RealGM

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

No

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 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

Nope. Draft really opened up at 4.

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

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.

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