2012 NBA Draft - Part II

[tontoz]

I can't recall anyone outside of Portland believing he was in the same tier as Durant.

[Dat2U]

Well you're obviously ignoring the point. Again, draft tiers. Similarly talented players are put into tiers (e.g., players like Robinson and MKG). Teams then pick from those tiers based on need.

You've got a starting PF with a per of 16+ (29th in the league at the position, with the second-lowest usage rate in the top 30) in his second year. Your hodge-podge of starting SFs have a PER of 8+. What's the smarter pick? A tier 2 PF, or a tier 2 SF?

And Oden wasn't in the right tier. He was Sam Bowie. Durant put up ~26 and 11 per game en route to winning the Naismith award. He was in a tier by himself.

Bingo. I don't see him as a starting PF on a contending team. Booker is not the answer. Can he start for us? Sure... if you want continue to lose the PF battle on a nightly basis. I don't disagree with you on the tiers, I disagree with the value your putting on Booker in that equation. Booker is viewed as a solid backup IMO. We need a starting PF as much as we need a starting SF and as much as we need a starting SG.

[Illuminaire]

The Oden-wasn't-T1-before-his-body-disintegrated argument does seem to fly in the face of every possible category of evidence.

[tontoz]

We don't just have Booker at the 4, we also have Nene who could easily be starting at the 4 next season.

[Rafael122]

Chad Ford's first full mock draft:

Has us taking Michael Kidd-Gilchrist with the 2nd pick, but if he stays in school, he says Robinson or Barnes as the next best options. He drops the names Glen Rice and Danny Granger when mentioning Barnes....eh I don't see it.

He's got Draymond Green going 29 to Miami, compares him to Udonis Haslem with better passing skills.

Looking at this mock draft, maybe it's just me but the talent drops off at around 16-17.

[Ruzious]

I hope Nene has the wheels to play PF (if need be) on a running team like the Wiz. Since he's only an average defensive rebounder, he's probably not going to be great at starting fast breaks with frequent outlet passes.

[tontoz]

I hope Nene has the wheels to play PF (if need be) on a running team like the Wiz. Since he's only an average defensive rebounder, he's probably not going to be great at starting fast breaks with frequent outlet passes.

Denver leads the league in pace of play and they have been at or near the top for years. Plus they play in the thin air. As far as i know running the court has been a strength of his through the years.

I think it just boils down to motivation with him.

[The Consiglieri]

The idea of making draft decisions based on Trevor Booker's presence is laughable. We had this same argument this past draft involving Faried & Booker. Everyone said Booker is too similar to Faried. Nonsense. For all of Booker's benefits he's still most likely a backup PF. We need talent, regardless of position. Draft the best player available. Stop worrying about fit. If Robinson is the BPA then draft him and worry about fit later. If MKG is the BPA, who cares if effort guys like Singleton & Vesely were drafted a year? Just get the BPA and let everything figure itself out afterwards.

Agreed, the issue for me is that I don't think Robinson is an elite player at the next level. I think he's probably an above average player, I have a hard time seeing him become an all star. To me, this draft is about either getting Davis, getting MKG or Beal, or trading down for multiple picks. I dont think we should stay at slot if we're around #4 or #5, if a team w/two picks likes our slot enough for us to pick up 2 picks in the top 12-15, I'd deal down in that scenario. I don't think there's a big enough difference between the 2nd and 4th or 5th best bigs, and the 3rd or 5th best 2's and 3's to really justify staying at slot if we get screwed in the lottery. Hopefully the team thinks the same way. New Orleans and Utah are in that potential multipick scenario, anyone know the other teams?

Big's I'd consider:

1. Davis
2. Drummond
3. Robinson
4. PJ3 (Trade that pick)
5. Jared Sullinger
6. John Henson
7. Cody Zeller
8. Tyler Zeller
9. Meyers Leonard

2's/3's:
1. MKG
2. Bradley Beal
3. Q. Miller
4. H. Barnes
5. J. Lamb
6. D. Lamb
7. T. Ross
8. T. Jones
9. D. Waiters

I'm seriously aggravated we didnt find a way to get a 2nd top 12-15 pick this draft because its loaded, I can find about 18 players I'd be absolutely fine w/drafting and have quality expectations for if they all declared. The depth is amazing. I really, really, really hope we package picks. Looks like we'll have the 32nd or 33rd, and the 51st to 53rd, maybe we'll be able to package them both for a pick in that 15-20 zone.

[dobrojim]

The idea of making draft decisions based on Trevor Booker's presence is laughable. We had this same argument this past draft involving Faried & Booker. Everyone said Booker is too similar to Faried. Nonsense. For all of Booker's benefits he's still most likely a backup PF. We need talent, regardless of position. Draft the best player available. Stop worrying about fit. If Robinson is the BPA then draft him and worry about fit later. If MKG is the BPA, who cares if effort guys like Singleton & Vesely were drafted a year? Just get the BPA and let everything figure itself out afterwards.

Of course it's not laughable. If there are doubts that a player will be any better than Booker, you don't take that player in the top 5 if you've got better fits in the same draft tier. Simple.

There's a reason the tier system is so popular for NBA draft boards. It's the nexus of BPA and need-based drafting. With limited rosters, you can't merely draft the BPA all the time.

Draft disasters happen when players are taken a tier early (or wrongly put in a tier), like Greg Oden.

Oden was an elite, once in a decade type center prospect.... his career was just ruined by injuries

That's true but Durant was an elite talent as well, just had some ? about
position and strength. But I also heard that when Durant worked out for
POR, he didn't miss a shot in his workout. Even that didn't impress POR
enough to take him. I grant that GMs will draft 'once in a gen' Cs ahead
of once in a gen pick any other position players about 10 out of 10 times.
In today's NBA, I'm not sure that it should be that cut and dry.

[dobrojim]

Agreed, the issue for me is that I don't think Robinson is an elite player at the next level. I think he's probably an above average player, I have a hard time seeing him become an all star. To me, this draft is about either getting Davis, getting MKG or Beal, or trading down for multiple picks. I dont think we should stay at slot if we're around #4 or #5, if a team w/two picks likes our slot enough for us to pick up 2 picks in the top 12-15, I'd deal down in that scenario. I don't think there's a big enough difference between the 2nd and 4th or 5th best bigs, and the 3rd or 5th best 2's and 3's to really justify staying at slot if we get screwed in the lottery. Hopefully the team thinks the same way. New Orleans and Utah are in that potential multipick scenario, anyone know the other teams?

Big's I'd consider:

1. Davis
2. Drummond
3. Robinson
4. PJ3 (Trade that pick)
5. Jared Sullinger
6. John Henson
7. Cody Zeller
8. Tyler Zeller
9. Meyers Leonard

2's/3's:
1. MKG
2. Bradley Beal
3. Q. Miller
4. H. Barnes
5. J. Lamb
6. D. Lamb
7. T. Ross
8. T. Jones
9. D. Waiters

I'm seriously aggravated we didnt find a way to get a 2nd top 12-15 pick this draft because its loaded, I can find about 18 players I'd be absolutely fine w/drafting and have quality expectations for if they all declared. The depth is amazing. I really, really, really hope we package picks. Looks like we'll have the 32nd or 33rd, and the 51st to 53rd, maybe we'll be able to package them both for a pick in that 15-20 zone.

I like your multi pick scenario if we do end up lower than we 'should'.
I think that would be wise IF we found a willing trade partner. I do wonder
whether that is wishful thinking and if other potential trade partners wouldn't
view this exactly the same way as we are here.

re lists

I can't see taking Drummond at all. Assuming you meant the list as ordered
by rank, I have Ty Zeller a lot higher than you do. I just like what I hear
about him and I think he's ready to contribute more quickly than others
as well as still having upside within reach just due to his work ethic.

Also, did you mean to leave Jenkins off your list of 2/3s. Jeff Taylor too
for that matter. Just askin'

[The Consiglieri]

One massive difference b/w Roy & Barnes which makes the comparison questionable. Roy was a very skilled ballhandler. You could run the offense through him and he could set others up. He was a defacto PG at times. Barnes ball skills pale in comparison, nor does he have the court vision.

And of course the Wizards need shooting & scoring from the SG/SF position. That goes without saying, but they also need a lot of other things that Barnes doesn't necessarily provide. I wouldn't be focused on finding the perfect fit, instead I'd be focused on finding the perfect player. Or the guy that's closest to perfection that we can get. Barnes might be a very good fit skill wise, but he's far away from being a perfect player for us.

Totally agree that Barnes does not appear to have anywhere near the ball handling skills that Roy had.

A couple of things though:

--- Roy played four years of coll. before entering the NBA, Barnes is in his second year of college. So there is still a good chance that Barnes can become a better ball handler.

--- Barnes is playing with probably the best passer and playmaker in college bball, and the ball is always in Marshall's hands as it should be. (The same may have been true in high school where Barnes played with a talented PG in McDermott.) So we rarely get a chance to see exactly how good (or bad) a ball handler Barnes really is.

Barnes may not be the perfect player but he may very well be the best fit for the Zards.

I've seen a decent number of Kentucky games and, while MKG may have potential, it's not always obvious. And I have real doubts about his ability to be anything but a so-so shooter. I like Robinson a lot. But with Nene, Seraphin and Booker on the roster, I just don't think the Zards need another inside banger, especially when there's such a dire need for a quality SF.

I don't disagree with the Best Player Available philosophy, but, after Davis, Barnes may arguably be the BPA.

P.S. If Marshall can't play because of his wrist, which appears likely, Barnes may be called upon to step up and do more, which should give us a better idea of how good Barnes is...or isn't.

Barnes was pretty invisible before Marshall came around though, last year. In face Kendall's insertion into the starting lineup appeared to play a key role in Barnes developing from a disappointing freshmen through December into a good player in the second half of last year. I just dont see it at all and I don't understand why so many are enamoured with him. Maybe because what he does well is essentially a low floor, virtually guaranteed quantifiable talent? He's definitely a fantastic shooter. But NY was similar in that facet. A wonderful jump shooter but absolutely nothing else to his game. I suspect Barnes will be a better pro than Young, but I think there's a very good argument to be made that he won't be much better as a pro. I have little to no idea as to why he's seen as a better prospect than Beal. No idea.

That's a big part of the reason why Im hoping for a top 2 pick or to get screwed by the lottery. I do not want to be in that 3-4 zone where Barnes would be the pick. He's a third or fourth option at UNC, why would he be better at the next level? There have been guys that were utilized more effectively at the next level and became better pros's than stars, but w/our understanding of Barnes limitations I have a hard time seeing that happening with him, I think he'll be a very nice scorer at the next level, but I dont see him doing much beyond that and with all of our issues, we need a 2/3 that does a lot more and they are available. Baffling that he would be the pick at probably 3, or 4 if he was there.

[fishercob]

Here's the thing I like about Barnes. While perimeter shooting might be the basis of his offensive game, unlike NIck Young he appears to understand what constitutes a good shot. He may not have Nick Young's "handles," but he also doesn't use his dribble to create terrible shots for himself and waste possessions. He seems to have the makings of a post game, too.

So no, I don't see him as a multiple all-star. But he does remind me a little bit of Luol Deng. Similar frame, soft spoken. Barnes probably a little more polished coming out of school. Deng is a critical piece on a legit title contender. Keep that in mind. We could do a lot worse than a player like that.

[montestewart]

It shouldn't be that cut and dry, but in 2007, it wasn't really either. Everything I recall put Oden and Durant in the same tier, and discounting the injuries to Oden, everything I've seen of him says they belonged in the same tier. The comparison to Bowie and Jordan is just silly. Jordan is the GOAT. Bowie already had a long injury history and likely was destined to continue that path. He had a noble career despite the injuries, but projecting his potential to the level of Oden's potential? Oden without injuries probably would have alternated w/ Howard as perennial 1st or 2nd team all-NBA, been an all-star every year, and might have won championships and MVPs along the way. People saw that potential when he was coming out. He was in the right tier, as was Durant. Most of the comments I saw at the time implied a relative equality of talent and potential, with Oden's size and position breaking in his direction.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

You've got a starting PF with a per of 16+ (29th in the league at the position, with the second-lowest usage rate in the top 30) in his second year.

I ran a screen of players 6-7 to 6-11 who have played 1000 or more minutes (mostly starters or high minute 3rd bigs). If you weed out the centers and small forwards (and add the 7-foot Nowitzki), Booker ranks 22nd among starting PF's in PER. He has the second-lowest usage rate on the list. He is also a better defender than a bunch of the guys above him like Jamison, Lee, Gooden and Boozer. A fair argument could be made that Booker is roughly the 20th best PF in the game right now.

I don't know if it's good or bad that his usage rate is so low. Presumably, he could improve his PER a bit if he touched the ball more, but on the other hand, maybe he isn't capable of handling much more of an offensive load with his efficiency suffering.

nate, rating Booker 20th seems about right to me--possibly a wee bit high. Booker is starter-quality on a not-good team, IMO. He's potentially a real good sub at PF on a good team. I think Booker is also a player who can play some SF, because he's not afraid to spot up and shoot and he moves fairly well.

[tontoz]

IMO if Nick had a good IQ he would probably be a top 10 sg.

[Nivek]

I'm surprised that this oden vs. Durant thing is even a topic for discussion. Mizerooskie's claims about that draft are inaccurate. Period. Let's move on.

[The Consiglieri]

And Oden wasn't in the right tier. He was Sam Bowie. Durant put up ~26 and 11 per game en route to winning the Naismith award. He was in a tier by himself.

That is simply not true. Even with his shooting hand in a cast Oden had a big impact in college. He was the consensus top pick, especially after the combine where he showed out and Durant.... didn't.

At the end of the line, my recollection is that it was a 1 and 1A situation. Durant played his way into the discussion but it was like Ryan Leaf in '98, or RG3 now, he may have played his way into the discussion, but nobody was taking him instead of Oden, Oden was 1 on everyone's draft boards, and if Im wrong about that, its about 3-4 draft boards, and not 10 or 15. Mizerooskie is engaging in revisionism, yes an argument could have been made for Durant going #1 instead at the time, but when you have a big like Oden, 9 times out of 10 he was going to go ahead of a scorer like Durant. The NBA is loaded with scorers, and was loaded with them, it wasn't loaded with guys like Oden. Not even close. He was the rarest of talents and commodities and as such was #1 on virtually anyone's draft board (and probably everyone's if we could dig them up in retrospect). Yes there was inherent risk, like OL that tip the scale past 350, massive centers are always dangerous investments, the body simply isn't supposed to be that big or that heavy and the knee is a delicate thing (i should know, my expert level snowboarder girlfriend blew out her knee two weeks ago, executing a simple heel turn on a warm day at Kirkwood, but the conditions, and an inability to get in the gym lately to build up leg strength left her vulnerable, and her meniscus tore and she sprained her knee doing something she does hundreds of times every winter while snowboarding), but it doesnt change the fact that ODEN WAS GOING #1 PERIOD.

[The Consiglieri]

The idea of making draft decisions based on Trevor Booker's presence is laughable. We had this same argument this past draft involving Faried & Booker. Everyone said Booker is too similar to Faried. Nonsense. For all of Booker's benefits he's still most likely a backup PF. We need talent, regardless of position. Draft the best player available. Stop worrying about fit. If Robinson is the BPA then draft him and worry about fit later. If MKG is the BPA, who cares if effort guys like Singleton & Vesely were drafted a year? Just get the BPA and let everything figure itself out afterwards.

While I agree with your principal of just get talent and BPA, I think there needs to be a consideration of fit and team chemistry.

With Nene on here earning $13M and slotted to play X amount of minutes, along with Booker having arrived as a rotation player, and with Seraphin emerging as a potential stopper and post scorer; any big the Wizards draft needs to have appreciably better talent or they need to possess a disparate skill set that improves this team. Otherwise, IMO the Wizard better go G or SF with their lotto/non-Davis pick.

Dat, I don't think Robinson makes as much sense for the Wizards now, because I think Seraphin will end up at C and Nene will finally get to play PF, as he prefers. I think Booker will be a sub. Or else the next coach will be largely unsuccessful. Robinson would have to be more of a stud than I think he is to put Booker and Seraphin on the bench.

What I would MUCH RATHER SEE is for the Wizards to select a guard like Beal with their top pick. I'm backing off MKG. I know the team needs talent but I think it needs to be disparate, or different in an area of need, talent at that same tier of Robinson or whomever.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm just trying to say I think chemistry and fit and role is important. The Wizards need knock down shooters who have elite talent IMO.

I agree with all of this. Other than Davis i don't see anyone as a sure All-Star. Unless there was a standout BPA i think the Wizards should go with a wing player.

I don't either but I think the draft is loaded with "potentially good players", i can totally see tWhe argument with going Davis or trying to execute with a team below us that has multiple picks and really wants someone.

Say Charlotte:

The dream trade:

Pick: Bradley Beal and Cody/Tyler Zeller, or Meyers Leonard Q Miller, or Terrence Ross.

Do a deal with Utah and get: Lamb/Beal to go with one of the 2nd tier bigs like Leonard, Henson or the Zellers.

After Davis, Drummond (who i don't want either), MKG and Beal, I think there are 3-4 bigs and 4-5 3's and 2's that are relatively evenly valued and can be had anywhere between 4-15 or so (and admittedly, Beal is still slotted supposedly between 5-10, w/Barnes ahead of him for unknown reasons).

[queridiculo]

Just figured I'd dig this up since I remember thinking much along the line of Simmons at the time. Oden was the safe pick, Durant, to me at least the right one.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... aft/070627

[DCZards]

Barnes was pretty invisible before Marshall came around though, last year. In face Kendall's insertion into the starting lineup appeared to play a key role in Barnes developing from a disappointing freshmen through December into a good player in the second half of last year.

The keyword here is freshman. The expecations were so high for Barnes coming out of high school that when he struggled the first few weeks at UNC people were quick to label him a disappointment. He had changed most of those people's minds by midseason.

I just dont see it at all and I don't understand why so many are enamoured with him. Maybe because what he does well is essentially a low floor, virtually guaranteed quantifiable talent? He's definitely a fantastic shooter.

Barnes doesn't get enough credit for his rebounding--or his D. He's averaged more than five boards a game both years at UNC. And, while MKG is a better rebounder than Barnes (7.6 per game), MKG is nowhere near the shooter that Barnes is...and probably never will be. I expect Kidd-Gilchrist to end up being more of a PF than SF in the NBA.

He's a third or fourth option at UNC, why would he be better at the next level? There have been guys that were utilized more effectively at the next level and became better pros's than stars, but w/our understanding of Barnes limitations I have a hard time seeing that happening with him, I think he'll be a very nice scorer at the next level, but I dont see him doing much beyond that and with all of our issues, we need a 2/3 that does a lot more and they are available.

Yes, Barnes is sometimes the second or third option for UNC. But that has more to do with the fact that he’s on the court with two other likely lottery picks. If you’ve watched as many UNC games as I have over the past couple of years, you also know that Harrison is often the #1 option when the game is on the line…and he usually delivers.