Landry vs. JT
- Thread starter Nighthawk1
- Start date
Because if we can get a pick out of it and save some money in the second half of the season (if we traded him for another expiring with a contract half as big, we'd save close to $3 million after the deadline), then it helps us in the future. Now if we're somehow in the running for a playoff spot, that might change things. But assuming we're on pace to be a high 30- low 40 win team in late January, and assuming Cousins is ready to play 30-35 minutes a game, then we can afford to get rid of Dalembert for a pick and some net savings.
We'd still have the same amount of cap space next summer. Right now, we have about $18 million on the books for 2011-12. If we packaged Dalembert and Udrih to a contender for a first rounder and an expiring contract, we could bring that down to about $11 million. Throw in our draft signees and such, and we'd be at about $15 million come free agency. That's about $40 million in cap space.
We'd still have the same amount of cap space next summer. Right now, we have about $18 million on the books for 2011-12. If we packaged Dalembert and Udrih to a contender for a first rounder and an expiring contract, we could bring that down to about $11 million. Throw in our draft signees and such, and we'd be at about $15 million come free agency. That's about $40 million in cap space.
Gasol is more power forward than center. He only plays center when Bynum is unavailable. Even still, Dalembert is not Pau Gasol. Dalembert's primary function on a basketball team is to patrol the paint and alter shots. He can't do that if he's trying to stay in front of a power foward 15 feet away from the basket. It's not even a question of whether he'd be effective playing defense away from the basket. I think he might be better at it than most people on this board believe. But that's not his strength. If he's not blocking shots, he's not fulfilling his role. Has nothing to do with his offense, either. It's all about the fact that Dalembert at the basket > Dalembert away from the basket. So you play him at center, almost exclusively.
Is and always has been a tweener, because he can handle the ball and score from outside, but he's long and athletic so he makes a good rebounder, and can even block a shot or three when he's inclined to do so. Allows you incredible versatility on offense when you're 6'11" forward can bring the ball up court, initiate the offense, even break his man down off the dribble, but can also set up in the post and score over a smaller man. But on defense, Odom can't guard the majority of offensive-minded small forwards, and he's inadequate against the premiere power forwards. His ideal matchup is another hybrid big man, like Dirk Nowitzki or Chris Bosh, not a traditional guy like Carmelo Anthony at small forward, or Amare Stoudemire at power forward.
Again, a hybrid who can do either job you want him to do. But this is again about what he brings to the table offensively, as a nightmare matchup for a smallish point guard or a bigger shooting guard.
The point with Dalembert is that he's at his best when he's patrolling the paint. You limit his effectiveness by putting him at power forward where he gets pulled away from the basket. It's even more clear when you consider how unnecessary it is to do so. You can put Thompson or Whiteside in the game if you want versatility at power forward. We don't need Dalembert to play that role for us.
Is and always has been a tweener, because he can handle the ball and score from outside, but he's long and athletic so he makes a good rebounder, and can even block a shot or three when he's inclined to do so. Allows you incredible versatility on offense when you're 6'11" forward can bring the ball up court, initiate the offense, even break his man down off the dribble, but can also set up in the post and score over a smaller man. But on defense, Odom can't guard the majority of offensive-minded small forwards, and he's inadequate against the premiere power forwards. His ideal matchup is another hybrid big man, like Dirk Nowitzki or Chris Bosh, not a traditional guy like Carmelo Anthony at small forward, or Amare Stoudemire at power forward.
Again, a hybrid who can do either job you want him to do. But this is again about what he brings to the table offensively, as a nightmare matchup for a smallish point guard or a bigger shooting guard.
The point with Dalembert is that he's at his best when he's patrolling the paint. You limit his effectiveness by putting him at power forward where he gets pulled away from the basket. It's even more clear when you consider how unnecessary it is to do so. You can put Thompson or Whiteside in the game if you want versatility at power forward. We don't need Dalembert to play that role for us.
You know whats funny? During the season I probly would have taken Landry over JT hands down. I think im changing picks here ..
I just think JT brings more to the table. I think he's a better defender ( potentially much better, right now just a tad better due to size ) he's a much better rebounder ... and he's taller. That matters. He's younger and he fills that 'second big next to Cousins' role much better than Landry would.
I could change my mind on this. Its really close. I like Landry, but most of his offense last year came from jumpers. If JT can get his jumpshot down ( and its been looking better and better ) I see no reason why he cant average around 15 a game with 8 or 9 rebounds. And with JT's better size, you would take JT's 15-8 over Landry's 16-6.
If we can construct a roster that brings Landry and Beno in off the bench, look out.
I just think JT brings more to the table. I think he's a better defender ( potentially much better, right now just a tad better due to size ) he's a much better rebounder ... and he's taller. That matters. He's younger and he fills that 'second big next to Cousins' role much better than Landry would.
I could change my mind on this. Its really close. I like Landry, but most of his offense last year came from jumpers. If JT can get his jumpshot down ( and its been looking better and better ) I see no reason why he cant average around 15 a game with 8 or 9 rebounds. And with JT's better size, you would take JT's 15-8 over Landry's 16-6.
If we can construct a roster that brings Landry and Beno in off the bench, look out.
Your post is confusing.
At one point you are saying playing guys out of their natural position is silly, and yet you are saying you are okay with this silly idea of trying players to play out of their natural position, specifically Cousins if he can get in better shape.
I think that is what the idea of everyone who wants to see Cousins playing some minutes at PF. Cousins is ony 19 years old and still over-weight that is why a lot of us see him as so slow to play PF and therefore seems clearly suited as a C.
What if he can still loose some weight and be quicker as a result?
Also, does this mean that if a 19 year old amateur player played his whole life at center, there is no chance for him developing the necessary skills to become a PF in the NBA? If your answer is yes, then let us tell Evans not to practice his jump shooting anymore.
At one point you are saying playing guys out of their natural position is silly, and yet you are saying you are okay with this silly idea of trying players to play out of their natural position, specifically Cousins if he can get in better shape.
I think that is what the idea of everyone who wants to see Cousins playing some minutes at PF. Cousins is ony 19 years old and still over-weight that is why a lot of us see him as so slow to play PF and therefore seems clearly suited as a C.
What if he can still loose some weight and be quicker as a result?
Also, does this mean that if a 19 year old amateur player played his whole life at center, there is no chance for him developing the necessary skills to become a PF in the NBA? If your answer is yes, then let us tell Evans not to practice his jump shooting anymore.
Sorry, but I disagree.
IMO, Donte and JT benefited a lot from having played multiple positions early in their NBA career. Maybe if they are on their 4th or 5th year it will hurt, but never as early as your 1st and 2nd year when you are still raw and still learning the game. IMO, they probably have learned a lot from playing different positions for they probably learned more through first-hand experience how every position basically works inside the court. It pays to be a well-rounded player.
I think if there is anything that can hurt a player's development, it would be being a naturally dumb in basketball ( which could be the case in Thompson ) and lack of playing time ( which could be the case in Donte Greene ). Luckily for Thompson and Greene, both are modifiable factors.
IMO, Donte and JT benefited a lot from having played multiple positions early in their NBA career. Maybe if they are on their 4th or 5th year it will hurt, but never as early as your 1st and 2nd year when you are still raw and still learning the game. IMO, they probably have learned a lot from playing different positions for they probably learned more through first-hand experience how every position basically works inside the court. It pays to be a well-rounded player.
I think if there is anything that can hurt a player's development, it would be being a naturally dumb in basketball ( which could be the case in Thompson ) and lack of playing time ( which could be the case in Donte Greene ). Luckily for Thompson and Greene, both are modifiable factors.
Last edited:
And who are those two PFs?
The undersized Landry, the not-fully-developed PF Thompson, or the slower and too-raw-to-play significant minutes Whiteside?
If Landry and Thompson are good enough, then I bet we could have had more than 25 wins the past season.
I think we are underestimating the quickness and heart of the veteran Dalembert too much. Also, I think you guys are painting a picture of other team's PFs as BIGs who would just be camping outside of the paint in offense ALL the time. A lot of PF's ( like Landry, Boozer, Gasol, Garnett, or even Stoudamire ) operates in the paint too and Dalembert might be the perfect guy to guard them. If Dalembert won't do his job as a PF, then pull him out.
The undersized Landry, the not-fully-developed PF Thompson, or the slower and too-raw-to-play significant minutes Whiteside?
If Landry and Thompson are good enough, then I bet we could have had more than 25 wins the past season.
I think we are underestimating the quickness and heart of the veteran Dalembert too much. Also, I think you guys are painting a picture of other team's PFs as BIGs who would just be camping outside of the paint in offense ALL the time. A lot of PF's ( like Landry, Boozer, Gasol, Garnett, or even Stoudamire ) operates in the paint too and Dalembert might be the perfect guy to guard them. If Dalembert won't do his job as a PF, then pull him out.
What I can't understand is why do we have to save "so much money" for the future if it will mean continually sucking for a few more years?
To make the Maloofs richer?
Why can't we aim for higher grounds now and the next season?
We've got a pretty good young players now in Evans, Cousins, Greene, Thompson, and Whiteside. The first two are potential superstars, the next two are potential all-stars, and the last one is still too raw. It wouldn't be until 3-4 years from now that we need that "much money" to re-sign our key players ( Evans and Cousins ) and I can't understand why we cannot absorb some 7-8 million for the next 4-5 years to retain the starter-quality player like Dalembert so we can let the young ones start tasting some winning NOW.
Do you guys honestly believe Cousins and Whiteside can assume the role of defensive anchor for this team as soon as in two years time?
We kept on asking Petrie for a defensive BIG for a long time now. And now that we have one in Dalembert ( who can be perfect for that role while we wait for Whiteside to fully develop ) we want to kick him out of the team ASAP.
Are we worried about the Maloof's Wallet or the Team as fans?
Please explain, because honestly I don't get the mathematics.
To make the Maloofs richer?
Why can't we aim for higher grounds now and the next season?
We've got a pretty good young players now in Evans, Cousins, Greene, Thompson, and Whiteside. The first two are potential superstars, the next two are potential all-stars, and the last one is still too raw. It wouldn't be until 3-4 years from now that we need that "much money" to re-sign our key players ( Evans and Cousins ) and I can't understand why we cannot absorb some 7-8 million for the next 4-5 years to retain the starter-quality player like Dalembert so we can let the young ones start tasting some winning NOW.
Do you guys honestly believe Cousins and Whiteside can assume the role of defensive anchor for this team as soon as in two years time?
We kept on asking Petrie for a defensive BIG for a long time now. And now that we have one in Dalembert ( who can be perfect for that role while we wait for Whiteside to fully develop ) we want to kick him out of the team ASAP.
Are we worried about the Maloof's Wallet or the Team as fans?
Please explain, because honestly I don't get the mathematics.
Last edited:
I think I would choose to keep Thompson if we're looking to move one of them for additional assets. Here's why:
1) CONTRACT. Landry being a UFA this off-season is scary for two reasons. One we could lose him for nothing(I doubt it, but it's possible) and that threat may lead us to overpaying him to 'secure him'. It also competes with us playing in the 2011 FA palooza as well. Trying to juggle two signings could get a little hairy especially if we target a top-tiered free agent. Also having JT still on a rookie salary allows the Kings to keep maximum salary space to target one or two free agents next season.
2) VALUE. Point blank Landry has more trade value. His skill-set is more valuable to most teams. He's a little more established and proven and could net us a better return via trade.
3) SIZE. JT is a BIG PF, and can also double as a center. This is a big deal for me. IF it's close, and I think it's close, with a nudge favoring Landry in the present then I go bigger.
4) FIT. JT just seems to fit better with this roster. He's a hustler in the frontcourt. He rebounds well and he's definitely skilled. With DMC on the roster, some of Landry's luster wears off for this teams needs.
5) AGE. JT is 3 years younger and is more contemporary to our building blocks of Evans(20) and Cousins(19). That gives us more continuity going forward.
Don't get me wrong, I am a Landry fan. Just that my pragmatic side would pick Thompson between the two.
1) CONTRACT. Landry being a UFA this off-season is scary for two reasons. One we could lose him for nothing(I doubt it, but it's possible) and that threat may lead us to overpaying him to 'secure him'. It also competes with us playing in the 2011 FA palooza as well. Trying to juggle two signings could get a little hairy especially if we target a top-tiered free agent. Also having JT still on a rookie salary allows the Kings to keep maximum salary space to target one or two free agents next season.
2) VALUE. Point blank Landry has more trade value. His skill-set is more valuable to most teams. He's a little more established and proven and could net us a better return via trade.
3) SIZE. JT is a BIG PF, and can also double as a center. This is a big deal for me. IF it's close, and I think it's close, with a nudge favoring Landry in the present then I go bigger.
4) FIT. JT just seems to fit better with this roster. He's a hustler in the frontcourt. He rebounds well and he's definitely skilled. With DMC on the roster, some of Landry's luster wears off for this teams needs.
5) AGE. JT is 3 years younger and is more contemporary to our building blocks of Evans(20) and Cousins(19). That gives us more continuity going forward.
Don't get me wrong, I am a Landry fan. Just that my pragmatic side would pick Thompson between the two.
No, I think my post is quite clear. There is a big difference between slating Cousins as a 4 (as some are saying we should do next to Sam as the 5 right off the bat) and having Cousins play the 5 (his natural position) with spot minutes at the 4 to see how he does before he has ever played a game in the NBA. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
What I can't understand is why do we have to save "so much money" for the future if it will mean continually sucking for a few more years?
To make the Maloofs richer?
Why can't we aim for higher grounds now and the next season?
We've got a pretty good young players now in Evans, Cousins, Greene, Thompson, and Whiteside. The first two are potential superstars, the next two are potential all-stars, and the last one is still too raw. It wouldn't be until 3-4 years from now that we need that "much money" to re-sign our key players ( Evans and Cousins ) and I can't understand why we cannot absorb some 7-8 million for the next 4-5 years to retain the starter-quality player like Dalembert so we can let the young ones start tasting some winning NOW.
Do you guys honestly believe Cousins and Whiteside can assume the role of defensive anchor for this team as soon as in two years time?
We kept on asking Petrie for a defensive BIG for a long time now. And now that we have one in Dalembert ( who can be perfect for that role while we wait for Whiteside to fully develop ) we want to kick him out of the team ASAP.
Are we worried about the Maloof's Wallet or the Team as fans?
Please explain, because honestly I don't get the mathematics.
To make the Maloofs richer?
Why can't we aim for higher grounds now and the next season?
We've got a pretty good young players now in Evans, Cousins, Greene, Thompson, and Whiteside. The first two are potential superstars, the next two are potential all-stars, and the last one is still too raw. It wouldn't be until 3-4 years from now that we need that "much money" to re-sign our key players ( Evans and Cousins ) and I can't understand why we cannot absorb some 7-8 million for the next 4-5 years to retain the starter-quality player like Dalembert so we can let the young ones start tasting some winning NOW.
Do you guys honestly believe Cousins and Whiteside can assume the role of defensive anchor for this team as soon as in two years time?
We kept on asking Petrie for a defensive BIG for a long time now. And now that we have one in Dalembert ( who can be perfect for that role while we wait for Whiteside to fully develop ) we want to kick him out of the team ASAP.
Are we worried about the Maloof's Wallet or the Team as fans?
Please explain, because honestly I don't get the mathematics.
I haven't seen Cousins/Whiteside play one year yet, so maybe I can make better decision whether I need Dalembert after this year. They could very well be ready after this year..who knows.
Evans for sure is a keeper.
We don't know a lot of things, it's best to hold onto the money until we're clearer on what we need to do to improve the team.
I'm worry about locking onto players that we don't know yet and eventually have to find ways to get rid of in the future.
I think you're over-estimating Dalamberts BB IQ. He might be in the top 5 worst BB IQ players from watching him in Philly and watching how his fans react. He thinks he's a much better player then he is. If he comes in here and does what we tell him to do he will be fine. Dally isn't quick or smart enough to guard the those guys. He's a guy you put in the paint and let him go to work from there but asking him to guard guys with good outside shots that are quicker then him would spell disaster.
Red herring. With all the things going on last season, the reason we only won 25 games is because our power forwards weren't good enough?
Landry and Thompson are both more effective on power forwards than Dalembert would be.
If Dalembert is the perfect guy to guard someone, then we should use him. I just don't have any desire to see us trying to force a round peg into a square hole. Dalembert is a center. That's his optimal position on defense, and that's where we should play him. All of the power forwards you mentioned above can catch the ball 20 feet from the basket and either shoot it, or drive past Dalembert, because he's not good at defending out there. Instead of doing that, we could use JT or Landry or even Whiteside, depending on how he develops, and have a much better chance of success. Especially if Dalembert is behind them.
I just don't think our best lineup includes playing Dalembert and Cousins together. We can now put a lineup on the floor that utilizes each player's strengths and minimizes their weaknesses. There's no sense is trying to play either of those two out of position.
Landry and Thompson are both more effective on power forwards than Dalembert would be.
If Dalembert is the perfect guy to guard someone, then we should use him. I just don't have any desire to see us trying to force a round peg into a square hole. Dalembert is a center. That's his optimal position on defense, and that's where we should play him. All of the power forwards you mentioned above can catch the ball 20 feet from the basket and either shoot it, or drive past Dalembert, because he's not good at defending out there. Instead of doing that, we could use JT or Landry or even Whiteside, depending on how he develops, and have a much better chance of success. Especially if Dalembert is behind them.
I just don't think our best lineup includes playing Dalembert and Cousins together. We can now put a lineup on the floor that utilizes each player's strengths and minimizes their weaknesses. There's no sense is trying to play either of those two out of position.
What I can't understand is why do we have to save "so much money" for the future if it will mean continually sucking for a few more years?
To make the Maloofs richer?
Why can't we aim for higher grounds now and the next season?
We've got a pretty good young players now in Evans, Cousins, Greene, Thompson, and Whiteside. The first two are potential superstars, the next two are potential all-stars, and the last one is still too raw. It wouldn't be until 3-4 years from now that we need that "much money" to re-sign our key players ( Evans and Cousins ) and I can't understand why we cannot absorb some 7-8 million for the next 4-5 years to retain the starter-quality player like Dalembert so we can let the young ones start tasting some winning NOW.
Do you guys honestly believe Cousins and Whiteside can assume the role of defensive anchor for this team as soon as in two years time?
We kept on asking Petrie for a defensive BIG for a long time now. And now that we have one in Dalembert ( who can be perfect for that role while we wait for Whiteside to fully develop ) we want to kick him out of the team ASAP.
Are we worried about the Maloof's Wallet or the Team as fans?
Please explain, because honestly I don't get the mathematics.
To make the Maloofs richer?
Why can't we aim for higher grounds now and the next season?
We've got a pretty good young players now in Evans, Cousins, Greene, Thompson, and Whiteside. The first two are potential superstars, the next two are potential all-stars, and the last one is still too raw. It wouldn't be until 3-4 years from now that we need that "much money" to re-sign our key players ( Evans and Cousins ) and I can't understand why we cannot absorb some 7-8 million for the next 4-5 years to retain the starter-quality player like Dalembert so we can let the young ones start tasting some winning NOW.
Do you guys honestly believe Cousins and Whiteside can assume the role of defensive anchor for this team as soon as in two years time?
We kept on asking Petrie for a defensive BIG for a long time now. And now that we have one in Dalembert ( who can be perfect for that role while we wait for Whiteside to fully develop ) we want to kick him out of the team ASAP.
Are we worried about the Maloof's Wallet or the Team as fans?
Please explain, because honestly I don't get the mathematics.
And spending wisely is not completely detached from getting better. But if we have young bigs that can be built around, there's no reason to spend $50 million keeping Dalembert around next summer. And that's exactly what he'll command in free agency, if this summer is any indication. Meanwhile, we might be able to parlay his expiring contract into something that would benefit the team and cost less money.
HowEVER, if we are making a push come February and are in contention for a playoff spot, then I wouldn't move Dally, assuming he was a big part of the success. I don't see us being that strong in contention halfway through the season, but let's say we're at 30 wins and hovering around 7th or 8th in the West, then you keep doing what you're doing and don't look back. And you re-evaluate your roster after the season is up. I'm not resigned to the idea that Dally has to go this season, I just think that we traded for him with the intention of using his expiring contract as a potential trading chip, assuming we're not making a strong playoff push this year.
Back to the financial aspect, we're talking about real money here. No one knows what the new CBA is going to look like. I have a feeling that a lot of these contracts that were given out this summer are going to be albatrosses in a couple of years. And not just Rudy Gay and Joe Johnson, but the Drew Gooden deal and John Salmons, the long term midlevel contracts as well. It's prudent to be tight with money these days in the NBA, and then if the new CBA is more restrictive, you'll have more room to operate under the cap. But even if it's less restrictive, well then that extra money in ownership's pocket comes in handy when it's time to re-sign Evans and Cousins and the auxiliary guys. And if we're in title contention in three or four years, and adding that one extra piece means paying a bit of luxury tax, saving $7 or 8 million for the next couple of seasons makes it easier for those tax checks to be written. The Maloofs wallet finances the team, so yes, I'm worried about it.
I've waited too long to see a shotblocker/rebounder materialize on this team to exile him the instant we see him. That has long been our pattern actually -- get a shotblocker, keep him for 1 season, toss him aside. Almost just pretending to be interested. Now there is Daly. I've mentioend of late that Cousins does not look to be a shotblocker at the NBA level. That means he needs one to start up front with him. Thompson is not. Landry is not. So that leaves Daly and Whiteside. I have high hopes for Whiteside, but likely not this season. And unless we bring in yet another one from outside, he is the key guy for me vis a vis Dalembert. Until he's ready to at least be a major rotation player, I am loathe to lose Daly's defensive presense, whether it just be next year, or going into the future. Havign somebody to lock down that paint is so critical not only to eventual contention, but to our development in these key years too. If we go back to having no presence in the paint, then our defense will be under severe strain every night. Find me a strong replacement for Daly and we can do that. But I'm not willing to just toss him aside and go back to being patsies in the paint. There must be some reason why all the top teams have big money invested in guys like Bynum, Perkins, Birdman, Howard, Chandler, Haywood etc. etc.
Resigning Dalembert for three years at a somewhat sane amount would be ideal. That way, he'd be coming off the books when we have to pay Cousins and Whiteside, and we'll have a good idea how our frontcourt stacks up then. JT would be into his extension assuming we kept him, so if that three-man rotation looks strong, we lock it down.
If this is the plan, then we should be on the lookout for deadline trade opportunities for Landry.
If this is the plan, then we should be on the lookout for deadline trade opportunities for Landry.
Dally will be 30 next summer. He'll be looking for a "prime of career" contract. And if we're projecting from what happened this offseason, he'll get a lot better than "three years at a somewhat sane amount" on the open market. 27 year old Channing Frye and 28 year old Drew Gooden got five years, roughly $30 million. Brendan Haywood, who at 30 years old and as a 9pts, 9rbs, 2blks in 30mpg is the most ideal comparison to Dally, got six years, $55 million. We don't know what changes are going to come with the new CBA, but assuming things aren't drastically changed, then that's what Dally is going to command in free agency. And if things do change drastically, we're going to be having a totally different conversation.
So are you willing to commit to five or six years, $50 or $60 million for Dally? Or whatever the equivalent of that is under the new CBA? Maybe, come January/February, if he's a defensive anchor for a team that can get in the tournament and make noise, then that kind of contract might make sense for us. I have no more insight than you or Brick do, but I don't think a sensible three year deal is going to be enough to keep him around next summer. Not unless he busts with us, in which case, why keep him?
Again, I'm projecting here: If we're on pace for a 40 win season come the deadline, I think Dally is on the trading block. But if we're on pace for a 48+ win season, we'd probably ride it out with him and take a chance on being able to keep him next summer.
So are you willing to commit to five or six years, $50 or $60 million for Dally? Or whatever the equivalent of that is under the new CBA? Maybe, come January/February, if he's a defensive anchor for a team that can get in the tournament and make noise, then that kind of contract might make sense for us. I have no more insight than you or Brick do, but I don't think a sensible three year deal is going to be enough to keep him around next summer. Not unless he busts with us, in which case, why keep him?
Again, I'm projecting here: If we're on pace for a 40 win season come the deadline, I think Dally is on the trading block. But if we're on pace for a 48+ win season, we'd probably ride it out with him and take a chance on being able to keep him next summer.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I disagree.
IMO, Donte and JT benefited a lot from having played multiple positions early in their NBA career. Maybe if they are on their 4th or 5th year it will hurt, but never as early as your 1st and 2nd year when you are still raw and still learning the game. IMO, they probably have learned a lot from playing different positions for they probably learned more through first-hand experience how every position basically works inside the court. It pays to be a well-rounded player.
I think if there is anything that can hurt a player's development, it would be being a naturally dumb in basketball ( which could be the case in Thompson ) and lack of playing time ( which could be the case in Donte Greene ). Luckily for Thompson and Greene, both are modifiable factors.
IMO, Donte and JT benefited a lot from having played multiple positions early in their NBA career. Maybe if they are on their 4th or 5th year it will hurt, but never as early as your 1st and 2nd year when you are still raw and still learning the game. IMO, they probably have learned a lot from playing different positions for they probably learned more through first-hand experience how every position basically works inside the court. It pays to be a well-rounded player.
I think if there is anything that can hurt a player's development, it would be being a naturally dumb in basketball ( which could be the case in Thompson ) and lack of playing time ( which could be the case in Donte Greene ). Luckily for Thompson and Greene, both are modifiable factors.