2020 NBA Draft Prospects: Thread II

[Klomp]

On the Wiseman being a Giannis dream, I pointed to not having that luxury of knowing sometimes with past high school only picks or limited college experience picks around he league. But I also know that KG was 5th pick, not #1. Lavine was a 13th pick, not a number one. #1 overall you would hope comes with less guessing and dreaming requirements.

You never really know. People thought Oden was a sure thing, but just couldn't stay healthy.

[GopherIt!]

warriors draft theme song:

“never made the pick for a wiseman
couldn't cut it as a poor man stealing”

[Neeva]

Does adding Wiseman and resigning Beas and Juancho make the wolves a playoff team in the west? If not Rosas needs try to get that 2021 pick lotto protected instead of just top 3 protected and take Edwards and start him to get his value higher for the inevitable trade for Booker.

[KGdaBom]

Does adding Wiseman and resigning Beas and Juancho make the wolves a playoff team in the west? If not Rosas needs try to get that 2021 pick lotto protected instead of just top 3 protected and take Edwards and start him to get his value higher for the inevitable trade for Booker.

Yes. It makes us a playoff team. Maybe not this year, but 21-22 season you can take it to the bank.

[Jedzz]

warriors draft theme song:

“never made the pick for a wiseman
couldn't cut it as a poor man stealing”

I was waiting for a different story

[old school 34]

Two different pictures to me on this.

That had to be just a great job by Rosas and crew to find and target players around the league that might shine in roles they planned for them here over where they were and what was being asked of them there. But those players all had a number of NBA seasons under their belt. They could go back and find the games they showed positive numbers in and see what the situations were that worked and try to project that here if it fit. Ultimately much more valid substance to base their decisions on.

I'll constrast that with same crew drafting Culver and thought he was even remotely ready to play PG and shoot in this league and basically hurt his value at the start of his career by letting him shoot himself into holes with too many minutes in the 3 for 40 offense. All they had was a couple college seasons to go off, but he had high minutes both seasons and claimed he was the teams playmaker. Yet he never averaged even 4 assists either season (1.8 and 3.7), his second season his 3s dropped to 30% as attempts went from 3 to 4/g, his FT% wasn't great. They should have known better than to rush him. I think the starts at PG so early were a massive mistake, same with allowing him to shoot 3s much. Should have kept him passing and playing defense and collecting rebounds, kept it simple. Maybe year two he will get over it if they let him keep it more simple.

How will they evaluate the next players they choose in the draft and once they get them inhouse? Will it be starts too soon no matter what? I don't need instant gratification. I would be happy to see a top rook playing 16 mins a game all season and cementing his confidence on simple tasks outlined for them. Build on that in year two. If they are a positive player as a rookie playing off bench it helps the team a lot.

Jedzz....

I understand some of your thoughts around...rushing guys...some of your frustration about when the higher drafted guy may get some benefits of the doubt....all of those very real concerns & finding balance on that is just smart, right?

But there does need to be a balance here on where you go with that logic...doesn't there? If a guy like Culver can't play some & fail & that's going to set him back that far...he's not an NBA player....these guys are crazy confident in their abilities....if how we handled crushed him...we picked the wrong guy, right? I feel guys lose confidence faster by lack of opportunities or minutes vs playing & struggling (within reason right)?

That's why I'm okay with guys going to G-league to maximize minutes...can argue which guys should be there but that's different topic for different day?

Putting him out there even if you knew he may struggle some but with the right direction it can still be constructive for development.

The good part for this upcoming picks is we just should have a higher talent level across the roster that fits ths targeted system which will more than anything help control some of those minutes.....no?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

I can see some logic in "testing" them. But I think it's a case by case thing and it shouldn't just be...okay now you are a rookie starter-go prove it.

Every player is a person and as such they are all different. The onus is on the coaches to evaluate the person and player for what is best for them in terms of development. You could say he failed as a player to live up to the hype fast enough. I instead might say the coaches failed to accurately assess his readiness and what was best for his development. The coaches might also disagree with me and say it's fine for him to fail early on if they believe this would help his growth. At this point we are just going to have a difference of opinions on how best to develop players. But the reality is there probably is a best-way for each player that gets them to their peak without busting first. There is danger, risk to team value and risk to a player's career in being perceived as an early bust. There is also risk to that confidence you were speaking about.

Why not remove most of that risk for players, coaches decisions, GM's choice of player, all by removing the starting ability from all rookies? Put a system of development in place that places all importance on starters having starter capabilities in place, make those roles something only the best and proven ready get to assume. Make it difficult to unseat a starter already in place. Required skills sets proven during bench roles before they can earn starting roles. If a GM and Coach make it public this is the new system of development here, then every player coming in as a rookie knows. The GM can be more confident his choice will still have value after the first season. The coaches can actually test players by giving them a smaller set of responsibiliies to focus on and therefore a better chance of success and confidence building. Therefore a better outlook from everyone about the players future yet The team's salesmen will cry about not being able to sell a new toy as a pivotal starter immediately, but just tell them to stfu and go to work selling the team. The new toy can be every bit the great future hope as he gets sparing moments on the court with better chances to look the part and less chances to remove all doubt that he could be a bust.

To your point about rooks not starting eventually if G-league continues to thrive and the NBA continues to move more towards a baseball development type plans....you get your wish. And while teams & the NBA lose some marketing dollars instantly...it would be better for most players long term...especially with players coming into the league rawer every year.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

[Rookie-Mistake]

I ask this question. But before I ask the question, keep this in mind.

1.) Rosas and Gupta have a proven track record of moving pieces, especially in the draft.

2.) Rosas and Gupta have moved every single player on this roster except for KAT, DLO and Okogie.

3.) Rosas has publicly stated that he is modelling our system on a 1-3-1 system.

Had we not landed the #1 pick, and landed outside the top 3. (I'm still pumped that we did land it) and considering that in the public view that there is not a consensus #1 pick in this current draft. Would Rosas have moved pieces to move into the top 3 to target someone?

[minimus]

I ask this question. But before I ask the question, keep this in mind.

1.) Rosas and Gupta have a proven track record of moving pieces, especially in the draft.

2.) Rosas and Gupta have moved every single player on this roster except for KAT, DLO and Okogie.

3.) Rosas has publicly stated that he is modelling our system on a 1-3-1 system.

Had we not landed the #1 pick, and landed outside the top 3. (I'm still pumped that we did land it) and considering that in the public view that there is not a consensus #1 pick in this current draft. Would Rosas have moved pieces to move into the top 3 to target someone?

[Jedzz]

To your point about rooks not starting eventually if G-league continues to thrive and the NBA continues to move more towards a baseball development type plans....you get your wish. And while teams & the NBA lose some marketing dollars instantly...it would be better for most players long term...especially with players coming into the league rawer every year.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

Could be. I still see some teams starting rookies foolishly no matter what. Then there are some players that simply are ready immediately. But making that development system the way 98% go through the process would protect many and really would elevate the level of play from team starting rosters.

I don't however really see where NBA teams lose marketing dollars instantly. I think that's all mostly imaginary when tied to actual starting and part of what drives these mistakes. Just like all the Zion foolishness this year and the league looking like they were trying to finagle the bubble rules to fit Pels in. They got 5 games in the bubble and Zion averaged 20 minutes a game. He could have gotten those 20+ mins without getting the 5 starts they gave him and the team could still market that he's going to be playing on that team all they want. In reality they didn't run him 30-35+ minutes like the end all be all for that team. Even though he has a 43% 3FG rookie stat line they don't ask him to put up five or more 3FGA. They were mostly protecting him like a rookie should be protected, But still, they felt like they had to list him as a starter. Because in their heads they imagine it matters to marketing or something. It's all just in their heads though thinking they need to sell bigger fish stories to gain more money when what would really gain more money for that team which would be to improve the win total so next time they stay playing into the playoffs.

Like Brooklyn having to play all kind of replacements and still winning games. How? Because experience that's how. Got into playoffs! Getting labeled as a starter didn't change anything for Zion or Pels. Just like starting Wiggins 327 games his first four years wasn't really selling more tickets than if the team would have started a true starting level vet that would have created much more wins for this team. As the wins mount, the money and sales mount, fans want to watch more. Doesn't mean they couldn't keep throwing his name around in marketing all they wanted if he had played 6th man in minutes all those years instead. But when more wins would have happened, more seats and marketing dollars would have been the results. Whoever spearheaded those decisions probably felt they had to for seat sales or some figment of their imagination. But not fielding a starting roster that is losing 5 to 10 games in a row would have mattered so much more.

[GopherIt!]

warriors draft theme song:

“never made the pick for a wiseman
couldn't cut it as a poor man stealing”

I was waiting for a different story

Ive been wrong
Ive been down
been to the bottom of every bottle.
These five words in my head
Scream "are we having fun yet?"

[Ranger]

warriors draft theme song:

“never made the pick for a wiseman
couldn't cut it as a poor man stealing”

For some reason I was thinking that this was from Washington D.C. Hospital Blues. Imagine my disappointment.

[Klomp]

Saw someone throw out a Horford comp for Okongwu, which I think is both interesting and intriguing. Still, I think even a young Horford at his most mobile state would still be a C in the Minnesota system.

[KGdaBom]

Saw someone throw out a Horford comp for Okongwu, which I think is both interesting and intriguing. Still, I think even a young Horford at his most mobile state would still be a C in the Minnesota system.

KAT's our center. OK is our all world defending PF.
Draft for TALENT. Screw the Archetype.

[jpatrick]

Saw someone throw out a Horford comp for Okongwu, which I think is both interesting and intriguing. Still, I think even a young Horford at his most mobile state would still be a C in the Minnesota system.

KAT's our center. OK is our all world defending PF.
Draft for TALENT. Screw the Archetype.

How much Okongwu have you watched in full games? I’ve only watched a couple and it was awhile ago. My initial reaction was Okongwu moved like a true center, not someone I want chasing modern PFs on the perimeter, with his strongest defensive asset being shot blocking, which would be nullified mostly I’d he’s on the perimeter with a PF. I could be wrong. I’ll find a couple more games to watch.

[KGdaBom]

Saw someone throw out a Horford comp for Okongwu, which I think is both interesting and intriguing. Still, I think even a young Horford at his most mobile state would still be a C in the Minnesota system.

KAT's our center. OK is our all world defending PF.
Draft for TALENT. Screw the Archetype.

How much Okongwu have you watched in full games? I’ve only watched a couple and it was awhile ago. My initial reaction was Okongwu moved like a true center, not someone I want chasing modern PFs on the perimeter, with his strongest defensive asset being shot blocking, which would be nullified mostly I’d he’s on the perimeter with a PF. I could be wrong. I’ll find a couple more games to watch.

He is smooth as silk and with his quickness and agility can guard virtually anybody. He's the guy I want guarding Giannis and LeBron.

[nolafan33]

I see a lot of hype for Wiseman in this thread, and some people speaking about his defense. His defense is REALLY bad. Rebounds and blocked shots are nice, but the things that really matter are ability to defend in space, ability to rotate, ability to defend the PnR, etc. Hes very poor at all those things.

[Nick K]

Saw someone throw out a Horford comp for Okongwu, which I think is both interesting and intriguing. Still, I think even a young Horford at his most mobile state would still be a C in the Minnesota system.

KAT's our center. OK is our all world defending PF.
Draft for TALENT. Screw the Archetype.

That's right. KAT is our center. They are not moving him to PF and that's why we are not drafting Wiseman.

In the film I've seen on O.O. I'm convinced he can defend the perimeter. He's a very agile guy for his size. He doesn't have to be a great shooter from out there either. I love the O.O. fit better than Wiseman.

People I respect tell me they are not taking O.O. though. Jared Vanderbilt is a guy I still have high hopes for at PF if no O.O.

I know it's not popular here but that is why they will take Edwards if they don't trade the pick for a starter.

[Nick K]

I see a lot of hype for Wiseman in this thread, and some people speaking about his defense. His defense is REALLY bad. Rebounds and blocked shots are nice, but the things that really matter are ability to defend in space, ability to rotate, ability to defend the PnR, etc. Hes very poor at all those things.

I agree with all of that. If he had played a full season of ball at least we'd have a much better idea.

[Jedzz]

I see a lot of hype for Wiseman in this thread, and some people speaking about his defense. His defense is REALLY bad. Rebounds and blocked shots are nice, but the things that really matter are ability to defend in space, ability to rotate, ability to defend the PnR, etc. Hes very poor at all those things.

These are all things he can improve on if he has the right attitude, a decent head on his shoulders, and the rest of the physicals to do it. He's basically a kid out of highschool experience wise and with his height all he had to do was use that leverage. He has a chance to become a lot more yet. But I will say that most games come down to a couple of score differences. Having someone elite who likely does block one of those all important final plays could be huge over and over again.

But I agree that he along with the other projected top three are just riddled with gaps in the game yet. They all make me concerned about their shooting level. I'm really not all that happy about the choices people feel the team needs to pick from. I likely wouldn't choose from that set of three if my head was on the block. I might talk to Bulls and get #4 and Lavine back. Then take Okongwu. He' plays above rim, rarely taking bunnies, so he's not Dieng and he's aggressive on both ends and the team needs that. And we can't have enough scoring threats like LaVine. Injuries happen and we need a deep set of scoring options. Probably have to send JJ back for salary clearance/match.

[KGdaBom]

Saw someone throw out a Horford comp for Okongwu, which I think is both interesting and intriguing. Still, I think even a young Horford at his most mobile state would still be a C in the Minnesota system.

KAT's our center. OK is our all world defending PF.
Draft for TALENT. Screw the Archetype.

That's right. KAT is our center. They are not moving him to PF and that's why we are not drafting Wiseman.

In the film I've seen on O.O. I'm convinced he can defend the perimeter. He's a very agile guy for his size. He doesn't have to be a great shooter from out there either. I love the O.O. fit better than Wiseman.

People I respect tell me they are not taking O.O. though. Jared Vanderbilt is a guy I still have high hopes for at PF if no O.O.

I know it's not popular here but that is why they will take Edwards if they don't trade the pick for a starter.

I sure hope you're wrong about not Drafting Wiseman. He's literally and figuratively Head and shoulders more talented than Edwards. My best guess is you are right. However, KAT could certainly make the switch to PF if need be and Wiseman can play the PF if need be. No legit reason not to draft Wiseman.