If you choose to interpret "versatile + good" as Jaden McDaniels, I can't control that. But I will stand by that he is both versatile and good. He has a 95th percentile defensive versatility score and good metrics as mentioned before. Unless you have another argument, we can just agree to disagree because there is no counter argument to "because I said so". You think one thing, ok. I think another thing and so do the numbers. Tweener never made sense to me and I explained why.
As far as the Collins parallel, all I can say about that is that they were both good players at a young age. They are similar in the sense that they both command a lot as young players, but I'm not sure how that means they will have the same outcomes. I don't consider them to be similar players, but even if they were, I don't necessarily see that as a warning shot. There is a long list of players that got big money because they showed potential. Some of them are similar and got different results. Some of them were very different and yet they got the same results. You are holding onto this John Collins comparisons because John Collins happened to never developed. Of course that could be the case for Kuminga as it could be with any player, but he as an individual can have his own individual outcomes. If you're saying that not every player develops and that not every player who is paid on potential works, I would say "duh".
Kuminga is going to get money and he would be worth a lot in any trade package, I don't know if you've conceded that but you were certain that was not the case the last time we talked about this. When I mentioned you have a blindspot, it's because you acted like you could not fathom how someone could think he has the potential to improve and be valued. Whether he's actually worth it or not, I think it could go either way. He's not a Quickley situation where I'm 100% in or a Barrett situation where I'm 100% out. But I'm not deterred by being a tweener or the fact that John Collins happened to never develop.
