2016 draft thread: Part 2

[sky4it]

text edited double post error

[sky4it]

I think most people here would disagree with you about having Murray at the point. His ast/TO ratio was bad because he was a sg in college and his role was to score the ball.

Based on your arguments none of Ingram, Dunn, Murray, or Hield would be a fit (not would an centers) so you're saying we'd have to draft Bender if available or the next best PF prospect.

1) wether or not most people would agree is not the subject, nor known, nor relevant
2) Read the canned stuff from DX express, they say that it is a "Major" issue, about Murray, they would know more then "most people here"
3) No Im not saying they wouldnt be a fit here, you are saying I said that. There is nothing in my arguments if you read them that would lead one to believe that. Buddy Hield is a great fit here, I have never spoke about Ingram, so quit chewing my words. What your doing is rude.
4) Here is a direct quote from draft express on Murray: " A major question NBA teams will have is whether Murray can develop into a combo, or even a point guard as time moves on." Now if you read the rest of the text at DX Express about Murray, they explain why it is probably faulty thinking.

[Feilong]

You can't know whether a player will be 100% ready or not as a rookie, but it's a difficult task in itself for mostly anyone coming out of college, and the PG position is the hardest to master in basketball, so regardless of their BBIQ it takes real playmakers some time to adjust to the NBA and really handle the job of running a team properly (just like they peak later in average than the rest of players).

Reports are that Dunn wants to land in a place where he can secure the starting PG spot right away if possible, but no one can give him that in the first 7 spots (well, the Sixers could if they got that extra pick). It wouldn't be the worst situation for him to have a couple of seasons coming off the bench with a PG like Ricky ahead of him, though it may put them and the Timberwolves in a tough position in the future if he pans out and they still can't share the court by that time.

I don't think Dunn is a good choice for MIN but we can use him in a trade.
There are 4 teams (in top 10) where he can play heavy minutes from the start (starter or backup).
PHI, NOP, SAC, MIL
I think we can make an interesting trade with one of those teams.

[sky4it]

A quick first step like Ricky Rubio or Tyus Jones? Intelligence and feel for the game are more important than a quick first step.
And while I agree that Dunn is a PG first, I have no doubt you can get SG minutes from him because he's big enough to guard the position.

yeah and I alluded to that. I know Dunn could probably get a few closing minutes when protecting a big lead- defense. But other then that no I really doubt it. Whats the reason? Most guys like girls with two tits- that is the reason. You got only one tit there,- worm guts. Dunn is not a shooting guard option. He's slashing PG not unlike Rubio in that respect. And to pair him with Rubio would be a great amount of overlap offensively, especially considering with Wiggins you get more of the same. If you become one dimensional pro defenses know how to take that away. But I realize your a Klomp pal. And as such if you want to put a pastie on it and call it another Tit, so you have a pair of Tits, well OK. I cant say Im at all surprised.

What this team needs on offense is a deep threat scorer. Buddy Hield is that. This should open up the paint and give Wiggins, Towns and Dieng some operating space. Hield also is a really strong guy, with a lot of stamina. << You need that in a 82 game schedule. Kristaps Pringles flat out wore out toward the end of the year. Hield also has an incredible wing span, which should help him on defense. I will be really surprised if someone drafts Murray over Hield. I think it will be a real disappointment if the Wolves pass on Hield at number 5. I dont think they will. There are rumors that Denver wants one of the two shooting guards, Murray or Hield, and think they are going to have to move up to get one of them.

[sky4it]

Since Murray evidently can't play PG according to the draft experts here, I decided to put that to the test.

Murray has a pure point rating of -2.50. Seems like a damning statistic, right? Seems like there's no chance at improvement, right? Let's put that to the test against other players currently in the NBA:

CJ McCollum, 2013, Sr.: -2.39
Jamal Murray, 2016, Fr.: -2.51
Damian Lillard, 2011, Jr.: -3.00
CJ McCollum, 2011, So.: -4.04
Elfrid Payton, 2012, Fr.: -5.00

Remember, he's a FRESHMAN! He's 19 years old. He wasn't asked to be a facilitator. Not because he can't, but because he shared the floor with someone who was first-team All-American, SEC player of the year and SEC defensive player of the year.

Klomp: CJ McCollum is primarily a shooting guard in the NBA. Last year Portland tried to use him to backup Lillard at the point, primarily because they didnt have any other viable options. It has not turned out well. McCollum has an anemic 1.8 assist to turnover ratio. 1.8 is barely serviceable, in fact its pretty pathetic. Besides that its not apples to apples. McCollum is a way better athlete then Murray, by a long shot. But CJ McCollum as a PG backup success story isnt factual. While CJ remains one of the young NBA studs and is a prolific shooting guard, he has not been serviceable as a NBA point guard. If anything, the McCollum story points more toward the obvious, that Murray could never do it. Because McCollum has substantially better skills then Murray.


BTW, Klomp, nobody is attacking you. Its called disagreeing so don't make it so emotionally charged. I realize that these forums a great big part of your life. For me they aren't. As far as people insulting others goes, your moderator, and you let your pathetic pals insult over trivia like typos and ****. Then, you think its cute. Thats not an unfair criticism either Klomp, thats a fact. I also am aware Klomp, that if you dont like someone in these forums, you get others to stop by and insult and mock them. Admit it Klomp, you know you do.

[Takingbaconback]

Since Murray evidently can't play PG according to the draft experts here, I decided to put that to the test.

Murray has a pure point rating of -2.50. Seems like a damning statistic, right? Seems like there's no chance at improvement, right? Let's put that to the test against other players currently in the NBA:

CJ McCollum, 2013, Sr.: -2.39
Jamal Murray, 2016, Fr.: -2.51
Damian Lillard, 2011, Jr.: -3.00
CJ McCollum, 2011, So.: -4.04
Elfrid Payton, 2012, Fr.: -5.00

Remember, he's a FRESHMAN! He's 19 years old. He wasn't asked to be a facilitator. Not because he can't, but because he shared the floor with someone who was first-team All-American, SEC player of the year and SEC defensive player of the year.

Klomp: CJ McCollum is primarily a shooting guard in the NBA. Last year Portland tried to use him to backup Lillard at the point, primarily because they didnt have any other viable options. It has not turned out well. McCollum has an anemic 1.8 assist to turnover ratio. 1.8 is barely serviceable, in fact its pretty pathetic. Besides that its not apples to apples. McCollum is a way better athlete then Murray, by a long shot. But CJ McCollum as a PG backup success story isnt factual. While CJ remains one of the young NBA studs and is a prolific shooting guard, he has not been serviceable as a NBA point guard. If anything, the McCollum story points more toward the obvious, that Murray could never do it. Because McCollum has substantially better skills then Murray.


BTW, Klomp, nobody is attacking you. Its called disagreeing so don't make it so emotionally charged. I realize that these forums a great big part of your life. For me they aren't. As far as people insulting others goes, your moderator, and you let your pathetic pals insult over trivia like typos and ****. Then, you think its cute. Thats not an unfair criticism either Klomp, thats a fact. I also am aware Klomp, that if you dont like someone in these forums, you get others to stop by and insult and mock them. Admit it Klomp, you know you do.

Obviously you are the one that is emotionally charged, look at what you wrote. Also McCollum does not have better skills than Murray when he was 19, McCollum spent 4 years in college, Murray is a one and done. It's not really close at all, Murray has substantially more talent and skills at the same age.

[sky4it]

Since Murray evidently can't play PG according to the draft experts here, I decided to put that to the test.

Murray has a pure point rating of -2.50. Seems like a damning statistic, right? Seems like there's no chance at improvement, right? Let's put that to the test against other players currently in the NBA:

CJ McCollum, 2013, Sr.: -2.39
Jamal Murray, 2016, Fr.: -2.51
Damian Lillard, 2011, Jr.: -3.00
CJ McCollum, 2011, So.: -4.04
Elfrid Payton, 2012, Fr.: -5.00

Remember, he's a FRESHMAN! He's 19 years old. He wasn't asked to be a facilitator. Not because he can't, but because he shared the floor with someone who was first-team All-American, SEC player of the year and SEC defensive player of the year.

Klomp: CJ McCollum is primarily a shooting guard in the NBA. Last year Portland tried to use him to backup Lillard at the point, primarily because they didnt have any other viable options. It has not turned out well. McCollum has an anemic 1.8 assist to turnover ratio. 1.8 is barely serviceable, in fact its pretty pathetic. Besides that its not apples to apples. McCollum is a way better athlete then Murray, by a long shot. But CJ McCollum as a PG backup success story isnt factual. While CJ remains one of the young NBA studs and is a prolific shooting guard, he has not been serviceable as a NBA point guard. If anything, the McCollum story points more toward the obvious, that Murray could never do it. Because McCollum has substantially better skills then Murray.


BTW, Klomp, nobody is attacking you. Its called disagreeing so don't make it so emotionally charged. I realize that these forums a great big part of your life. For me they aren't. As far as people insulting others goes, your moderator, and you let your pathetic pals insult over trivia like typos and ****. Then, you think its cute. Thats not an unfair criticism either Klomp, thats a fact. I also am aware Klomp, that if you dont like someone in these forums, you get others to stop by and insult and mock them. Admit it Klomp, you know you do.

Obviously you are the one that is emotionally charged, look at what you wrote. Also McCollum does not have better skills than Murray when he was 19, McCollum spent 4 years in college, Murray is a one and done. It's not really close at all, Murray has substantially more talent and skills at the same age.

McCollum is a much better athlete. Read the Draft express stuff on him, they have Murray down perfectly. By the way Taking bacon, shut the hell up, I wasnt talking to you, you must be a Klomp pal. You got that Klomp boy?

[Killboard]

McCollum is a much better athlete. Read the Draft express stuff on him, they have Murray down perfectly. By the way Taking bacon, shut the hell up, I wasnt talking to you, you must be a Klomp pal. You got that Klomp boy?

Draft express said this at the combine:
-C.J. McCollum didn't run the best times in the speed drills, but he didn't lag behind the rest of the field either, finishing right around average. His 38.5 inch maximum vertical jump was quite good and, more than anything else, he looked like the same athlete he was prior to injuring his foot and missing the latter portion of the season.

Draft express say this about Murray:
-He has an average combination of height, length, frame and athleticism for a guard prospect, not being particularly impressive in terms of his quickness or vertical explosiveness either.

And before you ask, Im not a Klomp fan, I just post what I think without read too much where is coming from. Helps to stay on topic.

[Sugarless]

it may put them and the Timberwolves in a tough position in the future if he pans out and they still can't share the court by that time.

That would be a great tough position to be.

Sure, if you're gonna find yourself in a tough position, it better be because you have too much talent, not the other way around. The thing to keep in mind is it's not always a perfect situation, as it usually leads to teams being shy on pulling the trigger on a deal and ultimately letting those guys go in lower value deals or even losing them for nothing. So you gotta be smart about it and make the right move at the right time. The Hawks know about that right now with Teague and Schröder in a similar situation.

[Sugarless]

You can't know whether a player will be 100% ready or not as a rookie, but it's a difficult task in itself for mostly anyone coming out of college, and the PG position is the hardest to master in basketball, so regardless of their BBIQ it takes real playmakers some time to adjust to the NBA and really handle the job of running a team properly (just like they peak later in average than the rest of players).

Reports are that Dunn wants to land in a place where he can secure the starting PG spot right away if possible, but no one can give him that in the first 7 spots (well, the Sixers could if they got that extra pick). It wouldn't be the worst situation for him to have a couple of seasons coming off the bench with a PG like Ricky ahead of him, though it may put them and the Timberwolves in a tough position in the future if he pans out and they still can't share the court by that time.

I don't think Dunn is a good choice for MIN but we can use him in a trade.
There are 4 teams (in top 10) where he can play heavy minutes from the start (starter or backup).
PHI, NOP, SAC, MIL
I think we can make an interesting trade with one of those teams.

I prefer Buddy Hield, I think he's gonna be a very solid SG and he'd be able to contribute right away, but if he's not there or Thibs and Layden like Dunn better, I could live with that.

If we were to trade him, Philly would definitely make the most sense, both for us (lots of assets) and Dunn. The Pelicans have Jrue at PG and what they really lack is a good couple of wings with plenty of 3-pt shooting, so they'd be better off keeping their pick and choosing whoever's left of Hield and Murray (if we took Dunn, at least one of those two would be there). The Kings could certainly use him if they aren't sold on re-signing Rondo -or as a back-up plan if Rajon asks for too much this summer-, but I'm not sure I like what they'd have to offer, and both Hield and Murray would be off the table by the 8th pick, so even with a compensation trading picks wouldn't be a good idea for us. Milwaukee is similar to Sacramento: they have minutes for Dunn, but nothing good enough for us with just the 10th pick and not much talent that they'd be willing to throw our way.

[Sugarless]

McCollum is a much better athlete. Read the Draft express stuff on him, they have Murray down perfectly. By the way Taking bacon, shut the hell up, I wasnt talking to you, you must be a Klomp pal. You got that Klomp boy?

Draft express said this at the combine:
-C.J. McCollum didn't run the best times in the speed drills, but he didn't lag behind the rest of the field either, finishing right around average. His 38.5 inch maximum vertical jump was quite good and, more than anything else, he looked like the same athlete he was prior to injuring his foot and missing the latter portion of the season.

Draft express say this about Murray:
-He has an average combination of height, length, frame and athleticism for a guard prospect, not being particularly impressive in terms of his quickness or vertical explosiveness either.

And before you ask, Im not a Klomp fan, I just post what I think without read too much where is coming from. Helps to stay on topic.

Not that I'm very interested in this discussion, because neither McCollum nor Murray projected to be real NBA PGs during their college days and neither is going to be, IMO, but I think this debate needs some light: the biggest difference between McCollum and Murray is not athleticism, it's ballhandling. McCollum has some tight and crafty handles, he was much better with the ball than Murray throughout his college career and he's gotten better since he entered the league. That ballhandling is what allows him not only to be such a good shooter off the dribble, but also to turn the corner with the ball despite not being very athletic. Murray would have to improve quite a bit to get there (again, he may or may not, I just don't see it right now and even then I don't think that'll make him a real PG, just like McCollum isn't one).

[Feilong]

I prefer Buddy Hield, I think he's gonna be a very solid SG and he'd be able to contribute right away, but if he's not there or Thibs and Layden like Dunn better, I could live with that.
...

I would prefer drafting a PF but there are no solid PF's at #5 in this draft.
So i think we should draft a shooter since shooting is one of our major weaknesses.
I am between Hield and Murray with Hield having the upper hand.
Trading the pick is also a valid option.

[Sugarless]

I prefer Buddy Hield, I think he's gonna be a very solid SG and he'd be able to contribute right away, but if he's not there or Thibs and Layden like Dunn better, I could live with that.
...

I would prefer drafting a PF but there are no solid PF's at #5 in this draft.
So i think we should draft a shooter since shooting is one of our major weaknesses.
I am between Hield and Murray with Hield having the upper hand.
Trading the pick is also a valid option.

I'm right there with you on everything. And I've been happy since day 1 that Thibs and Layden will also consider trading the pick, since we need more experienced players in this roster.

[firyGM]

Why a PF who average 17.6 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 61%FG, 77% FT, who has a good mid-range shot and might 3-range shot in a future, who is good on defense and IQ, who is 20.0 years old... isn't a solid PF?

Sabonis' perfomance in March Madness:

1st Round: 21 points, 16 rebounds, 9-20 FGM-FGA, 3-4 FTM-FTA
2st Round: 19 points, 10 rebounds, 8-12 FGM-FGA, 2-2 FTM-FTA
SWEET 16: 19 points, 17 rebounds, 8-12 FGM-FGA, 3-4 FTM-FTA, 5 blocks

What a underrated boy!

[Sugarless]

He's a solid project, he's crafty around the basket and very hard working, but not too athletic, which may limit his upside (defensively more than anything). He's projected to be a lottery pick and he could end up being a top-10 depending on his workouts, but there are more interesting prospects at #5, which is why nobody's talking about him for the Wolves.

[cpfsf]

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Jarrod-Uthoff-Updated-NBA-Draft-Scouting-Report-5507/

this is a pretty good article by DX. i'm biased because i'm from iowa city and i'm always watching my hawkeyes, but i think uthoff could be a servicable power forward. jarrod uthoff is the 59th pick according to nbadraft, and undrafted by draftexpress (they rank him the 59th best prospect). basically he's coachable, unselfish, and a solid 3 point shooter. according to scout.com in an analysis of 20 games, uthoff 30/89 from nba 3 point territory. obviously you're not getting tony allen and he isn't an offensive rebounder like love either. in fact he's not remotely close to either. to his credit, he blocks a lot of 3 point shots. so i think he's really more of a niche guy on a team that needs spacing. and again he might be undrafted, so don't expect anything remarkable.

[No-Man]

For me the Wolves pick has to come down basically to Dunn, Baldwin, Luwawu, Chriss, I think I'd understand any choice, depending on who might be available at 5th, assuming Bender isnt, all of them have plus/minus and depending on how they see the roster going forward or who they see as BPA, all of them might make sense.

Drafting any other guy, unless somebody falls, looks like a mistake as of now for me.

[firyGM]

He's a solid project, he's crafty around the basket and very hard working, but not too athletic, which may limit his upside (defensively more than anything). He's projected to be a lottery pick and he could end up being a top-10 depending on his workouts, but there are more interesting prospects at #5, which is why nobody's talking about him for the Wolves.

I hope that Sabonis could improve on defense with Thibs.

Ok, he isn't athletic. So... Are Pau and Marc Gasol athletics? IQ is very important for me, therefore I think Sabonis is our man, because he has the most high IQ of this draft.

What we need? PG, SG? No, a PF. Why not try get that PF in this Draft?

"There are more interesting prospects". Maybe yes. However we already have interesting prospects on SG and SF, a solid PG and one of the best center of the NBA. We only need an interesting PF. A backup PG/SG? I prefer draft player who could be starter and sign FA players to bench.

PS: Thanks for answering.

[minimus]

He's a solid project, he's crafty around the basket and very hard working, but not too athletic, which may limit his upside (defensively more than anything). He's projected to be a lottery pick and he could end up being a top-10 depending on his workouts, but there are more interesting prospects at #5, which is why nobody's talking about him for the Wolves.

I hope that Sabonis could improve on defense with Thibs.

Ok, he isn't athletic. So... Are Pau and Marc Gasol athletics? IQ is very important for me, therefore I think Sabonis is our man, because he has the most high IQ of this draft.

What we need? PG, SG? No, a PF. Why not try get that PF in this Draft?

"There are more interesting prospects". Maybe yes. However we already have interesting prospects on SG and SF, a solid PG and one of the best center of the NBA. We only need an interesting PF. A backup PG/SG? I prefer draft player who could be starter and sign FA players to bench.

PS: Thanks for answering.

Pau and Marc both have size and length to play defense. Sabonis jr is not same kind of athlete.

[rugbyrugger23]

He's a solid project, he's crafty around the basket and very hard working, but not too athletic, which may limit his upside (defensively more than anything). He's projected to be a lottery pick and he could end up being a top-10 depending on his workouts, but there are more interesting prospects at #5, which is why nobody's talking about him for the Wolves.

I hope that Sabonis could improve on defense with Thibs.

Ok, he isn't athletic. So... Are Pau and Marc Gasol athletics? IQ is very important for me, therefore I think Sabonis is our man, because he has the most high IQ of this draft.

What we need? PG, SG? No, a PF. Why not try get that PF in this Draft?

"There are more interesting prospects". Maybe yes. However we already have interesting prospects on SG and SF, a solid PG and one of the best center of the NBA. We only need an interesting PF. A backup PG/SG? I prefer draft player who could be starter and sign FA players to bench.

PS: Thanks for answering.

I wonder how Thibs feels about the PF he already drafted...Portis (I assume he drafted Portis). However I have heard a few times he may not have the best working relationship with Bulls organization.

I have seen Lyles mentioned, I think he would be a good fit. Would Bazz + Dieng + Wolves 2017 unprotected work for Lyles + Pleiss + GSW 2017 1st?

Wolves could draft guard of choice at #5 while getting a well fitting PF.