So I think I should probably create a new thread. Will do so in a few…
Honest question for the board. Do we want 2+ transfers out so that we can get a proven player(s) from the portal? My answer would be yes but that’s only because the young guys never got a shot. A proven high volume shooter would be fantastic. I would prefer a grad transfer to not impact the 2022s coming in that much.
This may be irrational, but I never feel like I want a transfer out. Even if they don’t contribute much here, they committed to Virginia and are part of the UVA community. I’d rather they all stay and get their degrees than go elsewhere, although I understand completely if they do go elsewhere for playing time. Again, maybe that’s not rational from a wins-losses perspective, but just where I am on the question.
5 Likes
I want them all to stay. I think between the 3Ms, Isaac^2, Bond, and Dunn we have guys with the skill sets (and size!) to cover the 3 main issues we had this year: shooting, wing defending, and rebounding. I just hope we don’t lose them AND not replace them in the portal. In this immediate transfer era you need 12-13 darts aimed at the target every season. Limiting scholarship players just deprives you of opportunities for a hit.
4 Likes
I personally don’t like transfers with the exception of taking a younger guy who wants a better program fit - sort of like Gill. To me, getting an upperclass transfer is recruiting over current guys. It suppresses opportunity for guys already in the program in a way they could not predict or have factored into their acceptance of a developmental path. I’m ok with bringing in a younger guy because they are on similar footing with younger guys within our program.
Where this gets challenging is when we lose our upperclassmen to transfer and lack experience. My default is to still go with guys from within and hasten their development. What became increasingly frustrating is the lack of developmental play for Murray and Milicic. If they transfer, we have another gap in the program. I fear they might not be noticeably better next year if they stay. Perhaps they will be better.
I think most people understood that this year was a rebuilding year and could live with a bubble team or less as long as we saw good development for the future. It is frustrating that we seemed to achieve neither short-term success nor clear development throughout the roster, even with a smaller roster than normal. If M&M come back much improved next year and getting good floor time, then I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
2 Likes
Personally I don’t want us pursuing a transfer unless we have guys leave that factored into our long term calculus. What I mean by that is if Igor transferred I’d want to find someone to fill that spot long term and not some bandaid fix for one year. I guess what I’m trying to say is I don’t want anyone that’s going to take minutes away from next year’s freshmen but if we can get a guy that’s young and promising (with eligibility beyond ‘23) then I’m all for it IF we have guys leave. I’m not sure if any of that even makes sense but it’s Monday so I’m hitting send.
3 Likes
I agree with y’all in theory. I just wish Tony would play 10 guys. Next year will be unusual in that our roster seems pretty full and I think it will be impossible for Tony to limit the rotation. So what happens to the 3 M’s and 2022 class will be interesting…I love the 3 M’s and their upside. I hope my question did not give off the wrong impression. The roster construction part of this is tricky…
3 Likes
For me, it’s context dependent. I don’t know if I have a first principles answer. If we have an experienced team with a chance to do damage (like 18-19), let’s ride those 6 or so guys. But this year seemed more like a year where the context would’ve dictated the opposite (play lots of guys to find the combos that worked in games / not just in practice). Instead, it was mostly six guys (Kihei, Reece, Armaan, Jayden, Papi, Shed) with a fringe (Kody and sometimes Malachi). Next year also seems like a year where you’d think/hope that we’d experiment a ton throughout the early part of a season…
6 Likes
10 Likes
Well. There’s our nigel johnson. (can provide valuable depth on a tourney team but also start in case alongside reece as well)
1 Like
I know I said upthread I didn’t want a one year rental type of player but not many options out there would make more sense than this one. HGN - you think we’ll kick the tires assuming Kihei is gone?
2 Likes
Normally would look at that sexy 3pt% from this season and be all over this but Armaan has me spooked now on one year spikes in shooting %.
8 Likes
Is Llewellyn really a PG? His stat line for his career profiles more like a 2-guard to me (high usage without many assists).
1 Like
No
You either can knock it down or not
Seems like consistent improvement more than a one year spike. Or at least I’m telling myself his 20-21 would’ve been in the 34-35% range from 3 and 42% from the floor.
1 Like
I’d lean out from a PG (or CG) transfer, but we should note that there’s a one year gap there, so we are missing a data point. Not “missing” but he didn’t get that year. Ivies didn’t play last year.
1 Like
I missed the rush of hearing about a new transfer we might be interested in or a recruit nearing a decision and seeing this pop up at the bottom. Ahh the excitement:
6 Likes
The fact that he chose Princeton over these means academics matter. Maybe there is a grad school here he likes? And he’s okay with serving a bench role on a (hopefully) tournament team while pursuing grad school?
1 Like
My initial instinct is to say no to Llewelyn but we’ll see.
3 Likes
lol Sorry got distracted mid post, not much to say
5 Likes