don't think that's even a remote possibility.

[Noggy]

Any guys in mind? How often do top 20 guys change teams? And how often do they go to a market like New Orleans?

Sure, I would love to go get Westbrook instead, but how is that possible? I would never say no to moving anybody unequivocally, but throw out some realistic options. I believe that once you start trying to do that, you will see how unlikely it is that we can really upgrade any time soon.

We could've traded Jrue for Dragic.

PHX would've taken it, having traded Thomas they could play Jrue at PG and Bledsoe at SG. Then we'd have dragic. Then play Tyreke from the bench and EG at 2 and Qpon at 3 and you have a formidable starting unit and bench.

[lsutigers33]

Go get marcus smart to pair with Jrue.

[MichaelMcNamara]

We could've traded Jrue for Dragic.

PHX would've taken it, having traded Thomas they could play Jrue at PG and Bledsoe at SG. Then we'd have dragic. Then play Tyreke from the bench and EG at 2 and Qpon at 3 and you have a formidable starting unit and bench.

I highly doubt it, but if you say so then lets assume its true. Here is the rub - Dragic wasn't re-signing with us even if we did that trade.

Easy to be a GM on a message board, but real life realities make it a lot more difficult.

[Mythrol]

I don't see Dragic as better than Jrue and he is going to get paid nearly double.

[AD23MVP]

This is exactly why I stress the importance of building via the draft. I'm not naïve enough to think it's foolproof however given the nature of our market size and lack of franchise success. Drafting your talent or trading for rookie contracts logically is the far superior way to build a team. It provides the long term flexibility teams lack when they sign young vets like we choose to do. Now we are in the danger zone of being too good to draft(in our case at all) a difference maker yet not good enough to attract a difference maker in free agency.

The only way the young vet route can work is if there's great chemistry. So even though you already pointed out that we have been robbed of any chance of said chemistry due to constant injuries. Looking at this team on paper it's not one that is constructed in a way that is balanced(at least on paper IMO of course). Most of the money are going to 3 guys whom all need the ball in their respective hands to maximize their value to the team. Davis and Anderson of the core 6 play the same position. This has is why I've been critical of the moves Demps has made in his tenure as GM.

To answer the question I'd say yes we need to find another Robin if we are assuming Davis is to be Batman and Holiday is Robin. Not only these injuries, but if we are building around just around two guys they need to be superstar level guys. While people would say Davis fits the mode I don't think anybody thinks Holiday is a superstar. Just that alone says the whole Batman/Robin dynamic between Davis/Holiday won't ever yield anything other than maybe some playoffs appearances at best IMO(again of course).

Not to mention we've now given up too many picks to acquire these pieces, that we're left with virtually no trade assets for the immediate future. I think your assessment of Holiday not being a superstar is correct, which leads me to believe that even if fully healthy this team can only go so far with Holiday & Davis being the one-two punch. There's no minimizing the importance of building through the draft as a small market team.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Not to mention we've now given up too many picks to acquire these pieces, that we're left with virtually no trade assets for the immediate future. I think your assessment of Holiday not being a superstar is correct, which leads me to believe that even if fully healthy this team can only go so far with Holiday & Davis being the one-two punch. There's no minimizing the importance of building through the draft as a small market team.

I am not going to waste my time doing it, but if you get the chance, go through all the small market teams that tried this route and then list the ones who achieved great success using primarily this method on one side and the ones who did not on the other side.

I will guess the "did not" side will be at least 3 times longer.

[da ThRONe]

I am not going to waste my time doing it, but if you get the chance, go through all the small market teams that tried this route and then list the ones who achieved great success using primarily this method on one side and the ones who did not on the other side.

I will guess the "did not" side will be at least 3 times longer.

It's harder to succeed than it is to fail. Who doesn't know this.

What we are talking about are chances to succeed. We're making a case that logically as a small market it's best to build through the draft. Ever manner of team building has failed more than it has worked. Using your logic no form of team building is effective. Outside of just signing the top FA's.

[MichaelMcNamara]

It's harder to succeed than it is to fail. Who doesn't know this.

What we are talking about are chances to succeed. We're making a case that logically as a small market it's best to build through the draft. Ever manner of team building has failed more than it has worked. Using your logic no form of team building is effective. Outside of just signing the top FA's.

No answer is the right answer, correct. This is why fans are at such an advantage. Because the truth is that whichever route the GM takes, he is more likely to fail than succeed. And then fans can come out of the woodworks and say, "Should have done this. Could have done that, etc. "

When the truth is that almost every road would lead to some kind of failure. It's the sad truth.

[da ThRONe]

No answer is the right answer, correct. This is why fans are at such an advantage. Because the truth is that whichever route the GM takes, he is more likely to fail than succeed. And then fans can come out of the woodworks and say, "Should have done this. Could have done that, etc. "

When the truth is that almost every road would lead to some kind of failure. It's the sad truth.

I can't speak for every fan. My input is the result of having followed the game for many years. I realize it's a matter of percentages. It's very similar to taking a "good shot". All high percentage shots for players don't go in. For small market teams my observations has lead me to believe building via the draft is the equivalent of taken a " good shot". I can live with the results on a good shot win or loss. Likewise if I think the team is advancing taking a low percentage "bad shot" I wouldn't like it if it did work. I'd give the credit for getting it done but until I see it happening with a getter percentage of success I would view it as a lucky bad shot going in.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I can't speak for every fan. My input is the result of having followed the game for many years. I realize it's a matter of percentages. It's very similar to taking a "good shot". All high percentage shots for players don't go in. For small market teams my observations has lead me to believe building via the draft is the equivalent of taken a " good shot". I can live with the results on a good shot win or loss. Likewise if I think the team is advancing taking a low percentage "bad shot" I wouldn't like it if it did work. I'd give the credit for getting it done but until I see it happening with a getter percentage of success I would view it as a lucky bad shot going in.

I think a "bad shot" in your analogy would have been trading for or signing high priced older guys (Peja signing as an example). Not relatively low cost young vets. I mean, look at this roster. Nobody over 28. This is a very, very young team.

Its much easier to criticize the team because of the injuries, but I think the young vet route is a "good shot". I mean, they didn't sign or trade for Josh Smith or Iggy.

[N.O.Bronco]

This is exactly why I stress the importance of building via the draft. I'm not naïve enough to think it's foolproof however given the nature of our market size and lack of franchise success. Drafting your talent or trading for rookie contracts logically is the far superior way to build a team. It provides the long term flexibility teams lack when they sign young vets like we choose to do. Now we are in the danger zone of being too good to draft(in our case at all) a difference maker yet not good enough to attract a difference maker in free agency.

The only way the young vet route can work is if there's great chemistry. So even though you already pointed out that we have been robbed of any chance of said chemistry due to constant injuries. Looking at this team on paper it's not one that is constructed in a way that is balanced(at least on paper IMO of course). Most of the money are going to 3 guys whom all need the ball in their respective hands to maximize their value to the team. Davis and Anderson of the core 6 play the same position. This has is why I've been critical of the moves Demps has made in his tenure as GM.

To answer the question I'd say yes we need to find another Robin if we are assuming Davis is to be Batman and Holiday is Robin. Not only these injuries, but if we are building around just around two guys they need to be superstar level guys. While people would say Davis fits the mode I don't think anybody thinks Holiday is a superstar. Just that alone says the whole Batman/Robin dynamic between Davis/Holiday won't ever yield anything other than maybe some playoffs appearances at best IMO(again of course).

This is one area I have a lot of agreement with you on. Small markets rarely have the ability to acquire top 10 talent any way other then overpaying through FA, being a team that has already built a stable of a winning culture and a lot of assets(SA) or through the draft.

Lottery picks are much more likely to produce players that will stick in the league then outside of the lottery. And the higher up in the lottery the better.

So when a small market is likely going to have 3-4 picks in the lottery AFTER they have found their franchise cornerstone that will need several years to develop, I think the value of those picks should be a lot higher then what our franchise valued them as. Or at a minimum recognize the HUGE risk you run giving up multiple known assets in exchange for one asset that has the potential to have a lower return on investment then you payed for.

Since Dell has been here we gave up one first for Jeryd Bayless, 2 firsts for a good player with upside at the most crowded position in the league when FA alternatives existed(Teague), another 1st to fill a hole created by acquiring Evans that cost 2 assets and cap space who hasn't found a perfect fit with this team yet.

[Pelicantoo]

I don't see Dragic as better than Jrue and he is going to get paid nearly double.

HE WENT FOR 2 2ND ROUNDERS!

Lol, I agree with you.... Jrue's deal is one of those things no one is considering. When Reggie Jackson is turning down more money than Jrue's getting and forcing a trade because he's so offended.

[Pelicantoo]

I can't speak for every fan. My input is the result of having followed the game for many years. I realize it's a matter of percentages. It's very similar to taking a "good shot". All high percentage shots for players don't go in. For small market teams my observations has lead me to believe building via the draft is the equivalent of taken a " good shot". I can live with the results on a good shot win or loss. Likewise if I think the team is advancing taking a low percentage "bad shot" I wouldn't like it if it did work. I'd give the credit for getting it done but until I see it happening with a getter percentage of success I would view it as a lucky bad shot going in.

How is the crapshoot of the draft a "good shot?" I understand the contracts are less, but theres also a far greater change of the player being a complete and total bust (See: Rivers, Austin...)

I think what MM said above about old players.... and also maxing out pseudo-stars are the real bad shots.
Maxing Chandler Parsons, for instance... or paying someone like Reggie Jackson the money he's looking for.

The likelihood that our 3 picks would've turned into a borderline star and a solid starter is significantly less than 50%. Yes, their first contracts are favorable, but so are Tyreke's and Jrues, with guaranteed production. And I would much rather set up a team that gets better consistently with each year than gets worse with each year. Just my humble opinion.

[UNO Gracias]

Talking about Reggie Jackson, the Thunder, now that's a team that knows how to make moves (both in the draft and in the free agent/trade market).

[N.O.Bronco]

I think a "bad shot" in your analogy would have been trading for or signing high priced older guys (Peja signing as an example). Not relatively low cost young vets. I mean, look at this roster. Nobody over 28. This is a very, very young team.

Its much easier to criticize the team because of the injuries, but I think the young vet route is a "good shot". I mean, they didn't sign or trade for Josh Smith or Iggy.

The "young vet" route has ultimately produced a team that is over the cap and likely won't make the playoffs.

How is it a better re-building model then alternatives?

I mean can you point to me why this is the ideal way to build a team?

What I see so far is that this team looks almost indistinguishable in terms of maturity and consistency as a young Thunder team. Except our team cost a lot more and left us with less assets and players with less upside.

To me the "young vet' approach is so far a failure. I mean I can't really conclude any differently. I mean the argument was that this approach would be a better way to match the growth of Davis, put us in the playoffs quicker and accelerate our teams growth into a contender. But so far he is exactly where he would of been projected to be with a team built through the draft: on the outside looking in on the playoffs.

We talk about how great Pondexter has been for this teams maturity and growth. How important Morrow was last year. Don't those speak about the value of having veterans on your roster? I mean to me it says that having young vets with no winning history is about as valuable as having young draft picks. Both lack maturity and leadership, both have long arcs of growth but one method gives a lot more flexibility and maintains a larger stable of assets and potential.

IDK, I am just not sold on the Demps method at this point.

[MichaelMcNamara]

The "young vet" route has ultimately produced a team that is over the cap and likely won't make the playoffs.

How is it a better re-building model then alternatives?

I mean can you point to me why this is the ideal way to build a team?

What I see so far is that this team looks almost indistinguishable in terms of maturity and consistency as a young Thunder team. Except our team cost a lot more and left us with less assets and players with less upside.

To me the "young vet' approach is so far a failure. I mean I can't really conclude any differently. I mean the argument was that this approach would be a better way to match the growth of Davis, put us in the playoffs quicker and accelerate our teams growth into a contender. But so far he is exactly where he would of been projected to be with a team built through the draft: on the outside looking in on the playoffs.

We talk about how great Pondexter has been for this teams maturity and growth. How important Morrow was last year. Don't those speak about the value of having veterans on your roster? I mean to me it says that having young vets with no winning history is about as valuable as having young draft picks. Both lack maturity and leadership, both have long arcs of growth but one method gives a lot more flexibility and maintains a larger stable of assets and potential.

IDK, I am just not sold on the Demps method at this point.

No, because there is no ideal way. No right answer.

Any path that anybody has taken and succeeded with is an outlier and has been graced with some luck.

In a vaccum, any path is far more likely to fail than succeed. So far, luck hasn't been on the Pels side (Blazers-like injury free seasons and we are probably looking at a team 10-20 games over .500 over the past two seasons).

The fact is that every possible path has far more failure stories than success stories. The fault is thinking that there is a "right way" IMO