I wonder if Duke would still have a good chance to land Bagley next year considering Duke was trying to help him through the reclassification process this year
Marvin Bagley III
- Thread starter Jake1985
- Start date
I'm all good with this kid coming in January if Duke is where he wants to be....
But it wouldn't be all it is is a fast track to the NBA I care about Duke basketball not getting this dude to the league. We have our team now and it's a dang good one
How do we know that for certain? The kid is elite, and because of dumb arse rules he can't go straight to the league. If he wants to be at Duke, and coaches want him, it works for me buddy.
Only thing that Bagley would contribute to the team come January is a really good player for our low post starters to practice against. There is zero chance that he does what Diallo did at U.K and not declare for the draft.
I would get a school like USC letting him come in January, as it would be a major deal for them to have a top 5 pick in next year's NBA draft.
Harry Giles basically joined the team in January last year. And he wasn't yet healthy. I would have rather had Harry not join at all until January and then be healthy than have him join in June and never really get there. And I don't think any of us think Giles didn't care about Duke or anything like that. If Bagley joins in January I'll be happy to have him.
I'm fine if we get him now, November, January, March, heck he can join us the first week in April for the Final 4 if he wants. He is that talented.
Don't get me wrong, I love our current team. I don't think this will be one of our most talented teams of the decade, and if god forbid we go through injury troubles, we could really lack talent. Bagley would eliminate the talent and depth issue.
Don't get me wrong, I love our current team. I don't think this will be one of our most talented teams of the decade, and if god forbid we go through injury troubles, we could really lack talent. Bagley would eliminate the talent and depth issue.
Last edited:
I think you take that chance every time though.
Really? I'm playing the if scenario here Timo, but what if Duke is doing good and bench guys are helping. What will that do to the team? I think if he comes late if we're playing well, it will throw the team back. Ask guys to take a backseat all of the sudden? Opening night or bust imo. I could be wrong but this season without him has that feel like a title chance team, and adding someone mid season will hurt chemistry
Amen. And twice on Sunday. Take the talent then figure it out later.
What makes anyone believe this team will have great chemistry without Bagley? Maybe adding a guy like Bagley would actually help chemistry...who knows. He seems very unselfish and would make everyone better in practice.
No you don't if he comes that late it needs to be as a role player and that's it.
Not trying to be negative on Bagley. I love K, and just think his teams are at their best when everyone knows and accepts their roles. All 5 title teams had that. A few stars and solid bench production. K settles in on 6-7 guys, 8 at a max. He may be a great kid, hard working... just remember 2015. I don't think we win it all had Sulaimon stayed. The team united, became a better unit. Sulaimon was a cancer.
If your favorite NBA team had the chance to add LeBron or Durant during the playoffs, would you not be in favor of that? Bagley is arguably the most talented high school prospect in the last 10 years. The only role he'll be playing is superstar.
We mock the THR guys for being anti-OAD because they don't want "rental players" and "non-Carolina guys" and here we are using the same arguments for not wanting Bagley if it's only for half a year. Maybe we should stop taking one and done guys because they have no chance of developing chemistry with the returners in just the one year.
I understand both sides but to me you take the talent every single time and deal with the "what ifs later." To me you're over complicating it and painting a negative scenario of what ifs that could happen if he's here. To play devils advocate let's go the other side. What if we start off slow and team chemistry suffers because of it, then Bagely comes in right before acc play and stabilizes our rotation and we get hot. What if bolden and Vrank don't produce and Carter is on an island by himself? What if (gulp) injuries occur? What if bolden and Carter don't play well together?
To me you can play the what if game both ways, but if you're too scared or gun shy after the past year so much so that you pass on the top kid in the country, to me seems a bit foolish.
What if in 2011 K didn't bring back Kyrie and we still ran into that buzz saw of a hot shooting zona team? We'd be blaming him for not playing the number one pick in the draft. To me this is the same situation.
To me you can play the what if game both ways, but if you're too scared or gun shy after the past year so much so that you pass on the top kid in the country, to me seems a bit foolish.
What if in 2011 K didn't bring back Kyrie and we still ran into that buzz saw of a hot shooting zona team? We'd be blaming him for not playing the number one pick in the draft. To me this is the same situation.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's the classic talent versus chemistry debate. Why can't we have both???? It's 2017 and were Duke, were gonna have a brand new team every year until the NBA's age rule changes. So I believe it's idiotic to believe that any team is gonna automatically have great chemistry.
What we can be certain on is Bagley is an out of this world prospect that doesn't come around every year. He will immediately become one of the best players on any program he chooses.
We mock the thr guys because they're being delusional. EVERY program wants them. Duke, Kentucky, Kansas and a few others are the ones getting them though.
I want them too, just not more than 3 at a time. My personal opinion is it allows for the best chance of blending the team together. I'll say it again, K will not play too many guys, and the more studs you bring in, the more the odds are that unhappiness sets in. Then these same role players keep getting pushed to the end of the bench, and we wonder why they don't produce when they do get an opportunity.
If you can't see what happened in 2015 as a great example of talent with chemistry, then oh well. Duke kicked off a good player, and became better.
To be honest what's the difference? A couple months? Like if he is allowed to play in January he would likely be here in sept or somewhere around there practicing with the team...other one and dines come in July? Is it that much of a difference?
Obviously you'd prefer him here over coming in late if that is your point, but you are saying it in terms of "dropping off for a few months" and not bought in- you could easily make the argument that any OAD is that way and B. Why even go to college for a couple of months if that's his goal?
I see both sides of the argument being played out well here by very knowledgeable posters. However I have to lean against adding him if we're clicking because the current guys have been in since DAY ONE, traveled together out of the country and are about two months into the season.
Now there is the Jimmy Chitwood scenario where Norman Dale made it work, lol...
We will know regardless at that point, because as Coach K says when he's pleased: "I like my team."
OFC
Now there is the Jimmy Chitwood scenario where Norman Dale made it work, lol...
We will know regardless at that point, because as Coach K says when he's pleased: "I like my team."
OFC
I believe that saying a OAD isn't gonna "buy-in" and "isn't playing for the name on the front of the jersey" is unfair and an argument being made without any real proof.
I suppose you can list off Austin Rivers (though the argument has been made many times on this board that his situation was unfair and that team just wasn't very good). More multi-year guys have been called selfish on this board than OADs. Sulaimon and McRoberts to name a couple.
I suppose you can list off Austin Rivers (though the argument has been made many times on this board that his situation was unfair and that team just wasn't very good). More multi-year guys have been called selfish on this board than OADs. Sulaimon and McRoberts to name a couple.
The irony in all of this here is that the fear will be chemistry gets screwed up bc a freshman has to be integrated in and an older player who's supposed to be more mature is the one that ends up screwing up the chemistry. See 2015. See 2012.
I get the argument I just think it's extremely fear based.
I see what you're saying but it's fear based because it has happened. Rivers probably wasn't the best teammate, Sulaimon felt he was being shafted, Bolden looked like he was waiting to see the dentist instead of supporting his team. I like getting the studs, but let's be honest, since K has taken them, we've won 1 title and a player had to be removed for that team to win it all, a player that started his freshman season
Since 2011 (Kyrie) yes we have won 1 title in 7 years. Though a great argument can be made that 91 92 and 01 teams all were filled with blue chippers who would be OAD today.
K has won 5 titles in 37 years. That is a 13.5 title percentage. K has 1 title the last 7 years. That is a better title percentage.
K has won 5 titles in 37 years. That is a 13.5 title percentage. K has 1 title the last 7 years. That is a better title percentage.
Right but your examples don't necessarily make your point unless it is don't take a single OAD. But there will still be chemistry issues potentially- at the end of the day it's a team. Rivers, you can argue wasn't the easiest teammate to play with but neither was Christian. I know "extreme example", but the chemistry issues didn't come from him. They came from Seth and Miles who were the leaders and upperclassmen that didn't like that they were over shadowed. Sheed, considered leaving after a very solid freshman year, came back out of shape, and was nearly cut before his junior year even began- most don't know that. So again chemistry issues for a different reason. Didn't matter who you brought in. What about Elliot Williams? There weren't serious chemistry issues but he was certainly pissed and potentially looking to leave mid year bc he wasnt seeing burn- he ends up playing well Duke goes to the sweet 16 and he still leaves. Bolden was a dear in headlights last year, mostly I'd argue bc of the injury and its aftermath- mentally and physically being out of shape. He was also a freshman so I'm not sure what the point is there other than it could be any number of people that can cause chemistry issues. Maybe it's Thorntons family. Maybe it's Andre and his situation. I just don't attribute the fact that you can add in one of the best players in the country to all of a sudden meaning there will be these massive chemistry issues that can't be reconciled.
As for 2015, as being the only title, I'm not sure what the point there is? Are you suggesting that every team with OADs has had chemistry problems bc of having OADs and the only reason that team could cope was bc sheed got tossed? Ironically last year was the only year we recruited successfully multiple players that were seen as OAD.
Last edited:
It goes both ways with OAD's or elite players. From 2005-2009 Duke lost in the early rounds of the tournament. The argument then was why doesn't Duke land elite talent. Heck halfway through 2010 some thought Duke was destined for an early exit until the team started to develop.
Calling someone a cancer to a team is pretty harsh, you don't know the entire situation and neither do I. They would've won it all with him.
The different viewpoints on here are all legitimate. This is just a head scratcher. The mistake here would be to say "team chemistry would DEFINITELY be disrupted" or "Bagley DEFINITELY makes us a much better team." I bet K is stumped too. The one thing that is for sure: Bagley would add to the ever growing footprint of the Duke brand.
I'm basing it off of the elite talent coming in, how K has managed the one and dones, blending them with the veterans. Personally, other than 2015, it hasn't worked out, but that's my whole point though, that K has the most success when he has 2-3 stars and a solid supporting cast, and a rotation of 7, maybe 8 guys
Christian Laettner and Austin Rivers are two totally different players, two different eras, making that a bad example for this debate. As for Sulaimon, you may be right, but that's not how HE took it back in 13 and 14. He thought he was being shafted, I'm not saying he was. However we try to look at 15 though, the fact remains that the team was better by subtraction.
It's not true to say bring in all this talent, no matter when, and we will figure it out. These kids expect to play, expect to do well, and the more of them you bring in, the more the odds increase that it won't be as good as you want it to be.
Maybe I'm wrong with this statement, and it's meant as no disrespect to Kennard, because he was a great offensive weapon for Duke this past season, but had the injuries not happened to Grayson and the freshmen, I don't think he would have been going to nba. He had an opportunity because of those injuries, and made the most of it and is reaping the reward now.
Last edited:
I found a gif that sums up trying to get Bagley for this season.
He was a cancer though. It was a nasty fight in the locker room after the ND game between him and Matt Jones. It escalated, and he ultimately got the boot. The team banded together, said "8 is enough" and won it all. Most would probably say, especially after knowing this, that losing him made the team closer, which made them better.
There's a lot of things in your post but I'll just ask this simple question bc I'm curious to hear your thinking- you said K tries to mesh OAD talent hasn't worked out other than 2015. What is your definition of "working out"? Is it final four or bust? And truthfully you're talking about outside of this past season only a single player being a OAD recruit that he's had to mesh with veterans. Kyrie, Austin, none, Jabari, Jah, Brandon.
I do agree we would not have won it had he been on the team still- having said that we will never really know.