Maybe, but if you got both him and Lathon, it's not like you're overly reliant on Monsanto being good again. Which is more valuable - leaving 2 open scholarships or taking a flyer that Monsanto is good? (honest question)
Last edited:
Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread
- Status
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
There's an element of bluffing to it, sure, but I do think there's something to what Underwood says every time there's a microphone in front of him. "You can have too many".
I say choose the one guy you want for that spot.
Think the interesting thing about Jakuncionus is that the could be here for multiple years. And next year's team could potentially return a ton of talent since Humrichous would be the only player out of eligibility.Watkins stays in the draft….What do you do?
Wells….eh. Hasn’t really impressed. Kelly…staff isn’t that high on him…I agree with Indy if you can get either Lathon and Jakucionus or Lathon and Monsanto…either of those routes would be takes.
Could be a very different off season where you have an experienced, deep roster and only need to make a couple additions in the portal.
Monsanto could potentially get a medical waiver for last year but he played in the 2nd half of the season so likely wouldn't.
Big fan of Lathon being a 6th year senior. Could use the experience.
No doubt, a valid point. I also have no doubt the staff would rather get Watkins. However, folks thinking landing Lathon would be a massive recruiting failure is just plain wrong. He's a grown man and, as we saw firsthand, can make shots against anybody.I like Lathon (and he played awesome against us) but still...
Yeah I get that reasoning, can't really fault it. Hence my question earlier (restated here another way): Would we really gain much from any presumptive cost savings on Lathon vs Watkins?
Yes. Watkins would be in the high 6 figures pushing 7.
Yeah I get that Watkins would be way more expensive. My problem is probably just that I don't have the correct understanding of how NIL actually works on the ground. Maybe my thinking that there would be extra money that we could possibly use elsewhere if we got Lathon instead of Watkins is just incorrect, but it seemed like that was what @Indy Illini Fan was indicating last night.
but do we really need to save $$$ for another piece when we already have 9 guys who could be in the rotation? Unless we just want to stand our ground and not "overpay" for anybody.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Totally spitballing, but I think someone mentioned the idea that the cost savings would be redistributed among the existing roster?
That sounds like a "waste" in player acquisition terms, but if that leaves us with a cast of returnees more willing to come to back next March, that could be the investment that makes all the difference.
Yeah if it's an investment in the future, that makes sense
Good guess imoI wonder which way the staff will go. 2 is better than 1 so Lathon +1 but Insiders seem to be adamant that Brad will only take on more player. So can we assume Watkins is the choice?
No, I am just saying if you don't get Watkins you have the option to add 2 guys.
I think it clear if Watkins want to take our bag, it's his. If not, we have other options to explore to make good use of those funds.
Brad is saying only one more because he's hoping its Watkins.
Right, ok. So in that case it seems like the question is then: would that second guy be more impactful in the rotation than someone else we already have? And for Monsanto, the answer seems to be a firm MAYBE. So (If we end up with Lathon as the SG add) does it come back to: Which is more valuable - taking a chance that Monsanto (or someone else in that final spot) hits, or leaving 2 scholarships open and possibly spreading the remaining NIL to the rest of the team?
(I'll drop out on this at this point, the horse is probably good and dead. I guess I'm just killing time waiting for actual news on a Friday...)
mhuml32
- Cincinnati, OH
We are in the great unknown so data is limited but I have a hard time believing a one-time payment with no association with future payments is going to create loyalty within a volatile economic market like the NIL/portal system.
mhuml32
- Cincinnati, OH
There might be three people that have the actual answer to this stuff, and that might be an overstatement: Lots of talk about fixed price/fixed money available that doesn't seem applicable to the current college sports landscape. This applies to professional sports with collective bargaining related to team costs, but that isn't a reality for college bball.
That's the question ... I think Brad likes the group we have ... If we want to push for Monsanto, he'd be ours and he would not cost a fortune at all ...
If I am Brad and I have told this to Brad ... There is such a thing as too many guys ... But we are already leaving one ride open ... Jakstys is going to redshirt ...
I see no problem having 11 guys ... Monsanto is a bucket and brings something everyone can agree you can NEVER have enough of ... Shooting ...
He's an old kid who knows what his role would be and would accept it ...
He's a no brainer add no matter who we get IMO ... But I ain't Brad ...
I still think we should go for Watkins. At this point considering how the market has moved if we get him for under 7 figures that’s a steal. You usually win basketball games with stars. He’s a star, and we need him.
Correct ... Lathon would not cost as much as Watkins ... Would give us some flexibility to potentially add another piece or spread across the roster ...
And don't forget we might have a mid year addition that would like to come in and make some NIL even if he redshirts the semester ...
Yup ... But he's made it clear that he's prepared if it's not ...
I despise the budgeting reasoning for not landing the first wave of elite players, then being told that we're going to land a big fish from those electing to come back to school, then going back to the budgeting reasoning for making choices.
Which other legitimate contenders are budgeting when it comes to NIL? Also, what other "elite" teams don't have a headliner or multiple all conference caliber players? The answer to this is the teams that didn't need to go to the portal for 7/8 players.
To me(and what do I know), this all comes down to not having the resources that we thought we had and being way, way off when it came to knowing what the market was going to be for these guys. It's probably more of the latter.
Watching Indiana mop up is annoying.
- Status