Author Topic: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?  (Read 4398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2023, 09:27:12 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
I am just piling on here but Brogdon did everything you could possibly ask for.  The concerns were durability and whether he would accept a lesser role than he was accustomed to.

He not only accepted the role, he embraced it, winning 6th man of the year.  He was making big plays in the playoffs, exactly what we were missing last season in the finals.  Then he hurt his arm.  If he was healthy, we may beat MIA, so I guess you could look at just that and say "fail".  But I don't look at it that way.

Someone mentioned potentially trading him.  I am OK with that if we get a good player or package.  But if this season had been a failure for him, his trade value would be low.  But I think just the opposite.  Based on what he did here, I see his value as high.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2023, 10:27:50 AM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47135
  • Tommy Points: 2401
Not a failure but think he’s the most logical option to trade to upgrade the team. Biggest salary out of the combo guard group and could net you a couple of solid players to add to the bench like a 3 and D wing and maybe a bench big. Stinks because I have always like this player but last year was his healthiest year ever games played wise and he still couldn’t end the season healthy between the sore Achilles and the elbow thing in the playoffs. What are the odds he plus that much again next year?

This worries me as well. This may have been as consistent an output as we ever get from Brogdon.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2023, 10:51:06 AM »

Offline cons

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 103
should just bench him till playoffs basically

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2023, 12:10:21 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
No, I wouldn't call it that.

Look, they traded for Brogdon under 1 defined set of rules, ie the old CBA. Under that set of rules all it cost them was money and a late first, and for that they get the sixth man of the year. Not a bad deal.

They had no way of knowing that a year later a completely different set of rules would take effect, ie the new CBA. And under these rules being too expensive is very costly in terms of team building mechanics and so Brogdon probably has to go as a result. Not his fault, not their fault, no way of knowing.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2023, 08:49:24 PM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
I wouldn't categorize it a failure at all, but I would certainly acknowledge some of these negatives:

1) He did play for most of the year but he also got injured at the time we needed him the most. He also was clearly on some restrictive plan during the regular season that prohibited increased minutes in case we needed him to fill in and play a bigger role. It's not totally his fault, but if you were concerned about his health going in, you might have a case.

2) All year people touted his defense and how he fit our switching philosophy. While he wasn't unplayable in the playoffs, he definitely was challenged a lot by the best players and he didn't always hold up as well as expected.

3) People did want him to be a third offensive threat but some also expected him to improve our playmaking. However, he either wasn't good at it or he simply wasn't asked to play that role by the coaching staff. It seems like he was asked to do two things, mostly: shoot spot-up 3s, the occasional step-back, or drive to the basket. It didn't seem like he was often involved in the offense beyond that. I don't know how much of that was his own limitations, his teammates (Tatum) wanting to control the offense, or the aforementioned offensive plan, but it just didn't happen as much as some thought it would.

4) If you were one of the people (like me) that wanted them to prioritize finding Horford's replacement/Rob insurance last offseason, it could be quite vexing to see Horford flailing around out there. Then you had the three guard lineups where they simply looked way too freaking small. That draft pick and the salary slot could have been used in a different way, but they clearly prioritized an offensive guard due to what happened vs.  the Warriors. With White improving his overall offensive play it became less of a critical need this year
than we thought it was.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2023, 08:59:29 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58543
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
4) If you were one of the people (like me) that wanted them to prioritize finding Horford's replacement/Rob insurance last offseason, it could be quite vexing to see Horford flailing around out there. Then you had the three guard lineups where they simply looked way too freaking small. That draft pick and the salary slot could have been used in a different way, but they clearly prioritized an offensive guard due to what happened vs.  the Warriors. With White improving his overall offensive play it became less of a critical need this year
than we thought it was.

The question is always "who".  Were there any bugs moved that would have been more impactful for our team?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2023, 09:22:11 PM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
I'll also go further and say that Brad's focus on shooting and offense last year wasn't necessarily bad in theory, but the two guys they chose are notorious for being injury-prone and aren't really two-way players. If Gallinari hadn't torn his ACL, how much would he have really played in the playoffs? We had Mike Muscala who admittedly isn't as good, but plays a similar role. He couldn't even sniff the court once the postseason started.


Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2023, 09:33:09 PM »

Online jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47893
  • Tommy Points: 2906
I wouldn't categorize it a failure at all, but I would certainly acknowledge some of these negatives:

1) He did play for most of the year but he also got injured at the time we needed him the most. He also was clearly on some restrictive plan during the regular season that prohibited increased minutes in case we needed him to fill in and play a bigger role. It's not totally his fault, but if you were concerned about his health going in, you might have a case.

2) All year people touted his defense and how he fit our switching philosophy. While he wasn't unplayable in the playoffs, he definitely was challenged a lot by the best players and he didn't always hold up as well as expected.

3) People did want him to be a third offensive threat but some also expected him to improve our playmaking. However, he either wasn't good at it or he simply wasn't asked to play that role by the coaching staff. It seems like he was asked to do two things, mostly: shoot spot-up 3s, the occasional step-back, or drive to the basket. It didn't seem like he was often involved in the offense beyond that. I don't know how much of that was his own limitations, his teammates (Tatum) wanting to control the offense, or the aforementioned offensive plan, but it just didn't happen as much as some thought it would.

4) If you were one of the people (like me) that wanted them to prioritize finding Horford's replacement/Rob insurance last offseason, it could be quite vexing to see Horford flailing around out there. Then you had the three guard lineups where they simply looked way too freaking small. That draft pick and the salary slot could have been used in a different way, but they clearly prioritized an offensive guard due to what happened vs.  the Warriors. With White improving his overall offensive play it became less of a critical need this year
than we thought it was.

I will say that while I think he had a successful overall year and glad we did the trade, I was disappointed that he was less of a playmaker and more an individual scorer. I thought he’d come in and dramatically help our playmaking and getting others involved off the bench, but he mostly played the scorer role, sometimes even seeming like a black hole on offense.

Perhaps it was a role adjustment for him coming off the bench that led to this, or it’s what they asked him to do. But I’d like to see more playmaking and distribution from him next year if he’s still here.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2023, 09:49:35 PM »

Offline CelticSooner

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11495
  • Tommy Points: 866
  • GOT IT!!!
His assist numbers his last four seasons:

2020: 7.1
2021: 5.9
2022: 5.9
2023: 3.7

Different role sure but he was looking for his first. That goes for most of the team though.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2023, 09:53:03 PM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
Quote
4) If you were one of the people (like me) that wanted them to prioritize finding Horford's replacement/Rob insurance last offseason, it could be quite vexing to see Horford flailing around out there. Then you had the three guard lineups where they simply looked way too freaking small. That draft pick and the salary slot could have been used in a different way, but they clearly prioritized an offensive guard due to what happened vs.  the Warriors. With White improving his overall offensive play it became less of a critical need this year
than we thought it was.

The question is always "who".  Were there any bugs moved that would have been more impactful for our team?

No, you're right. We don't know ultimately what was actually possible when the Brogdon thing kind of fell in their lap due to the Pacers wanting to do right by him.

It was a bad FA market overall. One of their targets for the minimum that fell through, Thomas Bryant, didn't even end his season with the Lakers and can't get on the court for the Nuggets.I was hoping they could get Otto Porter, but apparently his wife being from Toronto led him there even though they had a million PFs already. Of course, the minute he left GS he got injured again. Anyone who saw Bruce Brown on the Nets could have predicted he'd have an impactful year for the Nuggets, but we didn't need another guard. Malik Monk was a great signing, but we didn't have a full mid-level available.

Even if I can't point to any specific moves, the end result was still that Horford wore down and Rob apparently still couldn't play big minutes despite being healthy-ish. They clearly felt the same before the trade deadline when they tried to get Poetl even though it was likely to be a rental only. I don't know what they can do now but it's clear they need to do something. Not expending serious resources into the position for another season simply isn't feasible.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2023, 09:58:52 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
The experiment did not fail, but his body did
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2023, 07:36:02 AM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47135
  • Tommy Points: 2401
Malik Monk was a great signing, but we didn't have a full mid-level available.
Plus, Monk had just failed in Los Angeles (Lakers). I am not sure how well he could reproduce / be depended on to reproduce the form he showed in Sacramento.

That up and down offense. No defensive identity (25th in league). Live with all types of defensive lapses which meant Monk get a good run of consistent playing time which he might not have got elsewhere. SAC also had Sabonis to help organize their halfcourt offense and a playmaking PG to create shots and opportunities for Monk; neither of which we have in BOS. Plus, Monk has mostly been a one-on-one guy most of his career (adding to BOS problems) although he did pass the ball better this season in SAC (sign of growth or team specific?).

One of those wildly inconsistent players.

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2023, 08:08:59 AM »

Offline boscel33

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2667
  • Tommy Points: 166
I don't know how winning the 6th Man Award would be considered a failure, as that's what he was brought in to do.  He played in more games this year than he has dating back to his rookie year.  Just our luck, got hurt late as has been the case over the past few years.
"There's sharks and minnows in this world. If you don't know which you are, you ain't a shark."

Re: Did the Malcolm Brogdon experiment Fail?
« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2023, 04:21:49 PM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
Malik Monk was a great signing, but we didn't have a full mid-level available.
Plus, Monk had just failed in Los Angeles (Lakers). I am not sure how well he could reproduce / be depended on to reproduce the form he showed in Sacramento.

That up and down offense. No defensive identity (25th in league). Live with all types of defensive lapses which meant Monk get a good run of consistent playing time which he might not have got elsewhere. SAC also had Sabonis to help organize their halfcourt offense and a playmaking PG to create shots and opportunities for Monk; neither of which we have in BOS. Plus, Monk has mostly been a one-on-one guy most of his career (adding to BOS problems) although he did pass the ball better this season in SAC (sign of growth or team specific?).

One of those wildly inconsistent players.

Sure, but at 10m/year he was still a good signing regardless of system or defensive limitations. Admittedly, I mostly just saw what he did in the postseason. It seemed like he did what his role required, which is score off the bench and beat your man when the defense is primarily focused on the stars.