Prospect Watch Thread

AQuintus · Post #1181 » by **AQuintus** » Thu May 12, 2011 3:16 am

eyeteeth wrote:Yes, Valenciunas >> Kanter. Probably Valenciunas > Biyombo,

No and no. Valanciunaas is worse on defense than Biyombo and worse on both sides of the floor than Kanter. On top of that, he can barely jump and has such a skinny frame that he'll probably have to play PF in the NBA. I really have no interest in him at all.

Krapinsky · Post #1182 » by **Krapinsky** » Thu May 12, 2011 3:52 am

AQuintus wrote:
eyeteeth wrote:Yes, Valenciunas >> Kanter. Probably Valenciunas > Biyombo,

No and no. Valanciunaas is worse on defense than Biyombo and worse on both sides of the floor than Kanter. On top of that, he can barely jump and has such a skinny frame that he'll probably have to play PF in the NBA. I really have no interest in him at all.

This.

He also likely won't be coming to the NBA for a year or two basically because he's not ready. After Rubio the Timberwolves can't afford to do that again.

Krapinsky · Post #1183 » by **Krapinsky** » Thu May 12, 2011 3:53 am

shangrila wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:Why? The last one we drafted turned out pretty good.

And what about the one before that? Or the one before that? Or even the one before that? It's not like unathletic bigs have a great track record.

Krapinsky wrote:Kanter has to be #4 on our board I would think. He'd be the next best upgrade for us and is probably the best player available at that point. He's 6'10 and 260 which is a little larger than Al Horford to whom he's been compared. He's not overly athletic, but he can stretch the floor and play the pick and pop (which is something Al Jeff couldn't do). He's not Marc Gasol big -- but the Grizzlies are an example of a team that can get by without an athletic front court. We'd still have Randolph to mix in when we need athleticism and Darko when we need size.

There's a difference with Memphis though. They have a BIG frontcourt, with the 7 foot Gasol and Randolph has fairly long arms, and they play elite perimeter defence to cover everything else. Kanter and Love wouldn't have that advantage and this team sure as hell doesn't play elite defence.

I'm not saying I would be upset with Kanter but the fit just doesn't seem to be there. Unless he checks out defensively I don't think he's the ideal player you want next to Love.

It's not ideal, but if we're picking at #4 I think it's the best we can do in that situation.

AQuintus · Post #1184 » by **AQuintus** » Thu May 12, 2011 4:28 am

Krapinsky wrote:
It's not ideal, but if we're picking at #4 I think it's the best we can do in that situation.

4th behind Irving, Williams, and Biyombo, I'm guessing?

Krapinsky · Post #1185 » by **Krapinsky** » Thu May 12, 2011 4:37 am

AQuintus wrote:
Krapinsky wrote:
It's not ideal, but if we're picking at #4 I think it's the best we can do in that situation.

4th behind Irving, Williams, and Biyombo, I'm guessing?

Right. Obviously that's far from guaranteed--Biyombo going 3.

I think Kanter should be in the mix with Biyombo at 3 though.

Post #1186 » by **Worm Guts** » Thu May 12, 2011 12:30 pm

shangrila wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:Why? The last one we drafted turned out pretty good.

And what about the one before that? Or the one before that? Or even the one before that? It's not like unathletic bigs have a great track record.

Are you talking the Wolves or in general? The Wolves really don't have much of a track record of drafting unathletic bigs. At this point I'm more bothered by drafting players that don't produce. Three top 6 picks over the last 2 seasons and almost no production from them. Kanter may not fit, but lets at least draft a guy who can put numbers so he retains his trade value, unlike say Jonny Flynn. Best player available should always be taken into account, and I think Kanter's the BPA at 3.

Krapinsky · Post #1187 » by **Krapinsky** » Thu May 12, 2011 2:00 pm

Kanter workout.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNK8siaYI7M&feature=player_embedded#at=194[/youtube]

eyeteeth · Post #1188 » by **eyeteeth** » Thu May 12, 2011 2:53 pm

Krapinsky wrote:
AQuintus wrote:
eyeteeth wrote:Yes, Valenciunas >> Kanter. Probably Valenciunas > Biyombo,

No and no. Valanciunaas is worse on defense than Biyombo and worse on both sides of the floor than Kanter. On top of that, he can barely jump and has such a skinny frame that he'll probably have to play PF in the NBA. I really have no interest in him at all.

This.

He also likely won't be coming to the NBA for a year or two basically because he's not ready. After Rubio the Timberwolves can't afford to do that again.

I see the contract situation as the biggest factor here. If he can't be here next year, no way. The Wolves need to get better now, not in a few years.

Anyway, like I said, I'd take Biyombo if I was choosing between the two.

I'm still doubtful of Kanter. Too much like the guy we've got.

AQuintus · Post #1189 » by **AQuintus** » Thu May 12, 2011 4:21 pm

Krapinsky wrote:Kanter workout.

I'm really conflicted watching this. On one hand, he's able to get up and dunk pretty easily, and that free throw line dunk is pretty impressive. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like he gets up very high, or very fast at all on any of those dunks. Makes me wonder if he'll be able to do that (and get blocks) against NBA quality defenders and athletes, or if he'll be a strictly below the rim player.

wildvikeswolves · Post #1190 » by **wildvikeswolves** » Thu May 12, 2011 6:43 pm

AQuintus wrote:
Krapinsky wrote:Kanter workout.

I'm really conflicted watching this. On one hand, he's able to get up and dunk pretty easily, and that free throw line dunk is pretty impressive. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like he gets up very high, or very fast at all on any of those dunks. Makes me wonder if he'll be able to do that (and get blocks) against NBA quality defenders and athletes, or if he'll be a strictly below the rim player.

looks like he has alot more in the tank then that, speed and quickness wise. doesnt look to me like hes going 100% at all in that video

Devilzsidewalk · Post #1191 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Thu May 12, 2011 6:52 pm

seems like he'd just develop into a rich man's Pekovic at best. I want length @ the 5, we already have our 6'11 offensive bruiser

Post #1192 » by **Worm Guts** » Thu May 12, 2011 7:10 pm

I still think Kanter is the least likely to bust at #3 compared to the other guys. He's skilled and he's consistently kicked the asses of his peers.

AQuintus · Post #1193 » by **AQuintus** » Thu May 12, 2011 7:11 pm

Devilzsidewalk wrote:seems like he'd just develop into a rich man's Pekovic at best. I want length @ the 5, we already have our 6'11 offensive bruiser

He's already a rich man's Pekovic (which isn't saying much, Pekovic sucks).

Krapinsky · Post #1194 » by **Krapinsky** » Thu May 12, 2011 7:13 pm

Worm Guts wrote:I still think Kanter is the least likely to bust at #3 compared to the other guys. He's skilled and he's consistently kicked the asses of his peers.

I agree with that. I see Kanter and I can't help but think that if he was allowed to play this year Kentucky would have won the national title and he might be in the running for the #1 pick. However, the reality is the guy hasn't played in a real game for how long? That has to diminish his value somewhat.

AQuintus · Post #1195 » by **AQuintus** » Thu May 12, 2011 7:21 pm

Kanter and Biyombo both make me feel a lot better about our spot in the lottery.

Picking 1-4, we'll have our choice of at least one of Irving, Williams (who should net a decent return in a trade), Kanter, or Bismack. There can't be any way that Kahn can mess that up, right?

Krapinsky · Post #1196 » by **Krapinsky** » Thu May 12, 2011 7:34 pm

I think the debate should be at 2 between Biyombo, Williams, or Kanter.

Do we reach for need? Or do we take the best available and sort it out later? Is Williams even the clear cut best player available?

If we take Williams do we move him to the 3 and trade Beasley even though Williams
trade value is likely much higher than Beasley's?
Do we bring Williams off the bench behind Beasley and Love?
Do we keep Beasley and then play Love more at the 5 and get destroyed down low?

It seems drafting Williams might cause a lot of roster problems.

AQuintus · Post #1197 » by **AQuintus** » Thu May 12, 2011 7:47 pm

I just ran ESPN's draft machine for the first time in a while, and Chad Ford apparently has Bismack at 3 for the Wolves now.

Esohny · Post #1198 » by **Esohny** » Thu May 12, 2011 8:07 pm

Krapinsky wrote:I think the debate should be at 2 between Biyombo, Williams, or Kanter.

Do we reach for need? Or do we take the best available and sort it out later? Is Williams even the clear cut best player available?

If we take Williams do we move him to the 3 and trade Beasley even though Williams
trade value is likely much higher than Beasley's?
Do we bring Williams off the bench behind Beasley and Love?
Do we keep Beasley and then play Love more at the 5 and get destroyed down low?

It seems drafting Williams might cause a lot of roster problems.

If the Wolves dropped to #2 (and Irving was picked #1), my list (in order of most preferable) of what I'd like them to do:

1: Pursue a trade of the #2 for a serious vet from a team looking to rebuild.
2: Pursue trading down in the lottery, pick up value, then pick Kanter/Biyombo/Burks
3: Just bit the bullet and pick Kanter/Biyombo at #2

Kumar · Post #1199 » by **Kumar** » Thu May 12, 2011 8:41 pm

Kanter reminds me of a young Tim Duncan.

GopherIt! · Post #1200 » by **GopherIt!** » Thu May 12, 2011 8:44 pm

If we pick #2, Kahn needs to get value for the pick. No more Curry/Cousins type snafu's.