2019-2020 College/Draft thread (Part 2)

[HerSports85]

We got off track with the original question.

If you had the opportunity to draft Wiseman + Haliburton or Hayes .. would you give up Mitch to do it?


I’ll only draft wiseman if I can get another pick. Other than that it’s either LaMelo or Edwards.

[moocow007]

if mitch is gobert like on defense eventually with just a little better offense, he'll be one of the best centers in the league. we're not drafting wiseman. i'll bet you that.

Knicks want Drummond/KAT. Keep thinking they won’t draft Wiseman if given the chance. Lol

And Wingo will be long dead by the time Mitch becomes Gobert with offense. I’ll bet on that

i mean...wingo might be dead now

Well it depends on what you mean by dead.

[moocow007]

We got off track with the original question.

If you had the opportunity to draft Wiseman + Haliburton or Hayes .. would you give up Mitch to do it?


I’ll only draft wiseman if I can get another pick. Other than that it’s either LaMelo or Edwards.

If someone was willing to give me a top 5 draft pick for Robinson, I would have to very strongly consider and likely take it.

[Knicksfan1992]

My (likely unpopular) take...

Mitch does not have the personality, temperament or mindset to be a star. Wiseman because of his draft ranking and (honestly) more impressive physical tools at least can become one. Doesn't mean he will become one. Wiseman in 3 games at Memphis has taken more jump shots than Mitch has in 2 years. Wiseman's offensive game is more refined at 18 than Mitch at 21. I do not see Robinson being able to improve offensively by much and will "just" be a shotblocking defensive rebounder. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't have the same upside. Potential 2 way players have a lot more value than those that are not.

Again, doesn't mean the Knicks should draft him if they had a choice but that doesn't mean the two players are close to one another from a potential standpoint. IMO it's not even close. Put it differently. If you had a choice of keeping Robinson or replacing him with Wiseman AND still getting to take another top lottery guy, I would guess that most (none Knick fans) would go Wiseman and Ball or Wiseman and Edwards or Wiseman and Haliburton or Wiseman and [fill in whomever].

What we are talking about is a known commodity vs. a risk sure. But where the risk, if he bears fruit, would be more than the known commodity. Which one would be hypothetically better for the Knicks? Don't know.

I highly disagree with the bolded. I think Wiseman is a little more coordinated and in tune with his body than Mitch is but Mitch's body type, hands, explosion, foot speed and length are all elite for a modern Center and better than Wiseman's.

I could get on board with Wiseman if he thought the game at a significantly higher level than Mitch but I don't even see that (1 assist to 3 turnovers in 3 college games against mostly sub par competition).

He's not some high IQ guy on either end that's why I tend to side with rolling with the physically more gifted Center which, to me, is Mitch in a landslide.

[HarthorneWingo]

Knicks want Drummond/KAT. Keep thinking they won’t draft Wiseman if given the chance. Lol

And Wingo will be long dead by the time Mitch becomes Gobert with offense. I’ll bet on that

i mean...wingo might be dead now

Well it depends on what you mean by dead.

I think I look pretty badass there. The facial features actually resemble me in some ways. The dude has a good skull.

[Knicksfan1992]

We got off track with the original question.

If you had the opportunity to draft Wiseman + Haliburton or Hayes .. would you give up Mitch to do it?


I’ll only draft wiseman if I can get another pick. Other than that it’s either LaMelo or Edwards.

No. None of those guys move the needle for me. Also the Knicks, under the same thought process you're trying to provide here,(multiple bites at the apple) could just trade out of the top 5 to get 2 lower picks or a lower pick this year and a future draft (in a likely better draft).

No reason to give up Mitch for anyone in this draft IMO.

[HarthorneWingo]

We got off track with the original question.

If you had the opportunity to draft Wiseman + Haliburton or Hayes .. would you give up Mitch to do it?


I’ll only draft wiseman if I can get another pick. Other than that it’s either LaMelo or Edwards.

No. None of those guys move the needle for me. Also the Knicks, under the same thought process you're trying to provide here,(multiple bites at the apple) could just trade out of the top 5 to get 2 lower picks or a lower pick this year and a future draft (in a likely better draft).

No reason to give up Mitch for anyone in this draft IMO.

We should move heaven and earth for Edwards.

[TheScout31]

Wiseman’s footwork in PnR, awareness off ball, and pretty much overall defense when things aren’t directly in front of him is bad. Awareness is better than it was in BS/AAU, but still not good.

His offensive arsenal isn’t much, either - he flashes moves, but also takes bad shots (turnaround fades with size advantage, for example), and is not consistent in pretty much anything besides rim running. Inefficient in EYBL / Peach Jam, too.

Agree with E-Ball saying his upside is Gobert, but he has a long ways to go to get to where Rudy’s level on defense.

I’d also like to add Mitch’s offense isn’t as good as Wiseman’s, but his defensive potential is an interesting discussion bc Mitch will be hampered by his frame making up for it with mobility but Wiseman has other major concerns but an awesome frame.

[DOT]

My (likely unpopular) take...

Mitch does not have the personality, temperament or mindset to be a star. Wiseman because of his draft ranking and (honestly) more impressive physical tools at least can become one. Doesn't mean he will become one. Wiseman in 3 games at Memphis has taken more jump shots than Mitch has in 2 years. Wiseman's offensive game is more refined at 18 than Mitch at 21. I do not see Robinson being able to improve offensively by much and will "just" be a shotblocking defensive rebounder. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't have the same upside. Potential 2 way players have a lot more value than those that are not.

Again, doesn't mean the Knicks should draft him if they had a choice but that doesn't mean the two players are close to one another from a potential standpoint. IMO it's not even close. Put it differently. If you had a choice of keeping Robinson or replacing him with Wiseman AND still getting to take another top lottery guy, I would guess that most (none Knick fans) would go Wiseman and Ball or Wiseman and Edwards or Wiseman and Haliburton or Wiseman and [fill in whomever].

What we are talking about is a known commodity vs. a risk sure. But where the risk, if he bears fruit, would be more than the known commodity. Which one would be hypothetically better for the Knicks? Don't know.

It's the and another top draft pick that's the key though

If it's just a point of, we're the #1 pick and Mitch + nothing else much won't get us another top pick, then it'd be better for us to keep Mitch and go with one of the guards, like say, Ball. If we can trade Mitch and not much else for a top pick and get say, both Haliburton and Wiseman, then it's a discussion

[Knicksfan1992]

We got off track with the original question.

If you had the opportunity to draft Wiseman + Haliburton or Hayes .. would you give up Mitch to do it?


I’ll only draft wiseman if I can get another pick. Other than that it’s either LaMelo or Edwards.

No. None of those guys move the needle for me. Also the Knicks, under the same thought process you're trying to provide here,(multiple bites at the apple) could just trade out of the top 5 to get 2 lower picks or a lower pick this year and a future draft (in a likely better draft).

No reason to give up Mitch for anyone in this draft IMO.

We should move heaven and earth for Edwards.

Eh... I'm low on Edwards as anything more than a 2nd or 3rd option on a good team. In this draft, it's worth top 5 but in most I would peg him below a top 5 pick. Too streaky and uncomfortable in his body for my liking. I really dislike how much he settles for jumpers and floats. It's an outdated (and maybe a tad bit offensive so sorry) moniker but he has that "looks like Tarzan but plays like Jane" vibe to me IMO. I never like banking on those guys to be great at the highest level.

He's super young and I can see why people would be high on him but just not a guy i'm willing to invest heavily in with extra assets attached.

[ADeP7]

Say it’s Cleveland
Warriors
Hawks as top
3 and knicks slotted at 4

Anyone else see it unfolding to where lamelo via Lavar maps his way to NewYork. Not working out with teams ahead of us and things of that nature.

Obviously teams can just draft him anyway but I wonder if some teams just stay away for Lavar factor

[Zenzibar]

I still can't for the life of me understand the fascination with Wiseman lol. Coordinated big who may have some shooting touch and some defensive upside but right now he's not particularly great at either. IDK he's not some sure thing to me. Outside the top 3-5? Sure I guess.. but I think i'd rather just roll the dice with developing Mitch who has a much higher upside defensively even if he's probably limited as an offensive option.

So true Bro.

You know why? Cause the fkn Knicks fans are doped up with the thought of new shiny things.
Knox hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another
Frank hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another
Mithc hits a low point - get rid of him , draft another

Then...

Wiseman hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another.

Never-ending cycle for mthrfkn Knicks fans. Never develop these young kids, thow them out with the wash and but new ones. Is their motto.

Could be.

But then again it could be the reverse. Knicks fans homerism thinking that what they have is better than what he may actually be. So again, having Robinson may preclude the Knicks from having to draft Wiseman. That I agree with. Makes sense. Robinson is definitely good enough that you don't need to bypass other needs to draft someone you don't need. Fine.

But the debate about who is the better player in the long run has no direct correlation to the above. Robinson could be 50% of what Wiseman could be and that 50% could be more than justifiable to not draft Wiseman. But it doesn't mean Robinson is the better projected player.

True.

But most teams in this era don't need an all-star offensive center, just a very good rebounding and defensive one.
My take. If there was a draft to trade a top three lottery pick, this one would be it.

[Knicksfan1992]

Say it’s Cleveland
Warriors
Hawks as top
3 and knicks slotted at 4

Anyone else see it unfolding to where lamelo via Lavar maps his way to NewYork. Not working out with teams ahead of us and things of that nature.

Obviously teams can just draft him anyway but I wonder if some teams just stay away for Lavar factor

I'm starting to think if we're anywhere in the Top 5, it's going to be between Cole and Melo and likely whomever is left from the 2 when we pick.

Can't say I'd hate either option tbh. More of a LaMelo optimist than pessimist, but I think the optimized version of Cole fits better with our young guys than LaMelo does. However, I think LaMelo openly wanting NY is going to liken our FO to him moreso than maybe it would another FO for whatever that is worth. Pills have shown they really worry about guys wanting to be here.

[Fat]

We got off track with the original question.

If you had the opportunity to draft Wiseman + Haliburton or Hayes .. would you give up Mitch to do it?


I’ll only draft wiseman if I can get another pick. Other than that it’s either LaMelo or Edwards.

in a heartbeat, i like mitch but not that much

[robillionaire]

We got off track with the original question.

If you had the opportunity to draft Wiseman + Haliburton or Hayes .. would you give up Mitch to do it?


I’ll only draft wiseman if I can get another pick. Other than that it’s either LaMelo or Edwards.

nobody is giving up a top 5 pick for him

[E-Balla]

Wiseman’s footwork in PnR, awareness off ball, and pretty much overall defense when things aren’t directly in front of him is bad. Awareness is better than it was in BS/AAU, but still not good.

His offensive arsenal isn’t much, either - he flashes moves, but also takes bad shots (turnaround fades with size advantage, for example), and is not consistent in pretty much anything besides rim running. Inefficient in EYBL / Peach Jam, too.

Agree with E-Ball saying his upside is Gobert, but he has a long ways to go to get to where Rudy’s level on defense.

I’d also like to add Mitch’s offense isn’t as good as Wiseman’s, but his defensive potential is an interesting discussion bc Mitch will be hampered by his frame making up for it with mobility but Wiseman has other major concerns but an awesome frame.

I said that's Mitch's upside. Wiseman is a 2 way player and his offensive upside is well beyond Rudy and Mitch. Mitch has no touch. Right there his offensive potential is capped. If we tried to make Mitch a scoring option I'd work just as well as Drummond has as a first option. That 70% from the field would be 55% real quick.

EDIT: I just looked it up and Mitch is 49% on layups. Gobert is 52% on layups and Tyson Chandler at 20 was 50% on layups. Someone with offensive potential that's raw like rookie Yao Ming was 56% on layups. Dwight at 22 was 58%. Amare at 22 was 57%.

[HarthorneWingo]

No. None of those guys move the needle for me. Also the Knicks, under the same thought process you're trying to provide here,(multiple bites at the apple) could just trade out of the top 5 to get 2 lower picks or a lower pick this year and a future draft (in a likely better draft).

No reason to give up Mitch for anyone in this draft IMO.

We should move heaven and earth for Edwards.

Eh... I'm low on Edwards as anything more than a 2nd or 3rd option on a good team. In this draft, it's worth top 5 but in most I would peg him below a top 5 pick. Too streaky and uncomfortable in his body for my liking. I really dislike how much he settles for jumpers and floats. It's an outdated (and maybe a tad bit offensive so sorry) moniker but he has that "looks like Tarzan but plays like Jane" vibe to me IMO. I never like banking on those guys to be great at the highest level.

He's super young and I can see why people would be high on him but just not a guy i'm willing to invest heavily in with extra assets attached.

I'm sure you've watched him more than I have.

[E-Balla]

I still can't for the life of me understand the fascination with Wiseman lol. Coordinated big who may have some shooting touch and some defensive upside but right now he's not particularly great at either. IDK he's not some sure thing to me. Outside the top 3-5? Sure I guess.. but I think i'd rather just roll the dice with developing Mitch who has a much higher upside defensively even if he's probably limited as an offensive option.

So true Bro.

You know why? Cause the fkn Knicks fans are doped up with the thought of new shiny things.
Knox hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another
Frank hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another
Mithc hits a low point - get rid of him , draft another

Then...

Wiseman hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another.

Never-ending cycle for mthrfkn Knicks fans. Never develop these young kids, thow them out with the wash and but new ones. Is their motto.

Mitch hasn't hit a low point, he's a **** monster. He's just not Wiseman.

Frank on the other hand hasn't improved much in 3 seasons and is still playing 21 mpg and giving us 6/2/3 on sub 40% shooting just like his rookie and sophomore years so nothing about his production is a low point.

Knox was a terrible draft pick. We should've gotten rid of him on draft night.

[thebuzzardman]

My (likely unpopular) take...

Mitch does not have the personality, temperament or mindset to be a star. Wiseman because of his draft ranking and (honestly) more impressive physical tools at least can become one. Doesn't mean he will become one. Wiseman in 3 games at Memphis has taken more jump shots than Mitch has in 2 years. Wiseman's offensive game is more refined at 18 than Mitch at 21. I do not see Robinson being able to improve offensively by much and will "just" be a shotblocking defensive rebounder. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't have the same upside. Potential 2 way players have a lot more value than those that are not.

Again, doesn't mean the Knicks should draft him if they had a choice but that doesn't mean the two players are close to one another from a potential standpoint. IMO it's not even close. Put it differently. If you had a choice of keeping Robinson or replacing him with Wiseman AND still getting to take another top lottery guy, I would guess that most (none Knick fans) would go Wiseman and Ball or Wiseman and Edwards or Wiseman and Haliburton or Wiseman and [fill in whomever].

What we are talking about is a known commodity vs. a risk sure. But where the risk, if he bears fruit, would be more than the known commodity. Which one would be hypothetically better for the Knicks? Don't know.

I highly disagree with the bolded. I think Wiseman is a little more coordinated and in tune with his body than Mitch is but Mitch's body type, hands, explosion, foot speed and length are all elite for a modern Center and better than Wiseman's.

I could get on board with Wiseman if he thought the game at a significantly higher level than Mitch but I don't even see that (1 assist to 3 turnovers in 3 college games against mostly sub par competition).

He's not some high IQ guy on either end that's why I tend to side with rolling with the physically more gifted Center which, to me, is Mitch in a landslide.

Mitch's hands still seem a little suspect. In particular, there have been a few games this year where he looks like he's playing with broken fingers. He did hurt his fingers at some point, right?

[Zenzibar]

I still can't for the life of me understand the fascination with Wiseman lol. Coordinated big who may have some shooting touch and some defensive upside but right now he's not particularly great at either. IDK he's not some sure thing to me. Outside the top 3-5? Sure I guess.. but I think i'd rather just roll the dice with developing Mitch who has a much higher upside defensively even if he's probably limited as an offensive option.

So true Bro.

You know why? Cause the fkn Knicks fans are doped up with the thought of new shiny things.
Knox hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another
Frank hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another
Mithc hits a low point - get rid of him , draft another

Then...

Wiseman hits a low point - get rid of him, draft another.

Never-ending cycle for mthrfkn Knicks fans. Never develop these young kids, thow them out with the wash and but new ones. Is their motto.

Mitch hasn't hit a low point, he's a **** monster. He's just not Wiseman.

Frank on the other hand hasn't improved much in 3 seasons and is still playing 21 mpg and giving us 6/2/3 on sub 40% shooting just like his rookie and sophomore years so nothing about his production is a low point.

Knox was a terrible draft pick. We should've gotten rid of him on draft night.

Stop tripping. He was 18 and still growing both physically and mentally. You guys have no patience when drafting kids and I feel that the small minority of this fkn fan base deserves the 50 years of misery.