Jimmer Fredette
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
- Status
Not hard to understand. Why would any coach give all this playing time to a guy that will not be here next year while not developing a guy that will be here next season? It's common since at this point anybody not getting that isn't trying very hard. It's not that Malone doesn't have faith in jimmer. It's not that ray is better than jimmer. It's all about the future. Jimmer is not part of it so why bother. If you did continue to play jimmer, what message does that send ray when you play a guy over him that the whole world knows is as soon as free agency opens up.
It's amazing how people aren't understanding this. Too many fans of jimmer the person/player and not the kings.
Jimmer is the guy who is leaving his job and has a month or two to go. Everyone knows he's leaving. He knows it. The rest of the team knows it. So do you keep giving responsibility to the person leaving, right up till the moment he inevitably leaves, or do you move on to the next guy in line to develop for the future? Smart organizations move on. They need to find out what they have in ray. And soon. Cause there's a chance he's the only pg on the roster in a few months. They better know what he can or can't do. With Jimmer, it's irrelevant to the kings. His career isn't their concern anymore.
Happens in the real world every day. When people move on, the next in line gets pushed to step up and fill the gap. Jimmer isn't the next in line. He's a dead man walking.
Jimmer is the guy who is leaving his job and has a month or two to go. Everyone knows he's leaving. He knows it. The rest of the team knows it. So do you keep giving responsibility to the person leaving, right up till the moment he inevitably leaves, or do you move on to the next guy in line to develop for the future? Smart organizations move on. They need to find out what they have in ray. And soon. Cause there's a chance he's the only pg on the roster in a few months. They better know what he can or can't do. With Jimmer, it's irrelevant to the kings. His career isn't their concern anymore.
Happens in the real world every day. When people move on, the next in line gets pushed to step up and fill the gap. Jimmer isn't the next in line. He's a dead man walking.
My only answer is that you don't really know what you have in jimmer. What if you could consistently get the jimmer you got in ny? Wouldn't he be worth resigning? You still don't have a backup sg. What's the harm in playing him there? Is outlaw such a big part of our future? I understand giving ray more minutes to see what he has but I think most jimmer fans are upset because they feel he was never really given the same opportunity. His good play was never rewarded and was kept on a short leash. I don't think it's fair to write him off already and basically tell him he's no longer part if the plans. Let him play consistent backup mins and see if he's worth throwing 1-1.5 mil at next year. Maybe the fo felt it was too hasty not picking up his option and don't want that decision to come back to haunt them. If he gets no pt, he can't do well, buy low or let him go type thinking. Either way its a crappy way to treat the guy.
No, it's what all organizations do.
The idea that we need to see jimmer play to see what he can do is kinda crazy at this point. We know, he's been here almost 3 seasons.
One good game doesn't change anything. You guys are trying to make sense of and justify what is a pretty cut and dried situation. He's not going to be here, we move on. Frankly, I thought this was decided when they didn't pick up his option. And never understood why Ray wasn't always the backup.
Why would jimmer stay for a big paycut anyway? Is he that desperate?
The idea that we need to see jimmer play to see what he can do is kinda crazy at this point. We know, he's been here almost 3 seasons.
One good game doesn't change anything. You guys are trying to make sense of and justify what is a pretty cut and dried situation. He's not going to be here, we move on. Frankly, I thought this was decided when they didn't pick up his option. And never understood why Ray wasn't always the backup.
Why would jimmer stay for a big paycut anyway? Is he that desperate?
Last edited:
Actually winning organizations don't hand the keys to 2nd rounders the second half of the season or give alot of pt to their rookies unless they're bonafide stars. There second round picks are either traded away for cap space or used on foreign players with experience ie spurs. Plenty of coaches also rather play experienced players over raw rookies their first year. Whether its right or wrong is another thing. But not all organizations do it this way.
No, it really isn't.
You play the best players because those players deserve to play. The other players on the team (Ray probably doesn't know) know that Ray doesn't deserve to play over Jimmer, heck, Ben doesn't deserve to play over Jimmer. Players know when other players are being jerked around and they know that they can be jerked around for political reasons.
If you really want to change the culture you don't ensure that you lose by playing guys that really don't deserve to play over guys that do. You don't try to be bad so that you have an excuse when you lose. You try to be the best your team can be all the time so you know what you need to work on.
You let everyone off the hook when you do what the Kings are doing from the front office to the GM to the Head coach and the "star" players. "Well, we could have done better but we are looking toward the future" is the attitude and that attitude absolutely does not change the culture.
Losing when you are trying your hardest to win will truly help you understand what you need to do to get better. Losing while "developing" young guys just leads to the lottery for decades.
You play the best players because those players deserve to play. The other players on the team (Ray probably doesn't know) know that Ray doesn't deserve to play over Jimmer, heck, Ben doesn't deserve to play over Jimmer. Players know when other players are being jerked around and they know that they can be jerked around for political reasons.
If you really want to change the culture you don't ensure that you lose by playing guys that really don't deserve to play over guys that do. You don't try to be bad so that you have an excuse when you lose. You try to be the best your team can be all the time so you know what you need to work on.
You let everyone off the hook when you do what the Kings are doing from the front office to the GM to the Head coach and the "star" players. "Well, we could have done better but we are looking toward the future" is the attitude and that attitude absolutely does not change the culture.
Losing when you are trying your hardest to win will truly help you understand what you need to do to get better. Losing while "developing" young guys just leads to the lottery for decades.
This is senseless to argue with you guys. "Deserve to play". What's that?
You guys aren't getting it. The kings as an organization moved on! They made the decision. They more or less announced it. Every organization in the world doesn't keep playing or giving work to guys who are already gone. It's done, over for jimmer here.
I'm sorry. I know you're not kings fans and just want to see jimmer. But there's nothing at all to gain by playing him now from the kings perspective.
You guys aren't getting it. The kings as an organization moved on! They made the decision. They more or less announced it. Every organization in the world doesn't keep playing or giving work to guys who are already gone. It's done, over for jimmer here.
I'm sorry. I know you're not kings fans and just want to see jimmer. But there's nothing at all to gain by playing him now from the kings perspective.
That's what good organisations do, but they also meet with said player and offer to part way for a discount.
Kings are not a winning organization, they are pretty deep in the lottery, where experienced players, who are considered gone after the season, get only a place on the bench.
All the coaches will play experienced players, because they help them win, because five years from now no one will remember, that this coach helped his team to get 2rd pick instead of 5th, but all will see that he has 29% winning percentage. All the coaches will play veterans, unless specifically directed by FO.
Kings are not a winning organization, they are pretty deep in the lottery, where experienced players, who are considered gone after the season, get only a place on the bench.
All the coaches will play experienced players, because they help them win, because five years from now no one will remember, that this coach helped his team to get 2rd pick instead of 5th, but all will see that he has 29% winning percentage. All the coaches will play veterans, unless specifically directed by FO.
I didn't like that loser organization comment at all. All because your boy jimmer isn't getting what YOU think he deserves. You want to argue jimmer is better than ray or Ben. Jimmer has 7 years of high level basketball experience. The fact that you have to argue who is better him or two rookies say a lot about jimmers growth,
Being a Jazz fan do you constantly bash the organization about Biedrins? Gobert is a rookie and he gets all the playing time as backup center? At this point Gobert is not batter than Biedrins. Will he be? Maybe? Do you play Biedrins in his last year of his contract over Gobert? No. Same way here with jimmer. This butt hurt personality is not very becoming.
Being a Jazz fan do you constantly bash the organization about Biedrins? Gobert is a rookie and he gets all the playing time as backup center? At this point Gobert is not batter than Biedrins. Will he be? Maybe? Do you play Biedrins in his last year of his contract over Gobert? No. Same way here with jimmer. This butt hurt personality is not very becoming.
Sorry I'm not following you. Npliam was stating what the kings are doing is what losing organizations do. You reply saying what the kings are doing is what good organizations do and then right after say the kings aren't a winning organization.
I understand both points of views. Some teams need to evaluate the youngs to move forward and stop playing pieces not part of your future. Then the other side sees that you never got to fully evaluate jimmer because even though he's been here 3 years, he's never really gotten a fair shake. My personal disagreement is on how it was handled and the assumption that that is how it's supposed to be done. I don't think you give a multi guaranteed contract to a second round pick. I don't think the organization should put all this playing time and effort into said second rounder unless he has truly shown something special from the get go, which he hasn't. I believe they didnt pick up jimmers option because he wasnt playing well but afterwards when given the opportunity to play, he did well but now it's too late. The ship has sailed and he isn't returning. Now am I mad we are looking to the future? No. Does it suck how jimmer was treated? I think so. But I just don't agree that how we did things are the way things are supposed to be done. I believe you play the players that earn their minutes and you develop the unproven, unheralded rookies (non lottery picks) in nbdl/practice or in games when needed due to injury or blowouts.
I understand both points of views. Some teams need to evaluate the youngs to move forward and stop playing pieces not part of your future. Then the other side sees that you never got to fully evaluate jimmer because even though he's been here 3 years, he's never really gotten a fair shake. My personal disagreement is on how it was handled and the assumption that that is how it's supposed to be done. I don't think you give a multi guaranteed contract to a second round pick. I don't think the organization should put all this playing time and effort into said second rounder unless he has truly shown something special from the get go, which he hasn't. I believe they didnt pick up jimmers option because he wasnt playing well but afterwards when given the opportunity to play, he did well but now it's too late. The ship has sailed and he isn't returning. Now am I mad we are looking to the future? No. Does it suck how jimmer was treated? I think so. But I just don't agree that how we did things are the way things are supposed to be done. I believe you play the players that earn their minutes and you develop the unproven, unheralded rookies (non lottery picks) in nbdl/practice or in games when needed due to injury or blowouts.
I dunno if you are trolling because he's a jazz fan but its bit really the same scenario. Biedrins has been in the league for awhile and you know what ur getting with him. Now if you said gobert over kanter it's closer. Kanter was a high pick and played behind big al. Not getting many mins to prove himself. If all of a sudden gobert got pt over him this year I'm sure npliam would say something. Actually I'm not since I don't know him but I would question the decision if I were a jazz fan
My sole position was the loser organization part. The fact that Biedrins is in his last year of contract same as jimmer and not playing because the organization knows he will be gone next is just ironic because the person calling us a loser organization for not playing a guy that will not be here next year is a fan of the Jazz. Yet his stance is different. Had jimmer went to duke instead of BYU I think Npliam would not be here protesting. It's bias in its raw form.
It doesn't matter. We as an organization have decided to move on from Jimmer. We pretty much have from day 1. He wasn't in the original rotation. Didn't pick up his option. A plethora of rumors saying we would trade him for a 2nd round pick. Right, Wrong, or indifferent, we decided that Jimmer would not be in our long-term plans.
My point is that organizations with the goal to win as many games as they can in current season play whoever they have that bring them the most games. Granger was a big part of rotation once healthy, even though cap math showed he will most likely leave Pacers after the season. Teams with the goal to assess, what they have for the next season, don't play guys, who won't be back. Now coaches will still play better guys, unless FO specifically asked them to, and that appear to be the case. Absolutely normal situation, nothing to do with stupid labels like winning or losing organisation.
Steel makes a good point. Why would you immediately sign Ray Mac (or ANY second round pick) to a 3 year deal? The odds of a second round pick becoming an nba player long term are fairly small. Now we are locked into trying to get something out of ray, at least in the immediate short term. Well, what if ray can't play? Financially, it's not a big deal. But if we are excluding looking at other players cause we need to play ray, that's not great. I'd much rather take a look at guys on 10 day contracts than lock into a rookie second rounder unnecessarily.
- Status