Cameron Reddish Update 7/14/17

[champs99and04]

Because if you put a few lottery picks into the league, it makes future recruiting – of any players – that much easier. We got top 25 or 30-ish PGs (Jalen & Alterique) just recently, and I'm guessing they heard the name "Kemba" more than once during their recruitment.

Getting Reddish for a year makes it easier to get Jaiden Delaire, etc etc, for 3.

That said: No one should ever stress about a 5-star kid here ever again. It's really the Carey, Mucius, etc level players who are the lifeblood of our program.

I look at it differently. If there are multiple ways to skin a cat, then it makes no sense to hone in on one kind of player. It would be the equivalent of a quarterback throwing strictly to one side of the field. In last years class alone, the top ten recruits had an enormous and immediate impact:

Jackson was the second best player on a Kansas team that went to the elite eight

Tatum was the second best player on a Duke team that won the ACC tournament and earned a two seed

Ball was the best player on the most resurgent, exciting team in the country

Fox, Adebayo, and Monk were the best three players on a team that lost a coin flip game to the eventual champs in the elite eight

Issac helped Florida State to one of their most successful regular seasons in school history

Fultz and Giles are clearly anomalies in different ways. My point is, whatever hopes we have riding on a given recruiting class exists on a continuum. There are multiple paths to success, but reeling in top ten, one and done talents represents the most efficient route to success. There is a a misconception on this board that, when it comes to winning, recruits are fungible. That's not true. Teams win with one and done talent and they win because of one and done talent.

I co-sign on the idea that our best and most realistic option is to sign kids like Carey. But the fact that we have traditionally done it that way is perhaps overstated at a time when our program is very much vulnerable and undefined. Signing a player like Reddish would be monumental for this program - all but ensuring Ollie's retention through 2018-19 - and the need to minimize it is all too convenient.

 

[Matrim55]

I look at it differently. If there are multiple ways to skin a cat, then it makes no sense to hone in on one kind of player.

It makes sense to hone in on players you can get. Our ability to do that recently is almost inversely proportional to the kid's rating.

Fultz and Giles are clearly anomalies in different ways. My point is, whatever hopes we have riding on a given recruiting class exists on a continuum. There are multiple paths to success, but reeling in top ten, one and done talents represents the most efficient route to success.

This starts as gibberish, and ends as a-contextual nonsense. Reeling in top 10 talents represents the most efficient route to success only if you can efficiently reel in top 10 talents in the first place. Which, right now, we can't.

There is a a misconception on this board that, when it comes to winning, recruits are fungible.

I REALLY don't think that's the case.

Signing a player like Reddish would be monumental for this program - all but ensuring Ollie's retention through 2018-19 - and the need to minimize it is all too convenient.

I generally like you as a poster and I'm sorry if I've come off as condescending and rude here, but this was a frustrating series of thoughts to parse. So let me put it this way: I agree with that last sentiment of yours, and I will further agree that getting Reddish would make our chances of producing an elite team better, or "more efficient" if you prefer.

But our ability to sign players of that caliber has been next to nil this decade, so prioritizing him would be an inefficient waste of resources that could deprive us of the manpower we need (on the trail) to lock down the likes of Carey, et al.

 

[David 76]

Wow!
We've had some top players over the past 10 years. Even in the last 4 years we got Hamilton, One each year until this mess. Bigger names preceded them.

There are some myths here about top players killing your team that are really based on fiction. You still need the right kind of kid, but people act like all the highest rated kids are soft.
The other theory that,because we mostly lose on a top kid, we should stop trying. Crazy. The only thing is to avoid letting a really good kid get away because you are hoping for a one-and-done. That can be avoided in other ways. Shoot for the stars just don't refuse to settle for the moon when the stars are dragging you for a ride.

Finally, we were successful with 3 year stars. Back in the days when the best players tended to stay 3 years. It is like saying we did well in the Yankee Conference when we didn't have freshman play. The college game changed

 

[champs99and04]

It makes sense to hone in on players you can get. Our ability to do that recently is almost inversely proportional to the kid's rating.


This starts as gibberish, and ends as a-contextual nonsense. Reeling in top 10 talents represents the most efficient route to success only if you can efficiently reel in top 10 talents in the first place. Which, right now, we can't.


I REALLY don't think that's the case.


I generally like you as a poster and I'm sorry if I've come off as condescending and rude here, but this was a frustrating series of thoughts to parse. So let me put it this way: I agree with that last sentiment of yours, and I will further agree that getting Reddish would make our chances of producing an elite team better, or "more efficient" if you prefer.

But our ability to sign players of that caliber has been next to nil this decade, so prioritizing him would be an inefficient waste of resources that could deprive us of the manpower we need (on the trail) to lock down the likes of Carey, et al.

I don't think we're that far apart here and I didn't mean to imply that you or anybody else is suggesting we turn down top talent. My source of uncertainty comes mostly from fishy's posts at the beginning of the thread and one line from your post that I may not have interpreted correctly but seemed vague enough to warrant a response:

That said: No one should ever stress about a 5-star kid here ever again.

Irrespective of whether Adams and D-Ham qualify as 5-stars in this scenario, I find stressing - insofar as anybody stresses about college basketball recruits - to be appropriate in some cases. Certainly, that is contingent on us having a reasonable shot to land those kids (and you're right that they may not be available to us in our current state, but Diallo was there for the taking before we blew up last year), but if the right player comes along, they can be transformative enough that they're worth taking a shot.

 

[Huskymagic]

While I'd love to have Killer Cam on the team because he's a lottery pick that we can use to recruit for the future, we need to focus on Isaiah Mucius and get him to commit ASAP. I've seen both and Mucius plays a lot harder on both offense and defense. Mucius is an excellent player with lottery pick upside.

Cam Reddish is a great talent, but he does not play hard on defense at all and doesn't have a killer instinct. Mucius is really really good. He is a sleeper a la Jeremy Lamb.

 

[Huskyforlife]

While I'd love to have Killer Cam on the team because he's a lottery pick that we can use to recruit for the future, we need to focus on Isaiah Mucius and get him to commit ASAP. I've seen both and Mucius plays a lot harder on both offense and defense. Mucius is an excellent player with lottery pick upside.

Cam Reddish is a great talent, but he does not play hard on defense at all and doesn't have a killer instinct. Mucius is really really good. He is a sleeper a la Jeremy Lamb.

Killer cam with no killer instinct? weird choice of nickname

 

[James]

It's laughable how someone can think ko should stop recruiting 5 stars or potential 1&done candidates. I mean, forget about Gilbert and Adams that quickly ? We were certainly close with Hami too, uconn wasn't a throw away in his list... the staff had a legit shot.