RealGM

First post. Draft Wiseman. Go Wolves.

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

Wiseman...that is all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wiseman or Edwards plus something from
Golden state ( like our 2021 second back and protections moved to lottery on first round pick)

This.
I will only support a trade down to the 2nd or 3rd pick, no lower.
It would mean so much for this organisation to draft Wiseman. To many times we have drafted for fit and that has NEVER worked.

KGdaBom wrote:First post. Draft Wiseman. Go Wolves.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using RealGM mobile app

Domejandro wrote:Discussion continued from this thread.

I don't like the poll topping this thread for draft prospects. It's just more baseless hype for the 3 players so far claimed as the top three for the top pick. This is exactly how players get over hyped into these positions and everyone feels like they are going against a consensus to think otherwise. When a consensus these days starts with one person making silly poll like this and it's propogated across the country like a viral kitten video. It has already occurred obviously, yours is just supporting that. I still see absoolutely no reason why these are the three people are hyping so much about. It's really an amazing farce that people allow themselves to be snookered quite this badly.

That Wiseman crossover video has me intrigued.

I’m not sure I’ve seen KAT exhibit a crossover like that. KAT is more of a straight line driver, and he’s not super big into driving, period.

thinktank wrote:That Wiseman crossover video has me intrigued.

I’m not sure I’ve seen KAT exhibit a crossover like that. KAT is more of a straight line driver, and he’s not super big into driving, period.

This is why I wonder if we should avoid thinking Wiseman is only going to be a C based on his height. What happens if he's simply a taller version of Giannis? size, speed and ball-handling skills with quick enough feet to put it all together? It's so intriguing and yet having so little to go off in games. I suppose no different than LaVine was as a draft pick or drafting a player straight out of highschool would be.

Jedzz wrote:

thinktank wrote:That Wiseman crossover video has me intrigued.

I’m not sure I’ve seen KAT exhibit a crossover like that. KAT is more of a straight line driver, and he’s not super big into driving, period.

This is why I wonder if we should avoid thinking Wiseman is only going to be a C based on his height. What happens if he's simply a taller version of Giannis? size, speed and ball-handling skills?

I can’t allow myself to dream about him becoming another Giannis, but the less overlap he has with KAT (maybe better handles and defense), then the more I like him for us.

The other option I keep coming to is trading back, however I don’t like the fit of Mark or Collins. Maybe Huerter.

Where I’m going with the trade option piece is I’m really coming around on Avdija. BUT, at SF, not PF. If you could nab Avdija and an asset in trade down, and somehow figure out your defensive PF, that might be the best fit + value move.

thinktank wrote:

Jedzz wrote:

thinktank wrote:That Wiseman crossover video has me intrigued.

I’m not sure I’ve seen KAT exhibit a crossover like that. KAT is more of a straight line driver, and he’s not super big into driving, period.

This is why I wonder if we should avoid thinking Wiseman is only going to be a C based on his height. What happens if he's simply a taller version of Giannis? size, speed and ball-handling skills?

I can’t allow myself to dream about him becoming another Giannis, but the less overlap he has with KAT (maybe better handles and defense), then the more I like him for us.

The other option I keep coming to is trading back, however I don’t like the fit of Mark or Collins. Maybe Huerter.

Where I’m going with the trade option piece is I’m really coming around on Avdija. BUT, at SF, not PF. If you could nab Avdija and an asset in trade down, and somehow figure out your defensive PF, that might be the best fit + value move.

Great post. I don't want another undersized PF. How about getting somebody with good size to play the SF.

KGdaBom wrote:

thinktank wrote:

Jedzz wrote: This is why I wonder if we should avoid thinking Wiseman is only going to be a C based on his height. What happens if he's simply a taller version of Giannis? size, speed and ball-handling skills?

I can’t allow myself to dream about him becoming another Giannis, but the less overlap he has with KAT (maybe better handles and defense), then the more I like him for us.

The other option I keep coming to is trading back, however I don’t like the fit of Mark or Collins. Maybe Huerter.

Where I’m going with the trade option piece is I’m really coming around on Avdija. BUT, at SF, not PF. If you could nab Avdija and an asset in trade down, and somehow figure out your defensive PF, that might be the best fit + value move.

Great post. I don't want another undersized PF. How about getting somebody with good size to play the SF.

I hear you. It just sucks that the best trade down assets to acquire are undersized (or maybe more accurately: poor defending) PFs!

thinktank wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:

thinktank wrote:
I can’t allow myself to dream about him becoming another Giannis, but the less overlap he has with KAT (maybe better handles and defense), then the more I like him for us.

The other option I keep coming to is trading back, however I don’t like the fit of Mark or Collins. Maybe Huerter.

Where I’m going with the trade option piece is I’m really coming around on Avdija. BUT, at SF, not PF. If you could nab Avdija and an asset in trade down, and somehow figure out your defensive PF, that might be the best fit + value move.

Great post. I don't want another undersized PF. How about getting somebody with good size to play the SF.

I hear you. It just sucks that the best trade down assets to acquire are undersized (or maybe more accurately: poor defending) PFs!

Okongwu would be my trade down target and he would be a very good defending PF. Then people have issue with him not being a 3 point shooting threat. He's still who I want in a trade down.

KGdaBom wrote:

thinktank wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:Great post. I don't want another undersized PF. How about getting somebody with good size to play the SF.

I hear you. It just sucks that the best trade down assets to acquire are undersized (or maybe more accurately: poor defending) PFs!

Okongwu would be my trade down target and he would be a very good defending PF. Then people have issue with him not being a 3 point shooting threat. He's still who I want in a trade down.

Ok but then the only option is Huerter plus Okongwu?

Mark + Okongwu or Collins + Okongwu don’t make sense.

My point is most of the trade down options don’t make fit sense.

KGdaBom wrote:Great post. I don't want another undersized PF. How about getting somebody with good size to play the SF.

Avdija is like 6'9" or 6'10", not really undersized

Klomp wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:Great post. I don't want another undersized PF. How about getting somebody with good size to play the SF.

Avdija is like 6'9" or 6'10", not really undersized

He's tall. He's IMO undersized. Maybe his rebounding vastly improves over the years. I see him as a liability defensively at the PF spot.

old school 34 wrote: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.

shangrila wrote:
This is going to be a long couple of months...


Jedzz wrote:
Longer. I heard they are pushing the draft back further. Now they dont even think the next season will be until 2021. rumors anyway. If the draft ends up in November, we might be looking at a brand new set of hyped three at the top by then. never know. All Haliburton has to do his come out of his basement and show people on instagram he was able to put on 18 pounds this summer and people would flip. Hope he's pounding down the calories and proteins. I want to see hyped madness last minute.

shangrila wrote:
No, it'll be a 6 second clip of Haliburton making a shot off the dribble. Everyone will cream themselves and wonder how we could ever even consider picking anyone else.

Actually there is already a number of examples of Haliburton making shots off the dribble. Some pretty great shots too. I'm guessing you saw a single clip of him missing one and then read somewhere that someone says that's a weakness for him and now you assume that's total reality.

I'm talking about the possibility of him or someone showing a real difference about themselves verses prior perceptions and proof that could very well have beeen worked on and changed over the course of 7 to 9 months of delays to this process since the top 3 were annointed by God's couirt jesters. I suggest, and I think we agree, that all it will take is a single clip of something to blow up and change minds. Although you also appear to be saying it will then come back to the original three as if the truth of them was always real or finite. I put about 1% stock in that being real either. But this significant delay could open the door or a chance we see some hard working kids improving themselves before time to draft. Something like how Thybulle came into his rookie season shooting 3s like he always had an elite shooting skill. Had the same delay to draft happened in the prior year, maybe an instagram of him in a training session in September shooting like a man possessed changes his draft position by many spots. But that couldn't happen because he was already drafted so early in the year after his final college season.

Pairing Wiseman with Towns would certainly make for some interesting choices for the defense. Who do you put on who? I'd imagine Wiseman would actually get most of the opposing centers guarding him. Like in Memphis, that'd be Dieng or Valanciunas, who he'd have significant quickness advantage on. But then Towns has a big size advantage on Clarke too.

thinktank wrote:

Jedzz wrote:

thinktank wrote:That Wiseman crossover video has me intrigued.

I’m not sure I’ve seen KAT exhibit a crossover like that. KAT is more of a straight line driver, and he’s not super big into driving, period.

This is why I wonder if we should avoid thinking Wiseman is only going to be a C based on his height. What happens if he's simply a taller version of Giannis? size, speed and ball-handling skills?

I can’t allow myself to dream about him becoming another Giannis, but the less overlap he has with KAT (maybe better handles and defense), then the more I like him for us.

The other option I keep coming to is trading back, however I don’t like the fit of Mark or Collins. Maybe Huerter.

Where I’m going with the trade option piece is I’m really coming around on Avdija. BUT, at SF, not PF. If you could nab Avdija and an asset in trade down, and somehow figure out your defensive PF, that might be the best fit + value move.

Yes I've been following that convo and can see you are putting an importance on how good of a player asset and fit that is as well in trading down. That's tough to guess on for me since we don't know how approachable these other teams are being or how interested they are in this top pick choice. I read the names people are guessing at and I'm not totally intrigued. Collins being so interesting a player early in his career but also getting busted for pralmorelin use then. Huerter has a nice shot so I'm always going to be open to that but whether he's enough to drop to 6 or not...not sure. Depends what else they can add to that maybe.

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. But that's our situation this time. Do we pass on a KG type of guess, draft something more known, or trade down. Tough to be Rosas right now.