RealGM

Snakebites wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:Penny
Harden
Luka

That seem to be the pecking order. Luka gets knocked for living in an offensive scheme people can't envision or don't think maximizes other high level talent. Harden is poked for his D and ball dominance. Penny seems most popular, imo.

I think Harden is better than Penny. Probably not relative to cost though. Penny gets knocked for fit too.

All of them are primary ball handlers who need to guard wings most of the time which can be a challenge to navigate.

As for ball dominance, all three have track records alongside other ball handlers- most notably Harden with CP3, older Penny with Kidd, and Luka with Brunson (not ready to call Kyrie a success).

I've got Harden and Luka over Penny without a doubt, it's just that they're also far more expensive (especially Luka).

Harden gives you more flexibility than Luka - he's had points where he played a similarly extreme style, but he's also functioned in a wider variety of roles and systems. (I do think Luka working well with Brunson and even more so with Kyrie are encouraging signals.) On the other hand, Luka has another gear he can consistently get to in the playoffs, while Harden has a spottier history with a bunch of weird moments. I guess I prefer Luka in a vacuum, but I would have been fine taking either at that spot.

durantbird wrote:In

Up

hmmm, was actually hoping to go Booker with my next pick.

Not sure what I will do now....but I have 2 solid options with only 1 pick before me.

Larry_Russell wrote:hmmm, was actually hoping to go Booker with my next pick.

Why?

Fadeaway_J wrote:

Larry_Russell wrote:hmmm, was actually hoping to go Booker with my next pick.

Why?

One never can have too many shooting guards too small to play the 3 who don’t play defense.

Snakebites wrote:

Fadeaway_J wrote:

Larry_Russell wrote:hmmm, was actually hoping to go Booker with my next pick.

Why?

One never can have too many shooting guards too small to play the 3 who don’t play defense.

Was just going to surround Giannis with as much shooting as possible.

And dont think I have ever drafted him either.

Shaq, KG, and TMac is a pretty insane talent level, but we'll see how the fit is judged.

Laimbeer wrote:Shaq, KG, and TMac is a pretty insane talent level, but we'll see how the fit is judged.

The fit is fine to me, it's just a tight squeeze FGA-wise.

I think I would have been more scared of Square's team if he took the cheap star PG there considering some great wings might be available next round

Fadeaway_J wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:Shaq, KG, and TMac is a pretty insane talent level, but we'll see how the fit is judged.

The fit is fine to me, it's just a tight squeeze FGA-wise.

Yeah I like the fit. Rounding out that team will be hard though since you can’t switch to Boston KG.

Unless using a far less valuable version of those big three, Square is looking at about 30-31 FGA to fill 5 roster spots.

Gonna be TOUGH.

Dr Positivity wrote:I think I would have been more scared of Square's team if he took the cheap star PG there considering some great wings might be available next round

That was the other option, probably a smarter one. But I just find him so boring, and I actually liked the fit less.

Larry_Russell wrote:Unless using a far less valuable version of those big three, Square is looking at about 30-31 FGA to fill 5 roster spots.

Gonna be TOUGH.

Probably even less than that. We'll see. I've done something like this before and won, but no clue how this one will work out. Just something interesting to try. (The more people focus on this question now, the more I'm sure the supporting cast will get nitpicked in the judging, but in any case I just enjoy trying weird things.)

Square wrote:

Larry_Russell wrote:Unless using a far less valuable version of those big three, Square is looking at about 30-31 FGA to fill 5 roster spots.

Gonna be TOUGH.

Probably even less than that. We'll see. I've done something like this before and won, but no clue how this one will work out. Just something interesting to try. (The more people focus on this question now, the more I'm sure the supporting cast will get nitpicked in the judging, but in any case I just enjoy trying weird things.)

You’ll have one starter at 10 FGA, one cheap role player at 6-7 FGA starting, then 13-14 FGA for the bench. It’s tight but doable with the right role players. Won’t have good depth.

EDIT- unless you choose a cheaper version of TMAC you only have 28 FGA.

Eager to see what you do! In your shoes I’d probably use a different version of TMAC. 2002 is still quite good and you’d save a whopping 3 FGA.

Snakebites wrote:.

Up

Fadeaway_J wrote:

Snakebites wrote:.

Up

Your move

Dr P has my options

There goes my center....****...

Larry_Russell wrote:There goes my center....****...

I’d have been surprised if Flaco didn’t take Brook.

Of course that’s given the run on ranged centers before that, though I think that was also predictable.

Nash/Mikal/Nash is my favorite if they can make use of the FGA savings.

uberhikari wrote:.

Up