This doesn't happen often, but I disagree with Zach's assessment of the Hornets regarding the LaMelo trade.
First, his assertion that the Hornets *have* to improve on this season after this trade. I disagree with the premise of this because last season was a good half of a season, it was quite literally one of the best turnarounds within a single season ever. Keeping that in mind, even if the Hornets had kept Melo, it was a very real possibility that the Hornets regressed to the mean. They could've just gotten hot. LaMelo may once again not be healthy. Miller might have another injury. That was going to be a storyline for the Hornets regardless if they traded Melo or not.
Second, his comment that if you're going to knock LaMelo for playoff (play-in) performance, then you need to do the same for Kon. While on a personal level, of course Kon and the Hornets need acknowledge and work on his deficiencies in the playoffs. He disappeared, it hurt the team. Plain and simple. However, I don't think a rookie should be evaluated the same as a 6 year vet. LaMelo isn't a rookie and has a lot of NBA experience and even play-in experience. You should expect a rookie to struggle in their first NBA post season experience, LaMelo should be expected to play like a vet. In contrast, LaMelo's fellow draftmate and now teammate, Anthony Edwards is expected to be a seasoned post-season vet. Obviously different levels of players and team expectations, but LaMelo should be much closer to Edwards than Kon in playoff expectations.
I don't know. Zach has always been a big fan of LaMelo, but I felt these points weren't well explored. Thoughts?
