2024 Draft Prospect: Donovan Clingan

[JMAC3]

Best traditional 5 in the draft
7-2 242 lbs
20.32 yrs old draft night

Perceived Draft Range 1-9

[Bassman]

Best traditional 5 in the draft
7-2 242 lbs
20.32 yrs old draft night

Perceived Draft Range 1-9

I thought he was listed at 280 lbs? I know he’s lost some weight since that was posted.

[JMAC3]

List of centers drafted in the top 10 since 2008.

2023- Wemby
2022- Chet
2021 - Mobley
2020 - Wiseman, Okongwu, Jalen Smith
2019 - Jaxson Hayes
2018 - Ayton, Bamba, Carter
2017 - Zach Collins
2016 - Poeltl, Thon Maker
2015 - KAT, Okafor, Willie Cauley Stein, Frank Kaminsky
2014- Embiid, Vonleh
2013 - Zeller, Len, Noel
2012 - Anthony Davis, Drummond
2011 - Kanter, Tristan, Valanciunas, Biyombo
2010- Favors, Cousins, Udoh, Monroe
2009 - Thabeet, Jordan Hill
2008 - Brook Lopez

I bolded 14 out of 35 who I feel like proved to be starting level players.

Wemby - 1st
AD- 1st
KAT -1st
Ayton -1st
Chet -2nd
Mobely -3rd
Embiid -3rd
Tristan- 4th
Valanciunas- 5th
Cousins- 5th
WCJ - 6th
Drummond - 9th
Poelt - 9th
Lopez 10th

[JMAC3]

Other 21 current-ish starters draft selections that weren't in previous post along with draft selection

Horford - 5th
Sabonis -11th
Turner - 11th
Adams -12th
Duren- 14th
Bam - 14th
Mark W.- 15th
Vucevic- 16th
Sengun - 16th
Nurkic -16th
Allen -22nd
Kessler- 22nd
Capela -25th
Gobert -27th
Looney -30th
Claxton -31st
Zubac -32nd
Robinson -36th
Gafford -38th
Jokic -41st
Hartenstein- 43rd

[JMAC3]

Wemby - 1st
AD- 1st
KAT -1st
Ayton -1st
Chet -2nd
Mobely -3rd
Embiid -3rd
Tristan- 4th
Valanciunas- 5th
Cousins- 5th
WCJ - 6th
Drummond - 9th
Poelt - 9th
Lopez 10th

Out of the 14 successes, how many of these guys do you think Clingan can match skill wise? Who is the best comp?

[JMAC3]

Other 21 current-ish starters draft selections that weren't in previous post along with draft selection

Horford - 5th
Sabonis -11th
Turner - 11th
Adams -12th
Duren- 14th
Bam - 14th
Mark W.- 15th
Vucevic- 16th
Sengun - 16th
Nurkic -16th
Allen -22nd
Kessler- 22nd
Capela -25th
Gobert -27th
Looney -30th
Claxton -31st
Zubac -32nd
Robinson -36th
Gafford -38th
Jokic -41st
Hartenstein- 43rd

Or is it easier to find Clingan comps on this list?

[fatlever]

i totally hear ya on the value of clingan (or any center in this draft) at 6.
if our front office has a plan to add a solid center in FA, then by all means, lets pass on clingan and go for an upside guy at pg-pf
i just fear our plan is to run it back with mark, nick and nnaji (or similar scrap heap rookie ufa type). maybe thats not fair to new front office. this was the old mitch plan.
i'll be furious if nick is a starter in more than 10 games next year. dude is 3rd string.
ideally, i agree, we add a center who gives us something different from mark - 3pt shooting or space eater rebounding monster or perimeter close outs or high post passing etc...

[GoBobs]

Go make a list of wings and guards that averaged less than 14 pts per game before entering the league and turned out to be stars. You will find it is a very short one.

[JDR720]

Clingan isn't going to be a star. He's a good backup or average starter.

[Rich4114]

The logic and associated risk JMAC is highlighting in picking a C top 10 is not wrong. But there's multiple factors in play that dilute it a bit. Such as:

* Draft is noted as weak across the board with no prospect standing out among the top 10
* We played Nick Richards as our only C for 80% of the season
* We were among the worst rebounding teams in the league
* League is shifting back to a big man's league after ~10ish years of guards dominating
* Free agency is far from guaranteed and we'll need to over-pay for anyone who can slot into the starting lineup or play backup C
* You need at least 2 quality C's to win games, we have 1 and that 1 has major question marks and injury concerns
* There is no stand out wing or guard that would be impossible to pass on
* The history of the #6 pick in the draft is trash, might be time to buck the trend

[wilson115]

The Mavs have proven it's possible to put together a big man rotation decent enough to go up 1-0 in a conference finals relatively quickly. (One offseason + a mid-season trade in their case.) Some questions:

1. Say we draft Clingan at #6, are we done addressing our big man situation then? So we'd be solid enough at the spot to go after wings+shooters in free agency, or would we need to add a veteran big man on top of spending our lottery pick on a younger one?

2. No question we need a center, but which center? And can we really address that need in this draft? Asking because the (mobile, athletic) bigs on this list don't much resemble anyone in the lottery outside Sarr.

Read on Twitter

[JMAC3]

If Clingan had Cousins or KAT upside on offense then yeah grab him at 6, but to me the offensive upside is just too similar to guys in 12-25 range in most drafts.

Yes the defense projects well but what if he is too big and limited on defense? Gobert is struggling in playoffs and he is a much better mover than Clingan despite what his combine stuff said 10yrs ago.

Anyone pounding the table for Clingan seems to be 100% based around need because of Mark/Richards. Which feels like a bad process with a top pick.

[yosemiteben]

Gobert is struggling in playoffs

Luka's game winner notwithstanding, this feels like a mischaracterization. MIN's defense completely craters when Gobert isn't on the floor.

Saw a stat on Twitter showing this but can't find it now. Here's what I was able to find, and this jives with what I saw before.

Read on Twitter

[Snidely FC]

Clingan's candidacy as the Hornets pick seems predicated on speculation about Mark Williams' health

But speculation about Williams' health remains just that, speculation, and it's just as fair to speculate that the 22 year old Williams is fine as it is to speculate that he is permanently damaged...

Would Clingan boosters still pick Clingan at #6 if they knew that Mark Williams was physically fine going forward?

[KembaWalker]

But speculation about Williams' health remains just that, speculation, and it's just as fair to speculate that the 22 year old Williams is fine as it is to speculate that he is permanently damaged...

It would make my day to have some evidence that Mark is fine, unfortunately that evidence doesn’t exist so it’s hard to call them equally fair positions

[Rich4114]

Would Clingan boosters still pick Clingan at #6 if they knew that Mark Williams was physically fine going forward?

This is a good question. I still would simply because he'd likely be BPA and for a team that hasn't made the playoffs in a decade, it makes little sense to use a top 6 pick on a fit rather than BPA. So with or without the Mark Williams factor (which really just bolsters the reasons for taking Clingan (or Edey)), I'd still be basing my choice on BPA.

So it comes down to who people believe BPA would be. This draft is flat, so the BPA rankings are likely all over the place within the top 10. I've heard many takes that consider Clingan the safest, BPA. Heard the same about Castle, Sarr and Risacher.

I just look at it like the downside is low and the upside is high. The worst problem we'd have out of this is we're "stuck" with two centers who could start on 20 different teams. If it really comes down to that and we're wasting one of them because they're not on the floor enough then we have trade flexibility with either of them.

[JMAC3]

Would Clingan boosters still pick Clingan at #6 if they knew that Mark Williams was physically fine going forward?

This is a good question. I still would simply because he'd likely be BPA and for a team that hasn't made the playoffs in a decade, it makes little sense to use a top 6 pick on a fit rather than BPA. So with or without the Mark Williams factor (which really just bolsters the reasons for taking Clingan (or Edey)), I'd still be basing my choice on BPA.

So it comes down to who people believe BPA would be. This draft is flat, so the BPA rankings are likely all over the place within the top 10. I've heard many takes that consider Clingan the safest, BPA. Heard the same about Castle, Sarr and Risacher.

I just look at it like the downside is low and the upside is high. The worst problem we'd have out of this is we're "stuck" with two centers who could start on 20 different teams. If it really comes down to that and we're wasting one of them because they're not on the floor enough then we have trade flexibility with either of them.

Yes weak draft should draft the safe big man. Last time this happened in 2013 Zeller, Len and Noel went 4-6 and those teams didn't miss out on KCP, McCollum and Giannis... oh wait they did

[Rich4114]

Would Clingan boosters still pick Clingan at #6 if they knew that Mark Williams was physically fine going forward?

This is a good question. I still would simply because he'd likely be BPA and for a team that hasn't made the playoffs in a decade, it makes little sense to use a top 6 pick on a fit rather than BPA. So with or without the Mark Williams factor (which really just bolsters the reasons for taking Clingan (or Edey)), I'd still be basing my choice on BPA.

So it comes down to who people believe BPA would be. This draft is flat, so the BPA rankings are likely all over the place within the top 10. I've heard many takes that consider Clingan the safest, BPA. Heard the same about Castle, Sarr and Risacher.

I just look at it like the downside is low and the upside is high. The worst problem we'd have out of this is we're "stuck" with two centers who could start on 20 different teams. If it really comes down to that and we're wasting one of them because they're not on the floor enough then we have trade flexibility with either of them.

Yes weak draft should draft the safe big man. Last time this happened in 2013 Zeller, Len and Noel went 4-6 and those teams didn't miss out on KCP, McCollum and Giannis... oh wait they did

If there is a prospect they think could be much better, then they'd be at the top of their BPA rankings and they should pull the trigger on them. They should know better than me. I have all of my info from the fan community, social media, youtube and podcasts. So I could certainly be wrong, but what I don't think I'm wrong about is disqualifying Clingan or Edey from rankings because of the current roster.

[JMAC3]

If there is a prospect they think could be much better, then they'd be at the top of their BPA rankings and they should pull the trigger on them. They should know better than me. I have all of my info from the fan community, social media, youtube and podcasts. So I could certainly be wrong, but what I don't think I'm wrong about is disqualifying Clingan or Edey from rankings because of the current roster.

90% of people who want him have nothing to do with BPA and everything to do with they are nervous about Mark Williams or hate Nick Richards. So much so they are willing to spend an entire year of losing for the payoff to have Clint Capela 2.0 be our draft pick.

The guy is a 55% free throw shooter and in order for him to exceed his value he has to shoot the ball like Brook Lopez.

Let's get hype for Mark Williams 2.0 but this time a worse free throw shooter.

[Rich4114]

If there is a prospect they think could be much better, then they'd be at the top of their BPA rankings and they should pull the trigger on them. They should know better than me. I have all of my info from the fan community, social media, youtube and podcasts. So I could certainly be wrong, but what I don't think I'm wrong about is disqualifying Clingan or Edey from rankings because of the current roster.

90% of people who want him have nothing to do with BPA and everything to do with they are nervous about Mark Williams or hate Nick Richards. So much so they are willing to spend an entire year of losing for the payoff to have Clint Capela 2.0 be our draft pick.

The guy is a 55% free throw shooter and in order for him to exceed his value he has to shoot the ball like Brook Lopez.

Let's get hype for Mark Williams 2.0 but this time a worse free throw shooter.

While I am nervous about Mark and hate Nick Richards, I agree Clingan just for those reasons would also be a mistake. I'm looking at it more wholistically with BPA being the guiding principle. I see Clingan high on most big boards and it's super likely this is a moot point because he isn't there at 6 anyway. If someone like Risacher for example is there, he might be BPA over Clingan if they're both on the board but that scenario seems really slim.