2012 Draft, Part VI (Draft Week is Here!)

[bgroban]

Another reason why I think MKG is the pick (if he is there at #3) - he is EXCITING. Not to detract from Beal or Barnes, but I bet Ted sees marketing opportunities with MKG that he does not with B&B.

[Rafael122]

I think the T-Rob stuff is smoke, again. There was never this much rumors and news about the top 4 picks. That I can't remember anyway. Wasn't like this last year.

[DCZards]

I thought the general basis for Crowder ranking high in YODA was
just solid to outstanding efficiency at both ends of the court.
He produces! Makes plays. He's a baller.

He's a baller alright. Very good defender, tough, great motor and IQ. Crowder is very similar to MKG in that regard. But he essentially played PF in college and, at 6'4, will have to learn to play some SG in the pros. And he simply doesn't have the skillset to be a good offensive SG, at least not right now. So, again, I'd draft Crowder...but not if the Zards still need a perimeter scorer.

[GhostsOfGil]

I think the T-Rob stuff is smoke, again. There was never this much rumors and news about the top 4 picks. That I can't remember anyway. Wasn't like this last year.

Aw comon Raf, last year was definitely just as crazy. The Kanter speculation was madness!

[7-Day Dray]

I think the T-Rob stuff is smoke, again. There was never this much rumors and news about the top 4 picks. That I can't remember anyway. Wasn't like this last year.

Aw comon Raf, last year was definitely just as crazy. The Kanter speculation was madness!

It was so refreshing to hear someone say they wanted to play for the Wizards.

[7-Day Dray]

I still think Drummond is that path to greatness for this team. He's the only one in this draft w/ superstar potential aside from Davis.

[The Consiglieri]

At this point I really want Beal and I think we are going to regret not getting him if we miss out on him. If we do miss out on him I'm off the thinking at this point that we should just stand pat and take MKG. Yeah, I'm just as weary as the next guy about his shooting ability, but I can live with the idea of us rolling the dice considering we are missing out on who we really wanted and MKG is no chump either.

I'm not really up for all the mind games some of you suggest that if Charlotte screws us over we should screw them right back. When doing business it’s stupid to be reactionary and spiteful because you'll probably end up trying to get to cute and screwing yourself over in the process.
I’m hoping the #4 and #24 for #2 and whatever doesn’t materialize. If it does, ok it’ll sting a little -and we probably don’t get Beal – but life goes on and we’ll going to get a good player anyways.

If we arranged a pick swap with Sacramento, we would have the best of all worlds. We spite Jordan for screwing us out of Beal. We still get MKG at #5 (where he would cost a little less). And we'd pick up an extra asset from Sacramento.

Exactly, the whole point is that we get the player we want at 5, and a little something extra, plus we stick to Jordan for dessert. Jordan's doing what he's doing because he thinks he can hoodwink us and still get his man. We show him that he can only get his backup plan (Barnes) if he pulls those shenanigans, while we'll get our backup plan and a little something too. It is EXACTLY what we should do if Cleveland trades up for Beal at 2, and our target at 3 would be Barnes. So be it, trade down, and take MKG, whose got more upside anyway and is a much better fit for our culture.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Len ( Lexington)


Who would the wizards take if another team took Beal at #2?

Chad Ford (2:09 PM)


I think Harrison Barnes is the next guy on their board. They believe he can play some two and they desperately need shooter.

Before the Wizards do something damned stupid and take Barnes @ #3, I suggest my bad trade idea of #3 and Blatche for Marshon Brooks, Anthony Morrow, #57 pick, and a 2014 first.

Brooks is better than Barnes. Morrow shoots better than Brooks or Barnes. Harrison Barnes is robotic, an overrated shooter, and he will be one absolute disaster if picked ahead of much better players like Micheal Kidd-Gilchrist, Damian Lillard, and Dion Waiters. If the Wizards want a SG, Will Barton will be more effective there than Barnes. They can trade down and pick Terrence Ross, who I also like better than Barnes.

Harrison Barnes is a grossly overrated player and the Wizards would be just silly enough to pick him 3rd.

[The Consiglieri]

OK Nate, what if CHA tries to again one-up us and goes for MKG at number four and we are basically left with picking Barnes or dare I say Drummond. It’s not completely illogical and outside the realm of happenings for CHA to like MKG more than Barnes, we simply just don’t know, and after these years of suffering I think it would be smart for us not to out-think ourselves.

Let me go a step further, what assets does Sacramento have that they’re A) Likely to give up and B) That we’re interested in? What a 2nd round pick….fogettaboutit. Screwing around with a perfectly good slot in this draft is stupid, take BPA at #3 and call it a day. Hell, I’d settle for drafting Robinson before settling on the notion of ending up with Barnes.

Stay pat at three unless some mind-blowing deal comes along.

That's exactly what Charlotte would do. There's no what if about it, if the word on the street is true, and it seems pretty consistently on point, then Jordan and Cho's board reads 1. Davis 2. Robinson 3. Beal 4. Barnes.

What do we do. Take MKG, who is exactly who I'd want at 3 if Cleveland trades ahead of us anyway (and who I wanted at 3 even if Beal was there). Beal or MKG should have always been our pick in the first place, Barnes is the worst case scenario, not the scenario we should be praying for, and Drummond isn't a disaster by any means. After Davis, he's the one guy in the draft with the physical ability to become a superstar in this league. Landing him while not ideal, would be a hellvalot better than reaching for a mediocre need player with a low ceiling.

[Nivek]

I thought the general basis for Crowder ranking high in YODA was
just solid to outstanding efficiency at both ends of the court.
He produces! Makes plays. He's a baller.

He's a baller alright. Very good defender, tough, great motor and IQ. Crowder is very similar to MKG in that regard. But he essentially played PF in college and, at 6'4, will have to learn to play some SG in the pros. And he simply doesn't have the skillset to be a good offensive SG, at least not right now. So, again, I'd draft Crowder...but not if the Zards still need a perimeter scorer.

I agree with your first couple sentences. I can't completely agree on the other stuff. Crowder was a perimeter PF in college and he's played on the perimeter throughout his career. He's not going to feel awkward playing in space -- that's where he's been his whole life. He will need to continue working on his perimeter skills, but that's true of every SF/SF prospect in the draft. That he had the strength and toughness to defend bigger players inside is in the plus column for Crowder. One of the things I really like about his game is that he plays well off the ball. That would be good on a team like the Wiz where the ball will be in the hands of Wall or Nene much of the time.

[The Consiglieri]

... Maybe ...shop Singleton and Booker for an extra 1st?

What causes this kind of weird thinking I wonder? Booker is a #23 pick who has turned into a solid, above-average producing NBA player at the 4. But we should package him w/ Singleton, a #18 pick who had trouble in a very atypical season to be a rookie (no work w/ team), in order to get a single pick somewhere in "extra 1st" land (i.e. post-lottery, probably in the 20s) where we can pick who...? that your are so sure will be better than Booker? I don't get it.

+1 as Cuban said in December, all the stats and raw data from the '11-'12 season should be taken with a grain of salt, they are enormously distorted by the absurd schedule, and lack of a July rookie camp, and a normal 6-8 week preseason. There was no rookie anything, and freaking 2 preason games. It was the stupidest season ever, and was a complete joke designed by owners desperate to soak fans for as much money as possible to cut losses on the season, and risk injury and all manner of stupidity if necessary for the receipts.

All the stats are bogus. Kicking Singleton and Booker to the curb because Singleton's a bust (really? after 1 totally wack season? Seraphin would already be gone too w/that kinda thinking), and Booker's only solid just seems a stretch.

All that being said, if our 2nd rounder and a player could get us to 20 or so, I'd do it because i freaking love the talent available from 8-24 or so. I just think we should give it a real long and hard look at who were giving away as a part of that deal, and realize what we're doing before we do it.

[LyricalRico]

^ So it sounds like a Beal/Crowder draft would be the best way to fill our needs for a backcourt scorer and a tough small forward with some skills.

At that point, I'd look to move some combo of Booker+Singleton+Crawford for a quality vet who can be a 3rd guard and play both spots behind Wall/Beal. To the checker!

[The Consiglieri]

OK Nate, what if CHA tries to again one-up us and goes for MKG at number four and we are basically left with picking Barnes or dare I say Drummond. It’s not completely illogical and outside the realm of happenings for CHA to like MKG more than Barnes, we simply just don’t know, and after these years of suffering I think it would be smart for us not to out-think ourselves.

Let me go a step further, what assets does Sacramento have that they’re A) Likely to give up and B) That we’re interested in? What a 2nd round pick….fogettaboutit. Screwing around with a perfectly good slot in this draft is stupid, take BPA at #3 and call it a day. Hell, I’d settle for drafting Robinson before settling on the notion of ending up with Barnes.

Stay pat at three unless some mind-blowing deal comes along.

Fair points, CntOutSmrtCrazy,

We would have to be reasonably comfortable with drafting Barnes for the Sacramento Gambit to work. I think the odds are pretty good that Charlotte drafts Barnes (UNC connection) or Drummond (highest max upside) at #4 before taking MKG, but the potential does exist for them to take MKG.

I'm not even sure I would pull the trigger on the deal myself. But I'd definitely talk with Sacramento so that the threat to Charlotte is credible. As far as Sacramento's assets, there is their #36 pick, or they could agree to a Blatche for Garcia swap.

Nate, everything I've heard, and Im a total obssessive for draft dribbles, is that our board is 1. Davis 2. Beal 3. Barnes 4. MKG 5. Robinson 6. Drummond. I'm virtually positive Barnes would be the pick in the trade down, the issue for me, isn't whether we're okay with Barnes, its wheter idiot Ernie would be okay with MKG at 2-3 slots below his normal value, because it certainly sounds like if Charlotte was pipped for Robinson by our trade down, they'd just take Barnes. I'd be ecstatic, because wed be getting the better play in MKG, and avoiding the player that scares the hell out of me in Barnes, but Im not sure if Ernie would feel the same way.

The smoke screen makes sense regardless, particularly if it isn't just mediahype that we'd be happy with Beal or MKG or Barnes, whomever we get.

[sfam]

I still think Drummond is that path to greatness for this team. He's the only one in this draft w/ superstar potential aside from Davis.

The only thing great about drafting Drummond is Ted will eventually have to can EG for the pick. Drummond is a very high risk pick...one which doesn't lend itself to choosing in the first 6-8 picks I think.

[Halcyon]

I still think Drummond is that path to greatness for this team. He's the only one in this draft w/ superstar potential aside from Davis.

I don't see it at all. I think some people are putting too much emphasis on pure physical potential, and not calculating a player's "effective" potential, which I think is the product of both physical potential * probability the player actually reaches this maximum potential.

In the case of Drummond, he has a ton of physical ability, but because of the extremely limited offensive abilities he has shown in gametime situation (no post moves, bad footwork, horrible shooting mechanics, horrible FT shooting), this leads me to think the probability of him reaches his maximum ceiling is extremely low. Take the product of those two factors and you have an effective potential lower than a guy like Beal. I think Beal has shown enough and also has enough physical potential to come out as a more productive player overall than Drummond. Same goes for MKG, he has a nice combination of productivity * probability for reaching max potential.

This is also the reason why Davis is graded so much higher than his peers, his effective potential is far higher than others.

[The Consiglieri]

I see a little Calbert, but a better version; not a lesser. Beal actually reminds me of Hayes in that he has a nice looking shot but shot a low % and has not proven he has the ability to create of the dribble and get to the hoop for anything other than floaters or pull ups...

So... I guess you didn't read the stats posted a bit before your post that showed Beal with a much *higher* % than Barnes? And, oh, it's Barnes who has demonstrated he can't create off the dribble. Not Beal.

What does me comparing Beal to Hayes have to do w/ a Barnes v. Beal shooting percentage comparison? And neither player proved they were effective of the dribble last yr. Its not one or the other...

And yet Beal still has a flawless storke, absolutely killed it with team USA, and shot the lights out every time he was ever asked to beyond some early struggles with Florida while playing out of position.

The only concerns with Beal, period, are height, and the ceiling in terms of his pure athleticism. Shooting is not a concern. Period.

[sfam]

I wonder if the Cats would swap picks for us if we gave them Crawford? Probably not, but I'd count that as a plus!

[Knighthonor]

So how close to a done deal is this Cleveland trade up?

This really sucks. He is such the right fit both player and personality for this team. I really wanted to watch this kid in a Wiz uni.

For those that say it is about quality not quantity, maybe now they will consider the trade up idea I mentioned a while ago. I would hate to give up assets to move up but it is what it is and you have to do what you have to do.

With all the trade up trade down scenarios getting rumored, I have lost trade of how this draft will go down. I get the feeling this draft is going to be all over the place. Sucks we didnt just get the 2nd pick like we deserved. Would have been a lot cleaner.

The facts the two people that could screw us out of Beal involve MJ ( getting us back ) and Cleveland just makes it all the less palatable.

dag thats a good point...

anyway in the news paper they pointed out something.

MKG is the type of player that EG picks. He has lots of potential and nothing more. If he lives to that Potential he is a superstar. if not,, EG is gone.

what would EG do now?

thats his kind of pick...

[Knighthonor]

Best Scenario: The Cleveland trade doesn't materialize. Charlotte grabs TRob. We take Beal.

2nd Best Scenario: Cleveland swaps picks with Charlotte. Cleveland drafts Beal. We swap picks with Sacramento (possibly dumping Blatche or picking up their #36 pick). Sacramento drafts TRob. Charlotte drafts Barnes. We get MKG at #5

3rd Best Scenario: Cleveland swaps picks with Charlotte. We draft MKG

Worst-Case Scenario: Anything involving us ending up with Barnes.

i heard that HB had big time workouts with teams, which is why he jumped into the lotto. just saying.

[The Consiglieri]

Im telling ya..

You're going to regret not getting MKG or Barnes...

You'll never hear the end of it from Cavs fans about (Barnes or MKG) making life easier for Kyrie Irving..

Im a fan of Beal. Seen him play in the HS circuits. Just dont think he'll be the ideal fit next to Wall...

That makes no sense at all to me, Beal would be a perfect partner for Wall. Perfect. And I'd actually prefer MKG and yet I'm still saying that.