Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part V

[dorianwrite]

It seems like a lot of teams are heading toward a model where the guards are taller and the big guys are shorter, so there starts to be a degree of parity across the board. If Bennett's as mobile as people say and can shoot mid-range jumpers consistently, he'll be fine offensively (the only danger being any latent tendencies to want to jack lots of three-pointers). As long as the defensive effort is there, height shouldn't be a problem.

On a related note, this is a strange draft because there are so many 7-footers (or guys in that range, like Noel) who will be first rounders. Noel, Zeller, Len, Adams, Withey, the list goes on. The guys on that list who are most mobile will be most valuable as the league heads toward more small-ball lineups. That's why I'm really intrigued by Withey, who moves well and can jump and defend.

[Dat2U]

I wouldn't draft Bennett with the 8th pick, that's how little I trust his "upside". A tweener PF as a top 3 pick just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. After tweeners like Derrick Williams & Michael Beasley, who put up monster seasons but have been such disappointments, I find it really hard to give Bennett any real consideration when there's additional questions about his maturity and overall b-ball IQ.

[rockymac52]

Can I just say that I absolutely love this message board? We have such a great group of consistent contributors and a very advanced knowledge of the game, I really love reading all of the back and forth that goes on here on a daily basis. But with that said, I leave for like 4 hours and now I have to catch up on like 15 pages in this one thread alone lol.

Anyways, I have a few thoughts to share on things that have been said in the last 15 pages or so, so I'll likely be posting a few posts in a row in the next half hour.

First off, I'd like to debunk the myth of Otto Porter being a great midrange shooter. I think that is a lazy and stereotypical assumption that clearly many of you have made. When I say stereotypical, I'm talking about how Porter is perceived as more of an old school all-around player, possibly because of the offensive system that Georgetown runs, and people assume that he is a great midrange shooter, in part because they know he's just okay from 3 point range. Where that myth came from isn't really important though. What's important is that it isn't true.

This last season, Porter took 154 jump shots.
60% of them were from beyond the 3 point line, where he was very efficient, scoring 1.27 PPP (89th percentile).
27% of them were from within 17 feet of the basket, where he was only average efficiency-wise, scoring .71 PPP (48th percentile).

ONLY 13% of Porter's jump shots were taken between 17 feet and the 3 point line, the area that I would refer to as "midrange." Furthermore, not only did Porter rarely take midrange jumpers, he was incredibly inefficient when he did, scoring only .6 PPP (31st percentile).

Only 51% of Porter's shots were jump shots. The rest were post ups and scoring around the basket. So that means about 6% of Porter's total offense is midrange jumpers.

Porter actually had more shots in literally every single play type (other than pick and roll man) than he did shooting midrange jumpers. He cut to the basket more, he scored in transition more, he spotted up from 3 and within 17 feet more, he posted up more, he scored off put backs more, he scored coming off screens more (I suppose you could argue that this is similar to midrange), he ran isolation plays more, he ran the pick and roll more, hell, he even was handed the ball off more.

Why he got the label of a midrange shooter, I will never know.

[truwizfan4evr]

I wouldn't draft Bennett with the 8th pick, that's how little I trust his "upside". A tweener PF as a top 3 pick just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. After tweeners like Derrick Williams & Michael Beasley, who put up monster seasons but have been such disappointments, I find it really hard to give Bennett any real consideration when there's additional questions about his maturity and overall b-ball IQ.

EXactly, What i been trying to say.

[doclinkin]

I can tell you that I'm coming around, especially after the Boeheim quote. Whenever that kind of thing comes about I always wish there was a simple like coach quote generator, where you could use a filter on "coach quotes about prospects", and find out if they just talk bollocks, or if its rare that they prop anyone like that.

Boeheim is a straight shooter, you can win many an office pool just picking as he suggests in the NCAA tourney. But to be fair his team got straight smoked by Ottomatic in the best game of his college career, so the 'Cuse coaches opinion is colored by that.

[doclinkin]

Can one of you draft experts enlighten me on why Alex Oriakhi isn't a bigger prospect? ...

...
His production was good. Extremely efficient -- .639 2pt% so he finishes well inside. Good FT% suggests he may be a competent mid-range jump shooter in the NBA. Good rebounds and blocks.

DX doesn't even have him in their top 100. Wow.

Speaking of guys no one's talking about, who knows something about Arsalan Kazemi?

Two targets I looked at with our lower picks or in trade down scenarios. I followed Kazemi at Rice, mentioned him a couple times last thread. I was eager to see how he'd do in a better conference and he continued to hold his own. Strikes me as a Spurs type selection: plays the game smart and hard, has flaws but plays a role and does so consistently. Rebounder, hustlefxck, defender, interior game. We have variations of that player in Booker, Singleton, Vesely, (in descending order) but I have him contending with a healthy Booker for the available minutes in that role.

Oriakhi I watched at UConn. Slow, strong, tough, long arms if not height, which I think gets him figuratively overlooked. His game will translate as a role player.

[fishercob]

Randolph, Marion, Barkley, Buck Williams, LJ, Dantley, Aquire and that is just off the top of my head.

Millsap is 6'6" w/o shoes with only a 32.5" vert but has done well.

Zach is 6'9. Marion was an offensive role player and a defensive and rebounding ace in his price. No one else you mention have played in the last 15 years and the NBA has changed considerably.

There are very few examples in today's NBA of really good 4's with Bennett's physical profile. That's not to say he's incapable of succeeding, but it certainly makes you have to squint harder to envision it.

So are you trying to say that NBA listed heights are accurate? Excuse me while i

There are plenty of guys (like Millsap and Josh Smith) who are listed 2" above their actual height w/o shoes, and i don't think they are playing in heels.

There haven't been many players in general with Bennett's size/abilities. People point to Beasley (head case playing out of position) and DWill (slower also spending a lot of time out of position) but neither of those guys took it to the basket like Bennett.

I can't say I agree. Both of those guys relied on their jumpers, taking it to hole, and offensive rebounding.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJc0c_ZNzlk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxwlkye9sI[/youtube]

[truwizfan4evr]

One NBA Director of Scouting called Maryland C Alex Len's foot issue "real scary."

[tontoz]

I can't see vids at work (and am generally not impressed by highlight vids) but using Beasley as a comp doesn't work because Beasley has been stuck at the 3 and is clearly a head case who doesn't take it to the basket hardly at all in the pros.

Dwill's freshman year doesn't compare to Bennetts and he has also had to spend a lot of time at the 3 because of Love. And per 36 he averaged 17/8 this past season which isn't bad for a 2nd year player. Looks like his main problem is his J.

From what i remember in college he was comfortable shooting off the catch but didn't do as well off the dribble. His release is on the slow side.

[rockymac52]

Next, I'd like to clear some things up about Anthony Bennett. I found it really interesting to watch the opinions on him develop over the last 15 pages (it's been going on for a while, but you could really see it recently). There are two very clear camps, and they are drifting further and further away from each other, and I think both camps are overcompensating to prove a point.

Anthony Bennett is not a "knucklehead" or a "distraction" or a "malcontent" or a "locker room cancer" or any other buzz word used to disparage a player for reasons other than basketball.

Anthony Bennett is also not a future superstar. I mean, he could theoretically blossom into an All-NBA talent, but so could literally anyone in the draft. If people want to follow the Chad Ford line of thought and say that Bennett is the most likely to be an All-Star one day or that he has the highest ceiling, that's fine, nothing wrong with that.

But just because a fan base has a polarizing view on a player, and some seem to believe that he has the potential to be a star, doesn't mean that he is an all or nothing prospect. Why does the player with the supposedly highest ceiling automatically also have to have the lowest floor? Where is that written in the rules of basketball? For prospects in general, most people tend to get caught up in "potential," and you see this manifested very clearly when a player is considered a "project" and "raw." Suddenly just because that individual prospect has a long ways to go to fully develop we are blinded by that fact, and we make the false assumption that his ceiling is higher than everyone else's. This doesn't apply just to Bennett by any means, in fact, I'm thinking about past drafts at the moment, guys like Daniel Orton, Andre Drummond, Perry Jones III, Anthony Randolph, and DeAndre Jordan. For some reason, when a player has failed to produce at the level we thought he would coming out of high school, we hold onto that HS ranking, tricking ourselves into believing that those players still have superstar potential. Then we make it even worse, and we tell ourselves that that player is either going to be a complete bust or an absolute stud - there's no in between. How dumb and illogical is that?! You can believe in high-risk, high-reward to a certain extent, but how can you dismiss the notion that that player could fall somewhere in between bust and star when the dust settles so easily?

That's always annoyed me to great ends when the draft rolls around, and I hate that I'm seeing it about Bennett now (and guys like Shabazz Muhammad and Tony Mitchell). Let's take a step back and take a deep breath and realize that if we draft Bennett, it isn't an indication that we are going all in, crossing our fingers and hoping for the coin toss to land in our favor - as in, him being a star rather than a complete bust. There's a happy middle ground too.

Sure, some players are legitimately riskier than others, and some probably possess higher ceilings to a certain extent. But why is it a given that Otto Porter has a floor of average and a ceiling of very good, while Anthony Bennett is either a bust or a star? Let's say some of the concerns about Bennett's ability to play defense or his tweener size end up being legitimate. Well, that might mean that he doesn't end up being the star that plenty of us think he could have been. But that doesn't mean he's absolutely worthless and now has no place on an NBA roster. Look at Derrick Williams, for example. We heard all the same concerns about his tweener-related issues prior to the draft and his rookie season, and so far, many of those concerns seem to have been justified. He doesn't appear like he's ever going to become a great player, and since many people expected that he would, they're disappointed and have soured on him excessively. But guess what? Even this disappointing version of Derrick Williams is still an average to slightly above average NBA player. Maybe not what you want ideally from the #2 overall pick, but he's going to be contributing to an NBA roster for the next decade, so it's not a complete bust.

[sfam]

I can't say I agree. Both of those guys relied on their jumpers, taking it to hole, and offensive rebounding.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJc0c_ZNzlk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxwlkye9sI[/youtube]

To state the obvious, there's virtually no driving to the hole by either of them in those clips (lots of jump shooting though), but a lot from Griffin. I counted one from DWill in that tape, and possibly 2 for Beasely, although he really did floaters.

[stevemcqueen1]

If it is cheap, I could see the justification. The Magic might be willing to do it for a small incentive like Booker or the 37th pick.

Moving back looks like it could have some good options. The first incentive I would go for would be a 2014 1st, but as we have discussed a lot of them are tied up in protection and likely won't be available. If the Suns would part with the 30th pick that would be good assuming Len or Bennett was still available. The Twolves have the 9th and 26th pick and are rumored to be interested in Oladipo, probably also would be interested in McLemore.

The #37 and Booker seems a bit too expensive for me. Singleton or Ves, sure. I wouldn't mind doing the Phoenix trade for the #30, but wouldn't want the Twolves deal, as there is a dropoff after the top 5 or 6.

I agree that both Booker and the early 2nd would be too much to move one spot in this draft.

Not just moving one spot. You're moving up for the second player in a two player class--supposedly. Booker and 37 would be fair if you think Nerlens is a franchise center.

[stevemcqueen1]

Sources tell ESPN's Chad Ford that the Wizards are "very high" on UNLV F Anthony Bennett. It's widely assumed that the Wiz will go for local product Otto Porter if he's there at No. 3. But don't sleep on Bennett, a prospect with significantly more offensive upside. As a freshman, he lit up the underrated Mountain West Conference for 16.1 points per game on 53.3 percent shooting -- and did it in just 27.1 minutes a night. Bennett is an excellent shooter and ball handler for someone listed at 6'8/240.

I can only sign off on a Bennett pick if I accept that Witt has input and knows what he's in for. If Bennett is Witt's guy, and he's going to play him, then I'm fine with the choice.

[stevemcqueen1]

What happens if the 1st two picks are Porter to the Cavs and Noel to the Magic. The Magic are run by smart people. They know that defensive bigs are much more valuable than a guy like Burke (especially considering that Smart and Harrison are in next year's draft).

If the Wiz were stuck at 3, I'd take Bennett.

I still like Zeller and he would be my pick at three. But you'd think we could trade down a spot or two because someone like Phoenix might want to get McLemore.

Bennett at three is fine if we're stuck and we don't like Zeller. I just hope it's not Len.

[stevemcqueen1]

According to the Orlando board, they would absolutely take Noel at #2 if the Cavs take Porter. So to get Noel, the Cavs would have to draft him and arrange a trade with us. It looks like it really might be a possibility. The tone on the Cavs board is that they really don't want to deal with a project like Noah and they love Porter.

Noel has real risks as well. His upside may be terrific, but its definitely going to take a few years to get there. I just don't see us giving up that much to move up. We're better off taking the BPA at #3 and then try to package the seconds to move up to take a potential role player, either stretch 4 or combo guard.

If it doesn't cost that much, why not trade up for Noel? Biggest benefit we could get long term is a franchise center who is a defensive anchor. It'd be worth it.

[stevemcqueen1]

There's much room for Porter to grow. That's not to say Bennett can't, but the risks are higher and he's not comparable to any quality basketball players that play today. 6'7 PF's just haven't worked out, wingspan or no.

Charles Barkley and Larry Johnson. And them in the greatest 7 footer era in NBA history.

Bennett is a Paul Millsap clone except bigger and lighter on his feet. I doubt his height limits him much.

[stevemcqueen1]

I like Noel alot and hope we can get him for his athletic freak skills. How ever if Bennett falls to us than I would be very happy with him . I don't see how we can mess up in this draft the ball is really on our court and I hope Ernie doesn't blow it.

Noel or Bennett for me.

Bennet is a bust!

Don't you think that's a bit premature, as he hasn't even been drafted yet?

[rockymac52]

What I'm hearing from the guys who don't want Porter (other than the few who simply prefer Oladipo to Porter, which is more than fair) is that the issue with him is that while he's a safe pick with little to no bust potential, he doesn't have enough upside, as in, he might be good at a lot of things, but not great at any, and he's just a super role player of sorts.

I'd like to throw out a comparison for Otto Porter that I think could change some of your minds on him, because I think part of the problem with a lot of you guys' perception of Porter is the player comps you've been hearing. Don't get me wrong, Tayshaun Prince has had a great career, and was a mighty fine player in his prime that any team would have loved to have, but I understand that Tayshaun Prince isn't exactly what you hope for with the 3rd overall pick.

Maybe this is old news, as I can only keep track of so many different draft websites, but it just hit me recently that perhaps a perfect comparison for Otto Porter is... Luol Deng.

I think they were incredibly similar coming into the league, with Porter perhaps having a leg up, stats-wise. Deng has been a very good all-around two-way player for his entire career, and it's led to a couple all-star games even. That's what I think Porter can do at the next level. Except I think his 3 pointer, while it still needs lots of work, is way ahead of where Deng's 3 point stroke was until about his 6th year in the league. Hell, it might already be better than Deng's newly developed 3 point range.

Thoughts on the player comp? And as long as no one is in uproar about it, would you be happy with picking Luol Deng 3rd overall in the draft? I know I sure would be!

[The Consiglieri]

Next, I'd like to clear some things up about Anthony Bennett. I found it really interesting to watch the opinions on him develop over the last 15 pages (it's been going on for a while, but you could really see it recently). There are two very clear camps, and they are drifting further and further away from each other, and I think both camps are overcompensating to prove a point.

Anthony Bennett is not a "knucklehead" or a "distraction" or a "malcontent" or a "locker room cancer" or any other buzz word used to disparage a player for reasons other than basketball.

Anthony Bennett is also not a future superstar. I mean, he could theoretically blossom into an All-NBA talent, but so could literally anyone in the draft. If people want to follow the Chad Ford line of thought and say that Bennett is the most likely to be an All-Star one day or that he has the highest ceiling, that's fine, nothing wrong with that.

But just because a fan base has a polarizing view on a player, and some seem to believe that he has the potential to be a star, doesn't mean that he is an all or nothing prospect. Why does the player with the supposedly highest ceiling automatically also have to have the lowest floor? Where is that written in the rules of basketball? For prospects in general, most people tend to get caught up in "potential," and you see this manifested very clearly when a player is considered a "project" and "raw." Suddenly just because that individual prospect has a long ways to go to fully develop we are blinded by that fact, and we make the false assumption that his ceiling is higher than everyone else's. This doesn't apply just to Bennett by any means, in fact, I'm thinking about past drafts at the moment, guys like Daniel Orton, Andre Drummond, Perry Jones III, Anthony Randolph, and DeAndre Jordan. For some reason, when a player has failed to produce at the level we thought he would coming out of high school, we hold onto that HS ranking, tricking ourselves into believing that those players still have superstar potential. Then we make it even worse, and we tell ourselves that that player is either going to be a complete bust or an absolute stud - there's no in between. How dumb and illogical is that?! You can believe in high-risk, high-reward to a certain extent, but how can you dismiss the notion that that player could fall somewhere in between bust and star when the dust settles so easily?

That's always annoyed me to great ends when the draft rolls around, and I hate that I'm seeing it about Bennett now (and guys like Shabazz Muhammad and Tony Mitchell). Let's take a step back and take a deep breath and realize that if we draft Bennett, it isn't an indication that we are going all in, crossing our fingers and hoping for the coin toss to land in our favor - as in, him being a star rather than a complete bust. There's a happy middle ground too.

Sure, some players are legitimately riskier than others, and some probably possess higher ceilings to a certain extent. But why is it a given that Otto Porter has a floor of average and a ceiling of very good, while Anthony Bennett is either a bust or a star? Let's say some of the concerns about Bennett's ability to play defense or his tweener size end up being legitimate. Well, that might mean that he doesn't end up being the star that plenty of us think he could have been. But that doesn't mean he's absolutely worthless and now has no place on an NBA roster. Look at Derrick Williams, for example. We heard all the same concerns about his tweener-related issues prior to the draft and his rookie season, and so far, many of those concerns seem to have been justified. He doesn't appear like he's ever going to become a great player, and since many people expected that he would, they're disappointed and have soured on him excessively. But guess what? Even this disappointing version of Derrick Williams is still an average to slightly above average NBA player. Maybe not what you want ideally from the #2 overall pick, but he's going to be contributing to an NBA roster for the next decade, so it's not a complete bust.

I also think Williams was not selected by an ideal team. His team has had a ton of injuries, and has basically been, like Sacramento, a Mr. Potato head basketball team with a big pile of left ears, lips, and a left eye, but missing a nose, a right ear, and a right eye if you know what i mean. Both those squads are a pile of parts, not a team, not even a building team in flux caught in a snap shot before the rebuild is complete. Hell, they had a pile of picks in '09 thanks to us, then decided to draft 3point guards, and kept the wrong one (which i imagine most of us, like me, thought was the idiotic, least valuable of them, Flynn, who has since been dumped). Much like Sac, they've just been making seemingly random selections, and not engaging in any cogent form of development to speak of. For all of our issues with development, and 1 rebuild year lost to delusional thinking ('09), and another lost to horrendous draft pick management ('11), we still followed a moderately sensible plan, orchestrating the ejections of Young, Baltche, and McGee to clean up the chemistry, atmosphere and locker room, and a pile of BOYD trades to attempt to bring in developmental prospects (Seraphin, Booker, Crawford, Ves, Satoranksy), stop gap filler (Mack), and speculative plug and play parts (Singleton) to go with 2 foundation pieces (Wall and Beal).

I honestly have no idea what the hell Minnesota is doing, or has been doing, hence the hilarious bits Simmons has written about them (KAHHHHHHHNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!) for several years running. Heck, the one genius move they made was pure accident, when they acquired Love on the cheap as a speculative move, and ended up with one of the most valuable foundation pieces in the league (which they then screwed up when they gave him a wack contract).

Your main point I completely agree with though, and am perplexed by the takes in some areas. Bennett is going to score in this league. He isn't going to be a Marcus Morriss, or Ves, where you know the pick was blown before hand (Morriss), or if you didn't, you know it within a few games on the floor (Ves). Bennett will be an offensive weapon of some value. No matter what, if he's drafted, he'll be useful, and startable. Ditto Porter who at worst, would still be an average or above average league starter at the #3. I don't think there's a chance he goes Ves, or Darko, or Morris on us. I think Oladipo at worst, is a legit defender with some tools on the offensive end. The only guys that scare me in terms of flat out being a bust are Burke (i've seen a lot of great point guards in college with liabilities, be outright busts, or at best, backup PG's in the league, I dont expect that, but I coulde see that), Mclemore, who while I think he'll be a stud, could end up just being a second tier starter, Len, who could end up being no better than he was in college, a guy who looks the part, but rarely plays the part, and Zeller who just scares and confuses me as a prospect, ditto Olynyk, Gobert.

Where we're picking, i honestly feel like we will land an offensive weapon with a chance to be a star (Bennett) or at worst, a 1 dimensional weapon whose very good at that dimension, a defensive stud, who carries injury concerns, but as long as healthy, will be a legit stud weapon, especially if he picks up offensive skills (Noel), or a jack of all trades, quality fill the stat line, high BBIQ weapon that could give us a lethal backcourt+1 like what the Warriors have, or in Oladipo, a collection of backcourt playrs that could give teams small ball nightmares for the next decade.


Very great point to bring this up.

[fugop]

Don't draft a stretch 4 in the lottery. Dirk Nowitzki is the only counter example in the last 20 years. The rest have been guys like Troy Murphy (14th), Channing Frye (8th), Tim Thomas (7th), Andrea Bargnani (1st), Vladimir Radmanovic (12th), Keith Van Horn (2nd), Eddie Griffn (7th), Charlie Villanueva (7th), and Nikoloz Tskitishvili (5th).

If you want a stretch 4, trade for one; pick one up in free agency; or draft a big with a nice shooting stroke, and work with him on his shot.

I theorize, without any non-anecdotal evidence, that you see so much disappointment in stretch 4s because NBA caliber big men should be able to dominate in the interior at lower levels. Bigs with a developed perimeter game in the NCAAs and the lesser euro-leagues are actually revealing their ineffective interior games, also correlated with ineffective interior defense.

If we are looking for a stretch 4, let's just suck it up and trade for Bargnani. He was terrible last year, but solid in limited games in 2011-2012 and 2010-2011. He's 27 years old, and on a big, but short contract. Bargnani for Ariza and Vesely works.