He showed big flashes until Stotts started jerking him around after some games of not shooting that well. In general, I thought we had too many players in our rotation last season. The same could be said for Seth Curry and Rodney Hood. If you give him a consistent role with a consistent number of shots every game, I think he will produce well. I'd be surprised if he gets more than 3 or 4 mil a season.
How many bench players have we ever had that were consistent? Not many. I assume this is true for most teams. Jake had some huge games last year so we know the potential is there. Terry always shortens his rotation in the playoffs. But Jake had a good season https://www.espn.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/2982268/jake-layman
I think Layman would be so much better in a more up-tempo offense. I still don't get why Stotts doesn't have the 2nd unit run more. Simons, Layman, Collins, Skal, and Leonard all have games that would be better suited for a faster pace. Harkless does too of the starters from last year. Now we have Bazemore and Little who fit in this category too. Getting a point guard known for pushing the ball up the court quickly to lead the bench might help all of those guys succeed quicker. Most of the other guys on the team are fine at any pace.
x1000 - couldn't agree more. Loved what the Warriors do pressing hard even after a made basket by the opposition.
Now if a team offers him a deal we evaluate matching it at that time. To me the more relevant question is what if there are no offers; do we let him take the qualifying offer or offer a longer contract? I like the idea of $1.9 million and we make a much more informed decision next summer. He would also have a low cap hold, so in theory we could use cap space first then resign him after. But if you are really high on Jake would you rather try to lock him up for multiple years at a reasonable rate? I'd probably pass at any price. I expect some posters prefer to lock him up as they have an irrational fear of him becoming a Jermaine Oneal situation.
I feel like we hear this idea every year since 2004. Not that I'm opposed to it, I'd love a 10 man rotation and scale back Dame/CJ minutes and try to run opponents off the court as the Kings/Nuggets did last year. I'm just to the point where I totally ignore the thought, same as player X has gained 15 pounds of muscle.
The only problem with the QO is like Hood this year Layman would then be an unrestricted free agent next summer. He'd have the right to refuse trades because he'd lose Bird Rights which also means the team trading for him would not give up as much to get him. This is why I kind of like the idea of slightly overpaying him for this season but having a 2nd year team option. I also think a 3 year deal for about $10 million total wouldn't be too crazy both in terms of compensation for Layman and maintaining cap flexibility next summer.
We hear this idea because since at least the beginning of the McMillan era the Blazers have mostly been a slow it down half court type team.
Here is our rank in pace; 2019 18th 2018 19th 2017 14th 2016 13th 2015 12th 2014 12th 2013 18th Stotts first year 2012 15th McMillian last part year 2011 30th 2010 30th 2009 30th 2008 29th 2007 29th 2006 28th McMillian first year
Layman sucks. I wouldn't match any offer. Not a problem, he won't get any. I wish he didn't suck, but catching occasional alley-oops does not compensate for his inability to consistently hit the 3 or his overall poor game. He's only getting another shot from Neil because Neil drafted him. I haven't lost all hope for him, it's POSSIBLE that he improves his 32.6 3fg%, but I wouldn't bank on it. There will be better players available for vet. min.
I think this is more likely than he becomes a starter. Thats why I prefer he accept the 1 year offer; if he becomes a quality role player fine we give him a raise. I don't like the downside risk of him on a multi year deal; then we realize we are now stuck with him hurting our team as with Meyers/Crabbe. Yes the dollar mistake would be much lower, but conceptually its the identical situation.
Jake is more of a rhythm player than an instant offense from '3' shooter. In games with 5 shots or more, he shot .522 from the field and that included a couple of 0-5 and 0-6 games. In games with 4 shots or less, he shot 46%. He often needed a few touches to get going but if he made one early, could get hot very quickly. It was the first year he has got significant regular minutes at all over a longer period and he seemed to do quite well when given opportunities and touches. Certainly has room for improvement but given that before this season he had averaged less than 6 mpg, he was quite efficient in the minutes he got...especially if he got more than just the random shot now and then. For the production per contract, he did quite well.
I would not go above the 1.9M and I think they could find a better option for the money. He is not reliable on offense and a complete liability on defense. Once teams took away his back door cut, he lost the ability to earn minutes. In the last game of the regular season he was at best the 4th best Blazer starter.
