Mailbag: Worn Out Welcomes, NHL Draft Issues, Basketball Recruiting Ledge-Talking, Wigan(!)
Two words: Jed York.
via ace
Brian,
A little confused by the notion that Harbaugh has "worn out his welcome" everywhere he has been for the past ten years, as seems to be the popular narrative. Are there any examples of Harbaugh actually being no longer appreciated/welcome anywhere but with the 49ers? It seems to me like he climbed the ladder like any successful coach up until the end of his time with the 49ers.
Also let's continue to wait until November to blow the whistle on Urban Meyer's Tinder account.
Thanks,
Mike
I have the feeling that either San Diego or Stanford would have sucked it up and consented to another year. Harbaugh led both to one-loss seasons in his final campaigns with those teams, whereupon he moved on to bigger jobs.
The first we heard of Harbaugh "wearing out his welcome" was a narrative being pushed to the Play-Doh NFL media for a year by Jed York and his assorted executives. Whether that is in any way more true for Harbaugh than it is for, say, Bill Belichick is unknowable. Successful football coaches are often completely nuts. It is almost a job requirement. They are inevitably going to leave offended people in their wake. Harbaugh's done that; he's also had a public bromance with Frank Gore.
Other players have taken to social media to defend him.
We don't know exactly where Harbaugh falls on the high functioning lunatic scale, but we do know what happened in the aftermath of his departure from the 49ers: they hired a barely articulate defensive line coach with no experience as a coordinator, chased off their highly successful defensive coaching staff, and lost a ton of players. Alex Boone is publicly moaning that he was being pushed too hard—an excellent sign for when Jim Tomsula, who has all the authority of a mewling kitten.
Harbaugh, meanwhile, is still being pursued by the Raiders. He grabbed DJ Durkin from heavy competition, retained Greg Mattison as a position coach, yoinked Tim Drevno from USC, hired an in-demand John Baxter, and hired a deposed NFL coordinator as a wide receivers coach.
Hhe does not care about what people think of him. Jed York is removing mentions of Harbaugh from the 49ers museum; Harbaugh barely remembers the name of the short guy with a spoon in his mouth on the West Coast. That's why he shows up on Real Sports for a piece that few other football coaches would consent to: he does not care about what happened to him in the past even a little.
That differentiates him from a deeply insecure 49ers management, and is the main reason the idea is out there. Without it there is no possible way to justify the 49ers sabotaging one of the most successful coaches in the NFL.
Hyman to fly free
Panthers have been notified that prospect Zach Hyman won't be signing w/them. Possible he gets traded before hitting UFA on Aug. 16.
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) April 21, 2015 What's that about you think?
-Jeremiah
Hyman had an outstanding senior year and should get a rookie max contract once he hits the open market. Florida likely offered him that, but Florida cannot offer him his pick of interested teams. Hyman can now find the team most likely to play him in the NHL next year and establish himself in the league.
This is a longstanding flaw in the CBA that I complained about way back in the day when it was instituted. It took a good long while to hit home, but when it did it really hit. Winnipeg was pushing and pushing to sign Andrew Copp this offseason largely because they didn't want to end up in the situation the Panthers did with Hyman. Any college senior can walk away from the team that drafted him; therefore NHL teams hate to see their draftees become seniors.
[After the JUMP: basketball recruiting, Wigan apology.]
A bunch of basketball recruiting questions.
1. Why sign Austin Davis now?
I’m not questioning whether he’ll be the next Jordan Morgan, but why sign him to your last available scholarship right now? You have one spot left, you have needs at other positions, you have offers out to other players, and this guy is a lifetime fan who will likely accept at any time. It would seem that Beilein could have strung him a long for a while before locking in that last spot.
For one, he's not really the last available spot. Michigan is still recruiting guys right now, so they have one to give. After next season there is likely to be some sort of attrition. I have a dollar that says Zak Irvin has a Hardaway-ish junior year and goes to the draft, and at some point there is going to be a guy who gets pushed out of the rotation entirely and will probably want to play some basketball elsewhere.
That's three-ish to play with, and given how late basketball recruiting is going these days Michigan will have time to determine how many they in fact have.
As far as getting Davis now, I do agree that it's pretty odd to take two centers in a class when you've got two more on the roster. It is possible Michigan is now looking at Donnal and Wilson more as fours long term—in which case someone at that spot is likely to transfer in search of playing time.
2. Three stars who become prospects are nice…..but are they enough?
The go-to comparison, especially for obscure big men, is Jordan Morgan when demonstrating John Beilein’s ability to turn no-names into solid college players. He has taken us to new heights with under-the-radar players. But let’s not forget that the magical championship run was with five star Mitch McGary as one of the key players while Morgan was on the bench. Can you sustain success with no true stars?
Let us neither forget that after McGary went out for the year in 2013-14, Michigan won the Big Ten by three clear games and was tied at the end of regulation with Kentucky before whichever Harrison it was hit a prayer three. And that this roster has three top fifty recruits… and a who-dat who just turned down a possible slot in the first round of the draft.
I mean, it depends on what you mean by "enough." Is it enough to win a national title? Maybe not. Is it enough for Beilein to be Michigan's most successful basketball coach in a very long time? Evidently.
Our model can't be the Duke or Kentucky model. It can be Wisconsin's.
I always appreciated the way Izzo and Ryan built their programs on the backs of experienced and talented college players without relying on top recruits…..but even they sprinkled in some top players. Is that going to be the case at Michigan?
I mean… Walton, Irvin, and Chatman were all top 50 recruits. That bests this Wisconsin team by two (just Dekker) and this MSU team by two (just Dawson).
The current roster is a bit short on big time talent because too much of it headed to the NBA way before anyone expected that would be possible and Michigan got unlucky that the kids they had been recruiting since eighth grade (Booker, Kennard) blew up into guys Duke and Kentucky were interested in.
I mean, have we forgotten that Beilein and his staff are the guys who IDed Burke, GRIII, Stauskas, LeVert, etc etc etc.?
3. Where are the rewards from the Final Four?
Michigan has been one of the most entertaining second-tier programs (behind the blue bloods) over the last few years with an efficient offense, new facilities, on-court success, and a bunch of NBA draft picks. Yet the benefits on the recruiting trail from that success have been……inconclusive. Beilein pretty much had Irvin and Walton locked up before that run. Chatman was a solid 4-star who rose up the rankings after signing with Michigan but was never in the category of “instant impact”. After that there has been a collection of low-ranked prospects we hope can be molded into solid players – Dawkins, Rahk, Teske, Davis, Donnal, Doyle, Wilson, etc. Some of those moved up the rankings, but none are expected to be instant play makers.
Meanwhile, MSU just signed two 5-star players to their 2015 class despite comparable recent success and significantly fewer NBA draft picks.
Retconning Chatman after his disappointing freshman year overlooks the fact that Michigan had a head to head win over Arizona there. Meanwhile the roster looks like it does in part because Michigan didn't think they were going to have to add as many guys as they did—they have been too successful at developing their players—and it takes some time to develop yourself into a recruiting powerhouse.
It's about what happens on the court, and there Michigan has been just about peerless at taking what they have and making it better. As a fanbase we seem to be fretting that Beilein has made Michigan into a top 20 program instead of a top 5 one. I mean…
I am terribly sorry, Wiganites.
![wigan_a_2693799b[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/Mailbag_97F9/wigan_a_2693799b1.jpg "wigan_a_2693799b[1]")
WIGAN THE DESTROYER AND WIGAN THE HELPFULLY POINTING THE CORRECT WAY TO RUN
Hi Brian,
With regards to the comment under the photograph of Wigan’s soccer team [in yesterday's post]: I think that the caption “The FA Cup: the only time anyone has ever believed in Wigan” is, shall we say, somewhat wide of the mark!
Wigan have a legendary Rugby League team, much as it galls me to type that: I’m a St. Helens boy*, and thus naturally disinclined to say anything positive about that bunch of troglodytic inbreds from across “The Lump”.
I’m a Wolverine as Ann Arbor was the first place I lived in the USA; I ventured over from Europe as a researcher in the UMich med school, and the sport that you endearingly call “football” was the closest thing I could find to rugby league over here. Somewhat predictably, given the local environment I promptly became a Michigan football fan.
J.
* Wigan & St. Helens are separated by about 10 miles in the north of England, and have a long-standing and somewhat vituperative rivalry.
I have been corrected with authority.
I've made similar comments about the repeated "we are Wisconsin not Kentucky" assertions. They bug me. The entire inspiration for the Kentucky model was Michigan (Fab 5 era).
We aren't there now, but as you point out we don't have to be. I do agree we can live and thrive with getting top 25-75 ish recruits more consistently.
I don't think Beilein hates the butt-kissing part of recruiting, I think he hates the fact that he can sell a kid like Booker or Kennard or Blackman and have what seems like an obviously better track record and fit and yet...off they go. That's got to be infuriating.
The thing about Chatman was he was ALWAYS going to be raw given his situation/circumstance playing low level HS ball at a tiny school in Oregon. Last year's class had FIVE guys and only one of them was highly sought after. That's a recruiting failure, no matter how many Plan D gems Beilein unearths during the recovery.
That bests this Wisconsin team by two (just Dekker) and this MSU team by two (just Dawson). . .I mean, have we forgotten that Beilein and his staff are the guys who IDed Burke, GRIII, Stauskas, LeVert, etc etc etc.?"
Yes, we've forgotten. We--in our teeming thousands--forget daily. Willfully, even kinda stupidly. And we sit around on internet boards, furious at the way OUR opinion is routinely ignored by those high above us, anonymously making them pay! They will pay, do you hear me, they will pay!
The internet is where Jacksonian Know-Nothingness(ism) makes its final stand.
Let's be careful about all the "we" stuff. A loud (if not obnoxious) minority does not speak for all of us. Note that virtually all "This recruit isn't good enough" posts are heavily downvoted.
good, underutilized word
I would rather have a coach who constantly pushes his team to greatness instead of a coach that spends all of his time trying not to step on his players toes.
I am so tired of the Harbaugh has worn out his welcome crap. Take a look at successful coaches like the following:
- Bo
- Vince Lombardi
- Bill Belichik
- Jimmy Johnson
- Nick Saban - hate to put him down there, but look at the results
Do all of these seem like the laid back and give your players a hug when they make a mistake type coach - NO! And the college game seems perfect for our hyper kinetic energizer bunny of a coach and they players only stay 3 - 5 years and are hopefully malleable enough and they understand that this man will push them to maximize their ability.
After every SF loss/Michigan win, we need to send Jed York either a "How is that working out now/Thanks for getting tired of Jim" email.
I can't believe how much negative press has mushroomed from the Buckeye Boone interview. I guess it shows how much the media panders to the NFL and follows the party line - that Harbaugh was somehow no longer good enough for the almighty NFL. Yesterday, that dickbag Jim Rome parroted the negative Harbaugh diatribe while completely ignoring the mountain of pro-Harbaugh testimonials from ex-players, fans, and other coaches that's out there.
And I haven't heard anyone (but you) mention that Boone is a freaking Buckeye - of course he's gonna throw JH under the bus.
Two years ago it was a love-fest for everything Harbaugh when John and Jim were both in the SB; it's just shocking to me that people would accept the 49ers company line. Ridiculous.
While it's true that Michigan isn't going to be Duke/Kentucky, they can be Arizona/Florida/MSU/OSU/Indiana/UConn. It doesn't have to be Wisconsin. Michigan has recruited at top 10 levels before, even under Beilein. There is no reason the Chatman recruitment should be an outlier.
Irvin to the NBA is a very good bet. Depending on the season Walton has, he may follow. Will he be a 1st rounder? Probably not, but he's always going to be short, and that won't change from JR to SR year. If he improves on defense, continues the efficient AS/TO and 3% production, he's a solid NBA 3&D backup PG. The kind teams like Houston and Cleveland (who have ball-dominating wings) can use immediately. There might not be much reason to wait.
While it's possible M is looking at Donnal/Wilson at 4, it would be a huge change from previous philosophy and probably not very consistent with bringing in Wagner. I think Davis is more about locking in assurance at the 5 spot after Beilein saw how dependant he was on talent and/or experience at the position this season. I know everyone is blaming injuries and the NBA for this season's struggles, but we lost to NJIT largely because the frontline was young, raw, and not especially talented.
Agree the top 20 vs top 5 fretting is overstated, but Michigan needs to recruit at a top 20 level to stay there and they didn't do that in 2014, 2015, and now, it looks like they might not in 2016 either. Concern is legitimate even if everything else is going just about as well as it possibly can.
As for Michigan being unlucky...uhhhh...that's not the adjective I'd use to describe where the program is at. The raging success of the last few seasons, have certainly had an element of luck to them. Obviously Beilein is great at developing and identifying talent, but still...We were lucky to get Burke (not Beilein's first choice), lucky McGary came back for a second year, lucky to get LeVert (again, not Beilein's first choice), and on and on.
is staying 4 and hoping to get drafted then man. If you are 6'0 you have to be a Stephen Curry or a Trey Burke in college to go early and get taken. I mean maybe he comes out and really balls out this year and gets on draft boards but that does not seem likely. He would have to have one HELL of a year for that to happen.
Napier and Russ Smith got drafted, Napier in Round 1. If Michigan has team success while Walton plays well, he'll have a shot. He really only needs to keep doing what he's doing offensively, play better D, and have a good year finishing at the rim. He doesn't have to win a Naismith.
Being short hurts him, but it doesn't kill him. IRT to the NBA choice, that liability will always be there. There isn't a growth spurt coming at age 20.
Anyway, people had the same sort of critiques about Morris, Burke, and Stauskas. I'm done doubting Michigan guards coached by Beilein. Walton's a good athlete, a good shooter, and he plays very smart. He can absolutely be an NBA player.
Napier was drafted as a SR.
His JR year blew anything Walton has done out of the water and he still didnt leave early. The guy above you is correct - it is rare to be leaving if you are 6'0 unless you are player of the year or close. Napier was a stud and didnt leave - check out his JR year stats. If Walton does 80% of that we'll be tickled pink. And he still wont be going to the NBA early. If he was a 6'4 PG - different conversation.
Walton doesnt excel at one thing - and is not an elite athlete. He is probably best at rebounding if anything - his assist ratio is average. Without elite quickness in the NBA he needs to be an excellent distributor and assist guy - he needs a lot of work just to be drafted, forget leaving early.
April 22nd, 2015 at 10:56 PM ^
Walton has had one healthy year in college and he was a freshman.
The specific circumstances of Napier are irrelevant - the point is that 6' players don't have to be Naismith winners to get drafted. It hurts to be that small, obviously, but there are plenty of short PGs in the NBA. Norris Cole, JJ Barea, Will Bynum, and many more. Including, you know, Trey Burke.
Walton excels at the same thing Trey Burke did - game management, low TOs, excellent shooting. Looking at their statistics - they are very similar players. Burke had higher usage, better passing, and was a better finisher. Walton's a better defender and outside shooter.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/trey-burke-1.html
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/derrick-walton-1.html
The biggest difference -- usage.
Now, I'm not saying Walton WILL leave, I'm just saying the idea that it's impossible because he is too short is very far from the truth.
A) Michigan has won because of elite talent.
B) Michigan has won because of identifying under-the-radar recruits.
C) Michigan has won because of coaching and player development.
D) Michigan has won because of All of the above.
The anwser is D.
Michigan doesn't go to the Final 8 in back to back years without recruiting McGary and Robinson. Michigan doesn't go there if they don't find and develop killer role players (Morgan, Albrecht), lock down 4-star types they should get regularly (Stauskas, Irvin, Hardaway), and unearth NBA players from the discount bin (LeVert, Burke).
People act like it's one extreme or the other (Wisconsin vs Kentucky) but there is a significant group in between. We live in this place in football (below Alabama, Notre Dame, USC and so on) and there is zero reason we can't in basketball.
Trust in Beilein -- yes I will. I trust him when he targets Booker, Looney, and Bates-Diop over everybody else. I trust him when he goes hard for Thornton, Leaf, and other elite prospects. He wants those guys, and so do I. Eventually we will land some (more) of them.
Just want to point out that some of those guys became "elite talents" after committing. GRIII was a 3-star who wasn't offered by Purdue, IU, or ND. He blew up over the course of his senior year, but when he signed he was basically an Austin Davis level recruit (a guy who also has a year to climb the rankings if his play continues to improve). Hardaway ended up just a 3-star on the composite. Stauskas was a 3-star when he committed who climbed into the top-100 as more people scouted him. That is 3 NBA draft picks (obviously elite-level talent) whose rankings didn't reflect their ability when they signed on.
To your program identity point, I think we're already at a level above Wisconsin and have been. McGary, Irvin, Walton, and Chatman were all top-rated guys pursued by just about everybody. Wisconsin isn't getting those guys unless they are from Wisconsin (a'la Dekker). They also aren't in on guys like Brown or the guys you mentioned who ended up choosing other powerhouse programs. Obviously we want to land as many of those guys as we can get, but that is pretty damn hard when you're going up against UK, Duke, Kansas, UCLA, etc. Hopefully another great run this year will cement us in the group that elite prospects can and do consider.
Yeah, people forget that, but I think the big thing is that Beilein held on to him after he became a big commodity. That didn't happen with Kennard and Booker. So was it just 'luck'? Or is holding on to 5-star's you identify early a thing Beilein can get better at?
Also, regardless of stars, he was a guy Beilein targeted. He made the A-list. So did Stauskas, Irvin, Walton, etc. Who cares where they end up in starz, they were kids Beilein prioritized. So were Gary Harris, Bates-Diop, Plumlee and bunch of others.
There's a bunch of comments above ranting about starz-gazing, but you can disregard those and instead focus on Beilein's A-list. So, OK - Teske makes the cut by that criteria. Does Davis? Maybe in a way, but it seems like that happened after the Thornton, Leaf, Langford, Battle stuff moved from possibility to extreme longshot.
In other words, I'm paying attention to who Beilein targets most aggressively and earliest. Is he landing some of those guys? In 2012 and 13 the answer was yes. In 2014 it was...NO, except maybe Chatman. In 2015 it's no (pending Brown). In 2016 it's yes prob on Teske and mostly no on a bunch of other guys so far.
I agree we are above Wisconsin - which is why it's weird to me that people act like we should expect that to be the model for Michigan. I don't agree with the defeatist attitude in regard to recruiting, and I'm glad Beilein doesn't act that way when it comes to Dozier, Brown, Stone and others. He might not get most of them, but eventually he will get some (e.g., McGary).
Michigan has done it many times in the past, getting top 20 players (Juwan Howard, Jerrod Ward) outside of the state, not to mention in it. Now we fans seem comfortable saying, for example, we have no shot at Josh Jackson or James Young because they are "too good".
Michigan can and should land plenty of 4-stars and the occasional 5-star. We are not Kentucky but also not Butler, Wisconsin, or Purdue. We are Michigan, one of the best programs in the country with a rich basketball history, tradition, success and one the best coaches in the country. We may not want to have 6 person classes every year, but we absolutely want to continue to be "unlucky" in having a stream of early entry NBA players rolling through the program.
You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but believe John Beilein -- he's the one recruiting Thornton and Brown as hard as he can.
GRIII committed very, very early. Beilein was on Kennard early too, but he was always more interested in getting other offers. He was gone the moment Kentucky showed interest. Booker was never close to committing, probably never even leaning towards Michigan.
April 22nd, 2015 at 10:57 PM ^
said that Booker very strongly considered both UM and Mizzu.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
does not make them a better program than Michigan. Any school can get a couple of top players in a two year period as Michigan has done. And I would add that nationally, Maryland is likely considered just as big of a basketball program as Michigan.
Lanknows, I agree with you that UM can be among a small group of consistently top-tier teams. In fact, in my opinion we're close to that status already, despite last year's hiccup.
I can't agree that Michigan was "lucky" to get LeVert or Burke. By now it's obvious JB is a genius at developing guards/swingmen into NBA-caliber players. If he didn't get Burke or LeVert or Stauskas or GRIII or THJ, he would have found and developed others. Dawkins is just the latest in a long line - were we "lucky" to find him too?
As for McGary, it seems to me that the scales are tipped more to the side of "unlucky", since GRIII, THJ, and even McGary might well have stayed an extra year (McGary's suspension obviously forced his decision). Even Stauskas might have benefited from another year of development under JB. No sour grapes; they all made a decision they felt was in their best interest - but that run of attrition wasn't lucky for UM.
Finally, sure, all teams have injuries, but JB had to deal with the loss of top players McGary, LeVert and Walton for most of a year - that's certainly not good luck.
JB is the best coach we've had since I've been watching (a LONG time); I'm completely satisfied with where he's brought the program.
But he is lucky too. Back in 2013 Beilein targeted a bunch of players before he went for LeVert. One of them was Denzel Valentine -- I consider UM to be lucky to get LeVert instead. Ditto for targeting Kevin Pangos over Trey Burke. At some point Beilein decided he couldn't wait for Pangos anymore and chose how he chose. He also picked Carlton Bundridge over Burke and with one less scholarship he probably doesn't get Burke too. The year before he wanted Trey Ziegler more than Tim Hardaway and Nate Lubick probably more than both.
Nobody, not even Beilein, thought Burke was going to be what he became.
That's being good AND being lucky.
Not a huge difference of opinion; I just believe if JB were dealt a different hand, he'd be just as successful. JB helped make Burke the player he became. He would have done wonders with Valentine and/or Pangos too. The dude can flat coach.
Burke and Pangos were being recruited at the same time. Burke actually committed to Michigan before Pangos even came to Michigan on his official visit. So Beilien wasn't targeting Pangos over Burke. Not sure if you know anything about how recruiting works, but you never recruit just 1 player at a position if you need that position filled in a class, otherwise you set your team up for failure because you don't have that position if your target goes elsewhere. And Bundridge was never viewed as a PG, so he has NOTHING to do with Burke's recruitment.
Denzel Valentine just averaged 14.5 PPG, 6.3 Rebs, 4.3 asts and shot 41.6% from 3 for a team that just went to the final four. But your right we lucked out of getting him. Man can you think how awful our team would be with Denzel Valentine.
Come on man. With your reasoning, every team in the world is lucky!
April 22nd, 2015 at 11:02 PM ^
Pangos was pursued first by JB and more vigourously by multiple programs. Burke came up later in the process when JB realized it was going to be a marathon for Pangos.
I just gave you a couple examples where the guys Beilein got were not his top priorities. That is luck. Now would it have been a disaster if Michigan got Pangos for example, of course not. But I'd take Burke and LeVert over Pangos and Valentine.
I don't think Beilein would dispute that he's been very fortunate to land players that have exceeded even his own expectations and in some cases were not his top choices.
McGary was projected as a lottery pick after his freshman season. He came back even though it was highly likely his stock would fall given Parker/Wiggins/etc.
In aggregate, you got 2 years from a 5-star recruit, in which you made a national title game and then great 8. I can't understand how this is in anyway unlucky.
McGary missed the entire B1G season and the tourney with his back injury. Whatever luck was involved in keeping him for a second year was pretty much mitigated by the fact that he didn't play that second year anyway.
The lucky one was McGary. He could have gone pro on the strength of 6 big games in the tournament, and been far from NBA-ready. He was a revelation on a big stage, but his freshman year was pretty spotty.
Add to that the back issues that would very likely have occurred no matter where he was playing, and he could be buried in the D-league or at the end of a bench somewhere.
Plus, he seemed to be leaning toward staying at Michigan for a third year until the 420 suspension.
I agree that the back issues probably pop up either way, so wouldn't it be better to get paid while you recover/don't play basketball than not?
IMO no - pro sports are a meatgrinder, and first impressions are important.
Sure he would have gotten paid, but his first NBA year could have been disastrous - not as mature, game not as developed, injured.
McGary seems like a great, enthusiastic kid, but he doesn't seem to be the most mature guy around; dealing with an injury, unfamiliar new surroundings and a cutthroat NBA environment would not have been easy.
Lots of very talented guys have been buried with similar circumstances.
As a first round pick you get the benefit of the doubt, and in that case as probably a lottery pick he would have been given plenty of it.
Of course, in the hypothetical you could be right, I just don't see how it would have been more disastorous than the season he had at Michigan. He was injured and cost himself millions by coming back. I'm not sure he developed much, if at all on the court, but you are right that he might have gotten more mature.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't a "probable" lottery pick. From what I heard/read, he was a probable first rounder, and a longshot to be a lottery pick.
As it turned out, he got picked 21st. I suppose you could say he cost himself millions because he missed out on a year of NBA pay, but then again, if he did indeed have a terrible first year, he could fighting for his career now.
NBA teams don't give benefit of doubt to anybody - they do have an incentive to protect their investment, but that's about it.
I'm no NBA scout, and I admit they seem to draft more on potential than results.
What I do know is that after staying at Michigan, even with his injury, his NBA future looks pretty bright. If I were him, I'd be happy with the way things worked out.
He got picked 21st in a stronger draft, coming off an injury and NCAA suspension, and was a year older (bad thing for NBA). That should tell you something about where he would have gone the year before... IIRC most mocks had him late lotto to late teens at the time he announced his return.
1st round picks get 2 years guaranteed. McGary would be an obvious candidate to pick up the 3rd year option.
The NBA salary structure is non-linear, so lottery picks, especially high ones get far more money. Plus, yeah, the year of free agency he lost. He lost millions by coming back.
McGary does not seem unhappy, but he could be far more wealthy.
I don't disagree with you - he probably would have gone a few picks earlier; I just don't think a lottery pick was likely.
His draft was indeed stronger at the top, but he wasn't in the picture for a high lottery pick; I don't have the expertise to know if there was much difference down where he was drafted. You're probably more knowledgeable about that.
NBA draft rationale baffles me; it seems they prefer to draft guys on potential, before they learn about actual capabilities and shortcomings. If it's a no-brainer like Kobe or Lebron I get it, but man, some high picks seem like a total crapshoot to me.
I stand by my main point - had he gone after his frosh year, his first NBA year could well have been disastrous for his entire career. If I were in his big shoes, I'd feel I made the right decision based on what transpired. Sounds like you feel differently, and that's cool. I imagine we'd both love to face his financial quandary.
April 22nd, 2015 at 11:05 PM ^
I don't see what disaster could have occurred if you assume he was hurt. He would have been yelling and screaming on the bench for KD instead of Nik.... Unless you mean he couldn't handle off the court stuff which seems extremely negative given that one year later he seems to be doing it just fine. If he had NOT been hurt he probably spends more time in the NBDL, which is perfectly fine too.
Why do you say Mitch was leaning toward staying UMSF?
A couple of women athletes I know well who knew Mitch & the other guys well had told me that all three guys were definitely leaving, before the drug test had come out and when publicly they were all supposedly still trying to decide.
I'm not an authority - just going by what I heard and read at the time. I'm originally from A2 (and an alum) and my fandom goes way back. As the mafia guys say 'I hear things', but I don't qualify as an insider - just an obsessed fan.
Sounds like your info is closer to Mitch than mine. Hell, could just have been wishful thinking on my part.
Or at least their draft analyst did:
Out of a guy who could/should have been a one-and-done. Again, there is nothing unlucky about the outcome for Michigan. I get that, after he decided to come back, Michigan was robbed by injury and a stupid NCAA rule from having him for a 2nd or 3rd seasons, and that can be viewed as unlucky. But it ignores that we were lucky to get him back in the first place. In aggregate we benefitted from McGary, even if it took 2 years worth of scholarship to get what we got from him.
From a personal perspecitive I totally agree. Watching McGary play reminded me of Charles Barkley at Auburn - just a blast to watch. So much energy and enthusiasm!
Still wish he'd laid off the dope during the tournament...sigh.
We don't have to recruit with Duke, Kansas and Kentucky. But there is a lot of room between there and the top 20 which as you correctly point out we haven't done in 2014 or 2015, while 2016 looks iffy at best.
I think it is fair for fans to expect more of a bump from the oncourt success from 2012-14.
If your name accurately describes you, how did you somehow miss the decade+ we spent in the desert?
We haven't enjoyed this kind of success since the Fab Five. We have a deep, talented team to look forward to, and the best coach in the business. How can we as fans reasonably expect more than that?
I'm thrilled we have an ethical coach who can identify and develop talent. What could be better than watching a successful team that runs a fun system, without a hint of queasiness about dirty recruiting?
We've never had it so good - relax about recruiting and realize what we have now is more than "fair" - it's fantastic.
The conversation relates to recruiting. Michigan can recruit like a top 25 level, but didn't in 2014 or 2015 and may not in 2016.
Michigan continued to recruit well and make tournaments after the Fab 5. (Taylor, Traylor, Bullock, Baston, Ward, Mitchell, etc.)
The NCAA sanctions had something to do with Michigan's "time in the desert".The failure of the late Ellerbe and the rebuild under Amaker are historical outliers for Michigan basketball.
I think it's fair to appreciate what we have and still express a hope/desire/expectation to see better recruiting/talent in the program.
Exactly - the NCAA sanctions had a ton to do with it. Sure Michigan brought in some amazing talent in those days, and to do it they at best looked the other way and at worst actively participated in some very dirty recruiting. Some of the very players you mentioned were paid.
Maybe I'm unrealistic, but IMO "Michigan" and "NCAA sanctions" should never be in the same sentence.
By all accounts, JB is squeaky clean, and he's minding the store too. If that costs us some big-timers, I'm fine with it.
Maybe I'm just more easily satisfied - as far as I'm concerned, having a clean, competitive, winning, NCAA-bound team that's fun to watch is plenty good.
April 22nd, 2015 at 11:12 PM ^
Michigan had great teams in the 80s too. The 89 team was loaded with NBA players. Some old heads can probably go even further back...
Just like in Football, Michigan doesn't have to cheat to land top 15 classes. And again, they JUST DID IT in '12 and '13. I don't know why people act like it's impossible to do again.
It's funny to me that basketball gets this treatment from fans when NO ONE would ever question it for basketball. Especially when the bball team has been just as successful, if not more successful over the last 30 years, and certainly over the last 5.
I'm one of those old heads - I went to every football an hoops home game as a kid, going back pretty far. I even remember the '76 championship game against Indiana. You're right, we had a number of terrific players over the years , and the '89 team was loaded. That semi-final against Illinois was a classic, full of NBA talent on both teams.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'this treatment" - do you mean lower expectations? I don't feel that way at all, but basketball at Michigan is different than football. A few reasons:
First, Michigan is a football school. We like hoops and hockey, but football is king.
Second, I'm sure I'm not the only person who was scarred and disillusioned by the NCAA sanctions and scandal (Heck, I was disappointed by the football sanctions). I remember the ugly rumors about recruiting during the Frieder/Fisher years, and I don't want to cheer for a team that cheats.
Third, college basketball recruiting is a real cesspool. Yes, football can be dirty too, but with smaller rosters and one-and-dones, basketball is just uglier. To me it's no accident JB loses out on many top kids. It has nothing to do with coaching, academics, or facilities. So, I'm satisfied JB does the best he can without resorting to cheating.
I've read everybody's comments about being disappointed in JB's recruiting, and I'm just not. I love where JB has taken the program, and I'm optimistic about the future.
Honestly, I think Frieder and Fisher had more talented players than JB, but he is so much better at player development and actual coaching. It's a treat to watch Michigan run actual plays, with precision and a plan. The lack of turnovers and fouls is amazing, and the improvement of players and teams over the course of a season is stunning.
You said earlier you'd rather have LeVert than Valentine - do you remember the skinny, awkward kid Caris was as a frosh? There may be no other coach or staff in the country that could have turned that kid into a first round pick.
Final thing - I think JB can and will land some highly ranked players. It just doesn't bother me when he brings in rough diamonds instead.
We're gonna have a really good team next year, and probably for years to come!
As someone who likes hoops at least as much as football, I have to acknowledge that perception of football school is true. However, I'm not sure it's warranted in terms of on-field/court success.
I don't want to cheat either, but that's holds for football too. Maybe it's less of an issue, maybe it isn't in football, but it's definitely an issue.
I love all the stuff you mentioned about the team/coach/program. All true. But I also like winning conference titles and making final 4s. You need NBA players to do that. Diamonds in the rough are fantastic, but they need to be sprinkled with the high 4-star and 5-star caliber talents. I don't care how good you think Beilein is, it's not sustainable to end up with 4 NBA players on the same roster without landing top 50 players. It's disappointing that between the 2014-2016 classes Michigan has only landed one top 50 caliber recruit (so far at least). Once Walton, Irvin, and LeVert leave this team is going to be below average in talent and athleticism and that's a real problem if you like contending for national titles.
Yeah, JB will coach them up to outplay their talent level, but, again, that's not enough to make Final 4s. That's the kind of team that looses to Blake Griffin's Oklahoma squad. Not a problem, but also not the ideal.
In football everyone bitches and moans if we win 9 games and finishing as a fringe top 25 team. In basketball people seem totally fine with it. I have the same standards/expectations/hopes for both.
Man there are some whiny babies asking some of these recruiting questions. I still can't believe that people are doubting the Austin Davis pickup. He is ranked as the 2nd best Junior in the state (only behind Winston, who we could land also). The kid just averaged 26 pts, 17 Rebs, and 5 blocks a game as a Junior all while having a 4.0 in school and scoring a 30 on the ACT. But because a recruiting site doesn't tell them the kid is a 5 star they freak out and whine like babies. If U of M's recruiting isn't good enough for you then go follow Kentucky. Because that is the only team that will be able to meet those types of people's expectations.
Ranked 2nd best junior? Where? The Onsted Times?
Detroit paper after his committment.
Comments