RealGM 2016 Fan Forum Mock Draft - CHI #14

[molepharmer]

Not that it means dink because there were only 9 votes, but in the fan mock, Denver, the team picking immediately after the Bulls took Ellenson.

[Jvaughn]

Wait, I'm the only one who voted for Ellenson, who's frequently been viewed as a top eight player in this draft? I think some are getting a little too caught up on fit.

Ellenson is a very solid player, but his lack of athleticism along with his poor defense is what makes me overlook him. We just got done with a season where half our fans wanted Pau's head because of his terrible D. At least he could block shots at the basket. You have to tinker with too many lineups to ensure Ellenson can stay on the floor. The only big he'd be able to play with would be Taj.

I agree that Ellenson projects to be a poor defender and that makes him a bad immediate fit on the Bulls. But couldn't you say that same about prime Dirk Nowitzki or Kevin Love? I don't expect Ellenson to be as good as either of those players. Arguably, however, he projects as an NBA starter and Baldwin projects as a backup. I don't believe that a team should always take the best player available. It's okay to consider fit when two players are close in the talent department. But we're only one month removed from Ellenson being projected as a top 10 pick and Baldwin being projected as a borderline first-round pick. It gets complicated because Baldwin's had this meteoric rise and there's this strange consensus among fans that his draft stock has deservingly shot through the roof after the college season ended.

I've never been that high on Baldwin, but I don't agree he projects to be a backup. He could very well be solid enough for the Bulls to feel comfortable enough to move on from Rose.

My actual vote was for Taurean Prince. I'm in the minority here because I feel like going for a wing would be the best use of our pick. Luwawu would be my target, but if he's gone I really like Prince. Both are athletic players, who can get up and down the floor. They can also space the floor for Rose and Jimmy.

[TheSuzerain]

When has a Baylor player ever worked out?

[Flopper]

When has a Baylor player ever worked out?

I heard that all the good teams draft players based on the college they attended. Who's the BPA from Duke in this draft?

[JeremyB0001]

I agree that we should be drafting the best player available, but I disagree on Ellenson being the consensus BPA if he drops. I don't think Ellenson is a clear step above the remaining prospects in that 5-15 range, and it seems like with Draft Express's latest mock draft, scouts are changing their minds about him as well.

It seems like there are so many players in that 5-20 range who could have a wide variety of outcomes in the NBA. Picking the best player available is going to be highly subjective, rather than objective. I think a lot of players in that range could be successful in the NBA if they end up in the right system, but a lot of them could also be busts if the fit is poor. Like you said, I'd rather pick a player in our draft range based on fit, as opposed to BPA, because we have no clue who the BPA is going to be.

I'm a believer of the tiers model of drafting. Chad Ford does a feature on it every year and has reported that a number of NBA teams use the system. The way it works is that a team ranks draft prospects in a number of tiers. Within a tier, the team can draft for need. But the team will not draft a player from a lower tier over a player from a higher tier based on need. This sort of sounds like what you're talking about. It would be highly unusual, however, to have one tier that encompasses all of the players from five to 20.

It would be far less unusual to have Baldwin and Ellenson, who are both currently projected as late lottery picks, in the same tier. Like I mentioned, I think it's instructive to look at where both players were when their college careers ended. Ellenson was viewed as a top 10 pick and Baldwin was viewed as a late first-rounder at best. It does seem to be the case that scouts have changed their opinions some since then. (Though, I think you're wrong to suggest that Ellenson's draft stock has fallen precipitously. He's only dropped five or eight spots. Baldwin is the one who's draft stock has changed dramatically, as he climbed 15 to 20 spots after he played his last NCAA game.) I like Baldwin. I liked him as a mid-first-rounder when he was viewed as a late-first-rounder. But it shocks me a little that he's almost twice as popular as Ellenson, a more highly rated prospect. And it concerns me whenever a players draft stock shoots through the roof after he stops playing five-on-five basketball games. That's what's typically known as a workout wonder. It conjures to mind images of Yi Jianlin doing battle with a chair.

[tedwilliams1999]

I agree that we should be drafting the best player available, but I disagree on Ellenson being the consensus BPA if he drops. I don't think Ellenson is a clear step above the remaining prospects in that 5-15 range, and it seems like with Draft Express's latest mock draft, scouts are changing their minds about him as well.

It seems like there are so many players in that 5-20 range who could have a wide variety of outcomes in the NBA. Picking the best player available is going to be highly subjective, rather than objective. I think a lot of players in that range could be successful in the NBA if they end up in the right system, but a lot of them could also be busts if the fit is poor. Like you said, I'd rather pick a player in our draft range based on fit, as opposed to BPA, because we have no clue who the BPA is going to be.

I'm a believer of the tiers model of drafting. Chad Ford does a feature on it every year and has reported that a number of NBA teams use the system. The way it works is that a team ranks draft prospects in a number of tiers. Within a tier, the team can draft for need. But the team will not draft a player from a lower tier over a player from a higher tier based on need. This sort of sounds like what you're talking about. It would be highly unusual, however, to have one tier that encompasses all of the players from five to 20.

It would be far less unusual to have Baldwin and Ellenson, who are both currently projected as late lottery picks, in the same tier. Like I mentioned, I think it's instructive to look at where both players were when their college careers ended. Ellenson was viewed as a top 10 pick and Baldwin was viewed as a late first-rounder at best. It does seem to be the case that scouts have changed their opinions some since then. (Though, I think you're wrong to suggest that Ellenson's draft stock has fallen precipitously. He's only dropped five or eight spots. Baldwin is the one who's draft stock has changed dramatically, as he climbed 15 to 20 spots after he played his last NCAA game.) I like Baldwin. I liked him as a mid-first-rounder when he was viewed as a late-first-rounder. But it shocks me a little that he's almost twice as popular as Ellenson, a more highly rated prospect. And it concerns me whenever a players draft stock shoots through the roof after he stops playing five-on-five basketball games. That's what's typically known as a workout wonder. It conjures to mind images of Yi Jianlin doing battle with a chair.

I hadn't heard about the tier ranking system before, but that definitely sounds like a very good strategy for an organization to implement. I'd be very curious to see how much the player tiers differ from team to team, and when compared to DraftExpress's mock drafts. I imagine the top 10-15 picks would be fairly similar for each team, and then after that we might see quite a bit of variability. From what I can tell, this draft lacks the top-end talent, but it seems like it's quite deep, with a lot of valuable (and flawed) players who will still be available in the second round. With such similarly talented players, I think formulating tiers could be a pretty difficult task.

I'm sure there are a lot of factors that go into deciding what players the Bulls are high on, but I wonder if prospects like Ellenson and Sabonis would be in a lower tier this year then they would be in other years. All signs seem to indicate that GarPax would like for this team to become more athletic, so if they decide to heavily prioritize that one attribute, it could influence their draft board quite a bit.

Either way, I do understand your point about Ellenson's draft stock dropping and Baldwin's rising after the college season finished. I also think this is a fairly valid concern, and it's part of what makes picking future NBA prospects so difficult. There are just so many variables to take into account. I wonder how much stock teams put into these individual, private work out sessions when compared to the full body of work on a player's resume. In Baldwin's case, his college film and stats seem to pass eye test, so if he excels in the work outs, his rise on the draft boards could be justified. On the other hand, we have a player like Skal. He's absolutely killing it in his work outs, but during his season at Kentucky, it seemed as if he barely knew how to play organized basketball. A player like that is a big red flag for me, and they likely have a higher bust probability.

[boozapalooza]

Wade Baldwin gets my vote.

How can you explain that in every game versus higher end competition, Baldwin struggled? Give me Ulis running the offense.

[JeremyB0001]

I've never been that high on Baldwin, but I don't agree he projects to be a backup. He could very well be solid enough for the Bulls to feel comfortable enough to move on from Rose.

It sounds like we agree. That there's some chance that Baldwin is a starter doesn't mean that he projects as one, i.e., that it's the most likely outcome. I noted that one could reasonably argue that Baldwin does project as a starter. But it doesn't seem like you're the one to do that, since it appears that I'm higher on him (I like him pretty well at #14) than you are. It's just that late lottery picks often do not become starters and, on top of that, this is a poor draft. Bulls fans should be thrilled if the team nets a solid starter with this pick.

[JeremyB0001]

It seems like there are so many players in that 5-20 range who could have a wide variety of outcomes in the NBA. Picking the best player available is going to be highly subjective, rather than objective. I think a lot of players in that range could be successful in the NBA if they end up in the right system, but a lot of them could also be busts if the fit is poor. Like you said, I'd rather pick a player in our draft range based on fit, as opposed to BPA, because we have no clue who the BPA is going to be.

I'm a believer of the tiers model of drafting. Chad Ford does a feature on it every year and has reported that a number of NBA teams use the system. The way it works is that a team ranks draft prospects in a number of tiers. Within a tier, the team can draft for need. But the team will not draft a player from a lower tier over a player from a higher tier based on need. This sort of sounds like what you're talking about. It would be highly unusual, however, to have one tier that encompasses all of the players from five to 20.

I hadn't heard about the tier ranking system before, but that definitely sounds like a very good strategy for an organization to implement. I'd be very curious to see how much the player tiers differ from team to team, and when compared to DraftExpress's mock drafts. I imagine the top 10-15 picks would be fairly similar for each team, and then after that we might see quite a bit of variability. From what I can tell, this draft lacks the top-end talent, but it seems like it's quite deep, with a lot of valuable (and flawed) players who will still be available in the second round. With such similarly talented players, I think formulating tiers could be a pretty difficult task.

Chad Ford went on David Locke's podcast and they talked about how teams view the tiers for this draft. There are one tier at the top for Simmons and Ingram, another tier of about eight players, and then an unprecedentedly large tier of about 20 players. So the million-dollar question for the Bulls is exactly how many players and which ones are in that second tier. It would be huge to get a player in that second tier and a catastrophe to pass on one. Ellenson is arguably in that tier - he's often been projected as a top 8 pick. And he's arguably in that third tier. It's harder to make a case that Baldwin is in that second tier, but he could be the top player for the Bulls in that huge third tier because he fits the team's needs so much. A couple players who I believe are in that second tier and who I'd love to see around at 14 are Poeltl and Davis.

[tedwilliams1999]

Chad Ford went on David Locke's podcast and they talked about how teams view the tiers for this draft. There are one tier at the top for Simmons and Ingram, another tier of about eight players, and then an unprecedentedly large tier of about 20 players. So the million-dollar question for the Bulls is exactly how many players and which ones are in that second tier. It would be huge to get a player in that second tier and a catastrophe to pass on one. Ellenson is arguably in that tier - he's often been projected as a top 8 pick. And he's arguably in that third tier. It's harder to make a case that Baldwin is in that second tier, but he could be the top player for the Bulls in that huge third tier because he fits the team's needs so much. A couple players who I believe are in that second tier and who I'd love to see around at 14 are Poeltl and Davis.

Oh this is awesome, thanks for the link to the podcast! And I do agree, if either of Davis and Poeltl are available, we have to snatch them up. I don't know if Poeltl will drop to us, but I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed for Davis.