Page 1 of 4

Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:50 pm
by nate33
As an intellectual exercise, I'd like for everyone to chime in and state who they would have taken at #32 this year given the players that were on the board. A year or two from now, we can look back and see how much (if at all) EG blundered by taking the Euro draft-and-stash rather than "my guy".

For the record, I would have taken Quincy Miller.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:52 pm
by sfam
Quincy Miller as well. His upside was just too great to pass up. If he gets healthy, you have an elite athlete who potentially becomes a starter at SF for 8-10 years. Or, um, a Eurostash who needs to work on his offense and defense.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:56 pm
by Severn Hoos
"And remember, this is for posterity so be honest. How do you feel?"


Given that Beal was the 1st rounder, I think I would have definitely gone with Crowder.

Doron Lamb would have been a close second.


And FWIW, I'm less upset now about giving away the 46th pick. Miller would have been nice, as would Denmon, but really, those were the only 2 guys from 46-60 that interest me. I hope the team can bring in Machado and/or Shurna, that would ease the frustration, and they have to see that backup pG and shooting are desperate needs, so the Wiz could be an attractive destination.


But I digress....

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:00 pm
by Ruzious
Crowder.

If Crowder wasn't there, I'd have taken either Q Miller or Doron Lamb.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:08 pm
by miller31time
Severn Hoos wrote:"And remember, this is for posterity so be honest. How do you feel?"


:lol:

Might just be my favorite movie of all time.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:09 pm
by miller31time
I was looking at team need so my choice would have been Doron Lamb.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:22 pm
by Zonkerbl
The only players I know anything about are the ones Kevin and ccj talked about, Jae Crowder, Will Barton, Marcus Denmon. I guess for EG to be wrong one of those three has to be better than Roger Mason, James Singleton, or Cartier Martin. Or Mo Evans. Given my rock solid faith in numbers over seeing people actually play, I'll go on record saying all three will contribute more in the NBA over the next year or two than Mo Evans.

Jae Crowder would have to beat out James Singleton. So I'll go on record saying Crowder will have more production over the next year or so then Singleton.

Will Barton and Marcus Denmon would have to beat out Roger Mason and Cartier Martin. I'll say that Marcus Denmon will produce more than Roger Mason and that Will Barton will producer more than Cartier Martin.

Going again purely by statistics, I'll say that EG will regret drafting Jae Crowder the most.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:34 pm
by dobrojim
I'll guess Jae Crowder out of respect for Nivek. And Yoda.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:38 pm
by MDStar
I'll go on record and say that I like the pick. A PG/SG prospect who can be groomed for a year or so and come back ready to contribute once all of our kiddies have either grown up or shipped out.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft/re ... satoransky

Small excerpts from the page:

"June 25 Update: Satoransky is a super-talented wing who excels with the ball in his hands. He's not a great shooter but plays with a great motor, like Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, and can affect the game without scoring. He would be a nice stash pick for the Blazers at No. 41."


"May 3 Update: Satoransky is one of the most talented young international players in the draft and is one of the very few players who could get a look in the first round. He's a great athlete and he's very, very active. He can play multiple positions, but needs to improve that jump shot."

"June 13, 2011 Update: Two years ago I wrote that Satoransky was my favorite player in the Eurocamp. He still is. Tough, physical, aggressive, driven and athletic, he's the type of scrappy wing that finds a way to contribute on every play. If he were a better shooter, he'd be a lock for the first round. But with his body improving and that restless game of his, I still think he's got a shot at the first."

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:43 pm
by jivelikenice
I would have taken Lamb, but this pick is growing on me.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:45 pm
by doclinkin
Kim English or Jae Crowder.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:46 pm
by MJG
Quincy Miller is the guy I was pulling for in the draft thread, so no reason to change my mind here.

I admit to knowing very little about most of the people in this range though, so that's based on about five minutes of actual research. Which is why I'm more "slightly disappointed" and less "outright livid" like a few others were about taking the mystery box.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:47 pm
by FAH1223
Quincy Miller on my end.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:54 pm
by willbcocks
Quincy Miller. he seems like a 15-20 pick in most drafts and fits a need.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:54 pm
by Halcyon
Quincy Miller

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:01 pm
by 20MexicanosIn1Van
Quincy Miller / Crowder / Doron Lamb in that order.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:01 pm
by Rafael122
Miller. I'm numb to Tomas at this point, he'll develop more on his Euro team's dime. If he can find a jumpshot, he wouldn't be the worse backup to have.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
by Illuminaire
Crowder. Who I expect to start some games for Dallas this coming season. I don't think they'll be able to keep him off the court.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:11 pm
by pineappleheadindc
I'm with Nate - I would have drafted Quincy Miller.

I'm kind of irritated with Ernie's move because what the Wizards need is an influx of actual talent. I'm not just talking starters, but even back of rotation players. You don't need to mortgage your daughter's college fund for a second rounder. And I thought we were building via the draft (I'm saying I'm not confident Satoransky will make it here ever).

The way we waste second round picks, I've told Miller over FB that the Wizards ought to just auction them off. Like a vanity thing, to the highest bidder. Don't matter if you're a 60-year-old fat guy. Whoever comes with the most cash gets drafted. And we donate the proceeds to the Make a Wish Foundation. At least THAT would be productive.

Re: Who should we have taken at #32? (for the record)

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:19 pm
by Dat2U
QMiller or Crowder. I'd be willing to bet that this won't be the last we here from either one.

I can't say I feel the same about the next Sun Yue (Satoransky).