2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[coldfish]

This is the mock draft before the start of the college season. It’s funny how so much can change in 1 year. 7 of the top 9 pojected picks will be available for the Bulls at 7. In my opinion getting rid of the one and done rule is a big mistake. If anything it should be raised to 2 years. Expect a lot of projects and busts once high school kids can jump straight to the NBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2789663-way-too-soon-2019-nba-mock-draft-rj-barrett-early-favorite-to-go-no-1.amp.html

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season? He only plays in 5 games, mostly against pretty weak opponents (the majority if his highlights are from games against Winthrop, Alcorn St., Liberty and Kent St.) Is this a case of benefiting from NOT playing? What could cause this kind of ascension from just 5 games in just a few months. He was good in those games but not great. I mean here's a point guard who averaged just 2.6 assists per game, got fairly seriously injured enough to miss the rest of the season, which you would think would hurt somebody's stock, yet somehow he rises up to high lottery. Is just because of all the guys who did play the whole season and didn't meet expectations, falling?

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from him. Like his handle and he sure looks like he can shoot, but he wasn't just dominating or anything. I mean he had an impressive 3 pt FG%, but he only took a TOTAL of 23 three pointers in his entire collegiate career, had a total of 13 assists, and he did turn the ball over at an alarming rate with more turnovers than assists. So, how did these 5 measly games against weak comp where he was really just "OK", take him from being mocked at 14 to 20 preseason, all the way to the top? It's baffling to me.

Then on the other end of the spectrum is a kid like Sekou Doumbouya who jumps up to the Pro A League in Europe and shows tremendous progression as an 18 year old playing against grown men in Euro Cup. Last week he scored 34 pts in a game and had 9 rebounds. Yet he plummets in the mocks for whatever reason from 6th preseason. You would think this kid would have gained value but he seems to have dropped like a rock. Does anybody know why?

Or Jarrett Culver, who went from shooting .382 from 3 pt to just barely cracking .300 ( just .247 in conference play) this season on higher volume. Another guard with a really bad A/TO ratio yet he shoots up the boards and is even being talked about as high as 3rd.

Oh, and then we have Cam Reddish who absolutely sucked balls at Duke with some piss poor efficiency and really lackadaisical attitude (no dog in this kid). But he is still being talked about in the top ten. Still living off his high school reputation despite an entire college season of less than mediocre play that people just dismiss.

I don't understand a lot of what happens in the minds of so many NBA execs around draft time. Strange things happen that go against all logic and reason. It's mind boggling really.

If you look, 10 of the players who were projected to go in front of Garland dropped behind him. The real issue has nothing to do with Garland but what Nassir Little, Langford, Grimes, etc. did in college. This draft wasn't supposed to be as bad as it was but a lot of the players looked really bad.

So, to an extend, Garland may or may not have benefited from sitting. Quite frankly, if he had played and done moderately well, he would be sitting at #2. He kind of already benefited from his on/off with Vanderbilt. They were 4-0 with him and 5-22 without (by memory). His 24 PER and 66%ts may not help him due to the small sample size against weak teams but it certainly doesn't hurt him. Compare that to Quentin Grimes (mocked #8 in that) with a 8.7PER 49.6%ts.

I have read bad things about Doumbouya but hasn't seen him myself.

[johnnyvann840]

Yea man, it is a hell of a lot to learn. The fact that I was able to see it all from 5 games maybe should say something. Using the small school thing excuse is pretty funny too considering you then mention Steph Curry and Dame Lillard who went to freaking Davidson and Weber State. Were they just padding their stats against small schools too? Curry and Lillard were also upper class men who had developed their games. Curry ATO ratio was just 1:1 or barely over his first two years. Albeit not negative, but not that much better. When Lillard was a senior he eventually was able to put up 24.5 ppg and 4 assists pg. Very impressive, but not close the #s you threw out there. When Lillard was a junior he averaged 17.7 ppg and 3.3 assists pg. But Garland can't be as good because he only put up a measly 16 as a freshman?

The draft is all about projection. Its all about what you think a guy can accomplish once he gets to the NBA. Obviously Garland has to make better decisions with the ball, but he's only 19 years old. The flashes of skill and traits that he showed project him have similar games that of Lillard and Curry. That is why he is projected to go so high and the Bulls would be lucky to have him.

Where do I say that Garland can't be as good as anybody? I'm just saying he's a lot riskier than what Curry or Lillard were after being upperclassmen at their respective schools. We saw their progression. With Garland you're just betting on the come. Which might very well happen... it's just not apples to apples with Curry or Lillard. And sorry, I was mistaken about Dames dimes. I was looking at Curry's per 40 assists.

Look, I'm not down on Garland, I'm just not as sure about him as a lot of people are. Saying a player is a bigger risk than some others (like even Coby White, who I'm not that high on- not as down as some are- but he's coming off of an impressive season at UNC) He's definitely got skills. He's got a motor and a handle and seems to be one of the best shooters in the draft. But, again it's a really small sample in games. A lot of guys can shoot lights out for 5 games, or in a workout. Now, if he did that over a few seasons it would be a little more convincing.

Of course the draft is about projections, Cap'n obvious. I'm simply saying that we are projecting an awful lot on a kid that hasn't really proven much up to this point. I will admit I am impressed watching some of his game footage. He moves and changes speeds and directions really well and like you pointed out seems to be a versatile scorer. He is really slight of build and he's going to have to get a lot stronger to be effective in the NBA on all three levels.

Garland is that home run swing that everybody talks about. But, not as sure a thing as some are making him out to be. It sure seems like the Lakers are locking in on him though, so it's doubtful he falls to the Bulls, anyway.

Come on man, no one is making Garland out to be a sure thing. The only sure thing in this draft is Zion. 99% of draft picks are a risk for a myriad of reasons. By your logic we should be looking at every junior and senior that put up big #s.

No. Come on man. I'm specifically talking about a kid who played only 5 games and then tore his meniscus. Do you not get the point?

[NewEra21]

Where do I say that Garland can't be as good as anybody? I'm just saying he's a lot riskier than what Curry or Lillard were after being upperclassmen at their respective schools. We saw their progression. With Garland you're just betting on the come. Which might very well happen... it's just not apples to apples with Curry or Lillard. And sorry, I was mistaken about Dames dimes. I was looking at Curry's per 40 assists.

Look, I'm not down on Garland, I'm just not as sure about him as a lot of people are. Saying a player is a bigger risk than some others (like even Coby White, who I'm not that high on- not as down as some are- but he's coming off of an impressive season at UNC) He's definitely got skills. He's got a motor and a handle and seems to be one of the best shooters in the draft. But, again it's a really small sample in games. A lot of guys can shoot lights out for 5 games, or in a workout. Now, if he did that over a few seasons it would be a little more convincing.

Of course the draft is about projections, Cap'n obvious. I'm simply saying that we are projecting an awful lot on a kid that hasn't really proven much up to this point. I will admit I am impressed watching some of his game footage. He moves and changes speeds and directions really well and like you pointed out seems to be a versatile scorer. He is really slight of build and he's going to have to get a lot stronger to be effective in the NBA on all three levels.

Garland is that home run swing that everybody talks about. But, not as sure a thing as some are making him out to be. It sure seems like the Lakers are locking in on him though, so it's doubtful he falls to the Bulls, anyway.

Come on man, no one is making Garland out to be a sure thing. The only sure thing in this draft is Zion. 99% of draft picks are a risk for a myriad of reasons. By your logic we should be looking at every junior and senior that put up big #s.

No. Come on man. I'm specifically talking about a kid who played only 5 games and then tore his meniscus. Do you not get the point?

And Kyrie Irving only played 11 and was the unquestioned #1 pick. So what is your point?

[johnnyvann840]

This is the mock draft before the start of the college season. It’s funny how so much can change in 1 year. 7 of the top 9 pojected picks will be available for the Bulls at 7. In my opinion getting rid of the one and done rule is a big mistake. If anything it should be raised to 2 years. Expect a lot of projects and busts once high school kids can jump straight to the NBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2789663-way-too-soon-2019-nba-mock-draft-rj-barrett-early-favorite-to-go-no-1.amp.html

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season? He only plays in 5 games, mostly against pretty weak opponents (the majority if his highlights are from games against Winthrop, Alcorn St., Liberty and Kent St.) Is this a case of benefiting from NOT playing? What could cause this kind of ascension from just 5 games in just a few months. He was good in those games but not great. I mean here's a point guard who averaged just 2.6 assists per game, got fairly seriously injured enough to miss the rest of the season, which you would think would hurt somebody's stock, yet somehow he rises up to high lottery. Is just because of all the guys who did play the whole season and didn't meet expectations, falling?

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from him. Like his handle and he sure looks like he can shoot, but he wasn't just dominating or anything. I mean he had an impressive 3 pt FG%, but he only took a TOTAL of 23 three pointers in his entire collegiate career, had a total of 13 assists, and he did turn the ball over at an alarming rate with more turnovers than assists. So, how did these 5 measly games against weak comp where he was really just "OK", take him from being mocked at 14 to 20 preseason, all the way to the top? It's baffling to me.

Then on the other end of the spectrum is a kid like Sekou Doumbouya who jumps up to the Pro A League in Europe and shows tremendous progression as an 18 year old playing against grown men in Euro Cup. Last week he scored 34 pts in a game and had 9 rebounds. Yet he plummets in the mocks for whatever reason from 6th preseason. You would think this kid would have gained value but he seems to have dropped like a rock. Does anybody know why?

Or Jarrett Culver, who went from shooting .382 from 3 pt to just barely cracking .300 ( just .247 in conference play) this season on higher volume. Another guard with a really bad A/TO ratio yet he shoots up the boards and is even being talked about as high as 3rd.

Oh, and then we have Cam Reddish who absolutely sucked balls at Duke with some piss poor efficiency and really lackadaisical attitude (no dog in this kid). But he is still being talked about in the top ten. Still living off his high school reputation despite an entire college season of less than mediocre play that people just dismiss.

I don't understand a lot of what happens in the minds of so many NBA execs around draft time. Strange things happen that go against all logic and reason. It's mind boggling really.

If you look, 10 of the players who were projected to go in front of Garland dropped behind him. The real issue has nothing to do with Garland but what Nassir Little, Langford, Grimes, etc. did in college. This draft wasn't supposed to be as bad as it was but a lot of the players looked really bad.

So, to an extend, Garland may or may not have benefited from sitting. Quite frankly, if he had played and done moderately well, he would be sitting at #2. He kind of already benefited from his on/off with Vanderbilt. They were 4-0 with him and 5-22 without (by memory). His 24 PER and 66%ts may not help him due to the small sample size against weak teams but it certainly doesn't hurt him. Compare that to Quentin Grimes (mocked #8 in that) with a 8.7PER 49.6%ts.

I have read bad things about Doumbouya but hasn't seen him myself.

I understand that. I even mentioned that very thing. So many of the guys at the top took a crap. I was just commenting on how bizarre it is that sometimes these kids are better off NOT playing. lol. kodo made a post about how it's become a common practice now to hide behind choreographed workouts and "pro days". How so many agents are keeping their clients away from actual basketball. Don't want to play in scrimmages and have to do anything uncomfortable.

So, Garland certainly seems to have benefited from not playing. Maybe he would have just tore it up and like you said actually went #2 behind Zion. But he didn't, so the mystery is still there. I'm just pointing out that the risk level goes up when a kid doesn't have to play for whatever reason. In this case, injury... and a fairly serious one. Which in itself is just another concern and added layer of risk.

[johnnyvann840]

Come on man, no one is making Garland out to be a sure thing. The only sure thing in this draft is Zion. 99% of draft picks are a risk for a myriad of reasons. By your logic we should be looking at every junior and senior that put up big #s.

No. Come on man. I'm specifically talking about a kid who played only 5 games and then tore his meniscus. Do you not get the point?

And Kyrie Irving only played 11 and was the unquestioned #1 pick. So what is your point?

I'm done with this. You obviously are not capable of having a mature conversation. You have a problem with comprehension and can't be reasoned with. So, have a nice day, son.

[JimmyJammer]

This is the mock draft before the start of the college season. It’s funny how so much can change in 1 year. 7 of the top 9 pojected picks will be available for the Bulls at 7. In my opinion getting rid of the one and done rule is a big mistake. If anything it should be raised to 2 years. Expect a lot of projects and busts once high school kids can jump straight to the NBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2789663-way-too-soon-2019-nba-mock-draft-rj-barrett-early-favorite-to-go-no-1.amp.html

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season? He only plays in 5 games, mostly against pretty weak opponents (the majority if his highlights are from games against Winthrop, Alcorn St., Liberty and Kent St.) Is this a case of benefiting from NOT playing? What could cause this kind of ascension from just 5 games in just a few months. He was good in those games but not great. I mean here's a point guard who averaged just 2.6 assists per game, got fairly seriously injured enough to miss the rest of the season, which you would think would hurt somebody's stock, yet somehow he rises up to high lottery. Is just because of all the guys who did play the whole season and didn't meet expectations, falling?

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from him. Like his handle and he sure looks like he can shoot, but he wasn't just dominating or anything. I mean he had an impressive 3 pt FG%, but he only took a TOTAL of 23 three pointers in his entire collegiate career, had a total of 13 assists, and he did turn the ball over at an alarming rate with more turnovers than assists. So, how did these 5 measly games against weak comp where he was really just "OK", take him from being mocked at 14 to 20 preseason, all the way to the top? It's baffling to me.

Then on the other end of the spectrum is a kid like Sekou Doumbouya who jumps up to the Pro A League in Europe and shows tremendous progression as an 18 year old playing against grown men in Euro Cup. Last week he scored 34 pts in a game and had 9 rebounds. Yet he plummets in the mocks for whatever reason from 6th preseason. You would think this kid would have gained value but he seems to have dropped like a rock. Does anybody know why?

Or Jarrett Culver, who went from shooting .382 from 3 pt to just barely cracking .300 ( just .247 in conference play) this season on higher volume. Another guard with a really bad A/TO ratio yet he shoots up the boards and is even being talked about as high as 3rd.

Oh, and then we have Cam Reddish who absolutely sucked balls at Duke with some piss poor efficiency and really lackadaisical attitude (no dog in this kid). But he is still being talked about in the top ten. Still living off his high school reputation despite an entire college season of less than mediocre play that people just dismiss.

I don't understand a lot of what happens in the minds of so many NBA execs around draft time. Strange things happen that go against all logic and reason. It's mind boggling really.

Great analysis. The 5-game sample of Garland against mediocre competition has been a concern of mine as well. Many fans are impressed with Garland's handle, but if you really want to see tight handle, go to Rucker Park in Manhattan during the Summer. You'll be amazed to see what some Street ballers can do with the ball. His shooting motion is obviously textbook worthy, but we'll see when the NBA defenses are keying on him. Garland can probably become a very good player but he is as big as an enigma that you are going to find in a draft class.

[NewEra21]

No. Come on man. I'm specifically talking about a kid who played only 5 games and then tore his meniscus. Do you not get the point?

And Kyrie Irving only played 11 and was the unquestioned #1 pick. So what is your point?

I'm done with this. You obviously are not capable of having a mature conversation. You have a problem with comprehension and can't be reasoned with. So, have a nice day, son.

Ive been very mature. You just don't like what I'm saying. I very much understand that you see his risks are: 5 games played due to injury, mediocre competition, bad assist TO ratio. I just happened to counter those points.

I guess I just don't understand where you're getting from that people think he's a cant miss player. The consensus is that this is a fairly weak draft. And Garland isn't even being considered until #4, and the major line of thinking is that its because of the LeBron James and Klutch connection.

That does have merit, as Lebron has had as much influence towards how a GM constructs his team than any other player. But I could also counter and say that they've had a relationship for awhile now. Garland withdrew from Vanderbilt in like January and signed with Klutch to prepare for the draft. He has pics with LeBron since February, way before the Lakers even knew they might have had a chance at him. He had already established a relationship with him due to the agency they both work for, not uncommon.

Garland is also 19 and grew up on LeBron dominating the league his entire life and now he shares the same agency with him. I dont know about you, but if I was 19 I would probably want to be hanging out with him in the summer too, if I had such easy access to it.

[coldfish]

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season? He only plays in 5 games, mostly against pretty weak opponents (the majority if his highlights are from games against Winthrop, Alcorn St., Liberty and Kent St.) Is this a case of benefiting from NOT playing? What could cause this kind of ascension from just 5 games in just a few months. He was good in those games but not great. I mean here's a point guard who averaged just 2.6 assists per game, got fairly seriously injured enough to miss the rest of the season, which you would think would hurt somebody's stock, yet somehow he rises up to high lottery. Is just because of all the guys who did play the whole season and didn't meet expectations, falling?

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from him. Like his handle and he sure looks like he can shoot, but he wasn't just dominating or anything. I mean he had an impressive 3 pt FG%, but he only took a TOTAL of 23 three pointers in his entire collegiate career, had a total of 13 assists, and he did turn the ball over at an alarming rate with more turnovers than assists. So, how did these 5 measly games against weak comp where he was really just "OK", take him from being mocked at 14 to 20 preseason, all the way to the top? It's baffling to me.

Then on the other end of the spectrum is a kid like Sekou Doumbouya who jumps up to the Pro A League in Europe and shows tremendous progression as an 18 year old playing against grown men in Euro Cup. Last week he scored 34 pts in a game and had 9 rebounds. Yet he plummets in the mocks for whatever reason from 6th preseason. You would think this kid would have gained value but he seems to have dropped like a rock. Does anybody know why?

Or Jarrett Culver, who went from shooting .382 from 3 pt to just barely cracking .300 ( just .247 in conference play) this season on higher volume. Another guard with a really bad A/TO ratio yet he shoots up the boards and is even being talked about as high as 3rd.

Oh, and then we have Cam Reddish who absolutely sucked balls at Duke with some piss poor efficiency and really lackadaisical attitude (no dog in this kid). But he is still being talked about in the top ten. Still living off his high school reputation despite an entire college season of less than mediocre play that people just dismiss.

I don't understand a lot of what happens in the minds of so many NBA execs around draft time. Strange things happen that go against all logic and reason. It's mind boggling really.

If you look, 10 of the players who were projected to go in front of Garland dropped behind him. The real issue has nothing to do with Garland but what Nassir Little, Langford, Grimes, etc. did in college. This draft wasn't supposed to be as bad as it was but a lot of the players looked really bad.

So, to an extend, Garland may or may not have benefited from sitting. Quite frankly, if he had played and done moderately well, he would be sitting at #2. He kind of already benefited from his on/off with Vanderbilt. They were 4-0 with him and 5-22 without (by memory). His 24 PER and 66%ts may not help him due to the small sample size against weak teams but it certainly doesn't hurt him. Compare that to Quentin Grimes (mocked #8 in that) with a 8.7PER 49.6%ts.

I have read bad things about Doumbouya but hasn't seen him myself.

I understand that. I even mentioned that very thing. So many of the guys at the top took a crap. I was just commenting on how bizarre it is that sometimes these kids are better off NOT playing. lol. kodo made a post about how it's become a common practice now to hide behind choreographed workouts and "pro days". How so many agents are keeping their clients away from actual basketball. Don't want to play in scrimmages and have to do anything uncomfortable.

So, Garland certainly seems to have benefited from not playing. Maybe he would have just tore it up and like you said actually went #2 behind Zion. But he didn't, so the mystery is still there. I'm just pointing out that the risk level goes up when a kid doesn't have to play for whatever reason. In this case, injury... and a fairly serious one. Which in itself is just another concern and added layer of risk.

I think a case like Garland going up that much is rare. He basically had a bunch of players **** the bed, which is why this class went from being an OK class to a poor one. That's the crux of the issue.

If you are good, you benefit from playing. If you aren't, you benefit from not playing. Zion and Morant certainly did well by playing. Same with Hunter and Culver. Its just the old phrase

Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt

applied to the NBA draft.

[3noD]

If the collective team is called the Lakers and Suns wouldn’t one player be a Laker or a Sun? I’ve always wondered about this; kind of like when political commentators say attorneys general instead of attorney generals.

It's not the Lakers. They have no need to make a promise to Garland or White, because both will definitely be on the board when they pick. On top of that, they're probably still actively searching the trade market to build a contender around LeBron.

It's likely the Suns (Garland) and Cavs (White). At 6'5", White work well with Sexton and can help make up for his deficiencies in the passing department.

Darius Garland isn't working out for anyone with the exception of the Lakers. The dude has been hanging around Klutch Sports and the Lakers facility throughout this entire draft process.

The Lakers is run by Pelinka who's an incompetent moron. Behind that tool is the whole entourage of Lebron and Klutch. Yes, Garland is certainly a sure bet to go #4.

The trade market will be centered around Lonzo Ball, not Darius Garland who's a shooter for Lebron. That's why you have been hearing bs rumor of Lonzo Ball for #7 from news outlet.

No doubt Garland wants to go to LA. And of course, LA will want to work out Garland. But there’s no guarantee LA will take him. And they would be stupid to tie their hands on him when there is zero need to do so for them.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[cjbulls]

Come on man, no one is making Garland out to be a sure thing. The only sure thing in this draft is Zion. 99% of draft picks are a risk for a myriad of reasons. By your logic we should be looking at every junior and senior that put up big #s.

No. Come on man. I'm specifically talking about a kid who played only 5 games and then tore his meniscus. Do you not get the point?

And Kyrie Irving only played 11 and was the unquestioned #1 pick. So what is your point?

The point is maybe scouts are ascribing extra talent to Garland because he hasn't actually been on the court.

Kyrie was considered a contender for the #1 pick heading into that season, so it is more reasonable to believe why he would still go 1. Garland was mocked 10-15, didn't play, and is now mocked 4-6.

To add to the issue, almost every top prospect disappointed. Garland was in the same class of players and competed against them all regularly, so shouldn't the assumption be that he would have disappointed as well. That perhaps the class was just overvalued as a whole?

[MeloRoseNoah]

No doubt Garland wants to go to LA. And of course, LA will want to work out Garland. But there’s no guarantee LA will take him. And they would be stupid to tie their hands on him when there is zero need to do so for them.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

But, I'm pretty sure that he's guaranteed to go #4 with Lebron as the GM in LA.

Put your situation in Garland's shoes. If you're not guaranteed to be drafted by LA, would you still not work out for other teams, considering the possibility of a drop as well as his recent injury? But, he's shutting everything down and not working out for any other team.

Maybe he's naive. But his agent is Lebron's best buddy. I doubt that Lebron is going screw over his buddy like that.

[coldfish]

No. Come on man. I'm specifically talking about a kid who played only 5 games and then tore his meniscus. Do you not get the point?

And Kyrie Irving only played 11 and was the unquestioned #1 pick. So what is your point?

The point is maybe scouts are ascribing extra talent to Garland because he hasn't actually been on the court.

Kyrie was considered a contender for the #1 pick heading into that season, so it is more reasonable to believe why he would still go 1. Garland was mocked 10-15, didn't play, and is now mocked 4-6.

To add to the issue, almost every top prospect disappointed. Garland was in the same class of players and competed against them all regularly, so shouldn't the assumption be that he would have disappointed as well. That perhaps the class was just overvalued as a whole?

Garland playing a little allayed a lot of fears. Sure, it was only 4 games but he didn't completely fall on his face like many other players.

[TheSuzerain]

And Kyrie Irving only played 11 and was the unquestioned #1 pick. So what is your point?

The point is maybe scouts are ascribing extra talent to Garland because he hasn't actually been on the court.

Kyrie was considered a contender for the #1 pick heading into that season, so it is more reasonable to believe why he would still go 1. Garland was mocked 10-15, didn't play, and is now mocked 4-6.

To add to the issue, almost every top prospect disappointed. Garland was in the same class of players and competed against them all regularly, so shouldn't the assumption be that he would have disappointed as well. That perhaps the class was just overvalued as a whole?

Garland playing a little allayed a lot of fears. Sure, it was only 4 games but he didn't completely fall on his face like many other players.

Did he not fall on his face as a playmaker?

The Garland love is a bit over the top. This just seems like a **** freshman class of PGs. That's been clear since the McDonald's and Hoop Summit games over a year ago.

[TheSuzerain]

Reddish having upside is one of the worst draft takes this offseason.

He's a reasonably safe 3/d guy with play-off viable role player upside. There's definite value to that, but he has no star upside at all.

[bigworld2017]

Hunter Garland or White will be there at 7.

Lakers take Culver then Suns have their pick of PGs. We take who they don’t.

Think Suns have White over Garland. If Lakers don’t pick him then he falls to us.

Think Cavs have Culver as their guy.

I think Hunter will be our pick with Garland going 4 and White 6.

Hunter is a immediate impact player and he alleviates our need for a vet big man. He immediately backs up Otto and Lauri and IMO he pushes Lauri to all the backup C mins. Hunter is a really good defender and he’d be an even better fit defensively at PF. Otto is good at PF but I question his body holding up there.

I see Hunter getting 28mpg with 10 at SF and 18 at PF.

If we want tot see an immediate return from our #7 pick then Hunter is perhaps our best bet, IF he's still available when we pick. He gives us great defensive flexibility. He has elite defensive fundamentals. Imagine a 2nd defensive oriented unit with Dunn, Harrison, Hutch, Hunter and our 3rd big man. Replace Harrison with Valentine if we need a deep ball threat.

[TheSuzerain]

Hunter's STL/Block totals are pretty anemic and while his shooting projects as good, he's pretty clearly behind Mikal Bridges in that category.

If you're picking Hunter at #7, you really should be trading down.

[johnnyvann840]

No. Come on man. I'm specifically talking about a kid who played only 5 games and then tore his meniscus. Do you not get the point?

And Kyrie Irving only played 11 and was the unquestioned #1 pick. So what is your point?

The point is maybe scouts are ascribing extra talent to Garland because he hasn't actually been on the court.

Kyrie was considered a contender for the #1 pick heading into that season, so it is more reasonable to believe why he would still go 1. Garland was mocked 10-15, didn't play, and is now mocked 4-6.

To add to the issue, almost every top prospect disappointed. Garland was in the same class of players and competed against them all regularly, so shouldn't the assumption be that he would have disappointed as well. That perhaps the class was just overvalued as a whole?

Also, Kyrie came back from a toe injury and lit it up in the couple of games he played in the tourney getting Duke into the Sweet 16. That helped a little to show that he was fine and the toe wasn't an issue going forward. And Kyrie was on a whole other level as a player at the time. He showed his playmaking abilities and had a 32.5 PER in those 11 games. He was a phenom and a wizard with the ball in his hands.

[cjbulls]

And Kyrie Irving only played 11 and was the unquestioned #1 pick. So what is your point?

The point is maybe scouts are ascribing extra talent to Garland because he hasn't actually been on the court.

Kyrie was considered a contender for the #1 pick heading into that season, so it is more reasonable to believe why he would still go 1. Garland was mocked 10-15, didn't play, and is now mocked 4-6.

To add to the issue, almost every top prospect disappointed. Garland was in the same class of players and competed against them all regularly, so shouldn't the assumption be that he would have disappointed as well. That perhaps the class was just overvalued as a whole?

Garland playing a little allayed a lot of fears. Sure, it was only 4 games but he didn't completely fall on his face like many other players.

It did help to see him out there, but is Reddish the #2 pick if he tears his meniscus after 5 games (included Auburn and Kentucky)?

16.8pts
43.3% FG
42.5% 3pt on 8 attempts per game
93.8% FT

[bigworld2017]

We should trade down with a team that needs to consolidate like the Celtics.

I'd be open to that. I see 2 guys I'd like to add that I think eventually will outplay their draft slots...Bitadze and Bazley. They are both 19 years old. Lots of room to develop, but nice measurables. Bitadze is 6'11' with a 7'2' wingspan. When you look at the success that other Rising Stars from Euro League have had in the NBA it makes me think he could give us one of the best 3 big man rotations in the league. And other Euro Centers have thrived in the NBA over the last decade.

Bazley is 6' 9" or 6' 10", with a 6' 11" wingspan and an 8" 11" standing reach. A potential 3 level scorer. Decent rebounder already, and that should improve with NBA level strength training. Athletic enough. Over 80% Free Throw Shooter. Has 3 pointer potential with proper development and practice. If he had gone to a Big time NCAA program he'd probably be in the lottery pick conversation. I see him with every bit of the potential of Reddish or Little, but more likely to go between 16 and 26.

So if we can trade down with the Celtics and pick up these two guys in the First I'd hope for Carsen Edwards to fall to us with our 2nd Rounder. This outcome, in my opinion, would score us an outstanding Draft.

[bad knees]

All this discussion is just a reminder that this draft, after Williamson, is WEAK, WEAK, WEAK in the lottery. The Bulls' best move would be to find a sucker for Reddish and trade down. Ainge is no sucker, but he might view Reddish as good trade bait in his dealings with NO for AD. Reddish, as a potential high upside play, would be attractive to a rebuilding team like NO, who will be interested in taking high risk/high reward chances. Trade 7 to the Celtics for 14 and 20. Draft NAW (who could play PG or SG for us) and Cam Johnson. Or trade down again with SA, and get 19, 20 and 29. Draft some combination of Johnson, Samanic, Kabengele and Edwards, or NAW if he falls.