Honestly would have been better off transferring at the end of the fall semester. Then he's available to play in January of '19. As a Missouri native, I know that's what Blake Harris did this year when he transferred to state.
EJ Montgomery Offered
- Thread starter pln2013
- Start date
You get what you pay for, and nobody pays better than bama... and even with football they load up in positions just to keep guys from playing against them.
As for hoops, any wonder the new catch-phrase is "positionless basketball"? Calipari was out front on that snake-oil sales pitch.
But he wouldn't be available immediately. If he played, he'd still have to miss a significant amount of games at some point, would he not?
I mean, he could choose to sit it out in the upcoming years, but at some point he'd have to sit or lose a year of eligibility, IIRC. Fall transferring has always been muddy to me.
Any comparisons of how these guys are stacking teams today to the old school teams in nonsensical. Different era, different rules. The Bird Celtics for example were a great team because the front office drafted well and evaluated talent. Few thought McHale and The Chief would become as strong as they were and the Celtics maneuvered to draft Bird to put them at elite status. Their Guards of that era were never spectacular, just solid guys who fit the system.
The closest thing to stacking a team in that era was the Lakers because they spent so much and do whatever they had to do to get a targeted draft choice or free agent. Even with that the concept of stars arranging to play together wasn't even doable in those days.
Yes he would have to lose a year from the time of transferring. But had he left after December he would be eligible for the spring semester of 2019 which would mean he's eligible for conference play, conference tourney and the NCAA tourney next year. That is if he's not happy with 12 mpg, 3.4 points and 3.4 rebounds a game with the dark lord.
And snake oil it is, truth is we play closer to positionless basketball than Ky or duke. Best I can tell they don't have their wings playing point, Theo has for us at times. Our 4s and 5s are and usually are under Roy hard to determine with is which, not the case at those other 2 programs. Does allowing your wing to put the ball on the floor and drive define as "positionless" well if it does just look at how Theo plays! Want more examples, JP as a 2, Cam as a 2-3, PJ as a 4, Marcus back and forth from PG to 2, Britt same, now Joel often play more of a 2.
I would prefer puke and Kentuck play lie-less basketball!
But I'm Old School!
But I'm Old School!
Not only would Bolden have to sit out a year, he would be a junior second semester 2019. Compare to waiting until the end of this year, he would have two full seasons of eligibility left.
I think you are selling Dennis Johnson incredibly short. He is in the Hall of Fame! Came to the Celtics in his prime already being a 4 time all-star twice in the top 10 MVP votes, once top 5. Oh, and already a Finals MVP under his belt. A bit more then serviceable.
People may not like free agency, but super teams like the classic Celtics with Russell or even the Yankees were super teams assembled largely due to taking advantage of cash strapped franchises. It's a "buisness" when management does it, but "disloyal, weak minded, spoiled, selfish, etc. when players make "buisness" decisions?
Last edited:
Well back on topic so consensus is montgomery isn't coming and no one is getting sucked in again
The original comments were with regard to high school blue chip recruits electing to team up instead of competing against one another. The conversation then morphed into discussing The George Mikan era and other such irrelevant nonsense. So if we circle back to the original sentiment that many of us were expressing, I think most of us understand that teams have always attempted to get multiple top recruits. And I’m sure even going back to the 60s, recruits have wanted to play together. But a top recruit wanted to play with another top recruit only because they were interested in the same school and it was a good fit. They didn’t pick their school because of another recruit’s decision to play there. In other words, there was a desire to play at a certain school and the recruits hoped it worked out for them to play with another good player. If it didn’t work out, so be it; they trusted the staff of the program they chose would put together a good team. In addition, 3 recruits that all played the same position would never have teamed up. And guys used to be more prideful and wanted to compete. But in typical fashion of today’s youth, it seems recruits want to have the easiest path for their one year. So yes, that seems emotionally weak and not the make up of a strong willed player that I’d want going to battle with me.
My point is correct. Players were incapable of stacking teams in the old days, and before free-agency it wasn't as much a matter of cash as superior scouting and farm systems in baseball. People could say "damn Yankees" all they wanted, but you couldn't poach players then because of the "reserve clause".
As far as basketball the Lakers were the ones stacking teams because of their cash (as much as you could back in the day), starting with their acquisition of Kareem from the Bucks after Wilt retired. And way back, the Russell-era Celtics weren't outspending --- they were out-coaching and out-drafting.
I'll never defend owners over players, but by the nature of sports, management's job is to build teams, players' job is to play. I'm all for the liberation of free-agency but a few top modern players jumping around like the NBA is today trying to create super-teams is selfish and yes, is a disservice to fan-bases.
I agree the Lakers did as well. When Kareem was in Milwaukee Oscar Robertson was sent to help with their title winning"super team". It is as old as the league itself, only now the players after 6 years can have a say in it not just management.
The Yankees ABSOLUTELY "poached". Teams like the St. Louis Browns were a de facto farm team of theirs due to economic concerns. To keep the team solvent the have nots routinely lost talent for past their prime or underachieving talent and CASH. Hell the Yanks would buy and bury talent in the minors who could help other teams compete in some cases. The reserve clause helped them to monopolize talent. With the deeper pockets them and a few others would scour the nation buying the youngest talent and then OWN their rights for their entire career. Money being used to not only create "super teams" but limit the ability of others to compete against those "super teams".
Wilt Chamberlain was bounced around the league to the dregs of the NBA to keep franchises afloat while Red Auerbach worked the system for a team full of Hall of Famers. The Lakers and Celtics have, what, somewhere near half of all the NBA titles, but now a new concept of "super teams" are affecting competitive balance all of a sudden? Different dynamic that is the only difference on what has always been.
Last edited:
Looks like EJ will visit the same weekend he’s visiting Dook. Supposed to be coming to the ND game.
That is crazy. Miss out on a possible championship to play half a year more? Especially with the rumored NCAA change to transfers to allow them to transfer with no wait coming this off-season.
Yeah, I’m guessing Roy convinced him to spend some time at Carolina since he’s already gonna be at Dook that weekend.
What significant did the Yankees poach other than Babe Ruth?... and that was Boston's fault. Their great players came up by and large thru their farm system. And when the Yankees temporary decline hit in the mid-late 60s, it was largely the result of allowing their farm system to go to pot with the ownership pre-Steinbrenner. When legends like Berra, Ford and Mantle were phasing out there was not much left to replace them. Sure, when they resurged in the mid-70s free-agents were in play but they also rebuilt their farm system in the meantime, which today is arguably the best in baseball.
Nonetheless, free-agency changed sports (which was a great thing for players), but the current NBA is getting to be like a big captain's choice deal. To compare what is going on now to the 80s and earlier is just a big rationalization. Once the old Celtics dynasty fizzled out (which again was built on talent evaluation and their system) legit contenders for titles came from all over and teams were mostly built over time. Whatever value judgement you want to put on it, that dynamic was absolutely different than today and it's really not arguable. Jordan's Bulls for example were no "super-team", it was built around a super player they drafted and then they were smart enough to draft a really good sidekick. The other guys were just pieces they drafted, traded for or picked up.
From my understanding g the new transfer rule change is only for a player who wants to transfer because of a coaching change. If you up and decide to leave you still sit one year
I believe that is incorrect.
The new transfer rule is supposed to be if your academics are at a certain level you can 1 time make a transfer without sitting out. If you know otherwise, I am all ears.
Edit: Seems you are right and they have tweaked it from what they were discussing before. The original proposal must have been killed.
Problem is, I think Montgomery is more of a face up big, more than a true post up big. Videos ive seen, he plays more like a SF, than a PF/C.
as to EJ and coming to Carolina, I guess I am at the point where I only want players that WANT to be Heels. I am sick of being dragged along and wooing all these kids only to have them buy into the absolute BROTHERHOOD BS of Vader or that snake oil guy at KY.
If EJ comes here GREAT, if not then I will root like hell against him.
If EJ comes here GREAT, if not then I will root like hell against him.
I guess I just don’t see the point in Roy getting in the game so late here and then going full court press on the kid. If you liked his skill set, we should have been in the mix early, not after we lost out on Zion.
That is true but to be fair dook wasn't interested until after zion and I think it's more to keep him from playing for us like I don't know say Bolden...
I think it's more a matter that we have 1 supreme positionless player in Theo. Sure other guys occasionally slide to a different position, but only Theo is actually quite good at more than one position.
Joel might be fine at 2 positions, but we need him at point and we have a good SG. Luke plays some post, but no one would say that's a good idea if we had a real post player who could handle the minutes. Garrison plays a lot in the post, but shouldn't.
Cam looks like he could become a legit SF/PF. We see him going inside more, and being reasonably successful. I imagine if he hadn't been injured he would already be there.
Who else?
Or DeLaurier. Either of whom would probably fill the hole we have in the middle quite well.
I wonder how the presence of the 2 bigs we currently have will affect E.J.'s decision. Perhaps Roy is telling him he can play the 4 some.
Thanks for clarifying. I was looking at his size. I think the 4 as a good spot for him with the improvement of his shot.
Mumbles to say, "must not get excited, must not get excited, must not get excited..."
