Grade the draft

[JDR720]

Things could change, but probably not much.

What we did:

13th: Traded Duran for

Read on Twitter

15th: Mark Williams

40th: Traded for Bryce McGowans

Read on Twitter

45th: Traded ^

[Liver_Pooty]

Williams is an A+.

We should've gotten more for the 13th pick

[luciano-davidwesley]

Williams an A, the trade is a D so overall I'll go B-

[SWedd523]

Williams is an A+.

We should've gotten more for the 13th pick

How I feel

[amcoolio]

B because we at least got Williams and future picks out of it

We should have gotten the 2025 Milwaukee first too, then it would be an even trade

I get not developing two more rookies but damn Eason is exactly what we need off the bench

[BigSlam]

How can you grade it when it's not even done yet?

[Liver_Pooty]

How can you grade it when it's not even done yet?

I'm assuming the 45 will be sold for cash if we didn't want anymore rookies. Unless we cut scottie Lewis to make way for 45 as a 2 way?

[GoBobs]

F—

Fire everybody, this some bull

[amcoolio]

I'd say we win the trade if Denver picks 15, 16 or 17 next year

Here's hoping. At least it will be fun to pick watch again next year

[driveandkick]

D, and closer to an F than a C.

Williams is a fine prospect and I understand the fit with the roster. I still liked Duren better, and feel as if he has a higher ceiling. Williams is great at what he does, but there are flaws to his game which I don't really see him rectifying which limits his ceiling. The pick is still fine, but I certainly liked Duren better. And even outside of C's, I would have taken AJG or Tari Eason over Mark Williams at 15.

The whole process of trading 13 was simply embarrassing. We got absolutely swindled in terms of value unless that Denver pick falls top 18 somehow. Even then it's iffy. It's like we were just determined to make a trade so we trashed an asset. I understand we already have a young roster and we're wanting to take that next step, but this trade didn't give us any sort of extra cap flexibility to build our roster this offseason. If we had moved some salary in this deal, it would make far more sense.

I just can't get past how bad the optics are of this. They seem to be half-assing what we thought was our most pivotal offseason maybe since the return of the franchise.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

C+

Williams was the guy they wanted and they got him with 15. He has the potential to really address the hole at center in a way that folks here have been talking about for years. A+

McGowns was highly ranked in some places, so I’m not down on his selection at all … it’s just that you should never expect too much out of a 2nd rounder and his biggest weakness is defense. C

The problem is the trades, which really does feel like Mitch having to pay an opportunity cost for past mistakes (Batum stretch, GH signing, & failure to negotiate with Klutch for Miles). Have to overall rank them D

Personally, ahead of the draft I expected that at least one pick would be traded. The rumors varied but ranged from the Hornets trading it for an win now player (Myles Turner as an example) to using it to seriously cut roster cost (GH trades). None of that happened though. Instead Mitch in two transactions traded 13 & 45 for a risky McGowns this year, a 2023 1st rounder, & 3 future 2nds.

On the plus side, he gets to pay less for Williams (15th rookie scale instead of 13th), has only 2 new rookies on an already young team instead of 3, and has a pick back for next year allowing him to more easily use future picks in trades.

However, none of that really seems as impactful as any of the pre-draft rumors. Worse, other teams trading picks this year seemed to get more for them (Knicks in particular). It also feels like the reverse of previous years (Mitch forcing the Miles trade for example) with Mitch being the one being taken advantage of rather than being the one who has the advantage. The lack of major return is also very problematic to me—as the team ends up with minor savings not major ones or a win now impact vet as expected.

Trading 13 also has a huge opportunity cost. In the long run using 13 & 15 on both Williams and a defensive guard like Tari Eason might have made more of a long term impact than the minor cost savings & flexibility the team ended up getting.

If Mitch uses future picks in near term trades I may have to revisit this grade.

[MPM]

C+

Williams was the guy they wanted and they got him with 15. He has the potential to really address the hole at center in a way that folks here have been talking about for years. A+

McGowns was highly ranked in some places, so I’m not down on his selection at all … it’s just that you should never expect too much out of a 2nd rounder and his biggest weakness is defense. C

The problem is the trades, which really does feel like Mitch having to pay an opportunity cost for past mistakes (Batum stretch, GH signing, & failure to negotiate with Klutch for Miles). Have to overall rank them D

Personally, ahead of the draft I expected that at least one pick would be traded. The rumors varied but ranged from the Hornets trading it for an win now player (Myles Turner as an example) to using it to seriously cut roster cost (GH trades). None of that happened though. Instead Mitch in two transactions traded 13 & 45 for a risky McGowns this year, a 2023 1st rounder, & 3 future 2nds.

On the plus side, he gets to pay less for Williams (15th rookie scale instead of 13th), has only 2 new rookies on an already young team instead of 3, and has a pick back for next year allowing him to more easily use future picks in trades.

However, none of that really seems as impactful as any of the pre-draft rumors. Worse, other teams trading picks this year seemed to get more for them (Knicks in particular). It also feels like the reverse of previous years (Mitch forcing the Miles trade for example) with Mitch being the one being taken advantage of rather than being the one who has the advantage. The lack of major return is also very problematic to me—as the team ends up with minor savings not major ones or a win now impact vet as expected.

Trading 13 also has a huge opportunity cost. In the long run using 13 & 15 on both Williams and a defensive guard like Tari Eason might have made more of a long term impact than the minor cost savings & flexibility the team ended up getting.

If Mitch uses future picks in near term trades I may have to revisit this grade.

Vandy, you did the leg work for me - precisely how I feel and how I graded the draft.

[HornetJail]

B

Mark Williams is an A+++ pick

everything else is a total mind ****

[NJBuzz12]

its so hard to follow this franchise. just such a garbage draft. such a garbage franchise.

[Hornet Mania]

Solid C for me.

-I liked Williams at 15, he was my guy in this draft after Dyson Daniels (who we were never ever getting anyway).

-The trade looks better after further analysis. Still not killer value, but Mitch didn't get hosed.

-Bryce McGowens sounds like the name of a frat guy who holds some poor freshman's legs up and eggs them on while they do one-too-many keg stands. I was shocked he didn't have spiked blonde tips and a shell necklace of some kind. I have no further opinion on him.

[Rays Pompadour]

B+, which goes to how much I like the Williams pick and how disappointed I was with the trade.

Mitch likes to have seconds in his pocket to move stuff around, like the trade up for McGowens. Many of the trades we've seen recently involving veterans have seconds attached to them to make the trades appear to address future and present needs. Also, seconds let a GM make some target picks or opportunity buys at the deadline.

Bottom line, having 4 seconds is CAPITAL that will yield at a later time. That's the value of multiple second round picks as opposed to one bad 2025 first rounder (Bucks). We may have wanted that second first rounder to make it look more equitable, but for flexibility's sake four seconds is the better deal.

[dmutombo321]

#15 - A. Mark Williams is going to be starting much sooner than alot of ppl expect and will be a defensive beast and the shot blocker / lob catcher the team has been so sorely missing. Staying out of foul trouble will be his greatest challenge. This pick was a no brainer

#13 - F. There his no way to positively spin this..we just gave away a lottery selection, without dumping any salary, for a pick next year that, unless Jokic blows out a knee, will almost certainly be at least 8-10 spots worse. In return for doing so, we netted 2 mid second rounders (of the 4 total we got, the Miami/Dallas pick is worthless as it will be in the 50s and we immediately handed back one of the others along with our own to draft McGowens).... The only explanation for doing something this stupid is gross incompetence or cheapness. If AJ Griffin, Abaji or Eason, any of whom we could have just drafted and called it a day, turn out to be good, our FO is going to look like fools.

#40 - C. I'm fine taking a flier on high upside players in the second round and Bryce McGowens fits the bill. He's a defensive liability and he has tunnel vision at times but the innate offensive talent is there and we'll see what he can do in Greensboro with some coaching. I would've given this pick an A had we stood pat at 45 and made it ourselves but instead we traded our own second and burned one of the ones we received earlier as part of the paltry compensation package for #13 to move up 5 spots to pick McGowens. So seeing as how he cost two second rounders, and EJ Liddell was still on the board, I'm grading as a C

Sent from my moto g power using RealGM mobile app

[Snidely FC]

I am happy with Williams, he's an A

but you can't just add Mark Williams as a rim protector and expect to suddenly be a great defensive team

could've addressed weak backcourt defense also with other pick

Overall, I feel sort of stunned by the team's cavalier approach to pick 13 and trading up for McGowen

Happy to have Mark Williams on board, but still going with a C for "Chaotic"

[fatlever]

The excuse that we traded number 13 because we wanted to make the jump next year and already had too many young players is utterly ridiculous.

It's the same dumb logic used when we traded the 2016 first-round pick for Marco Belinelli. It's the same dumb reason we didn't make the trade with the Celtics in 2014.

Who is driving this thought process that first round picks are a burden rather than a blessing?

Did the Golden State Warriors pass on drafting Moses Moody and Jonathan Kuminga last year because they already had Poole and Wiseman and they were looking to compete for a championship? of course not.

Did the Pelicans give away picks last year?

Just puck win now players if you didn't want to babysit kids again.

But the real problem is the return that was received on the pick. I know many of you are trying to rationalize this to make yourself feel better about what happened.... The Denver pick will be in the twenties and the other to second-rounders problem Miami/Dallas, Utah will be in the 50s.

We saw 19 get moved for 22 and 29 last night. A team gave up a 1st round pick just to move up 3 spots in the back half of the 1st round. We gave away a current lotto pick (and a player many thought was top 7).

We are still the Bobcats.



Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM Forums mobile app

[fatlever]

And if Duren, Griffin, agbaji or Eason end up becoming studs, oh boy.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM Forums mobile app