2019 Draft Class

[clyde21]

I'm trying to work out why such a mediocre ceiling is being placed on Deandre Hunter.

He scored 19pp/40 on one of the slowest paced teams in basketball, on 62% TS, hes functionally a pretty good athlete, he can pull up OTD, he has a mid-post creation game, solid feel/makes the right passes, can handle decently, gets to the line at a solid rate. Obviously a talented defender. Low stl/blks scare me a little bit but Virginia play a conservative scheme.

What's the catch? I get he's not a flashy player and he's on the older side, but from everything I can tell, he was a strong scorer in college at all 3 levels. He can only stand to up the 3 point volume, which seems inevitable given the super efficient % on a medium volume, and he the tools to further develop his on-ball game.

Even guys that like him in this draft are calling him a plug and play Hawks - Demarre Carroll type, which seems like a major undersell.

agreed here, Hunter's ceiling isn't as low as people think. there's a lot of room for improvement in his scoring repertoire and help defense on the other side that should him to continuously get better well into his first contract.

What do you think of his defense? Some are coming around and saying he's overrated on that end now. As I said before, wish the stocks were higher, but other than that I think he's pretty legit on that end. Obviously has some off-ball improvements to make as you said but nothing too concerning I think.

i think he's just naturally conservative on that end, doesn't really gamble and won't over-commit, ideally you'd like him to develop enough BBIQ on that end to be able to do both (create the transition ops without reneging on his assignment)...it's possible that it's just the way he was coached in Virginia, hard to say.

i don't think he's overrated defensively, though, on-ball he should be able to guard 2-4s in the NBA no problem. Watch his game vs. Duke, probably did the best out of any player in college against Zion.

but yea, wish we could've seen more steals or blocks from him.

[nolang1]

I'm trying to work out why such a mediocre ceiling is being placed on Deandre Hunter.

He scored 19pp/40 on one of the slowest paced teams in basketball, on 62% TS, hes functionally a pretty good athlete, he can pull up OTD, he has a mid-post creation game, solid feel/makes the right passes, can handle decently, gets to the line at a solid rate. Obviously a talented defender. Low stl/blks scare me a little bit but Virginia play a conservative scheme.

What's the catch? I get he's not a flashy player and he's on the older side, but from everything I can tell, he was a strong scorer in college at all 3 levels. He can only stand to up the 3 point volume, which seems inevitable given the super efficient % on a medium volume, and he the tools to further develop his on-ball game.

Even guys that like him in this draft are calling him a plug and play Hawks - Demarre Carroll type, which seems like a major undersell.

agreed here, Hunter's ceiling isn't as low as people think. there's a lot of room for improvement in his scoring repertoire and help defense on the other side that should him to continuously get better well into his first contract.

What do you think of his defense? Some are coming around and saying he's overrated on that end now. As I said before, wish the stocks were higher, but other than that I think he's pretty legit on that end. Obviously has some off-ball improvements to make as you said but nothing too concerning I think.

I'd say he more than justifies his defensive reputation with his on/off numbers (plus obviously the fact that Virginia got smoked by a 16 seed in the one game he wasn't available in his collegiate career); if people can say year after year that Klay Thompson is one of the best defenders in the NBA despite low blocks/steals, I think Hunter will be at least that good. Mikal Bridges was someone who was considered similarly overrated on defense, but he was 4th (after Luka, JJJ, and Ayton) among rookies in RPM this year, and that was a much better draft class than this one.

[psimanic1]

Where would you guys rank J. Vanderbilt in this years draft?

[King Ken]

Hunter is clearly getting underrated but his ceiling isn't that high. He is going to be a high end role player, nothing more and likely nothing less.

[No-Man]

Where would you guys rank J. Vanderbilt in this years draft?

had him mid-teens last year, had he been healthy as a sopho in college and had his touch looked at least not god awful, I would have likely had him top10 in this class, but not top5

[GimmeDat]

Hunter is clearly getting underrated but his ceiling isn't that high. He is going to be a high end role player, nothing more and likely nothing less.

I'm not trying to sell him as a star, but high end role player is often better than 2nd tier 'star', I think.

Is Demarre Carroll, even in his good seasons, a top end role player? He was very good, a legit starter, but I wouldn't say top shelf, his volume was too low.

When I think top end role player I think of Otto Porter, Tobias Harris, Khris Middleton, Paul Millsap, Joe Ingles, Thad Young, Josh Richardson, etc. (I'll concede that's a bit of a mixed list that I hastily pulled out of nowhere).

The former guys have the capacity to score 20ppg and have some real creation ability, if not stand-out athleticism, in the conventional sense (they're still very good functional athletes in their own ways). The latter play more cerebral games with a bit less offensive volume but maybe more elite ancillary skills like passing, defense, etc.

I think the common ground for most of them is their games are suited to playing off other talent, and the analytics show that they make a massive positive contribution to games.

I think Hunter's trajectory feels to me like it's going to be closer to the aforementioned 'high end role player' guys (if not all the way to their level), than to a guy like Carrol. I think Hunter can definitely average 13-16ppg once he starts taking more 3's, which I think is a fair thing to expect of him in time.

If there was more legit top end talent with real star upside, then I'd say take that over Hunter, but I'm seeing people I really enjoy taking the opinion of on twitter say he's an 8-12 range guy and I feel like that's too low given their weakness of this years lottery.

[GimmeDat]

Question - is THT too much of a reach at 7? I really love him, and I do think it's a little bit of a reach, but not too much. I feel like the only way the Bulls could publicly justify taking him is if they traded back.

[King Ken]

Hunter is clearly getting underrated but his ceiling isn't that high. He is going to be a high end role player, nothing more and likely nothing less.

I'm not trying to sell him as a star, but high end role player is often better than 2nd tier 'star', I think.

Is Demarre Carroll, even in his good seasons, a top end role player? He was very good, a legit starter, but I wouldn't say top shelf, his volume was too low.

When I think top end role player I think of Otto Porter, Tobias Harris, Khris Middleton, Paul Millsap, Joe Ingles, Thad Young, Josh Richardson, etc. (I'll concede that's a bit of a mixed list that I hastily pulled out of nowhere).

The former guys have the capacity to score 20ppg and have some real creation ability, if not stand-out athleticism, in the conventional sense (they're still very good functional athletes in their own ways). The latter play more cerebral games with a bit less offensive volume but maybe more elite ancillary skills like passing, defense, etc.

I think the common ground for most of them is their games are suited to playing off other talent, and the analytics show that they make a massive positive contribution to games.

I think Hunter's trajectory feels to me like it's going to be closer to the aforementioned 'high end role player' guys (if not all the way to their level), than to a guy like Carrol. I think Hunter can definitely average 13-16ppg once he starts taking more 3's, which I think is a fair thing to expect of him in time.

If there was more legit top end talent with real star upside, then I'd say take that over Hunter, but I'm seeing people I really enjoy taking the opinion of on twitter say he's an 8-12 range guy and I feel like that's too low given their weakness of this years lottery.

To me, he is Otto Porter Jr. and Ron Artest good, CLEARLY better than DMC both long and short term.

[No-Man]

The problem with Hunter and with drafting him high is that if he turns out to be good and productive you are gonna end up playing a max or near max contract to a highly dependent player

There are two scenarios where I'd want Hunter in my team, as a rookie if my team is close to competing, only maybe the Lakers apply in his range, and as a vet after his 2nd contract is over and he will play for me for close to his value

The reality is that if you are a team drafting high with no real stars, drafting Hunter it's kinda worthless, unless you are shipping him out of town as soon as he turns good and capitalizing in trade value, but teams very rarely do that

[EMG518]

Question - is THT too much of a reach at 7? I really love him, and I do think it's a little bit of a reach, but not too much. I feel like the only way the Bulls could publicly justify taking him is if they traded back.

It's only a reach if your'e wrong.

[nolang1]

The problem with Hunter and with drafting him high is that if he turns out to be good and productive you are gonna end up playing a max or near max contract to a highly dependent player

There are two scenarios where I'd want Hunter in my team, as a rookie if my team is close to competing, only maybe the Lakers apply in his range, and as a vet after his 2nd contract is over and he will play for me for close to his value

The reality is that if you are a team drafting high with no real stars, drafting Hunter it's kinda worthless, unless you are shipping him out of town as soon as he turns good and capitalizing in trade value, but teams very rarely do that

I don't get that line of thinking at all. If he's good and you don't want to pay him too much four years down the line, he's got more trade value than a player who isn't good (and it's not like there are even that many high upside players to gamble on in this draft). Until then, you have a good player on a rookie scale deal. Also teams that are close to competing are allowed to trade up in the draft, and it seems like there are at least a couple teams in the 4-7 range that are open to trades.

[remi_222]

Killian Tillie goes back to Gonzaga for his senior yr

[clyde21]

The problem with Hunter and with drafting him high is that if he turns out to be good and productive you are gonna end up playing a max or near max contract to a highly dependent player

There are two scenarios where I'd want Hunter in my team, as a rookie if my team is close to competing, only maybe the Lakers apply in his range, and as a vet after his 2nd contract is over and he will play for me for close to his value

The reality is that if you are a team drafting high with no real stars, drafting Hunter it's kinda worthless, unless you are shipping him out of town as soon as he turns good and capitalizing in trade value, but teams very rarely do that

this is an interesting way of looking at Hunter but I think it operates under a couple of false assumptions

1) that Hunter's cap is a role-player, which is where some may disagere

2) even if he is just a role-player, he projects more on the high end of that spectrum, i.e. guys like Covington and Thompson, who maintain considerable trade value on the market and could be flipped for multiple picks down the line. so really the team that drafts him, if he doesn't align with their vision, can always trade him on that rookie deal and actually get a + on their investment

really he's a bigger version of Klay (especially on defense), and that's well worth a top 10 pick obviously, to any team. you solve whether he fits your timeline or not at a later point.

[clyde21]

Jared Harper staying in the draft

[pad300]

The problem with Hunter and with drafting him high is that if he turns out to be good and productive you are gonna end up playing a max or near max contract to a highly dependent player

There are two scenarios where I'd want Hunter in my team, as a rookie if my team is close to competing, only maybe the Lakers apply in his range, and as a vet after his 2nd contract is over and he will play for me for close to his value

The reality is that if you are a team drafting high with no real stars, drafting Hunter it's kinda worthless, unless you are shipping him out of town as soon as he turns good and capitalizing in trade value, but teams very rarely do that

this is an interesting way of looking at Hunter but I think it operates under a couple of false assumptions

1) that Hunter's cap is a role-player, which is where some may disagere

2) even if he is just a role-player, he projects more on the high end of that spectrum, i.e. guys like Covington and Thompson, who maintain considerable trade value on the market and could be flipped for multiple picks down the line. so really the team that drafts him, if he doesn't align with their vision, can always trade him on that rookie deal and actually get a + on their investment

really he's a bigger version of Klay (especially on defense), and that's well worth a top 10 pick obviously, to any team. you solve whether he fits your timeline or not at a later point.

I'm not sure I buy that. Klay has obviously become one of the best 3pt shots in the NBA, which obviously influences his value.
Consider
http://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=de-andre-hunter--klay-thompson
His projected 3% was .388 vs .356 for hunter. Klay has clearly exceeded his projected shooting, but there is no certainty to my mind that Hunter will do the same. Note that Klay had a lot higher attempt rate of 3pters in college, which to my mind indicates more confidence is his shot...

[King Ken]

Question - is THT too much of a reach at 7? I really love him, and I do think it's a little bit of a reach, but not too much. I feel like the only way the Bulls could publicly justify taking him is if they traded back.

From what I've heard, no. He is not. There are a lot of scouts who think he is the best wing in this class

[clyde21]

The problem with Hunter and with drafting him high is that if he turns out to be good and productive you are gonna end up playing a max or near max contract to a highly dependent player

There are two scenarios where I'd want Hunter in my team, as a rookie if my team is close to competing, only maybe the Lakers apply in his range, and as a vet after his 2nd contract is over and he will play for me for close to his value

The reality is that if you are a team drafting high with no real stars, drafting Hunter it's kinda worthless, unless you are shipping him out of town as soon as he turns good and capitalizing in trade value, but teams very rarely do that

this is an interesting way of looking at Hunter but I think it operates under a couple of false assumptions

1) that Hunter's cap is a role-player, which is where some may disagere

2) even if he is just a role-player, he projects more on the high end of that spectrum, i.e. guys like Covington and Thompson, who maintain considerable trade value on the market and could be flipped for multiple picks down the line. so really the team that drafts him, if he doesn't align with their vision, can always trade him on that rookie deal and actually get a + on their investment

really he's a bigger version of Klay (especially on defense), and that's well worth a top 10 pick obviously, to any team. you solve whether he fits your timeline or not at a later point.

I'm not sure I buy that. Klay has obviously become one of the best 3pt shots in the NBA, which obviously influences his value.
Consider
http://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=de-andre-hunter--klay-thompson
His projected 3% was .388 vs .356 for hunter. Klay has clearly exceeded his projected shooting, but there is no certainty to my mind that Hunter will do the same. Note that Klay had a lot higher attempt rate of 3pters in college, which to my mind indicates more confidence is his shot...

lol, who the hell cares what Tankathon projects? they also project Jaxson Hayes to be as good of a 3pt shooter as Hunter. it's based on an archaic algorithm. doesn't mean jack.

and I'm not saying that Hunter will be as good of a 3pt shooter as Klay, and that wasn't the point regardless. the point is that 'dependent' players can still be extremely valuable assets, and Hunter is in that Klay Thompson mold in terms of archetype, probably not as good of a shooter but with even more positional versatility.

[clyde21]

Question - is THT too much of a reach at 7? I really love him, and I do think it's a little bit of a reach, but not too much. I feel like the only way the Bulls could publicly justify taking him is if they traded back.

From what I've heard, no. He is not. There are a lot of scouts who think he is the best wing in this class

THT is a CG not a wing (at least should be viewed as such).

[clyde21]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Roddy B for 3]

Question - is THT too much of a reach at 7? I really love him, and I do think it's a little bit of a reach, but not too much. I feel like the only way the Bulls could publicly justify taking him is if they traded back.

From what I've heard, no. He is not. There are a lot of scouts who think he is the best wing in this class

THT is a CG not a wing (at least should be viewed as such).

Is CG an acronym for "Clogging lane Guard"?