Monk has always been a great “shooter” without having the results in his ages 19, 20 and 21 seasons as a pro. There is no reason to believe he would revert back to 35% once he allowed the game to slow down for him. He was a much different player on the floor this year than he had in the past.
nighthob has the right idea for him. Monk would be good in a starters role playing alongside a Doncic, LeBron or the like but yeah, he’s lethal in the LouWill, JClarkson role where buckets against 2nd units is his only concern.
I think it's more likely he's at 35 than over 40 again, the idea that a guy sucks for 3 years then has a single good year and that's his new floor is silly, just as often they regress (see Smart, Richardson, etc.). Even then... he's not a very good basketball player at this point, I can't imagine anyone thinking he's a starter right now. He's a bench guy who might break out, or flame out. He's not going to be high on anyone's priority list he'll probably get like 5-7M.
He already broke out last year at age 22, not sure what is silly about that as he’s always had great mechanics while being an 85% FT shooter, and had some monster games when he was getting starters minutes when Ball and/or Graham were injured.
I don't really consider it a breakout. Maybe it is, but it's a half season of good 3 pt shooting while still being bad at just about everything else. Malik Monk wasn't an NBA starter quality player last year despite by far his best 3pt season ever, betting on him not only keeping up 40% 3pt shooting (being an 85% FT shooter isn't enough for me to think he's suddenly gone from bad 3pt shooter to 40+ guaranteed) but also that he'll get better elsewhere cause he does nothing much else on offense and he's a straight up bad defender by just about every metric. He's 23, so there are going to be teams willing to bet on him improving, but if any GM says "oh yeah that guy is gonna be a no doubt starter for me" he has terrible decision making processes.
I think these dudes are more the exception though, right? If you look at players that shoot 85% from the FT line, there seems to be a pretty significant correlation with being a good 3 pt shooter. Now, maybe Monk is part of that crew - I think we dont have enough info at this point though
Hard to say they are exceptions, they're a pretty significantly sized group, and the correlation on FT vs. 3P isn't THAT tight (and if anything it's more the reverse, very few guys are top level 3pt shooters but suck at FTs). I'd have to do a deep dive, but I would guess that the number of guys who are well below 40% on 3pters for 3 straight years while being in the 85% range that suddenly become consistent 40% 3pt shooters is probably smaller than the number who stay inconsistent and usually below 40%. What makes Monk far from a sure thing is that he shot 200 3PA or so at 40% this year, but he shot 775+ 3PA over his first 3 years at 32%. It could be that something clicks and he just is a 40% shooter now, but it could also end up like a lot of guys, that he has an outlier half-season, plenty of players shoot well below 40% from 3 and 85% from the line, and for the bulk of his attempts Monk has been one of them.
If Monk was a good player they'd be moving a Rozier or a Graham, not just letting him walk. Although I guess appealing to the Hornets authority is kinda bad.
Of course it was his best season by a huge stretch......his others were at ages 19, 20 and 21. During the window this past year when Ball was out and he was getting 28-30 mph he was scoring 17 ppg and creating his shot off the dribble in a way that he hasn’t in previous year. He was flat out lethal in some of those games and he’s still super young......these skills don’t simply disappear at age 23. He’s already ahead of where Clarkson and LouWill were at the same age.
But his best season by a huge stretch was still bad. I don't think he's ahead of where those guys were in their age 22 seasons, nor do I really think those are particularly exciting player archetypes.
Something about cutting out the 2nd sentence in my post about it being bad to appeal to Charlotte's authority & then quoting the 1st sentence to respond with this doesn't sit right with me lol, but I don't disagree.
There's some middle ground here. Monk obviously still has some offensive upside to grow into, and had a good year last year. That may be his new floor, especially since he's so young. His skill he does have is the sort you don't need a ton of athleticism to support. But it wouldn't be unheard of for a guy to regress either.
Can I ask how many of those guys regularly flirt flirt with 40%?
This is where numbers get skewed and can be twisted to show something different than what occurred. Monk actually began his coming out party during his final month of the previous year when Rozier(?) was out and he began getting more regular minutes. Similar to last year, when he had regular minutes, Monk had a 6-game stretch when he scored 20 ppg on 50% shooting with 15 3-pointers.
Are players who score a lot of points on the 2nd unit & do nothing else actually particularly positive players though? Especially in the post season?
He's followed that tweet up with another indicating the Bulls would still be the destination. It's also in the article now.
Actually, last week there was a rumor that Charlotte was going to sign Liangelo to their summer league team. I realize that’s a far cry from being in the NBA, but even that much feels like a family favor.
There's a disconnect on this board with how we judge our own young players to young players of other teams. If a player is having a breakthrough season at age 22, everything prior to that doesn't really matter. Every roster has a place for All O, no D guys. The C's especially.
I think it started because someone mentioned the Mavs wanting him as a starter, and I thought that was insane, even if he repeated last year he's still a bench player, and there is a good chance he's worse next year than last because most of his "growth" last year was a 3pt jump in limited games that may not be sustained. Monk is probably gonna get 5-7M to be a bench guy somewhere.
I think Monk was just disappointing for folks who expected more from him out of Kentucky.
I'd rather play Nesmith honestly. He's already the better defender and I think he's probably going to be as good or better as a shooter.
No reason you can't have both. At $5-7 mil, Monk is a steal and easily movable. Granted, I think I have a biased towards offense because I think a lot of posters on here have a bias towards defense. Maybe it's a little of both, I dunno.
Agree with all this, and Carsen may still have some upside, but his shooting has really cratered. I'm worried about that but I guess there's plenty of time for him to sort that out if he's given minutes.
I think Monk might be a guy you look at if you clean house in a trade, but if not I don't see it. You have: Brown, Smart, Richardson, Dunn, PP, Nesmith and Romeo all fighting for minutes at the guard spots, Monk can't really be the 1, or the 3, so even if you remove the points, I don't see wanting to play him much over Nesmith, Richardson or Brown. If he were bigger or could play/switch on D I could see it, but as is he's basically Jabari, except instead of playing a positon we are a bit thin at in PF, he plays one of our deepest positions.
Yeah, I don't think Smart or Dunn are sticking around. Especially Dunn. I wouldn't be too shocked to see Romeo or Nesmith moved either.
I mentioned that the Mavs might eye him as a bargain basement 1 guard because they wouldn't need much from Monk other than shooting and scoring and playing with Luka would produce a lot of open shots. Not sure how that's insane. If they strike out on Fournier they're not going to have a lot of options.
I think he’ll ultimately end up on the outside looking in but I was only posting this for shock value to those who view him as an MLE or less value......there are some here who don’t value him at all.
His career isn't over yet and I don't know how much value to put into it, but per Bref his HOF probability is just 6.8% (right behind Isaiah Thomas at 7%). There are only a handful of guys in the HOF with a % lower than that, and the only one to play in the last 40 years is Bill Walton (and his case is a bit unique, given his injury history and NCAA success).
He’s only going to be 32 next week and is going to finish his career as a Top-50 All-Time scorer. Currently the only HOF-eligible players in the Top-50 who aren’t in Springfield are Tom Chambers and Antawn Jamison......and they are at 49 and 50 about to be passed on this list.
Meh. Somebody has to be highest ranking player on the scoring list to not be in the HOF.
How many guys really ever took $10 million+ less to play for their hometown team or try and win a ring? At 32, DeRozan probably feels like he has a lot left in the tank and he's coming off a strong season, I don't see him going the Gary Payton route quite yet.
I guess Graham gives NO a scorer and floor space, but it makes one of the worst defensive teams even worse on that end of the floor.
