Was Hunter a Reach at 4?

Dasein · Post #1 » by **Dasein** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:09 pm

Please help me understand Shlenk trading that many picks to move up to 4 and pick Hunter. I don’t watch much college basketball but that seemed like a reach and too much to give up.

macNcheese3 · Post #2 » by **macNcheese3** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:12 pm

He obviously likes what he saw in Hunter. Just like he liked what he saw in Young.

CIN-C-STAR · Post #3 » by **CIN-C-STAR** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:16 pm

I dn't think he was a reach, I just think the talent-level dropped off after the first 3 picks.
Is what it is. He could be a good player for sure.

kdot99 · Post #4 » by **kdot99** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:17 pm

A reach to who? Doesn't matter what the rest of the league or fans think. Hunter was clearly their guy. He would have been gone by 8 so Atlanta traded up to secure him. They had the 10th pick anyways so giving up the 17th, or whatever it was, wasn't as big of deal to them if they didnt have the 8th. The second round pick doesn't mean much as most teams can acquire a second for future considerations or cash, just like Atl did to get the 34th pick.

On Hunter as a player -- I think he'll be a great starter for the Hawks for years to come.

teke184 · Post #5 » by **teke184** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:19 pm

I don’t think he was necessarily a reach at four because he was on the same tier of talent as Garland, Culver, and White.

Do I think Atlanta overpaid to move up and get him? Probably. But with as many picks as they had, you can overpay a bit to get the guy who think is The Guy who fits you best.

Post #6 » by **Domejandro** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:19 pm

It wasn’t too expensive of a trade. If there is a guy you really like at #4, you absolutely offer #8, #17, and the protected first to get him, even if it means taking on Solomon Hill. You don’t risk losing out on a player you like because of a minor overpay.

Saints14 · Post #7 » by **Saints14** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:21 pm

Maybe in a vacuum, but he’s pretty much a perfect fit with the rest of their young core

LightTheBeam · Post #8 » by **LightTheBeam** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:24 pm

Atlanta underpaid, hunter is the real deal. I would have taken him #2

Pharmcat · Post #9 » by **Pharmcat** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:29 pm

Catchall · Post #10 » by **Catchall** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:31 pm

Not really, no. Hunter, Culver and Garland were going to go 4 - 6 one way or another.

MalonesElbows · Post #11 » by **MalonesElbows** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:41 pm

Not really the way the NBA is going, he is a wing that can play 4 positions.

TheProfessor · Post #12 » by **TheProfessor** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:48 pm

I like'd Garland and Culver more, however no way they take Garland and they felt Hunter over Culver. Can't hate.

Teen Girl Squad · Post #13 » by **Teen Girl Squad** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:53 pm

Only in that he's usually not the caliber player you trade up for. That said, this was a 2-3 player draft so from 4 on, its hard to really be critical of too many picks.

The_Hater · Post #14 » by **The_Hater** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:53 pm

Hunter wasn’t a reach if for no other reason then there were huge question marks surrounding every player outside the top 2 and probably 3 pick picks.

That said, I do not expect Hunter to be one of the top 4 players from this draft. He will probably be a decent enough pro but I think his upside is somewhat limited imo.

rate_ · Post #15 » by **rate_** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:04 pm

Hunter, Garland > RJ Barrett

RJ Barrett Duke playtypes

Barrett was not particularly great in any of his most common playtypes at Duke. The volume numbers take away from the meh efficiency. Hunter was good to great in most of his playtypes:

De'Andre Hunter Virginia playtypes

Post #16 » by **jbk1234** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:08 pm

Hunter had the highest floor in the draft IMO. How many teams want two-way SFs who can guard multiple positions and switch on everyone? How many players are there like that in the NBA?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Crives · Post #17 » by **Crives** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:09 pm

Nope. Draft really opened up at 4.

RoyceDa59 · Post #18 » by **RoyceDa59** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:15 pm

Hunter isn’t your traditional lottery pick in that he doesn’t have superstar potential, however, his floor is very high and his game suits the new style of NBA perfectly. He’s an exceptionally versatile 3 & D wing that will prove to be a great fit in Atlanta for many years. Whereas a lot of high potential guys never end up having much of an impact. If Hunter grooms into a 15-6-3 wing with elite floor spreading and defense he will turn out to be a very coveted asset.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

kobe_vs_jordan · Post #19 » by **kobe_vs_jordan** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:23 pm

rate_ wrote:Hunter, Garland > RJ Barrett

RJ Barrett Duke playtypes

Barrett was not particularly great in any of his most common playtypes at Duke. The volume numbers take away from the meh efficiency. Hunter was good to great in most of his playtypes:

De'Andre Hunter Virginia playtypes

Hunter is also 2 years and 6 months older. Not the fairest comparisons.

Oscirus · Post #20 » by **Oscirus** » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:26 pm

Not particularly, no. Who should've been drafted at four if not Hunter?