Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10
sco wrote:dougthonus wrote:Hangtime84 wrote:All i know is Bamba felt just as disappointed as we all did that night.
I didn't feel disappointed, I was ecstatic. At my draft party, the vast majority of people were also happy. I like Carter more than Bamba.
So you served hard liquor, huh?
keobulls wrote:bad knees wrote:As I have said, I really like WCJ as a player, and think he has a high upside as modern day C. I think he can play C in all circumstances, including when other teams go small. My issues have to do with the fit between him and Lauri. Both are natural small ball C's, but one of them is going to have to defend small ball 4's. Thus, I have been arguing that the Bulls would have been better off taking JJJ, another upside big, whose elite agility would allow him to play the 4 in a small ball situation next to Lauri. I really question whether both Lauri and Wendell can stay on the floor at the same time when teams go small. I understand that others don't share my concern.
I understand the fear with the bolded in general terms, but when you actually play it out, how many "small ball 4's" around the league would really pick Lauri apart? And of the handful that might, how many have top level SF's that Lauri could not be "hidden" on for a while during these small lineups? Thinking of the ultimate "small ball" lineup that GS has, Lauri would be be fine on Iggy, and wouldn't get abnormally abused by KD... and that is the BEST "small ball" lineup to have to worry about.
bad knees wrote:keobulls wrote:bad knees wrote:As I have said, I really like WCJ as a player, and think he has a high upside as modern day C. I think he can play C in all circumstances, including when other teams go small. My issues have to do with the fit between him and Lauri. Both are natural small ball C's, but one of them is going to have to defend small ball 4's. Thus, I have been arguing that the Bulls would have been better off taking JJJ, another upside big, whose elite agility would allow him to play the 4 in a small ball situation next to Lauri. I really question whether both Lauri and Wendell can stay on the floor at the same time when teams go small. I understand that others don't share my concern.
I understand the fear with the bolded in general terms, but when you actually play it out, how many "small ball 4's" around the league would really pick Lauri apart? And of the handful that might, how many have top level SF's that Lauri could not be "hidden" on for a while during these small lineups? Thinking of the ultimate "small ball" lineup that GS has, Lauri would be be fine on Iggy, and wouldn't get abnormally abused by KD... and that is the BEST "small ball" lineup to have to worry about.
I
The best small ball teams are the best teams in the league - GS, HOU, CLE (until Lebron leaves), BOS - and everyone else is looking to develop one. I disagree about Lauri's ability to guard GS's forwards, and I don't think he is quick enough to guard any of the others on this list. Even young guys like Saric and Kuzma (when he started against Lauri) made Lauri look slow and bad last year. I think the list will get longer as the trend spreads across the league.
nitetrain8603 wrote:There are plenty 2nd rounders who have become all-stars because teams saw the potential and properly developed them. And there are 2nd rounders who have played much better than lottery picks in almost every recent draft. Would you like to go down that list?
NDave79 wrote:I found a site that has a seemingly never ending supply of Wendell Carter clips that I had never seem before on youtube. I still haven't looked through everything, but I think their is an incorrect narrative that Wendell has always been a back to the basket old school big that is just now starting to venture away from the basket. I think that's mostly how he was used in AAU ball, but it appears that for his high school team he played a mix of inside and outside and looked good doing it. Even though he showed a lot of skills at Duke, I think he is going to surprise in the NBA. Also, I continue to see some eye opening displays of athleticism. The more I dig into learning about Wendell, the happier I am with the pick.
This link is probably the best all in one highlight video I've found on the site (the site I found, not Realgm) so far.
https://www.hudl.com/video/3/4879040/5947d915b01a1508146caf5a
and here are a couple more links to many, many more videos, lol
https://www.hudl.com/profile/4879040/Wendell-Carter/videos
https://www.hudl.com/profile/4879040/Wendell-Carter
navdeep_singh wrote:Parents happy he’s in NBA good riddance to Duke and Coach KKK
Mom ==“They treat you like a piece of property. Period. Point blank. They take things away from you, they talk bad to you, they’re disrespectful to you,” Kylia Carter said about their experience with NCAA basketball, according to Wilder. “The act of getting paid is not what makes a difference, the difference is that in the NBA [players] are respected in the role that they’re in. Whatever it is they’re doing, they have a voice and they’re respected.
“In college, you have no voice. It’s a system set up that they drop you in and tell you what to do—you be a rebounder, shot-blocker, you take all the shots, nobody else can shoot. My child never got to show his full set of skills. He never got to do that.”
Dad ——-
“I tell people. People make promises they can’t keep. It didn’t bother me,” Wendell Sr. said, according to Goodwill. “I was concerned because I felt like we were lied to. ‘Oh, Wendell’s gonna be the man’ and then the rug was pulled from under us.”
https://www.aseaofblue.com/college-basketball/2018/6/26/17507074/wendell-carter-jr-parents-chicago-bulls-duke-blue-devils
Dominater wrote:navdeep_singh wrote:Parents happy he’s in NBA good riddance to Duke and Coach KKK
Mom ==“They treat you like a piece of property. Period. Point blank. They take things away from you, they talk bad to you, they’re disrespectful to you,” Kylia Carter said about their experience with NCAA basketball, according to Wilder. “The act of getting paid is not what makes a difference, the difference is that in the NBA [players] are respected in the role that they’re in. Whatever it is they’re doing, they have a voice and they’re respected.
“In college, you have no voice. It’s a system set up that they drop you in and tell you what to do—you be a rebounder, shot-blocker, you take all the shots, nobody else can shoot. My child never got to show his full set of skills. He never got to do that.”
Dad ——-
“I tell people. People make promises they can’t keep. It didn’t bother me,” Wendell Sr. said, according to Goodwill. “I was concerned because I felt like we were lied to. ‘Oh, Wendell’s gonna be the man’ and then the rug was pulled from under us.”
https://www.aseaofblue.com/college-basketball/2018/6/26/17507074/wendell-carter-jr-parents-chicago-bulls-duke-blue-devils
Very weird though, because Carter jr himself was on Carmen & Jurko yesterday and he really didn't have anything bad to say about his time at Duke. He said that he learned alot from coach K that he'll remember for life, and not just basketball. Also claimed he didn't have a problem at all with Bagley joining the team
Unless of course thats just his plan to have his parents complain for him, while he just plays it off as the humble guy
Mark K wrote:nitetrain8603 wrote:There are plenty 2nd rounders who have become all-stars because teams saw the potential and properly developed them. And there are 2nd rounders who have played much better than lottery picks in almost every recent draft. Would you like to go down that list?
I’d prefer you to tell me on what basis any sensible person would suggest Mitchell Robinson, taken deep in the second round, would’ve been a better selection at 7 than Wendell Carter Jr.
nitetrain8603 wrote:Mark K wrote:nitetrain8603 wrote:There are plenty 2nd rounders who have become all-stars because teams saw the potential and properly developed them. And there are 2nd rounders who have played much better than lottery picks in almost every recent draft. Would you like to go down that list?
I’d prefer you to tell me on what basis any sensible person would suggest Mitchell Robinson, taken deep in the second round, would’ve been a better selection at 7 than Wendell Carter Jr.
Based upon this logic, what sensible person would suggest Rudy Gobert, selected 26 picks afterwards, would be better than Anthony Bennett, selected #1 overall in the 2013 NBA Draft?
We can play this game all day
musiqsoulchild wrote:nitetrain8603 wrote:Mark K wrote:
I’d prefer you to tell me on what basis any sensible person would suggest Mitchell Robinson, taken deep in the second round, would’ve been a better selection at 7 than Wendell Carter Jr.
Based upon this logic, what sensible person would suggest Rudy Gobert, selected 26 picks afterwards, would be better than Anthony Bennett, selected #1 overall in the 2013 NBA Draft?
We can play this game all day
Thats not the same comparison. Gobert was an international player and thats a different scale of expectations that is not linear with their inherent talent level. Much like Niko and the #23 pick.
nitetrain8603 wrote:musiqsoulchild wrote:nitetrain8603 wrote:
Based upon this logic, what sensible person would suggest Rudy Gobert, selected 26 picks afterwards, would be better than Anthony Bennett, selected #1 overall in the 2013 NBA Draft?
We can play this game all day
Thats not the same comparison. Gobert was an international player and thats a different scale of expectations that is not linear with their inherent talent level. Much like Niko and the #23 pick.
And Mitchell Robinson also did not go to a 4 year college and was also a 5 star prospect coming out of high school. So both Gobert and Robinson didn't get the "college experience". Bennett and Wendell did, and were drafted much higher than the counterparts being compared.
What I'm saying is this - the premise is stupid:
"Mitchell Robinson should not be taken seriously as a prospect because he's a 2nd round pick compared to the #7 overall. Therefore it is illogical to want Mitchell Robinson over Wendell."
musiqsoulchild wrote:nitetrain8603 wrote:musiqsoulchild wrote:
Thats not the same comparison. Gobert was an international player and thats a different scale of expectations that is not linear with their inherent talent level. Much like Niko and the #23 pick.
And Mitchell Robinson also did not go to a 4 year college and was also a 5 star prospect coming out of high school. So both Gobert and Robinson didn't get the "college experience". Bennett and Wendell did, and were drafted much higher than the counterparts being compared.
What I'm saying is this - the premise is stupid:
"Mitchell Robinson should not be taken seriously as a prospect because he's a 2nd round pick compared to the #7 overall. Therefore it is illogical to want Mitchell Robinson over Wendell."
Well you could just do a probability count. Check for the difference in number of picks between #7 and where Mitchell Robinson was picked. And look at historicals of average NBA salary earned ( after rookie scale).
I'd bet that the earlier a pick is made, the more money he made.
nitetrain8603 wrote:musiqsoulchild wrote:nitetrain8603 wrote:
And Mitchell Robinson also did not go to a 4 year college and was also a 5 star prospect coming out of high school. So both Gobert and Robinson didn't get the "college experience". Bennett and Wendell did, and were drafted much higher than the counterparts being compared.
What I'm saying is this - the premise is stupid:
"Mitchell Robinson should not be taken seriously as a prospect because he's a 2nd round pick compared to the #7 overall. Therefore it is illogical to want Mitchell Robinson over Wendell."
Well you could just do a probability count. Check for the difference in number of picks between #7 and where Mitchell Robinson was picked. And look at historicals of average NBA salary earned ( after rookie scale).
I'd bet that the earlier a pick is made, the more money he made.
Well yes, quite easily. 1st round picks have guaranteed contracts, so if it doesn't look like it's going to work out, teams are still going to hold onto that player or trade him to a team that will invest some more time into it. They're trying to get the highest ROI. On a 2nd round pick, if he plays bad, they are cut. Even if they are not cut, they don't have guarantee salary IIRC and usually will stick for the min salary which is lower than that of a 1st round pick. So yes, I can easily tell you that a 7th overall pick would have made more money than a 2nd round pick. That 2nd round pick is already behind the day he is drafted.
nitetrain8603 wrote:And Mitchell Robinson also did not go to a 4 year college and was also a 5 star prospect coming out of high school. So both Gobert and Robinson didn't get the "college experience". Bennett and Wendell did, and were drafted much higher than the counterparts being compared.
What I'm saying is this - the premise is stupid:
"Mitchell Robinson should not be taken seriously as a prospect because he's a 2nd round pick compared to the #7 overall. Therefore it is illogical to want Mitchell Robinson over Wendell."
Red Larrivee wrote:nitetrain8603 wrote:And Mitchell Robinson also did not go to a 4 year college and was also a 5 star prospect coming out of high school. So both Gobert and Robinson didn't get the "college experience". Bennett and Wendell did, and were drafted much higher than the counterparts being compared.
What I'm saying is this - the premise is stupid:
"Mitchell Robinson should not be taken seriously as a prospect because he's a 2nd round pick compared to the #7 overall. Therefore it is illogical to want Mitchell Robinson over Wendell."
Let's be real here. Aside from being a better athlete, Mitchell Robinson does nothing better than Wendell Carter. If you like Robinson more than Carter, that's fine I guess. But, if you're saying you would have taken him at #7 on draft night, you're **** nuts. Robinson likely wasn't on any GM's draft board at that same pick.
Even if he does become a better player, it's a terrible use of asset management since you could have got Robinson at a much lower selection.
musiqsoulchild wrote:nitetrain8603 wrote:musiqsoulchild wrote:
Well you could just do a probability count. Check for the difference in number of picks between #7 and where Mitchell Robinson was picked. And look at historicals of average NBA salary earned ( after rookie scale).
I'd bet that the earlier a pick is made, the more money he made.
Well yes, quite easily. 1st round picks have guaranteed contracts, so if it doesn't look like it's going to work out, teams are still going to hold onto that player or trade him to a team that will invest some more time into it. They're trying to get the highest ROI. On a 2nd round pick, if he plays bad, they are cut. Even if they are not cut, they don't have guarantee salary IIRC and usually will stick for the min salary which is lower than that of a 1st round pick. So yes, I can easily tell you that a 7th overall pick would have made more money than a 2nd round pick. That 2nd round pick is already behind the day he is drafted.
Thats why I said "after rookie scale".
You can also do a simple minutes played, PER, or any other stat comparison.
I think its a lot more absurd to say that Mitchell Robinson will be a better pick than Wendell Carter...than it is to ask for a rational basis for that initial statement.
