| . |
 |
It depends on where our pick falls. If we have a top 4 pick, then obviously you don't pick Bol Bol.Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN
In your defense though, I am saying he should be our pick, if our pick ends up being between 8 and 12. Not speaking for Mythrol though there, that's just me.
Basketball.
We all good. It appears someone might have been saying that but certainly not me. Lol. If we were outside of the top 9 or so picks I'd be more open to the idea. Basically if we did a trade with Boston and got the Sac pick I'd use it on Bol.
I suppose my question is, who are the 12 or so players in this draft you take before you take Bol? Obviously Zion. Ja Morant, sure. Even if you're not super high on Barrett, he probably still goes before Bol. Culver, totally. DeAndre Hunter, Brandon Clarke, Sekou, maybe? So that's what, 7 names who I'd take above Bol. After that, this draft is not deep. Names dry up quick. I'm not taking Romeo Langford. Cam Reddish doesn't impress me much. Jaxson Hayes doesn't have the injury risk Bol does, but he's also ridiculously raw and would take even longer to develop. Coby White doesn't stand out to me much, and I don't think we need to be investing in 2 guards with Jrue right there and Frank lined up. Darius Garland, maybe? Not sure.
This draft is so shallow that even if you think Bol Bol is a big, big risk, I don't see that many sure-fire names ahead of him.
It's not necessarily that I think there are 12 better players. It's about balancing the risk against the reward. Bol is high risk high reward. I understand swinging for the fences with a late lottery pick but his injury concerns are definitely an issue. I'd have to see how the draft falls to know where I'd take Bol but I think the reward starts out weighing the risk around the time we start getting out of the single digit numbers in the lottery.
The issue is that I think the NBA in general has moved on from that. It used to be the case that if there was a player with high potential but high risk, teams would pass on those guys and they'd drop down the board a little bit. That still occasionally happens (think MPJ recently for Denver) but I think the league has seen enough maybies drop down and end up being great to take that risk anymore. Giannis went at 15th. Kawhi went at 15th too. Klay went at 11th. Tobias Harris was 19th. Steven Adams went 12th. Rudy Gobert and Bogdan Bogdanovic both went at 27.
Maybe I'm wrong and NBA teams will still be taking Bruno Fernando at 10th or something, but if I think a player has a high ceiling and I've already missed the chance to get the surefire stars, then I'm taking the risk. Bol Bol meets his ceiling? Star. He fails? Oh well, I missed: but it's a shallow draft, who did I miss out on, Romeo Langford? Pshhh
Were any of those players actively recovering from a serious injury when they were drafted? I think the difference is those players fell because of doubts about their game. Bol isn't falling because of that. He's falling because he is recovering from an injury that is very serious for big men in the NBA.
Like I said, it depends how the draft falls to see where I'd start being willing of taking Bol. But I think a guy like Okpala can be at worst a 6th man in the league and would be available at the 12th pick. So it's an issue of am I willing on giving up a 6th man with potential for a risk at a star that could very easily give me nothing?
Not that I know of, in regards to injury.
I get that, but the way I'm seeing it is that we're looking for a star, or at least a very high caliber player. AD is gone, for the sake of this argument. If Griff convinces AD to stay, then that's something else, but Griff will know that by the time of the draft. Do I take a coinflip on a potential star, because I am looking for a new star, or do I take a safe option who has a good chance to be a solid player, possibly a consistent 6th man? I know what I take, every time.
The only big I’d grab early is Zion, after that I wouldn’t pick one till the mid to late 20’s. I would take my chances with wings of all sizes. Reddish, Langford, hunter, and little. Personally if Ja, Zion, Barrett, Culver, and Hunter are gone by our pick then I’d trade down. Pickup 4-6 late first and second rounders and lets build our g-league team. If we got picks from Boston I’d trade them for Beal or similar type of player. Bigs to me are a dime a dozen unless you get a transcendent player like Davis and Zion.
I guess where we see it differently is I don't look at it as a 50/50 (coin flip) chance that Bol becomes a star or amounts to nothing. I probably put his chances of being a star around 15-20%. I put his chances of being injured or continuing to get injured around 40-50%. His injury is that concerning.
For the sake of naming a player, I'd say Okpala probably has a 5-10% chance of being a star but I'd say his chances of being out of the league are only 5-10% as well.
So to me the way I look at it is: Is the extra 10% chance of hitting on a star worth the extra 35-45% chance of the pick amounting to nothing?
With how thin our team is right now needing starters at basically 3-4 positions and depth everywhere except maybe C its a hard choice. We've already seen it takes more than a star to win in this league so risking what could be a quality starter for an extra 10% chance of a star is not an easy decision.
And this is coming from someone who really likes Bol Bol's game. That's why I said it's gotta be about finding a balance between the risk of getting a star vs the pick being nothing.
If there is, let's say, a 25% chance that Bol Bol becomes a star, a 37% chance that he's a mediocre-to-good role player, and 38% chance he's a total bust, and instead with Okpala (just to use your example) a 10% chance that he's a star, a 70% chance he becomes a mediocre-to-good roleplayer and only a 20% chance he's a bust, do I think the 15% extra chance at a star with Bol is worth the near 18% extra chance he busts? For a team with no stars on it?
Yeah, I take that risk. I can understand if you wouldn't.
In your example I'd have Okpala's bust chance lower and Bol Bol's (due to injury) higher.
Probably something like 15% vs 45%. Or even let's say the bust chance difference between the two is an extra 25%, I think that starts making the discussion harder.
I'm not even sure which way I would lean because I do think Bol Bol just on the upside potential is probably top 5 and maybe even top 3 in this draft.
I want Cam Johnson ! Period. Pending on how many 1st rounders we have- I also want Tyler Herro .
The only players who I would give a bust chance that low, like 5 or 10%, would be older players with more years under their belt like Deandre Hunter.
Why?
For the sake of comparison with Bol I gave him 15% chance. He's a SO that's played 2 years of college ball so I think that helps reduce his bust chance quite a bit since we've seen him develop his game and improve more.
I get that. Like you said, with this particular judgement a lot of it is opinion. Do you give Bol a 40% chance of busting, or a 60% chance? There's no mathematical formula for working that out, so it's just however you or I personally feel, which makes it hard to compare. Bol has huge upside but a big risk, whether you think that upside is worth the risk is a personal judgement, hard to compare.
It's an interesting question, for sure.
Not with Top 10 pick. I want those two with the picks that Griffin is going to plunder from Ainge. If we stay at 7, I'm truly in limbo. Bushel of apples that all look the same. Maybe Brandon Clarke . Flip a coin .
100% agree. It's an interesting discussion because I can see both sides of the argument and understand why people would feel a certain way.
I wonder if there's a more polarizing player in this entire draft? Maybe RJ Barrett?
Maybe. Some people still have Barrett above Ja Morant, whereas I've seen some other people say that they think he's vastly overrated and won't amount to much. I don't think I've seen anyone saying that they wouldn't take him until late first round though, so I think Bol Bol still has him beat. Even people who dislike Barrett (Tinman, I think?) would probably happily take him if he was still on the board at 10th.
Among the initial moves new GM David Griffin is attempting to make in New Orleans: League sources say he has secured permission to make a run at Aaron Nelson ... longtime point man of the Phoenix Suns' vaunted athletic training staff
— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) April 26, 2019
Bro... This guy is working WONDERS.
Can't pretend I know much about training staff. I'm assuming this is good, since you seem to be happy about it. Where can I learn more about Aaron Nelson, and why should I be hype?
Edit: Seen a few people tweeting about this. I get that he's great and that the Suns staff has received a lot of renown over the years. The problem is: when Nash was winning his first MVP for the Suns, I was 8 years old. So I'd appreciate any extra info that's specific, if possible.
Last edited by Pelicanidae; 04-26-2019 at 11:45 AM.
http://arizonasports.com/story/16617...raining-staff/
That's a good article to read in regards to Nelson. Grant Hill had such horrible luck with injuries and he credits Nelson as the guy who "saved his career." It's not just Hill who say this, it's pretty widely known that Phoenix has the best training staff in the league. That's why with the Pelicans' awful luck in regards to injuries, this could be a massive game changer.
Good article! That's very encouraging. I've obviously heard the reputation that the Phoenix training staff has had, like I said, I got that they'd received a lot of renown, but it's good to actually hear from players and see concrete examples that came before my time as an NBA fan. It's pretty easy to look back in time, watch old games, look at old stats, and get information to make assessments of players. It's much harder to look back and get information about training staff, coaching assistants, and people like that.
''In four of his previous six seasons in Orlando, Hill played 29 games or fewer.''
''Despite ongoing ankle injuries that even prompted talk of retirement, Hill signed with the Suns. In five seasons, he started 343 regular season games, including all 82 in 2008-09 for the first time in his career.''
WEW... that is a turnaround.
Man, Gayle must have just opened up the pocketbook and told Griffin to take what he wants.
Can you imagine if it was RITA running the show right now?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote