2024-2025 College Basketball / NBA Draft

[Arsenal]

Really interesting discussion on here, a lot more illuminating than much of the national media tripe which tends to echo the same stuff over and over.

A question for you guys who would rather swing for the fences just because we are picking at #3 for a prospective "high ceiling" player who is a longshot to ever reach that ceiling, like Ace Bailey - you would take the 1 in 20 chance that this kid becomes more than MPJ or worse, Michael Beasley, and is much more likely to be just a good 3&D guy at his peak than a legit "star" rather than a much more certain prospect whose floor appears to be a solid starter on a good team with the upside of being an elite role player. Why?

Is a very possibly wasted high pick a better bet in an uncertain draft like this one, with really only two players who seem like locks to be stars, than just picking the kid you believe has the best chance to succeed at the next level, just because it's at #3 rather than #6?

I would only entertain a trade down for more picks, not win-now players when this group is not winning anything now - unless "win now" means just making the playoffs. But the best part of a trade down to the 6-8 area is that Ace and Tre are likely gone and we can start thinking clearly about what kid has the best shot at being a great role player - which is exactly what this draft looks to be about after picks 1 and 2.

Flame away.

Role players don't move the needle. They're a dime a dozen, and a good GM has various means to acquire them.

What matters in the NBA is stars. And very high (top 5) picks are the best/easiest way to acquire them.

Getting a guy who can only "succeed" enough to be a starter or role player isn't worth the opportunity cost with a top pick.

While I agree with you, the issue is that, on average, there are only about 5 All-Stars produced per draft. On top of that, only 2-3 of them are usually selected in the top 10. Also, consider that within those All-Star players, we are including the likes of Ben Simmons, Bradley Beal, D'Angelo Russell, Andrew Wiggins, Kristaps Porzingis, Brandon Ingram, and Andre Drummond.

Look at the hit rates of picks becoming a star and you'll see it degrades exponentially. When you get a top 3 pick you have to swing for the fences as the odds are WAY lower as you continue dropping down.
It's a game of threading the needle, and when you zoom out, getting a starter on a championship team with a top-10 pick (i.e. Gordon, KCP, J. Murry, H. Barnes) is on the higher end of potential outcomes.

I agree, aim for a star, but realize it's unlikely. Not trying to be a downer, just realistic.

The chance of acquiring a star degrades not linearly, but exponentially as you drop further down in the draft. With a top 3 pick you have to swing for the fences.

[Black Mage]

The PHLY guys did a mock draft. Bodner picked for Sixers at 3 and went VJ. Kyle sounded like it would have been his pick too.

Seems like they both side on playing it safer with VJ's lower ceiling but higher probability of getting close to the ceiling vs Ace's higher ceiling and less certainty he reaches it. It felt like Bodner spent more time talking about why it wasn't Ace rather than why it should be VJ. Not exactly a rousing endorsement.

Curious how others took that segment.

[Iverson Armband]

Really interesting discussion on here, a lot more illuminating than much of the national media tripe which tends to echo the same stuff over and over.

A question for you guys who would rather swing for the fences just because we are picking at #3 for a prospective "high ceiling" player who is a longshot to ever reach that ceiling, like Ace Bailey - you would take the 1 in 20 chance that this kid becomes more than MPJ or worse, Michael Beasley, and is much more likely to be just a good 3&D guy at his peak than a legit "star" rather than a much more certain prospect whose floor appears to be a solid starter on a good team with the upside of being an elite role player. Why?

Is a very possibly wasted high pick a better bet in an uncertain draft like this one, with really only two players who seem like locks to be stars, than just picking the kid you believe has the best chance to succeed at the next level, just because it's at #3 rather than #6?

I would only entertain a trade down for more picks, not win-now players when this group is not winning anything now - unless "win now" means just making the playoffs. But the best part of a trade down to the 6-8 area is that Ace and Tre are likely gone and we can start thinking clearly about what kid has the best shot at being a great role player - which is exactly what this draft looks to be about after picks 1 and 2.

Flame away.

Role players don't move the needle. They're a dime a dozen, and a good GM has various means to acquire them.

What matters in the NBA is stars. And very high (top 5) picks are the best/easiest way to acquire them.

Getting a guy who can only "succeed" enough to be a starter or role player isn't worth the opportunity cost with a top pick.

The issue is that, on average, there are only about 5 All-Stars produced per draft. On top of that, only 2-3 of them are usually selected in the top 10. Furthermore, that list of All-Star players includes the likes of Ben Simmons, Bradley Beal, D'Angelo Russell, Andrew Wiggins, Kristaps Porzingis, Brandon Ingram, and Andre Drummond.

It's a game of threading the needle, and when you zoom out, even getting a good starter on a championship team with a top-10 pick (i.e. Gordon, KCP, J. Murry, H. Barnes) is on the higher end of potential outcomes.

I agree - aim for a star, but realize it's unlikely. Not trying to be a downer, just realistic.

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s guaranteed. It’s like blackjack. You might make the right call and still lose the hand. The thought is that over time you’ll win more than you lose playing the correct way. But you don’t not take your doubles and splits when you have the advantage. Scared money don’t make money!

[ProcessDoctor]

Role players don't move the needle. They're a dime a dozen, and a good GM has various means to acquire them.

What matters in the NBA is stars. And very high (top 5) picks are the best/easiest way to acquire them.

Getting a guy who can only "succeed" enough to be a starter or role player isn't worth the opportunity cost with a top pick.

While I agree with you, the issue is that, on average, there are only about 5 All-Stars produced per draft. On top of that, only 2-3 of them are usually selected in the top 10. Also, consider that within those All-Star players, we are including the likes of Ben Simmons, Bradley Beal, D'Angelo Russell, Andrew Wiggins, Kristaps Porzingis, Brandon Ingram, and Andre Drummond.

Look at the hit rates of picks becoming a star and you'll see it degrades exponentially. When you get a top 3 pick you have to swing for the fences as the odds are WAY lower as you continue dropping down.
It's a game of threading the needle, and when you zoom out, getting a starter on a championship team with a top-10 pick (i.e. Gordon, KCP, J. Murry, H. Barnes) is on the higher end of potential outcomes.

I agree, aim for a star, but realize it's unlikely. Not trying to be a downer, just realistic.

The chance of acquiring a star degrades not linearly, but exponentially as you drop further down in the draft. With a top 3 pick you have to swing for the fences.

Agree 100%. But what I'm saying is that "All-Star" could still be on the level of Andrew Wiggins or D'Angelo Russell, and that would be one of the best possible outcomes. Most people would be upset if we left this draft with a player of that tier, but the reality is that we are unlikely to even get that.

[FireMorey]

I'm crossing my fingers the Spurs pass on Harper. Imagine debating all the same names for weeks and then the Spurs go Edgecombe and then the Sixers just take Harper.

[the_process]

I'm crossing my fingers the Spurs pass on Harper. Imagine debating all the same names for weeks and then the Spurs go Edgecombe and then the Sixers just take Harper.

There's no way the Spurs go Edgecombe. Bailey, maybe.

I still expect them to trade for Giannis, though. Bucks definitely take Harper at 2.

[sodmoraes]

The PHLY guys did a mock draft. Bodner picked for Sixers at 3 and went VJ. Kyle sounded like it would have been his pick too.

Seems like they both side on playing it safer with VJ's lower ceiling but higher probability of getting close to the ceiling vs Ace's higher ceiling and less certainty he reaches it. It felt like Bodner spent more time talking about why it wasn't Ace rather than why it should be VJ. Not exactly a rousing endorsement.

Curious how others took that segment.

Maybe VJ becomes a great player but i dont see star potential in him, just a really solid roleplayer. I rather swing for the fences with Acey, and maybe miss badly , than settle for VJ. Without Embiid we need a star! There´s a decent probability that Bailey isnt that guy, but his potential is way bigger than Edge´s, in my opinion.

[Stanford]

It really should be mentioned that Bodner does not consider Ace to be a fence-swinging pick. He hasn't quantified it in this way, but it doesn't seem like he considers Ace's top outcome to be a top 20 player.

[mjkvol]

It really should be mentioned that Bodner does not consider Ace to be a fence-swinging pick. He hasn't quantified it in this way, but it doesn't seem like he considers Ace's top outcome to be a top 20 player.

This is my POV exactly. I see all this talk about "swinging for the fences" and "scared money" in blackjack, but I don't see that home run prospect in this draft after the second pick. If I was going to go boom or bust with the third pick, I'd take Maluach, but he isn't a guy I would pick that high because he's much more likely to be Clint Capela than Joel Embiid.

I'd be happy with VJ because his floor is high and you pretty much know what you're getting when he comes in, and there's still a ton of potential for growth. I just don't see difference making superstar type of upside in Ace, no matter how hard everyone tries to pretend it's there, but it's really easy to imagine the bust possibility. IMO his ceiling is a solid 3&D starter. But if it had to be Ace or Tre, give me Tre, the gym rat who seems to have his head on straight regarding his game.

[Stanford]

VJ can also develop **** and guards can be top 10 players!

[sodmoraes]

I dont see Ace´s ceiling as a 3&D starter. He isolates a lot, he may not be efficient doing it, but thats a big part of his game. I think he will be a 3&D player in his first couple of years, and after that he will probably add more difficult shots in his diet. If he will be successful doing it, it´s up to a debate, but i dont think he will cut that part of this game 100%, even he´s not good at it, which may be even bad for his longterm career in the NBA if he sucks at it.

[Iverson Armband]

It really should be mentioned that Bodner does not consider Ace to be a fence-swinging pick. He hasn't quantified it in this way, but it doesn't seem like he considers Ace's top outcome to be a top 20 player.

This is my POV exactly. I see all this talk about "swinging for the fences" and "scared money" in blackjack, but I don't see that home run prospect in this draft after the second pick. If I was going to go boom or bust with the third pick, I'd take Maluach, but he isn't a guy I would pick that high because he's much more likely to be Clint Capela than Joel Embiid.

I'd be happy with VJ because his floor is high and you pretty much know what you're getting when he comes in, and there's still a ton of potential for growth. I just don't see difference making superstar type of upside in Ace, no matter how hard everyone tries to pretend it's there, but it's really easy to imagine the bust possibility. IMO his ceiling is a solid 3&D starter. But if it had to be Ace or Tre, give me Tre, the gym rat who seems to have his head on straight regarding his game.

Maluach would just be flat out irresponsible. You take smart risks, not dumb ones (not calling anyone dumb).

[mjkvol]

It really should be mentioned that Bodner does not consider Ace to be a fence-swinging pick. He hasn't quantified it in this way, but it doesn't seem like he considers Ace's top outcome to be a top 20 player.

This is my POV exactly. I see all this talk about "swinging for the fences" and "scared money" in blackjack, but I don't see that home run prospect in this draft after the second pick. If I was going to go boom or bust with the third pick, I'd take Maluach, but he isn't a guy I would pick that high because he's much more likely to be Clint Capela than Joel Embiid.

I'd be happy with VJ because his floor is high and you pretty much know what you're getting when he comes in, and there's still a ton of potential for growth. I just don't see difference making superstar type of upside in Ace, no matter how hard everyone tries to pretend it's there, but it's really easy to imagine the bust possibility. IMO his ceiling is a solid 3&D starter. But if it had to be Ace or Tre, give me Tre, the gym rat who seems to have his head on straight regarding his game.

Maluach would just be flat out irresponsible. You take smart risks, not dumb ones (not calling anyone dumb).

Try reading the post, and I essentially said I wouldn't pick him that high.

My point is that there isn't anyone besides Flagg and Harper that I consider 'top 3' level picks. It's those two and then pick your flavor - my preference given that choice is to take the kid with the highest floor who still has potential to be special.

[Negrodamus]

Really interesting discussion on here, a lot more illuminating than much of the national media tripe which tends to echo the same stuff over and over.

A question for you guys who would rather swing for the fences just because we are picking at #3 for a prospective "high ceiling" player who is a longshot to ever reach that ceiling, like Ace Bailey - you would take the 1 in 20 chance that this kid becomes more than MPJ or worse, Michael Beasley, and is much more likely to be just a good 3&D guy at his peak than a legit "star" rather than a much more certain prospect whose floor appears to be a solid starter on a good team with the upside of being an elite role player. Why?

Is a very possibly wasted high pick a better bet in an uncertain draft like this one, with really only two players who seem like locks to be stars, than just picking the kid you believe has the best chance to succeed at the next level, just because it's at #3 rather than #6?

I would only entertain a trade down for more picks, not win-now players when this group is not winning anything now - unless "win now" means just making the playoffs. But the best part of a trade down to the 6-8 area is that Ace and Tre are likely gone and we can start thinking clearly about what kid has the best shot at being a great role player - which is exactly what this draft looks to be about after picks 1 and 2.

Flame away.

Role players, or at least high level ones, are rarely role players in college. Usually they play the star role at their school and fall into a role player role once on the team and can’t do certain things like they could in college, so they survive by sticking to the things they do great.

Like Aaron Wiggins was the main guy at Maryland. Now he’s coming off the bench to provide 3&D support.

[Iverson Armband]

This is my POV exactly. I see all this talk about "swinging for the fences" and "scared money" in blackjack, but I don't see that home run prospect in this draft after the second pick. If I was going to go boom or bust with the third pick, I'd take Maluach, but he isn't a guy I would pick that high because he's much more likely to be Clint Capela than Joel Embiid.

I'd be happy with VJ because his floor is high and you pretty much know what you're getting when he comes in, and there's still a ton of potential for growth. I just don't see difference making superstar type of upside in Ace, no matter how hard everyone tries to pretend it's there, but it's really easy to imagine the bust possibility. IMO his ceiling is a solid 3&D starter. But if it had to be Ace or Tre, give me Tre, the gym rat who seems to have his head on straight regarding his game.

Maluach would just be flat out irresponsible. You take smart risks, not dumb ones (not calling anyone dumb).

Try reading the post, and I essentially said I wouldn't pick him that high.

My point is that there isn't anyone besides Flagg and Harper that I consider 'top 3' level picks. It's those two and then pick your flavor - my preference given that choice is to take the kid with the highest floor who still has potential to be special.

I read the post, thank you, and I never said you would take Maluach. Maybe you should read mine. I simply stated considering him at #3 would be dumb since you brought him up.

[Black Mage]

Very interesting read:

https://www.theringer.com/2025/05/21/nba-draft/nba-draft-dylan-harper-ace-bailey

I found this stat somewhere, but can't find the tweet again; Rutgers was -3 with Bailey on court and -23 off the court. Rutgers, per this article was -12 with both Bailey and Harper off the court.

Can anyone find the net rating for Rutgers without Harper?

[M2J]

I dont see Ace´s ceiling as a 3&D starter. He isolates a lot, he may not be efficient doing it, but thats a big part of his game. I think he will be a 3&D player in his first couple of years, and after that he will probably add more difficult shots in his diet. If he will be successful doing it, it´s up to a debate, but i dont think he will cut that part of this game 100%, even he´s not good at it, which may be even bad for his longterm career in the NBA if he sucks at it.

I tend to prefer guys that have the ability to star off the ball. You can always find ways to make them into offensive hubs, but they can play with other off ball stars, ball dominant guys, and role players. They can make a role playing point guard look better, and I think defenses have to think harder about guys that can get theirs off ball, especially if they need to add coverage to that guy off ball. This is why Maxey is an elite guard to me, regardless of what the stat watchers say.

But if Ace can be a 3 and D guy early that's terrific for any team. But his ability to create his shot in a pocket is also valuable and can be a replacement for Joel's offensive production some day, plus his desires and production as a movement shooter. The only guys of recent years that have done that legitimately were Carmelo (in his Knicks years after the 3pt shot became more important), Klay (who does have an iso game despite his reputation), George, Durant, Kawhi (probably does the least movement shooting here, but does enough to qualify). I don't think Brandon Ingram, Tatum and Brown shoot on the move enough to qualify. But these are all the closest guys to Ace IMO give or take, and his shot making ability is the highest star potential in the draft to me.

I think guys like Harper rely too much on the drive and ball dominance for me to say he's a surefire star, though has low bust potential. Flagg I think has a lot of development left on his offensive game as well as a shooter and his footwork to be a half court star. The expectation by some pundits that he's going to run Dallas offense until Kyrie gets back is laughable to me, but he's got low bust potential. I think Ace has low bust potential too as a potential 3 and D guy. As a half court offensive player that can space the floor... He can play immediately, especially because one of the best traits for a spot up shooter is being willing to let it fly, and he's got counters to good closeouts ready on day 1. I'd rather a guy who has the skill and you have to scale down their shot selection rather than someone you have to build up. Plus he wants to play defense

[mjkvol]

Maluach would just be flat out irresponsible. You take smart risks, not dumb ones (not calling anyone dumb).

Try reading the post, and I essentially said I wouldn't pick him that high.

My point is that there isn't anyone besides Flagg and Harper that I consider 'top 3' level picks. It's those two and then pick your flavor - my preference given that choice is to take the kid with the highest floor who still has potential to be special.

Oh I read the post. You contradicted yourself in the span of about one sentence.

Then you didn't read the post, but no worries. We're done here, I'm not getting into any silly back and forth garbage.

[Iverson Armband]

Sixers contemplating trading down for Tre Johnson per Jake Fischer. What could a deal with Utah at #5 look like?

[mjkvol]

Someone's going to get a steal with this kid in the 2nd round.

Read on Twitter