papatomany
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,229
- Likes
- 1,232
True. In hindsight it's obvious we should have played Maymon and Hall and probably McRae a lot more minutes this year. They might be ready to help us now if we had.
But at the time, when we were sitting 7-0? It looked different then. At that point, the trade is "Maymon might make us better in the long run, but we'll lose this game if he plays."
That's a trade we'd make now, cause we lost a bunch of games anyway. But tougher call on the spot.
And again, you don't have to look that far to find the failures. The staff didn't get the potential from the starters, and that's what has screwed this season over.
It's a trade I would always make, and said so at the time (though for me it was Hall, not Maymon; Maymon was not yet eligible and was an unknown quantity). Hall at his worst is barely below Steven Pearl at his best (and that's giving Steven the benefit of the doubt -- I really believe that Hall at his worst is still better than Steven). But, if Hall were playing Steven's minutes, he would most likely play barely worse than Steven once and WAY better than Steven the next game. He might, as he DID last year, grab 11 or 12 rebounds in only 20 minutes or so. Steven never will. The chance of that kind of thing happening increases exponentially when the guy knows he's going to get those minutes, gets them consistently, and isn't afraid he's going to be yanked out for any mistake. Two minutes here or there just doesn't do it. What comes with time is consistency; which is to say that the 11 or 12 rebound games would be coming more frequently.