| . |
 |
Yeah, Hayes' mobility is really special honestly, he has fantastic co-ordination. You hope for better than McGee from him. He should be a more versatile defender (McGee is very good but only around the rim) at his peak and there are signs of a bit of stretch ability.Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara
Better passer as well than McGee, and possibly Ibaka also.
Basketball.
I have been saying this for a year plus.. Welcome to the club!!
My ideal scenario is Killian Hayes falls to 7, Detroit doesn?t like him, and takes Lonzo, 13, and 42.
PG---Lonzo Ball
SG---Aaron Nasmith
SF---Brandon Ingram
PF---Zion Williamson
C----Jaxson Hayes
Okay, very young and not much 3 point shooting. However, very athletic and should be good at defense.
I'm a bit confused here, you say that this lineup is very young, which means you're obviously talking about it in the short term, but then you also say that it should be good at defense.
This lineup is atrocious defensively in the short term. Think about it:
Lonzo: We know he can play defense, he's done it, but he took a bit step back this year and we have to wait and see if he bounces back next year.
Nesmith: Really poor team defender at a college level. Makes at least three or four horrific decisions every game, doesn't understand how to read an offense beyond the extreme basics.
Ingram: Decent off-ball defender, poor overall. Doesn't have a helpful body type, with high and narrow hips that make navigating screens difficult for him and poor balance.
Zion: Was great on defense at Duke but clearly wasn't very good in his 24 NBA games. Obviously we hope for him to bounce back, like Lonzo in that regard, but we can't guarantee it yet.
Hayes: Good instincts and already a solid rim protector but he's still learning on the job, and has trouble with more complex actions.
Now could that lineup be good on defense in 3 or 4 years, once Zion's fully back to Duke defense (fingers crossed) and Hayes has gotten used to the game and stuff? Sure. But in the short term (which is the term where they're very young), the defense would be pretty disastrous.
Why 13 and 42? You shouldn't have to trade a player and two picks to move up 6 spots in this draft. Especially if you're only moving up from late to mid lottery, rather than into the top 5.
Agree. But if I am throwing in both, give me Rose back in that trade to start at guard for us for the next year or two while Killian develops. I am also a huge Bruce Brown fans - was top 18 on my board when he came out and I think SVG would love him. There is definitely a trade to be made with Detroit if our FO is willing to move on from Lonzo. But again, the hand up there is that Ingram really wants him back. If they had zero relationship, I am 100% sure Lonzo would be moved this offseason. But since Ingram wants him back, I see more like 20%
@mcnamara247
Keep Rose away from the Pels, please.
He has turned a corner in the second half of his career and is actually a really good leader. And unlike Lonzo, actually makes his free throws. He wouldnt be my top choice, but I would take him for a year. But I still think that if we trade Lonzo, Augustin would be the guy we go after. Might be even if we dont trade Lonzo
I understand that Rose has improved in a variety of ways, but he still has a bunch of big flaws that I'm not big on. I could excuse it for just one year or two, like you said, if it weren't for his personal issues. I don't want to be asked to cheer for someone who is on record saying he doesn't know what consent means.
I wouldn't mind Robert Woodard as a 2nd rd pick
He's neat!
I agree, I wouldn't pick him in the first round but he's a perfectly solid second round pickup.
Just for people who don't know, Woodard is a 6'7 sophomore who improved a lot as a shooter in his second season, going from 28% on about 1 per game in his first year up to 43% on 2.5 per game his second year. Poor FT% though.
He's a decent defender, 7'2 wingspan, fairly athletic.
Wiseman does not want to play in Minny
https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/...ike-the-plague
"Wiseman does not want to come to Minnesota because Karl Towns is there. Wiseman doesn?t even want to do anything with the Wolves."
— NBA Central (@TheNBACentral) November 1, 2020
- Brian Windhorst on James Wiseman
(h/t @TopBallCoverage ) pic.twitter.com/wkgLQjzKbP
Well that's fair because as I recall, the Wolves have the #1 overall pick, and nobody with a brain is considering Wiseman in the top 8 so yeah.
98% of mocks have Wiseman top 3ish
I can easily see him going top 8, probably top 5.
he is going top 3
I can see him going top 5 or even top 3, but he absolutely shouldn't. He has done absolutely nothing to make him worthy of it, even in this bad draft class. He barely played at college, for reasons that aren't his fault so you can't really hold them against him, but the result is that he never got a chance to show any development from his dreadful EYBL/HS days or the first couple of games he did get a chance to play.
If you draft Wiseman, you're doing it on the basis of his very good physical measurements and hoping that you can sort of make something work, and patch up the many gaping holes in his game. That's fine; to me, it's not top 5 worthy.
Probably.
Does that mean he should? Absolutely not.
Thats fine. But you typed "Nobody with a brain is considering him top 8"
I would argue that dozens of people in the league, between those 8 teams, are considering him and several more would/will take him if he is available when they pick. So, the conclusion reached must be that all these people dont have a brain. Or, you were being hyperbolic.
I was being a bit hyperbolic, but not entirely. I don't think that just because you're employed by the NBA, you are inherently a genius: many people employed by NBA teams may be considering Wiseman top 3, and I would say that consideration reflects poorly on their drafting acumen.
I think this draft is a minefield if you have a top pick. There is just nobody worthy of a traditional top 2 or 3 pick this year and the responsibility and hype that comes with that. Fans expect a franchise changer at that pick and that guy is simply not in that draft. So, teams have two choices: Take a guy who has the body or one skill that a franchise changer normally has and then try to mold the rest. Or, take a solid guy who can help but you know wont be a franchise changer and wont live up to the traditional value of that pick.
Its tough. Like, I think the Warriors should just take Haliburton and have him play an Iggy type role and then eventually take over as an above average starting guard in 5 or 6 years when Steph and/or Klay are gone. But when you are at #2 and will likely never be there again, its hard to draft a solid starter and not swing for the fences, even if the fences might be 500 feet away. I dont envy these teams at all. This is the first draft I can ever remember where I'd rather have the 5th pick than the 1st. Even in 2013, I was in love with Oladipo. In this class, I dont want that top pick
Might be the first draft ever where you have to give value to move down
You say that, but there's another thread on here where someone has us giving up Lonzo, 13, and 42 just to jump up to #6
Apparently some are seeing this as the draft where you pay quite a bit to move up not very much
6 is fine. I'd give up 13, 42, and Lonzo to get Hayes, Okongwu, or Haliburton. But I wouldnt give up Lonzo, 13, and 42 to move up to #1 or #2 - even for the same players.You say that, but there's another thread on here where someone has us giving up Lonzo, 13, and 42 just to jump up to #6
Apparently some are seeing this as the draft where you pay quite a bit to move up not very much
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote