Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:Dat2U wrote:CCJ, I have no idea why your unwilling to wait on Beal or MKG to develop. MKG & Beal are 18, not 19. And Barton while only being a soph is 3 years older than either. Barton should look like a more polished product. Zeller at 22 should look & play more mature and be able to grab rebounds that 18 or 19 yr old's can't get to.
Being the most NBA ready prospect doesn't mean your the best player 2 or 3 years down the road. And selling out (as your advocating by continuing to suggest we trade down for Zeller, Barton, et all) to get the most ready made NBA player doesn't do us a damn bit a good considering were a country mile from competing for anything and we still need elite talent.
So while it's a novel idea to suggest your genius and have a roster filled with productive, plucky & mature players who were overlooked at one time or another, it's not a formula for building a contender. I'm not suggesting Zeller & Barton (whom I like) won't be solid contributors on the next level. However, building the best 45 win team you could put together only ensures playoff misery one year after another, and to me it seems that's what your suggesting.
My feelings on both Beal and MKG certainly are NOT rational, Dat. I understand why you and everybody else disagrees. I could say my feelings are counterintuitive, but I will flat out say that what I am saying doesn't sound logical. I actually see your point.
To suggest that MKG and Beal both will become major stars is to project forward in a few ways. Beal didn't really shoot the college three with great proficiency. He shot as many threes as twos. His team was not among the most proficient defensive teams. He was a great rebounder for his size. He converted well in transition and from midrange. He was the best player on a pretty loaded Florida team. The leap with Beal is the assumption that his NBA three-point shot will be better. That has been the case with Kawhi Leonard. So, why not Beal? Billy Donovan compares him to Ray Allen.
Personally, I think Beal will come to the NBA and struggle mightily. He's not a great finisher. He's not a great jump shooter. He's not very quick or very long. He's a candidate to struggle IMO. I'm going out on a very long limb all by myself on this one, Dat.
In the case of MKG, what I see most of all is a tenacious player. He rebounds fiercely and he slashes and gets to the line at a high rate -- in the NCAAs. What Kidd-Gilchrist didn't do well was shoot the outside shot. He's not a shot blocker and he's about average on steals, but he did have Davis and Jones taking stats from him. My concern about MKG is that his offense won't be stellar and he won't initially be great--but I could be very wrong. He supposedly has a terrific will and a terrific work ethic. In 3 years, I guess he should be the best.
That said, I've seen guys like Nicolas Batum and Al Farouq Aminu take differing turns in development. Aminu's stats IIRC were similar to MKG's. I think it could take MKG a while and perhaps he won't become a superstar. I could be very wrong again.
When I think about grabbing more mature players, Dat, it is with chemistry in mind. There are already plenty young guys on the Wizards. What the Wizards lack are players who can execute on offense and who operate well in half court as well as in transition. They need mature, technically proficient players who are content to be great role players. They don't need great athletes who need to be taught how to play. I would get mature, ready players, while getting rid of Blatche and Crawford -- and probably trade Booker for a top-notch SF prospect or picks.
To me, next season the Wizards will be in the playoffs, but they need players who are ready now.
http://www.nba.com/news/features/david_ ... index.htmlOn Beal:
...""I'm not comparing him to Ray (Allen), but he's the best I've seen since Ray in terms of being able to catch and shoot," said an official from a Southeast Division team -- who, indeed, just compared the 6-foot-3 Beal to Allen, the NBA's all-time leader in 3-pointers....."He has a chance to be really good," said a Central Division personnel man. "Super high-character guy, too. He can do a lot more than he's shown. Works his tail off. Just all of the things you want. He's like the flavor of the month." Said a Northwest Division scout: "He's not tall, but he's big and thick and strong. He has a lot of poise to him. I think he has upside. He didn't have an elite shooting year, but it'll get better. His stroke is good. It's just a matter of taking more shots and making them."
"The one thing that hindered him was Boynton and Walker were chuckers," said a Southwest Division scout. "I saw him against Arizona and I wanted [Beal] to get (ticked): 'Why don't y'all pass the ball?' But he stayed in his lane. If [Beal] had played with a better point guard, he probably would have had better numbers."
"I like Beal," said a college coach whose team played Florida this past season, "but for some reason he didn't shoot the ball well. The shot looks good, though. I think he has a good feel for (the) game. Athletic, but didn't seem aggressive enough at times."
But in the NBA, Beal's size should be sufficient to play shooting guard. He is strong and physical, and was a very good rebounder for his position -- though one veteran scout cautions that Beal's board work at Florida (6.7 rpg) came, in part, because he was a de facto forward for the Gators playing with two small guards.
"I think he can guard people," the Northwest scout said. "He's really, really strong, very physical. I think he takes it personally. He wants to guard. And if you're going to play for Billy (Donovan) you have to have some of that in you...."
My deal with Beal is simple, his body of work pre-college was that he was an outstanding shooter, by and large all his numbers got # in the second half of the season, and I tend to view his down shooting #'s as an abberation and a product of a mismatch w/teammates at Florida. If his technique was off, if he had bad mechanics and a wack stroke, I'd be worried, basically if he was more like MKG, but he wasn't, hell his calling card was that he was the best shooter in the entire 2011 high school graduating class, so am I gonna put a rap on him that he has a weak jump shot or isn't a great 3 point shooter because he underwhelmed a bit in his freshmen year? Nope. Im not, im gonna chalk it up to acclimation, iffy teammates, and not the best situation, and i love what the scouts have to say. I really believe that at the next level Beal is gonna combine Barnes jump shooting, with a willingness to finish at the rim which will give us exactly what we need at the 2. He isn't really lacking for much of anything, and what he'd add to the team, great shooting, great 3, willingness to go inside, great BBIQ, leader, highly coachable, great motor, plays D, hits the boards, plays hard, fiery, is exactly what we could use at the 2 to replace Crawford.
MKG, it's pretty straight forward, I can't find anything anywhere that doesn't say that he is EXACTLY what creates a winning team. The write ups on him say that he was the captain of the early 8am weight room team, that he was the official leader of the team, that he was a player and man that took the team on his shoulders, and you know what? They freaking one it all. Basically a mostly freshmen team won it all and who was the leader? MKG. That is HUGE to me. A lot of people keep saying he's Gerald Wallace, but Ive never heard MKG's chief assets described as being like Wallace, that seems to be what scouts and GM's around the league say his floor is as a contributor, and that his intangibles, and personality are what you need. When your team leader is first in, and last out, as opposed to Vick, or McNabb or Iverson types who were last in and first out, you win titles. When you have a team that would have MKG as its leader, centers like Nene and Seraphin who play the game the right way, and work their tails off, 4's like Booker and Ves that are students of the game, and super high motor workers, and a PG whose been waiting for 3 years to have teammates that aren't knuckleheads?
I'm sorry but that lineup is 10,000x more valuable than one with barton, and a solid center/4 in Zeller who will get lost in the pile up of hard working not all star bigs in Seraphin, and Ves, and Nene.
It doesn't even take half a second to know what MKG would do for us. And if we had a brain (which admittedly Im not convinced we do), it would not be difficult to trade back into the first round and find one of the last of the great 2's that are available to start over Crawford (or worst case scenario, sign a FA 2).
What the scouts say about MKG:
"....But MKG is beloved by NBA scouts for a simple reason: he plays hard. His path to the pros is his relentlessness. Playing hard, as I'll say for the billionth time, is a skill.
"He's not overly vertical," said a Pacific Division executive of Kidd-Gilchrist, "but he plays the whole game. He plays all aspects of the game. He's a tough, tough minded kid."
That gives MKG the nod among every NBA personnel person I spoke with over Barnes. Teams both in and out of the lottery concurred that one thing a rebuilding team has to have is someone who'll challenge young teammates to play harder.
"As I study this thing more," said a GM whose team will not be in the lottery, "those players that are not energy guys, the Ray Allens of the world who are steady -- and I don't know who Barnes is going to be -- players like Gilchrist have more of an effect on your team, depending on who you are. Barnes is going to help the Celtics and the Heat, teams like that. Those kind of guys, bringing those guys to a young team, you have to deal with trying to find energy, trying to find what makes the guy go, trying to make the guy more aggressive ... when you have to try and get the guy going every freaking day, it's like another job."
No matter at which speed teams play, scouts say, Kidd-Gilchrist will be able to impact the game.
"You can't have enough guys who play like that," said a Pacific executive. "I know (shooting) is a concern. But we've thrown around in a lot of meetings examples of guys who developed their shot. Guys like him, they just find a way. When you play that hard, you just find a way. I'm not saying you don't play off of him for the jump shot. But it's like Gerald Wallace. He's not a great ballhandler, not a great shooter. (But) for a guy who plays that hard, there's a certain value because of the way it rubs off on other players.""...He's going to do everything he can to help the team, and he's already been yelled at and (cursed at) by Cal, so you know he can be coached," said an Atlantic executive.
and from SI:
http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/writers/sam_a ... index.htmlMichael Kidd-Gilchrist, Kentucky, freshman small forward (6-7, 210): He was Robin to Davis' Batman at Kentucky, in large part because of his commitment to playing both ends of the floor (he was only fourth on the team in scoring at 11.9 points). It's unclear whether he can evolve into playing a lead role, but he has no shortage of casting calls because of his versatility and the leadership he showed during the Wildcats' championship run.
For all of the attention paid to Davis as Kentucky's top talent, Kidd-Gilchrist was regarded as the team's glue. Coach John Calipari routinely praised him for being the emotional leader, and Kidd-Gilchrist was the captain of the Wildcats' 8:30 a.m. workouts before scheduled practices.
It's hard to tell how good he can be offensively because of the deep surrounding talent at Kentucky, but he has been compared to New Jersey's Gerald Wallace in terms of his athleticism and attacking mentality. Kidd-Gilchrist had two of his best offensive games in the NCAA tournament, scoring 24 points on 7-of-15 shooting against Indiana in the Sweet 16 and 19 points on 7-of-10 shooting against Baylor in the Elite Eight.
He might have the best motor in the draft, and nothing makes scouts happier than a player who never stops. Kidd-Gilchrist is also a tenacious defender with a 6-10 wingspan. His inconsistent perimeter game is a concern, but his work ethic and approach have NBA teams drooling.
"He has all the intangibles," one assistant general manager said. "And he plays extremely hard."
Your boy Barton gets some interesting comments:
"...Barton brings out conflicting emotions in scouts.
"I'm a big Will Barton guy," said one. "I don't know if he's ready to be a two yet; he's probably going to have to be. But I love his effort."
"Not a fan," said another. "I think he should have stayed in school. Plays hard and with energy, but ... he's gonna play in the D League. He can't help a team right now...."
Said a third: "He's a tough one for me. He's athletic, but he's awfully thin."
Barton, the Conference USA Player of the Year, filled up the stat sheet for the Tigers, leading the conference in scoring (18.0) and finished fifth in steals, fourth in minutes played, seventh in rebounding and 11th in field goal percentage. His energy will be his route to the NBA.
"He was a very productive player," one scout said. "Real thin body. And yet, man, he rebounds. He's like a cobra, the way he springs into action around the ball. The basketball skills are not that bad, but they're not great. The main thing is high energy."
and from amick at SI:
Will Barton, Memphis, sophomore shooting guard (6-6, 175): If you're looking for a natural scorer with a high ceiling in his all-around game who plays hard, Barton may be your man. He averaged 18 points (on 50.9 percent shooting and 34.6 percent from three-point range), 8.0 rebounds, 2.9 assists and 1.4 steals for Memphis, which finished 26-9 and lost to Saint Louis in the second round of the NCAAs. His accuracy improved greatly from his freshman season, when he shot 42.8 percent overall and 26.5 percent from beyond the arc.
.
