[Paint Touches] Transfer Tracker

[jsglow]

Don't know if it is a big deal but Jordan Hill just announced his departure from Madison.

[GGGG]

And I will take my roster full of major talent and less chemistry against your chemistry laden above average talent team and beat you a vast majority of the time. Overall..talent will win out a vast majority of time. Afterall..that's how North Carolina won the Championship..most talented team in the country. MOST National Champions are.

Actually North Carolina was talented AND had good chemistry.  Williams has done a fantastic job of recruiting great players, but not necessarily one and done types.  So they can grow old together.

I'm with Ted on this one.  Schools like Kansas and Kentucky have built their programs on acquiring as much talent as possible and worrying about how to make the pieces fit later.  There is nothing wrong with that, but that's not what Marquette is doing.  And the reason is that Marquette cannot bring in enough talent every year to make that work.  So chemistry issues are a major concern.

And it's not like Marquette completely turns its back on transfers.  Evidence shows this.

[brewcity77]

Don't know if it is a big deal but Jordan Hill just announced his departure from Madison.

Proves they aren't immune to transfers.

[GGGG]

BTW, UNC's 247 recruiting rankings the last four years:

2016 - 13
2015- Not in top 50
2014 - 10
2013 - 18

Chemistry was a very, very important factor in their team's success the last two seasons.

[Loose Cannon]

Sorry, but I put team chemistry #1 on my building a program list and I'll gladly take a Joey Hauser and another player over those two with Marquette's current roster. That's just how I roll.

Plus Tax, Chemistry is so important and so Fragile it can play havoc with the stats you're thinking these guys are bringing.

[avid1010]

BTW, UNC's 247 recruiting rankings the last four years:

2016 - 13
2015- Not in top 50
2014 - 10
2013 - 18

Chemistry was a very, very important factor in their team's success the last two seasons.

speak of UNC...you can always count on politicians to do dumb sh1t.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2017/04/12/north-carolina-nc-state-leave-acc-boycott-championships-house-bill-728/100382142/

[wadesworld]

Chemistry is one of the more overrated things people ever reference in sports.  Watch Oregon's team this year and you see players yelling at each other in huddles all the time.  Didn't seem to hurt them much.  Watch Draymond Green getting into it with KD on the sidelines.  They seem to be doing fine.  Watch LeBron b!tching at his teammates for not magically knowing he was going to leave his man in order to go and try for a runout steal and his teammates being at fault for the resulting uncontested dunk.

Brett Favre was a terrible teammate.  MJ same deal.  Christian Laettner was the same.  Etc. etc. etc.  Winning cures all, and talent wins.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Chemistry is one of the more overrated things people ever reference in sports.  Watch Oregon's team this year and you see players yelling at each other in huddles all the time.  Didn't seem to hurt them much.  Watch Draymond Green getting into it with KD on the sidelines.  They seem to be doing fine.

I'm not in the huddles but I think these are examples of teams with good chemistry. Ability to call each other out and hold each other accountable are signs of a team that is bonded and comfortable with each other. I'm much concerned about teams where yelling isn't happening when things aren't going well.

MJ I've heard was a terrible teammate. No idea if its true. Favre I've heard both good and bad things. Laettner I've heard was beloved by his teammates, everyone else just hated him. But I also wouldn't say that chemistry and being a good teammate are the same thing.

None of us knows what happens if the Lawson bros had transferred here. Maybe we keep all the necessary pieces and win a national championship. Maybe the entire 2017 recruiting class transfers, Joey goes to Michigan State, Dedric goes pro after one year, and KJ grad transfers. Who knows? All speculation. What I do know, is that there were things going on in the background with the Lawsons that would give me pause as a coach. They bring a ton of talent but some off the court drama as well. Their talent is still worth it, but I personally like other options better. Kansas is the perfect landing spot for them. With all the crap going on around that athletic department right now, the Lawson won't even be a blip on the radar.

I do wonder if Dedric will do better than Tarik Black? Also transferred from Memphis to Kansas. Went from starter at Memphis to 3rd guy off the bench at Kansas. Though he translated that into an NBA contract so I don't think he's complaining.

[wadesworld]

I'm not in the huddles but I think these are examples of teams with good chemistry. Ability to call each other out and hold each other accountable are signs of a team that is bonded and comfortable with each other. I'm much concerned about teams where yelling isn't happening when things aren't going well.

MJ I've heard was a terrible teammate. No idea if its true. Favre I've heard both good and bad things. Laettner I've heard was beloved by his teammates, everyone else just hated him. But I also wouldn't say that chemistry and being a good teammate are the same thing.

None of us knows what happens if the Lawson bros had transferred here. Maybe we keep all the necessary pieces and win a national championship. Maybe the entire 2017 recruiting class transfers, Joey goes to Michigan State, Dedric goes pro after one year, and KJ grad transfers. Who knows? All speculation. What I do know, is that there were things going on in the background with the Lawsons that would give me pause as a coach. They bring a ton of talent but some off the court drama as well. Their talent is still worth it, but I personally like other options better. Kansas is the perfect landing spot for them. With all the crap going on around that athletic department right now, the Lawson won't even be a blip on the radar.

I do wonder if Dedric will do better than Tarik Black? Also transferred from Memphis to Kansas. Went from starter at Memphis to 3rd guy off the bench at Kansas. Though he translated that into an NBA contract so I don't think he's complaining.

I don't know what else would be the the root of bad team chemistry beyond having guys who are bad teammates on the team.  Off the court issues (drugs, partying too much to where it affects your performance, legal issues, suspensions, etc.)?  Something that makes someone a bad teammate.  Causing rifts in the locker room?  Something that makes someone a bad teammate.

If you would've asked Bobby Hurley while he was at Duke if Christian Laettner was a good teammate there is no chance in hell he'd say yes, and Christian Laettner is the first person to admit that.

Read about where and why the Aaron Rodgers gay rumors started, Rodgers having his helmet stolen, etc. etc. etc.  He was a great teammate to his select few "guys," and a total douche to the rest.

Chemistry comes down to whether you are winning or losing.  Sure there might be one guy here or there who isn't happy with the role he has on a successful team, but by and large a winning team is a happy locker room.  And vice versa.  It doesn't matter if you have a bunch of choir boys, if you're going 4-28 on the year chances are you are going to have "chemistry issues."  How do you win?  You get the talent to do so.

I'm not saying bring absolutely anybody aboard no matter what so long as they have the talent to help you win games.  There are guys that aren't worth their talent.  If a guy tries to light a girl's hair on fire, for example, thanks, but that's just not going to fly.  But if the biggest thing a talented guy has against him is he yells at his teammates or kicks a locker when his team is losing?  I'll take that kid if he has even slightly more talent than the guy who will grab a towel and clean up a wet spot on the floor without being asked to do so.

Look at Seton Hall as an example. We heard about locker room fights and how Willard had lost his locker room by letting a few talented punk freshman take over the locker room which caused a rift on his team, etc. Yet here we are with them having more success than they have had in a long time.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Honestly,  I think chemistry is being used as a catch all word for a lot of things.  I'm not sure how wiping up floors and kicking lockers came into play.

What I do know is that sometimes a less talented player is more valuable than a more talented player. By the time all is said and done (assuming no injuries or declines)  Sam Hauser will be much more valuable for  Marquette than Henry Ellenson. Henry has oodles more talent than Sam but if I had to choose between the two I'd take Sam 7 days a week and 5 times on Sunday.

If we took the Lawson's,  I'd be ecstatic. They are talented players.  But I also see lots of other options for those schollies. There are some I'll be even more ecstatic for.

[MuMark]

I think the point is you can have a very talented roster that doesn't fit together......those teams won't win at a high level. You need talent but you also need complimentary players that fit roles.......everybody pulling in the same direction.

That to me is a well constructed team ......if you aren't a blue blood that is how you can win big.

A bunch of guys who have talent but all want to get theirs.......not so much.

[4everwarriors]

Au + H2O=AuH2O, ai na?

[Herman Cain]

Honestly,  I think chemistry is being used as a catch all word for a lot of things.  I'm not sure how wiping up floors and kicking lockers came into play.

What I do know is that sometimes a less talented player is more valuable than a more talented player. By the time all is said and done (assuming no injuries or declines)  Sam Hauser will be much more valuable for  Marquette than Henry Ellenson. Henry has oodles more talent than Sam but if I had to choose between the two I'd take Sam 7 days a week and 5 times on Sunday.

If we took the Lawson's,  I'd be ecstatic. They are talented players.  But I also see lots of other options for those schollies. There are some I'll be even more ecstatic for.

I have been making this point for a long time. glad to see you agree......OMG quick revise my post can't be seen agreeing with MUFINY would destroy my street cred.

[wadesworld]

Honestly,  I think chemistry is being used as a catch all word for a lot of things.  I'm not sure how wiping up floors and kicking lockers came into play.

What I do know is that sometimes a less talented player is more valuable than a more talented player. By the time all is said and done (assuming no injuries or declines)  Sam Hauser will be much more valuable for  Marquette than Henry Ellenson. Henry has oodles more talent than Sam but if I had to choose between the two I'd take Sam 7 days a week and 5 times on Sunday.

If we took the Lawson's,  I'd be ecstatic. They are talented players.  But I also see lots of other options for those schollies. There are some I'll be even more ecstatic for.

Sure 4 years of Sam with more talent on the team surrounding him will have been more valuable to MU than Hank's 1 with Cheatham, a guy who couldn't find the court this year, as the 2nd best player on the team. But if you tell me, "You can take Hank for 4 years or Sam for 4 years but not both" I'm taking Hank 768 times a week and 215 times on Sunday. I love Sam. Favorite player on MU. But he's not Hank.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Sure 4 years of Sam with more talent on the team surrounding him will have been more valuable to MU than Hank's 1 with Cheatham, a guy who couldn't find the court this year, as the 2nd best player on the team. But if you tell me, "You can take Hank for 4 years or Sam for 4 years but not both" I'm taking Hank 768 times a week and 215 times on Sunday. I love Sam. Favorite player on MU. But he's not Hank.

Well yeah. But you can't take Hank for four years. You can take Sam for four years, that's a main reason why he's more valuable. Just like you can't take the Lawsons for 4 years. Their talented, but they might not be as valuable.

[MU82]

wades and TAMU, two of my faves. I hate choosing between you because I usually agree with both.

Gotta go with TAMU here, though.

We don't need to play the "if" game on this one because Hank ain't here for 4 years while Sam will. We don't get to choose between 4-year Hank (or even 2-year Hank) and 4-year Sam, only between 1-and-done Hank and 4-year Sam. So it's a pretty easy choice.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I have been making this point for a long time. glad to see you agree......OMG quick revise my post can't be seen agreeing with MUFINY would destroy my street cred.

I don't feel this way at all. You agreeing with me actually helps to raise your street cred. Mine's too solid to go down 

You make good points MUFINY. You just happen to dilute them with insisting that Henry was going to be a four year player, pioneer league football saving Marquette's reputation, and rape being impossible if the girl was on top.

[wadesworld]

wades and TAMU, two of my faves. I hate choosing between you because I usually agree with both.

Gotta go with TAMU here, though.

We don't need to play the "if" game on this one because Hank ain't here for 4 years while Sam will. We don't get to choose between 4-year Hank (or even 2-year Hank) and 4-year Sam, only between 1-and-done Hank and 4-year Sam. So it's a pretty easy choice.

No doubt.  But the argument is about talent vs. chemistry.  We just used Hank and Sam as one example, which, if we're saying you get Sam for 4 years or Hank for 1 it's really not about chemistry or skill at all.  It's about the length of time you're going to have that player.  It's comparing entire teams.  That'd be like saying you'll take Rob Frozena over Matt Carlino because Rob was on an MU roster for longer and his teams had more success.  Sorry, but I'm taking Matt Carlino on a basketball team way, way, way before I'm taking Rob Frozena.

Pick any one year that you want and I'll take Hank for that year over Sam for that year because Hank is more talented, despite Sam having better "intangibles" and, most likely, a better "chemistry guy."

Compare any 2 players and I'll take the more talented guy unless it's to the point of a Gilbert Arenas bringing weapons into the locker room or something like that.

Put it this way, I'll take my chances with a "locker room cancer" like Rajon Rondo over a "great chemistry guy" in Delly ANY day of the week and I won't even blink about it.  Sure, if you tell me I can take Rondo for next year only and put him on the Brooklyn Nets or I can take Delly on the Golden State Warriors for the next 4 season then yeah, let's role with Delly.  Same deal with Hank on a team that Cheatham's the 2nd best player on for a year or Sam where Cheatham is the 7th best player(?) on the team for 4 years of growth then yeah, obviously the latter is the better option.  But when all else is equal I'll take talent (Hank) over chemistry (Sam).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No doubt.  But the argument is about talent vs. chemistry.  We just used Hank and Sam as one example, which, if we're saying you get Sam for 4 years or Hank for 1 it's really not about chemistry or skill at all.  It's about the length of time you're going to have that player.  It's comparing entire teams.  That'd be like saying you'll take Rob Frozena over Matt Carlino because Rob was on an MU roster for longer and his teams had more success.  Sorry, but I'm taking Matt Carlino on a basketball team way, way, way before I'm taking Rob Frozena.

Pick any one year that you want and I'll take Hank for that year over Sam for that year because Hank is more talented, despite Sam having better "intangibles" and, most likely, a better "chemistry guy."

Compare any 2 players and I'll take the more talented guy unless it's to the point of a Gilbert Arenas bringing weapons into the locker room or something like that.

Put it this way, I'll take my chances with a "locker room cancer" like Rajon Rondo over a "great chemistry guy" in Delly ANY day of the week and I won't even blink about it.  Sure, if you tell me I can take Rondo for next year only and put him on the Brooklyn Nets or I can take Delly on the Golden State Warriors for the next 4 season then yeah, let's role with Delly.  Same deal with Hank on a team that Cheatham's the 2nd best player on for a year or Sam where Cheatham is the 7th best player(?) on the team for 4 years of growth then yeah, obviously the latter is the better option.  But when all else is equal I'll take talent (Hank) over chemistry (Sam).

See you and I are defining chemistry very differently. I for the most part I don't give a crap about "locker room cancers" and "great chemistry guys" whatever that means. I do care about roster makeup, and I do care about players from the 2017 class transferring and recruits from the 2018 class not coming because we have talented transfers coming in at a position we don't need and will only be here a max of two years and there's a strong possibility that one or both might only be here for one year. There is potential to derail the foundation of the program Wojo is building. If it was a position of need, or we had more schollies to work with or there was only one of them or they had another year of eligibility I wouldn't feel the same way.

For the Sam/Hank comparison, I don't give a rat's bum about the rest of the team. The Frozena/Carlino comparison is absurd and irrelevant but I think you know that. I am talking purely about on the court, statistical value. I don't care about wins and losses in this situation. Put Hank on this past year's team and I still take Sam over Henry every single time. Henry is more talented, Sam is more valuable because he will stay all four years. Same comparison applies for the Lawson brothers and whatever players that would either transfer or not come to Marquette because they were on the roster (if there were any).

I am always for taking more talented  4 year freshmen. If some upperclassmen transfer because the freshman is beating them, who cares? You have a better player with more years of eligibility left. You have to be more strategic with transfers and one and dones. Traci Carter likely doesn't transfer if Andrew Rowsey wasn't here. Will two years of Rowsey be worth more than three more years of Traci? Probably but its really impossible to know. If Henry doesn't come here, Steve Taylor doesn't transfer, Gabe Levin doesn't transfer, and Kyle Washington may have theoretically transferred here. Is 1 year of Henry worth 1 year of Taylor/Levin and 2 years of Levin/Washington? I would say probably not. Of course this is all in hindsight and purely theoretical. We have no idea how things would have played out if different players did or didn't come. But these are the things that coaches need to balance when working the transfer market. You have to add talent but you have keep the future of the program stable. This is one of the issues Buzz ran into.  He patched hole after hole with transfers and jucos. He was a mad genius at it so it worked for years. But too many missteps and it all came down like a house of cards. The program fell and it fell hard. We weren't able to fall back on a foundation of solid four year players.

[muguru]

See you and I are defining chemistry very differently. I for the most part I don't give a crap about "locker room cancers" and "great chemistry guys" whatever that means. I do care about roster makeup, and I do care about players from the 2017 class transferring and recruits from the 2018 class not coming because we have talented transfers coming in at a position we don't need and will only be here a max of two years and there's a strong possibility that one or both might only be here for one year. There is potential to derail the foundation of the program Wojo is building. If it was a position of need, or we had more schollies to work with or there was only one of them or they had another year of eligibility I wouldn't feel the same way.

For the Sam/Hank comparison, I don't give a rat's bum about the rest of the team. The Frozena/Carlino comparison is absurd and irrelevant but I think you know that. I am talking purely about on the court, statistical value. I don't care about wins and losses in this situation. Put Hank on this past year's team and I still take Sam over Henry every single time. Henry is more talented, Sam is more valuable because he will stay all four years. Same comparison applies for the Lawson brothers and whatever players that would either transfer or not come to Marquette because they were on the roster (if there were any).

I am always for taking more talented  4 year freshmen. If some upperclassmen transfer because the freshman is beating them, who cares? You have a better player with more years of eligibility left. You have to be more strategic with transfers and one and dones. Traci Carter likely doesn't transfer if Andrew Rowsey wasn't here. Will two years of Rowsey be worth more than three more years of Traci? Probably but its really impossible to know. If Henry doesn't come here, Steve Taylor doesn't transfer, Gabe Levin doesn't transfer, and Kyle Washington may have theoretically transferred here. Is 1 year of Henry worth 1 year of Taylor/Levin and 2 years of Levin/Washington? I would say probably not. Of course this is all in hindsight and purely theoretical. We have no idea how things would have played out if different players did or didn't come. But these are the things that coaches need to balance when working the transfer market. You have to add talent but you have keep the future of the program stable. This is one of the issues Buzz ran into.  He patched hole after hole with transfers and jucos. He was a mad genius at it so it worked for years. But too many missteps and it all came down like a house of cards. The program fell and it fell hard. We weren't able to fall back on a foundation of solid four year players.

Okay so let's say for example MU brings in two grad transfers, or hell even two traditional transfers that have say two years of eligibility left, however you want to play it. Now, let's say these transfers were so freaking good, MU won a national championship with them. But, because of their presence, a couple of players that are Sophomores(but are bench players, but get decent minutes), decide to transfer before that season. I'll tell you what, if there is ANYONE here that would rather have those two players back(because they hate transfers), then MU winning a national championship, on the backs of "outside players", Then they are smoking something really really good. The point is, you ALWAYS do whatever you have to do to upgrade the talent on your team. And if it causes some players to transfer..well, you know what?? They just missed out on being part of a National Championship team...their loss. Upgrade the talent whenever possible and deal with any fallout from it at the appropriate time. Talent will win out in the end a majority of the time.

[muguru]

See you and I are defining chemistry very differently. I for the most part I don't give a crap about "locker room cancers" and "great chemistry guys" whatever that means. I do care about roster makeup, and I do care about players from the 2017 class transferring and recruits from the 2018 class not coming because we have talented transfers coming in at a position we don't need and will only be here a max of two years and there's a strong possibility that one or both might only be here for one year. There is potential to derail the foundation of the program Wojo is building. If it was a position of need, or we had more schollies to work with or there was only one of them or they had another year of eligibility I wouldn't feel the same way.

For the Sam/Hank comparison, I don't give a rat's bum about the rest of the team. The Frozena/Carlino comparison is absurd and irrelevant but I think you know that. I am talking purely about on the court, statistical value. I don't care about wins and losses in this situation. Put Hank on this past year's team and I still take Sam over Henry every single time. Henry is more talented, Sam is more valuable because he will stay all four years. Same comparison applies for the Lawson brothers and whatever players that would either transfer or not come to Marquette because they were on the roster (if there were any).

I am always for taking more talented  4 year freshmen. If some upperclassmen transfer because the freshman is beating them, who cares? You have a better player with more years of eligibility left. You have to be more strategic with transfers and one and dones. Traci Carter likely doesn't transfer if Andrew Rowsey wasn't here. Will two years of Rowsey be worth more than three more years of Traci? Probably but its really impossible to know. If Henry doesn't come here, Steve Taylor doesn't transfer, Gabe Levin doesn't transfer, and Kyle Washington may have theoretically transferred here. Is 1 year of Henry worth 1 year of Taylor/Levin and 2 years of Levin/Washington? I would say probably not. Of course this is all in hindsight and purely theoretical. We have no idea how things would have played out if different players did or didn't come. But these are the things that coaches need to balance when working the transfer market. You have to add talent but you have keep the future of the program stable. This is one of the issues Buzz ran into.  He patched hole after hole with transfers and jucos. He was a mad genius at it so it worked for years. But too many missteps and it all came down like a house of cards. The program fell and it fell hard. We weren't able to fall back on a foundation of solid four year players.

You have to care about wins and losses though, because ultimately that's what matters. It's about winning and winning big. Could/should this current team be REALLY good in '18-'19 if Joey comes?? Absolutely, they SHOULD. But, I emphasize the word should because there are no guarantees they will be. I think that's what people forget..anything could happen before that season starts. That's why, you HAVE to try to seize the opportunity to win now..Let's just use a hypothetical..Let's say MU could land Egor AND Cam Johnson as grad transfers. for next year..people honestly wouldn't take that at the risk of a player or two, (that would likely be rotational players at best, but not main cogs) transferring?? I sure as hell would, you know why?? Because if you could add both of those guys, you are looking at a team with AT LEAST Sweet 16 talent or better.

I would take that every day of the week, even if it means a player or two transfer. Because in all likelihood, you could easily replace the player or two that transferred with guys equal to(or likely even better), than who left. So what have you lost?? You still have a scholarship for Joey(Koulachov), Now, you have Cam Johnson coming back another year still, you'd be coming off a minimum of a Sweet 16 appearance(hypothetically), AND you have an open scholarship or two to add two more players for '18-'19 when everyone thinks they will be REALLY good.

There is absolutely NO losing in that scenario..in fact, I'd say it's a HUGE win..you made your team better for next year and in the process likely made it even better for '18-'19 as well. And you did all of that by adding MORE talent AND Experience.

And hell, even if something happens and '18-'19 isn't as good as what everyone anticipates it will be, guess what?? At least you have a sweet 16(or deeper) from '17-18 to fall back on. Win now..worry about the future when it gets here.

I'm personally not willing to "let the youngsters" play this year for "seasoning" them for '18-'19 with the anticipation that, that is THE year..because THE year could never happen. Especially if it means NOT making the NCAA's again this year...that's a step back again. And if you turn next years team over to a bunch of Freshman and Sophomores, I think that is likely to happen(No NCAA). if you can add more talent and experience this upcoming year, why in the hell would no one do it?? You'd be a total fool to not want that.

[TedBaxter]

Well, how do you know that Marquette didn't contact both Johnson and Egor and they decided Marquette wasn't for them?  How do you know Marquette didn't contact the top 10 available grad transfers and despite being offered, they decided there were better playing time options?

Here's another question.  The Lawson's announced on April 5th that they were leaving Memphis in a press release BEFORE meeting with Tubby Smith.  Their dad was a staff member at Memphis under Tubby and Tubby found out from a press release.  It gets better.  5 days later they annouinced they were going to Kansas. 5 DAYS!!!!  Doesn't that sound a little like the situation with Tyshawn Taylor and Kansas where Bob Hurley was ripping MU for not releasing Tyshawn the night Crean resigned and then finding out Self and then assistant Dooley were waiting in a New Jersey hotel for the LOI release when the release did come?  Here's a newsflash muguru, the Lawson'r were on their way to Kansas before they announded their transfers from Memphis and some of these grad transfers are predetermined.

So you would take the Lawson's.  Good luck.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sports/columnists/geoff-calkins/2017/04/10/calkins-lawsons-kansas----and-keelon-lawson-explain-why/100291042/

[muguru]

Well, how do you know that Marquette didn't contact both Johnson and Egor and they decided Marquette wasn't for them?  How do you know Marquette didn't contact the top 10 available grad transfers and despite being offered, they decided there were better playing time options?

Here's another question.  The Lawson's announced on April 5th that they were leaving Memphis in a press release BEFORE meeting with Tubby Smith.  Their dad was a staff member at Memphis under Tubby and Tubby found out from a press release.  It gets better.  5 days later they annouinced they were going to Kansas. 5 DAYS!!!!  Doesn't that sound a little like the situation with Tyshawn Taylor and Kansas where Bob Hurley was ripping MU for not releasing Tyshawn the night Crean resigned and then finding out Self and then assistant Dooley were waiting in a New Jersey hotel for the LOI release when the release did come?  Here's a newsflash muguru, the Lawson'r were on their way to Kansas before they announded their transfers from Memphis and some of these grad transfers are predetermined.

So you would take the Lawson's.  Good luck.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sports/columnists/geoff-calkins/2017/04/10/calkins-lawsons-kansas----and-keelon-lawson-explain-why/100291042/

I would take ANY players that significantly upgrade the talent on this roster, whether it be for a year, two years whatever. You keep harping on this "if minutes are available". You want the youngsters to play...I get it, but if you are honest with yourself, you would know full well, that IF MU was able to bring in Koulachev and Cam Johnson, or either...there would be PLENTY of minutes available, why?? Because one or both of them IMMEDIATELY become two of the three or four most talented players on the roster..FACT.

You wouldn't take the Lawson's, and if you sit here and tell me right now, that IF they Lawson's came to MU, and brought them a National Championship, you wouldn't feel good about it, then I'd say you are one of those guys that is okay with MU being a "nice little program, that wins sometimes, graduate players, and has no transfers". After all the years you have been following MU ted, you'd be satisfied with a program like that??

I can absolutely guarantee you that Kansas(and no matter where the Lawson's would have went) became a better team instantly because of it, based on sheer talent alone.

I will also say this..we don't know that MU did or didn't contact Johnson/Koulachev, but IF they did, and couldn't guarantee them minutes(when they would instantly become top 4 -5 players on this team), then flat out Wojo is not the Coach to lead this program. You don't EVER tell kids that would be top 5 players on your team there aren't minutes available.

Playing the youngsters will in all likelihood cost MU an NCAA berth this year, I'm not willing to risk that at the off chance '18-'19 is special, because you don't seem to understand, that that may NEVER happen. No guarantees. Then what Ted?? Win now..that's what you HAVE to do.

[wadesworld]

See you and I are defining chemistry very differently. I for the most part I don't give a crap about "locker room cancers" and "great chemistry guys" whatever that means. I do care about roster makeup, and I do care about players from the 2017 class transferring and recruits from the 2018 class not coming because we have talented transfers coming in at a position we don't need and will only be here a max of two years and there's a strong possibility that one or both might only be here for one year. There is potential to derail the foundation of the program Wojo is building. If it was a position of need, or we had more schollies to work with or there was only one of them or they had another year of eligibility I wouldn't feel the same way.

For the Sam/Hank comparison, I don't give a rat's bum about the rest of the team. The Frozena/Carlino comparison is absurd and irrelevant but I think you know that. I am talking purely about on the court, statistical value. I don't care about wins and losses in this situation. Put Hank on this past year's team and I still take Sam over Henry every single time. Henry is more talented, Sam is more valuable because he will stay all four years. Same comparison applies for the Lawson brothers and whatever players that would either transfer or not come to Marquette because they were on the roster (if there were any).

I am always for taking more talented  4 year freshmen. If some upperclassmen transfer because the freshman is beating them, who cares? You have a better player with more years of eligibility left. You have to be more strategic with transfers and one and dones. Traci Carter likely doesn't transfer if Andrew Rowsey wasn't here. Will two years of Rowsey be worth more than three more years of Traci? Probably but its really impossible to know. If Henry doesn't come here, Steve Taylor doesn't transfer, Gabe Levin doesn't transfer, and Kyle Washington may have theoretically transferred here. Is 1 year of Henry worth 1 year of Taylor/Levin and 2 years of Levin/Washington? I would say probably not. Of course this is all in hindsight and purely theoretical. We have no idea how things would have played out if different players did or didn't come. But these are the things that coaches need to balance when working the transfer market. You have to add talent but you have keep the future of the program stable. This is one of the issues Buzz ran into.  He patched hole after hole with transfers and jucos. He was a mad genius at it so it worked for years. But too many missteps and it all came down like a house of cards. The program fell and it fell hard. We weren't able to fall back on a foundation of solid four year players.

So you were never talking about team chemistry, you were talking about roster balance.

[bilsu]

Hauser should of shot more threes last year.
Ellenson should of taken less threes the year before.
Does Hauser passing up shots help team chemistry?
Did Ellenson not passing up shots hurt team chemistry?