2025 Draft Thread - Part 3

[The Consiglieri]

I got to say, you guys are as miserable and pessimistic as we are except you're 7 deep and counting with 19-21 y/o kids with starter potential. I don't know if so many of you are horrible talent evaluators or conditioned to disappointment so crap on the young guys as a form of self preservation or defense mechanism but snap out of it. You have needed to do this for decades and it's finally happening. Let the cream rise to the top. One more tank year and with how strong next year's class is you're almost guaranteed to get that "engine" you feel you need

The Wiz haven’t drafted a player in the first round that has gone on to make the All Star game since 2012 with Beal. Please excuse me if I have a hard time believing in this front office, new or old.

And lets note, the track record from the 1980s through 2009 was even worse: Tom Hammonds, Guggs (nice enough), Cal Cheaney, Howard, Wallace (of course traded), Rip Hamilton, Kwame, Arvis Hayes, Ared Jeffries, Pech, Nick Young, Javale McGee, Wall, but then Vesely.

We had a nice little run of competence '92-'95, and blips in '10, '12, and '13, (and I like what was done in '20, '23 and '24) but have largely been total --- otherwise.

[Ed Wood]

The Williams thing is remarkably coherent and incoherent by turns. Yes, trading for and then drafting two enormous pure centers is arguably an odd choice, but then centers inherently need more relief and understudy to Mark Williams is often a temporary position.

Trading Williams for that return is as close to seeing two organizations put their medical staff in the thunderdome as it gets.

[tontoz]

I am also glad we didn't reach for a C. Looks like they worked out a lot of bigs projected to go undrafted.

[The Consiglieri]

Same process with the Will Riley pick. They clearly don’t have interest in the ball dominant types like Jakicionis/Traore, or the players that don’t have good size like Richardson. Also stayed away from any upperclassman types like Fleming/Clifford/Wolf. I had ZERO interest in McNeeley or Asa Newell.

They once again roll with youth, shot creation/offensive upside, and positional size. Love the overall process even if Will Riley wasn’t on my radar personally. +Ast%, +A/TO, and 90th percentile in isolation scoring.

Would love to see them go after Toohey/Penda on day 2.

I feel exactly the same. Very clear what they value.
Need to play on AND off ball
Dribble, pass, shoot
Positional size
Gym rat and high level processor
Willing to overlook single college stats for FIBA/EYBL tape

I can see why Fears, Traore, Fleming, etc weren’t high on their board.

So what would make sense at 40 then? I went through what was left and was uninspired. There are a few last guys I like: Theiro, Fleming, Penda, then some guys that I could deal with like Yanic, Raynaud, Zikarsky, that Lachlan Obirsch guy.....but I also know they only have drafted or traded for young prospects that were quite young in their draft years (18, 19 or 20 and one 21 year old) when not acquiring contracts to trade, so in a 2nd round stuffed to the gills with 22, 23 and 24 year olds, does that mean we should only be paying attention to 19-21 year olds? Not sure.

[DCZards]

I was disappointed when Utah took Ace at 5. But it’s hard not the like Tre’s offensive skillset and physical make-up. He’s certainly not a finished product but there’s a lot there to work with. Wouldn’t be surprised if Johnson turned out to be a top 3 or 4 player from this draft.

[NatP4]

The Williams thing is remarkably coherent and incoherent by turns. Yes, trading for and then drafting two enormous pure centers is arguably an odd choice, but then centers inherently need more relief and understudy to Mark Williams is often a temporary position.

Trading Williams for that return is as close to seeing two organizations put their medical staff in the thunderdome as it gets.

I’m thrilled we didn’t:

1. Draft Egor Demin at #8 (and everything else BKN did)
2. Trade a 1st for Mark Williams&draft Maluach
3. Trade #16 +2028 1st and multiple 2nds to move up to #11 and take Coward
4. Draft Yang at #16 (with Clingan and Ayton already on the roster)
5. Trade #21 and three 2nds for Walter Clayton
6. Trade #23 and an unprotected 2026 1st for Derik Queen

I wanted no part of every player drafted after Will Riley, with the exception of maybe Jase Richardson, but the Wizards need to swing on upside. The pick makes sense. He fits better than Traore/Jakucionis.

Really wanted no part of Ace Bailey. He’s more likely to fully bust than not IMO. No interest in Fears, Demin, Maluach, Coward. Id say we are pretty fortunate to land Tre Johnson with his upside, over the other options.

[nate33]

I got to say, you guys are as miserable and pessimistic as we are except you're 7 deep and counting with 19-21 y/o kids with starter potential. I don't know if so many of you are horrible talent evaluators or conditioned to disappointment so crap on the young guys as a form of self preservation or defense mechanism but snap out of it. You have needed to do this for decades and it's finally happening. Let the cream rise to the top. One more tank year and with how strong next year's class is you're almost guaranteed to get that "engine" you feel you need

The Wiz haven’t drafted a player in the first round that has gone on to make the All Star game since 2012 with Beal. Please excuse me if I have a hard time believing in this front office, new or old.

In that case, what exactly were you hoping to take place last night that would result in you doing anything other than b*tching and complaining? Did you expect Cooper Flagg to slip to #6?

[DCZards]

So what would make sense at 40 then? I went through what was left and was uninspired. There are a few last guys I like: Theiro, Fleming, Penda, then some guys that I could deal with like Yanic, Raynaud, Zikarsky, that Lachlan Obirsch guy.....but I also know they only have drafted or traded for young prospects that were quite young in their draft years (18, 19 or 20 and one 21 year old) when not acquiring contracts to trade, so in a 2nd round stuffed to the gills with 22, 23 and 24 year olds, does that mean we should only be paying attention to 19-21 year olds? Not sure.

I'm looking at a player at 43 that doesn't fit this front office's mold because of his age--23 yr old Ryan Kalkbrenner from Creighton. He's a tremendous shotblocker who knows his role as a defender and screener. Also has very good hands...catches and finishes everything at or near the basket.

[NatP4]

Zards, I believe Kalkbrenner has a promise from Boston at 32.

[DCZards]

Zards, I believe Kalkbrenner has a promise from Boston at 32.

Makes sense...with the loss of Horford and KP the Celts certainly need a big.

[The Consiglieri]

Listening to Sam Vecenie podcast when our pick was taken.

Sam said he tried to update his draft guide to put Tre Johnson #3 earlier in the day. Discusses his work ethic and that Tre had one of the most impressive workout he's seen. The name dropped was Rip Hamilton.

Banking on him having the right mentality to continue to grow his game.

Ringer had him 4th I believe. KOC on Yahoo had him 4th. From all accounts he was ranked 3-5 on most people's big board.

If you look at that weird board someone posted around page 64, you can see what the analytics people think, and the Scout types separated out, and its pretty clear, there's a consensus top 3, a 4th guy that's generally almost consensus, and then the boards break down entirely after that with wide disagreement from the various individual analytics people, and scouts. Tre falls into the fall apart zone: Consensus guys for the scouts were Flagg, Harper, VJ and Kon as their top 4 with Ace and Tre with the only other guys that were more or less consensus top 6 (Hollinger the one guy who had both Tre and Ace much lower than the rest of the scout dudes). The Analytics guys I should say only had consensus on Flagg, Harper and VJ, after that it just breaks down, the only player after the big 3 to harness 3/6 analytics guys agreeing on a high end evaluation was CMB.

So I think a better way to break it down might be, the scouts other than Hollinger, saw this draft as clearly Flagg, Harper, VJ, Kon, Bailey and Tre, period as the top 6, while the analytics guys only had a big kind of elite tier as Flagg/Harper/VJ, with half the biggest names in that twitter post adding CMB, and half not, and a clear huge tier break after that with no consensus whatsoever.

It's a weird draft, you can be happy if you're a tape geek, scout fan with Tre because everyone other than Hollinger saw him as a top 4-6 guy, if you're an analytics guy, you're not gonna be (Tre was 9th, 11th, 23rd, 19th, 3rd and 14th according to them)....ftr, Riley was 28,5 from the analytics guys if you drop the high and low ratings (80th and 24th respectively), and 24th according to scouts if you do the same.

[The Consiglieri]

Zards, I believe Kalkbrenner has a promise from Boston at 32.

He absolutely seems like one of the first off the board guys for round 2, and I don't want him anyway personally.

For me, everyone I want tends to duplicate what they've already drafted (Penda, Thiero, Fleming positionallyfor instance), of the bigs, I'd rather kind of Hail Mary it with a developmental guy than go for a fifth year senior who was never good enough to come out before now. But yeah, I am slightly paying attention to Raynaud and Yanic who fit that a little bit, but of the guys who might last to us at slot, I like the Australian dude Lachlan a little, and Markovic, and Zikarsky.

[Ed Wood]

Seeing Hollinger on the scout side of that divide certainly speaks to how much the work of understanding basketball has changed over the last couple of decades.

[The Consiglieri]

Seeing Hollinger on the scout side of that divide certainly speaks to how much the work of understanding basketball has changed over the last couple of decades.

Otoh, I wonder if it really makes sense, as Hollinger's differences with the scouts, early, match well with the disagreement from the analytics people: he has CMB much higher than the scouts, like the analytics guys, and Tre and Ace much lower, just like the analytics guys, in comparison to the Scouts, so maybe he should be in the middle, in-between the scouts and analytics takes in that tweets, or just add him to the analytics guys, period.

[awolfinwater]

More from Vecenie. Calling the Wiz a winner in the draft.

Full disclosure: I tried to make a final, last-minute adjustment on my draft rankings to slot Johnson at No. 3 on my board. Ultimately, we ran out of time to put it into the draft guide, but that’s how highly I think of Johnson. I’m a big believer in workers figuring it out. And there is a genuine case for Johnson as the hardest worker in the class. He’s a machine in how he approaches his craft. He’s singularly focused on becoming the best player he can be. I tend to buy into those kinds of players....

The player Johnson reminds me of most is a modern version of Rip Hamilton, who averaged 19 points per game over 717 games in the 2000s. But whereas Hamilton played in a slower era and mostly got his shots from the midrange, Johnson plays uptempo and takes his shots at volume from beyond the arc. I don’t think it’s out of the question that he averages 25 points per game in the NBA.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6452683/2025/06/26/winners-losers-nba-draft-first-round-2025-pelicans-hornets-spurs/

[The Consiglieri]

More from Vecenie. Calling the Wiz a winner in the draft.

Full disclosure: I tried to make a final, last-minute adjustment on my draft rankings to slot Johnson at No. 3 on my board. Ultimately, we ran out of time to put it into the draft guide, but that’s how highly I think of Johnson. I’m a big believer in workers figuring it out. And there is a genuine case for Johnson as the hardest worker in the class. He’s a machine in how he approaches his craft. He’s singularly focused on becoming the best player he can be. I tend to buy into those kinds of players....

The player Johnson reminds me of most is a modern version of Rip Hamilton, who averaged 19 points per game over 717 games in the 2000s. But whereas Hamilton played in a slower era and mostly got his shots from the midrange, Johnson plays uptempo and takes his shots at volume from beyond the arc. I don’t think it’s out of the question that he averages 25 points per game in the NBA.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6452683/2025/06/26/winners-losers-nba-draft-first-round-2025-pelicans-hornets-spurs/

I think what I find most confusing is to hear "hard worker" and also hear that Johnson took plays off enough to such an extent that our GM called him out on it in an interview AND is a clear slacker, or just clueless on defense.

How are you both a hard worker, and also that. What about the athletic player breakdown scouting reports from coaches and scouts that include one guy saying he's exactly the same guy he's always been. That doesn't really sound like a worker either.

I'm baffled by the contradictory pieces of this, and trying to figure out how to holistically combine them: is he just a hard worker on what he's good at? Is he a hard worker that's trying to get results and struggling, is he a hard worker who simply doesn't understand how to create an inside game to draw fouls and make layups and finish at the rim, is he a hard worker that just doesn't understand how to play hard consistently on defense. Like, wtf are they talking about? Or is Vecenie talking about.

Depending upon which guy (GM, Coach, Vecenie), you get a totally different explanation of who Tre is. It's baffling. I get the sharp shooter piece, that's the given, the length/size, yeah, that's a given, but the worker piece, the he's not as bad as defender as advertised piece, he's a good passer, but he's also a me first chucker? It's like people are talking bout different players entirely.

[TGW]

I'm still on cloud 9. I'm glad our GM wasn't worried about plugging weaknesses or finding a future backup PF because we already had too many wings.

So glad we did not draft guys who pronounced offensive weaknesses or guys with no ability to create or make a shot.

I would have been happy with Bailey but I'm happy we erred heavily on skill, feel and IQ.

You seem to like this guard profile (Dillingham) that can shoot but doesn't necessarily like to attack the paint nor defend, and you dislike the opposite profile (Castle). What's your thinking around your guard assessments? Do you think defense and 2pt% are more easily developed than outside shooting?

Spoiler:

PS I was also off on Castle so not throwing any shade.

[nate33]

We are now about to enter my most hated portion of the NBA season: the post draft grading period. This is the time when a bunch of people assess how well teams did in the draft while having precisely zero additional information on how good any of the players drafted actually are. It's all just a rehashing of everyone's mock drafts.

The only thing you can grade post draft is whether a team filled a need with their draft pick. We have no idea if good players "slipped" or bad players went unexpectedly high because we don't know who is good and who is bad yet.

[Dat2U]

I'm still on cloud 9. I'm glad our GM wasn't worried about plugging weaknesses or finding a future backup PF because we already had too many wings.

So glad we did not draft guys who pronounced offensive weaknesses or guys with no ability to create or make a shot.

I would have been happy with Bailey but I'm happy we erred heavily on skill, feel and IQ.

You seem to like this guard profile (Dillingham) that can shoot but doesn't necessarily like to attack the paint nor defend, and you dislike the opposite profile (Castle). What's your thinking around your guard assessments? Do you think defense and 2pt% are more easily developed than outside shooting?

Spoiler:

PS I was also off on Castle so not throwing any shade.

Show me a successful guard that could not shoot. That's my bottom line. Its just not about making open shots, its about shot verstaility and the ability to C&S, spot up & movement shooting.

Castle won ROY due to usage but until he makes more jumpers, his offensive impact is going to be significantly muted and he's really hard for other non-shooters to play with.

Jalen Williams was not impactful defender in the WAC - which some dinged him for - but he had a freakish wingspan - he went to the right system and now he's considered one of the better wing defenders in the NBA.

The spacing is also alot better in the NBA. Tre will have more space to operate and more driving opportunites. As guys get bigger & stronger and polish their skill, the 2pt % improves.

[Rafael122]

Listening to Sam Vecenie podcast when our pick was taken.

Sam said he tried to update his draft guide to put Tre Johnson #3 earlier in the day. Discusses his work ethic and that Tre had one of the most impressive workout he's seen. The name dropped was Rip Hamilton.

Banking on him having the right mentality to continue to grow his game.

Ringer had him 4th I believe. KOC on Yahoo had him 4th. From all accounts he was ranked 3-5 on most people's big board.

If you look at that weird board someone posted around page 64, you can see what the analytics people think, and the Scout types separated out, and its pretty clear, there's a consensus top 3, a 4th guy that's generally almost consensus, and then the boards break down entirely after that with wide disagreement from the various individual analytics people, and scouts. Tre falls into the fall apart zone: Consensus guys for the scouts were Flagg, Harper, VJ and Kon as their top 4 with Ace and Tre with the only other guys that were more or less consensus top 6 (Hollinger the one guy who had both Tre and Ace much lower than the rest of the scout dudes). The Analytics guys I should say only had consensus on Flagg, Harper and VJ, after that it just breaks down, the only player after the big 3 to harness 3/6 analytics guys agreeing on a high end evaluation was CMB.

So I think a better way to break it down might be, the scouts other than Hollinger, saw this draft as clearly Flagg, Harper, VJ, Kon, Bailey and Tre, period as the top 6, while the analytics guys only had a big kind of elite tier as Flagg/Harper/VJ, with half the biggest names in that twitter post adding CMB, and half not, and a clear huge tier break after that with no consensus whatsoever.

It's a weird draft, you can be happy if you're a tape geek, scout fan with Tre because everyone other than Hollinger saw him as a top 4-6 guy, if you're an analytics guy, you're not gonna be (Tre was 9th, 11th, 23rd, 19th, 3rd and 14th according to them)....ftr, Riley was 28,5 from the analytics guys if you drop the high and low ratings (80th and 24th respectively), and 24th according to scouts if you do the same.

I'm never going to pretend to see the game like a scout. I look with my eyes. I have no idea how Kon is rated so highly. He's an excellent shooter, but he's 6'5 with a 6'6 wingspan, and the agility testing suggests he's going to have trouble on the defensive side of the ball. I think scouts and numbers guys get too enamored with shooting and thinking "just put 4 guys around him and he'll make it work." I want a guy where you put 4 guys around HIM and they'll make it work. Bball IQ gets you only so far when you're the slowest dude on the court. I'm not shooting for a glue guy at 4 or at 6 or wherever. I like Tre because he's an excellent shooter and his measurements, unlike Kon, suggest to me there is defensive potential.