Caedin Hamilton Significant Contributor ?

[tower912]

And it still took them all time to develop.

I am not opposed to transfers.   I was cheering on Lockett when nobody else was.  I defended Buzz's use of JUCO's in the face of Chico's full wrath.  Wojo's use of grad transfers was fine with me.  I cheered for them all.   As I am cheering for Caedin.

I have said all along that if there are unexpected departures, I expect that Shaka will use the portal.

Right now, in the midst of an ugly season, I cannot bring myself to trash the players on the team more than Shaka (or whomever the coach is in any given season) has.  I never have and I won't start now.

So, because there isn't much else at this point, Caedin, keep working.  Everybody, attack the rim fearlessly.

[Pakuni]

Yes, tower, I think we all understand that every player who comes into this program is going to need development.
But I think you can recognize that there's a difference in plausible outcomes when it comes to the development of a top 100 kid and the development of a zero-star kid.

[BCHoopster]

Tower there was a reason CH took the MU offer, because it was the only one he got. MU under Shaka has had 4 good years of quality play, has the resources, so to recruit 2 bigs with no stars tells me Shaka maybe is not a good recruiter which is surprising. He is really a smart person, love listening to him, but even there he is getting old.  Not a realist.
Better turn it around next year, as changes have to be made. Stated Tre was his highest rated player recruited, he needs to go. Zaide, even the assistants where not sure about him, Shaka wanted him??

[jesmu84]

I'm not really seeing what you're seeing with CH, but for argument's sake ... should MU be giving scholarships, NIL money and other resources to players who, three years into college, come "miles" and are still well below average for a Big East player?

Good for CH on a personal level that he's come miles, but from a team perspective, what benefit is it if those miles still leaves him a negative player on the court? This isn't summer camp where the goal is to just get better, it's competitive, high-level basketball.

You mention Ejiofor as the target, but Ejiofor was an all-conference player in his third year of college. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a hard time imagining CH will be that by year five.

Anyhow, I guess my question is whether in this era of college basketball and with limited funding available, should MU be investing in players who after three years and miles of development still aren't contributing positively to on-court success?
 

You didn't ask the question to me. But...

I'm fine if shaka wants #13-15 on the roster to be projects that don't produce until year 4/5 in the program. As long as those years are big east starter production numbers.

In this particular situation, CH is never going to be good enough for that production, or he's being forced onto the court too early.

Either way, it's a coaching issue this season.

[Markusquette]

It's an issue that the majority of bigs he recruits are true projects.

[BM1090]

Yep. I have no problem with Caedin being on the roster. But in his third year, at this point of his career, he can't be one of your top ten players if you want to succeed.

If you're punting on this year and want to develop him for the future, fine. But then Stevens, James, Owens, and Phillips should all be out there a lot too.

[Pakuni]

You didn't ask the question to me. But...

I'm fine if shaka wants #13-15 on the roster to be projects that don't produce until year 4/5 in the program. As long as those years are big east starter production numbers.

In this particular situation, CH is never going to be good enough for that production, or he's being forced onto the court too early.

Either way, it's a coaching issue this season.

Thanks for answering.
Five years ago, I think, I'd probably have agreed with you. There's no major harm/downside to carrying a project as the 13th-15th player on the roster back then.
But in the NIL era, especially with the way it's been reported that MU does NIL, I think there is a downside. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that payments from the collective are generally fixed, and players are going to get what they get regardless of their standing in the lineup.
Assuming that's correct, I think spending limited funding on end-of-the-bench players is kind of wasteful. Aren't we getting more bang for our buck spending the NIL pool on 11-12 players who are having or are expected to soon have a positive impact, as opposed to diluting it among 15 players, 3-5 of whom aren't really contributors and may never be contributors?
I just don't think it's an effective use of resources to invest 4-5 years money for 1-2 years of production.

[Elonsmusk]

Thanks for answering.
Five years ago, I think, I'd probably have agreed with you. There's no major harm/downside to carrying a project as the 13th-15th player on the roster back then.
But in the NIL era, especially with the way it's been reported that MU does NIL, I think there is a downside. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that payments from the collective are generally fixed, and players are going to get what they get regardless of their standing in the lineup.
Assuming that's correct, I think spending limited funding on end-of-the-bench players is kind of wasteful. Aren't we getting more bang for our buck spending the NIL pool on 11-12 players who are having or are expected to soon have a positive impact, as opposed to diluting it among 15 players, 3-5 of whom aren't really contributors and may never be contributors?
I just don't think it's an effective use of resources to invest 4-5 years money for 1-2 years of production.

I agree with you.  Socialism never ends well.  And if as you write above, this is our way of paying players - it creates all kinds of problems, despite being noble in intention.

[jesmu84]

I agree with you.  Socialism never ends well.  And if as you write above, this is our way of paying players - it creates all kinds of problems, despite being noble in intention.

Nm

[Newsdreams]

Thanks for answering.
Five years ago, I think, I'd probably have agreed with you. There's no major harm/downside to carrying a project as the 13th-15th player on the roster back then.
But in the NIL era, especially with the way it's been reported that MU does NIL, I think there is a downside. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that payments from the collective are generally fixed, and players are going to get what they get regardless of their standing in the lineup.
Assuming that's correct, I think spending limited funding on end-of-the-bench players is kind of wasteful. Aren't we getting more bang for our buck spending the NIL pool on 11-12 players who are having or are expected to soon have a positive impact, as opposed to diluting it among 15 players, 3-5 of whom aren't really contributors and may never be contributors?
I just don't think it's an effective use of resources to invest 4-5 years money for 1-2 years of production.

No, not everyone gets Kam, OSO, Kolek, Stevie, Jolp money, there is an amount per year fixed for loyalty, but top guys do get more.

[Jay Bee]

Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that payments from the collective are generally fixed, and players are going to get what they get regardless of their standing in the lineup.
Assuming that's correct,

<Corrects Pak>. Incorrect.

[Pakuni]

<Corrects Pak>. Incorrect.

By all means, illuminate us on how it works.

[Jay Bee]

By all means, illuminate us on how it works.

Far beyond a paywall my boi