| . |
 |
Shooting (outside) and turnovers costed us a ton of games over the past couple years. If we can come out of this offseason with a couple/few 3&D wings and a point guard that can command the offense and protect the ball... that would be a win.
The whole "Point Zion" thing is cute, and he can do it in spurts during some games, but when it comes down to it... Zion needs a distributor that can get everybody open shots (and lobs), and protect the ball.
I think so.Originally Posted by Eman5805
Firstly, I don't buy the dichotomy. The more guys you can have who are capable as creators, the better. Obviously one guy will dominate more, but other Booker and Chris Paul had a combined AST+USG% of at least 50% this year, and Cam Payne wasn't far behind at about 48%, and all of those guys got over 1000 minutes for a Finals team this year.
Secondly, I think we already know Zion can work very well off the ball at times: until about February this year, he played off the ball the majority of the time and was still very effective. Even when he began taking on on-ball responsibilities at a larger rate, he was often doing that with bench units; he was still getting a lot of off-ball run when the starters were in where guys like Ingram and Bledsoe were spending more time on ball. Think about it this way: imagine Giddey getting all of the on-ball rep that Bledsoe was getting this year. Zion's role would not need to change dramatically on offense, but those Bledsoe led minutes would (I believe) improve dramatically.
The question then becomes okay, what about when Giddey is off the ball and Zion is on: after all, you do want Zion on-ball some of the time, as he showed this past year he can be very effective when doing so and there's strategic reasons to want your best player to be able to work on ball as well. Well, as mentioned before, I think Giddey is going to be a perfectly solid NBA shooter which he can do off-ball, and frankly the whole ''off-ball shooter who can make excellent connective passes against tilted defenses'' role is one we've already experimented with using Lonzo Ball. We know it can work. Giddey probably won't be quite as effective immediately as Lonzo was as a shooter - I would be surprised if Giddey was a high volume 38% 3 ball guy his first year - but I think he can be solid and we also know he has the ability to put the ball on the floor and functionally attack a closeout by going into the paint, which is a skill that Lonzo quite famously does not have. So I think what you lose in shooting, which I don't think would be enough to make the shooting a non-factor, you gain in offensive versatility.
I'm not saying that there wouldn't be any growing pains, I think that's always going to happen when you shuffle around on ball responsibility, but I think some people are overblowing the ''two guys you want to get on-ball reps can't play together'' thing.
Basketball.
We can disagree on this matter, but coming into this season Zion, NAW and Hayes will be in their third years, and I have no doubt at least with NAW that he will be a better player than he was last year. If Hayes keeps developing defensively, then he will be better. Kira will have a year under his belt and the game should start slowing down for him some at least.
Kispert IMO is probably the safest pick at that 10 spot, because of his IQ and his shooting, which should translate pretty quick as soon as the game starts to slow down for him, whether it is the sometime this season or the next.
We need shooting on this team, but to get a veteran that can hit catch and shoots behind the arc at a high percentage are worth how much? $20 million? How much will Kispert be worth? Around $4 million?
But if I was the GM I would draft Kispert, if he is still there, and go after at least another shooter instead of resigning Zo or Hart. I would love to see how teams do sending 4 players at Zion to keep him out of the paint, if he had one or two shooters to send that ball to for a wide open 3.
But back to development of the young guns, so far the player development coaches have done a great job in developing these kids so far.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Now - look at history and find the first round shooters who were actually good shooters early in their career. Even amazing shooters like Buddy and JJ struggled. You arent going to get a 20 million dollar value type of player from almost any rookie. Look at Nesmith last year - amazing college shooter. Lets say Kispert is that or even a little better. How much would you pay for what the Celtics got from Nesmith last year? How much did he/does he help?
The issue, I believe, is that people look at these prospects and see player comps for them and think that is who they will be next year. Those comps are for who they will be in a few years - even the college seniors. Rookies dont help, and the ones that do help about as much as a good minimum or BAE acquisition. In every universe, Alec Burks and Georges Niang help more than Kispert does next year. So, what you are looking for - we can get for a decent price next year. If you are gonna use #10, use it for high ceiling. Or trade it. But dont take a guy who wont really help next year and who doesnt have a high ceiling
@mcnamara247
Lastly, if that is a goal, I would say that is what the 2nd round picks are for. Move up and go take Joe Weiskamp, Kessler Edwards, and Herb Jones. Or maybe you like another shooter. Either way -- you take Desmond Bane at the beginning of the 2nd and get a solid 8th man who can do those things. You dont spend #10 on that IMO
I never said he was going to be an elite shooter in his first or for that matter second year. I think with his IQ and experience he could contribute positively by the end of the first year or the second.
What I would hope is when this team is ready to make a run deep in the playoffs in let?s say 3 years that he would be an elite shooter.
This kid shot 3s everywhere on the court in college, has a quick release, and no maximum range. That has to translate one would hope.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Of course what has just happen, Kispert is probably off the table, so we can end this argument.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Give me...
Jared Butler/ Zaire Williams/ Cam Thomas at 17th
JT Thor where ever...
I'd really like that.
I know I'm missing another high potential guy and Corey Kispert. But ehhhhhh... I haven't really evaluated the 17th range that well. So, I'm starting off with those three
Guys who may still be available at 17 (that is, guys who are listed as below 17 on at either Givony's latest mock draft, or Tankathon's mock board):
- Jalen Johnson
- Usman Garuba
- Jared Butler
- Sharife Cooper
- Tre Mann
- Bones Hyland
- Jaden Springer
- Deuce McBride
- JT Thor
Of those, I think the highest upside guys are Cooper, Jalen Johnson, and Springer. Assuming they were all on the board and I was making the pick, I would probably take Springer as my number one priority - I have him top 10 on my personal rankings, getting him at 17 would be a steal. After that, it's probably Sharife, Butler, Garuba, J. Johnson, Thor, Mann, Hyland, McBride in that order.
I'm really high on Springer. So, it would be a travesty if he fell that far...
Yeah, I honestly don't understand most people's takes on him. He seems like a clear top 10 guy to me, I can rationalise taking him as high as top 5, but he just always seems to be late lottery or late teens in just about every mock draft I've seen. I don't get it, and nobody has really been able to explain it to me.
But if he does fall that far and we're picking, their loss is our gain. 6'5 on-ball creator with burgeoning passing capabilities, high level perimeter defense, outlier strength, well developed driving skills, and positive development signs for shooting? Come on man, ticks so many boxes and the upside is high enough that it's not just lazy draft-for-fit stuff.
I’d like Jalen Johnson, Williams, Springer in that order. Jalen could be the Bobby Portis type of glue guy. Play the 4 or small ball 5. Zaire I think would be a good backup SF, I imagine him like BI lite. Springer I think could be a lesser version of Jrue. All have good size and athleticism.
I feel like this year's going to be a really sad source of examples for opportunity defining value.
Take, for example, Sharife Cooper. He's small and can't shoot, but he's a very creative finisher, has solid handles, and is a stunningly great passer.
If he went top 10 to a team that poured tons of development resources into him and gave him a ton of chances, I feel like a lot of his flaws would improve (his shot, for example, seems like it will work: he has good touch and is an excellent FT shooter, he just needs core strength cause with his height the distance requires him to hurl it).
But if he goes low in the draft - which, so far, seems to be likely - then teams probably won't invest as much time into him, won't give him the same opportunity to grow, won't shower him with the same in-game opportunities (for obvious reasons: low picks belong to good teams who don't have time to give rookies 1500 minutes in a season to figure things out) and he'll never get the growth he would in a different scenario.
I often think about this: how often do players who really could be good just never really get the chance at the NBA level because they need more time than their draft status or hype will afford them?
We're odds on trading pick 17 for a future 1st, right?
I think several of they guys we have discussed at 10 will fall to 17, that's just the nature of the draft, especially this year. I think atleast one or two of Kispert, Keon Johnson, Jalen Johnson, Sengun, Mitchell, Springer, Garuba, etc.. will still be on the board at 17. They'll just be much better value now. Alot easier to accept taking a guy like Kispert at 17, than 10. Sadly, I think I have to say goodbye to my dream of Moody in a Pels uniform.
Chris Duarte or JT Thor look like great depth picks.
Me want Springer
Or trade for Brogdon
If we let Hart go... Get both. And Draft JT Thor pls.
#PIstons GM Troy Weaver on drafting on fit for the prospects: "They all fit. We won 20 games ... they all fit."
— Rod Beard (@detnewsRodBeard) July 27, 2021
Beautiful quote that more people need to understand.
If you are a bad team with a talent deficiency, it doesn't matter who is already on your roster. ''We can't draft a guard, we already have 4 guards!'' Yeah and none of them are good enough to be your future starting guard, so get drafting a guard who is and move the ones who aren't. Fit only matters when you're plugging specific gaps in a generally settled team. If you suck, you just need good players.
Watching Garuba at the Olympics. Seems mediocre. Don't get the hype
Marrk Price
Steve Kerr
Stephen Jackson
Rashad Lewis
Monta Ellis
Nick Van Exel
Jeff Hornacheck
Danny Ainge
Gilbert Arenas
Manu Giniobiuli
Yeah. It’s important to have the right players for matchup purposes (so the likes of Hart doesn’t always end up on much bigger guys), but you can run small ball. The NBA is virtually positionless with a few exceptions. You take the best guys you can. Hopefully they fill the area of need, but it doesn’t always pan out that way.
If Presti sells off SGA, at what point does he stop getting a pass for asset management. He totally busted this season with the 6th pick, which probably moves their timeline back an additional 2-3 years. He had basically gone all in on getting one of the big 3 in this years draft to pair with SGA and his rookie contract.
I see absolutely no way SGA is on that team at season's end
SGA will have to request a trade or leak it though (which may happen) as I don’t think OKC would give him up willingly. You have to have SOMETHING to build around.
I don't think that offer was real tbh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote