Author Topic: CBS Sports Latest Mock: Sixers Trade Okafor to Celts for 3rd Pick, take Dunn  (Read 18941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2572
  • Tommy Points: 3033
Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.
Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?

Not that similar, despite both being low post players. Monroe is a finished product making big bucks, and Okafor is 20 years old. If anything a 27% usage rate as a rookie in Philly is his best excuse. Talk about being forced into bad spots instead of developed properly. Put him on a good team for more like 24 minutes per night and 20% usage and I bet his raw stats would go down but his advanced would spike.

I'm mostly interested in his work ethic, actually. The kid has plenty of talent, All-Star level talent. He can be significantly better than Monroe. If he works at it.

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.
Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?
The stats just aren't very useful here.  They're not as similar as you make out.  Monroe is a vet on a middling team with a high-ish usage rate and solid post game.  Okafor has shown flashes of brilliance - like the potential to be the best pure low post PF scorer since Al Jefferson or dare I say, Kevin Mchale.  I promise you that he hasn't benefited from being on the 6ers.  20ppg on 60% shooting for multiple years is a real possibility for this kid.

However, the game has changed. Teams will PNR that guy to death and he's horrible in space. Stevens is a big analytics guy too and Okafor is really bad in advanced numbers.

My question is if Okafor has so much potential why don't the Sixers keep him? They have a glut of bigs so why is he the one that's likely being dealt?

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.
Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?

Not that similar, despite both being low post players. Monroe is a finished product making big bucks, and Okafor is 20 years old. If anything a 27% usage rate as a rookie in Philly is his best excuse. Talk about being forced into bad spots instead of developed properly. Put him on a good team for more like 24 minutes per night and 20% usage and I bet his raw stats would go down but his advanced would spike.

I'm mostly interested in his work ethic, actually. The kid has plenty of talent, All-Star level talent. He can be significantly better than Monroe. If he works at it.

Monroe is 25. His contract is pretty good, roughly 17M per year, when you consider where the contracts are headed this summer. In fact, Sullinger was supposed to be getting around 15 before his game to a late season nosedive.

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.
Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?

Not that similar, despite both being low post players. Monroe is a finished product making big bucks, and Okafor is 20 years old. If anything a 27% usage rate as a rookie in Philly is his best excuse. Talk about being forced into bad spots instead of developed properly. Put him on a good team for more like 24 minutes per night and 20% usage and I bet his raw stats would go down but his advanced would spike.

I'm mostly interested in his work ethic, actually. The kid has plenty of talent, All-Star level talent. He can be significantly better than Monroe. If he works at it.

excellent post TP.
Development is the key with Okafor. You can't teach those hands, footwork and length.
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
I would not trade the #3 pick for Okafor. Okafor had a bad rookie season by every metric except points per game.
-Okafor's advanced stats were poor. Due to his inefficiency and poor AST:TOV ratio, he only managed 0.3 offensive winshares on the year-- an exceedingly bad number for a supposedly offensive minded big man-- and he posted a VORP of -0.8. For contrast, even Marcus Smart managed 0.7 OWS his rookie year, and he managed an excellent 1.4 VORP on the back of his outstanding defensive stats.
-By all accounts, Okafor was either a bad defender or a terrible one. He looks like a disaster in the PnR, and you can bet that in the playoffs, opposing teams are going to gameplan for him. He doesn't show much motivation on that end, so there is no reason to believe that he will improve. One-way offensive centers need to be extremely good on offense to make up for their D, especially when they also don't shoot 3's.
-Finally, Okafor only managed a 12.8TRB%, which unfortunately compares with Olynyk's career mark (12.4%). Typically, a center will collect over 15% of available rebounds. Moreover, rebounding does not tend to improve with age, so it's unlikely that Okafor will ever be close to an average rebounder. This is especially bad for a team that hangs its hat on defense and that likes to play small.
He played on, arguably, the worst team of all time, for the most dysfunctional franchise of all-time.  Some of his fellow starters were literally much worse than replacement level.  That means that even though they could have improved his teammates by adding D-League standouts or walk-ons, they deliberately declined.

You can't go very deep on analytics in a situation like this.  The team was engineered to be terrible.  How would any competitive athlete react to such a strange reality, let alone a young kid?

IOW, not only bad stats, but he didn't handle adversity well either.

Just to buttress loco_91's analysis, out of the top 60 centers in minutes played last season per BBReference.com, Okafor was better than the median only in PER ranking 30th. Otherwise he was

43rd in TS%,
51st in TRB%,
31st in AST%,
54th in STL%,
45th in BLK%,
49th in OBox+/-,
58th in DBox+/- (besting only Kantar and Bargnani),
55th in Box+/- and
59th in VORP (besting only Bagnani ).

Those are atrocious stats given all the hype about how good an offensive player he was. He must thank his stars for Bargnani still being in the NBA.

Not interested.

Offline loco_91

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
  • Tommy Points: 145
I would not trade the #3 pick for Okafor. Okafor had a bad rookie season by every metric except points per game.
-Okafor's advanced stats were poor. Due to his inefficiency and poor AST:TOV ratio, he only managed 0.3 offensive winshares on the year-- an exceedingly bad number for a supposedly offensive minded big man-- and he posted a VORP of -0.8. For contrast, even Marcus Smart managed 0.7 OWS his rookie year, and he managed an excellent 1.4 VORP on the back of his outstanding defensive stats.
-By all accounts, Okafor was either a bad defender or a terrible one. He looks like a disaster in the PnR, and you can bet that in the playoffs, opposing teams are going to gameplan for him. He doesn't show much motivation on that end, so there is no reason to believe that he will improve. One-way offensive centers need to be extremely good on offense to make up for their D, especially when they also don't shoot 3's.
-Finally, Okafor only managed a 12.8TRB%, which unfortunately compares with Olynyk's career mark (12.4%). Typically, a center will collect over 15% of available rebounds. Moreover, rebounding does not tend to improve with age, so it's unlikely that Okafor will ever be close to an average rebounder. This is especially bad for a team that hangs its hat on defense and that likes to play small.
He played on, arguably, the worst team of all time, for the most dysfunctional franchise of all-time.  Some of his fellow starters were literally much worse than replacement level.  That means that even though they could have improved his teammates by adding D-League standouts or walk-ons, they deliberately declined.

You can't go very deep on analytics in a situation like this.  The team was engineered to be terrible.  How would any competitive athlete react to such a strange reality, let alone a young kid?

That's fair, but the stats do confirm issues that were known in college, when there were serious questions about his passing + especially defense. And on a better team he wouldn't have accumulated anywhere near the bulk scoring numbers.

Offline loco_91

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
  • Tommy Points: 145
I would not trade the #3 pick for Okafor. Okafor had a bad rookie season by every metric except points per game.
-Okafor's advanced stats were poor. Due to his inefficiency and poor AST:TOV ratio, he only managed 0.3 offensive winshares on the year-- an exceedingly bad number for a supposedly offensive minded big man-- and he posted a VORP of -0.8. For contrast, even Marcus Smart managed 0.7 OWS his rookie year, and he managed an excellent 1.4 VORP on the back of his outstanding defensive stats.
-By all accounts, Okafor was either a bad defender or a terrible one. He looks like a disaster in the PnR, and you can bet that in the playoffs, opposing teams are going to gameplan for him. He doesn't show much motivation on that end, so there is no reason to believe that he will improve. One-way offensive centers need to be extremely good on offense to make up for their D, especially when they also don't shoot 3's.
-Finally, Okafor only managed a 12.8TRB%, which unfortunately compares with Olynyk's career mark (12.4%). Typically, a center will collect over 15% of available rebounds. Moreover, rebounding does not tend to improve with age, so it's unlikely that Okafor will ever be close to an average rebounder. This is especially bad for a team that hangs its hat on defense and that likes to play small.
He played on, arguably, the worst team of all time, for the most dysfunctional franchise of all-time.  Some of his fellow starters were literally much worse than replacement level.  That means that even though they could have improved his teammates by adding D-League standouts or walk-ons, they deliberately declined.

You can't go very deep on analytics in a situation like this.  The team was engineered to be terrible.  How would any competitive athlete react to such a strange reality, let alone a young kid?

IOW, not only bad stats, but he didn't handle adversity well either.

Just to buttress loco_91's analysis, out of the top 60 centers in minutes played last season per BBReference.com, Okafor was better than the median only in PER ranking 30th. Otherwise he was

43rd in TS%,
51st in TRB%,
31st in AST%,
54th in STL%,
45th in BLK%,
49th in OBox+/-,
58th in DBox+/- (besting only Kantar and Bargnani),
55th in Box+/- and
59th in VORP (besting only Bagnani ).

Those are atrocious stats given all the hype about how good an offensive player he was. He must thank his stars for Bargnani still being in the NBA.

Not interested.
TP for digging up these stats. They aren't totally independent datapoints, but nonetheless it looks like all available info points in the same direction.

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.
Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?
The stats just aren't very useful here.  They're not as similar as you make out.  Monroe is a vet on a middling team with a high-ish usage rate and solid post game.  Okafor has shown flashes of brilliance - like the potential to be the best pure low post PF scorer since Al Jefferson or dare I say, Kevin Mchale.  I promise you that he hasn't benefited from being on the 6ers.  20ppg on 60% shooting for multiple years is a real possibility for this kid.

So let me get this straight...

1) Okafor has show indications that he could potentially one day become as good a post scorer as Jefferson.

2) Jefferson's as a rookie had a better block rate, a better rebound rate, a better defensive rating and a FAR better net rating in his rookie year then Okafor has had in his first year.

3) Jefferson has never made an All-Star team despite more than 10 years in the NBA

So everybody is generating all of this excitement over the idea of trading our #3 pick for a guy who is significantly worse overall version of a guy who has never been an All Star.

Makes sense.

Also how can you criticise Monroe for being a high using guy?  He's never had a usage rate over 25% his entire career, and Okafor's usage rate in his rookie year was 27%.

Monroe is a significantly better player than Okafor is. He's better at pretty much every single aspect of the game except post scoring, which he is still very good at. He's also got a pretty good attitude, is extremely consistent, and has been pretty healthy his entire career.

Finally his current contract is going to look like an absolute bargain when guys like Horford and Dwight are signing their $25M+ deals this offseason.

Monroe isn't a transcendent player by any means, nor do I feel he's the type of guy who can transform us into a contender.  But he's asolid and steady veteran with proper size who can give you 15+ points and 10+ rebounds per night, can hit the occasional midrange jumper, passes the ball very well, and won't give you lockerroom issues.   We could do much worse.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 01:40:11 AM by crimson_stallion »

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.
Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?
The stats just aren't very useful here.  They're not as similar as you make out.  Monroe is a vet on a middling team with a high-ish usage rate and solid post game.  Okafor has shown flashes of brilliance - like the potential to be the best pure low post PF scorer since Al Jefferson or dare I say, Kevin Mchale.  I promise you that he hasn't benefited from being on the 6ers.  20ppg on 60% shooting for multiple years is a real possibility for this kid.

So let me get this straight...

1) Okafor has show indications that he could potentially one day become as good a post scorer as Jefferson.

2) Jefferson's as a rookie had a better block rate, a better rebound rate, a better defensive rating and a FAR better net rating in his rookie year then Okafor has had in his first year.

3) Jefferson has never made an All-Star team despite more than 10 years in the NBA

So everybody is generating all of this excitement over the idea of trading our #3 pick for a guy who is significantly worse overall version of a guy who has never been an All Star.

Makes sense.

Also how can you criticise Monroe for being a high using guy?  He's never had a usage rate over 25% his entire career, and Okafor's usage rate in his rookie year was 27%.

Monroe is a significantly better player than Okafor is. He's better at pretty much every single aspect of the game except post scoring, which he is still very good at. He's also got a pretty good attitude, is extremely consistent, and has been pretty healthy his entire career.

Finally his current contract is going to look like an absolute bargain when guys like Horford and Dwight are signing their $25M+ deals this offseason.

Monroe isn't a transcendent player by any means, nor do I feel he's the type of guy who can transform us into a contender.  But he's asolid and steady veteran with proper size who can give you 15+ points and 10+ rebounds per night, can hit the occasional midrange jumper, passes the ball very well, and won't give you lockerroom issues.   We could do much worse.

You can't fairly compare them though because of their minutes+usage rate.
Okafor was on the worst defensive team in the NBA.
His usage rate was almost 30% and he was being hounded as the 76ers reallly only true scorer by opposing defenses.

Comparing advanced stats for Okafor and Big Al as rookies is simply not fair.
Team mates, usage and time on the court are completely different scenarios. Big Al's team was bad, but they had nothing on this 76ers line up.
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Offline MJohnnyboy

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2438
  • Tommy Points: 269
Team mates, usage and time on the court are completely different scenarios. Big Al's team was bad, but they had nothing on this 76ers line up.

Weren't the Celtics the 3rd seed in the east in Big Al's rookie year?

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.
Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?
The stats just aren't very useful here.  They're not as similar as you make out.  Monroe is a vet on a middling team with a high-ish usage rate and solid post game.  Okafor has shown flashes of brilliance - like the potential to be the best pure low post PF scorer since Al Jefferson or dare I say, Kevin Mchale.  I promise you that he hasn't benefited from being on the 6ers.  20ppg on 60% shooting for multiple years is a real possibility for this kid.

So let me get this straight...

1) Okafor has show indications that he could potentially one day become as good a post scorer as Jefferson.

2) Jefferson's as a rookie had a better block rate, a better rebound rate, a better defensive rating and a FAR better net rating in his rookie year then Okafor has had in his first year.

3) Jefferson has never made an All-Star team despite more than 10 years in the NBA

So everybody is generating all of this excitement over the idea of trading our #3 pick for a guy who is significantly worse overall version of a guy who has never been an All Star.

Makes sense.

Also how can you criticise Monroe for being a high using guy?  He's never had a usage rate over 25% his entire career, and Okafor's usage rate in his rookie year was 27%.

Monroe is a significantly better player than Okafor is. He's better at pretty much every single aspect of the game except post scoring, which he is still very good at. He's also got a pretty good attitude, is extremely consistent, and has been pretty healthy his entire career.

Finally his current contract is going to look like an absolute bargain when guys like Horford and Dwight are signing their $25M+ deals this offseason.

Monroe isn't a transcendent player by any means, nor do I feel he's the type of guy who can transform us into a contender.  But he's asolid and steady veteran with proper size who can give you 15+ points and 10+ rebounds per night, can hit the occasional midrange jumper, passes the ball very well, and won't give you lockerroom issues.   We could do much worse.

You can't fairly compare them though because of their minutes+usage rate.
Okafor was on the worst defensive team in the NBA.
His usage rate was almost 30% and he was being hounded as the 76ers reallly only true scorer by opposing defenses.

Comparing advanced stats for Okafor and Big Al as rookies is simply not fair.
Team mates, usage and time on the court are completely different scenarios. Big Al's team was bad, but they had nothing on this 76ers line up.

Of course it's fair, those who support Okafor just like to look for excuses.

For example, Nerlens Noel's advanced stats are perfectly fine despite playing on the exact same team  -his defensive advanced stats were (for a while) among the best in the NBA...and his rebounding stats are perfectly reasonable.   His offensive advanced stats were horrible, but that's simply because Nerlens Noel is a horrible offensive player...a fact that pretty much everybody knows.

Karl Anthony Towns and Eric Blensoe both had excellent advanced stats this year despite being on teams that weren't far below Philly on the ladder.

Demarcus Cousins has had great advanced stats almost his whole career, despite playing on one of the most garbage and toxic teams in the league.  Same can be said about Kevin Love.

There is no way to sugarcoat the reality of Okafor's horrible advanced stats.  The reality is that he really is horrible in almost every statistical area outside of post scoring and shot blocking.  It just is what it is.

« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 02:53:36 AM by crimson_stallion »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
I'm mostly interested in his work ethic, actually. The kid has plenty of talent, All-Star level talent. He can be significantly better than Monroe. If he works at it.

How?

He doesn't have the basic foundations to build upon.  He's a poor rebounder, a horrendous defender, he has a weak jumper, he's not a good passer.

He doesn't have those basic fundamentals in his game, but Greg Monroe (even as a rookie) had at least some of those things.  Rebounding and passing ability at the very least!

It's just another example of guys equating age to potential.  Because Okafor is so young, people just assume that he's going to skyrocket to massive star status, but life just doesn't work that way.

Monroe averaged 17 and 11 Per36 at the age of 21 - you would naturally assume he was going to become a star.  Now he's 25, and in the four seasons that have passed he's never averaged more than 18.8 points or 11.9 rebounds Per36.

The whole concept of this "inevitable big jump" that people seem to expect from talented young players is just not realistic.  Guys evolve sure - they improve on weaknesses, they get even better at strengths, they get smarter / wiser, they sometimes add a new trick to their repertoire.  But only a select few players out there make a massive jump as their career progresses  - some guys just never make that jump.

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.
Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?
The stats just aren't very useful here.  They're not as similar as you make out.  Monroe is a vet on a middling team with a high-ish usage rate and solid post game.  Okafor has shown flashes of brilliance - like the potential to be the best pure low post PF scorer since Al Jefferson or dare I say, Kevin Mchale.  I promise you that he hasn't benefited from being on the 6ers.  20ppg on 60% shooting for multiple years is a real possibility for this kid.

So let me get this straight...

1) Okafor has show indications that he could potentially one day become as good a post scorer as Jefferson.

2) Jefferson's as a rookie had a better block rate, a better rebound rate, a better defensive rating and a FAR better net rating in his rookie year then Okafor has had in his first year.

3) Jefferson has never made an All-Star team despite more than 10 years in the NBA

So everybody is generating all of this excitement over the idea of trading our #3 pick for a guy who is significantly worse overall version of a guy who has never been an All Star.

Makes sense.

Also how can you criticise Monroe for being a high using guy?  He's never had a usage rate over 25% his entire career, and Okafor's usage rate in his rookie year was 27%.

Monroe is a significantly better player than Okafor is. He's better at pretty much every single aspect of the game except post scoring, which he is still very good at. He's also got a pretty good attitude, is extremely consistent, and has been pretty healthy his entire career.

Finally his current contract is going to look like an absolute bargain when guys like Horford and Dwight are signing their $25M+ deals this offseason.

Monroe isn't a transcendent player by any means, nor do I feel he's the type of guy who can transform us into a contender.  But he's asolid and steady veteran with proper size who can give you 15+ points and 10+ rebounds per night, can hit the occasional midrange jumper, passes the ball very well, and won't give you lockerroom issues.   We could do much worse.
Al Jefferson is arguably the best pure low post scorer since Shaq.  Kevin Mchale is the greatest of all time.  When I say that a player has low post scoring potential like a prime Al Jefferson, that's a compliment.  I don't care if Al Jefferson makes all-star games.  When I invoke the word "Mchale", it's not just a compliment -- it's the highest order of praise available.  A "Pedro Martinez slider" if you will, or Gretzky-like scoring instincts.  I'm not sure how you spun that into a bad thing.  Kids like this come around once every 10 years or so. (I'm using a narrow frame of reference -- only talking about his back-to-the-basket game)

I watched every game of Al Jefferson's rookie year and I remember it clearly.  He was a better rebounder than Okafor, but not by much.  He was an OK defender for a rookie, but certainly not a good one.  He had a wacky arsenal of flip shots, up-and-under moves and jump hooks, and his jumper needed work.  His conditioning wasn't great and he didn't run fluidly -- he looked like a grandpa in a hurry to catch a bus. He was a black hole in the post.

Okafor is better than Jefferson as a rookie.  He's stronger.  He operates a little closer to the basket.  His post game is a little more refined, but a little less creative.  He's not yet as good as a prime Al Jefferson, but he will be, and probably more.  Again, I don't care what the advanced stats say.  Context matters.  Big Al was playing with Gary Payton, Ricky Davis, Paul Pierce, and Raef Lafrentz.  Okafor hasn't played with another NBA caliber player yet, let alone a couple of hall of famers.  (I'm not counting a washed up Elton Brand for a few games)

Is he worth the 3rd pick?  Most likely yes.  Historically speaking, there's about a 10% chance that the 3rd pick is nothing more than a role player.  There's a further ~30% chance that the 3rd pick is nothing more than a solid starter.  By trading the pick, you surrender all that risk to Philly and you pick up a 20 year old who is a virtual lock to be an elite low post scorer for 10 years.  Is there a chance the 3rd pick is better?  Sure.  MJ was picked 3rd.  But it's unlikely.  In order for this trade to become unfavorable there needs to be a player who will become better than Okafor  who is available at 3.  Far more importantly, you have to actually identify this kid and select him.  That is extremely risky, especially in this draft where said player is not obvious.

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
Monroe is a sieve defensively. At least with Okafor the absolute worst scenario is equality with Monroe on that end, yet you have the hope from youth that he can improve

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8913
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Monroe is a sieve defensively. At least with Okafor the absolute worst scenario is equality with Monroe on that end, yet you have the hope from youth that he can improve

Monroe is a good rebounder, though.  Okafor is not
I'm bitter.