sco wrote:Chi town wrote:Dan Z wrote:
I also like Matas at the 3, but think that many people want him at the 4 because of his shot blocking ability. That could be one reason why people are down on Newell (fit). I haven't watched him that much, so my opinion is limited, but I get a sense that other prospects in our pick range have more upside.
It’s also that Billy only plays him at the 4 and always plays Giddey with two smaller guards.
Yeah, I get the Giddey guarding 3/4's, but we can't let that have us draft someone who is the best pick, even if it impacts who Giddey guards. You just can't do that with a lotto pick. That's what FA is for.
How the Bulls view this issue will play a huge part in how we draft this year. My view:
Are Matas and Giddey both swing forwards in the future? Yes, especially defensively. Do we think if all goes well they will both be good-to-great starters for us during the incarnation of the Bulls we are trying to build? Yes - and there are only 5 starters. Does that mean we shouldn't be drafting people at 12 who project as forwards on defense? Absolutely not:
- We are still accumulating assets, not consolidating into a contending lineup. Sorting out positions and core guys can happen later.
- Despite the "shrinking timeline," we are not good enough or far enough along in our development to be thinking "we can't draft position X because we already have guy A and guy B who project to sometimes play that position."
- The Bulls want to have multipositional defenders. There will be switching, there will be mixed and matched lineups throughout the game, and, which position someone guards most (especially a Giddey) will change game-to-game based on the opponent's personnel. The positions people will defend is not static, in either the micro or macro view.
I think we are pretty sure what schemes we are going to run at this point. So, we should be looking at BPA, with enormous bonuses for players who fit our scheme. Assuming they believe Giddey is going to be here long term (extension!) with the ball in his hands, guys who complement Giddey's unique combination of strengths and weaknesses also get a decent bonus. There is a much smaller bonus for complementing Matas, and maybe a small bonus for not being a G since we have a lot of those, currently, though the depth chart is likely to change a lot before we are ready to win.
If there is a 3 or 4 they really like who fits our scheme, we shouldn't pass on them just because some combination of Giddey or Matas might be there. We are likely to need flights of people to throw on the floor, like some of the teams who went far in the playoffs this year, especially the finalists. Obviously we'd like to luck into a superstar. But don't pass on the proverbial Mathurin or Nesmith because you have Nembhard. Having a Naz Reid demanding minutes off your bench is one of those good kind of problems, if that's the direction things go, especially as trades happen and contracts start to need extensions.
Also, I think this is the philosophy AK was AwKwardly trying to nod toward with the "9 good guys" statement.
