.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 411

Thread: NBA DRAFT 2020 DISCUSSION

  1. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    I think my projection is going to be the less harsh Melo/Griffin projection. Like his ceiling is good but never great. If the draft class turns out to be bad and he is simply decent. He'll be a good pick.

    He is the kind of player that may give you a King's Ransom or regret giving a Max in 4 or 5 years. He doesn't give me best at his position vibe untill maybe his middle to late prime. Which is 1 1/2 Max contracts away

    I really don't like being down on young man, but mental lapses are the hardest thing to shake in the NBA. So, I do worry for him. I'd like to be wrong, because it been a long while since a Top 5 uber talented big busted. It just feels due.
    He definitely has the frame to be an at least acceptable NBA player, and of course he is still young so he could fix some of his issues and become a solid player overall, but like you said, that could be 6 years away. Which is fine if you're the team that ends up with him in 6 years, less so if you're the team that paid him for 4 years before he ended up with a deal somewhere else that finally cracks things open for him.

    I don't see Wiseman ever being a top 20 or 25 player in the league, and I'd be shocked if he was ever the clear best C in the NBA. But I could easily be wrong; maybe the lack of film really bites here and if he had played 30 college games he would have shown vast improvement and I'd be talking differently.
    Tyrese Maxey/Isaac Okoro/Killian Tillie/Onyeka Okongwu/Devin Vassell endorser.

    Eye test people: analytics people watch more basketball than you do.

  2. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    He definitely has the frame to be an at least acceptable NBA player, and of course he is still young so he could fix some of his issues and become a solid player overall, but like you said, that could be 6 years away. Which is fine if you're the team that ends up with him in 6 years, less so if you're the team that paid him for 4 years before he ended up with a deal somewhere else that finally cracks things open for him.

    I don't see Wiseman ever being a top 20 or 25 player in the league, and I'd be shocked if he was ever the clear best C in the NBA. But I could easily be wrong; maybe the lack of film really bites here and if he had played 30 college games he would have shown vast improvement and I'd be talking differently.
    I 100% agree. I just don't want to come off disrespectful to a 19 year old with very little showcase. You know I didn't care for it when I finally watched all his games. Questionable Floor and ceiling makes him such a risky prospect because being tall isn't a talent in the NBA. He is athletically built like a once in a generation talent, but is a long term project in the same fold. He has a lot of things you can't teach(Which is what gonna have him surging in the draft), but there is a lot fundamental that he needs to be taught. He is way behind the curve for a great prospect. Kind of player that makes a great play and then follows it up with a bonehead one. Those are the kind of players that scare me and I want to avoid.


    Centers drafted in the top 5 in the 2010s

    2019- 0
    2018- Deandre Ayton
    2017 - 0
    2016 - Dragan Bender
    2015 - Karl-Anthony Towns, Jahlil Okafor, Kristaps Porziņģis
    2014 - Joel Embiid
    2013 - Alex Len
    2012 - Anthony Davis
    2011 - Enes Kanter, Jonas Valančiūnas
    2010 - DeMarcus Cousins

    I'm actually surprised how well-rounded that group is besides some obvious duds/ awful picks like Len and Bender that have no business being drafted as high as they did. OKafor is the only one that I would call a flat out bust. Kanter is 2nd.

    Seems like we are due for a disappointing big to bust.


    But watch us get a top 3 lotto pick and our hand is force because of insane measurable and ideal fit. I never wanted to not move up in a Lottery draft as much as this year. I lowkey hope the season gets continued and we sneak a 8th seed. I'm pretty set on trying to find either a great roleplayer defensive big/filling out our weak bench in the draft. I know some people don't like the idea of investing in the bench and wanting a starter, but a good bench goes a long way. The Raptors is great example of surviving through injuries because of their top shelf bench.

    But I will not doubt the scouting God that is Langdon if that is how it shakes out.

    Love these discussion with you bro
    Last edited by Taker597; 04-18-2020 at 08:59 PM.

  3. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post

    Seems like we are due for a disappointing big to bust.


    But watch us get a top 3 lotto pick and our hand is force because of insane measurable and ideal fit. I never wanted to not move up in a Lottery draft as much as this year. I lowkey hope the season gets continued and we sneak a 8th seed. I'm pretty set on trying to find either a great roleplayer defensive big/filling out our weak bench in the draft. I know some people don't like the idea of investing in the bench and wanting a starter, but a good bench goes a long way. The Raptors is great example of surviving through injuries because of their top shelf bench.

    But I will not doubt the scouting God that is Langdon if that is how it shakes out.

    Love these discussion with you bro
    Obviously it's plausible that we could be 'due' a disappointing big, although I don't really believe in things being due in that sense. I think something that the team needs to know, and that I'm sure they already do know, is that it doesn't matter how ideal the fit looks if the player isn't someone you think is going to be any good. That is to say: regardless of what you might suspect from measurables, a bad player is never an ideal fit. Probably the kind of thing NBA scouts and front offices are already well aware of, but sometimes you get the suspicion from watching some of these teams that they aren't.

    This is a draft where I think we need to just sit tight. It was smart of our front office last year to trade down from 4 and extract more value by getting multiple picks from Atlanta, but this isn't the year for that. There's nobody in the first round with multiple ''solid'' picks and we already have 2nd rounders by the boatload. Whatever our FRP is, we should probably just sit tight with it. The 2nd round is a little different; I can imagine us consolidating 2 or perhaps even all 3 of those to try and move up if there's a target; say Langdon uses his international prowess and he has his eye on Bolmaro, for example, that could be a great early 2nd/late 1st acquisition.

    I think the Raptors are also a good example of the value of scouting outside of the big name top guys and trusting your development. They've gotten a ton of value out of relatively late picks; Terrence Davis this year, for example, is definitely deserving of an All-Rookie team and they picked him up undrafted. VanVleet was undrafted too. Pascal Siakam was picked 27th and OG Anunoby was picked 23rd. They're all heavy minutes guys on one of the best teams in the NBA this year, and 2 of them were key parts of their championship last year.

    You're absolutely right in that you need to value your bench, and part of that (although obviously not all) is not disregarding the potential value in later picks, and trusting development.

  4. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Obviously it's plausible that we could be 'due' a disappointing big, although I don't really believe in things being due in that sense. I think something that the team needs to know, and that I'm sure they already do know, is that it doesn't matter how ideal the fit looks if the player isn't someone you think is going to be any good. That is to say: regardless of what you might suspect from measurables, a bad player is never an ideal fit. Probably the kind of thing NBA scouts and front offices are already well aware of, but sometimes you get the suspicion from watching some of these teams that they aren't.

    This is a draft where I think we need to just sit tight. It was smart of our front office last year to trade down from 4 and extract more value by getting multiple picks from Atlanta, but this isn't the year for that. There's nobody in the first round with multiple ''solid'' picks and we already have 2nd rounders by the boatload. Whatever our FRP is, we should probably just sit tight with it. The 2nd round is a little different; I can imagine us consolidating 2 or perhaps even all 3 of those to try and move up if there's a target; say Langdon uses his international prowess and he has his eye on Bolmaro, for example, that could be a great early 2nd/late 1st acquisition.

    I think the Raptors are also a good example of the value of scouting outside of the big name top guys and trusting your development. They've gotten a ton of value out of relatively late picks; Terrence Davis this year, for example, is definitely deserving of an All-Rookie team and they picked him up undrafted. VanVleet was undrafted too. Pascal Siakam was picked 27th and OG Anunoby was picked 23rd. They're all heavy minutes guys on one of the best teams in the NBA this year, and 2 of them were key parts of their championship last year.

    You're absolutely right in that you need to value your bench, and part of that (although obviously not all) is not disregarding the potential value in later picks, and trusting development.
    I don't know. We put ourselves in a bad position buying into Gentry's super small personnel with our big situation coming into this offseason. Hayes being a year away and Favor clearly not worth his cap hold. It really hurts that last year... There was a lot of good bargain bin options and letting Woods walk is a mistake, but it's not a glaring red flag mistake. Its a mistake that all team makes and we can rectify it by signing back. I'm more excited to see how the late 20s turn out. What's your ideal prospect in that slot with a late 1st?

    We have 3 second round picks. So, I definitely see us moving up or making cash considerations. Late 1st/ Early 2nd has value because the real world events really shaking up some draft processes.
    Last edited by Taker597; 04-19-2020 at 10:28 AM.

  5. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    I don't know. We put ourselves in a bad position buying into Gentry's super small personnel with our big situation coming into this offseason. Hayes being a year away and Favor clearly not worth his cap hold. It really hurts that last year... There was a lot of good bargain bin options and letting Woods walk is a mistake, but it's not a glaring red flag mistake. Its a mistake that all team makes and we can rectify it by signing back. I'm more excited to see how the late 20s turn out. What's your ideal prospect in that slot with a late 1st?

    We have 3 second round picks. So, I definitely see us moving up or making cash considerations. Late 1st/ Early 2nd has value because the real world events really shaking up some draft processes.
    For me, it depends who we pick with our first pick. If we're assuming that we're packaging our 2nd rounders together to move up to say, the 27th spot, and we therefore have something like #13 and #27, that is.

    So let's say that we have #13 and #27 for the sake of argument. There are so many moving parts. For example, if we're planning on keeping Redick, Moore, Frank, etc, then I don't really care to draft another guard. But if we're considering letting Frank and Moore go, then all of a sudden a guard prospect becomes much more intriguing.

    At the same time, we have a terminal lack of depth at the wing, which might be the most important area in the NBA right now. And, as you point out, with Jax being a year or two away and the question marks surrounding Favors (does he come back, if he does how much is he going to cost, how long is the deal, etc) we might well be in need of a big too.

    So, all of that is just preamble for me to say: my targets for this team in the late first round, maybe at something like #27, depend on who we pick with our main pick at #13 or so. If we need a guard because we're letting all our surplus guys go, I would want Grant Riller, if he's still on the board. He's not perfect and he's a little older, but he can play on or off the ball, he's an acceptable passer, a good shooter, and he is an elite driver which would give us a good option to put opposite Lonzo, who is an elite passer and an improving shooter but who can't drive with any consistency.

    If we need a wing/forward, I would be looking at Leandro Bolmaro, but there's also an argument for Aaron Nesmith or even reaching on someone like Desmond Bane. Obviously we're assuming that, at the end of the first round, targets like Okoro are long gone.

    For a big, there are plenty of good options. If Killian Tillie is still on the board, he'd be someone that I would assume would provide almost surefire value straight off the bat as a rookie, but he's probably never going to be a star and he's had injury issues at college so I could also understand why some would be hesitant. If you want to try and just swing for hidden-gem-upside, then if Aleksej Pokusevski is still on the board then he could be a good shout, but a few people have been moving him up their boards recently so maybe not. Xavier Tillman might be on the board still then, if he falls a little, and he's kind of a Favors-esque player but would obviously be considerably cheaper and younger, so that's for consideration too.

    Obviously if we ended up picking Okoro at #13, then I'd be less concerned about picking a wing/forward at #27 and would prefer to pick up a big or something, but if (and this will not happen) Okongwu somehow falls to #13, then I'd want to grab him there and maybe swing for Bolmaro in the late first. It all depends on what we do with our own pick, but there are definitely interesting options out there.

  6. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    For me, it depends who we pick with our first pick. If we're assuming that we're packaging our 2nd rounders together to move up to say, the 27th spot, and we therefore have something like #13 and #27, that is.

    So let's say that we have #13 and #27 for the sake of argument. There are so many moving parts. For example, if we're planning on keeping Redick, Moore, Frank, etc, then I don't really care to draft another guard. But if we're considering letting Frank and Moore go, then all of a sudden a guard prospect becomes much more intriguing.

    At the same time, we have a terminal lack of depth at the wing, which might be the most important area in the NBA right now. And, as you point out, with Jax being a year or two away and the question marks surrounding Favors (does he come back, if he does how much is he going to cost, how long is the deal, etc) we might well be in need of a big too.

    So, all of that is just preamble for me to say: my targets for this team in the late first round, maybe at something like #27, depend on who we pick with our main pick at #13 or so. If we need a guard because we're letting all our surplus guys go, I would want Grant Riller, if he's still on the board. He's not perfect and he's a little older, but he can play on or off the ball, he's an acceptable passer, a good shooter, and he is an elite driver which would give us a good option to put opposite Lonzo, who is an elite passer and an improving shooter but who can't drive with any consistency.

    If we need a wing/forward, I would be looking at Leandro Bolmaro, but there's also an argument for Aaron Nesmith or even reaching on someone like Desmond Bane. Obviously we're assuming that, at the end of the first round, targets like Okoro are long gone.

    For a big, there are plenty of good options. If Killian Tillie is still on the board, he'd be someone that I would assume would provide almost surefire value straight off the bat as a rookie, but he's probably never going to be a star and he's had injury issues at college so I could also understand why some would be hesitant. If you want to try and just swing for hidden-gem-upside, then if Aleksej Pokusevski is still on the board then he could be a good shout, but a few people have been moving him up their boards recently so maybe not. Xavier Tillman might be on the board still then, if he falls a little, and he's kind of a Favors-esque player but would obviously be considerably cheaper and younger, so that's for consideration too.

    Obviously if we ended up picking Okoro at #13, then I'd be less concerned about picking a wing/forward at #27 and would prefer to pick up a big or something, but if (and this will not happen) Okongwu somehow falls to #13, then I'd want to grab him there and maybe swing for Bolmaro in the late first. It all depends on what we do with our own pick, but there are definitely interesting options out there.
    It doesnt matter if JJ, Moore, Favors, etc are on the roster next year. They will be gone well before whoever we take at 13 and 27 come close to reaching their prime. So, you don't even think about them on the roster when drafting. You are basically drafting for 2022-2030 with these picks, because that is when they MIGHT be useful players. So, again, don't even think about next years roster. Our rotation is already basically set and will not have a rookie in it. When healthy, NAW didn't get any minutes and Hayes really didn't either, and whoever we take at 13 and 27 in this weak draft is likely to be lesser players/prosepcts than those guys.

    When drafting, you think about Zion. You think about Ingram. Maybe Lonzo. If the guy fits with them and you like him best in a vacuum, you take him. Doesnt matter who is on next years roster.
    @mcnamara247

  7. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    It doesnt matter if JJ, Moore, Favors, etc are on the roster next year. They will be gone well before whoever we take at 13 and 27 come close to reaching their prime. So, you don't even think about them on the roster when drafting. You are basically drafting for 2022-2030 with these picks, because that is when they MIGHT be useful players. So, again, don't even think about next years roster. Our rotation is already basically set and will not have a rookie in it. When healthy, NAW didn't get any minutes and Hayes really didn't either, and whoever we take at 13 and 27 in this weak draft is likely to be lesser players/prosepcts than those guys.

    When drafting, you think about Zion. You think about Ingram. Maybe Lonzo. If the guy fits with them and you like him best in a vacuum, you take him. Doesnt matter who is on next years roster.
    Thanks for the advice, but none of that really was my point. The reality is that while no rookies (or at least, few rookies) reach their primes while on their first deal, it's also true that there are plenty of rookies who may have shown something if they had any playing time to develop. If we're picking at something like the #13 spot, which we may absolutely be doing, and we have the option to pick 2 players that we believe in to roughly even degrees, and one of them will get playing time earlier in their deal and the other won't even touch the court until year 3 at best, then I personally support drafting the former player.

    I absolutely agree with you when you say that you prioritise thinking about Zion when drafting. But the reality is that a player who fits with him but won't get any time to play because they're the 4th string option is a less valuable selection at #13 than a player who fits with him and absolutely will get some time to develop on the court and play with him.

    Obviously I'm not endorsing passing on someone you see as the perfect fit and choosing someone you don't really have any belief in purely to fit with this year's roster. But if the choice is a difficult one and both players project to me to be legitimate NBA prospects, I am absolutely going to favour the one who will actually be able to play rather than the guy who is buried 5 men deep at his position and will never actually touch the roster.

  8. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Thanks for the advice, but none of that really was my point. The reality is that while no rookies (or at least, few rookies) reach their primes while on their first deal, it's also true that there are plenty of rookies who may have shown something if they had any playing time to develop. If we're picking at something like the #13 spot, which we may absolutely be doing, and we have the option to pick 2 players that we believe in to roughly even degrees, and one of them will get playing time earlier in their deal and the other won't even touch the court until year 3 at best, then I personally support drafting the former player.

    I absolutely agree with you when you say that you prioritise thinking about Zion when drafting. But the reality is that a player who fits with him but won't get any time to play because they're the 4th string option is a less valuable selection at #13 than a player who fits with him and absolutely will get some time to develop on the court and play with him.

    Obviously I'm not endorsing passing on someone you see as the perfect fit and choosing someone you don't really have any belief in purely to fit with this year's roster. But if the choice is a difficult one and both players project to me to be legitimate NBA prospects, I am absolutely going to favour the one who will actually be able to play rather than the guy who is buried 5 men deep at his position and will never actually touch the roster.
    If that is your criteria, then you should advocating trading the pick. Because nobody we choose will be in the regular 9/10 man rotation next season.

    You got 4 years to evaluate this rookie. Year 1 is going to be a redshirt year for whoever they pick. So, again, JJ, Favors, Moore - don't matter. By 2021, any and all opportunities could be open. Don't try to predict what the roster will look like then, because opportunities will come up you cant possibly predict now. Maybe you have an opportunity to get a tremendous wing but it costs Lonzo and now all of a sudden your need is at PG.

    Just draft the guy you think will be the best player, and if you are right, he will find his way onto the court. Its a position less league. You can find him minutes, unless he is a pure C. But next year will be a redshirt year. Don't make the classic mistake of drafting with current roster in mind. It is by FAR, the #1 mistake teams make and it should happen even less now in a position-less league

  9. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    If that is your criteria, then you should advocating trading the pick. Because nobody we choose will be in the regular 9/10 man rotation next season.

    You got 4 years to evaluate this rookie. Year 1 is going to be a redshirt year for whoever they pick. So, again, JJ, Favors, Moore - don't matter. By 2021, any and all opportunities could be open. Don't try to predict what the roster will look like then, because opportunities will come up you cant possibly predict now. Maybe you have an opportunity to get a tremendous wing but it costs Lonzo and now all of a sudden your need is at PG.

    Just draft the guy you think will be the best player, and if you are right, he will find his way onto the court. Its a position less league. You can find him minutes, unless he is a pure C. But next year will be a redshirt year. Don't make the classic mistake of drafting with current roster in mind. It is by FAR, the #1 mistake teams make and it should happen even less now in a position-less league
    Your first mistake is assuming we'll have a 9/10 man rotation. Our coach is Alvin Gentry. It will be a 13 man rotation and you will like it

    I understand your point, but I think that this is the kind of situation where we aren't really qualified to speak on it, to a degree. For example, if Griff knows right now, today, that there is no way that Frank and Moore are on this roster come game 1 of next year, and he has designs on trading Redick, then it might inform his priorities in the draft. We can't possibly predict what the roster will look like, sure, but someone like Griffin might have some idea of what he wants his team to look like in the medium term (the next 2-5 years) and if that involves offloading certain players, he will obviously know that and have some idea of where the team may go to try and replace those players. That's information he would have that we wouldn't.

    Your final paragraph kind of just talks past my point anyway because, as I said, I'm speaking about a hypothetical where the scouting department/FO has two players available at the position that they value equally highly. In that case, you can't say ''just draft the guy you think will be the best player'' because the entire point of the scenario is that both players project at pretty much the same levels. And I'm never optimistic enough to hope that next year will be a redshirt year.

  10. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Your first mistake is assuming we'll have a 9/10 man rotation. Our coach is Alvin Gentry. It will be a 13 man rotation and you will like it

    I understand your point, but I think that this is the kind of situation where we aren't really qualified to speak on it, to a degree. For example, if Griff knows right now, today, that there is no way that Frank and Moore are on this roster come game 1 of next year, and he has designs on trading Redick, then it might inform his priorities in the draft. We can't possibly predict what the roster will look like, sure, but someone like Griffin might have some idea of what he wants his team to look like in the medium term (the next 2-5 years) and if that involves offloading certain players, he will obviously know that and have some idea of where the team may go to try and replace those players. That's information he would have that we wouldn't.

    Your final paragraph kind of just talks past my point anyway because, as I said, I'm speaking about a hypothetical where the scouting department/FO has two players available at the position that they value equally highly. In that case, you can't say ''just draft the guy you think will be the best player'' because the entire point of the scenario is that both players project at pretty much the same levels. And I'm never optimistic enough to hope that next year will be a redshirt year.
    I get your point. And I have heard teams in multiple sports justify it this way for YEARS. They will say "These two guys were on the same tier, and we had a bigger need at X, so we chose this guy. But we didn't draft for need. It was just a tiebreaker!"

    Teams justify it this way all the time. But in reality, they artificially push players up the board because they fill a need. I will point to the Raiders last year. Mike Mayock INSISTS that he doesnt draft for need. Was paid to study and cover drafts for years and says that is the #1 mistake teams make and says he will never do it. But last year, the Raiders biggest need by far was DE. They had the least sacks in the league the prior year by a big number. There were half a dozen individual players that had more sacks than the whole Raiders team. Guess who the Raiders took at #4---- thats right, a DE who was projected to go between 16-24 in every mock draft. Not one expert or mock draft had him in the top 10 at any point. Nobody in their right mind saw him as a top 5 prospect, and not surprisingly, he wasn't even one of the 25 best rookies last year.

    Point is....two guys are almost never even prospects. And when you have a need and want a guy who plays that position to be on a higher level, human bias will find a way to elevate him there. I have been around a long time. You know how in depth you have jumped into this draft --- I have done that for NFL and NBA for decades and have seen it all. It is by far the #1 mistake teams make and they know it but they keep doing it because they don't evaluate as if they had an empty roster. They have a need at wing, so they want to find a wing that will be good and they artificially push them up. Its a tale as old as time, and I cant wait to see if Griffin makes that mistake too or if he is one of the rare ones that can rise above self bias.

  11. #361
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    I get your point. And I have heard teams in multiple sports justify it this way for YEARS. They will say "These two guys were on the same tier, and we had a bigger need at X, so we chose this guy. But we didn't draft for need. It was just a tiebreaker!"

    Teams justify it this way all the time.

    Point is....two guys are almost never even prospects.
    That's fine, and I'm totally cognisant of that. My point isn't ''if a team uses equality of judgement as an excuse to justify their selection'', I'm talking about if there is a legitimate tie. Maybe that only happens once in a blue moon; you might be right in saying that it's pretty damn rare for that to happen, and you probably have something of a point (although I would argue that because different players excel in different areas, you could make an argument for two very different players to be of similar impact in a team context even if there might be more of a distinction individually) when you say that individual GMs might succumb to the equivocation temptation in order to let themselves make a rash move. That's a discussion that can obviously be had. But it's not the scenario I was having when I set up the hypothetical.

    Think of it as a thought experiment; you have two players who you judge as equal in quality, both of whom you could pick at a given spot, and both of whom you believe fit with your star player (Zion, in this case). How do you pick between the two? As a thought experiment, it doesn't matter if it's a situation that may never happen, it's purely there to work as a way to explore the question and the mechanisms of your decision making.

    I'm putting forward a hypothetical for the sake of creating a framework that allows me to answer the question ''what's your ideal draft selection with a late first''. Given that we also have an earlier first to deal with, I talked a little bit about the choices that the team might make with regards to that selection. Doesn't mean they will make any of them, or that they should. It's just a framework that lets me answer the actual question with a bit of detail.

  12. #362
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    That's fine, and I'm totally cognisant of that. My point isn't ''if a team uses equality of judgement as an excuse to justify their selection'', I'm talking about if there is a legitimate tie. Maybe that only happens once in a blue moon; you might be right in saying that it's pretty damn rare for that to happen, and you probably have something of a point (although I would argue that because different players excel in different areas, you could make an argument for two very different players to be of similar impact in a team context even if there might be more of a distinction individually) when you say that individual GMs might succumb to the equivocation temptation in order to let themselves make a rash move. That's a discussion that can obviously be had. But it's not the scenario I was having when I set up the hypothetical.

    Think of it as a thought experiment; you have two players who you judge as equal in quality, both of whom you could pick at a given spot, and both of whom you believe fit with your star player (Zion, in this case). How do you pick between the two? As a thought experiment, it doesn't matter if it's a situation that may never happen, it's purely there to work as a way to explore the question and the mechanisms of your decision making.

    I'm putting forward a hypothetical for the sake of creating a framework that allows me to answer the question ''what's your ideal draft selection with a late first''. Given that we also have an earlier first to deal with, I talked a little bit about the choices that the team might make with regards to that selection. Doesn't mean they will make any of them, or that they should. It's just a framework that lets me answer the actual question with a bit of detail.
    If guys are absolutely deadlocked tied -- in every respect from their on court games to their off court personality and how they'd fit with your culture, then sure use current roster as a tiebreaker. Like you said, one in a million, but if that happens this year, then Griffin should do that.

    Personally, I love the competition that comes with loading up in certain areas as opposed to paving a way for young guys to be guaranteed opportunities. I say, bring in Josh Green and Desmond Bane if they are at the top of your board. Let them fight with Didi and NAW for minutes. Scratch and claw, let the best man win. And yes, you will look back in 3 or 4 years and see the guys who lost as "wasted picks", but that competition might have made the winners 20% better than they would have been without it

    I look at the Bucks taking DiVencenzo in 2018. They had Bledsoe, Middleton, Hill, and Brogdon, and a nice young prospect already in Sterling Brown. A solid vet in Snell and had just taken a guard in the first round 2 years before in Vaughn. On paper, they didn't need a guard and were dying for a big. Could have taken Robert Williams or a wing to play next to Giannis like Josh Okogie. But they went with the best guy on their board, and eventually Brogdon's price tag got too big, Snell got traded, they finally gave up on Vaughn and DiVencenzo straight up beat out Brown and now looks like a core piece for them moving forward.

    The only two guys I'd bet on being here in two years are Ingram and Zion. Lonzo, I'd put at 80% but I can see scenarios where he isn't. And all 3 of those guys are multi-positional on both ends. So, I don't have to avoid any positions, in fear of not being able to get a guy on the court to start or close games. I'd probably stay away from a non-shooting big who can only defend 5's. And a non-shooting guard who can only defend 1's. Other than that, my board would be wide open and I wouldn't factor "need" in. Just the guy I think has the best chance to be the best player when he hits his prime. And like I keep saying, I would never draft a guy whose ceiling I see as 'high end role player' because, while he might become that, history says it won't be for my team.
    Last edited by MichaelMcNamara; 04-20-2020 at 11:40 AM.

  13. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    If guys are absolutely deadlocked tied -- in every respect from their on court games to their off court personality and how they'd fit with your culture, then sure use current roster as a tiebreaker. Like you said, one in a million, but if that happens this year, then Griffin should do that.

    Personally, I love the competition that comes with loading up in certain areas as opposed to paving a way for young guys to be guaranteed opportunities. I say, bring in Josh Green and Desmond Bane if they are at the top of your board. Let them fight with Didi and NAW for minutes. Scratch and claw, let the best man win. And yes, you will look back in 3 or 4 years and see the guys who lost as "wasted picks", but that competition might have made the winners 20% better than they would have been without it

    I look at the Bucks taking DiVencenzo in 2018. They had Bledsoe, Middleton, Hill, and Brogdon, and a nice young prospect already in Sterling Brown. A solid vet in Snell and had just taken a guard in the first round 2 years before in Vaughn. On paper, they didn't need a guard and were dying for a big. Could have taken Robert Williams or a wing to play next to Giannis like Josh Okogie. But they went with the best guy on their board, and eventually Brogdon's price tag got too big, Snell got traded, they finally gave up on Vaughn and DiVencenzo straight up beat out Brown and now looks like a core piece for them moving forward.

    The only two guys I'd bet on being here in two years are Ingram and Zion. Lonzo, I'd put at 80% but I can see scenarios where he isn't. And all 3 of those guys are multi-positional on both ends. So, I don't have to avoid any positions, in fear of not being able to get a guy on the court to start or close games. I'd probably stay away from a non-shooting big who can only defend 5's. And a non-shooting guard who can only defend 1's. Other than that, my board would be wide open and I wouldn't factor "need" in. Just the guy I think has the best chance to be the best player when he hits his prime. And like I keep saying, I would never draft a guy whose ceiling I see as 'high end role player' because, while he might become that, history says it won't be for my team.
    Fair enough. I can certainly see the logic in that, even if I disagree slightly here and there. The DiVincenzo example is a good one, I'll give you that.

  14. #364
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...-a9jU/htmlview

    Document here is 75 of this year's draft prospects BPM and TS% against top-50 and top-100 teams. Kind of interesting to see how some of the statistics change against different levels of competition.

    Take Tyrese Maxey for example. His overall BPM this year was 3.8 and his overall TS% was 53.1%, yet when he played against top 50 teams it was 5.1 and 55.2% respectively. That is to say, he showed up against better teams in these metrics.

    By comparison, someone like Obi Toppin posted huge numbers of +11.9 BPM and 68.4% TS overall, but when playing against top 50 teams those numbers became +7.1 and 64.2%. That's still very good, but the dominance clearly takes a hit when he isn't allowed to feast on bad competition.

    Most players take a slight hit as the competition improves, that's absolutely true and shouldn't surprise anybody, but it's interesting to see the people who take dramatic hits like Toppin (-4.8 to the BPM -4.2% shooting is pretty large) and also to see the few names who improve.

    My personal hero of the draft, Grant Riller for example, was a +7.1 BPM and 60.5%TS overall, but against top 50 competition, that became +11.2 and 64.9%. Admittedly, that was on very very small sample (only 2 games!) but it's still intriguing.
    Last edited by Pelicanidae; 04-20-2020 at 12:00 PM.

  15. #365
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    If that is your criteria, then you should advocating trading the pick. Because nobody we choose will be in the regular 9/10 man rotation next season.

    You got 4 years to evaluate this rookie. Year 1 is going to be a redshirt year for whoever they pick. So, again, JJ, Favors, Moore - don't matter. By 2021, any and all opportunities could be open. Don't try to predict what the roster will look like then, because opportunities will come up you cant possibly predict now. Maybe you have an opportunity to get a tremendous wing but it costs Lonzo and now all of a sudden your need is at PG.

    Just draft the guy you think will be the best player, and if you are right, he will find his way onto the court. Its a position less league. You can find him minutes, unless he is a pure C. But next year will be a redshirt year. Don't make the classic mistake of drafting with current roster in mind. It is by FAR, the #1 mistake teams make and it should happen even less now in a position-less league
    Drafting for need over BPA ********ed Portland over in 84.

    35 years ago

    How does this stuff still happen today? Bagley over Doncic being the latest example

    Also interested in who you would have taken instead of NAW. Understand you were all over Okeke but he was 1 pick removed

    Watching Okekes highlights his talent level is top 3 easily? I feel like he would go #1 this draft no problems
    Last edited by AusPel; 04-20-2020 at 12:18 PM.

  16. #366
    Quote Originally Posted by AusPel View Post
    Drafting for need over BPA ********ed Portland over in 84.

    35 years ago

    How does this stuff still happen today? Bagley over Doncic being the latest example

    Also interested in who you would have taken instead of NAW. Understand you were all over Okeke but he was 1 pick removed

    Watching Okekes highlights his talent level is top 3 easily? I feel like he would go #1 this draft no problems
    I was hoping to trade up for Okeke or Sekou. But if I had to stay there and pick, I probably would have taken Goga and doubled up on bigs with different skillsets, hoping at least one of them hit.

    But I wouldn't have taken Hayes at 8 either. I would have drafted Zion, Sekou, and Goga. Herro and Clarke look like the right answers after 1 year in, but based on history, I am swinging for home runs at those picks

  17. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    I was hoping to trade up for Okeke or Sekou. But if I had to stay there and pick, I probably would have taken Goga and doubled up on bigs with different skillsets, hoping at least one of them hit.

    But I wouldn't have taken Hayes at 8 either. I would have drafted Zion, Sekou, and Goga. Herro and Clarke look like the right answers after 1 year in, but based on history, I am swinging for home runs at those picks
    Yeah I remember you were pretty ambivalent on Hayes too. If he can't develop more of an all rounded game he might become redundant next to Zion. But a swing for the fences guy for sure
    Last edited by AusPel; 04-20-2020 at 02:20 PM.

  18. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by AusPel View Post
    Yeah I remember you were pretty ambivalent on Hayes too. If he can't develop more of an all rounded game he might become redundant next to Zion. But a swing for the fences guy for sure
    Hayes is fine, it's just that I get scared when a guy can only defend one position. If that's the case, you gotta punish them on the other end when they take the position you guard off the court and I dont know if Hayes can do that. Maybe he can by being an elite offensive rebounder and roller that takes all the gravity with him. Like if Montrezl was a few inches taller and a better athlete

  19. #369
    In Hayes, to date, all I see is a one trick pony. After re-watching some of the re-plays currently being aired, I fear that is what he always will be. If you are into an occasional Top Ten Plays of the Day clip on Sports Center, he's your guy. If you want to see a high basketball IQ or any semblance of defense...look elsewhere.
    Because of Griff's Genius, Gayle Benson now owns a second NBA Franchise for the next seven years,

  20. #370
    Feel like my current Pels priority players who are likely to be available at given draft positions

    Guards:
    1) Killian Hayes (1-5)
    2) Tyrese Maxey (6-13)
    3) Grant Riller (14-25)
    4) Malachi Flynn (25-35)

    Wings/forwards:
    1) Devin Vassell (1-8, ish)
    2) Isaac Okoro (9-15)
    3) Aaron Nesmith (16-25)
    4) Leandro Bolmaro (25-35)

    Bigs:
    1) Onyeka Okongwu (1-8 ish, again)
    2) Killian Tillie (9-20)
    3) Xavier Tillman (21-30)
    4) Aleksej Pokusevski (30+? he might get the Bol Bol treatment this year)

    There might be a name or two that I'm forgetting, because my memory is garbage, but in general I kind of like that. I'm not favouring Anthony Edwards because I feel like whatever his ultimate upside is, it's going to come from a role where he gets a lot of run as the central offensive cog, and with both Zion and Ingram on this roster, I don't think he going to fill that role on our team. I'm also fairly out on LaMelo because his defense sucks, he doesn't cut, and he's not a great shooter, and without being primarily on-ball to boost the value of his passing, again, whatever his upside is wouldn't be reached on our team.

    Hayes has some real potential on and off-ball, particularly as his shooting has improved over the course of this year, and while he's far from a great defender I do think he can do it here and there. That ability to play him as a lead playmaker (he's a really strong PnR passer) or off the ball increases his ability to play with Zion or Ingram regardless of what they're doing, and his good size combined with that versatility makes him a good fit imo. Maxey is kind of similar, although he's not the same calibre of passer. That depends on if you buy Maxey's shooting upside, which I still do but it's totally understandable if someone else doesn't.

    I've made my arguments for some of the other guys already, like how much I love Tillie's team defense and combination of shooting/passing to pair with Zion or Hayes to maximise their abilities, but I haven't talked a ton about Tillman so I figured I might as well. Elsewhere when I've mentioned him, I compared him a bit to Favors, and what I mean by that is that like Favors he's a slightly short centre (6'9, just like Favors) but with a fantastic rim protection ability. He's also a brilliant passer at the C position, and he has some handling equity as well. He can guard either 'big' position but I would be very hesitant to ask him to guard SFs, he's really a 2 position guy because while he's mobile he doesn't have the fluidity to keep up with super bursty wings or twitchy guards. He'd be the kind of guy who would be a great late first round pickup.

    Oh, and he gets really fired up on court sometimes and its a lot of fun to watch.

  21. #371
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Feel like my current Pels priority players who are likely to be available at given draft positions

    Guards:
    1) Killian Hayes (1-5)
    2) Tyrese Maxey (6-13)
    3) Grant Riller (14-25)
    4) Malachi Flynn (25-35)

    Wings/forwards:
    1) Devin Vassell (1-8, ish)
    2) Isaac Okoro (9-15)
    3) Aaron Nesmith (16-25)
    4) Leandro Bolmaro (25-35)

    Bigs:
    1) Onyeka Okongwu (1-8 ish, again)
    2) Killian Tillie (9-20)
    3) Xavier Tillman (21-30)
    4) Aleksej Pokusevski (30+? he might get the Bol Bol treatment this year)

    There might be a name or two that I'm forgetting, because my memory is garbage, but in general I kind of like that. I'm not favouring Anthony Edwards because I feel like whatever his ultimate upside is, it's going to come from a role where he gets a lot of run as the central offensive cog, and with both Zion and Ingram on this roster, I don't think he going to fill that role on our team. I'm also fairly out on LaMelo because his defense sucks, he doesn't cut, and he's not a great shooter, and without being primarily on-ball to boost the value of his passing, again, whatever his upside is wouldn't be reached on our team.

    Hayes has some real potential on and off-ball, particularly as his shooting has improved over the course of this year, and while he's far from a great defender I do think he can do it here and there. That ability to play him as a lead playmaker (he's a really strong PnR passer) or off the ball increases his ability to play with Zion or Ingram regardless of what they're doing, and his good size combined with that versatility makes him a good fit imo. Maxey is kind of similar, although he's not the same calibre of passer. That depends on if you buy Maxey's shooting upside, which I still do but it's totally understandable if someone else doesn't.

    I've made my arguments for some of the other guys already, like how much I love Tillie's team defense and combination of shooting/passing to pair with Zion or Hayes to maximise their abilities, but I haven't talked a ton about Tillman so I figured I might as well. Elsewhere when I've mentioned him, I compared him a bit to Favors, and what I mean by that is that like Favors he's a slightly short centre (6'9, just like Favors) but with a fantastic rim protection ability. He's also a brilliant passer at the C position, and he has some handling equity as well. He can guard either 'big' position but I would be very hesitant to ask him to guard SFs, he's really a 2 position guy because while he's mobile he doesn't have the fluidity to keep up with super bursty wings or twitchy guards. He'd be the kind of guy who would be a great late first round pickup.

    Oh, and he gets really fired up on court sometimes and its a lot of fun to watch.
    Solid list. I got some of the same guys, plus a few not on yours. The guy I would lose is Vassell. Again, he might become a solid role player. In fact, I think he likely will be. But history says it will be for someone else. So, I would have him on a weird list of guys who I think will become solid players, but who I would not draft.

  22. #372
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    Solid list. I got some of the same guys, plus a few not on yours. The guy I would lose is Vassell. Again, he might become a solid role player. In fact, I think he likely will be. But history says it will be for someone else. So, I would have him on a weird list of guys who I think will become solid players, but who I would not draft.
    Yeah there are other guys I like, but who I didn't list because I tried to stick to one guy for each rough range. I know you like Jalen Smith for a big, for example, and I kind of like him in the same area as Tillman, but if I were just picking one I decided to go with Tillman up front.

    I understand your logic on Vassell, but I just feel like he's going to be actually good straight away, and his combination of wing defense and shooting proficiency (including off the dribble, but also excellent off the catch) just fits so well with high usage guys like Zion and Ingram that I feel like he can potentially fill that low-usage-high-impact slot that can be so valuable. Again, I get your reasoning with regards to that probably being true but not until 2025 or something, but I can't personally turn down the idea of him next to Zion and Ingram.

  23. #373
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Yeah there are other guys I like, but who I didn't list because I tried to stick to one guy for each rough range. I know you like Jalen Smith for a big, for example, and I kind of like him in the same area as Tillman, but if I were just picking one I decided to go with Tillman up front.

    I understand your logic on Vassell, but I just feel like he's going to be actually good straight away, and his combination of wing defense and shooting proficiency (including off the dribble, but also excellent off the catch) just fits so well with high usage guys like Zion and Ingram that I feel like he can potentially fill that low-usage-high-impact slot that can be so valuable. Again, I get your reasoning with regards to that probably being true but not until 2025 or something, but I can't personally turn down the idea of him next to Zion and Ingram.
    What would be your theory on why guys drafted in the 7-19 range never become role players who stay on the team that drafted them? I have a few of my own, but if you are going to go against all the past data, you have to have logic for why this time will be different.

    Because, I have done extensive research and I will share the piece soon, but basically, every team with a sure fire superstar and high usage talent thinks the same way and they all get burned. Literally, every one. They all go for low usage role players who can "fit" and it never works for them. They take upperclassmen, for the most part, but in all cases - role player types. Some examples --

    Cavs draft Lebron, next year take upperclassmen Luke Jackson
    Magic have Dwight as their franchise guy. At 11, take senior JJ Redick (who wasn't good for them btw)
    Hornets take Chris Paul, next draft take senior Hilton Armstrong at 12
    OKC has their studs....at 11 they take upperclassmen Cole Aldrich
    Hawks have Trae Young, and Hunter was only a sophomore, but was a very safe 'low usage 3-and-D' pick

    I can go on and on. Every team does the same thing. Once they get their franchise piece they become more risk adverse. They think they can win sooner, so they take older players and/or players who can fit now. I went into this piece I am writing with no thesis, just wanting to see what history says, and it has blown me away how obvious the takeaway is.

    Every team does the same thing, and has made the same mistakes at this point and it blows me away that the trend hasn't been spotted yet.

  24. #374
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    What would be your theory on why guys drafted in the 7-19 range never become role players who stay on the team that drafted them? I have a few of my own, but if you are going to go against all the past data, you have to have logic for why this time will be different.

    Because, I have done extensive research and I will share the piece soon, but basically, every team with a sure fire superstar and high usage talent thinks the same way and they all get burned. Literally, every one. They all go for low usage role players who can "fit" and it never works for them. They take upperclassmen, for the most part, but in all cases - role player types. Some examples --
    I haven't studied it specifically in the way that you apparently have, so I would feel it unwise to speculate massively on it. When your article comes out, I'll give it a read, of course, and maybe you'll change my mind or maybe reading it will show me exactly where I disagree.

    The fact is that I view Vassell as someone who can contribute now. Sure, his peak might be 5, 6 years away, but I'm not considering him as a ''kind of whatever maybe-not-playable guy today but by the time he's on the second deal maybe he can contribute'' type of guy. I'm considering him as a guy who could play immediately, and provide value immediately. Obviously if you believe that whoever you draft is destined to redshirt (which you do) and therefore think that they won't be given the chance to impact immediately, that's a different matter.

    As for roleplayers who get drafted in the 7-19 range and provide value to the team that drafted them within the lifespan of their rookie contracts, there are several that spring to mind. This year, PJ Washington, and Tyler Herro, for example; Matisse Thybulle was picked #20 so he technically falls just outside of that range, but he also provided impact minutes when he played. From the 2018 draft, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander went #9 and he provided immediate value for the Clippers (of course he did get moved, but while he was there he was good), and both DiVincenzo (who you've already referenced elsewhere in this thread) and Kevin Huerter went within that range; again, these are good roleplayers who are already providing value on the team that drafted them within the life of their rookie deal. Those are just the last few seasons, and that's sticking to the definition you gave in your opening line: only guys drafted in the 7-19 range who became/are solid roleplayers on the team that drafted them. Most of them off-ball/utility players, although in fairness SGA is more on the lead-guard side.

    Maybe your article goes through guys like this and shows why they're not worth counting in a thought process, but I wouldn't know that yet because the article has yet to be published.

  25. #375
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    I haven't studied it specifically in the way that you apparently have, so I would feel it unwise to speculate massively on it. When your article comes out, I'll give it a read, of course, and maybe you'll change my mind or maybe reading it will show me exactly where I disagree.

    The fact is that I view Vassell as someone who can contribute now. Sure, his peak might be 5, 6 years away, but I'm not considering him as a ''kind of whatever maybe-not-playable guy today but by the time he's on the second deal maybe he can contribute'' type of guy. I'm considering him as a guy who could play immediately, and provide value immediately. Obviously if you believe that whoever you draft is destined to redshirt (which you do) and therefore think that they won't be given the chance to impact immediately, that's a different matter.

    As for roleplayers who get drafted in the 7-19 range and provide value to the team that drafted them within the lifespan of their rookie contracts, there are several that spring to mind. This year, PJ Washington, and Tyler Herro, for example; Matisse Thybulle was picked #20 so he technically falls just outside of that range, but he also provided impact minutes when he played. From the 2018 draft, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander went #9 and he provided immediate value for the Clippers (of course he did get moved, but while he was there he was good), and both DiVincenzo (who you've already referenced elsewhere in this thread) and Kevin Huerter went within that range; again, these are good roleplayers who are already providing value on the team that drafted them within the life of their rookie deal. Those are just the last few seasons, and that's sticking to the definition you gave in your opening line: only guys drafted in the 7-19 range who became/are solid roleplayers on the team that drafted them. Most of them off-ball/utility players, although in fairness SGA is more on the lead-guard side.

    Maybe your article goes through guys like this and shows why they're not worth counting in a thought process, but I wouldn't know that yet because the article has yet to be published.
    I went back further, because we need some sample size and years to see how it all played out. Not one guy drafted from 2012-17 in that range is a solid role player for the team that drafted them. Basically, none make it to their 2nd contract.

    And yeah, guys like Herro and PJ were fine and got minutes and might be outliers five years from now. Still be on their teams and contributing as good role players. But history says not to bet on it

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •