2019 Draft Discussion - Suns with 6th pick!

[WeekapaugGroove]

Gambo said that he got a text message from a high ranking NBA guy saying him that the Suns is the team that has promised to Garland that we will pick him at #6.

Gambo added that he knows that we like Garland for sure.

As long as they are patient with him and bring in a vet to start for a year or two I'd be cool with this pick. The nice thing is as a shooter you can find him some minutes off the bench as an instant offense guy while he works on the rest of his game.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

They wouldn't promise a guy before working him out or giving him medical tests. That's ridiculous.

I mean this is the suns so anything is possible

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[darealjuice]

I'm surprised that Jarrett Culver came in under 200 pounds. He has the frame to carry more weight, but he's already not all that quick despite playing light. He's shorter, lighter, and less athletic than Josh Jackson though, so there's zero chance that he's playing any power forward in the NBA early in his career. He's starting to look like an Evan Turner-type to me. I think he's about average athletically and I have questions about how his range will extend.

Kevin Porter Jr is an interesting prospect. Seattle baller that's built like a tank at 6'4.5" and 213 pounds with a 6'10" wing span. Lefty, athletic, very shifty with the ball, creates his own shot, and knocks down the 3 ball. Really curious what's going on with his free throws though. He didn't have a great year with USC, but he has some boom potential in the NBA with his skillset, athleticism, and body. I can see him being a riser during the workout process.

It was probably the Suns or Bulls that promised Garland. The Lakers have no reason to make promises when you can guarantee that pick is on the trade block for LeBron reinforcements. Seems a bit weird to make a promise on a guy that played so few games, but maybe the team that promised him has already saw his medicals before promising.

[bhawk]

Gambo said that he got a text message from a high ranking NBA guy saying him that the Suns is the team that has promised to Garland that we will pick him at #6.

Gambo added that he knows that we like Garland for sure and that an option that we are thinking too is to trade #6 for Lonzo Ball.

Welcome to Brandon Knight 2.0. This is not inspiring and makes me want Coby over Garland. A few excerpts...

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/04/25/draft-notes-darius-garland-vs-damian-lillard/

Here’s the problem for Garland. He has Lillard’s most obvious strength (the shooting ability and shiftiness to allow him to functionally use it) and his most obvious weakness (the fact that he’s not really a point guard), but lacks all of the less obvious (and super strong) strengths of Lillard’s college profile that indeed allow the rest of his game to play to the ability it does.

I’m talking about athleticism, explosion, decision-making and specifically, the ability to almost never make mistakes.

In contrast, Darius Garland turned the ball over 4.3 times per 40 minutes against sub-solid early season competition and 6.3 times per 100 minutes. This is a major departure point in the profiles of these two players.

It comes down to explosion and suddenness. Lillard’s ability to get to the rim in college essentially allowed him to greatly limit his 2-point jumpers, whereas Garland due to being less bursty and less explosive, had to settle for numerous 2-pt jump shots (which to his credit he made).

Still, even acknowledging Lillard wasn’t yet Lillard as a freshman, we can’t get around the obvious. Garland isn’t explosive as Lillard was, and Garland isn’t the caretaker/decision-maker that Lillard was.

Jump shooting is very important, but jump shooting on its own is not enough. Not even close. Not when the top competition can make passes like these.

Which is not to say Garland can’t improve. There exists that possibility since sufficiently great jump shooters distort the defense and create openings that few players have. But Garland right now is much, much, much more likely to not be Lillard than to be Lillard. In fact, though his on court game resembles Lillard’s on the surface, his underlying offensive strengths and weaknesses, the way he actually plays, if we can look past that he shoots a deep step-back jumper, actually compares much more favorably to Lillard’s teammate CJ McCollum.

Now ask yourself a question. Be honest. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that first group?

And another. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that second group?

And one more. If he does belong with the names of the players in that second group, where is he as good, and where is he worse?

END.

[darealjuice]

Gambo said that he got a text message from a high ranking NBA guy saying him that the Suns is the team that has promised to Garland that we will pick him at #6.

Gambo added that he knows that we like Garland for sure and that an option that we are thinking too is to trade #6 for Lonzo Ball.

Welcome to Brandon Knight 2.0. This is not inspiring and makes me want Coby over Garland. A few excerpts...

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/04/25/draft-notes-darius-garland-vs-damian-lillard/

Here’s the problem for Garland. He has Lillard’s most obvious strength (the shooting ability and shiftiness to allow him to functionally use it) and his most obvious weakness (the fact that he’s not really a point guard), but lacks all of the less obvious (and super strong) strengths of Lillard’s college profile that indeed allow the rest of his game to play to the ability it does.

I’m talking about athleticism, explosion, decision-making and specifically, the ability to almost never make mistakes.

In contrast, Darius Garland turned the ball over 4.3 times per 40 minutes against sub-solid early season competition and 6.3 times per 100 minutes. This is a major departure point in the profiles of these two players.

It comes down to explosion and suddenness. Lillard’s ability to get to the rim in college essentially allowed him to greatly limit his 2-point jumpers, whereas Garland due to being less bursty and less explosive, had to settle for numerous 2-pt jump shots (which to his credit he made).

Still, even acknowledging Lillard wasn’t yet Lillard as a freshman, we can’t get around the obvious. Garland isn’t explosive as Lillard was, and Garland isn’t the caretaker/decision-maker that Lillard was.

Jump shooting is very important, but jump shooting on its own is not enough. Not even close. Not when the top competition can make passes like these.

Which is not to say Garland can’t improve. There exists that possibility since sufficiently great jump shooters distort the defense and create openings that few players have. But Garland right now is much, much, much more likely to not be Lillard than to be Lillard. In fact, though his on court game resembles Lillard’s on the surface, his underlying offensive strengths and weaknesses, the way he actually plays, if we can look past that he shoots a deep step-back jumper, actually compares much more favorably to Lillard’s teammate CJ McCollum.

Now ask yourself a question. Be honest. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that first group?

And another. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that second group?

And one more. If he does belong with the names of the players in that second group, where is he as good, and where is he worse?

END.

Why are you citing statistics for a guy that played 4 full games?

[Revived]

Gambo said that he got a text message from a high ranking NBA guy saying him that the Suns is the team that has promised to Garland that we will pick him at #6.

Gambo added that he knows that we like Garland for sure and that an option that we are thinking too is to trade #6 for Lonzo Ball.

Welcome to Brandon Knight 2.0. This is not inspiring and makes me want Coby over Garland. A few excerpts...

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/04/25/draft-notes-darius-garland-vs-damian-lillard/

Here’s the problem for Garland. He has Lillard’s most obvious strength (the shooting ability and shiftiness to allow him to functionally use it) and his most obvious weakness (the fact that he’s not really a point guard), but lacks all of the less obvious (and super strong) strengths of Lillard’s college profile that indeed allow the rest of his game to play to the ability it does.

I’m talking about athleticism, explosion, decision-making and specifically, the ability to almost never make mistakes.

In contrast, Darius Garland turned the ball over 4.3 times per 40 minutes against sub-solid early season competition and 6.3 times per 100 minutes. This is a major departure point in the profiles of these two players.

It comes down to explosion and suddenness. Lillard’s ability to get to the rim in college essentially allowed him to greatly limit his 2-point jumpers, whereas Garland due to being less bursty and less explosive, had to settle for numerous 2-pt jump shots (which to his credit he made).

Still, even acknowledging Lillard wasn’t yet Lillard as a freshman, we can’t get around the obvious. Garland isn’t explosive as Lillard was, and Garland isn’t the caretaker/decision-maker that Lillard was.

Jump shooting is very important, but jump shooting on its own is not enough. Not even close. Not when the top competition can make passes like these.

Which is not to say Garland can’t improve. There exists that possibility since sufficiently great jump shooters distort the defense and create openings that few players have. But Garland right now is much, much, much more likely to not be Lillard than to be Lillard. In fact, though his on court game resembles Lillard’s on the surface, his underlying offensive strengths and weaknesses, the way he actually plays, if we can look past that he shoots a deep step-back jumper, actually compares much more favorably to Lillard’s teammate CJ McCollum.

Now ask yourself a question. Be honest. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that first group?

And another. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that second group?

And one more. If he does belong with the names of the players in that second group, where is he as good, and where is he worse?

END.

Why are you citing statistics for a guy that played 4 full games?

What else is there to cite for him exactly?

[VCfor3]

I’m thinking maybe we can hustle the grizzlies to do a trade. I’m thinking tj, #6, mil pick, 2020 pick top 3 protected for #2 and whatever makes the salaries match

I don't think that would get it done. I think the FO is super excited to pair Ja with JJJ.

[bhawk]

Welcome to Brandon Knight 2.0. This is not inspiring and makes me want Coby over Garland. A few excerpts...

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/04/25/draft-notes-darius-garland-vs-damian-lillard/

Here’s the problem for Garland. He has Lillard’s most obvious strength (the shooting ability and shiftiness to allow him to functionally use it) and his most obvious weakness (the fact that he’s not really a point guard), but lacks all of the less obvious (and super strong) strengths of Lillard’s college profile that indeed allow the rest of his game to play to the ability it does.

I’m talking about athleticism, explosion, decision-making and specifically, the ability to almost never make mistakes.

In contrast, Darius Garland turned the ball over 4.3 times per 40 minutes against sub-solid early season competition and 6.3 times per 100 minutes. This is a major departure point in the profiles of these two players.

It comes down to explosion and suddenness. Lillard’s ability to get to the rim in college essentially allowed him to greatly limit his 2-point jumpers, whereas Garland due to being less bursty and less explosive, had to settle for numerous 2-pt jump shots (which to his credit he made).

Still, even acknowledging Lillard wasn’t yet Lillard as a freshman, we can’t get around the obvious. Garland isn’t explosive as Lillard was, and Garland isn’t the caretaker/decision-maker that Lillard was.

Jump shooting is very important, but jump shooting on its own is not enough. Not even close. Not when the top competition can make passes like these.

Which is not to say Garland can’t improve. There exists that possibility since sufficiently great jump shooters distort the defense and create openings that few players have. But Garland right now is much, much, much more likely to not be Lillard than to be Lillard. In fact, though his on court game resembles Lillard’s on the surface, his underlying offensive strengths and weaknesses, the way he actually plays, if we can look past that he shoots a deep step-back jumper, actually compares much more favorably to Lillard’s teammate CJ McCollum.

Now ask yourself a question. Be honest. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that first group?

And another. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that second group?

And one more. If he does belong with the names of the players in that second group, where is he as good, and where is he worse?

END.

Why are you citing statistics for a guy that played 4 full games?

What else is there to cite for him exactly?

I'm not. The Stepien is. Click the link. Just doing some research and found this... do you have any positive on the guy? I would love to see it / read it. Garland, as far as I can find, is being compared to a jump shooting 2 guard as his projection who struggles to finish / get to the rim and FT line.

[darealjuice]

Welcome to Brandon Knight 2.0. This is not inspiring and makes me want Coby over Garland. A few excerpts...

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/04/25/draft-notes-darius-garland-vs-damian-lillard/

Here’s the problem for Garland. He has Lillard’s most obvious strength (the shooting ability and shiftiness to allow him to functionally use it) and his most obvious weakness (the fact that he’s not really a point guard), but lacks all of the less obvious (and super strong) strengths of Lillard’s college profile that indeed allow the rest of his game to play to the ability it does.

I’m talking about athleticism, explosion, decision-making and specifically, the ability to almost never make mistakes.

In contrast, Darius Garland turned the ball over 4.3 times per 40 minutes against sub-solid early season competition and 6.3 times per 100 minutes. This is a major departure point in the profiles of these two players.

It comes down to explosion and suddenness. Lillard’s ability to get to the rim in college essentially allowed him to greatly limit his 2-point jumpers, whereas Garland due to being less bursty and less explosive, had to settle for numerous 2-pt jump shots (which to his credit he made).

Still, even acknowledging Lillard wasn’t yet Lillard as a freshman, we can’t get around the obvious. Garland isn’t explosive as Lillard was, and Garland isn’t the caretaker/decision-maker that Lillard was.

Jump shooting is very important, but jump shooting on its own is not enough. Not even close. Not when the top competition can make passes like these.

Which is not to say Garland can’t improve. There exists that possibility since sufficiently great jump shooters distort the defense and create openings that few players have. But Garland right now is much, much, much more likely to not be Lillard than to be Lillard. In fact, though his on court game resembles Lillard’s on the surface, his underlying offensive strengths and weaknesses, the way he actually plays, if we can look past that he shoots a deep step-back jumper, actually compares much more favorably to Lillard’s teammate CJ McCollum.

Now ask yourself a question. Be honest. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that first group?

And another. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that second group?

And one more. If he does belong with the names of the players in that second group, where is he as good, and where is he worse?

END.

Why are you citing statistics for a guy that played 4 full games?

What else is there to cite for him exactly?

I mean you can actually watch how he plays? It's very misleading to quote stats from that small of a sample size. Are per 100 and per 40 stats really an accurate representation of a guy that barely played over 100 minutes?

[lilfishi22]

I like Clarke, but there are some legit cons on his game/profile.

He is old for real. He will be 23 before the start of the season. Upside is limited because he lacks shooting yet at his age.
He lacks shot creation too, he does not have perimeter skills at all...overall he is limited on offense.

His defense is pretty good, but I do not expect him as a dominant defensive player in the NBA because of his size (6'8, 220 lbs) and average wingspan (eye test).
Really difficult to be an intimadating defensive frontcourt player with that height in the NBA. He is a PF/C and he is gonna be undersized.

He is a PF, not a C. Draymond Green doesnt seem to have an issue being a intimidating defensive frontcourt player, and he is an inch shorter. PJ Tucker is 6'5 and his size/height hasnt been an issue with him defending much taller PF's either. Its not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

As for his age, yup, he is older, cant dispute that. But one thing that article points out is that he will be in his "Prime" at the end of his 1st cheap rookie contract and going into his 2nd, so in a way, you will end up getting a prime player for much cheaper than if he was entering his 3rd contract while in his prime.

Stepien nailed it, he is a Jordan Bell type of player, but with better defense and much much much better offense. In my eyes, thats perfect.

Draymond Green has a 7'1 wingspan and at least 20 lbs on Clarke. I'm not totally out on Clarke but his wingspan is not ideal and it does matter.

Marion is another guy mentioned with Clarke and he had over a 7ft wingspan.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Likewise with Tucker. He has a 7ft wingspan too and probably a thicc 230-240lbs

There's definitely reasons why most teams don't play 6'6-6'7 guys at the the 4 or 5 and Tucker/Dray are kind of the exceptions. I will say something in favor of Clarke though, he is easily more athletic than both Dray and Tucker and *appears* to have quite a high defensive IQ. But if he isn't able to get a halfway decent jump shot, it's going to be a problem.

I still like Clarke but his very average wingspan and his age and weight is a little concerning. His age is concerning because it means he's more physically mature than most entering the NBA so he is closer to his ceiling when it comes adding size and strength than say, an 18 year old Booker coming in looking like he's skin and bones.

[sunsbum]

I like clarke but he reminds me of brandon wright.. a more explosive shorter brandon wright. Is that what we need cause I feel like we dont.

[lilfishi22]

Read on Twitter

Lol that's absurd

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Imagine a player dwarfing Boban in today's NBA

[bhawk]

I was encouraged after watching these Garland highlights... BUT some obvious observations... he is still small... he is good at jump shooting... can he even dunk? Love the handles. He showed flashes of playmaking.

Watch on YouTube

Also, what was the knee injury? Does anyone know or have details?

[bwgood77]

He is a PF, not a C. Draymond Green doesnt seem to have an issue being a intimidating defensive frontcourt player, and he is an inch shorter. PJ Tucker is 6'5 and his size/height hasnt been an issue with him defending much taller PF's either. Its not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

As for his age, yup, he is older, cant dispute that. But one thing that article points out is that he will be in his "Prime" at the end of his 1st cheap rookie contract and going into his 2nd, so in a way, you will end up getting a prime player for much cheaper than if he was entering his 3rd contract while in his prime.

Stepien nailed it, he is a Jordan Bell type of player, but with better defense and much much much better offense. In my eyes, thats perfect.

Draymond Green has a 7'1 wingspan and at least 20 lbs on Clarke. I'm not totally out on Clarke but his wingspan is not ideal and it does matter.

Marion is another guy mentioned with Clarke and he had over a 7ft wingspan.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Likewise with Tucker. He has a 7ft wingspan too and probably a thicc 230-240lbs

There's definitely reasons why most teams don't play 6'6-6'7 guys at the the 4 or 5 and Tucker/Dray are kind of the exceptions. I will say something in favor of Clarke though, he is easily more athletic than both Dray and Tucker and *appears* to have quite a high defensive IQ. But if he isn't able to get a halfway decent jump shot, it's going to be a problem.

I still like Clarke but his very average wingspan and his age and weight is a little concerning. His age is concerning because it means he's more physically mature than most entering the NBA so he is closer to his ceiling when it comes adding size and strength than say, an 18 year old Booker coming in looking like he's skin and bones.

What I like about Clarke is that he is one of the better defensive guys in college history, and best shot blockers ever despite not having the measurables. What he has on a lot of these guys with more length is more heart, iq, athleticisim and timing. Just like I wouldn't knock Zion for his wingspan because he is an athletic freak, I feel similarly to Brandon Clarke, given the other options. Most of these guys like Culver and Hunter have some decent qualities (defense for Culver, 3 pt shooting for Hunter), they are just more wings with big flaws...normal guys that would get drafted in the teens. Now Clarke is probably a guy that normally goes in the teens, mainly due to the age and measurables, but you can't really measure the intangibles and heart a guy brings, but the elite defense, shot blocking and finishing would be welcome given our likely options.

I do like Garland. Not sure about White.

[WeekapaugGroove]

I was encouraged after watching these Garland highlights... BUT some obvious observations... he is still small... he is good at jump shooting... can he even dunk? Love the handles. He showed flashes of playmaking.

Watch on YouTube

Also, what was the knee injury? Does anyone know or have details?

It was a meniscus injury.

He actually reminds me of a good shooting Brandon Jennings, that's not a knock.

Side note- I watched some Coby White last night and I'm not sure if he'll be good but dude is fun.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[darealjuice]

I will say that I don't see the Lillard and Garland comparison. Lillard is more explosive and plays above the rim a bit, while Garland is more the quick and crafty type. His play style is closer to CJ McCollum's or a poor man's Kyrie in my opinion. Not much tape to figure out if he's closer to Brandon Knight or Kyrie Irving though lol, unless you put a lot of stock in his tape with USA Basketball.

I'm a fan of Garland's though. He should be a pretty smart kid considering he went to Vanderbilt. His dad had a decent career in the league, so he has the NBA pedigree. I think his vision is a bit underrated, I like how shifty he is with the ball in his hands, and you gotta like a guy that can score with or without the ball from all 3 levels with deep range in this era. I don't think he's a guarantee or anything, but he'd be a solid consolation prize for us if we can't find a better trade.

[bigfoot]

Gambo said that he got a text message from a high ranking NBA guy saying him that the Suns is the team that has promised to Garland that we will pick him at #6.

Gambo added that he knows that we like Garland for sure and that an option that we are thinking too is to trade #6 for Lonzo Ball.

Welcome to Brandon Knight 2.0. This is not inspiring and makes me want Coby over Garland. A few excerpts...

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/04/25/draft-notes-darius-garland-vs-damian-lillard/

Here’s the problem for Garland. He has Lillard’s most obvious strength (the shooting ability and shiftiness to allow him to functionally use it) and his most obvious weakness (the fact that he’s not really a point guard), but lacks all of the less obvious (and super strong) strengths of Lillard’s college profile that indeed allow the rest of his game to play to the ability it does.

I’m talking about athleticism, explosion, decision-making and specifically, the ability to almost never make mistakes.

In contrast, Darius Garland turned the ball over 4.3 times per 40 minutes against sub-solid early season competition and 6.3 times per 100 minutes. This is a major departure point in the profiles of these two players.

It comes down to explosion and suddenness. Lillard’s ability to get to the rim in college essentially allowed him to greatly limit his 2-point jumpers, whereas Garland due to being less bursty and less explosive, had to settle for numerous 2-pt jump shots (which to his credit he made).

Still, even acknowledging Lillard wasn’t yet Lillard as a freshman, we can’t get around the obvious. Garland isn’t explosive as Lillard was, and Garland isn’t the caretaker/decision-maker that Lillard was.

Jump shooting is very important, but jump shooting on its own is not enough. Not even close. Not when the top competition can make passes like these.

Which is not to say Garland can’t improve. There exists that possibility since sufficiently great jump shooters distort the defense and create openings that few players have. But Garland right now is much, much, much more likely to not be Lillard than to be Lillard. In fact, though his on court game resembles Lillard’s on the surface, his underlying offensive strengths and weaknesses, the way he actually plays, if we can look past that he shoots a deep step-back jumper, actually compares much more favorably to Lillard’s teammate CJ McCollum.

Now ask yourself a question. Be honest. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that first group?

And another. Do you believe Garland belongs with the names in that second group?

And one more. If he does belong with the names of the players in that second group, where is he as good, and where is he worse?

END.

Been writing mathematic proofs lately??

[BobbieL]

As long as they are patient with him and bring in a vet to start for a year or two I'd be cool with this pick. The nice thing is as a shooter you can find him some minutes off the bench as an instant offense guy while he works on the rest of his game.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

They wouldn't promise a guy before working him out or giving him medical tests. That's ridiculous.

I mean this is the suns so anything is possible

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

I just don’t think this is true. Jones has been clear that he wants veteran players.

[Crives]

Is Garlands injury something to be worried about long term?

[lilfishi22]

Draymond Green has a 7'1 wingspan and at least 20 lbs on Clarke. I'm not totally out on Clarke but his wingspan is not ideal and it does matter.

Marion is another guy mentioned with Clarke and he had over a 7ft wingspan.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Likewise with Tucker. He has a 7ft wingspan too and probably a thicc 230-240lbs

There's definitely reasons why most teams don't play 6'6-6'7 guys at the the 4 or 5 and Tucker/Dray are kind of the exceptions. I will say something in favor of Clarke though, he is easily more athletic than both Dray and Tucker and *appears* to have quite a high defensive IQ. But if he isn't able to get a halfway decent jump shot, it's going to be a problem.

I still like Clarke but his very average wingspan and his age and weight is a little concerning. His age is concerning because it means he's more physically mature than most entering the NBA so he is closer to his ceiling when it comes adding size and strength than say, an 18 year old Booker coming in looking like he's skin and bones.

What I like about Clarke is that he is one of the better defensive guys in college history, and best shot blockers ever despite not having the measurables. What he has on a lot of these guys with more length is more heart, iq, athleticisim and timing. Just like I wouldn't knock Zion for his wingspan because he is an athletic freak, I feel similarly to Brandon Clarke, given the other options. Most of these guys like Culver and Hunter have some decent qualities (defense for Culver, 3 pt shooting for Hunter), they are just more wings with big flaws...normal guys that would get drafted in the teens. Now Clarke is probably a guy that normally goes in the teens, mainly due to the age and measurables, but you can't really measure the intangibles and heart a guy brings, but the elite defense, shot blocking and finishing would be welcome given our likely options.

I do like Garland. Not sure about White.

His athleticism and defensive IQ certainly helps made him one of the best defenders in college history. But the best defenders at the college level doesn't always translate in the NBA, especially if you don't have much offense outside of the restricted area. At the NBA level where guys are more athletic, bigger and on average has a higher offensive IQ than at the college level, I do think his below average size will become more of a factor. FWIW Zion has a 6'10ish wing span which isn't ideal for a big man but his unreal athleticism, strength, size (a good 80lbs heavier than Clarke) and of course defensive IQ helps even the odds. More importantly, what Zion is bringing to the NBA (size, strength and athleticism) would *still* put him in that elite tier for those 3 categories. Clarke's size isn't great, his strength isn't great, his wingspan is certainly below average and while he is very athletic, he may not necessarily be in that elite tier.

I'm not saying other alternatives aren't flawed either (quite frankly, I'd rather move the pick altogether) but just having come around on Clarke over the past 2 months or so and seeing his measurements now does bring back those initial questions I had of him. In a very weak draft I could certainly see him go in the top 10 but being a top 10 pick in a weak draft doesn't necessarily mean he has the usual top 10 pick upside. Given his age as well and the fact that he could still be a top 10 guy actually says more about the quality of the draft than it does his talent/projections.

I don't have much to say about Garland just because there's so little film of him. White I need to research a bit more. I'm probably less enthusiastic about looking in this draft than in previous drafts largely because I want to move this pick for a vet and also just because of how weak this draft is.

[lilfishi22]

They wouldn't promise a guy before working him out or giving him medical tests. That's ridiculous.

I mean this is the suns so anything is possible

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

I just don’t think this is true. Jones has been clear that he wants veteran players.

And he could still get them in free agency or via trades (not necessarily involving the pick)

There are definitely other avenues of getting veteran players outside of trading the pick