Scouting Notes: Aidan Chronister at the Quincy Shootout

Right now, he's solid off the ball, and he has the length to create some deflections in passing lanes. When I watched him, the issues cropped up if he didn't quiteget the steal and had to recover back. Smaller and quicker guards could exploit him on those resets. Also think you'll want him to add that functional strength to fight over screens.

But I also try to give some grace. He's a kid going through a massive step up in talent he faces each night compared to 6A hoops in Arkansas. There's going to be some acclimation required. Linstead kept hitting on that theme. Aidan's getting used to space closing quickly, actions going faster, etc. If he looks like a solid 3-and-D wing at the end of this year, that's progress. Trent also faced the same questions at this stage, and we're seeing what happens with buy-in and patience.

Reply Like

Watkins did a great job laying out the blueprint last year for how this roster might get built. My question was how they would balance portal talent against high-school kids. But in either case, it's helpful to point to Trent for development and Bates settling into a role.

That was my low-key concern this year. It's easy to sell a blueprint for the first couple of seasons on the job. Then, recruits expect to see what the house looks like. I thought it hurt them a little bit for a kid like Hannah, whose agent essentially gave Bama a discount because of its track record and style under Oats. If MU had struggled or been mediocre, that's when the spiral effect could start.

Now, Gates and his staff can credibly say that 2023-24 was a funky outlier exacerbated by injury luck.

Reply Like

It seems like their primary exploitation of market inefficiencies is finding young kids with potential (a mix of raw athleticism/size plus the proper skillsets) and tapping them to come to Mizzou where they can be developed into at least role-players on a system-oriented team, and at best stars. The secondary exploitation seems to be valuing top/elite JUCO players.

What we don't know is how the high school development will work with NIL (if they succeed and get priced out of Mizzou) and a wide-open transfer portal (few minutes for freshmen). But you'd hope that kids who sign with Gates know the drill; they're going to have develop before getting that playtime.
Gates needs to put somebody else in the NBA, so that kids can see it's worth staying for 3-4 years to develop an all-around game to check boxes on that NBA scouting list. Hopefully someday it will be one of his own high school recruits.

But we saw that after a miserable year, the players stayed bought in...so it seems like it will be fine. Imagine going 0-fer and only losing one guy in this day and age. Even in that case, it was more because it was obvious that the team had a lot of bigs than the record.

Reply 3 Likes

My understanding is MU's willing to pay to retain. Will that always prevent defections? No. But I'm confident this staff possesses a healthy degree of prudence in how it leverages NIL resources.

They were confronted with a possible overpay situation this fall for Davion Hannah -- and quickly rebuffed the overture. The same was true for Tarris Reed last spring. Now, I think they'll have to make a robust offer to a proven combo guard from the portal this spring. But that's easy to budget for when you know what raises will look like to keep guys you nabbed out of high school.

Long term, the goal is to take two or three high school kids each year. For starters, it keeps the board smaller and lets you build deeper relationships with targets. Those relationships matter when you get into situations like we saw last year with the bagel in SEC action. And they will matter this year when (it's expected) MU retains all five freshmen. And crassly, that leads to easier player control from a financial perspective.

This staff has embraced the reality that it operates in a new labor market and adapts accordingly.

Reply Like

This is the frame that's been given to me: Is a guy an NBA draft pick?

If he's not projected to go among the top 45 picks, why would you give him the equivalent of a rookie salary for a year? That doesn't mean he doesn't have value. Or that some other team won't pay the price and receive a benefit. But if you're MU, why spend seven figures on one guy when you can deploy it to get two portal guys or retain some young dudes?

I also think it's easier to tell boosters, "We're trying to be intelligent about how we use your dollars. We want to make smart investments in our roster." It's how you avoid situations we're seeing at K-State or Indiana, where boosters maxed out the credit card for one offseason and expect immediate returns.

Reply Like