2006 Draft File

Everyone take a look at the 06 Draft File and give your opinions. Let me know if there are any players that shouldn't be there.

I'm glad I traded my picks for this draft lol

Walter Herrman and JJ Redick owners of only A ratings. Nice

I was surprised at the lack of defense in this draft... I would maybe say Aldridge should have A potential over B? Just my opinion

Rondo's B- handles shocking

Yeah saw that too

And Rondo potential? No one thinks that should be an A as well?

Either way this draft is awful. Only 1 guy I'd want and need. I'll have to get real lucky again with the Clippers pick to even have a chance at him. Needless to say I'll most probably be trading out of this draft.

Thabo is every bit of 6'7" way taller than 6'5" I think Lowry needs a handles bump, Aldridge should get a bump in inside scoring or potential. Foye might be a little too good. I'd drop his potential a tad. Brandon Roy is still the best player in this class as he should be so no major complaints. Millsap should have a better outside game.

Also in no world should Ty Thomas have similar ratings as millsap

the "stars" in this draft are being insulted. Milsap, Aldridge, Rondo, Lowry, and Gay look undervalued... especially compared to the way rookies the past few drafts were probably a little too high to start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inner_GI

the "stars" in this draft are being insulted. Milsap, Aldridge, Rondo, Lowry, and Gay look undervalued... especially compared to the way rookies the past few drafts were probably a little too high to start.

---

Shouldnt bump up guys in this draft just cause the last few drafts were overpowered. The last thing we want is inflation.

I think the way rookies are playing is the reason for this. Dwight is overpowered so is Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

I think the way rookies are playing is the reason for this. Dwight is overpowered so is Paul.

---

I understand this, but do we really beleive

Rondo
Aldridge
Lowry
Roy

are all B potential players not to mention Rondo with B- handles...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inner_GI

I understand this, but do we really beleive

Rondo
Aldridge
Lowry
Roy

are all B potential players not to mention Rondo with B- handles...

---

Honestly haven't seen it. I'm on w a potential but don't be like do a potential and a handles for rondo. I think we get in trouble when we ask for things like that. Lowry should be slow but maybe b potential. He could hardly start early in his career.

Let's be honest, though: It's understandable that Dwight & CP3 would be overpowered. These guys? Yeah, they're probably ranked about right, given how horrifically weak this draft was in real life.

I'm ok w Dwight and cp being great in their primes. Not their infancy. Dwight more so that cp.

Makes sense, it just never bothered me much about those two being great right away. #simlogic

Honestly, other than potential ratings, which again, is quite understandable for these guys, I see little wrong with this list. I could've sworn that Bargnani was 7ft tall though. And Gay was a PF coming out of college?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xist2inspire

Makes sense, it just never bothered me much about those two being great right away. #simlogic

Honestly, other than potential ratings, which again, is quite understandable for these guys, I see little wrong with this list. I could've sworn that Bargnani was 7ft tall though. And Gay was a PF coming out of college?

---

I agree. I'd either bump Rondo's handling or defense a bit. Maybe bump up Ronnie Brewer's defense to a B.

My God the talent is worse than I expected.

What I'm curious to know is Aldridge's rating. He's probably one of the bust jump shooting bigs, but Jump Shots don't get a letter grade so it's hard to know if he's worth anything.

Outside scoring rating combines three pointers and midrange shooting, I'm pretty sure.

i think the 2006 rookies are paying for the sins of the last overpowered rookies. i don't think they should come in and dominate BUT the potential for the top notch rookies should be higher.

I agree that rondo's handles is severely low for a floor general of his caliber. Doesn't need to change to an A or A- even, but B- ? I feel his handles is what made him an All Star player.

These ratings IMO need to be adjusted. Aldridge, Rondo, Lowry, Bargnani and Sefolosha are all underated. Milsaps shouldn't be better than Aldridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eazy-P

These ratings IMO need to be adjusted. Aldridge, Rondo, Lowry, Bargnani and Sefolosha are all underated. Milsaps shouldn't be better than Aldridge.

---

stop eye ****ing the 2006 draft file Eazy :hihi:

Interesting thought,

Commish are you allowed to see the player number ratings before draft?

Maybe we can allocate a scouting feature to the draft. Each team can have a chance to see two player's ratings.

Or we can say you pay "x" amount of points to "scout" a player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eazy-P

These ratings IMO need to be adjusted. Aldridge, Rondo, Lowry, Bargnani and Sefolosha are all underated. Milsaps shouldn't be better than Aldridge.

---

The only one I can agree with is Aldridge, and even then, I'd be perfectly okay with a boost to "A" potential. Maybe Millsap & Aldridge's ratings should be swapped?

But seriously, let's take a look:

If it's based on their ratings entering the draft:
.Nobody knew who Rondo was. It could be argued that if Boston doesn't deep-six their roster to get the Big 3 together, Rondo never sees the light of day. Another case where simply adding an "A" potential will solve things.

If it's based on current ratings:
.Lowry's a sixth man at best.
.Sefelosha had to scratch and claw to get where he is now, and his game is still basically perimeter shooting + defense.
.From what I've read and heard about Bargnani, he's spot-on (weak defense, lame rebounding for a big). BTW commish, he's 7ft.

I think it is good and more on par for rookies (especially this class), I'm just hoping it's not an over exaggeration due to the overpowered rookies from the last 2. Time can only tell.

My only problem is that I think there needs to be more than one player with A potential.

Rondo, for instance, should be rated as he is except maybe a bit better handling. I just watched the Combine this morning and while they were talking about Burke they were raving about Rondo's handles coming out. Everything else should be where it is but A potential to become one of the better points in the league over time. He was originally picked low but improved as much as any player from that draft.

Roy is clearly the best talent in the draft. Only thing hurting his potential would be the bad knees.

well i dont remember hearing about Roy having bad knees coming out but if thats the then when Greg Oden comes out that should factor in as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicans78

Roy is clearly the best talent in the draft. Only thing hurting his potential would be the bad knees.

---

I don't recall Roy having bad knees coming out of college if these ratings are based on their "real life" ratings.

Honestly, the only draft class I see as "overpowered" is the 2003 class. That's the only class where you had guys other than the big dogs (LBJ, Melo, Wade) come in and play lights-out from the get-go. I've got David West now, who came from that draft and has excelled from day 1, not the case in real life. But, that's been evened out because that's the last draft class not to get free training sessions. So that's not an issue.

2004? Dwight's the only questionable one. I've got 3 from that class. Luol & Jameer both took a year to solidly produce, and they still may never become "stars." Devin's been giving me fits from day 1. But even the others, like Emeka, Jefferson, Iguodala, etc either took a year to develop or are still pretty basic.

2005? CP3's the only questionable one. Ask Vegito about his issues with Granger & Deron this season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eazy-P

I don't recall Roy having bad knees coming out of college if these ratings are based on their "real life" ratings.

---

copy cat my post you cheater

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealPelicans Fan

copy cat my post you cheater

---

Post Jacking LOL!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xist2inspire

2005? CP3's the only questionable one. Ask Vegito about his issues with Granger & Deron this season.

---

I'd say Bynum coming in to average 16 and 10 is a little questionable.

From what I've ranked Lamarcus Aldridge is the 28th ranked prospect on my board.

That's crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOLa.

From what I've ranked Lamarcus Aldridge is the 28th ranked prospect on my board.

That's crazy.

---

And he went #1 overall in real life, and is still a top big man today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inner_GI

And he went #1 overall in real life, and is still a top big man today.

---

Bargnani was actually the first pick Lord Vader..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inner_GI

Interesting thought,

Commish are you allowed to see the player number ratings before draft?

Maybe we can allocate a scouting feature to the draft. Each team can have a chance to see two player's ratings.

Or we can say you pay "x" amount of points to "scout" a player.

---

I like that idea, but I would want to finalize the file first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inner_GI

Interesting thought,

Commish are you allowed to see the player number ratings before draft?

Maybe we can allocate a scouting feature to the draft. Each team can have a chance to see two player's ratings.

Or we can say you pay "x" amount of points to "scout" a player.

---

I disagree with this idea because IMO the whole point of bad teams getting a high pick to become better the following year. How will they become better if they have to pay to see only a select amount of ratings. The player rating should not be Hidden. It don't make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

I like that idea, but I would want to finalize the file first.

---

if we incorporate this then will we have another way to earn more points? we dont get enough points to train players, trade and now scout players. this makes it harder for the lesser teams to become contenders.

I do agree if we implement this, we would need to bring back some kind of points... i dont know what though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eazy-P

I disagree with this idea because IMO the whole point of bad teams getting a high pick to become better the following year. How will they become better if they have to pay to see only a select amount of ratings. The player rating should not be Hidden. It don't make sense to me.

---

You still see the letter grades.

You would scout to see the actual number values. This will actually help people make better picks, in my opinion. Paying points was just an idea. I think there should be a cap of two scouts for free and you can pay for any after that.

How about lottery teams get 2 free scouts and rest get 1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealPelicans Fan

if we incorporate this then will we have another way to earn more points? we dont get enough points to train players, trade and now scout players. this makes it harder for the lesser teams to become contenders.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamQuailman

I do agree if we implement this, we would need to bring back some kind of points... i dont know what though

---

Or we can do it like trainings... 2 free ones a year and any after that you pay?

2 free for lotto teams, 1 free for non?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealPelicans Fan

if we incorporate this then will we have another way to earn more points? we dont get enough points to train players, trade and now scout players. this makes it harder for the lesser teams to become contenders.

---

What should happen if they Make this "NEW RULE" is instead of paying points for only 2 players. A team should be able to scout all players in a certain position for Example if my need is a SG I should be able to scout all prospects at that position for a one time fee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamQuailman

2 free for lotto teams, 1 free for non?

---

I like the sound of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eazy-P

What should happen if they Make this "NEW RULE" is instead of paying points for only 2 players. A team should be able to scout all players in a certain position for Example if my need is a SG I should be able to scout all prospects at that position for a one time fee.

---

My reason for capping at two is to not put a bunch of work on the commish's full plate. Even adding this (2 per team) will increase his workload by a lot.

Can't do the paying part, but can just do the see only 2 guys part.

The paying part won't be fair cause there is still one person that can see all the rankings for free. Not saying that person would abuse it, just saying it has to be the same for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soundwave

Can't do the paying part, but can just do the see only 2 guys part.

The paying part won't be fair cause there is still one person that can see all the rankings for free. Not saying that person would abuse it, just saying it has to be the same for everyone.

---

That person is always pick in the late twenties. lol I was just looking for a way to actually help lottery teams make better picks... For instance... **** GORTAT.