Ford's Mock #3: Bucks take Gallinari

[cam2win]

-= original quote snipped =-



If Hammond is hoping a guy drops to him, he's not going to have a good word to say about him before the draft.

I understand the smoke and mirror game that goes on and I'm sure Hammond is part of it.

I do however believe him when he says we will address defense (as anyone who watched us for more than a quarter could tell you). I don't see how drafting a player who's greatest question mark is the exact same as the teams biggest need is any help regardless of position.

I'm usually a guy that argues skill over raw talent all day. But this pick makes no sense at all given our current makeup. Of course if you are able to move the following 5 players off this team (Redd, Mo, Simmons, CV, Yi), then he might be a great addition.

[smauss]

If this plays out as Ford guessed then move over Jake, I joining you on the ledge.......

[Chuck Diesel]

Most attractive part of his game is what Chad Ford referred to as "point forward ability". If Gallinari were to be utilized as a facilitator I really think he could help any team after he gets acclimated to the NBA style of play. Think of Luke Walton with some more tricks in his bag offensively and a better jumpshot.

Biggest red flags are his feet defensively. I don't think we would have to worry about Gallinari taking plays off, but physical tools as a Randolph are nowhere near on par with a guy like Randolph (from what I've read on Randolph) But if Skiles turns out to be the defensive mastermind many of you are hoping for, I don't see any reason Gallinari couldn't be at least a mediocre defender.

[fam3381]

Most attractive part of his game is what Chad Ford referred to as "point forward ability". If Gallinari were to be utilized as a facilitator I really think he could help any team after he gets acclimated to the NBA style of play. Think of Luke Walton with some more tricks in his bag offensively and a better jumpshot.

Agreed.

You mentioned a while ago that Ersan appears to have improved his passing skills, and I noticed a hint of that on Sunday as well--he had a nice backdoor bounce pass and generally looked more comfortable with the ball. But I think one of his problems will always be that he doesn't have quite the handle and passing skills that you'd prefer to see in an SF.

While they're both 6'9" Europeans, I think DG and Ersan are interesting contrasts. It seems like Ersan's developed into a rough-and-tumble type who can defend, rebound well for his size, stick open threes and use his athleticism a bit around the hoop. Which probably makes him more of an undersized 4 at this point than a pure three, though he's probably a better fit defensively as a 3 in the NBA.

DG's got a much better offensive feel, but doesn't seem to bring the physicality you'd like to see. Which makes him a more traditional 3, though obviously his quickness is a concern on the defensive end, where he's probably not strong enough to guard any PFs.

[xTitan]

What the hell everyone? Ford has had about 3 mock drafts with the Bucks drafting three different players, he has no clue.

[carmelbrownqueen]

Just as interesting addition to the conversation....

I was just looking back at a post I made a few months ago where I was questioning another posters choice to have DG as out pick in one of his mock drafts. I pointed out that DG seemed to lack all the things that we are in desperate need of and this was his response:

Cammo101 wrote:
Gallinari is a tough, hard nosed, and very skilled player who plays at the Bucks biggest position of need. Picture a more skilled Nocioni, who was a Skiles favorite.

I will admit I haven't seen a lot of his games. And honestly, the brief stuff I have seen didn't necessarily impress me all that much. However for those who have watched him in some actual games, what do you think of this comparison?

[DH34Phan]

Wasn't Yaroslav Korolev supposed to be awesome?

[emunney]

No, he really was never supposed to be awesome, and everybody thought the Clippers were nuts for giving him a promise at 12.

[DH34Phan]

No, he really was never supposed to be awesome, and everybody thought the Clippers were nuts for giving him a promise at 12.

Same type of player.

Gallinari is not worth a lottey pick.

What does he do much better than say, Donte Greene, or even Darrell Arthur?

[LUKE23]

Wasn't Yaroslav Korolev supposed to be awesome?

Yaroslav Korolev
Fran Vazquez
Tiago Splitter
Alexsandr Radojevic
Pau Gasol
Nickoloz Tschvili
Vlad Rad
Maciej Lampe
Fred Weis
Andrea Bargnani
Darko Milicic
Mikael Pietrus
Andris Biedrins
Thabo Sefolosha

I know people hate when I reference the high hype Euro players, but these are the guys that were either hyped as lottery picks for a full offseason or were taken in the lottery in the last decade. I think it is relevant given that these players are going against a different level of competition than college players are. I'm not saying there aren't busts out of the college ranks, there obviously are, but look at that list and you will find one guy you'd really call a star player, Gasol. You have several big time busts and then a couple after thoughts. The rate of bust moving from Euro to NBA seems higher than college to the NBA, even though the sample is obviously much smaller.

[emunney]

He's not the same type of player. I hate when I get dragged into defending a player I don't even like that much just because the attacks come from a knowledge vacuum.

I don't know if Korolev had even earned any minutes with a senior league team when he was drafted, but his scouting reports said he was a long, athletic project. Opposite of the skilled, smart Gallinari.

He's a far better ball-handler than Greene, a better passer, and a smarter player on both ends. Arthur is a power forward who I like. What do either of them have to do with Korolev and Gallinari? Stop moving the goal posts.

[DH34Phan]

After watching some clips of Gallinari, he reminds me of a shorter version of Bargnani.

The moves he was using in the clips I saw of him, IMO, will not be able to translate to the NBA.

[LUKE23]

My biggest problem, by far, with Gallinari is foot quickness, on both ends. Like I said, he was barely getting by the defenders in those clips, so when you translate that to NBA defenders, not a good thing. I have zero doubts he can shoot, but that's about all I feel comfortable projecting well to the NBA level.

[DH34Phan]

He's not the same type of player. I hate when I get dragged into defending a player I don't even like that much just because the attacks come from a knowledge vacuum.

I don't know why you need to defend him.

Look at Bargnani. Same player, but even taller. He was even picked #1! What kind of skills have translated to the NBA for him?

[emunney]

Now you're talking about Bargnani, who is also nothing like Gallinari.

[redred9]

Bargnani HAD no skills when he came to the NBA. He wasnt even starting on his Euro club team- he was sitting behind Boguts Aussie teamate David Andersen. All Bargs had was a nice jumpshot for a guy that big. Hes going to be Mehmet Okur imo.

In contrast, Gallinari as a teenager was not only starting on his club team, he was the most promising player in that league!

btw Euroleague 1st division would eat sweet sixteen teams for breakfast imo.

Im not saying Gallinari should be a top pick at all, but with a little time to adjust (maybe more than less athletic players) i think he will play some great ball in this league.

[fam3381]

Strange as it might seem, Bargnani might be better off if he was 6'9" rather than 7'0". His center of gravity is too high and he's too heavy to have the quickness to guard perimeter players, yet he's too soft to be a legit center. His shooting and general style are more similar to that of a small player, but he's too big to play that way effectively in the NBA. And his terrible rebounding is murder for a PF/C.

On the flip side, Gallinari's rebounding isn't going to kill you simply because it's not as important for SFs to hit the glass. And his style is not atypical for his position, so I don't think there's quite the same worry that he will have the same sort of problems Bargnani's had in the NBA.

I'm not saying Gallinari's going to be great but it seems like he's been too effective already to be a bust in the NBA. He probably doesn't have the upside of say, Randolph, but he's already got more tangible basketball skills IMO.

[fam3381]

Moreover, it's easiest to focus on athleticism and quickness when we think about guys projecting to the NBA, but I'm just as concerned with their IQ and help defense. Last year we had a bunch of poor to mediocre man defenders. But they compounded the problem in the way they played as a team, so they collectively made each other worse. It was pretty amazing to watch.

Were the Bucks athletically that much worse than every other team last year? I'd argue our defensive problems had more to do with the fact that players didn't seem to have any defensive instincts and looked in disarray against any team that ran their offense properly. Part of that's coaching, part of that's effort, part of that's just not having the ability to defend (where athleticism also fits in). You might never be an elite defender when one of those things is missing, but I think intelligence and effort can hide a lot.

I don't know if Gallinari is a smart defender, but if he is then I think he could get by just fine even with average athleticism.

[WEFFPIM]

Now, I never look at mock drafts, and frankly, I can't tell you who would be the best bang for the buck at #8. But what I can tell you is that if you put any sort of stock into these mock drafts, then you have less of a life than Chad Ford.

[Whiteman]

Wasn't Yaroslav Korolev supposed to be awesome?

Yaroslav Korolev
Fran Vazquez
Tiago Splitter
Alexsandr Radojevic
Pau Gasol
Nickoloz Tschvili
Vlad Rad
Maciej Lampe
Fred Weis
Andrea Bargnani
Darko Milicic
Mikael Pietrus
Andris Biedrins
Thabo Sefolosha

I know people hate when I reference the high hype Euro players, but these are the guys that were either hyped as lottery picks for a full offseason or were taken in the lottery in the last decade. I think it is relevant given that these players are going against a different level of competition than college players are. I'm not saying there aren't busts out of the college ranks, there obviously are, but look at that list and you will find one guy you'd really call a star player, Gasol. You have several big time busts and then a couple after thoughts. The rate of bust moving from Euro to NBA seems higher than college to the NBA, even though the sample is obviously much smaller.

You're comparing apples and oranges here.
Korolev, Vazquez, Skita, Lampe, and Darko were completely unproven in Europe. Weis, Bargnani, Sefolosha, Pietrus and Biedrins had shown something, but nowhere near as much as Galinari. Only Gasol and to a lesser extent Splitter were proven Euro stars.
(I don't know how good Radojevic and Radmanovic were)

If you want to evaluate past American picks, you don't lump them all together either; you make a distinction between pure upside straight out of HS-kids (Kobe, Gerald Green) and proven college stars (Beasley, Hansbrough).

Unproven Europeans definitely tend to bust more often than Americans, but those who proved themselves in Europe have been doing reasonably well.

Now I'm not saying the Bucks should draft Gallinari, but if you want to estimate his chances of succes in the NBA, you cannot compare him to Darko or Skita.

And there's no way the level of competition in Italy isn't at least as good as the NCAA tournament. The talent level might be slightly lower, but the experience, physical maturity and professional playing environment more than make up for that.