NBA DRAFT 2020 DISCUSSION

[Pelifan]

On Wiseman: I don’t think hes even sniffing top 5. I feel pretty confident he will be gone before 13 or later though. But it’s not about that or the de-emphasis on the center position or anything like that. It’s about mean outcomes. Most draft picks suck. Myles Turner went 11 in a better draft than this due to his physical gifts. Yes Wiseman has likely a pretty defined ceiling and he might just end up like WCS and other physically talented centers with no feel for the game. But what’s the mean outcome for a prospect like him? After a handful of guys his mean outcome is better than a lot of players in the draft. It’s really as simple as that. It’s why all of the highly recruited bigmen who underperform at college often still end up getting picked first round. And wiseman didn’t even technically underperform and he’s in a weak draft. Some GM between 7 and 12 is talking themselves in to Wiseman. A team that actually needs a center like the Celtics would probably trade up for him.

On Nesmith: hes definitely at the bottom of my want list but he’s still making it for now. he’s 2 years younger than Bane and already a better scorer. I actually think people underrate Nesmith’s athleticism a bit. It doesn’t translate to defense but he moves pretty well for his frame which is important for finding your shot. I think it’s pretty reasonable to project him as a double digit scorer with dangerous shooting. Not sure Bane is much more than a stand still shooter and extra pass guy at the next level but I haven’t seen a ton of him. Plus Nesmith sounds like Naismith so he has to be at least somewhat good.

[Pelicanidae]

The thing about Wiseman not underperforming is that firstly, he arguably did (he played 3 games and he was not dynamite in any of them despite them being against pretty poor competiton) but he also didn't overperform or even really perform because he played so little. It's impossible to really judge from 3 games. So in order to build any real profile of him, you have to use pre-college samples as well (which I'm happy to do, there's a lot to be learned from that) and in pre-college ball he was just really kind of not good.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I would definitely pick Myles Turner top 5 in this particular draft. If there are 10 long-term starters in this draft, I'd be very surprised. If there are even 7 above average starters in this draft, I'd also be surprised. And I see a lot of non-valuable types of players in the lottery (non-special combo guards like Anthony and Maxey, big men who are currently better players but lesser upside like Toppin or Okongwu).

I agree that he is a bad passer and a bad decision-maker.

I am somewhat of a believer that for bigs, just showing a willingness to shoot 3s early means something and I think that his mechanics look okay. I don't think it's a guarantee he ends up as any kind of shooter but I definitely feel more confident about it than I would for, for instance, Jaxson.

I don't think his movement skills are particularly great. I think they are fine in comparison to other really massive human beings, but I don't think they are near AD's level, for instance. I just think there is a chance based upon physical tools he could defensively be similar to Rudy Gobert, and I think there is a chance based upon mechanics and willingness to shoot chance he can stretch the floor, and the upside of a player who could possibly be both of those things is better than anyone else in this class except LaMelo and Anthony Edwards. And while I think that's super unlikely he ends up anywhere near that, I think the other options are bad.

I definitely believe there will be 10 starters from this draft. The question is: How many will be that for the team who drafts them? History says it will be 3-5

To me, the question wouldnt be Myles Turner vs. the guy we could pick. It would be about the NEXT trade. Who would have more value in 2 years when you are chasing Devin Booker, J Issac, KAT, etc

I think every move between now and then should be in preparation for THAT move. The Pels arent ever going to get someone of Ingram or even Jrue's caliber in FA. The next big piece will come via trade and it has to be the right guy to compliment the core to make the Pels champions. Spending assets on a Turner or even a Brad Beal makes us better but it puts us out of the running for the real piece that can make us a dynasty. Devin Booker or KAT or a healthy Jon Issac can make them a dynasty for 5-6 years

[Biasvasospasm]

I definitely believe there will be 10 starters from this draft. The question is: How many will be that for the team who drafts them? History says it will be 3-5

To me, the question wouldnt be Myles Turner vs. the guy we could pick. It would be about the NEXT trade. Who would have more value in 2 years when you are chasing Devin Booker, J Issac, KAT, etc

I think every move between now and then should be in preparation for THAT move. The Pels arent ever going to get someone of Ingram or even Jrue's caliber in FA. The next big piece will come via trade and it has to be the right guy to compliment the core to make the Pels champions. Spending assets on a Turner or even a Brad Beal makes us better but it puts us out of the running for the real piece that can make us a dynasty. Devin Booker or KAT or a healthy Jon Issac can make them a dynasty for 5-6 years

Just to clarify: I wasn't saying we should trade for Myles Turner. I was using him as a point of comparison for Wiseman as a higher end (but not ceiling) outcome, and we were arguing about the relative value of that guy in this draft.

But your point about who would have more value for star-chasing is a good point, the Pels will eventually need to make a trade unless they get very, very lucky with their drafting and internal development.

For Wiseman specifically, I think he would retain some value due to pedigree and perceived upside, but nobody really wants a center unless they can stretch the floor or are elite as rim protectors. Somebody like Patrick Williams would have more positional value if he can play.

[Biasvasospasm]

This is what gets me, the bolded bit. You think that just based on physical tools, he could defensively be similar to one of the best two or three defenders in the NBA today? That's a huge reach, for me; that kind of defensive impact doesn't just come from tools, there has to be a high level of feel and awareness on the defensive end to pull that sort of thing off.
?

I think this is really hard to predict. Guys who showed really high level defensive feel, like Jaren Jackson or AD, were still bad defenders for years (in Jackson's case, is still a bad defender). Guys like Ayton or Joel Embiid who didn't necessarily show those things consistently in college or had real issues with awareness and consistency have grown quickly in that area and became positive defenders relatively early. A bet on Wiseman is a bet on physical tools that are necessary but not sufficient to have those outcomes possible.

I agree that his median outcome is not that valuable of a player due to positional value. I think we disagree mostly on his ceiling.

[Pelifan]

wait why are we drafting in mind of trying to trade for a star 2 years from now. Zion will be 22. This is not to say that consolidation trades won't be necessary but I'd much rather use my assets to move up in the draft, add more in future draft capital and kick the can down the road to whenever a star trade or prospect the team feels really good about does become available (if we even need one by that point) than build my team with the idea that I'm going to try and make a star gambit in 2 years. Sure if a Young star becomes available and wants to play in New Orleans great but

1) what are the odds that ever happens and you aren't just burning assets like the Celtics.
2) what are the odds that player is still under team control or wants to play for the pelicans when Zion is looking at his UFA contract at age 25/26
3) are those odds any better than just building through the draft and building a championship team that way.

To me it's much more important to prove to Zion that you have good drafting and internal development. With the added benefit of not pigeon hole-ing yourself into trading for a star in 2 years and ensuring that you can trade for one whenever they become available or just simply developing your own. I don't want to draft a guy with the mindset that we want him to be fools gold and peak in year 2 even though our scouts say another player will be better but takes longer to develop. I'm not going to pass on Bolmaro because he might play in Europe a bit before coming over. To me that aspect is a plus.

[Nola3]

James Wiseman is Hassan Whiteside. He'll put up big stats, but my God will he frustrate the **** out of everyone while he does it

[Pelicanidae]

James Wiseman is Hassan Whiteside. He'll put up big stats, but my God will he frustrate the **** out of everyone while he does it

I don't think Whiteside is too bad of a comparison, in terms of feel and vibe. They're somewhat different on court players but I think the effect of watching them is similarly frustrating.

The one major difference I would say is that I don't think Wiseman will be as good a rebounder as Whiteside. I could be wrong on that because Wiseman is so young, and he could obviously fill out, but he's not actually super strong or anything, whereas at least Whiteside is massive which helps him a lot on the glass.

[PELICANSFAN]

Spending assets on a Turner or even a Brad Beal makes us better but it puts us out of the running for the real piece that can make us a dynasty. Devin Booker or KAT or a healthy Jon Issac can make them a dynasty for 5-6 years

I know those are just examples, but given those examples, what is the likelihood those guys would be available for a trade unless they demanded one?

[MichaelMcNamara]

wait why are we drafting in mind of trying to trade for a star 2 years from now. Zion will be 22. This is not to say that consolidation trades won't be necessary but I'd much rather use my assets to move up in the draft, add more in future draft capital and kick the can down the road to whenever a star trade or prospect the team feels really good about does become available (if we even need one by that point) than build my team with the idea that I'm going to try and make a star gambit in 2 years. Sure if a Young star becomes available and wants to play in New Orleans great but

1) what are the odds that ever happens and you aren't just burning assets like the Celtics.
2) what are the odds that player is still under team control or wants to play for the pelicans when Zion is looking at his UFA contract at age 25/26
3) are those odds any better than just building through the draft and building a championship team that way.

To me it's much more important to prove to Zion that you have good drafting and internal development. With the added benefit of not pigeon hole-ing yourself into trading for a star in 2 years and ensuring that you can trade for one whenever they become available or just simply developing your own. I don't want to draft a guy with the mindset that we want him to be fools gold and peak in year 2 even though our scouts say another player will be better but takes longer to develop. I'm not going to pass on Bolmaro because he might play in Europe a bit before coming over. To me that aspect is a plus.

You wanna talk about odds --- go find me the odds of drafting a guy who is still on your team for his second contract. Its VERY rare

So, yes, drafting a guy to trade him is a smart plan IMO. More teams should do it, and maybe they will once they parse through the data. History says that whoever the Pelicans take in this upcoming draft is very, very unlikely to be on the team 4 or 5 years from now. And it is also very unlikely that he will be a player that contributes more than an average bi annual exception guy would while he is on the team. So, with that in mind, you could either draft a guy and hope you find the abberation OR you draft him knowing he will be part of an upcoming trade and grab the guy whose value you think could be the highest when that time comes

[Biasvasospasm]

So, yes, drafting a guy to trade him is a smart plan IMO. More teams should do it, and maybe they will once they parse through the data. History says that whoever the Pelicans take in this upcoming draft is very, very unlikely to be on the team 4 or 5 years from now. And it is also very unlikely that he will be a player that contributes more than an average bi annual exception guy would while he is on the team. So, with that in mind, you could either draft a guy and hope you find the abberation OR you draft him knowing he will be part of an upcoming trade and grab the guy whose value you think could be the highest when that time comes

I think the issue with this is that if a guy doesn't play, the league will assume he can't play and therefore he won't be valuable. If you have a reasonably good and deep team most rookies who do not both fit a potential need and are at least neutral rotation players won't be able to stay on the court. I think Hinkie-era Philly tried to do this with Michael Carter-Williams, and it worked okay because they could give him a situation with a ton of usage that artificially raised his value. But I don't think we'll have that situation.

Two guys who were recently traded as valuable pieces in trades for "stars" after being drafted (I use scare quotes because Tobias Harris is just paid like a star) were Shamet and Shai. Both were definitely more valuable at the time they were traded than when they were drafted. But they were both positive players as rookies in roles that didn't ask more from them than what they were able to do.

So if you were to draft a player to trade them, based upon those examples, you would paradoxically pick for your team's need so the guy has a path to playing time, player types that fit easily into multiple team contexts, and players with a skill that can provide early value. So you would essentially be drafting as if you were trying to help next year's team. Other guys who "have value" are scarce position types with pedigree and perceived tools, but that eventually expires (like Cam Reddish would have value right now based upon expected potential even though he sucked most of his rookie year, but if he sucks again next year he wouldn't).

I think personally that trying to figure out which player, after playing in your system for a year or two, would have the most broad appeal would be difficult. Since most players would need to be productive in your system to be perceived as valuable, you should take the guy who you think would be good in your system at a position you think could get on the court and then you'll have options if the guy is valuable.

[Pelicanidae]

Saw a mock draft on twitter today from someone who had James Wiseman going 4th and Obi Toppin 5th. Both before Okongwu at 6th.

They also had Precious Achiuwa 11th, and Aaron Naismith 12th, above Tyrese Maxey at 13th.

Sometimes I'm a bit unsure about myself as a draft/prospect evaluator. I disagree with other people I know to be knowledgeable, or I can't decide whether or not an important skill is high enough level to make the difference in a prospect and therefore my judgement of them can waver.

But then I see that some people think stuff like this, and I feel better about myself.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I think the issue with this is that if a guy doesn't play, the league will assume he can't play and therefore he won't be valuable. If you have a reasonably good and deep team most rookies who do not both fit a potential need and are at least neutral rotation players won't be able to stay on the court. I think Hinkie-era Philly tried to do this with Michael Carter-Williams, and it worked okay because they could give him a situation with a ton of usage that artificially raised his value. But I don't think we'll have that situation.

Two guys who were recently traded as valuable pieces in trades for "stars" after being drafted (I use scare quotes because Tobias Harris is just paid like a star) were Shamet and Shai. Both were definitely more valuable at the time they were traded than when they were drafted. But they were both positive players as rookies in roles that didn't ask more from them than what they were able to do.

So if you were to draft a player to trade them, based upon those examples, you would paradoxically pick for your team's need so the guy has a path to playing time, player types that fit easily into multiple team contexts, and players with a skill that can provide early value. So you would essentially be drafting as if you were trying to help next year's team. Other guys who "have value" are scarce position types with pedigree and perceived tools, but that eventually expires (like Cam Reddish would have value right now based upon expected potential even though he sucked most of his rookie year, but if he sucks again next year he wouldn't).

I think personally that trying to figure out which player, after playing in your system for a year or two, would have the most broad appeal would be difficult. Since most players would need to be productive in your system to be perceived as valuable, you should take the guy who you think would be good in your system at a position you think could get on the court and then you'll have options if the guy is valuable.

I wouldn't not play him. The example I gave from the past is Roddy Beaubois. You play him in situations where he can succeed and people see these nice numbers and athleticism in short minutes and get excited he can be so much more with more minutes

[MichaelMcNamara]

I wouldn't not play him. The example I gave from the past is Roddy Beaubois. You play him in situations where he can succeed and people see these nice numbers and athleticism in short minutes and get excited he can be so much more with more minutes

And the guy I think could fit this is RJ Hampton. Was a top 3-5 prospect going into the year. Ton of athleticism, little film on him. If you could put him in positions to draw oohs and ahhs, someone will pay 125 cents on the dollar with the belief he could be a stud with more shots and minutes

[Biasvasospasm]

Aleksej Pokusevski
Height: 7'0
Weight: 205lbs
Wingspan: 7'3
Pts/Rbds/Asts/Stls/Blks: 9.9/7.2/2.8/1.2/1.7

For me, I think it's worth the risk: there are so few guys in this draft who have ''star potential'' written on them, that the gamble may well be worth it. I could absolutely justify taking Pokusevski with a lottery pick, and if we grabbed him somewhere between 10 and 15 (wherever we end up, I don't know) I think it would be worth that shot, as long as we accepted that it was a risky prospect.

I think all prospects are risky except the very, very best guys. There are lots of guys who are 'safe' but end up not mattering. The hit rate in the late lottery is low. From the little available I've seen, I would absolutely take this guy. He is a good enough athlete and shooter to play the 4, if he can eventually put on enough weight to play the 5 he would be a ridiculous weapon there. I absolutely believe he will shoot the basketball and I think if he can stay on the floor there is a good chance he is a real weapon as a shooter, not just a floor spacer. I think the long-term goal has to be putting shooting, length, and rim defense around Zion, and he fits. I don't think he contributes for at least a couple of years, but then again I don't think anyone we draft in the late lottery is likely to help significantly from day one.

[Pelicanidae]

I think all prospects are risky except the very, very best guys. There are lots of guys who are 'safe' but end up not mattering. The hit rate in the late lottery is low. From the little available I've seen, I would absolutely take this guy. He is a good enough athlete and shooter to play the 4, if he can eventually put on enough weight to play the 5 he would be a ridiculous weapon there. I absolutely believe he will shoot the basketball and I think if he can stay on the floor there is a good chance he is a real weapon as a shooter, not just a floor spacer. I think the long-term goal has to be putting shooting, length, and rim defense around Zion, and he fits. I don't think he contributes for at least a couple of years, but then again I don't think anyone we draft in the late lottery is likely to help significantly from day one.

That's true, although I would note that that there are different varieties of 'safe'. To me, there are 'safe' players who are probably going to be fine. 10 year careers maybe, but journeymen who are largely replacement level. That's fine, the league needs those; the league needs the E'twaun Moores of the world, but nobody is ever going to claim that Moore is an impact player.

Then you have players who also fail to project at star level impacts, but with high floors, who may therefore be termed ''safe'' but whose effective usage and archetype makes them much more likely to impact the game at a level that matters despite failing to reach that high standards. Compare, for example, Danny Green rather than the prior E'twaun Moore example; neither is a star, but Green's additional size, combined with his defensive ability and true wing length allows him to be a much more important and impactful player than Moore. So when you draft someone who you don't necessarily see as a star and you're going with ''safe'', the question needs to be ''what kind of safety are we projecting here in impact, Moore or Green?''. It's an interesting question.

Now, I agree with you in regards to Pokusevski. He is a guy who when you draft him, you aren't drafting him for his rookie year, you're drafting him under the assumption that he can put on his weight and strength and be an impact player in a few years time. And I also agree completely that if he can be a real weapon. Personally, based on his frame, I doubt that he will ever have the strength to play the 5 other than as a pure stretch 5 (he is never likely to be a staunch post defender) but that's fine, and frankly the value of a stretch 5 next to Zion, or a stretch 4 who could really strain defenses next to Zion at the 3 and Jax at the 5 is incredibly hard to overstate.

[Eman5805]

I see some things to like about this Poku kid. But it's hard to have full faith in him. I feel like I'm hearing the same arguments for Bol Bol...but at least I can see a lot more skill and agility to his game than Bol Bol's.

[Nola3]

I see some things to like about this Poku kid. But it's hard to have full faith in him. I feel like I'm hearing the same arguments for Bol Bol...but at least I can see a lot more skill and agility to his game than Bol Bol's.

Taking him really would just be a straight lottery ticket. But the payout could be enormous. And with this draft full of unknowns and possible busts, you might as well take the lottery ticket with the highest potential payout even if you give up some level of certainty. Or at least that's how I'm starting to feel about our pick.

[Pelicanidae]

I see some things to like about this Poku kid. But it's hard to have full faith in him. I feel like I'm hearing the same arguments for Bol Bol...but at least I can see a lot more skill and agility to his game than Bol Bol's.

You're absolutely right in that his skill and agility is much higher than Bol's. He also doesn't have Bol's history of injury, and it's also clear that Poku's feel is much higher level than Bol's, especially when it comes to defending anywhere outside of the rim.

Poku's handle and passing are also far superior, which falls under skill, but it's worth noting.

[Silver Nail]

NICE to see the forum coming around to our best option if he is there when we pick. Now let's all get on the Tillie train for our second pick.

[Pelicanidae]

NICE to see the forum coming around to our best option if he is there when we pick. Now let's all get on the Tillie train for our second pick.

Hey, join the club. I've been on the Tillie train since at least February

[Biasvasospasm]

I see some things to like about this Poku kid. But it's hard to have full faith in him. I feel like I'm hearing the same arguments for Bol Bol...but at least I can see a lot more skill and agility to his game than Bol Bol's.

There are some obvious similarities (impossibly thin, tall guys who project as real plus shooters and block shots), but I think there are more differences than similarities.

The more I watch him, the more I realize that Poku doesn't play at all like a big man. Bol is a really tall center who can shoot and is too thin. He moves like a center. Poku is legitimately fast. I think he will be fast and will change directions well for an NBA player. I think he has above average speed and agility for an NBA power forward, and that might be understating things. He is a terrible vertical athlete---he can hardly jump, but he is really fast and agile.

This takes me back, but the guy he is really similar to is Anthony Randolph, but he is a much better shooter than Anthony Randolph was at the same age and his handle and passing are better, too. He is even thinner and weaker than young Randolph was. As Randolph never made it in the NBA, that sounds like a negative thing, but I think if Randolph had a do-over of his career starting now, he would be a valuable NBA player. IIRC, there were also lots of rumblings that Randolph had personal issues that got in his way with coaches. He eventually figured out shooting in his late 20s and has had a great second act in Europe for Real Madrid.

For those that don't remember, this was Randolph as a prospect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CRtna5iDFc

And for those who haven't seen much of him, this guy on twitter made a bunch of cut ups of Poku's games, both positive and negative plays:
https://twitter.com/KnicksDraftGuy

[pelafanatic]

I do worry that bringing in a developmental player may stunt the growth of the abundance of youth we already have in house, especially considering the severely shortened off-season. Based on the flashes we've seen out of Jax, NAW, and Didi, and then the obvious continued growth of Zion, BI, and Zo, I think I'd prefer to put all my eggs in that basket rather than shift some focus towards an unknown.

That being said, it's also important to add more trade assets for down the line, so Griffin and the rest of the FO is presented with a difficult task of drafting for upside while also knowing that they probably don't have the resources available to develop that upside to its maximum capacity.

For this reason, I think if Poku, RJ, or Bolmaro agrees to one more one more year overseas, that has to increase their value to us.

[Biasvasospasm]

I do worry that bringing in a developmental player may stunt the growth of the abundance of youth we already have in house, especially considering the severely shortened off-season. Based on the flashes we've seen out of Jax, NAW, and Didi, and then the obvious continued growth of Zion, BI, and Zo, I think I'd prefer to put all my eggs in that basket rather than shift some focus towards an unknown.

This is a good point, but I think if you take someone who is as far away as any of those guys, you would rely on your G-league staff during the actual season to develop them if they do come over. I think both Poku and Hampton would really benefit from getting into NBA-level strength programs, so I think there would be pros and cons.

The other thing is we need to either stash or consolidate or sell second round picks or at least kick the can down the road. Or have them willing to take two ways. You just can't have that many young players on the main squad.

[Pelicanidae]

This is a good point, but I think if you take someone who is as far away as any of those guys, you would rely on your G-league staff during the actual season to develop them if they do come over. I think both Poku and Hampton would really benefit from getting into NBA-level strength programs, so I think there would be pros and cons.

The other thing is we need to either stash or consolidate or sell second round picks or at least kick the can down the road. Or have them willing to take two ways. You just can't have that many young players on the main squad.

I absolutely agree on the consolidation of picks, as well. We have 3 this year; we drafted 4 guys last year (including Didi, who may or may not be with the team properly next season), we can't draft 4 guys this year as well and expect to actually have them all with the team. Much more sensible in my mind to try and consolidate our 3 second rounders into maybe a later first, or (as you say) kick them down the road into 2021 second rounders or something. It would be absurd beyond belief to try and have like 10 guys under the age of 23 on the squad (Zion, Jax, NAW, Didi, Lonzo, Ingram, + 4 draftees from this season).

Much better to have Zion, Jax, Lonzo, and Ingram with the team for certain, and then see how things go for everyone else, whether that means they're G League'd all year, or maybe they spend some time in the G League and then some time with the team (as NAW did this season), or if they get sent overseas.