Assuming he is "One and Done" and all the legal hoopla that has gone on with him to get cleared the expectations for him are high.
Buy/Sell--Considering we are MState will Sidney be a bust if he gets cleared
- Thread starter BR549.sixpack
- Start date
Assuming he is "One and Done" and all the legal hoopla that has gone on with him to get cleared the expectations for him are high.
if he isn't what is cracked up to be is for him to play this year. I think the NBA rule is stupid. Let them find his weaknesses while he is getting paid legally.
How he hasn't even cleared yet but as normal state fans immediately expect him to bust if he does play...does MSU's fanbase have a high suicide rate?
He is one and done, my buddy said that he is an absolute animal and he is with out a doubt the best player on our team. Also my friend said that he dunked on a walk on so hard that the poor bastard thought about quiting after it happened....so no this guy is not a bust
Some have turned into superstars, some good players, some ok players, some sucked but got paid NBA money for three years. Maybe two or three just totally 17ed it up. I've looked it up before, but don't really want to do it again. Anyway, it's worked out well for almost all of them. Maybe not for the team that paid lottery money for a back up with a six year career (Bender), but the player has almost always done well for himself.
Never really understood the need for the rule in the first place. Well, other than creating a free minor league system to develop a young player with potential.
Never really understood the need for the rule in the first place. Well, other than creating a free minor league system to develop a young player with potential.
But seriously. He has to learn how to play the game on both ends to really be effective for us. Sure, he could probably come in a game right now and be instant points for us...but he could also be instant points for the other team.
What I am trying to say is...he could be one and done based on offensive talent and upside alone. Just because he is the best scorer on the team doesn't mean he is the best player. I can imagine him scoring 30 points in a tourney game but giving up 5+ offensive rebounds because he doesn't have the discipline to box out on the other end, and turning the ball over 5+ times because he is careless with the ball.
The chemistry issues that he brings to the table also worries me. From everything I've read about him, he is an absolute prick who thinks he is the next Jesus. His attitude is horrible. He's not aggressive on the offensive end and settles for jumps shots. He is not physical and is afraid to go into the paint. In other words, he doesn't know how to use his large frame and size which is what makes him so impressive. He is lazy and checks out on the defensive end. He is careless with the ball. But is he worth it? Absolutely.
I'm not expecting much if anything from him until SEC season starts. But that will be fine with me as long as he contributes.</p>
What I am trying to say is...he could be one and done based on offensive talent and upside alone. Just because he is the best scorer on the team doesn't mean he is the best player. I can imagine him scoring 30 points in a tourney game but giving up 5+ offensive rebounds because he doesn't have the discipline to box out on the other end, and turning the ball over 5+ times because he is careless with the ball.
The chemistry issues that he brings to the table also worries me. From everything I've read about him, he is an absolute prick who thinks he is the next Jesus. His attitude is horrible. He's not aggressive on the offensive end and settles for jumps shots. He is not physical and is afraid to go into the paint. In other words, he doesn't know how to use his large frame and size which is what makes him so impressive. He is lazy and checks out on the defensive end. He is careless with the ball. But is he worth it? Absolutely.
I'm not expecting much if anything from him until SEC season starts. But that will be fine with me as long as he contributes.</p>
inexperienced players flooding into the league was causing the level of play in the NBA (at least league-wide) to suffer quite a bit. Its easy to say that the NBA teams and scouts should have the good sense to pass on a lot of these "straight to the NBA" types but unfortunately, without a lot of these players having their weaknesses exposed, you've got a lot of nervous nellie GMs out there scared to death that they might miss out on the next Kobe Bryant or Kevin Garnett. So with the new rule ALL the teams get one year to see how a player does given a higher level of competition. I don't think asking a guy to wait one year out of HS to enter the NBA draft is much of a hardship. Even if they can't qualify for a 4 year college and play in Europe or heck even JUCO it allows the NBA scouts a chance to actually see how the player would handles competition at a higher level. I very much like the rule.
A) That's completely untrue. If you look from 2003-2005, supposedly the flood of high school talent that led the league to adopt the rule, there is a good mix of superstars, really good players, good players, and role players. Very few outright busts in the group. Certainly no higher a percentage of busts than college players that get drafted.maroonmania said:
B) Maybe you're living like a king on Berkshire dividends, but for the guys getting drafted, being forced to pass on a seven figure salary is a pretty raw deal.
Bottom line, drafting high school players is no different than drafting college players. Most of the time it's obvious who will be a star, and other times you have to draft on potential. People have this thought that going from high school to the pros is a much bigger step than going from college to the pros. It's not, because they aren't really "coming out of high school." They are coming out of AAU programs, and that isn't that far removed from college level competition. In fact, they're pretty much playing against the same guys they always have played against. Hell, for most of a college basketball season, these guys are playing against teams that are inferior to AAU teams they played against. Basically, the leap from being 18 and on an AAU team to the NBA is not that significantly different than the leap from college ball to the NBA.
This guys wants to be a one and done which means he has to be an impact player on the college level. So he's got 5 months to flash enough talent to merit a 1st round draft pick and earn the 3-year guaranteed contract out of the NBA.
If there is anytime to push yourself, this is it. You're prepping for a big payday. Time to get in good shape, develop the game and be ready to shine come SEC and tourney time. You're playing for a coach that demands defensive effort ahd hustle and has shown in the past an unwillingness to give freshmen big minutes if he can help it. Very important to make that good first impression.
But instead you show up out of shape and overweight. Early returns question your hustle and intensity. Folks, regardless of talent - that's not the way to get into the NBA. Scouts love big men with talent, but they've seen their share of Oliver Millers and are well aware that big men that show no drive rarely develop it once given big money. Granted, it only takes one GM to believe in you and talented 6'10 guys can always make money overseas but we're going to learn real quick if he's tough enough b/c one things we've learned is that Stans doesn't back down with prima donnas.
Clearly the guy is talented enough that even an out of shape version would help us, but guys that play hard don't like playing with a guy that doesn't so I worry about chemistry issues. However, if he gets his *** in line (ala Dontae) then he could be a HUGE boost to this team. I just don't know what to expect out of him...I just done see him as a 15 pt, 9 rebound guy which is what it will take to get NBA attention.
If there is anytime to push yourself, this is it. You're prepping for a big payday. Time to get in good shape, develop the game and be ready to shine come SEC and tourney time. You're playing for a coach that demands defensive effort ahd hustle and has shown in the past an unwillingness to give freshmen big minutes if he can help it. Very important to make that good first impression.
But instead you show up out of shape and overweight. Early returns question your hustle and intensity. Folks, regardless of talent - that's not the way to get into the NBA. Scouts love big men with talent, but they've seen their share of Oliver Millers and are well aware that big men that show no drive rarely develop it once given big money. Granted, it only takes one GM to believe in you and talented 6'10 guys can always make money overseas but we're going to learn real quick if he's tough enough b/c one things we've learned is that Stans doesn't back down with prima donnas.
Clearly the guy is talented enough that even an out of shape version would help us, but guys that play hard don't like playing with a guy that doesn't so I worry about chemistry issues. However, if he gets his *** in line (ala Dontae) then he could be a HUGE boost to this team. I just don't know what to expect out of him...I just done see him as a 15 pt, 9 rebound guy which is what it will take to get NBA attention.
That would mean that he had a great season and got alot of exposure in the NCAA tourney which would benefit the whole team. However, I don't care if he is a 10 star recruit, I hope Stans makes him toe the line and does not let him wreck our team chemistry by being a prima donna or a slacker.
I think you nailed it. The only counter point I would make is Jamont Gordon.....regarding Stans handling of prima donas. Sure he was good. But I still contend Gordon did what ever the hell he pleased. It worked out for that team as he came in at time when we were replacing a lot of guys. However, Sydney comes into a team with a core group of guys who have been here for a while. I worry about Sydney being turned loose like Gordon and causing animosity on the team. I don't see this group of guys just ignoring it like Hansbrough, Stewart, and others did......and to be completely accurate...Hansbrough did not.
Anyway, of course, this is all speculation. Who knows what will really happen. Maybe Stans has a full reign on Sydney. Also, maybe, the fight was something that sent a message early and by the time the season starts everyone will have accepted their role. Which includes Augustus.
Anyway, of course, this is all speculation. Who knows what will really happen. Maybe Stans has a full reign on Sydney. Also, maybe, the fight was something that sent a message early and by the time the season starts everyone will have accepted their role. Which includes Augustus.
well with Jamont - the guy played hard and that means more to Stans than a lot of the other stuff. Yeah, he freelanced way to much on offense and took bad shots, but he was the only playmaker we had on offense and he played hard on the defensive end. So I'd call him more of a ball hog than a prima donna.
Coach Stansbury can sit him if he doesn't play hard and within the team concept. I predict that if he is cleared early (before the first game or shortly thereafter) that he will come off the bench and have a fairly short lease. If he is truly one and done like everyone says then Coach Stansbury has nothing to lose by not playing him if he is hurting the team by playing selfish. However, on the other hand, Coach Stansbury has spoken highly of him to date and says that he is trying hard. I say let's wait a see if there is an actual problem.
I think the problem with the NBA rule is that people have it all wrong. I don't know how Stern has tried to spin it, but I don't think that it has anything to do with trying to get more kids to go to school. I think that it is 100% due to David Stern wanting kids to be ready to play ball by the time they make it to the league. The NBA was watered down when it started drafting high schoolers and I guess you could argue that it still is, but allowing 18-year-old kids to join doesn't help matters.
I guess the point is that if I'm an owner and paying someone millions of dollars, I want them to be ready to contribute, not struggling to develop.
I guess the point is that if I'm an owner and paying someone millions of dollars, I want them to be ready to contribute, not struggling to develop.
Seems like I remember the NBA's reasoning when they passed the rule was they didn't want guys taking a couple years to develop when they could have used that time to develop in college and provided the NBA team with another roster spot instead of having a guy struggling to develop sitting on the bench not contributing. This way, it gives players time to develop in college (a minor league system if you want to say that), and also gives NBA teams more time to scout and form more educated opinions before drafting guys.
My earlier post explains why I don't think the college to NBA leap is much different than the AAU to NBA leap. Lets be real, these guys aren't getting recruited based on how well they play at their high school. They're being recruited, and used to be drafted, based on AAU tourneys, all star camps, etc.
before having to spend millions and millions on these kids. This new rule is one of the primary reasons the NBA is actually becoming somewhat relevant again. To the average fan, it's more appealing to watch someone you've actually seen do something in his career, a la Kevin Durant. It's just hard to get excited about some high school kid who's done nothing but play against other high school competition in front of 2k fans unless it's Lebron James or some other once in a generation player. The new rule is good for everyone involved, except these high school wannabe's. Let them prove it for a year and then they can get paid. I see nothing wrong with that at all.