The Devin Booker Thread

[BeesWax]

Booker and Klay play nothing alike wtf

They're both light skinned SGs with beautiful shots. That's where likeness ends. This is worse than people comparing every white 7 footer with range to Dirk. Booker is like Eric Gordon if the Monstars jacked his skills.

Klay now and Booker are nothing alike but early Klay who was just a shooter is not far off. The key is if Booker will work to develop like Klay did. The games are not far off from the old scouting information I can find now and what I remember hearing about Klay.

[Liver_Pooty]

Thompson and Booker are almost identical if you compare their freshman years. Not saying that Booker will grow into the player Klay currently is, but the only comparison we currently have is comparing them to their freshmen years where Thompson was nothing but a spot up shooter. Averaged 6.5 FGA a game, and 5 of them were threes.

[DY_nasty]

If you guys are going off of hyper-long range projections like that, then you absolutely have to account for the negative possibilities as well. As a prospect, Klay was a top 10 pick because of what he was. Its KINDA a stretch to draft Booker under the same premise that one day he'll be as good as Klay was when he was a top 10 pick

just kinda lol

if we're swinging for the fences with upside then take Oubre. In all reality, Booker is a long ways off from even being PJ Hairston at UNC. There are better upside, high-ceiling picks than Booker at 9.

[BeesWax]

If you guys are going off of hyper-long range projections like that, then you absolutely have to account for the negative possibilities as well. As a prospect, Klay was a top 10 pick because of what he was. Its KINDA a stretch to draft Booker under the same premise that one day he'll be as good as Klay was when he was a top 10 pick

just kinda lol

if we're swinging for the fences with upside then take Oubre. In all reality, Booker is a long ways off from even being PJ Hairston at UNC. There are better upside, high-ceiling picks than Booker at 9.

Klay was not a top ten pick as he was picked 11. He was dropped there for fears he would only be a shooter in the NBA due to subpar foot speed and the fear he could not defend for the same reason. Both of those are the concerns for Booker who has shown better agility already. We are not swinging for the fences as Booker is already a very good shooter but you are right Oubre has a slightly higher ceiling and an incredibly lower floor. Booker is much more likely to be a productive player than Oubre while if they both hit their peaks Oubre would be the better player but if they end up in the middle somewhere Booker would be better and Booker does not have a work ethic knock,

[DY_nasty]

If you guys are going off of hyper-long range projections like that, then you absolutely have to account for the negative possibilities as well. As a prospect, Klay was a top 10 pick because of what he was. Its KINDA a stretch to draft Booker under the same premise that one day he'll be as good as Klay was when he was a top 10 pick

just kinda lol

if we're swinging for the fences with upside then take Oubre. In all reality, Booker is a long ways off from even being PJ Hairston at UNC. There are better upside, high-ceiling picks than Booker at 9.

Klay was not a top ten pick as he was picked 11. He was dropped there for fears he would only be a shooter in the NBA due to subpar foot speed and the fear he could not defend for the same reason. Both of those are the concerns for Booker who has shown better agility already. We are not swinging for the fences as Booker is already a very good shooter but you are right Oubre has a slightly higher ceiling and an incredibly lower floor. Booker is much more likely to be a productive player than Oubre while if they both hit their peaks Oubre would be the better player but if they end up in the middle somewhere Booker would be better and Booker does not have a work ethic knock,

10/11 my bad

But I'd say that Booker's floor is lower. If a beautiful shot was all you needed to be a role player in the NBA, then Salim Stoudamire wouldn't be auditioning overseas. Booker literally has no other skills worth mentioning. Even if you were looking for pure athletes, there's other guards to look at. I honestly don't think Oubre can turn into anything worse than Corey Brewer unless he picks up a drug problem or proves completely incompatible with the NBA lifestyle.

There are tons of guys that can shoot that aren't in the NBA though. Booker, if drafted, almost certainly has to go directly to the NBDL. He's a massive project. A great template for an NBA SG, but people are constantly downplaying the fact that off-ball guards generally simply do not transition well into the NBA well at all directly out of school.

[BeesWax]

If you guys are going off of hyper-long range projections like that, then you absolutely have to account for the negative possibilities as well. As a prospect, Klay was a top 10 pick because of what he was. Its KINDA a stretch to draft Booker under the same premise that one day he'll be as good as Klay was when he was a top 10 pick

just kinda lol

if we're swinging for the fences with upside then take Oubre. In all reality, Booker is a long ways off from even being PJ Hairston at UNC. There are better upside, high-ceiling picks than Booker at 9.

Klay was not a top ten pick as he was picked 11. He was dropped there for fears he would only be a shooter in the NBA due to subpar foot speed and the fear he could not defend for the same reason. Both of those are the concerns for Booker who has shown better agility already. We are not swinging for the fences as Booker is already a very good shooter but you are right Oubre has a slightly higher ceiling and an incredibly lower floor. Booker is much more likely to be a productive player than Oubre while if they both hit their peaks Oubre would be the better player but if they end up in the middle somewhere Booker would be better and Booker does not have a work ethic knock,

10/11 my bad

But I'd say that Booker's floor is lower. If a beautiful shot was all you needed to be a role player in the NBA, then Salim Stoudamire wouldn't be auditioning overseas. Booker literally has no other skills worth mentioning. Even if you were looking for pure athletes, there's other guards to look at. I honestly don't think Oubre can turn into anything worse than Corey Brewer unless he picks up a drug problem or proves completely incompatible with the NBA lifestyle.

There are tons of guys that can shoot that aren't in the NBA though. Booker, if drafted, almost certainly has to go directly to the NBDL. He's a massive project. A great template for an NBA SG, but people are constantly downplaying the fact that off-ball guards generally simply do not transition well into the NBA well at all directly out of school.

Booker floor IMO is JJ Redik while Oubre's floor is out of the league after rookie contract. To me the difference is you are counting on both to improve and one of the two, Oubre, has work ethic issues. Booker has shown way more than just shooting but that is all people want to harp on for some reason. He is a smart player that makes the right pass and uses screens better than anyone in this draft.

Stoudamire is not in the league because he is a PG who can't do anything but shoot or dribble. I understand people not wanting the guy but he has much more ability than people like to give him credit for. Of all the SGs in this draft he is as ready to play in the NBA right now as anyone but Russell. None of the guys are good defenders and of this group I think Booker plays best within a system. He moves well without the ball and if used correctly could get some good looks he can knock down from off ball screens.

Either way if they go safer with Booker or swing for the fences with Oubre or gamble on Henzonja's attitude we just all have to hope they work hard and pan out to fit our need of a wing scorer/shooter.

[LofJ]

I think Dy is right on the money about off-ball guards taking a while to transition to the NBA. Take a look at some of the better ones right now:

Middleton - didn't blossom until this season, when he was 23
Green - rode the pine in Cleveland and took several years to finally make it with the Spurs
Reddick - even after 4 years of college it took him a few seasons to reinvent himself for the NBA
Thompson - was decent his first few years in the league, but didn't really take off until the 2nd half of last season at almost 24 years old
Matthews - was 23 his first year in the league and took a season before he hit his stride
Korver - didn't do much until he was 25
Butler - didn't blossom until last year, at age 24

It's going to take 3 to 5 years before Booker is playing at an elite level for an off ball guard and I don't want to wait for it. If we're dying to draft a shooter that much I'd rather trade back and take the one that is further along in his development - RJ Hunter.

[BeesWax]

I think Dy is right on the money about off-ball guards taking a while to transition to the NBA. Take a look at some of the better ones right now:

Middleton - didn't blossom until this season, when he was 23
Green - rode the pine in Cleveland and took several years to finally make it with the Spurs
Reddick - even after 4 years of college it took him a few seasons to reinvent himself for the NBA
Thompson - was decent his first few years in the league, but didn't really take off until the 2nd half of last season at almost 24 years old
Matthews - was 23 his first year in the league and took a season before he hit his stride
Korver - didn't do much until he was 25
Butler - didn't blossom until last year, at age 24

It's going to take 3 to 5 years before Booker is playing at an elite level for an off ball guard and I don't want to wait for it. If we're dying to draft a shooter that much I'd rather trade back and take the one that is further along in his development - RJ Hunter.

I guess my question then would be won't it take them all just as long to develop? I mean Reddick played 4 years under K and it took him years to develop. Even the guys who stayed in school were not better suited to contribute right away. Why not get the guy who contributes at 21 after three years than 24 or 25 after three years.

[LofJ]

I think Dy is right on the money about off-ball guards taking a while to transition to the NBA. Take a look at some of the better ones right now:

Middleton - didn't blossom until this season, when he was 23
Green - rode the pine in Cleveland and took several years to finally make it with the Spurs
Reddick - even after 4 years of college it took him a few seasons to reinvent himself for the NBA
Thompson - was decent his first few years in the league, but didn't really take off until the 2nd half of last season at almost 24 years old
Matthews - was 23 his first year in the league and took a season before he hit his stride
Korver - didn't do much until he was 25
Butler - didn't blossom until last year, at age 24

It's going to take 3 to 5 years before Booker is playing at an elite level for an off ball guard and I don't want to wait for it. If we're dying to draft a shooter that much I'd rather trade back and take the one that is further along in his development - RJ Hunter.

I guess my question then would be won't it take them all just as long to develop? I mean Reddick played 4 years under K and it took him years to develop. Even the guys who stayed in school were not better suited to contribute right away. Why not get the guy who contributes at 21 after three years than 24 or 25 after three years.

We'd be fortunate if he contributes at 21. I'd bet on him finding his stride right before he becomes a RFA 4 years from now. But yes all things being equal I'd rather have the younger player usually.

[BeesWax]

I think Dy is right on the money about off-ball guards taking a while to transition to the NBA. Take a look at some of the better ones right now:

Middleton - didn't blossom until this season, when he was 23
Green - rode the pine in Cleveland and took several years to finally make it with the Spurs
Reddick - even after 4 years of college it took him a few seasons to reinvent himself for the NBA
Thompson - was decent his first few years in the league, but didn't really take off until the 2nd half of last season at almost 24 years old
Matthews - was 23 his first year in the league and took a season before he hit his stride
Korver - didn't do much until he was 25
Butler - didn't blossom until last year, at age 24

It's going to take 3 to 5 years before Booker is playing at an elite level for an off ball guard and I don't want to wait for it. If we're dying to draft a shooter that much I'd rather trade back and take the one that is further along in his development - RJ Hunter.

I guess my question then would be won't it take them all just as long to develop? I mean Reddick played 4 years under K and it took him years to develop. Even the guys who stayed in school were not better suited to contribute right away. Why not get the guy who contributes at 21 after three years than 24 or 25 after three years.

We'd be fortunate if he contributes at 21. I'd bet on him finding his stride right before he becomes a RFA 4 years from now. But yes all things being equal I'd rather have the younger player usually.

That is going to be where we as fans are kind of screwed in predicting. We don't get to meet these guys and interview them so we do not have as good an idea about how hard they will work. I am sure they can cut down the learning curve if they spend a ton of time in the gym but we won't know that side as well as we would like because all we get are rumors. Oubre may be a great hard worker but you read the rumors he isn't and it gets a bit iffy.

[DY_nasty]

Booker is JJ Reddick?

Dude... you can search my posts on Booker. I was expressing interest in him as a pick for this team since around December/January. To compare him to JJ Reddick in any way other than "beautiful shot too" is to massively and comically downplay the skills, tenacity to get open against defenses aimed straight at him, and basketball IQ of Reddick (at either the NBA or college level) as well as the attention that JJ Reddick demands as one of the best shooters of all time in college and as a guy who just had an elite shooting season for the #1 offense in the NBA. Booker has never done anything close to what Reddick has done. Even as a freshmen, JJ was a better shooter and didn't have the benefit of two of the best 7 footers in the country taking all of the attention off of him.

What else has Booker shown though? Like... his defense isn't even as good as Gary Harris' and that guy had a larger offensive skillset by far. He's not a creator or ballhandler in any capacity whatsoever. I'm sure that if he was, Cal would've opted to have him try it every now and then instead of letting the Harrison twins roll the dice with every dribble. He's never been aggressive. He's got the frame and body to be a premier NBA athlete but that's really not as uncommon as people make it out to be in the draft.

As a blank canvas, Booker is awesome. He really is the best blank canvas SG I've seen in a while. Absolutely the best American one I've seen since 1 & done started. But its also important to recognize that Booker is liked and valued exactly because he is a blank canvas. He doesn't a lot of bad habits that will have to be undone or mechanics that need to be reworked. Saying that he's great at this or that... is like... its disingenuous to say that those things - other than his shot, age, and frame, there's not a single thing that warrants him being in the 1st round. His 'high bball IQ' shouldn't even be spoke of as anything more than 'common sense hoops' because that's all it was. He's no genius on the court. He gets open and doesn't take dumb shots. That's a high five - not a trophy type accomplishment. People like Booker because you can mold him into whatever you want. He's perfect for a coaching staff with a long-term vision in mind (it ain't us). He's a rarity in draft's these days because he fits the bill of your typical high school pick.

For us... I think he's more valuable as a threat to a team that can actually do something positive with him. I'm glad we're inviting him in and hyping him up. I hope some team with the tools to help him succeed is mad as hell and trades up to get him lol

[BeesWax]

I am not sure who you are talking about in that post but it was not Booker. Gary Harris was not near the same caliber of shooter and Redick could not dribble without turning it over. Redick was also a 40%shooter from three his first two years to Bookers 41%. I am not saying he is at the same level right now but that I am sure he will get there.

You don't like him and I get it but that post is way off IMO. Maybe by your criteria we need to pick someone else besides a wing.

[Rusted]

Booker is JJ Reddick?

As a blank canvas, Booker is awesome. He really is the best blank canvas SG I've seen in a while. Absolutely the best American one I've seen since 1 & done started. But its also important to recognize that Booker is liked and valued exactly because he is a blank canvas. He doesn't a lot of bad habits that will have to be undone or mechanics that need to be reworked. Saying that he's great at this or that... is like... its disingenuous to say that those things - other than his shot, age, and frame, there's not a single thing that warrants him being in the 1st round. His 'high bball IQ' shouldn't even be spoke of as anything more than 'common sense hoops' because that's all it was. He's no genius on the court. He gets open and doesn't take dumb shots. That's a high five - not a trophy type accomplishment. People like Booker because you can mold him into whatever you want. He's perfect for a coaching staff with a long-term vision in mind (it ain't us). He's a rarity in draft's these days because he fits the bill of your typical high school pick.

For us... I think he's more valuable as a threat to a team that can actually do something positive with him. I'm glad we're inviting him in and hyping him up. I hope some team with the tools to help him succeed is mad as hell and trades up to get him lol

In a way I think your description here applies to about 75% of the projected top 10 prospects. Not all have quite the "blank canvas" as Booker, but it's kind of what the whole one and done era has done - put out a bunch of projects with a very small sample of work to look at, but have a mix of positives and negatives that you have to hope the team can work out of the player.

[Liver_Pooty]

I hate to be "that" guy, but it's Redick. I hate seeing my favorite duke player of all time have his name misspelled .

That being said I get both arguments on the kid, and I'm on the fence personally. When I'm on the fence about a prospect I go by interviews and work ethic to sway me either direction. He gives phenomenal interviews for an 18 year old, or period for that matter, and he has a great work ethic.

[DY_nasty]

Booker is JJ Reddick?

As a blank canvas, Booker is awesome. He really is the best blank canvas SG I've seen in a while. Absolutely the best American one I've seen since 1 & done started. But its also important to recognize that Booker is liked and valued exactly because he is a blank canvas. He doesn't a lot of bad habits that will have to be undone or mechanics that need to be reworked. Saying that he's great at this or that... is like... its disingenuous to say that those things - other than his shot, age, and frame, there's not a single thing that warrants him being in the 1st round. His 'high bball IQ' shouldn't even be spoke of as anything more than 'common sense hoops' because that's all it was. He's no genius on the court. He gets open and doesn't take dumb shots. That's a high five - not a trophy type accomplishment. People like Booker because you can mold him into whatever you want. He's perfect for a coaching staff with a long-term vision in mind (it ain't us). He's a rarity in draft's these days because he fits the bill of your typical high school pick.

For us... I think he's more valuable as a threat to a team that can actually do something positive with him. I'm glad we're inviting him in and hyping him up. I hope some team with the tools to help him succeed is mad as hell and trades up to get him lol

In a way I think your description here applies to about 75% of the projected top 10 prospects. Not all have quite the "blank canvas" as Booker, but it's kind of what the whole one and done era has done - put out a bunch of projects with a very small sample of work to look at, but have a mix of positives and negatives that you have to hope the team can work out of the player.

Naw. There's no one else projected in the top 10 with the lack of skills on both sides of the ball like Booker.

I like him still for all the reasons Liver mentioned too - but... this team in particular just isn't the spot for him.

[DY_nasty]

I am not sure who you are talking about in that post but it was not Booker. Gary Harris was not near the same caliber of shooter and Redick could not dribble without turning it over. Redick was also a 40%shooter from three his first two years to Bookers 41%. I am not saying he is at the same level right now but that I am sure he will get there.

You don't like him and I get it but that post is way off IMO. Maybe by your criteria we need to pick someone else besides a wing.

Reddick was a fraction of a % lower in more difficult conference on a team that wasn't loaded with the most dominant frontcourt of the decade though lol

I mean... the context of Booker's performance, even in high school, is so tremendously important and you're going out of your way to argue his strengths in a vacuum. Harris wasn't the same caliber of shooter, but he could do more than shoot - only reason I mentioned Harris was because Booker's next best strength, his defense, wasn't better than a guy who encountered the same learning curve being one of the younger players in his draft and had trouble staying/getting on the court.

You make it sound like freshmen Harris on Kentucky's team this year would be a downgrade and that's just not true. Booker as he is now isn't a better SG than any of the 1st round SGs of last year's class and that is entirely why I don't want to use a 1st round pick on him. You put any of those guys in Booker's position and Kentucky is a better team lol.

I respect your want for the guy if you respect my irrational need to bring up the fact that he's destined for the d-league as soon as he's drafted lol. He may end up great but he's starting from scratch with nothing but a great jumper, good mentality, and promising frame.

[BeesWax]

Kentucky would have been a far worse team with a freshman Harris on it over Booker. They needed a shooter badly and Booker filled that role very well. Harris was a mediocre prospect because he was a small SG with weak handles and only a decent shot. He really needs to up his handles and look to be a PG.

Redick also got to launch as often as he wanted because he played in a run and jack up a three offense and played 30 minutes a game. Bookers next best strength is not defense and nobody would claim that if they read about him or watched him play. He has potential and all but he is not a good defender right now. I respect your right to not like the guy but I honestly think you are talking about a different player sometimes.

[fatlever]

This talk about Booker being young and taking years to become productive seems odd considering the other options are also young. Its not like we are debating between Booker and a 3-4 year college guy. Booker, Oubre, Johnson, Hezonja and Winslow - all very young. Sure Booker is the youngest but we are only talking months, not years. 18 months separating all of them.

We should not really count on any of these guys until their 3rd year. Anything sooner is a blessing.

[DY_nasty]

This talk about Booker being young and taking years to become productive seems odd considering the other options are also young. Its not like we are debating between Booker and a 3-4 year college guy. Booker, Oubre, Johnson, Hezonja and Winslow - all very young. Sure Booker is the youngest but we are only talking months, not years. 18 months separating all of them.

We should not really count on any of these guys until their 3rd year. Anything sooner is a blessing.

All the rest of those guys have NBA level skills outside of a pretty looking jumpshot though. Even Oubre, as trash as he is, is able to put the ball on the floor better than Booker. And that's saying a lot...

[BeesWax]

This talk about Booker being young and taking years to become productive seems odd considering the other options are also young. Its not like we are debating between Booker and a 3-4 year college guy. Booker, Oubre, Johnson, Hezonja and Winslow - all very young. Sure Booker is the youngest but we are only talking months, not years. 18 months separating all of them.

We should not really count on any of these guys until their 3rd year. Anything sooner is a blessing.

All the rest of those guys have NBA level skills outside of a pretty looking jumpshot though. Even Oubre, as trash as he is, is able to put the ball on the floor better than Booker. And that's saying a lot...

Woo hoo lets take a worse shooting lazy player because he can drive in a straight line only. I have no doubt Booker can handle the ball as well as Oubre but that was not his job at Kentucky. Every one of those guys currently only has one NBA level skill and a bunch of question marks. It is either defense or shooting with this group. Johnson and Winslow are defense picks while the others are shooter. Some are more athletic than others and some are bigger. Some have attitude issues and some are regarded as great teammates. At this point all are raw and that is why the value is so close amongst them.