I don’t think I have a hunch on the development thing. I can totally see how having bad spacing will be frustrating for the young guards but I dk if that will actually make them develop more slowly. Maybe having impediments makes you more creative or something, I dk.
Bagley, I’m on the record thinking there’s no point in betting on him and I’d rather just have the space.
You’re right, I thought it was part of same deal. Either way, they gave up nothing for a veteran big and veteran shooter. I imagine neither will be on the roster long term. But could get draft picks after holding spots in case Ivey and Duren can’t hold down big minutes early on. I just don’t see how it’s a bad decision.
Stewart will only be clogging the lane based on your projection of him. I think it’s clear that the staff and organization think he will be able to provide shooting and I think there’s enough recent evidence to support their faith.
I think you have to find out what Stewart can give you at the four before you relegate him to sixth man duty. I think there’s a good chance that Bagley puts up numbers that justify his deal. That’s a contract you can move when you want to. I don’t really think there’s a ton to truly complain about, even though I think Weaver’s demonstrated clearly that his strength is drafting vis-a-vis all the other stuff.
The second round picks are nothing and it’s worth it if you think you like Bagley and want to sign him, but aren’t totally convinced. It gave them a nice trial period to see how he played and how he fit.
Burks is a quality player, so that wasn’t a typical trade dump deal. I would have preferred they just take on a large bad contract for 1 year to try to get a future 1st, but Weaver prioritized getting some vets to mentor the younger players. Burks should be a valuable trade chip at the deadline. He’s a quality player on a cheap deal and there is a team option for next year, as well. He seems like someone the Heat or Philly would eventually be interested in as a rotational piece off the bench. Or really any contender could be interested in him. He rarely turns the ball over, shoots 40% from 3, is a secondary P & R ball handler option with decent assist numbers and defends multiple positions well.
The Pistons beat writers have been saying that they don’t think Noel is going to play much. I think he’s going to be the 5th big, if he’s even healthy enough to play. He has an extensive injury history. That seemed more like a traditional salary dump, but maybe he can mentor Duren.
I really don’t understand the frustrations about the Bagley deal. The cap will be raised in the near future, we’re paying him 11 mil a year NOT max contract money. He’s 22 and a former 2nd overall pick who averages 14 pts. That’s a gamble worth taking and by the time we actually need his cap space he will be off the books. People just straight up want to hate players for the sake of hating players.
The contract is about 2 mil more a year than I would’ve liked, and I was hoping for a team option in year 3, but that not that big of a deal.
I would’ve preferred Mo Bamba, but I don’t think it’s the worst signing ever.
Same, on both.
They gave Plumlee around 13 mil a year and moved him off the books a year later. Bagley is a rim runner that should help the offense more. 55% from the field highest in his career in a small small size. Needs to hit more FTs but there are things to like.
Bagley deal is maybe 3MM/year too much and is one year longer than it should be. So in year three it will be a little rough. It is not a howler, but unless he puts up 16/8, they will have to add assets to get off it I predict. This may be ok when you still have 60MM in cap space but it looks sloppy and for what?
I read somewhere that bigs stop developing at 26. So you can argue it’s worth the gamble that the Kings just wasn’t the right system/culture for him and see what he turns out to be.
Ideally, the 3rd year would have been a team option. The Pistons are going to have $60 million in cap space next season and had all kinds this year, as well, so I don’t have a problem with it for the first 2 seasons of the deal.
I’d argue that the amount of capspace they have next year doesn’t really matter if they look hopeless this year.
Bagley is deceptively bad - an abhorrent defensive player who looks ok because of points and rebounds. He is generally quantified to be a net negative (yes, even with the Pistons).
Beyond that, my problems are:
His contract is probably at least double the market for him (recall the Kings tried and failed to trade him for 18 months before the Pistons did
Better centers of the same age signed for 1/3 less and 1 year less
Further investment in the center position, which I expressed my frustration with above.
I just wish third year was team option. He seemed to play better once he came to the stones. I don’t mind it
Getting into the minutiae on Bagley’s deal means you already accepted there’s some good chance he can be something significantly above a replacement level 5 in the NBA. Replacement level for 5’s is high and he’s had 4 seasons of being well below that. I don’t think he was above it in his stint w the Pistons either.
On off stuff says that on the games he played, the Pistons were better when he sat.
On/off is a bad way to measure production. Too many variables come into play. You take it with a grain of salt and certainly don’t make any broad proclamations based on that stat.
Well you can when it dovetails with basically every advanced metric regarding his defense.