Available Transfers, Decommitments, and Unsigned Prospects Thread
- Thread starter nagemj02
- Start date
This is why I started the "Swanigan's decision" thread awhile ago. I thought this might happen. Now, things could change but the fact that two or three guys that were on Purdue's radar did NOT sign with the Boilers (Ondigo in particular) indicates to me that it's more likely than anything else that Biggie's drawn-out decision process is repelling recruits that might want "his spot".
Mark Alstork has narrowed his list of schools down to Illinois, Georgetown, Louisiana State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Georgetown. It looks like Louisville's willing to make room for a standout guard but not Purdue. The Boilers have to have Mathias starting because he's clearly one of the best guards in college hoops, with all of his 3 or 5-point games against the best competition (Villanova, Louisville, Kansas, etc.). 
nagemj02, like I said in a previous post here, I enjoy reading your thoughts on these transfers. I do think you're off base on this one though. If I'm reading the ESPN game logs correctly, here is how Alstork has performed against major conference level teams the last 2 years:
Last Yr:
@ Pen State: 15pts while shooting 3-18 from the field with 7 turnovers
2 Yrs ago:
@ Kentucky: 9 pts while shooting 3-8 from the field
@ Xavier: 3pts while shooting 1-6 from the field
I'm sure Alstork is a good player & will be productive wherever he goes, but nothing about those box scores screams out he should be displacing Dakota to me. The going rate for these productive mid-major transfers seems to be about 20-25 mpg and an opportunity to start (Barry to Fla, Springs to Minny, Arians to Wake, etc). I'm not sure how Painter could truthfully sell that kind of opportunity on Purdue's team next year. What would be your pitch to the kid & your plan to get him those minutes?
Last Yr:
@ Pen State: 15pts while shooting 3-18 from the field with 7 turnovers
2 Yrs ago:
@ Kentucky: 9 pts while shooting 3-8 from the field
@ Xavier: 3pts while shooting 1-6 from the field
I'm sure Alstork is a good player & will be productive wherever he goes, but nothing about those box scores screams out he should be displacing Dakota to me. The going rate for these productive mid-major transfers seems to be about 20-25 mpg and an opportunity to start (Barry to Fla, Springs to Minny, Arians to Wake, etc). I'm not sure how Painter could truthfully sell that kind of opportunity on Purdue's team next year. What would be your pitch to the kid & your plan to get him those minutes?
My pitch would be that I believe in his abilities and understand that he had to do more than his share of the workload in order to keep Wright State above .500 the last couple of seasons. I understand that he had some bad shooting games and problems with turnovers, but that can happen when you really try to make things happen on a team with average D1 talent and very little depth.
Alstork also had many high-scoring and productive games for them. Sometimes, his play was absolutely the reason they won (maybe the reason for a couple of losses as well). I'll put it this way: if you put Dakota Mathias on Wright State's team last season, I don't think he would have had as high of a scoring (particularly off the dribble and number of FT attempts from drawing fouls) output as Alstork did for them. I believe Mathias would probably have been between 12-15 PPG for them (no one like Biggie on WSU to draw attention in the post and create openings on the perimeter). Alstork averaged 19 PPG.
This is why I'm disappointed and I'm sure if anyone ever wanted to question the staff about it, they would say available minutes would be the reason to not pursue him. I simply don't believe in that. Anyone can earn minutes if they are talented enough and work hard enough. I believe you want to have the best roster available, even if it shakes up returning players' minutes from the previous season. Don't be afraid to upset the apple cart if you want to reach your ultimate goals.
I have two questions when talking about possible transfers. If, we are looking at a grad transfer, how many minutes could we actually offer him?
I look at our backcourt and see pj, Edwards, Mathias, Eastern and Cline eating up every possible minute available.
I look at center and see Haas and Taylor and maybe Haarms. I see maybe 5-10 minutes max.
I look at PF and see V Edwards, Haarms, and Ewing and see a possible 5-10 mins max.
I look at SF and see Eastern, Mathias, VEdwards, and Wheeler and see 5-10 mins max.
Last month, when looking at a transfer, my thoughts were to find somebody who could start at PF and give Purdue 20-25 minutes rather than the 5 minutes Spike gave us. But now, I believe if we signed a grad transfer, it would just be to add depth. If the only purpose is to add depth, Why not fill the hole with a walk on. I can't see many grad transfers who would want to come to Purdue -especially a guard to just sit on our bench.
This begs the question, would it be better to fill the scholarship with a transfer who would sit out a year? As such, Painter could actually offer him a lot more playing time in 2018 and also attract a much better player and possibly a starter.
The last alternative is to find a 2017 player. Waiting until the end of May, the pickings of talented 2017 players would appear to be very slim.
To me , the best player available would be to find a transfer who would sit out a year and have 2-3 years left, so his scholarship would open up in one of our lean years. Many would say that is what Yanni Wetzel represents perfectly. The only problem is I don't think he is the right person for the job and there are many 2018 big men better than him.
So my solution? Punt! Find a grad transfer to play 5-10 minutes, and concentrate on signing an elite player in the 2018 class. Rather than signing yanni, I'd rather sign the mediocre center from Cal or Alstork to add depth .
If you can convince Tilmon to sign, awesome. But I don't want to just sign a mediocre prospect just because we have a scholarship to give.
I look at our backcourt and see pj, Edwards, Mathias, Eastern and Cline eating up every possible minute available.
I look at center and see Haas and Taylor and maybe Haarms. I see maybe 5-10 minutes max.
I look at PF and see V Edwards, Haarms, and Ewing and see a possible 5-10 mins max.
I look at SF and see Eastern, Mathias, VEdwards, and Wheeler and see 5-10 mins max.
Last month, when looking at a transfer, my thoughts were to find somebody who could start at PF and give Purdue 20-25 minutes rather than the 5 minutes Spike gave us. But now, I believe if we signed a grad transfer, it would just be to add depth. If the only purpose is to add depth, Why not fill the hole with a walk on. I can't see many grad transfers who would want to come to Purdue -especially a guard to just sit on our bench.
This begs the question, would it be better to fill the scholarship with a transfer who would sit out a year? As such, Painter could actually offer him a lot more playing time in 2018 and also attract a much better player and possibly a starter.
The last alternative is to find a 2017 player. Waiting until the end of May, the pickings of talented 2017 players would appear to be very slim.
To me , the best player available would be to find a transfer who would sit out a year and have 2-3 years left, so his scholarship would open up in one of our lean years. Many would say that is what Yanni Wetzel represents perfectly. The only problem is I don't think he is the right person for the job and there are many 2018 big men better than him.
So my solution? Punt! Find a grad transfer to play 5-10 minutes, and concentrate on signing an elite player in the 2018 class. Rather than signing yanni, I'd rather sign the mediocre center from Cal or Alstork to add depth .
If you can convince Tilmon to sign, awesome. But I don't want to just sign a mediocre prospect just because we have a scholarship to give.
Besides the previously mentioned Cam Johnson (Pittsburgh) and MiKyle McIntosh (Illinois State), Drick Bernstine, who was a starting big man on the North Dakota team that won the Big Sky Tournament/made the NCAA Tournament this past season, has graduated and is transferring (immediately eligible). He's a pretty good rebounder. He's not Swanigan-good on the boards, but not many are in college hoops. UND lost to Arizona 82-100 in the 1st round, but he scored 20 points and had 15 rebounds in the game.
Drick Bernstine:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/gamelog/_/id/67415/drick-bernstine
Verbal Commits 2017 Transfers:
http://verbalcommits.com/transfers/2017
Drick Bernstine:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/gamelog/_/id/67415/drick-bernstine
Verbal Commits 2017 Transfers:
http://verbalcommits.com/transfers/2017
Last edited:
A nice signing for UNC. It would have been great to have a 6'8 guard. But if he read this board, he'd realize he had no chance to get much playing time ahead of Mathias, Edwards, pj, Cline and Eastern. And he probably didn't want to be a small forward at this stage in his career.
It is unlikely he would have started. His numbers were on par with PJ, Carsen, and Mathias. Those numbers also come while being on a team that was not very good and didn't even make the NIT. He would have been a nice peice, but this isn't a huge loss. Eastern is about the same height and I would much rather develop him than borrow Cam for one year. I am not saying he would not have contributed, because I am sure he would have. Just to say I would rather Eastern have those minutes to develop.
Last edited:
Nah, we didn't have a prayer even if we offered. I hear he prefers to play zone defense.
My point was not if painter offered or not. My point was from his perspective. Looking at our current team, he would have realized playing time with our current roster would have been about the same as Spike's was last year. he probably realizes Mathais and PJ are almost guaranteed 25- 30 mins each.
I don't much about UNC's returning players. But I have to believe he chose them either for playing time, or a chance to go to the final 4.
I don't much about UNC's returning players. But I have to believe he chose them either for playing time, or a chance to go to the final 4.
I'd be happy if Painter brought in either Drick Bernstine or MiKyle McIntosh to fill the open scholarship. McIntosh is an inside-out guy and Bernstine would fill in some of the rebounding void left by Swanigan. DB saved his best for last, with 20 points and 15 rebounds against Arizona (a #2 seed; projected to be a top 3 team next season) in the NCAA Tournament.
Interesting that you want all of these players to be inserted into the Purdue team. That would make our team 50 players deep (approximately). Only 5 players can be on the court at any one time. It is impossible to claim all the individual skills you want because none of the players you are suggesting can fill more than one skill at a time, per your accounts. Maybe we could change the rules and we could run different guys onto the court during running play such as ice hockey so that we could maintain most of those skills on the court the maximum time available in a game. Otherwise, just irrelevant banter.
In fairness to Nage, I don't see him suggesting we sign all of these guys. He is pointing out the skills from each one that he thinks would help us during a 1 year rental. I have no problem with that concept at all. I would much rather we get a 1 year guy versus giving that scholarship to a walk-on for one year.
At this stage I think it's highly unlikely that we get someone that had the impact of say Octeus. But that doesn't mean we can't get someone that could contribute more than a walk-on.
If a fifth year player only contributes slightly more than a walkon...that scenario "could" cause problems. A walk on "should" know prior to the season that playing time would be very scarce whereas a fifth year player...that probably played a lot someplace (and in this scenario may not play much) may not view the season in that light..and have heartburn and/or potential chemistry problems with any "scarce" playing time being further divided by the newcomers. If a fifth year had a chance to play a lot...this goes out the window...but under teh scenario in question there exists risks greater than the reward...IF that player was only slightly better than a walk on.
I don't see an issue if the other players reconcile in their minds that the one year player contributes immediately and is deserving...but I can see player frustration is the limited playing time is divided even more by players that will not be there the next season.
...just a potential area of concern...
Those are fair concerns TJ. I would just suggest a couple things:
1. If we bring in a 5th year, I'm assuming CMP would only do so if he was significantly better than a walk-on and fills a need (rebounding maybe). If he isn't significantly better than I see no reason to add him.
2. Chemistry is a tricky thing. CMP has shown he can handle a 1 year "helper" and I trust he would do the same with anyone he might add this year.
I'll add that I'm very confident all of the players I have mentioned as potential grad transfers for next season (now I'm just focused on Drick Bernstine and MiKyle McIntosh) ARE significantly more capable (i.e. better players) of consistently making positive on-court contributions next season than the two returning walk-ons. There's no debate. The people here that don't like my opinions or my posting style will try to debate or nay-say it but it's a no-brainer: one of Bernstine or McIntosh bring more to the table (production-wise) than both of Eifert or Luce. They would have to be blinded by their contempt for me to argue against that.
Last edited:
I have two thoughts along the same lines. I would hate to bring in a grad transfer who has been very successful at his previous school, and then give him the playing time and roll we gave Spike last year. I believe Spike looked at our past history and thought he'd be given a chance to start over PJ and Edwards. the fact that he received so little playing time could be a huge factor in the decision of the other quality grad transfers looking elsewhere rather than coming to Purdue just to add to our depth and warm our bench. A walk-on could have done for us what Spike did last year. This is nothing against Spike, but Purdue didn't really use his talents last year, and I believe this year would be no different.
Ask yourself, if a grad transfer signed with Purdue, would he be able to start? or just provide more bench depth? and if that's all you want him for, there are many walk-ons who could fill that roll.
The only position I see where a grad transfer would see any significant playing time and possibly start would be at PF. and looking at the profiles of the players NAG provided, I only saw 1-3 pf/c that were worth targeting.
if you've read my football posts, I hate using scholarships for projects, and I hate redshirting players just for the purpose of developing their skills or adding muscle.
If Bowen contacted Louisville, as some claim, I have to believe other players know Purdue has a scholarship open, and will contact Purdue.
I admit I was wrong when predicting painter already had somebody unofficially committed, and he'd announce the signing within a week of Biggie making his announcement. At this point, I'd rather give the scholarship as a 1 year offer to a walk-on, than to give it to a mediocre 4 year player.
and as for all those quality players out there. I'll say it again. If you're an elite high school or college basketball player, you follow the sport, and you know who the good teams are and who the good players are and how many scholarships are left. At this point, painter doesn't have to waste his time trying to find somebody to give that scholarship to. I have to believe the elite, good and mediocre players all know the vacancy exists, and if interested, will be contacting Painter or Lutz.
Ask yourself, if a grad transfer signed with Purdue, would he be able to start? or just provide more bench depth? and if that's all you want him for, there are many walk-ons who could fill that roll.
The only position I see where a grad transfer would see any significant playing time and possibly start would be at PF. and looking at the profiles of the players NAG provided, I only saw 1-3 pf/c that were worth targeting.
if you've read my football posts, I hate using scholarships for projects, and I hate redshirting players just for the purpose of developing their skills or adding muscle.
If Bowen contacted Louisville, as some claim, I have to believe other players know Purdue has a scholarship open, and will contact Purdue.
I admit I was wrong when predicting painter already had somebody unofficially committed, and he'd announce the signing within a week of Biggie making his announcement. At this point, I'd rather give the scholarship as a 1 year offer to a walk-on, than to give it to a mediocre 4 year player.
and as for all those quality players out there. I'll say it again. If you're an elite high school or college basketball player, you follow the sport, and you know who the good teams are and who the good players are and how many scholarships are left. At this point, painter doesn't have to waste his time trying to find somebody to give that scholarship to. I have to believe the elite, good and mediocre players all know the vacancy exists, and if interested, will be contacting Painter or Lutz.
The situation with Spike was different than most grad-transfer situations. He had hip surgery prior to (or during?) his final school year at Michigan. For all intents and purposes, he lost a step in quickness and lift on his jumper that he has not gotten back since he had the procedure done. So, there's a reason he didn't play much this past season (his health/ability-level was down a notch from how he was pre-surgery).
1. Spike actually gave some quality minutes in games. There is no way Luce could have provided what Spike did. Big difference between a legit D1 player and a walk-on. I'm not saying the year worked out like Spike may have wanted, but he did more than most walk-ons could have done.
2. I agree that the one place we need help could be PF. That's why I specifically mentioned rebounding as a skill we should look for if we get a transfer.
3. I'm only advocating the use of the scholarship on a 1 year transfer, not a 4 year mediocre player. That gives us the option for a loaded 2018 class.
agreed
Purdue would not have won the Georgia State game without him. The Boilers seemed to have not gotten over losing the close game to Villanova and came out flat. Albrecht and Mathias were two of the main catalysts in that second half run that eventually gave the Boilers the win.
Don't forget that Spike Albrecht was further injured part of last year. I think that played into his reduced playing time and effectiveness...JMO.
It would be interesting to get his candid assessment of his year/opportunity and what he thought of CMP and the program. I haven't heard anything negative, but I'm fairly removed from that sort of stuff these days.
It would be interesting to get his candid assessment of his year/opportunity and what he thought of CMP and the program. I haven't heard anything negative, but I'm fairly removed from that sort of stuff these days.
my thoughts are looking at it from a grad transfer perspective, the only grad transfer who'd really be interested in coming to Purdue would be a PF. No guard who's averaging 15-20 ppg would want to come and compete with our current guards. No center is going to want to compete with Haas.
You might see a PF or SF show some interest. but the reality is, very few grad transfers transfer because of the quality of our graduate schools. they usually want one of two things - a chance to start or be on a championship team.
I really like some of the players that have been previously mentioned. But it's hard to get excited about any of them with the belief they would not be coming to Purdue as a starter to fill a huge hole. Yes, Biggie left a huge hole. and I'd love to fill it with a grad transfer. But I don't see any good ones left. And I'd rather have V Edwards at SF, than PF.
You might see a PF or SF show some interest. but the reality is, very few grad transfers transfer because of the quality of our graduate schools. they usually want one of two things - a chance to start or be on a championship team.
I really like some of the players that have been previously mentioned. But it's hard to get excited about any of them with the belief they would not be coming to Purdue as a starter to fill a huge hole. Yes, Biggie left a huge hole. and I'd love to fill it with a grad transfer. But I don't see any good ones left. And I'd rather have V Edwards at SF, than PF.
Bernstine can play PF or C. McIntosh can play PF or SF. In all likelihood, Bernstine would be able to beat out Eden Ewing for minutes at the 4. Perhaps one or both of these grad transfers wants to play on a championship-caliber team. Purdue gives them that opportunity.
After doing some research on Bernstine, I think he would be a good addition at the 4 to go with Ewing, especially since we need help replacing boards more than we need another SF. Adding Bernstine would also allow Vince to stay at the 3 with Wheeler in backup. In addition, that gives us options at the 5:
1) go big with power - Haas,
2) go big with inside/outside game - Haarms,
3) go smaller, more athletic with Taylor.
It also gives us insurance at the 5 - in case Taylor gets injured yet again, or if Haarms does not live up to expectations, and if neither happens, it gives CMP some interesting non-standard combos to try (twin towers, etc.)
Finally, I noted that not only did Bernstine grab 15 boards against Arizona, but he pulled down 14 against Iowa earlier in the year. In addition, he pulled down 10 or more boards in 10 mostly Div 1 games, and 8 or more boards in 17 games. That's a lot of boards. OTOH, Ewing grabbed 10 or more boards, against Juco competition, 3 times, and 8 or more boards in 5 games.
So at least on paper, I think your claim that Bernstine would beat out Ewing for minutes at the 4 does not seem unreasonable. In fact, they both appear to be virtually identical in physical size and traits.
I would seriously hope CMP is checking this guy out.
A person much more talented than a walk on is a different issue and yes Matt has done well with his 4 guards in chemistry
Nag,
I try to stay out of these conversations most of the time.
I have no contempt for you or anyone on this forum. We all have opinions and I learn a lot more than I can provide. I was a wrestler in school, my boys were wrestlers, and I coached wrestling. I could likely teach you all far more about the intricacies of a single leg take down than I could about the intricacies of a zone defense. I rely on my fellow Boiler fans to educate me there. And I include you in the list of Boiler fans that have educated me.
I am of course not saying that adding either of these prospects is good or bad. I am open to hearing from others before I make a decision.
HOWEVER I think that what some people say that you take is contempt is that you couch things a certain way then get upset if others try to discuss things from a different direction.
For example you comparing these two to Eifert and Luce is great if either/both are willing to come in and take the minutes that Eifert and/or Luce would be getting. If not then it becomes more complex than that.
So I find the discussions on where they will get their time and whether it will affect things like team chemistry or delay the development of another player as beneficial, not blinded.
Chemistry is a big thing. Delaying the development of another player may or may not be a big issue. Discussing that is interesting.
I like apple pie and I like crushed red pepper but sometimes some combinations just don't work so it is worth the effort to think everything through.
If bringing in Bernstine allows someone to take a needed red shirt then I agree it is a no brainer. But if not it does, at least in my opinion, it warrants the use of our brains. It still could be a good thing but it will take hearing from more than one voice to sway me either way.
Again no contempt, I enjoy hearing from others that see things from a different direction and do grow tired of some that want to thwart that.
I find it interesting that you value chemistry and coached..and yet your sport was more individual. I agree with you, but didn't know how an individual sport might see or value chemistry in comparison to a team sport. BTW...any chance you would know Tom Miller..asst. A.D. at Laf. Jeff and long time wrestling coach in central indiana?
I have talked to Tom many times. I had two sons that wrestled for the Indiana Freestyle and Greco teams and NWCA Scholastic teams that Tom was involved with. I doubt he would know me from Adam but he would remember my boys.
Wrestling is a combination of team and individual. Not only are there team scores but unlike many truly individual sports (like swimming and track and field) you cannot have a practice without good teammates.
So while my two youngest sons were on high school teams that they were the only ones to place at State (the oldest had several on the team that placed) they rooted on their teammates no matter that teammates record. I can tell you for a fact that the team erupted more to see a teammate win his 5th match of the year than they did one of my boys win his 25th.
Thanks for the personal insights.....even though I chose basketball, I always thought wrestling teams were closer knit units, at least at the high schools with which I was familiar. That may, however, be more of a function of the social surroundings/circumstances, rather than something inherent in the two scholastic sports.
Btw, as an aside, Vision Quest, is a vastly underrated movie IMO.
Thanks Tex,
One last thing since I do not wish to sidetrack the thread. Camaraderie in a wrestling team is MUCH easier than a basketball team because, in most cases, there is very LITTLE competition BETWEEN teammates.
In High School there are 14 weight classes from 106 to 265.
So for example my youngest son wrestled 130 at weight. The IHSAA would only allow him to lose a certain amount of weight based on body fat so 128.5 was the minimum for him.
His options were to be the best at 130 or challenge at 135 or 140 (the IHSAA only allows a wrestler to wrestle up 2 weight classes.) That also means he did not have to worry about a 170 pounder who happened to wrestle the same style taking his position.
There is also a JV team. Not a lot of schools go more than two deep at any weight. Those that do have the ability to wrestle an A, B, and/or C team as well. Usually EVERYONE gets a shot on the mat at some time or another.
Also there is little coaches decision who wrestles. None of the fans can get on a forum and complain because coach is not "choosing" the wrestler we want to get more matches.
He who wins on the mat in a challenge wrestles. If you don't win wrestle JV until you get better.
Also the better wrestlers tend to wrestle EVERYONE on the team. My 130 pounder was able to experience a quick wiry 106 and learn to wrestle kids with those skills as well as wrestle the slow stronger 265.
I remember a heavier JV wrestler taking high fives on the bench when my son got a take down on a kid who liked to hang on, stall, and had a plodding style because he had "taught" my son how to wrestle against that.
I coached the club level and loved taking a pencil armed 105 pound freshman and show him how to use his "deficiencies" (as seen in other sports) as "advantages" in wrestling.
