2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread IV

[LloydFree]

I know a lot of sixers fans like Monk, Smith, Isaac... other guys that they just don't want to see at #3 but still like them alot.
There are also SOME fans that would take these types of guys at #3.

My question is... what would you give up (future assets, players) to move back up into the lottery and take a 2nd player - keeping Jackson, Ball, or Fox at 3.

The scenario obviously would have to be one that isn't a huge overpay - i feel like a team like the suns or wolves want a young player now - so ill avoid them. but two teams i would target (the two teams that may be looking for a rebuild very soon, could use big assets).. magic, knicks, and dallas. kings could be in at play for #10 ill count them for now for markennen/mitchell's sake.

Possible deals?
Magic - they don't owe anyone any future picks - and they have the raptors one this year. pick's probably won't sway them - or at least we know they covet/regret one man. Dario. Would you do a deal like Dario + future sixers 1st for #6?
Scenario plays out: Grab Fox at 3, Monk at 6. Fox, Monk, Covington, Simmons, Embiid. BBN lives on?

Knicks - Bad Contracts, they got bad contracts. they also owe their own second out from now until 2021. would you take on a bad contract for pick #8? Noah (3 years, max 19 mil) lee (3 years, 12 mil)... ill exclude melo. Would do you Lee + 36 + 39 for #8?
Scenario plays out: Grab Jackson at 3, Grab DSJ at 8.... DSJ Jackson Covington Simmons Embiid

Dallas - also has bad contracts and owes every 2nd til 2020. wes matthews (1 year 17 mil), dwight powell (3 years 10 mil).. excluding barnes. would do you something like 2018 Sixers 1st (top 3 protected, unprotected 2019) for dwight powell, #8 - get cuban gambling on a pick that is likely to dive in value after next season?
scenario plays out: Grab jackson at 3, markennen at 9... Simmons, Jackson , Covington, Markennen, Embiid

Kings - we're all aware of their situation. IMO vlade only makes a deal if he can undo his last botched trade. the sixers would have to squeeze extra buy low assets out of him however. Would you do 2019 kings pick back for #10, McClemore, and right to swap picks in 2018?
Scenario plays out - Grab jackson at 3, mitchell at 10. Simmons, Mitchell, Jackson, Saric, Embiid.

obviously some are more far fetched then others - but general idea is to keep 3 and trade into the top 10.

Assuming the 76ers selected Jackson, I'd trade Saric, Okafor and Justin Anderson for any one of picks #7-10 and take Monk. I wouldn't trade any future picks though. If they selected Ball at 3, I'd be a little less inclined to move back into the top10. I'd just concentrate on signing a stretch 4.

[MatthewGeigerII]

I know a lot of sixers fans like Monk, Smith, Isaac... other guys that they just don't want to see at #3 but still like them alot.
There are also SOME fans that would take these types of guys at #3.

My question is... what would you give up (future assets, players) to move back up into the lottery and take a 2nd player - keeping Jackson, Ball, or Fox at 3.

The scenario obviously would have to be one that isn't a huge overpay - i feel like a team like the suns or wolves want a young player now - so ill avoid them. but two teams i would target (the two teams that may be looking for a rebuild very soon, could use big assets).. magic, knicks, and dallas. kings could be in at play for #10 ill count them for now for markennen/mitchell's sake.

Possible deals?
Magic - they don't owe anyone any future picks - and they have the raptors one this year. pick's probably won't sway them - or at least we know they covet/regret one man. Dario. Would you do a deal like Dario + future sixers 1st for #6?
Scenario plays out: Grab Fox at 3, Monk at 6. Fox, Monk, Covington, Simmons, Embiid. BBN lives on?

Knicks - Bad Contracts, they got bad contracts. they also owe their own second out from now until 2021. would you take on a bad contract for pick #8? Noah (3 years, max 19 mil) lee (3 years, 12 mil)... ill exclude melo. Would do you Lee + 36 + 39 for #8?
Scenario plays out: Grab Jackson at 3, Grab DSJ at 8.... DSJ Jackson Covington Simmons Embiid

Dallas - also has bad contracts and owes every 2nd til 2020. wes matthews (1 year 17 mil), dwight powell (3 years 10 mil).. excluding barnes. would do you something like 2018 Sixers 1st (top 3 protected, unprotected 2019) for dwight powell, #8 - get cuban gambling on a pick that is likely to dive in value after next season?
scenario plays out: Grab jackson at 3, markennen at 9... Simmons, Jackson , Covington, Markennen, Embiid

Kings - we're all aware of their situation. IMO vlade only makes a deal if he can undo his last botched trade. the sixers would have to squeeze extra buy low assets out of him however. Would you do 2019 kings pick back for #10, McClemore, and right to swap picks in 2018?
Scenario plays out - Grab jackson at 3, mitchell at 10. Simmons, Mitchell, Jackson, Saric, Embiid.

obviously some are more far fetched then others - but general idea is to keep 3 and trade into the top 10.

Assuming the 76ers selected Jackson, I'd trade Saric, Okafor and Justin Anderson for any one of picks #7-10 and take Monk. I wouldn't trade any future picks though. If they selected Ball at 3, I'd be a little less inclined to move back into the top10. I'd just concentrate on signing a stretch 4.

i agree - really the only way a team in that 6-10 range trades out for something player or future pick wise is if the guy they are targeting gets taken from them - could happen

[SelfishPlayer]

Why would someone want to draft highly a type of player that is simply not to be found on NBA championship teams? Who cares if this sort of player can be found on the better none title teams during a given season. To highly draft this sort of player is complete willful ignorance IMO.

I believe that most people have learned from Hinkie's mistakes that drafting a bunch of assests at a single position is moronic because they will not develop for various reasons and GMs will want to trade for those players for pennies on the dollar because you are stuck with these depreciating assests otherwise.

Drafting a sub 6'4" SG is just not a championship move, but could certainly be a conferance finals move...

[HankTheTank]

Word from a friend who works for the Sixers: Tatum or Ball being considered at 3. Considering trading 3 for 5 and 10 to take Monk or Fox at 5-- they supposedly like Monk.

Take it with a grain of salt, this person is not connected to BC, just interesting conversation fodder. I would beyond depressed if we passed on Jackson or Ball for Tatum, or walked away from this draft with Monk as the marquee.

[Kobblehead]

I'd rather try to trade into the back of the first round by consolidating non-core pieces and 2nd round pick currency. Trying to acquire a Top 10 pick is a high stakes game.

[Sixerscan]

That was 35 years ago and Andrew Toney had PG skills and regularly ran PG when Cheeks sat.

I don't agree with the premise that you can't win with. 6'4 or under SG, because it has been done recently, But the player needs to have PG skills or be a great defender to be more than just a role player on a good team.

Well he didn't say in the last 10 years.

Aren't those the sort of things you need to do to be more than a role player, regardless of your height? Or have some other out of this world skill? I'm not sure what height in the abstract has to do with anything. Anyway I'm guessing Mitchell has a longer wingspan than most recent championship starting 2 guards besides maybe Wade. This height thing is one step beyond "name a champion 2 guard that was born on a Tuesday"

Now you're​ overstating your point. When, where and how you were born is irrelevant. Your physical attributes are relevant. You're basically saying height in basketball is irrelevant, and you know it's not. Otherwise Jordan Bell, Juwan Evans and Semi Ojeleye would be top 10 picks in this draft.

He's simplifying and ruining his own argument by being dogmatic on the specific height you have to be, in order to be a champion. But the point is, if you are under 6'4 today, you better have multiple high level skills in order to be a starter in the league today. I don't know that Mitchell has multiple high level skills. He's a good college defender and a decent (not great) shooter. He's not an elite ballhandler and he's a downright mediocre distributor. So you're basically dreaming he can become Avery Bradley at best, who until recently everybody in the league looked at as a 3rd guard.

I said "one step beyond". It's relavant but not very, especially in the context of presenting it as a hard and fast rule which is what I was responding to.

I don't agree that shorter people need to have more skills (they need the same skills as the taller person, it's just easier for the taller person to have those skills) but it's too abstract of an argument to pursue.

Anyway, Mitchell has above average length for a two guard. What do I care if he or Avery Bradley have short necks.

[Negrodamus]

Word from a friend who works for the Sixers: Tatum or Bell being considered at 3. Considering trading 3 for 5 and 10 to take Monk or Fox at 5-- they supposedly like Monk.

Take it with a grain of salt, this person is not connected to BC, just interesting conversation fodder. I would beyond depressed if we passed on Jackson or Ball for Tatum, or walked away from this draft with Monk as the marquee.

I'm assuming you meant Ball, right?

[rzzzzz]

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/six-teams-attend-dennis-smiths-pro-day/

(check out the video. hope LA doesn't take him.)

[LloydFree]

you're basically dreaming he can become Avery Bradley at best, who until recently everybody in the league looked at as a 3rd guard.

Or a bigger version of Patrick Beverly. Don't most agree Beverly is a fine complimentary starting off-ball PG?

Beverly has wound up generating the 11th highest VORP in the 2009 draft. Only 6 of the lotto picks that year have been more valuable in their career. Don't be surprised if Mitchell has a similar story.

Patrick Beverly is a maniacal defender. He's a player who went to Europe for a few seasons and just locked in on exactly what he can and cannot do. And it took Patrick Beverly 5 years to become Patrick Beverly. It's very hard to project something like that.

[MatthewGeigerII]

Word from a friend who works for the Sixers: Tatum or Bell being considered at 3. Considering trading 3 for 5 and 10 to take Monk or Fox at 5-- they supposedly like Monk.

Take it with a grain of salt, this person is not connected to BC, just interesting conversation fodder. I would beyond depressed if we passed on Jackson or Ball for Tatum, or walked away from this draft with Monk as the marquee.

i also think the only way you get 5 and 10 is if you show sac you're serious and take fox at 3. get them in a panic.

which COULD backfire if jackson or ball is passed over.

this i think is the toughest decision to make.. play a game with sac or just take ball or jackson and call it a day.

[Chris76]

Assuming the 76ers selected Jackson, I'd trade Saric, Okafor and Justin Anderson for any one of picks #7-10 and take Monk. I wouldn't trade any future picks though. If they selected Ball at 3, I'd be a little less inclined to move back into the top10. I'd just concentrate on signing a stretch 4.[/quote]

They were very well thought out trades to move back to get a second pick. Probably, the Knicks trade seems possible. However, why would you want to trade Saric for peanuts, than look for a stretch 4. Saric is a stretch 4. He might not be perfect, but he gets the job done.

[Sixerscan]

Word from a friend who works for the Sixers: Tatum or Bell being considered at 3. Considering trading 3 for 5 and 10 to take Monk or Fox at 5-- they supposedly like Monk.

Take it with a grain of salt, this person is not connected to BC, just interesting conversation fodder. I would beyond depressed if we passed on Jackson or Ball for Tatum, or walked away from this draft with Monk as the marquee.

i also think the only way you get 5 and 10 is if you show sac you're serious and take fox at 3. get them in a panic.

which COULD backfire if jackson or ball is passed over.

this i think is the toughest decision to make.. play a game with sac or just take ball or jackson and call it a day.

Don't think either side would want to do the trade until they know who is available at 3.

[HankTheTank]

Word from a friend who works for the Sixers: Tatum or Bell being considered at 3. Considering trading 3 for 5 and 10 to take Monk or Fox at 5-- they supposedly like Monk.

Take it with a grain of salt, this person is not connected to BC, just interesting conversation fodder. I would beyond depressed if we passed on Jackson or Ball for Tatum, or walked away from this draft with Monk as the marquee.

I'm assuming you meant Ball, right?

Fixed, thanks

[Kobblehead]

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/six-teams-attend-dennis-smiths-pro-day/

(check out the video. hope LA doesn't take him.)

I would love for L.A. to assume risk by taking Dennis Smith and letting a safer pick like Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson fall neatly into our laps.

[Negrodamus]

you're basically dreaming he can become Avery Bradley at best, who until recently everybody in the league looked at as a 3rd guard.

Or a bigger version of Patrick Beverly. Don't most agree Beverly is a fine complimentary starting off-ball PG?

Beverly has wound up generating the 11th highest VORP in the 2009 draft. Only 6 of the lotto picks that year have been more valuable in their career. Don't be surprised if Mitchell has a similar story.

Patrick Beverly is a maniacal defender. He's a player who went to Europe for a few seasons and just locked in on exactly what he can and cannot do. And it took Patrick Beverly 5 years to become Patrick Beverly. It's very hard to project something like that.

I know it's one game, but it's a game against a top 5 prospect:

Watch on YouTube

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=400915409

DSJ was shut down.

Watch Mitchell against ND, their PG couldn't do anything. Throughout the draft process, Mitchell has only advocated for defense first, offense second. I'm not saying he's a shoo in for being a great defensive player, but the instincts, athleticism, mentality, length, and stats all back it up.

[LloydFree]

Assuming the 76ers selected Jackson, I'd trade Saric, Okafor and Justin Anderson for any one of picks #7-10 and take Monk. I wouldn't trade any future picks though. If they selected Ball at 3, I'd be a little less inclined to move back into the top10. I'd just concentrate on signing a stretch 4.

They were very well thought out trades to move back to get a second pick. Probably, the Knicks trade seems possible. However, why would you want to trade Saric for peanuts, than look for a stretch 4. Saric is a stretch 4. He might not be perfect, but he gets the job done.

Saric isn't a stretch 4. He isn't a good shooter and he isn't a rim protector. He's a bench player who can give you some good minutes in a limited role before the other team decides to exploit him.

[SelfishPlayer]

A player's length consists of their wingspan and standing reach. Donovan Mitchell has a sorry standing reach that nay be tied to his low college FG%.

[Kobblehead]

Every important possession in that Houston game, the Rockets would double and triple switch until they had Harden on Saric. And then he would isolate and torch him. That's a preview of what a playoff series would look like for us.

Saric is going to be a quality NBA player, but we should move him while he's attractive to other teams with 3 years on his rookie deal.

[sixerhp3]

DSJ is the only guy in this draft who is unguardable one on one, his explosiveness off the drive is something we need desperately. Add in that he is a pretty good 3 point shooter and a solid playmaker, it's a great fit and much more appropriate pick at 3 than Monk IMO

[Chris76]

Assuming the 76ers selected Jackson, I'd trade Saric, Okafor and Justin Anderson for any one of picks #7-10 and take Monk. I wouldn't trade any future picks though. If they selected Ball at 3, I'd be a little less inclined to move back into the top10. I'd just concentrate on signing a stretch 4.

They were very well thought out trades to move back to get a second pick. Probably, the Knicks trade seems possible. However, why would you want to trade Saric for peanuts, than look for a stretch 4. Saric is a stretch 4. He might not be perfect, but he gets the job done.

Saric isn't a stretch 4. He isn't a good shooter and he isn't a rim protector. He's a bench player who can give you some good minutes in a limited role before the other team decides to exploit him.

Saric doesn't shoot as well as Kevin Love, but he is probably as strong and he may be a better passer. Unfortunately, they both struggle at defense. He may not be a starter, but he could be good of the bench.