Yep. That guy.
Your assertion that his being part of a title team somehow means something is ridiculous. Derek Fisher was part of 5 title teams yet never averaged more than 13 points and 4 assists. Dude was a role player. Lots of role players have titles. You're skirting the point that Jason Williams shot out of a cannon his rookie season and looked to be all world, but never lived up to the potential.
After 1 season, Tyreke Evans looked like a better draft pick than Steph Curry. But how'd that look after 3-4 seasons and now?
You're making some really poor arguments.
Nash may have went to a small school, but he was a top 15 pick for a reason. Furthermore, he was playing against top flight competition his first few years in the NBA wasn't he? It still took him til year 5 to show something significant.
AAU is not top flight competition. They're may be some good players there, but most never reach the NBA. Fox is still really green with only 1 season of college and now 1 year of NBA experience.
Comparing any player to the exceptions that hit the ground running is flawed. Players develop at different rates.
Jason Kidd didn't destroy his 1st season in the NBA. But he turned out pretty good, didn't he?
How about Mike Conley, Tony Parker? Mike Bibby? Kevin Johnson? The list can go on and on.
The crux of the point is, nobody knows FOX's future after year 1. He could turn out to be a disappointment or he could still meet or exceed his potential.
i like that you included kevin johnson in your list.
and i want to make it clear that i don't think fox sucks.
if i thought he sucked, i'd say, "woe is us - we'll never get anything for the bum"
but on the contrary, i think he could develop into a premier starting guard.
and whereas a month ago, i would have said that mason was having the better season, i now think that they have both played about the same - which actually favors fox, since he is four years younger.
what i AM saying is that this is akin to cleveland drafting mark price as an undersized second rounder and then (the folloing year) kevin johnson as a lottery pick (7th?).
and cleveland immediately (midseason) made the decision to trade the guy with a higher value/upside because they needed more in the frontcourt and johnson brought them larry nance - which price would not have done.
price probably turned out to be better than they had hoped - or maybe they saw it before they made the trade. but that trade made both teams a lot better.
if you DON'T trade fox, you probably lose mason as a contributor (just not enough minutes to go around).
don nelson used to say that he could always find a decent point guard somewhere other than the lottery and he considered other positions more important. he finally got tim hardaway with pick #14. take a look at timbug's first year stats: 33+ minutes, 14.7 points, 8.7 assists.
not that a point guard MUST tear up the league in his first season, but the ones that do so usually continue to succeed.
de'arron fox was the FIFTH pick and he has underachieved.
you cn say, "but he is only 20" and it would be interesting to discuss whether guys who play aau ball from 6th grade on nowadays are more prepared/less prepared that guys who play four years college back in the day. point is, "it isn't age neccessarrily - it is more depth and quality of experience".
if frank mason had come in like a house afire and wowed the league (and if his trade value was higher), i'd say "trade mason".
but i think both have proven they can play and there is really only room for one of them.
the only reason i say "trade fox" is because we have four other quality guards, three who can play the point.
now i don't know - maybe no one WOULD give s lottery value for fox. but i would test the market (if you could do it without word getting out: "Fox On Trading Block").
becuse i see nothing but question marks in our frontcourt.
Giles?
Willie?
Skal?
Justin?
whereas Bogi and Buddy are keepers and I believe that as part of a group of four (including temple here) that mason is adequate. I would still play a backcourt of buddy/bogi down the stretch (unless you needed temple's defense) , but i think frank would be happy starting (buddy being better used as instant offense off the bench).
If I thought our bigs were decent, i would not suggest trading fox. and i would not be unhappy if fox took his new team to the playoffs 11 straight years (as kj did). i simply think we need a trade that is "best for both teams". i am not sure who we could get (i would prefer a proven player rather than another gamble), but if we get someone the quality of larry nance, well, i'm good with that.
i look at the kawhai leonard situation in san antonio and wonder if he is going to sign a max ontract there (not sure of the diff - but they can offer more). if they are gun-shy and we could take on that big money (we certainly have the cap room), i would be fine sending fox and our #1 to the spurs for kawahi (sign and trade?) and patty mills or maybe bertrans.
not bcause i am down on fox. but because with no 2019 first round pick, it really looks like this offseason is when we finish assembling the team for the next five-ten years.
now, if we think we have failed with this rebuild and really only have three guards to show for it, ok then, tread water for a couple of ears, keep fox (buddy and bogi) and try again.
-------------------------------------------------
adding this:
jason kidd was referenced as unproductive in his first year, so i looked up his stats:
33.8 minutes in 79 starts... 11.7 ppg, 7.7 assists, 5.4 rebounds
uh - i'll take that
following year: 81 starts, 37mpg, 16.6ppg, , 9.8apg, 6.8 rpg - does anyone think fox will hit those marks next year?
don't all raise your hands at once.
oh, but kidd was 21 in his first season (turned 22 in late march of rookie season). fox was only 20.
same poster mentioned steve nash - apples to oranges (see favre-rodgers nfl)
nash was stuck BEHIND kidd for his first two years (total starts: 11)
you need better examples
