[76lsjumb]

My bad on Terry, I guess.  I didn't see anything in his freshman season that suggested to me that he was ready for the NBA by any stretch, so I just assumed that he must have been projected as one of those HS players who was perceived as having sufficient potential even before the season began to be considered a one-and-done [however many stars he got].  I don't think that disproves my point, though.  A "good recruiter" should also have the ability/intuition/gut feelings/whatever to know whether a recruit would be willing to stick around for more than one season even if he turned out to be better than projected in his freshman season.

And I don't think getting 5-star recruits [which, I confess, I used in a somewhat generic manner to mean recruits who liley had offers from several schools with a much better current b'ball rep than Stanford] is Haase's "bread and butter," although if you take away those, the "good recruiter" label seems to me to be a little less warranted.

Look, I'm not sure we actually disagree much, since I also see no strong evidence of Haase's ability to develop the players he does get.  You may be right:  getting one-and-dones, not developing them, and having them leave may not be all that different in the long run from [and might even be better than] getting less talented players, not developing them, and having them stick around for four years.

[76lsjumb]

My bad on Terry, I guess.  I didn't see anything in his freshman season that suggested to me that he was ready for the NBA by any stretch, so I just assumed that he must have been projected as one of those HS players who was perceived as having sufficient potential even before the season began to be considered a one-and-done [however many stars he got].  I don't think that disproves my point, though.  A "good recruiter" should also have the ability/intuition/gut feelings/whatever to know whether a recruit would be willing to stick around for more than one season even if he turned out to be better than projected in his freshman season.

And I don't think getting 5-star recruits [which, I confess, I used in a somewhat generic manner to mean recruits who liley had offers from several schools with a much better current b'ball rep than Stanford] is Haase's "bread and butter," although if you take away those, the "good recruiter" label seems to me to be a little less warranted.

Look, I'm not sure we actually disagree much, since I also see no strong evidence of Haase's ability to develop the players he does get.  You may be right:  getting one-and-dones, not developing them, and having them leave may not be all that different in the long run from [and might even be better than] getting less talented players, not developing them, and having them stick around for four years.