Official #2 Pick Thread - Ford #7: Parker

[Bernman]

How much of that is him just going along with what his new bosses want? Lasry and Edens have mentioned building thru the draft from the very beginning. Of course he's gonna say what they wanna hear in order to save his job.

As others have eluded to in the past, even if Kohl did give Hammond a "win now" mandate, he sucked complete ass at doing so. In a terrible Eastern Conference, at that.The guy is terrible and needs to GTFO...yesterday.

IMO, Lasry and Edens really dropped the ball by not cleaning house, ASAP.

Zero. He said that numerous times during the previous tenure, including during his interview side-by-side on FSN w/ Doug Melvin who talked about how it wasn't feasible in Milwaukee to build thru fa/trades, especially for John in basketball, while he sat beside him nodding his head. He was handcuffed on direction.

And if he was handcuffed on direction, he could have been handcuffed on signings, trades, etc. In fact we know he was handcuffed on multiple trades. Stephen Curry and Mike Conley would have given us more of a chance of winning now. And if the owner says upgrade the power forward position, I like Gooden because he scored 20+ points in several games at the BC I watched, give him anything up to the MLE, what are you going to do?

He was more or less a figurehead, and easy scapegoat when on the surface he comes across as a stuttering fool.

IMO, Lasry and Edens would be playing it level-headed if they gave Hammond a half year to see what he was really made of, especially since the draft appears to be his milieu (if he has one), and since it's too late to find a team like Hammond's who has been scouting and strategizing how to handle the draft positions the Bucks are going to be in for months to a year.

[tranjSAIC]

Magic fan here, so is all this Exum talk to you guys legit in your opinion or just some smoke screen?

[paulpressey25]

. I'd take Embiid/Wiggins or Embiid/Parker over any combo with Giannis.

.

I'd happily take a Wiggins/Parker pairing and gladly part with Giannis for that number 3 pick if I could.

[crkone]

How much of that is him just going along with what his new bosses want? Lasry and Edens have mentioned building thru the draft from the very beginning. Of course he's gonna say what they wanna hear in order to save his job.

As others have eluded to in the past, even if Kohl did give Hammond a "win now" mandate, he sucked complete ass at doing so. In a terrible Eastern Conference, at that.The guy is terrible and needs to GTFO...yesterday.

IMO, Lasry and Edens really dropped the ball by not cleaning house, ASAP.

Zero. He said that numerous times during the previous tenure, including during his interview side-by-side on FSN w/ Doug Melvin who talked about how it wasn't feasible in Milwaukee to build thru fa/trades, especially for John in basketball, while he sat beside him nodding his head. He was handcuffed on direction.

And if he was handcuffed on direction, he could have been handcuffed on signings, trades, etc. In fact we know he was handcuffed on multiple trades. Stephen Curry and Mike Conley would have given us more of a chance of winning now. And if the owner says upgrade the power forward position, I like Gooden because he scored 20+ points in several games at the BC I watched, give him anything up to the MLE, what are you going to do?

He was more or less a figurehead, and easy scapegoat when on the surface he comes across as a stuttering fool.

IMO, Lasry and Edens would be playing it level-headed if they gave Hammond a half year to see what he was really made of, especially since the draft appears to be his milieu (if he has one), and since it's too late to find a team like Hammond's who has been scouting and strategizing how to handle the draft positions the Bucks are going to be in for months to a year.

I've always slammed Hammond on his win now moves being absolutely terrible and a major reason that he's needs to go. That being said, if it wasn't him making those moves and instead was the VPs and Kohl he gets a bit of a free pass. The one complaint you could make about that is that he wasn't enough of a persuader to get what he wanted from Kohl, but that is grasping at straws. Kohl hasn't been logical in at least the past decade, and trying to persuade someone who is illogical with logic just doesn't work. I really don't think that Hammond didn't come up with a lot of those stupid win now moves though. There were a ton of moves made since he has been here, he had to give some type of input in getting savvy vets like Jackson and Mags here.

[Wooderson]

Magic fan here, so is all this Exum talk to you guys legit in your opinion or just some smoke screen?

The likelihood we take him outright with the 2nd pick is almost zero imo (and I have Exum ranked 2nd this draft). I think the only way Exum ends up here is via trade where the Bucks move back to 3/4/5 while adding an additional asset. But the odds of that happenings are very low as well.

Even if Hammond likes Exum more than Wiggins/Parker, I just don't see him having the final call. I imagine the new owners think it's much riskier from a PR standpoint right now to take Exum and miss than for the other two. Same reason mainstream weather forecasts exaggerate the likelihood of rain - people are much more pissed if you predict no precipitation and then it rains vs. vice versa.

I don't like that type of mentality because in the end all that matters is ending up with the best player. A few years from if Exum ends up better than Parker/Wiggins, no one will care that there was a consensus top 3 and he wasn't in it. Just like how the Bucks are blamed for passing up CP3 even though Bogut/Williams was the real debate for most people.

[Zeezprah]

Magic fan here, so is all this Exum talk to you guys legit in your opinion or just some smoke screen?

i don't think it's a smokescreen, i just think it's due diligence. especially if you guys took smart and we pull off a trade with utah or something crazy (obviously probably a 5% possibility, but still).

parker or wiggins will be the pick if embiid is gone. you can put your life savings on that.

[Bernman]

About now wanting to use San Antonio as a template on how to build a champ contender, IMO it's an overreaction.

Half the equation for them has been amazing luck. They were able to land Duncan in spite of already having Robinson thanks to a timely injury, winning the lottery that year, and it being in one of the best drafts for that to happen. Then 17 years later he's arguably their MVP still. What are the chances of those things happening? 1 in 10,000? That half of the equation can't be duplicated.

As for the other half it'd be incredibly difficult to duplicate because it's involved the brilliant late picks of Parker, Ginobili, etc. As well as just putting several puzzle pieces together of guys who weren't revered on their previous losing teams, or were taken off the scrap heap. Green was lightly used in Cleveland and played in the D-League, Belinelli was a bench player shooting below 40% his previous year who was passed around to various teams, and Diaw was a tubby guy in Charlotte.

Even Leonard, while I think he's a good player anywhere, he wouldn't likely have a halo around his head now if he didn't land on a team who was a champ contender without him even. If he's on Charlotte, does he "just" look like another Gerald Wallace? That's meant to be both a knock on Leonard, as well as compliment to Wallace. Wallace was probably not perceived to be as good as he really was due to the franchises he was associated with, and situations he was in, in his prime. And now Leonard is probably looking better for the converse reason.

Would a team who is rebuilding really be happy taking Kawhi Leonard with the #2 pick in a really good draft? I quite doubt it. They're looking for top 2 scoring options to build around, or if a player isn't that he has to be a defensive and rebounding big to make a major impact on win totals. Anyways, if anyone is like Leonard in this draft, it's Aaron Gordon. He's stronger built, good both on and off the ball on d, and is known for his b-ball i.q.

[M-C-G]

About now wanting to use San Antonio as a template on how to build a champ contender, IMO it's an overreaction.

Half the equation for them has been amazing luck. They were able to land Duncan in spite of already having Robinson thanks to a timely injury, winning the lottery that year, and it being in one of the best drafts for that to happen. Then 17 years later he's arguably their MVP still. What are the chances of those things happening? 1 in 10,000? That half of the equation can't be duplicated.

As for the other half it'd be incredibly difficult to duplicate because it's involved the brilliant late picks of Parker, Ginobili, etc. As well as just putting several puzzle pieces together of guys who weren't revered on their previous losing teams, or were taken off the scrap heap. Green was lightly used in Cleveland and played in the D-League, Belinelli was a bench player shooting below 40% his previous year who was passed around to various teams, and Diaw was a tubby guy in Charlotte.

Even Leonard, while I think he's a good player anywhere, he wouldn't likely have a halo around his head now if he didn't land on a team who was a champ contender without him even. If he's on Charlotte, does he "just" look like another Gerald Wallace? That's meant to be both a knock on Leonard, as well as compliment to Wallace. Wallace was probably not perceived as good as he was because of the franchises he was associated with, and situations he was in, in his prime. And now Leonard is probably looking better for the converse reason.

Would a team who is rebuilding really be happy taking Kawhi Leonard with the #2 pick in a really good draft? I quite doubt it. They're looking for top 2 scoring options to build around, or if a player isn't that he has to be a defensive and rebounding big to make a major impact on win totals. Anyways, if anyone is like Leonard in this draft, it's Aaron Gordon. He's stronger built, good both on and off the ball on d, and is known for his b-ball i.q.

I would say that the one thing that COULD be emulated by other teams, the importance of every guy on the team having a defined role. That offers such stability to the franchise, and doesn't bring people in promising 15 shots a game.

Over the Skiles, Boylan and now Drew years, it seemed like no one had a clearly defined role, and what was expected.

[xTitan]

. I'd take Embiid/Wiggins or Embiid/Parker over any combo with Giannis.

.

I'd happily take a Wiggins/Parker pairing and gladly part with Giannis for that number 3 pick if I could.

Not me

[Badgerlander]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DraftExpress/status/478643931740000256[/tweet]

[Baddy Chuck]

Even Leonard, while I think he's a good player anywhere, he wouldn't likely have a halo around his head now if he didn't land on a team who was a champ contender without him even. If he's on Charlotte, does he "just" look like another Gerald Wallace? That's meant to be both a knock on Leonard, as well as compliment to Wallace. Wallace was probably not perceived to be as good as he really was due to the franchises he was associated with, and situations he was in, in his prime. And now Leonard is probably looking better for the converse reason.

This argument could go the exact other direction as well looking at someone like Joe Johnson in Phoenix.

[Bernman]

I would say that the one thing that COULD be emulated by other teams, the importance of every guy on the team having a defined role. That offers such stability to the franchise, and doesn't bring people in promising 15 shots a game.

Over the Skiles, Boylan and now Drew years, it seemed like no one had a clearly defined role, and what was expected.

That's important, but it's secondary to putting together your core, and I think why it works for San Antonio so well is their core is pretty unique. You don't find many humble killers in the NBA like Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker. So they are willing to move the ball without reward of basket or assist often times. And their teammates are made better by them, plus have the incentive to move the ball a little themselves because they'll receive it again not long later. Whereas on most other teams maybe they're taking the shot the few times they actually get their hands on the ball, and in not as good of positions as they'd receive it on San Antonio.

I do think most teams try and fit players into roles but it doesn't work nearly as well as in San Antonio because their core players have big egos. That's the norm in the NBA. It comes with the territory pretty much. They are core players in part because they have big egos. Kobe would probably make San Antonio worse, but he's won 6 championships or whatever. It's just as valid of a way to build, while being more reliable. That's why I think the Bucks should more look as OKC or PDX as templates. OKC will probably eventually win a championship, PDX is really good yet again and would have been regular contenders if not for the Oden + Roy injuries, and they built in a more classic, easier way to copy for a small market. It was get a bunch of 1st rd picks in consecutive drafts, some high, for many shots at your typical core player, and hopefully reap the rewards in a couple years.

[emunney]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DraftExpress/status/478643931740000256[/tweet]

That int'l class thinned out in a hurry. I figured some of those guys would pull back, but seems like 3/4 of them did.

[Bernman]

This argument could go the exact other direction as well looking at someone like Joe Johnson in Phoenix.

I did look at it in both directions.

[Baddy Chuck]

This argument could go the exact other direction as well looking at someone like Joe Johnson in Phoenix.

I did look at it in both directions.

No you didn't. You looked at Kawhi going to a different team and being a good but unspectacular player and not being a big difference maker overall, like Gerald Wallace was in Charlotte. When guys like Johnson or Harden "got their own team" they took their play to a completely different level and changed a team around. You're saying Kawhi looks better because of a smaller role and a guy like Wallace would've been better in a smaller role, I'm saying there were certainly guys that got out of the smaller role and excelled at a larger role. That would be the argument one could certainly make for Kawhi that was the exact opposite of what your opinion is.

[Bernman]

No you didn't. You looked at Kawhi going to a different team and being a good but unspectacular player and not being a big difference maker overall, like Gerald Wallace was in Charlotte. When guys like Johnson or Harden "got their own team" they took their play to a completely different level and changed a team around.

Oh, that other way. You should have said Harden because I don't think Johnson's rep improved much from Phoenix to Atlanta, if at all. He never became very revered. I heard a lot of criticisms for his game and how it didn't translate to winning big. It also wasn't so much his team unlike Harden his first year in Houston.

And I don't know how that applies to Leonard or Wiggins. They have dramatically different games than Harden, or even Johnson. They're not going to handle comfortably long periods, create a lot for themselves with above average efficiency, and for others to the tune of 5-6 assists. It's just not realistic. So I'm not sure what your pertinent point is.

[Baddy Chuck]

Oh, that other way. You should have said Harden because I don't think Johnson's rep improved much from Phoenix to Atlanta. He never became very revered. It also wasn't so much his team unlike Harden his first year in Houston.

And I don't know how that applies to Leonard or Wiggins. They have dramatically different games than Harden, or even Johnson. They're not going to handle comfortably long periods, and put up 5-6 assists. It's just not realistic. So I'm not sure what your pertinent point is.

My point is you're acting like there is no way Kawhi could excel his game in a larger role when there certainly is. And if you think there isn't, it is literally all ones opinion that others will certainly disagree with. It wouldn't start and end with getting 5 or 6 assists a game either, that is ridiculous.

And I'm not sure where Wiggins comes into this but whatever, push that agenda.

[emunney]

Jokic and Inglis back in. Wouldn't mind an all int'l 2nd round. Micic still tops on my list among those possibilities.

[MrPerfect1]

I would say that the one thing that COULD be emulated by other teams, the importance of every guy on the team having a defined role. That offers such stability to the franchise, and doesn't bring people in promising 15 shots a game.

Over the Skiles, Boylan and now Drew years, it seemed like no one had a clearly defined role, and what was expected.

I think the Biggest takeaway from SA is the criticality and importance of having highly skilled passers and shooters. SA is so devastating on Offense because they flood the floor with devastating 3 point shooters and brilliant passers who create wide open 3s for those players. You basically cannot cover all their shooters and rotate faster than they can pass the ball around. They are almost the complete opposite of this years Pistons.

[Bernman]

My point is you're acting like there is no way Kawhi could excel his game in a larger role when there certainly is.

You're exaggerating a bit. I'm speaking in terms of probabilities.

IMO though it is quite probable Kawhi, due to his skill-set, wouldn't be as revered as right now if he got drafted by the Bobcats for example. You even hear talk of him being a superstar now, when you shift his situation, and he's probably Gerald Wallace or someone like that (which like I said isn't some kind of major indictment, Wallace was probably underrated, just not capable of elevating a team to being really good). Marion is optimistic because he's the elite of that style. Was he ever star, let alone superstar, and worthy of a #2 pick in a really good draft? I wouldn't say so.

Kawhi really isn't of Harden or Johnson style. So that's not a compelling counterpoint.

And I'm not sure where Wiggins comes into this but whatever, push that agenda.

It's not an agenda. Cinematographer made the case we should draft Wiggins because he's like Leonard who played on a team that just won the championship. I was responding to that line of thinking in driving our choice with the #2 pick and other resources.