2021 Draft Thread

[shazam_guy]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

[ChuckDurn]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

Sorry, I can’t help on this. I was actually part of the “pro-Wiseman” crowd.

But to clarify a little bit…… I wouldn’t necessarily say that I am solely on the “high upside risky guys with offensive upside” train. More so, I look more for the theory of what the player is and where our needs are, along with their potential. In the case of Bouknight, the theory fits - he has skills that fit something we need (shot creation ability), while also having upside. Another guy who many prognosticators put at the same level as Bouknight or above is Keon Johnson - and I have very limited interest in him. Some may argue that his physical tools give him a higher upside than Bouknight, but a difference is that I see that Bouknight has more basketball skills than Johnson. It’s not just upside with Bouknight, it’s actual skills, in an area that fit a need for the Warriors.

And to be clear, Bouknight is in the mix for me, but not necessarily who I’d take at 7. I was responding about him earlier, because there was specific discussion about him. But I’ve got at least 2 other guys that I’d also consider there - Wagner and Moody. Neither of them seem to have nearly the “high risk offensive upside” as Bouknight, but they have skills that I think work for the Warriors, and a chance to be really good.

[whatisacenter]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

I’m a Wiseman fan and still see a bright future for him but I think there are a few here who think the warriors blew the pick by not taking Ball, a few who don’t like his fit and a few who think he is a bust.

[Onus]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

The only real player at 7 that is raw is kuminga. So I’m not sure why you’re confused.

[azwfan]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

The only real player at 7 that is raw is kuminga. So I’m not sure why you’re confused.

Keon looks raw to me.

[FNQ]

To me, it's very nuanced.

The Warriors seriously lacked guys who could create their own shot, and put pressure on the opponents' defense. Bouknight does that, so in that aspect, he's a great fit.

However, while they accomplish it differently, he and Poole are both scoring combo guards coming off the bench, who have defensive issues. So there is some redundancy.

I'm still processing whether I think it would work with the two of them, but I'm not averse to Bouknight, largely because of his ability to pressure defenses.

How many players could create their own shot back in our initial pre-KD run?

This team succeeded on BBIQ, help defense and good shooting. Literally the basis of this whole run we had.. why are we desperately trying to go back to what the rest of the league does, against what separated us from the rest of the league? A big reason why the Wiseman selection was a head scratcher in the first place.. but if this is what LightYears really looks like, then its all but confirmed that our run was due to Jerry West after Steph fell into our laps

Hmmm…… BBIQ, help defense, and good shooting. Are you describing the current Phoenix Suns? Or what almost every top team is trying to do at some level? Back in 2015-16 we were the only ones doing that, but now it’s more common.

The league has evolved. What we did 5-6 years ago won’t catch other teams off-guard, and they’re now prepared for it. Plus our main core is both that much older (with Draymond unable to reliably finish at the rim, or hit a 3, which he used to be able to do), and we don’t have an insane bench with Iguodala and Livingston (who - news flash - regularly created his own shot).

We should try to do some of the things that got us to our peak. But adding to it, because the league has figured out how to deal with it, is the better way to go forward.

So we had one bench player who created his own shot.. ok.

Teams weren't able to keep up because our team *excelled* at it. It wasn't being caught off guard. Team basketball was not some foreign concept, it was that teams couldnt win with it because there was always the element of some "star" player who had to generate their own touches. The old school Nash Suns were the closest, and they did it with one of the biggest stat padding stars of their time (Amare)

You play to your star's strengths. Curry is an unselfish superstar that can handle and make you pay if you let him see daylight. Dray can playmake and take big men off the dribble. Klay is an off-ball specialist. That's how we won - as defenses desperately chased Curry and Klay, it let marginal offensive talents do better, provided they could hit open shots.

Playing against what we're good at, the very thing that brought us to, and kept us at, an elite level.. it makes no sense. When did this style start failing us? It didn't, so why are we trying to change it?

[Onus]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

The only real player at 7 that is raw is kuminga. So I’m not sure why you’re confused.

Keon looks raw to me.

I haven’t seen much of Keon being mocked to us at 7 or even really talked about. At least he’d come in and be able to play defensively.

[FNQ]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

I think the BPA argument is one of the worst understood arguments out there.. people constantly use it as a mask to take high-upside guys. That's not always the best. But that argument would make more sense for a team that's desperately looking for a star... because those are the hardest things to acquire, and at that point you should be willing to risk it on a high-risk, high-upside prospect.

We have stars. And frankly the "star-caliber" players that are going to be there at 7 are carved from the same cloth - players who need to have the ball in their hands, players who create their own shots, and players that are not particularly adept at creating for others. And that's factoring out defense entirely.

"Best" means best for your team. This isn't a vacuum, this is real life. A high-floor/low-risk guy can be best. If you draft a high-end role player at 7, and then in 5 years someone drafted after him becomes a legit #1 option.. was the pick a miss?

[FNQ]

I just don't want Mitchell at either pick. Great tenacity but his size puts us behind the eight ball from the get go. Lacob/Myers have stated in the past that they like size at all positions.

Guruba, I guess. you could talk me into at 14 but it would have to be a very convincing argument. Love his defense big time!.. but that's about it.

With you on both.. Garuba would be a rim cleaner/protector and a part of me is wary that he's Biyombo-esque, but thing about Bitchsmack was that he had to stay around the rim defensively, just would get deleted on the perimeter. Garuba looks so much like Draymond defensively, and his hands are capable enough that I'd treat him like a C version of Dray, and have him just be a rim-runner on offense. But him and Dray defensively? Would fit perfectly in our switch heavy system.

But would depend on who we get at 7 too. I think if we take a more high-floor player (Moody) then it makes a lot more sense than if we took a guy with more question marks. Because as good as Garuba looks defensively, we really cant have 2 bigs who cant shoot paired with the very streaky Wiggins

Have zero interest in Mitchell and I'm super confused why he's popping up on mocks to us. It smacks of analysis that doesnt consider our team.. I could see us taking 2 wings before taking a small guard. Because Poole really is the backup to Curry. If Curry goes down, Poole's who you plug in.

[azwfan]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

I think the BPA argument is one of the worst understood arguments out there.. people constantly use it as a mask to take high-upside guys. That's not always the best. But that argument would make more sense for a team that's desperately looking for a star... because those are the hardest things to acquire, and at that point you should be willing to risk it on a high-risk, high-upside prospect.

We have stars. And frankly the "star-caliber" players that are going to be there at 7 are carved from the same cloth - players who need to have the ball in their hands, players who create their own shots, and players that are not particularly adept at creating for others. And that's factoring out defense entirely.

"Best" means best for your team. This isn't a vacuum, this is real life. A high-floor/low-risk guy can be best. If you draft a high-end role player at 7, and then in 5 years someone drafted after him becomes a legit #1 option.. was the pick a miss?

I think BPA is used in 2 ways:

1) As the opposite of “drafting for need”
Example: A PG is the best guy on our board, but we need a wing, so we take a wing anyways.

Of course theres no way to know what any teams’ board looks like, so its always a guess as to whether they are drafting BPA on their board or for need. But pretty sure Minny was drafting BPA when they took William Avery, they just had a messed up board haha.

Then again, pretty sure Portland was drafting for need when they took Sam Bowie so neither way is perfect.

Also to add to that, when teams are developing their boards, I’m guessing a little bit of team need and fit are integrated in there. Like I may have Bouk higher as a prospect, but maybe not a good fit for us (i disagree, but acknowledge it as a valid concern - just as others may acknowledge that Moody doesnt attack the basket or Mitchell is a terrible ft shooter / old / short - we all decide what we think matters most when we come up with our boards). Keon Johnson and Kuminga look so raw to me for example that I dont have them as options for us at 7.

2) I think some people say BPA just because they dont know who they like most but say that to have a take and there will be hell to pay if the wrong guy is taken. Hahaha

All above said, just take BPA.

Edit: Meant Johnny Flynn, not William Avery haha

[FNQ]

I think BPA is used in 2 ways:

1) As the opposite of “drafting for need”
Example: A PG is the best guy on our board, but we need a wing, so we take a wing anyways.

I see this as a little too narrow. For me, BPA is something like this:

Imagine we get the #3 pick, and we have Poole-level talents 1-4. We're really hoping Mobley falls to us at 3.. he doesn't. So while need a C, and Sengun is probably fine 4-5 picks from now, he's at least a tier or two, probably more, from where the talent level is. Don't pick a C, pick the BPA and hope it works

But once the clear cut talents are off the board, and in this draft I see 3, maybe 4 (not huge on Suggs), the tiers go from 3-ish players to a lot larger tiers. And that's when fit - not just positional, but archetypal and locker room - come into play. If we had a need for a playmaker, like a desperate need for one.. I'd be fine moving Giddey up into the 7 range. He probably wont be the best overall player, but he'd probably be the most impactful than what's out there. Similarly, if Giddey was the obvious BPA at 7 but we desperately needed shooting, I wouldn't take him. If you draft someone and its dependent on another transaction to work out.. either do that transaction right there, or don't make the pick

Overall I just think BPA is an overstated concept, when really its just a common sense one. Don't draft Sengun 3rd. As much as I like Robinson-Earl and even Bassey, don't draft them at 14. Same concepts, all it really means is don't reach. Haven't seen anyone plugging away for a true reach, although the fan club for Mitchell definitely feels that way for me, regardless of where mocks are placing him

[thunderdunk]

Even the concept of BPA is a joke, IMO. Great example is the 2012 draft -- Jae Crowder - 34, Draymond Green - 35, Khris Middleton - 39. BPA? Anthony Bennett in 2013? I also SMH at the combine -- highest vertical leap? How about highest shooting percentage in real games? How would Chris Mullin do in vertical leap? Wingspan? I'm still thinking Mitchell at 7. And I still like Kispert if he falls to 14. I'd even consider trading down with the 7 and taking Kispert if there's any chance he won't get to 14. He would fill it up on the 2nd team when Klay is on the bench. The Dubs need another knockdown 3 guy.

[whatisacenter]

Even the concept of BPA is a joke, IMO. Great example is the 2012 draft -- Jae Crowder - 34, Draymond Green - 35, Khris Middleton - 39. BPA? Anthony Bennett in 2013? I also SMH at the combine -- highest vertical leap? How about highest shooting percentage in real games? How would Chris Mullin do in vertical leap? Wingspan? I'm still thinking Mitchell at 7. And I still like Kispert if he falls to 14. I'd even consider trading down with the 7 and taking Kispert if there's any chance he won't get to 14. He would fill it up on the 2nd team when Klay is on the bench. The Dubs need another knockdown 3 guy.

I can't get with drafting Mitchell at 7. I know measurements aren't everything but here is a top 10 list of NBA players who are 6' tall. Combine him being short with having a short wingspan and I don't think he is worth being picked that high as I don't see him being on the level of CP3 and Lowry.

1. Chris Paul
2. Kyle Lowry
3. Kemba Walker
4. Shabazz Napier
5. Trey Burke
6. Tyus Jones
7. Ish Smith
8. Aaron Holiday
9. Tim Frazier
10. Yogi Ferrell

[Mylie10]

I keep hearing wingspan, yet Mitchell is the best on ball defender in the draft.

Whatever

[Mylie10]

Even the concept of BPA is a joke, IMO. Great example is the 2012 draft -- Jae Crowder - 34, Draymond Green - 35, Khris Middleton - 39. BPA? Anthony Bennett in 2013? I also SMH at the combine -- highest vertical leap? How about highest shooting percentage in real games? How would Chris Mullin do in vertical leap? Wingspan? I'm still thinking Mitchell at 7. And I still like Kispert if he falls to 14. I'd even consider trading down with the 7 and taking Kispert if there's any chance he won't get to 14. He would fill it up on the 2nd team when Klay is on the bench. The Dubs need another knockdown 3 guy.

I can't get with drafting Mitchell at 7. I know measurements aren't everything but here is a top 10 list of NBA players who are 6' tall. Combine him being short with having a short wingspan and I don't think he is worth being picked that high as I don't see him being on the level of CP3 and Lowry.

1. Chris Paul
2. Kyle Lowry
3. Kemba Walker
4. Shabazz Napier
5. Trey Burke
6. Tyus Jones
7. Ish Smith
8. Aaron Holiday
9. Tim Frazier
10. Yogi Ferrell

Mike Conley, Trae Young, Steph Curry was 160 lbs drafted, it goes on and on if you want to be honest. Because I don’t think Mitchell’s height or wingspan hurts him one bit against the 6’2” 6’3” guys either. So add them to the list.

He’s a great defender. He plays both sides of the ball. The nit picking is over the top, but I mean I do get the argument.

Jay Bilas has him top 5, which I don’t agree with. And if we don’t get him, there are plenty of other guys to grab. I like fighters and winners, so that always skews things for me.

I’m not infatuated with high jumpers and Oubre arms. I want skilled players who play both sides of the ball and win.

[killmongrel]

Why reach for Mitchell at 7 when he'll most likely be available at 14? What other teams are salivating over him?

[whatisacenter]

I know there are some Franz Wagner fans here. I probably need to get over his performance against UCLA

Watch on YouTube

[whatisacenter]

Spoiler:

Even the concept of BPA is a joke, IMO. Great example is the 2012 draft -- Jae Crowder - 34, Draymond Green - 35, Khris Middleton - 39. BPA? Anthony Bennett in 2013? I also SMH at the combine -- highest vertical leap? How about highest shooting percentage in real games? How would Chris Mullin do in vertical leap? Wingspan? I'm still thinking Mitchell at 7. And I still like Kispert if he falls to 14. I'd even consider trading down with the 7 and taking Kispert if there's any chance he won't get to 14. He would fill it up on the 2nd team when Klay is on the bench. The Dubs need another knockdown 3 guy.

I can't get with drafting Mitchell at 7. I know measurements aren't everything but here is a top 10 list of NBA players who are 6' tall. Combine him being short with having a short wingspan and I don't think he is worth being picked that high as I don't see him being on the level of CP3 and Lowry.

1. Chris Paul
2. Kyle Lowry
3. Kemba Walker
4. Shabazz Napier
5. Trey Burke
6. Tyus Jones
7. Ish Smith
8. Aaron Holiday
9. Tim Frazier
10. Yogi Ferrell

Mike Conley, Trae Young, Steph Curry was 160 lbs drafted, it goes on and on if you want to be honest. Because I don’t think Mitchell’s height or wingspan hurts him one bit against the 6’2” 6’3” guys either. So add them to the list.

He’s a great defender. He plays both sides of the ball. The nit picking is over the top, but I mean I do get the argument.

Jay Bilas has him top 5, which I don’t agree with. And if we don’t get him, there are plenty of other guys to grab. I like fighters and winners, so that always skews things for me.

I’m not infatuated with high jumpers and Oubre arms. I want skilled players who play both sides of the ball and win.

I didn't say he wasn't worth drafting just that I wouldn't take him at 7. It may be nitpicking but sometimes the little things make a difference. He had his best season shooting the three but still only shot 64% from the FT line and the pro 3 is deeper and the window to take the shot is smaller. I admit the guy is going to work hard and compete like hell but I just don't see his complete package screaming top 10 pick.

[wco81]

The ball movement offense worked really well the first couple of years but you could also say the league has adjusted, know how to switch those baseline actions now. So it's still very effective but not as effective as it used to be.

You could say in key possessions in playoffs games, the shot creator skill is more useful, as you see with someone like CP3 and KD still after his major injury.

[HiRez]

Have zero interest in Mitchell and I'm super confused why he's popping up on mocks to us. It smacks of analysis that doesnt consider our team.. I could see us taking 2 wings before taking a small guard. Because Poole really is the backup to Curry. If Curry goes down, Poole's who you plug in.

No. Jordan Poole is NOT A POINT GUARD. Dude averages around 2 assists per game and that includes college. He's a shooting guard, and does that reasonably well, if erratically, and he doesn't play much defense. Davion Mitchell is an actual point guard who can dish the rock and put pressure on the defense. We need that. Furthermore, he plays defense. Really good defense. You don't get a nickname like "off-night" by playing lax defense (in Poole's rookie season I could have used that nickname on him in a different, worse way though). He's a totally different player than Poole and in no way do I see Poole as a legitimate "backup to Curry".