Trade With Bulls this Offseason

#31
I'm done quoting each little part, what baffles me are all the "facts" being thrown out there for, once again, someone who hasn't played a full season worth of games.

It'd almost feel justified if all you guys' negative points on Bagley are his health issue, which is also largely unproven.
Time out I know you’re not saying Bagley health issues are unproven ?
 
#34
For his NBA career, 12.4% of Bagley's shot attempts have been dunks. So apparently, 87.6% of what he "knows" is something else other than open dunks.

That said, it's kind of nice to have a player who is effective at dunking, as it's a pretty damn high efficiency shot.
I clearly said most of his game is tunneling one on one and open dunks. So that 87% is him catching it, holding it, not even thinking about making a pass going head down and trying to do something.
 
#37
Feel free to agree to disagree.

I personally would simply take the words from someone who'd directly contact with the guy, but what do I know?
View attachment 9591
What’s this prove I’m not saying he’s soft I’m saying he’s injury prone, vague or not look how many games he’s missed. He came back and immediately was out again I guess maybe he wasn’t 100% but he’s missing games now that’s a fact. Not saying he’ll be injury prone forever though
 
#38
What’s this prove I’m not saying he’s soft I’m saying he’s injury prone, vague or not look how many games he’s missed. He came back and immediately was out again I guess maybe he wasn’t 100% but he’s missing games now that’s a fact. Not saying he’ll be injury prone forever though
It doesn't prove anything other than the fact that this man worked with Bagley so I'd take his word that he's not soft or injury-prone over any of us outsiders, which is the same as everything else you people criticizing him for. Too small a sample size.

But again, what do I know?
 
#39
Lavine doesn't play much defense, same as Markeneen. So I agree with some of our posters that bringing them in doesn't make us that much better.

Now the major unknown in that equation is one Marvin Bagley, as Bajaden said above, none of us has seen what this kid can really do. And that would be a major disservice to ship him out without assessing the goods. And it's also a bit unfair, with Mr. Youngman's note in mind, to classify him "soft" or injury-prone. With his athletic ability and gifted physicality, he could really turn into the modern big man who can stretch the floor, plays both inside and out (we already saw a glimpse of his ability inside, even with just his left hand), plays a mean pick and roll with Fox/Hield/Bog, and be a difference maker on the defensive end (which is the biggest question mark but you'd be careless to rule him out on that completely).

That's very different from some of the rookies/young players in the league who the critics think to have very high potential yet needs time. Bagley in this stage has already shown us he can be a 20/10 guy easily (barring injury). As I said, it wouldn't be wise to not give him another year at least to see his progression.
Where do you get this conclusion that athleticism = shooter? I always thought whether or not you could stretch the floor had something to do with, oh y'know, your ability to shoot? Athletic ability also does not equal good PnR player, at present Bagley slips every screen and doesn't know how to roll, or move off-ball at all really, but this is a smaller question mark than his shooting. He's also rail thin with a small wingspan for his size so unless he improves his defensive IQ to Draymond-lite (not happening) he's never going to be a defensive stud. You've fallen into the trap of grab the greatest athlete and hope the rest works out, despite there being no indication it can work out. That's how you end up with Stromile Swift.

Marvin Bagley and modern big should never be used in the same sentence; he's the exact opposite. Markkanen is WAY closer to the standard of modern big.

Sure he can get 20/10; it's a point that is bandied around here often, but I'm still not seeing why this sainted 20/10 matters.

Buddy may be the better defender when compared to the very low bar of Zach Lavine, but Markkanen is better at defense than he's given credit for. He's leagues better than Bagley, who's bottom five at his position.
 
#40
It doesn't prove anything other than the fact that this man worked with Bagley so I'd take his word that he's not soft or injury-prone over any of us outsiders, which is the same as everything else you people criticizing him for. Too small a sample size.

But again, what do I know?
I See what you mean but your source isn’t exactly unbiased
 
#41
Where do you get this conclusion that athleticism = shooter? I always thought whether or not you could stretch the floor had something to do with, oh y'know, your ability to shoot? Athletic ability also does not equal good PnR player, at present Bagley slips every screen and doesn't know how to roll, or move off-ball at all really, but this is a smaller question mark than his shooting. He's also rail thin with a small wingspan for his size so unless he improves his defensive IQ to Draymond-lite (not happening) he's never going to be a defensive stud. You've fallen into the trap of grab the greatest athlete and hope the rest works out, despite there being no indication it can work out. That's how you end up with Stromile Swift.

Marvin Bagley and modern big should never be used in the same sentence; he's the exact opposite. Markkanen is WAY closer to the standard of modern big.

Sure he can get 20/10; it's a point that is bandied around here often, but I'm still not seeing why this sainted 20/10 matters.

Buddy may be the better defender when compared to the very low bar of Zach Lavine, but Markkanen is better at defense than he's given credit for. He's leagues better than Bagley, who's bottom five at his position.
Just because I said two of his strength doesn't mean one equals the other...

... and I guess his 53.9 efg% from 25-29 ft, 41.7 efg% from 15-19 ft, and his nice shooting stroke in his rookie season didn't leave much of a mark...