Draft Thread: Who do you want with the 13th pick? Stanley Johnson and WCS added..change votes if you want

[AtheJ415]

I've never mentioned his skin color or ethnicity. I've questioned players who have all played over seas. I wouldn't draft Henozja or Mudiay in the top 8. My top 8 are Towns, Okafor, Russell, Winslow, Johnson, Booker, Cauley-Stein, and Kaminsky. I don't trust players coming from overseas who've played 20 minutes per game and putting up low numbers but touted as having great potential. Mudiay put up the best numbers out of the 3, so I'd probably take him above Porzingis and Hezonja. I've said multiple times that they aren't bad players, but they are rated too high. They'd be great picks outside of the top 10.

Porzingis is not Anthony Davis, but everyone is talking about him like he is. "He's a rim protector!" okay, then so is Okafor at 1.8 blocks per 40. "He's a stretch 4!" then why was he only shooting a little over 2 threes a game? "He's can play in the post!" then why is he only catching lobs from his teammates in transition? "He can handle the ball!" then why doesn't he get the ball on the perimeter and left to work on a slower big 1-on-1? "He's a great athlete!" then why isn't he a more dominant rebounder or shot blocker?

I think that Porzingis and Looney are actually quite comparable players in this draft. Why isn't Looney ranked in the top 5? Because he's a jack of all trades, master of none. Porzingis is in the same damn boat, but because no one watched him for 36 games this past year, everyone is free to talk about "potential" and dream up whatever they want about him, despite it not being remotely true. Again, POTENTIAL =/= ABILITY.

Direct quote from you: "How many times have we heard this about a mythical Euro big?". You then proceeded to compare him to Euro players by name, all of whom are white stereotypical European bigs. How is this not the absolute definition of bias?

I also compared him to Perry Jones, Anthony Randolph, and Giannis Antetekounpo. But hell, let's just leave them out.

Eventually, but your initial posts focused on the white guys. Anybody can throw other ethnicities in later on. Either way though, your weaknesses are simply direct contradictions to every scouting report I've ever seen on the guy aside from the knock on his post game. It's actually quite humorous. I wonder if you're that hard on everyone else in the draft. Do you think this draft just sucks?

[MrMiyagi]

Direct quote from you: "How many times have we heard this about a mythical Euro big?". You then proceeded to compare him to Euro players by name, all of whom are white stereotypical European bigs. How is this not the absolute definition of bias?

I also compared him to Perry Jones, Anthony Randolph, and Giannis Antetekounpo. But hell, let's just leave them out.

Eventually, but your initial posts focused on the white guys. Anybody can throw other ethnicities in later on. Either way though, your weaknesses are simply direct contradictions to every scouting report I've ever seen on the guy aside from the knock on his post game. It's actually quite humorous. I wonder if you're that hard on everyone else in the draft. Do you think this draft just sucks?

I don't think this draft sucks, and I'm not being hard on Porzingis. What does he do better than anyone in the draft? Tell me, I'd love to know. If I'm drafting in the top 5, that guy better be excellent at something from day 1. What is that for Porzingis? I've never said he's a bad player, I've always said he is overrated.

EDIT: Also I never said anything about Darko and Bargnani until that post with Antetekoumpo, Jones and Randolph, but hey, let's say I did for the hell of it!

[AtheJ415]

I also compared him to Perry Jones, Anthony Randolph, and Giannis Antetekounpo. But hell, let's just leave them out.

Eventually, but your initial posts focused on the white guys. Anybody can throw other ethnicities in later on. Either way though, your weaknesses are simply direct contradictions to every scouting report I've ever seen on the guy aside from the knock on his post game. It's actually quite humorous. I wonder if you're that hard on everyone else in the draft. Do you think this draft just sucks?

I don't think this draft sucks, and I'm not being hard on Porzingis. What does he do better than anyone in the draft? Tell me, I'd love to know. If I'm drafting in the top 5, that guy better be excellent at something from day 1. What is that for Porzingis? I've never said he's a bad player, I've always said he is overrated.

Shooting, size and length all easily. Kaminsky is the only big that can argue shooting, and he doesn't have the length or size Porzingis does. Porzingis has a shot that cannot be bothered due to his size and he hits it consistently.

His upside is all very high imo, although not the highest in the draft, but I know you disagree with that.

EDIT: Also I never said anything about Darko and Bargnani until that post with Antetekoumpo, Jones and Randolph, but hey, let's say I did for the hell of it!

[MrMiyagi]

Eventually, but your initial posts focused on the white guys. Anybody can throw other ethnicities in later on. Either way though, your weaknesses are simply direct contradictions to every scouting report I've ever seen on the guy aside from the knock on his post game. It's actually quite humorous. I wonder if you're that hard on everyone else in the draft. Do you think this draft just sucks?

I don't think this draft sucks, and I'm not being hard on Porzingis. What does he do better than anyone in the draft? Tell me, I'd love to know. If I'm drafting in the top 5, that guy better be excellent at something from day 1. What is that for Porzingis? I've never said he's a bad player, I've always said he is overrated.

Shooting, size and length all easily. Kaminsky is the only big that can argue shooting, and he doesn't have the length or size Porzingis does. Porzingis has a shot that cannot be bothered due to his size and he hits it consistently.

His upside is all very high imo, although not the highest in the draft, but I know you disagree with that.

EDIT: Also I never said anything about Darko and Bargnani until that post with Antetekoumpo, Jones and Randolph, but hey, let's say I did for the hell of it!

Length and size, does not a basketball player make. Just ask Thabeet. Why wasn't he taking more shots if he was such a great shooter? Is Looney a great shooter too? Why isn't Looney higher?

[AtheJ415]

Potential doesn't equal ability, but it means a lot. Russell Westbrook wasn't as good as Jerryd Bayless in high school or college. If you went on who was the better player heading into the draft, it would've been Bayless. Westbrook went surprisingly high (higher than scouts projected despite his upside), and I don't think people here would say that was a bad pick. There's always a gamble when you draft any player. I don't think Porzingis is the risk you make him out to be. And I think that a 7'1-7"2 PF who is mobile and actually helps you space the floor, and is also still very young, is something to be desired particularly at the top of a draft.

[AtheJ415]

I don't think this draft sucks, and I'm not being hard on Porzingis. What does he do better than anyone in the draft? Tell me, I'd love to know. If I'm drafting in the top 5, that guy better be excellent at something from day 1. What is that for Porzingis? I've never said he's a bad player, I've always said he is overrated.

Shooting, size and length all easily. Kaminsky is the only big that can argue shooting, and he doesn't have the length or size Porzingis does. Porzingis has a shot that cannot be bothered due to his size and he hits it consistently.

His upside is all very high imo, although not the highest in the draft, but I know you disagree with that.

EDIT: Also I never said anything about Darko and Bargnani until that post with Antetekoumpo, Jones and Randolph, but hey, let's say I did for the hell of it!

Length and size, does not a basketball player make. Just ask Thabeet. Why wasn't he taking more shots if he was such a great shooter? Is Looney a great shooter too? Why isn't Looney higher?

If Thabeet shot 38% from 3 and 54% from 2 he would be a monsterously good basketball player. That's like me saying Derrick Rose isn't a good basketball player because athleticism doesn't make a basketball player--ask Gerald Green. He didn't take more shots because he's playing in a league where he's going against 30 year old grown men who happen to be better than him at his young age. The same would be true if you stuck ANY college player into Porzingis's league. Are you telling me Mirotic and Ibaka are bad shooters because they don't shoot enough? What about Danny Green? Awful shooter right? After all, he shoots as often as Porzingis (Green shoots more 3s, but same FG totals per minute, which you'd expect comparing a 2 guard to even a stretch 4).

[MrMiyagi]

Potential doesn't equal ability, but it means a lot. Russell Westbrook wasn't as good as Jerryd Bayless in high school or college. If you went on who was the better player heading into the draft, it would've been Bayless. Westbrook went surprisingly high (higher than scouts projected despite his upside), and I don't think people here would say that was a bad pick. There's always a gamble when you draft any player. I don't think Porzingis is the risk you make him out to be. And I think that a 7'1-7"2 PF who is mobile and actually helps you space the floor, and is also still very young, is something to be desired particularly at the top of a draft.

You could argue that Westbrook was a better passer than Bayless, with better assist and assist-to-turnover numbers, but overall you are correct. Westbrook and Bayless also partook in group workouts and competed. Can't say the same for Porzingis.

[AtheJ415]

I don't think this draft sucks, and I'm not being hard on Porzingis. What does he do better than anyone in the draft? Tell me, I'd love to know. If I'm drafting in the top 5, that guy better be excellent at something from day 1. What is that for Porzingis? I've never said he's a bad player, I've always said he is overrated.

Shooting, size and length all easily. Kaminsky is the only big that can argue shooting, and he doesn't have the length or size Porzingis does. Porzingis has a shot that cannot be bothered due to his size and he hits it consistently.

His upside is all very high imo, although not the highest in the draft, but I know you disagree with that.

EDIT: Also I never said anything about Darko and Bargnani until that post with Antetekoumpo, Jones and Randolph, but hey, let's say I did for the hell of it!

Length and size, does not a basketball player make. Just ask Thabeet. Why wasn't he taking more shots if he was such a great shooter? Is Looney a great shooter too? Why isn't Looney higher?

Is Looney 7'1" with a 7'6" wing span to go along with his shooting? If he was, he would go higher. But like you know, he's not. Looney's shot can be bothered much more easily than Porzingis. Looney also shot a lower 2 point FG%, and while his 3 point % was slightly higher (which you'd expect given the college 3 point line), he took even less attempts per game than Porzingis.

So let me ask you, if Porzingis can't be that good of a shooter because he only attempts 2 3's a game, then how could Looney?

[AtheJ415]

Potential doesn't equal ability, but it means a lot. Russell Westbrook wasn't as good as Jerryd Bayless in high school or college. If you went on who was the better player heading into the draft, it would've been Bayless. Westbrook went surprisingly high (higher than scouts projected despite his upside), and I don't think people here would say that was a bad pick. There's always a gamble when you draft any player. I don't think Porzingis is the risk you make him out to be. And I think that a 7'1-7"2 PF who is mobile and actually helps you space the floor, and is also still very young, is something to be desired particularly at the top of a draft.

You could argue that Westbrook was a better passer than Bayless, with better assist and assist-to-turnover numbers, but overall you are correct. Westbrook and Bayless also partook in group workouts and competed. Can't say the same for Porzingis.

So it's okay to take gambles on potential so long as the player participates in a group workout?

[MrMiyagi]

Length and size, does not a basketball player make. Just ask Thabeet. Why wasn't he taking more shots if he was such a great shooter? Is Looney a great shooter too? Why isn't Looney higher?

If Thabeet shot 38% from 3 and 54% from 2 he would be a monsterously good basketball player. That's like me saying Derrick Rose isn't a good basketball player because athleticism doesn't make a basketball player--ask Gerald Green. He didn't take more shots because he's playing in a league where he's going against 30 year old grown men who happen to be better than him at his young age. The same would be true if you stuck ANY college player into Porzingis's league. Are you telling me Mirotic and Ibaka are bad shooters because they don't shoot enough? What about Danny Green? Awful shooter right? After all, he shoots as often as Porzingis.

Danny Green is putting up 7 threes a game. Ibaka is not a great shooter, he's a good one. Mirotic did not have a great shooting season. I'll ask you again, is Looney a great shooter, with great length and good mobility? Why isn't he a top 5 pick?

[MrMiyagi]

Potential doesn't equal ability, but it means a lot. Russell Westbrook wasn't as good as Jerryd Bayless in high school or college. If you went on who was the better player heading into the draft, it would've been Bayless. Westbrook went surprisingly high (higher than scouts projected despite his upside), and I don't think people here would say that was a bad pick. There's always a gamble when you draft any player. I don't think Porzingis is the risk you make him out to be. And I think that a 7'1-7"2 PF who is mobile and actually helps you space the floor, and is also still very young, is something to be desired particularly at the top of a draft.

You could argue that Westbrook was a better passer than Bayless, with better assist and assist-to-turnover numbers, but overall you are correct. Westbrook and Bayless also partook in group workouts and competed. Can't say the same for Porzingis.

So it's okay to take gambles on potential so long as the player participates in a group workout?

If I asked you, would you rather have a car that is proven to run faster against competition vs. a car that has an engine that runs for a race, which would you choose? The proven racer, right?

[AtheJ415]

Length and size, does not a basketball player make. Just ask Thabeet. Why wasn't he taking more shots if he was such a great shooter? Is Looney a great shooter too? Why isn't Looney higher?

If Thabeet shot 38% from 3 and 54% from 2 he would be a monsterously good basketball player. That's like me saying Derrick Rose isn't a good basketball player because athleticism doesn't make a basketball player--ask Gerald Green. He didn't take more shots because he's playing in a league where he's going against 30 year old grown men who happen to be better than him at his young age. The same would be true if you stuck ANY college player into Porzingis's league. Are you telling me Mirotic and Ibaka are bad shooters because they don't shoot enough? What about Danny Green? Awful shooter right? After all, he shoots as often as Porzingis.

Danny Green is putting up 7 threes a game. Ibaka is not a great shooter, he's a good one. Mirotic did not have a great shooting season. I'll ask you again, is Looney a great shooter, with great length and good mobility? Why isn't he a top 5 pick?

Ibaka is a great shooter for a stretch 4. To claim otherwise is being idiotic. Is he a great shooter overall compared to everyone in the NBA? No. Is he great for his position? Hell yes. Let's not try to say that positions don't matter here.

I'll ask you again, do you believe 6'9" is the same as 7'2"? Do you believe that 7'3" is the same as 7'6"? Their measurements aren't even in the same stratosphere. I've already said if Looney was 7'2" with a 7'6" wingspan, or showed the potential to become that massive, he would be a top pick. Like both of us know he's not.

Green averages 11 points per game on mostly perimeter shots as a 2 guard. Porzingis averages 11 points per game on fewer shots (9 per game) playing the stretch 4. Since Porzingis has no post game according to you, then go ahead and reconcile that for me. Green takes more 3s. He should. He's a 2 guard. Porzingis takes more mid-range to deep 2s. Their shooting percentages are 55/36/75 for KP, 42/46/87 for DG. If you can't be a great shooter unless you shoot a lot, then please reconcile those total FGA. Maybe you're under the impression that a great shooter should only be determined by 3 point FGA, but I think we all know 2s matter, particularly for a PF. Either way, to believe your premise is to believe that Danny Green can't be a great shooter because he takes less shots than Parker and others. It's just stupid logic. I guess Nash was a worse shooter than Amare.

I've never seen somebody in such a rush to claim a 7'2" PF who shoots 55% from 2, 36% from 3 and 75% from the line is not a great shooter. Literally never.

[AtheJ415]

You could argue that Westbrook was a better passer than Bayless, with better assist and assist-to-turnover numbers, but overall you are correct. Westbrook and Bayless also partook in group workouts and competed. Can't say the same for Porzingis.

So it's okay to take gambles on potential so long as the player participates in a group workout?

If I asked you, would you rather have a car that is proven to run faster against competition vs. a car that has an engine that runs for a race, which would you choose? The proven racer, right?

Are you saying that playing in Porzingis' Euro league isn't competition compared to the NCAAs? Or are you saying that your stock being really high so much so that you sit out your group workout means you can't be good, which is contradicted by most every draft in every major sport?

[Kerrsed]

[tdjm]

You guys are having quite the convo in here, so I'll try not to interrupt, just chip in my 2 cents. I watched four of his games earlier this year to scout him, and the biggest negatives that I noticed were his strength and lack of willingness to bang (which everyone comments on), but also he looks slow in the head on both offense and defense

I think he'll probably never attack the glass ferociously, but that can be somewhat mitigated if he just gets strong enough to not get totally pushed around so he can hold his arms up. Being 7'1 with a 7'6 wingspan means he's going to get 6 rebs a game just by existing as long as he's not totally terrible. The strength is easy to add, so I doubt he'll be a glass cleaner but I don't think this will doom him.

More alarming was his understanding of the game. On offense he doesn't really seem to see the set progressions in any meaningful context. He didn't make the right passes (for assists or general ball rotation), didn't create for others, didn't maximize his own movements, etc. On defense, same thing, didn't really seem to 'get' the rotations or make monster plays.

I think he's going to have a gnarly first 2 or 3 years in the league, when everyone's fast and strong as hell and his brain isn't adroit enough to keep up. In a perfect world, I'd think his toolset would lead to him being picked in the 10-20 range as a big upside gamble who needs the game taught to him, but people love to go nuts. He's all measurables, but he's not a *basketball player* at this juncture

I've only seen 4 games, so I don't want to pass down the "GUARANTEED TO BUST" label or anything like that. I wasn't enamored with him, but he at least has a chance

[Grots]

my ideal scenario right now:

Bled + 13 to Knicks for 4th (or Kings for 6th), pick either Mario or Justise
Take back Miami's salary relief trash (McBob and Chalmers or whoever) for the 10th pick, and get Myles Turner

none of this will happen, of course

[Stix]

DX now has us picking WCS at #13, so that's pretty exciting. Perfect backup to Len, and we save money by not re-upping Wright.

[RaisingArizona]

Unless the plan is to go after Danny Green, Booker is a great fit here. We have no knock down shooters on this team. The guy is the best shooter in the draft and has size. Then we go hard at LMA and Love.

[MrMiyagi]

If Thabeet shot 38% from 3 and 54% from 2 he would be a monsterously good basketball player. That's like me saying Derrick Rose isn't a good basketball player because athleticism doesn't make a basketball player--ask Gerald Green. He didn't take more shots because he's playing in a league where he's going against 30 year old grown men who happen to be better than him at his young age. The same would be true if you stuck ANY college player into Porzingis's league. Are you telling me Mirotic and Ibaka are bad shooters because they don't shoot enough? What about Danny Green? Awful shooter right? After all, he shoots as often as Porzingis.

Danny Green is putting up 7 threes a game. Ibaka is not a great shooter, he's a good one. Mirotic did not have a great shooting season. I'll ask you again, is Looney a great shooter, with great length and good mobility? Why isn't he a top 5 pick?

Ibaka is a great shooter for a stretch 4. To claim otherwise is being idiotic. Is he a great shooter overall compared to everyone in the NBA? No. Is he great for his position? Hell yes. Let's not try to say that positions don't matter here.

I'll ask you again, do you believe 6'9" is the same as 7'2"? Do you believe that 7'3" is the same as 7'6"? Their measurements aren't even in the same stratosphere. I've already said if Looney was 7'2" with a 7'6" wingspan, or showed the potential to become that massive, he would be a top pick. Like both of us know he's not.

Green averages 11 points per game on mostly perimeter shots as a 2 guard. Porzingis averages 11 points per game on fewer shots (9 per game) playing the stretch 4. Since Porzingis has no post game according to you, then go ahead and reconcile that for me. Green takes more 3s. He should. He's a 2 guard. Porzingis takes more mid-range to deep 2s. Their shooting percentages are 55/36/75 for KP, 42/46/87 for DG. If you can't be a great shooter unless you shoot a lot, then please reconcile those total FGA. Maybe you're under the impression that a great shooter should only be determined by 3 point FGA, but I think we all know 2s matter, particularly for a PF. Either way, to believe your premise is to believe that Danny Green can't be a great shooter because he takes less shots than Parker and others. It's just stupid logic. I guess Nash was a worse shooter than Amare.

I've never seen somebody in such a rush to claim a 7'2" PF who shoots 55% from 2, 36% from 3 and 75% from the line is not a great shooter. Literally never.

You're saying he's a stretch 4. Taking 2 threes a game is not a stretch 4. Love shot 5 threes, Anderson shot 6, Frye was shooting 5 for us. Volume+Accuracy=Great Shooter. Klay Thompson shot 44% on 7 3s a game, Luke Babbit shot 51% on 1.8 3s a game. Is Babbit a great shooter? Is he better than Thompson?

Is Looney a great shooter too? You still haven't answered that. I'd argue that he's a better rebounder than Porzingis, better passer, and better defender. And 7'3 is in the same ballpark as 7'6 and more importantly, the same as the defensive terror known as Kawhi Leonard. How has Porzingis shown to have more potential than Looney has?

[SunsFanSSOL]

SI and DX both have WCS going to us.