Draft Discussion Part 3

[kennydorglas]

Can you imagine Lakers 'passing' on Ball after all this crap?

[Kerrsed]

Can you imagine Lakers 'passing' on Ball after all this crap?

I've been seeing quite a few mocks lately with Lakers taking Fox, Sixers taking Jackson or Monk, and damn near all of those have us taking Ball.

Lots of them think that if he's on the board, we will take him. It goes back to Gambo saying our FO has Ball ranked #1 in the draft.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Can you imagine Lakers 'passing' on Ball after all this crap?

I've been seeing quite a few mocks lately with Lakers taking Fox, Sixers taking Jackson or Monk, and damn near all of those have us taking Ball.

Lots of them think that if he's on the board, we will take him. It goes back to Gambo saying our FO has Ball ranked #1 in the draft.

If Lonzo falls to us, I think there's close to a 0% chance we would pass. Not much more to say on that subject.

... Except that, if Lonzo falls to 3, I expect we'd offer Bled and #4 for him.

[bwgood77]

I'm not a fan of anyone who can't shoot...shooting IS basketball, otherwise its soccer.

I get it with your PG who can't shoot philosophy, but Jackson not being able to shoot means he is one dimensional right now with the hopes of being a two-way player as well. With this logic, isn't Monk and Tatum better prospects? Both can shoot and have the tools to play defense.

If Jackson and Fox never learn to shoot......then they are a wasted picks at number 4. Getting Monk to defend PG and Tatum to focus on D a little more is easier than getting non-shooters to shot better. IMO, of course.

Well, Jackson did shoot better from 3 than Tatum in college. He may not have good form, but it went in. Comparing Jackson's shot to Fox's isn't fair, as Jackson shot 37.8% from 3 (on higher volume) to Fox's 24.6%. Jackson has the size to guard multiple positions as well. And despite Fox having the ball in his hands, and Jackson being a glue guy, Fox still averaged only 4.6 apg compared to Jackson's 3 apg.

I mean Tatum is very likely going to be a better shooter than Jackson, but Jackson did shoot better from deep in college. Monk MIGHT become a good defender but he won't be able to guard a lot of 2s so he'd need to guard 1s, most of which the good ones are tough to stop for anyone.

In case you were not up to date on their college #s. http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/prospects/stats

Give me all of those guys conversions on open, contested, assisted, and pull up off the dribble three point percentage. Just saying he shot better at three means very little when the shooters took different shots. We have stats for everything and since we are breaking down players like 1957 Chevy engines, could some stat geek pull that up? Thanks.

I know Tatum is a better shooter that Jackson, and I bet Fox is too. I know people love to talk about 3pt percent which is not a good indicator of shooting over FT percent which is....and Jackson's is horrible.

Oh, well I'm sure you've read darealjuice's draft prospect breakdowns, which gets into specifics. Yes, I know Jackson's FT% is horrible as well, so I am concerned about him as a shooter as well...much like I was Jaylen Brown last year. I do think Tatum is a better shooter as well. Fox? No idea He seems like a super engaged Archie Goodwin to me....but I know some here love Goodwin.

Are you suddenly not high on Jackson? I thought he was your top choice? I remember it's hard to keep up.

[bwgood77]

Can you imagine Lakers 'passing' on Ball after all this crap?

I've been seeing quite a few mocks lately with Lakers taking Fox, Sixers taking Jackson or Monk, and damn near all of those have us taking Ball.

Lots of them think that if he's on the board, we will take him. It goes back to Gambo saying our FO has Ball ranked #1 in the draft.

If Lonzo falls to us, I think there's close to a 0% chance we would pass. Not much more to say on that subject.

... Except that, if Lonzo falls to 3, I expect we'd offer Bled and #4 for him.

That's ludicrous.

[Kerrsed]

I've been seeing quite a few mocks lately with Lakers taking Fox, Sixers taking Jackson or Monk, and damn near all of those have us taking Ball.

Lots of them think that if he's on the board, we will take him. It goes back to Gambo saying our FO has Ball ranked #1 in the draft.

If Lonzo falls to us, I think there's close to a 0% chance we would pass. Not much more to say on that subject.

... Except that, if Lonzo falls to 3, I expect we'd offer Bled and #4 for him.

That's ludicrous.

[AtheJ415]

Just thinking, but if we like somebody like Hart or Ojeleye in round 2, this might be possible:

Draft PG at 4 (Fox, Smith)
Trade Bledsoe to get back into 7-10 or so. Take Markannen (as a 5) or Collins

Take Ojeleye/Hart at 32.

Lineup for potential core (guys 25 and under)
PG: Fox or Smith/Ulis
SG: Booker/DJ
SF: Warren/Bender/Ojeleye or Hart
PF: Chriss/Bender/Markannen or Collins
C: Len/Markannen or Collins

I actually really like the shooting combo of Chriss/Bender/Markannen for the bigs. We would have to really believe Markannen can play the 5 though given we don't really need a 4.

[JMac1]

Don't understand the Monk love. He's not versatile at all. Basically a scorer, who doesn't do anything else well, has questionable decisionmaking and is undersized for his position (sound familiar?).

He's not a combo guard. He's a SG through and through. I don't see any way he can play the 1 given his passing and decisionmaking.

He thrives on athletic advantage and will be moving to a league full of much better athletes.

I think he's a good player who warrants discussion in the top 10, but I will be hugely disappointed if he is our pick at 4.

There's not too many with 42 inch verticals who can stop and pop like this kid. Plus, how cool will it be when he gets his own rooting section with a bunch of dudes in robes. Then add in a Gregorian chant every time he hits a three .... oh brother.

Watch on YouTube

Monk... for the obvious AND the intangibles
Collins... sure bet need filler. Fundamentally sound.


no need to list more as one of these guys will be there......

Yuuuup

[Saberestar]

Read on Twitter

[JMac1]

Found this sweet Brandon Knight highlight reel:

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

How did you get And 1's for this? Now some of you are starting to hate on Monk like Laker fans on Lebron.

Monk is not a ball hogging chucker. He is a catch and shoot guy who plays off the ball not on the ball.....If you don't like him because of the other guy, cool, but to try to compare him to Knight is hilarious and will only disappoint you, because obviously our brass doesn't feel the same.

This league is about shooting.....but some of you guys are dying to draft a guy who shoots 56 perecent free throws and he is not named Shaq.

I like Jackson as well, but I will be very happy if we picked someone not named Issac with Jackson still on the board.

Ignore the elephant in the room with Jackson but see the gnat on the wall with Monk......smh

[AtheJ415]

I've been seeing quite a few mocks lately with Lakers taking Fox, Sixers taking Jackson or Monk, and damn near all of those have us taking Ball.

Lots of them think that if he's on the board, we will take him. It goes back to Gambo saying our FO has Ball ranked #1 in the draft.

If Lonzo falls to us, I think there's close to a 0% chance we would pass. Not much more to say on that subject.

... Except that, if Lonzo falls to 3, I expect we'd offer Bled and #4 for him.

That's ludicrous.

I agree. Bledsoe is way too valuable to trade to move up 1 spot in this hypothetical. Given Magic has said Ingram is the one untouchable on the team, I imagine that they aren't taking a SF at 2. Thus, if they pass on Ball it would be because they like another player more, such as Fox.

So let's say Fultz goes 1 and Fox 2. That guarantees the Suns one of Jackson (arguably a better fit for us to begin with) or Ball (I believe he has more upside than Jackson but also more bustability). In this scenario, I'd prefer Ball due to upside (I have no issue with Ball's weird release as it is accurate and quick. I have more concerns with Jackson ever developing a jumper than Ball buying into playing D more consistently), but not enough to trade Bledsoe and 4 for him. Bledsoe could net you a lottery pick on his own, probably one in this very draft. Would you trade Jackson and one of Collins or Markannen or Smith or Ntilikina for Ball? I wouldn't.

[JMac1]

Well, Jackson did shoot better from 3 than Tatum in college. He may not have good form, but it went in. Comparing Jackson's shot to Fox's isn't fair, as Jackson shot 37.8% from 3 (on higher volume) to Fox's 24.6%. Jackson has the size to guard multiple positions as well. And despite Fox having the ball in his hands, and Jackson being a glue guy, Fox still averaged only 4.6 apg compared to Jackson's 3 apg.

I mean Tatum is very likely going to be a better shooter than Jackson, but Jackson did shoot better from deep in college. Monk MIGHT become a good defender but he won't be able to guard a lot of 2s so he'd need to guard 1s, most of which the good ones are tough to stop for anyone.

In case you were not up to date on their college #s. http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/prospects/stats

Give me all of those guys conversions on open, contested, assisted, and pull up off the dribble three point percentage. Just saying he shot better at three means very little when the shooters took different shots. We have stats for everything and since we are breaking down players like 1957 Chevy engines, could some stat geek pull that up? Thanks.

I know Tatum is a better shooter that Jackson, and I bet Fox is too. I know people love to talk about 3pt percent which is not a good indicator of shooting over FT percent which is....and Jackson's is horrible.

Oh, well I'm sure you've read darealjuice's draft prospect breakdowns, which gets into specifics. Yes, I know Jackson's FT% is horrible as well, so I am concerned about him as a shooter as well...much like I was Jaylen Brown last year. I do think Tatum is a better shooter as well. Fox? No idea He seems like a super engaged Archie Goodwin to me....but I know some here love Goodwin.

Are you suddenly not high on Jackson? I thought he was your top choice? I remember it's hard to keep up.

Of course I am high on Jackson....dan. I only update my board by the hour.

But just because I am high on one prospect doesn't mean I have to beat up the others: I see good in all the players except Issac, but I could be wrong about him too.

Jackson
Monk
Fox
Tatum

My new board.

[AtheJ415]

Found this sweet Brandon Knight highlight reel:

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

How did you get And 1's for this? Now some of you are starting to hate on Monk like Laker fans on Lebron.

Monk is not a ball hogging chucker. He is a catch and shoot guy who plays off the ball not on the ball.....If you don't like him because of the other guy, cool, but to try to compare him to Knight is hilarious and will only disappoint you, because obviously our brass doesn't feel the same.

This league is about shooting.....but some of you guys are dying to draft a guy who shoots 56 perecent free throws and he is not named Shaq.

I like Jackson as well, but I will be very happy if we picked someone not named Issac with Jackson still on the board.

Ignore the elephant in the room with Jackson but see the gnat on the wall with Monk......smh

If you truly believe we should be going after guys for just shooting, then the pick should be Markannen no question. Monk screams Jamal Crawford to me. There is nothing wrong with that, but I'd rather go higher upside than him. He is just very short for his position, and has shown no ability to play the 1, so you are talking about an undersized 2 who doesn't quite even fit the tweener definition. A lot of busts have come from that type of framework.

I agree with your concerns on Jackson. Not just his stroke, but his FT% makes it hard to believe he will ever be an average shooter in the NBA, though crazier things have happened. Thing is, if he was an average shooter, he'd be the 1st pick of this draft.

[jredsaz]

Found this sweet Brandon Knight highlight reel:

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

How did you get And 1's for this? Now some of you are starting to hate on Monk like Laker fans on Lebron.

Monk is not a ball hogging chucker. He is a catch and shoot guy who plays off the ball not on the ball.....If you don't like him because of the other guy, cool, but to try to compare him to Knight is hilarious and will only disappoint you, because obviously our brass doesn't feel the same.

This league is about shooting.....but some of you guys are dying to draft a guy who shoots 56 perecent free throws and he is not named Shaq.

I like Jackson as well, but I will be very happy if we picked someone not named Issac with Jackson still on the board.

Ignore the elephant in the room with Jackson but see the gnat on the wall with Monk......smh

I could be wrong with that Knight comp. Monk has the better shot and is a better athlete. But Both have defensive inconsistencies and size issues for their true position. Both have decision making issues. Neither has a good handle.

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app

[Qwigglez]

The more videos I watch of Tatum, the more I am thinking he can be a cornerstone for any franchise. I've been hearing people post that Tatum is a ball stopper but I disagree. In fact, even DX has this to say about Tatum...

Another area of Tatum's game where he's shown enough progress to generate optimism, but not quite enough to be consistently effective at this stage of his career, is as a passer. Tatum has a perplexing combination of, at times, having a score first mentality, then at other times looking like he's seeking out passes that aren't there, forcing down to bigs on high-risk dump offs inside. At 2.6 assists per 40 minutes, pace adjusted, Tatum flashes the vision and potential to create for his teammates down the line, which is clearly a positive development for a player who wasn't always known for that in the past, but it's an aspect of his game that still doesn't feel fully fleshed out yet, partially due to his ball-stopping mentality.

I think as the game slows down for him, he can correct some of these forced passes.

Watch on YouTube

Anyway, a little over two weeks left until the draft.

[DaleyBlind]

Can you imagine Lakers 'passing' on Ball after all this crap?

Could you imagine Lavar Ball's reaction

[Years90Suns]

I think we should try to get a really good player by using Bledsoe and our pick.
For example, we could get Jimmy Butler with the pick and Bledsoe. Much better if the Bulls accept Knight, but for sure it will not be the case.

If we decide that we still need to improve in our current roster's abilities to be contenders in 2-3-4 years down the road, then I would go with Tatum, I believe. But Isaac is really interesting for me. He will fill up and he will be able to play multiple positions. The problem, obviously, is that we have Bender and Chriss already onboard. But Isaac will be somebody to be remembered, has he not fallen to Sacto or any other franchise where his development can be weak. Isaac in Pops's hands would be delightful.

As for the making up of the roster, I am not sure we sholud go after Iguodala. He is a SF with great experience. He will probably have two rings by summer. But we have Warren and Dudley, although counting on Duds is ridicolous. The guy is done.

Bledsoe-Knight-Ulys
Booker-Barbosa
Warren-Tatum-Dudley-Jones
Chriss-Bender
Chandler-Len-Williams

XXX-Knight-Ulys
Booker-Barbosa
Butler-Warren-Jones
Chriss-Bender
Chandler-Len-Williams

[Ghost of Kleine]

Just thinking, but if we like somebody like Hart or Ojeleye in round 2, this might be possible:

Draft PG at 4 (Fox, Smith)
Trade Bledsoe to get back into 7-10 or so. Take Markannen (as a 5) or Collins

Take Ojeleye/Hart at 32.

Lineup for potential core (guys 25 and under)
PG: Fox or Smith/Ulis
SG: Booker/DJ
SF: Warren/Bender/Ojeleye or Hart
PF: Chriss/Bender/Markannen or Collins
C: Len/Markannen or Collins

I actually really like the shooting combo of Chriss/Bender/Markannen for the bigs. We would have to really believe Markannen can play the 5 though given we don't really need a 4.

It Is very possible, given the teams in the 7-10 range of this draft! And is basically there for the taking. If the reports are even remotely true, Then the other teams gms', etc. have already identified this as a viable option, And are working on the succession of these type of deals with the teams.

This would be a beautiful scenario, If it played out for us this way! Awesome job man!

[Ghost of Kleine]

Can you imagine Lakers 'passing' on Ball after all this crap?

Could you imagine Lavar Ball's reaction

Yep!

[Ghost of Kleine]

Can you imagine Lakers 'passing' on Ball after all this crap?

Could you imagine Lavar Ball's reaction

"magic" tells Lavar, We've decided to go with De'aaron Fox instead!