No, PJ3 isn't the type to play those positions for a long stretch but he could have played any in spot minutes. He could have at least earned 20 minutes per, he hasn't. Ibaka has been out a good amount too. Still, PJ3 hasn't earned minutes anywhere.
A fair call, but you have to also need to understand that PJ3 is very raw because he hasn't seen enough minutes on the court, and OKC over the past few years have been in "contender" mode so they haven't been able to really afford to give substantial minutes to guys who are essentially raw prospects - they have needed to play proven guys who can contribute right away.
That changed a little this year with Durant's injury (which opened up playing time and also affected the Thunder's hopes of contending) and PJ3 got some starts as a result - and he actually put together some pretty solid games during that stretch. In his first 5 starts he averaged 15 points, 4 rebounds, 1 assist in 32 minutes, and he shot 46% / 33% / 74%.
Then he got hurt, missed some games. When he returned his minutes were much less consistent, as was his production.
Interesting fact though - in the 7 games last year where PJ3 played at least 26 minutes, he averaged:
15.3 PPG (49% FG, 38% 3PT, 63% FT)
3.6 RPG
0.9 APG
32.7 MPG
The games where he's played 25 MPG or less, he's consistently struggled.
Does this mean something? Who knows.
Maybe not experienced enough yet to be able to produce in limited minutes - maybe he needs to be out on the court to get a feel for things and to start getting comfortable.
Maybe these stats are just coincidental, and I'm just cherry picking.
Again, we don't know because he just hasn't had a consistent enough role/opportunity for us to really prove conclusively one way or the other. Even guys like Marcus Smart, Kelly Olynyk and Jared Sullinger struggled in a lot of ways until they started to get 20-25 minutes a night on a consistent basis. They showed flashes of ability, but they really needed the minutes and on court repts to get comfortable and start producing.
To put it into perspective:
* Jared Sullinger had 20 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played
* Kelly Olynyk had 33 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played
* Marcus Smart had 56 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played
Perry Jones has had 31 in his
first three seasons with >20 Minutes played
Basically the point I'm trying to get across here is that Perry Jones may have been in the league for three seasons already, but if you look at the amount of playing time he's logged he may as well be a rookie. He's really had very little opportunity to show what he can do, and when he has gotten anything close to starters minutes he's typically played pretty well.
As I said before, none of this suggests that he's certain (or even likely) to have a break out year and amaze us all.
But what it does suggest is that:
a) He is
capable of producing at NBA level when given the opportunity (potential is there)
b) He hasn't had enough opportunity to show exactly where his ceiling lies (potential is untapped)
As always, chasing this magical thing we call 'potential' is risky because (by definition) potential is something that isn't proven, and something that we hope could one day be.
When investing in potential I always look at two things:
a) Cost - how much are you giving up for the player, relative to his proven NBA production
b) Risk - how much does the cost impact your team, if the worst case comes true
b) Upside - how much does the player benefit your team, if he reaches his ceiling
In terms of cost, we gave up $2m in cap space and a roster spot to acquire PJ3 and a 2nd round pick. Cost is low.
in terms of risk, the $2m in cap space doesn't impact our team this year (there's nobody else we could have signed for that who would be useful to us) and it comes off the books next year. Given the number of redundant/expendable players on our roster, the extra roster spot he takes up is not likely to impact our W/L record in the present, or in the near future. Risk is low.
In terms of upside, PJ3's worst case is that he remains the player he is right now, and never develops beyond that. His best case (IMO) is DeMarr Derozan, but taller.
So to analyse the deal, you have to ask yourself two questions:
1) If the worst case comes true, and PJ3 doesn't develop past who he is today, then does this cripple the team in a significant way? No, we can waive him later on if we really need the roster space, and he comes off the books next year.
2) If the best case comes true and PJ3 becomes a 6'11" Demar Derozan, then is that worth $2m and a roster spot? Yes, easily.
Hence, I keep him on the roster.
Just the way I look at things from an 'lounge-chair GM' point of view
I don't know what a change of scenery will do for him. No one is good enough to take Durant's minutes but given what he has shown up until now, he isn't taking minutes from guys like Jae, Jerebko or any of our other 100 players either.
I'm not so sure about that.
Right now the small forward spot is EASILY our weakest position. It's really the only position on our team about which I can sit here and say (with a straight face) that we don't have a single guy who is starting caliber.
I mean really, who is our best SF?
Jae Crowder is a decent scorer, a decent rebounder, a decent passer, an above average defender and he doesn't turn the ball over. He's a solid all rounder, but he has one glaring weakness - lack of three point range. Boston was one of the worst three-point percentage teams in the NBA last year. We really don't have one elite outside shooter who can single handedly draw the defenses attention (e.g. Ray Allen), so we need to go with the 'quantity over quality' approach and have a court full of guys who can hit the three, just to maintain decent court spacing. The fact that Crowder can't make that shot consistently hurts a lot, yet he doesn't do anything else at an elite enough level to make up for that.
Evan Turner is basically Lamar Crawford - a merger between Lamar Odom and Jordan Crawford. He's a point-forward who can can do a bunch of things (passing, ball handling, court vision, rebounding, scoring) pretty well, but isn't elite at any of those things. But he's also questionable in his decision making, and is overly reckless with the ball - he creates a horrendous number of unforced turnovers, and that makes it difficult to trust him in a starters role. Also, like Crowder his lack of a three point shot hurts court spacing. Probably better suited to a bench role - when you desperately need something to happen you can unleash him at the position of need (be it at the 1, 2 or the 3) and he can create instant chaos.
Jerebko probably has the lowest upside of the three, but he's also probably the best 'complementary' player since he doesn't really have any glaring weaknesses that hurt the team. He can defend multiple positions so he helps you on defense. He's a capable three point shooter so he can help stretch the floor. He plays within himself and rarely turns the ball over, so he isn't a risk either. He might actually be the the best fit as a starter, despite being the least talented of the three options.
Ultimately though none of our SF candidates are really starting caliber, and I really feel that the starting SF spot is very much up for grabs right now. If Jones could come in and show Brad Stevens that he has legit upside as a scorer, as a three point shooter, and as a multi-positional defender...then I don't see why he wouldn't have just as much chance of that starting spot as any of those other guys.
Nobody expected Crowder or Jerebko to get roles as big as they did last year - Brad has consistently proven that he gives minutes based on who earns them, not based on reputation or past history.
I hope he reaches his full potential as a Celtics. I always want our guys to be their best as a Celtics but let's see it b4 making so many excuses.
Of course - none of us are saying we should gift him minutes just because he's an athletic freak. Like any other player he should have to earn those minutes.
All I'm saying is that he has as much potential as anybody on the team, and he deserves the right to try to earn those minutes, just like everybody else.
Also that we shouldn't judge his potential based purely on his production in OKC, since his situation out there (playing on a star filled team with championship aspirations) was about the worst situation possible for a rookie trying to make a name for himself.
Edit: there is something to lose, a more productive player. I'm not saying I wouldn't take the chance, I'm just saying that he has had opportunities that many players never get.
I wouldn't necessarily agree. I think the most rookies get far more opportunity for playing time than he had. Even when Sully came to Boston, our center was an ageing KG (on minute restrictions) and our PF was a borderline starter (Brandon Bass) so there was a ton of opportunity for Sully to prove himself.
If Sully was playing behind Zach Randolph and Mark Gasol in Memphis, then you'd probably find he would have had a much harder time earning minutes.