Fultz vs. Tatum: What do you think now?

[jfs1000d]

Exactly. Superior realtive physical tools....NO.

Long range bombing. Meh. Both project as good 3-point shooters. And, Duke runs a flex, motion offense. they don't do PnR. And why would you PnR with tatum?

That's why I am criticizing the draft people. Got lost in their own analysis. tatum is a better realtive athlete to his positino and has mroe physical gifts than fultz at his position.

Just declaring no doesn't make it so. Fultz is more outlierish at PG than Tatum is at SF.

Likewise Tatum's deep shooting was a legitimate ding on his draft stock - not just the percentages but the nature of his attempts. And he hasn't exactly been lighting it up since.

Finally, PNR isn't just PGs (or from another angle everybody's a PG now). Along with volume 3-point shooting, it's the main engine of scoring and playmaking in the NBA. Tatum projecting as a professional scorer without a PNR game or a dominant longball was the biggest ding of all. It put him on the Harrison Barnes/Rudy Gay/Tobias Harris spectrum for a lot of people. Indeed the guy Tatum most closely resembled in terms of iso/post-up/non-PNR scoring was Dallas Harrison Barnes.

I'm with you on 99% of this being the arguments against, but the Barnes comp is way off - Tatum always had better handles and footwork, was always projected to score at a higher level than the comps you gave.

A lot of scouts were really hung up on the DeRozan comparison.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Bill,

What's your opinion of the the criticisms of Tatum predraft? Are they still there?

IMO, I think We are seeing a classic case of overscouted. You look at someone long enough, you are bound to find flaws.

I am trying to wrap my head around some of the critiques I read with the knocks we had on Tatum....Deep shooting, athleticism, ball handling, poor rebounder, defensive issues and that he is an ISO player.

To me, the scouting concerns haven't matched up. Lonzo Ball shooting is a concern. We've seen that in his early games. So, valid critique

I am not seeing Tatum's flaws show. Sure, it is guys doing it in websites and people giving their opinion. But those reports had to start from somewhere.

Yes he can ISO (nothing wrong with that, valuable skill, just boring to watch), but he's been OK as a spot up shooter, has rebounded and defended, shown athleticism, has a three-level game, and been OK off the ball.

To me, he looks like the No. 1 pick should.

I think the draft scouting reports may have been off.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[jfs1000d]

Just declaring no doesn't make it so. Fultz is more outlierish at PG than Tatum is at SF.

Likewise Tatum's deep shooting was a legitimate ding on his draft stock - not just the percentages but the nature of his attempts. And he hasn't exactly been lighting it up since.

Finally, PNR isn't just PGs (or from another angle everybody's a PG now). Along with volume 3-point shooting, it's the main engine of scoring and playmaking in the NBA. Tatum projecting as a professional scorer without a PNR game or a dominant longball was the biggest ding of all. It put him on the Harrison Barnes/Rudy Gay/Tobias Harris spectrum for a lot of people. Indeed the guy Tatum most closely resembled in terms of iso/post-up/non-PNR scoring was Dallas Harrison Barnes.

I'm with you on 99% of this being the arguments against, but the Barnes comp is way off - Tatum always had better handles and footwork, was always projected to score at a higher level than the comps you gave.

A lot of scouts were really hung up on the DeRozan comparison.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I didn't really mean it as a direct comp - just as a percentage of play type comp. Dallas Barnes was pretty much the only high scoring wing with a usage profile fundamentally similar to Duke Tatum. 45% isos and post-ups, very low PNR ballhandling.

The guy I usually compare Tatum skillwise to is Danny Granger.

I do think Tobias Harris is decent lowball comp.

Also, one thing I think everyone should consider is the problem of evaluating players at the NCAA. The systems are so coach specific.

The joke that dean smith is the only guy to hold Jordan under 20 is instructive.

Players, especially one and dones, come into a rigid system they don't know, take 4 months to figure it out. Then leave.

Outside of Kentucky, which is designed to showcase its players talents, the duke, Kansas etc. of the world kind of just have players forced into their system.

That was why ucla works. Alford let ball run the show. In Washington, Fultz had free reign. Tatum was. Tatum was very restricted in college.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Slartibartfast]

I'm with you on 99% of this being the arguments against, but the Barnes comp is way off - Tatum always had better handles and footwork, was always projected to score at a higher level than the comps you gave.

A lot of scouts were really hung up on the DeRozan comparison.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I didn't really mean it as a direct comp - just as a percentage of play type comp. Dallas Barnes was pretty much the only high scoring wing with a usage profile fundamentally similar to Duke Tatum. 45% isos and post-ups, very low PNR ballhandling.

The guy I usually compare Tatum skillwise to is Danny Granger.

I do think Tobias Harris is decent lowball comp.

Also, one thing I think everyone should consider is the problem of evaluating players at the NCAA. The systems are so coach specific.

The joke that dean smith is the only guy to hold Jordan under 20 is instructive.

Players, especially one and dones, come into a rigid system they don't know, take 4 months to figure it out. Then leave.

Outside of Kentucky, which is designed to showcase its players talents, the duke, Kansas etc. of the world kind of just have players forced into their system.

That was why ucla works. Alford let ball run the show. In Washington, Fultz had free reign. Tatum was. Tatum was very restricted in college.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I don't think Tatum was very restricted at all at Duke. He got to play the way he likes to play - an enormous amount of iso, a lot of post-ups and plenty of spot-up 3s.

[sam_I_am]

The Celtics had an enormous scouting advantage over the rest of the league with Tatum as owner’s son was a teammate. He was hurt early inseason but his performance in ACC playoffs should have turned more heads than it did. I suspect the Celtics were feeding the Fultz hype to raise the value of #1 pick because they knew there were a lot of similarly talented players 1-7on their draft board and knew they could trade down and get Tatum.

[sam_I_am]

A lot to unpack here, but really, really interesting, so thank you for taking the time to post it.

Re: the above in bold; the first player to jump into my mind was Jaylen Brown. Jaylen often shows dazzling athleticism followed by a clumsy finishing move - is that an example of what you are describing here? If so, can the ability to 'toggle' between the two be developed over time?

I think you can improve the ability to toggle between the two with deliberate practice and perseverance. I think athletics in general and most of the coaches you'll meet emphasize developing higher and higher levels of tension and don't spend as much time on toggling back to relaxation, and so that's usually left more to the player and their particular personality traits. Our culture values effort, doesn't really understand how to relax, and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of play. Just listen to great performers explaining how they play: they all warn of trying too hard. The great ones know that max effort isn't the key, it's maintaining max flexibility between effort and relaxation (i.e., the zone).

I think Jaylen is a great example, he's got everything you're looking for, he's deliberate in his practice habits, open to new ideas but confident enough in himself to make his own choices (if you don't come to good advice of your own accord it's difficult to make use of it even if it's exactly the right thing you should be doing...belief imparts more than we understand), and he deals well with failure. There's no doubt in my mind Jaylen will reach his potential. I misread him bigtime coming out of college, put too much weight on his lack of feel and basketball instinct and didn't have a strong sense of how practice habits could help him overcome these weaknesses.

If I was advising Jaylen, I'd be working on peripheral vision drills to improve his overall awareness of the floor because I think his biggest weakness is still poor feel and vision. His clumsiness is a product of trying to incorporate the periphery into his sphere of attention (this is also a matter of relaxation and effort, focusing on one thing takes everything else out of focus). He's a hyper focused individual, which predisposes him to tunnel vision. This stuff can be improved with very specific drills, but often doesn't improve because those drills just aren't well known.

This is a good article about how to improve vision. It's on the techy side. There are also basic vision drills that could accomplish much the same thing and I think as sports science progresses will start to see vision drills incorporated into the fundamentals of every sport.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18002545/kawhi-leonard-strobe-light-training-nba

Finally, what background do you have that gave you this knowledge?

It's a long story but basically I do data interpretation and synthesis. My job is to know enough of everything so I can spot trends, assess systems, and feedback data in an actionable way that helps people live longer with a higher quality of life. There's some AI and machine learning involved. It's kinda in the health care arena, though if it ends up the way I think it will it's gonna be far afield of what we currently consider to be health care. I know that's vague but what I do doesn't really have a name right now.

Good stuff, I just posted something similar about Barnes and Jaylen, but your take is more specific.

Re: skill, for Brown I don’t think it’s just a matter of being able to dilate between relaxed and effortful (Kyrie is a master of that, he has so many intermediate gears), but drilling his moves and footwork enough that they’re within reach when he needs them - that “toggle” is easier when you don’t have to mentally fumble to think of a reaction, when it becomes more instinctive. From what I’ve seen of his practice sessions and improvements, he’s still malleable clay in terms of adding moves, footwork, handles.

Drilling peripheral vision could help - it’s not a strength for him - but I see his “feel” improving anyway and already with raw game reps. There are only so many ways a defense can react to you, but he’s not differentiating perceptually because it’s all still new, blurry - it’s not necessarily an innate deficit in his peripheral vision or concentration, but a product of inexperience.

Interesting posts. Not sure I buy into it 100% and not sure if it’s something a player can really consciously train as if it happens occurs with confidence and repetition.

Anyway, great to see Ryan’s reanalysis on Jalen Brown. It always makes me worry when intelligent posters still hold out on a player I like. I wanted the team to pick Jalen because of his fierce desire and ability to get to the rim at will. His lack of finish and court vision should improve with age and he has already made huge improvements. I think he may be a surprise even to his biggest advocates here - I already think he is going to be better than I hoped when he was drafted.

[ryaningf]

[spoiler]

TL;DR version: I think we dodged a major bullet. Fultz was overhyped and Danny used that hype to extract an asset and still get the guy he liked best. Boston may have been the best developmental spot for Fultz, but Fultz was not close to the best guy available, either in terms of role available in Boston or in terms of best player available. And while I don't think Tatum was the best player available either, I think he's damn good and likely Danny's best pick ever.

Do you think all things considered- role, need, fit, position, it was better picking Tatum, even if you feel Ball was the BPA?

Sure, in the context of the Kryie trade and the Hayward signing, I think you could make a compelling argument that Tatum over Ball was the better pick for this situation. My one quibble would be Isaac, I think he's a higher value player, has a skillset that's rarer league wide, and fits a particular need on this team, so may have represented the best pick possible. Tatum and Hayward roughly approximate each other and play the same position so while the Kryie trade did change the draft equation quite a bit after the fact I still wouldn't say Tatum's the perfect pick. He's gonna be good though, so this is more a discussion of degrees of value. Throwing in the potential pick from the Lakers/Kings, it's probably a wash and simply a matter of preference and taste.

As for Ball, I felt he was superior to Fultz and a better fit with IT. Kyrie is a ridiculously talented player but I wouldn't have done that trade based on one variable: Doncic. I think Doncic will be the best sub-7 foot player in the NBA during the 2020s. I would have never parted with the Nets pick on that basis alone. I would have picked Ball, hoped IT got healthy and was willing to resign at a reasonable rate (and let him walk if he didn't), and then moved heaven and earth to get Doncic in 2018. My timeline is probably more long term than Danny's but I think winning the 2020s is a reasonable goal and I skeptical about loading up towards psuedocontender status while Lebron and the Ws are still in their prime. I felt we had a punchers chance with Kryie/Hayward/Brad this season (pre injury) but overall didn't see it as a good gamble. My preferred gamble was gearing up to win the 2020s with Doncic.

[sam_I_am]

[spoiler]

Do you think all things considered- role, need, fit, position, it was better picking Tatum, even if you feel Ball was the BPA?

Sure, in the context of the Kryie trade and the Hayward signing, I think you could make a compelling argument that Tatum over Ball was the better pick for this situation. My one quibble would be Isaac, I think he's a higher value player, has a skillset that's rarer league wide, and fits a particular need on this team, so may have represented the best pick possible. Tatum and Hayward roughly approximate each other and play the same position so while the Kryie trade did change the draft equation quite a bit after the fact I still wouldn't say Tatum's the perfect pick. He's gonna be good though, so this is more a discussion of degrees of value. Throwing in the potential pick from the Lakers/Kings, it's probably a wash and simply a matter of preference and taste.

As for Ball, I felt he was superior to Fultz and a better fit with IT. Kyrie is a ridiculously talented player but I wouldn't have done that trade based on one variable: Doncic. I think Doncic will be the best sub-7 foot player in the NBA during the 2020s. I would have never parted with the Nets pick on that basis alone. I would have picked Ball, hoped IT got healthy and was willing to resign at a reasonable rate (and let him walk if he didn't), and then moved heaven and earth to get Doncic in 2018. My timeline is probably more long term than Danny's but I think winning the 2020s is a reasonable goal and I skeptical about loading up towards psuedocontender status while Lebron and the Ws are still in their prime. I felt we had a punchers chance with Kryie/Hayward/Brad this season (pre injury) but overall didn't see it as a good gamble. My preferred gamble was gearing up to win the 2020s with Doncic.

If the Nets pick lands Bagley or Doncic there will be regret. But Danny had to look at DRussell trade, Crabbe and Carroll signings and assess the cost of not trading pick. The Fultz trade offset that risk quite a bit. Nobody knows how things will play out and that is why having a strategy for making decisions and trusting in your process is best. Sure, Danny was wrong about GA but look at every other European player drafted Young who wasn’t ready, the same approach with Guershon and Zizic proved correct (even if you hate the picks). If the Laker pick gets us Bagley or Doncic .... and Tatum is ROY candidate while Lakers and Sixers end up in lottery .... Danny will look like a genius.

[rochrist]

Don't overthink this. Fultz is injured. When his shoulder heals, he will grow to become a genuine problem for the rest of the NBA.

Im not saying he is guaranteed to develop into a better player than Jayson Tatum will. But he's gonna be a top 30 player in this league some day, unless there's something irreparable about his shoulder.

It isn't as simple as he is injured. There are reports (one I think was from Mike Gorman) that the kid may have the yipps like a golfer. That he he makes shots in practice and warm ups and then when he is in a game his form develops a hitch and he can't make a shot. The shoulder may be grasping at straws to explain what is happening, it doesn't sound like it is pain related and it seems one message was that fluid was drained and another was that he got a cortisone shot. If it hurt he wouldn't be playing. This is terrible if true and would really hope some time off might help but he didn't play most of the conference season it isn't over use. He did look like he blew up some in photos pre draft so it may be a weigh lifting issue. But just wow.

When he's shooting free throws he looks like a) he's aiming the ball, and b) he's half blind.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Here's something interesting: looks like Fultz was already changing his shot before the draft.

Read on Twitter

Was Fultz hiding a shoulder injury prior to the draft already? Makes sense because it sounds like he shot terribly in the workouts for Boston and Philly.

[rochrist]

Just declaring no doesn't make it so. Fultz is more outlierish at PG than Tatum is at SF.

Likewise Tatum's deep shooting was a legitimate ding on his draft stock - not just the percentages but the nature of his attempts. And he hasn't exactly been lighting it up since.

Finally, PNR isn't just PGs (or from another angle everybody's a PG now). Along with volume 3-point shooting, it's the main engine of scoring and playmaking in the NBA. Tatum projecting as a professional scorer without a PNR game or a dominant longball was the biggest ding of all. It put him on the Harrison Barnes/Rudy Gay/Tobias Harris spectrum for a lot of people. Indeed the guy Tatum most closely resembled in terms of iso/post-up/non-PNR scoring was Dallas Harrison Barnes.

I'm with you on 99% of this being the arguments against, but the Barnes comp is way off - Tatum always had better handles and footwork, was always projected to score at a higher level than the comps you gave.

A lot of scouts were really hung up on the DeRozan comparison.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Bill,

What's your opinion of the the criticisms of Tatum predraft? Are they still there?

IMO, I think We are seeing a classic case of overscouted. You look at someone long enough, you are bound to find flaws.

I am trying to wrap my head around some of the critiques I read with the knocks we had on Tatum....Deep shooting, athleticism, ball handling, poor rebounder, defensive issues and that he is an ISO player.

To me, the scouting concerns haven't matched up. Lonzo Ball shooting is a concern. We've seen that in his early games. So, valid critique

I am not seeing Tatum's flaws show. Sure, it is guys doing it in websites and people giving their opinion. But those reports had to start from somewhere.

Yes he can ISO (nothing wrong with that, valuable skill, just boring to watch), but he's been OK as a spot up shooter, has rebounded and defended, shown athleticism, has a three-level game, and been OK off the ball.

To me, he looks like the No. 1 pick should.

I think the draft scouting reports may have been off.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

This is what NBA Draft Room said about him:

A very well built, strong and athletic wing who is just scratching the surface of his potential. Has a nice feel for the game, high skill level and a NBA body. His jump shot is a thing of beauty and he can get his shot against any defender.

Tatum is a skilled ball handler and can score the ball in a variety of ways. Has a natural feel for the game which, combined with his ball-handling ability, helps him blow by defenders and score at the rim or create space for the step back.

He projects as a high level NBA three point shooter (although has work to do) and an overall nightmare to defend.

Has some point-forward tenancies and is a good play-maker.

A strong perimeter defender for his size, he shows good determination on the defensive end. Can guard 2's, 3's and 4's.

Sounds about like what we're seeing. About their only con seemed to be based on an erroneous impression of his wingspan. They had him at 6'9.

[jfs1000d]

That sounds about right. What were the weaknesses? I heard a ton of people tal about defense, ISO and athleticism. It was nuts.

This kid is a player.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[DelMonte West]

I think Tatum is the one looking like the consensus #1 pick while Fultz is looking like a bench player at best. If I'm a Philly fan I'm absolutely livid about this trade.

[Taget]

Spoiler:

did somebody say CLUMSY PR?

cause maybe that's, like, this guy's thing, or spirit animal, or something:





I like Fultz's potential and think he'll be good. But the Process is just beginning to lay out the journey for this one..

Why does he look like somebody just shot his dog?

Maybe that was when he found out he'd be playing for Phili instead.

With Fultz I can't help but think back to my initial reaction to him back when we thought we were going to draft him. He looked good and said all the right things but the hype around him had an eery resemblance to the hype around Sebastian Telfair. Including a very stage managed slick presentation augmented by a scripted reality web series (as opposed to the very scripted Telfair documentary). It made me question if what I was seeing and feeling was real.

[BfB]

Just declaring no doesn't make it so. Fultz is more outlierish at PG than Tatum is at SF.

Likewise Tatum's deep shooting was a legitimate ding on his draft stock - not just the percentages but the nature of his attempts. And he hasn't exactly been lighting it up since.

Finally, PNR isn't just PGs (or from another angle everybody's a PG now). Along with volume 3-point shooting, it's the main engine of scoring and playmaking in the NBA. Tatum projecting as a professional scorer without a PNR game or a dominant longball was the biggest ding of all. It put him on the Harrison Barnes/Rudy Gay/Tobias Harris spectrum for a lot of people. Indeed the guy Tatum most closely resembled in terms of iso/post-up/non-PNR scoring was Dallas Harrison Barnes.

I'm with you on 99% of this being the arguments against, but the Barnes comp is way off - Tatum always had better handles and footwork, was always projected to score at a higher level than the comps you gave.

A lot of scouts were really hung up on the DeRozan comparison.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Bill,

What's your opinion of the the criticisms of Tatum predraft? Are they still there?

IMO, I think We are seeing a classic case of overscouted. You look at someone long enough, you are bound to find flaws.

I am trying to wrap my head around some of the critiques I read with the knocks we had on Tatum....Deep shooting, athleticism, ball handling, poor rebounder, defensive issues and that he is an ISO player.

To me, the scouting concerns haven't matched up. Lonzo Ball shooting is a concern. We've seen that in his early games. So, valid critique

I am not seeing Tatum's flaws show. Sure, it is guys doing it in websites and people giving their opinion. But those reports had to start from somewhere.

Yes he can ISO (nothing wrong with that, valuable skill, just boring to watch), but he's been OK as a spot up shooter, has rebounded and defended, shown athleticism, has a three-level game, and been OK off the ball.

To me, he looks like the No. 1 pick should.

I think the draft scouting reports may have been off.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I have no issue with Fultz being projected number one - his skill/athleticism/feel/measurements are all extremely high relative to his position.

I had Tatum as the next best player, but only if he ended up on Boston or somehow made it to another playoff-contender with some veteran influence - PHI would fit the bill.

I don't think "over scouting" was the problem. The majority of the opinions the general public had on Tatum before the draft came from the media, 99% of which only had the Hoop Summit, Duke, and Youtube to go off of.

Tatum had a ton of high level experience before that, which is why he was considered the top prospect leading into Duke.

Problem is that he will, in fact, need to become a reliable catch-and-shoot 3-point threat to reach "superstar" level and the combination of early-injury and Coach K's willingness to use him as an ISO player masked the ability he'd already shown as a high-impact role player on Team USA.

For the "real scouts" the argument became about whether or not he was committed to doing the "little things" and this was made worse by Josh Jackson's presence as a natural foil to compare him against.

Scouts love all-out hustle guys like Jackson, who needed to be good defensively and off-ball to impact a game as a projectable star. Tatum is less "high-rpm" and was very comfortable prioritizing his own offensive game during his senior year at Chaminade and Duke.

If he hat put up mega numbers the whole year he would have been neck and neck with Fultz leading into the draft. But, it was only the last 10-12 games where you saw Tatum play at that level and Duke had enough high end talent that he didn't need to put up "Fultz usage" once he did get back to 100%

Long story short, Tatum was less of a "willing hustler" than Jackson and did not have the Fultz-like season that gets players top pick consideration. While his perimeter game is still a huge determinant for his ceiling, scouts just didn't give enough credence to how much Tatum is influenced by his surroundings.

If he was on Orlando, Phoenix, Sacramento right now I have little doubt he'd be playing much more like he did at Duke - It's Boston's role/roster that are bringing out the Team USA version.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Andrew McCeltic]

That sounds about right. What were the weaknesses? I heard a ton of people tal about defense, ISO and athleticism. It was nuts.

This kid is a player.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Tatum? I think consistency was one concern, he has some slop in his handles and moves we haven’t seen so far because he’s able to focus through his limited touches. Another concern was probably how well his game would translate to the pros - it wasn’t my concern, but he’s good at everything and great at nothing, pretty good athletically but not spectacular.

He’s doing well now because his instincts off the ball, and with it, are almost as great as Smart’s defensive instincts. He does a ton of little things with footwork, pace and momentum to create space for himself. He’s doing pretty well on the boards so far, but it’s early, he’s likely to get tired out from it, and even when he gets in position and boxes out, he’s pushed off his center easily - not tossed around, but enough to lose some boards he’ll probably get in a few years.

Offensive versatility and reliability will come. Defense ahead of schedule.

[BfB]

[spoiler]

Do you think all things considered- role, need, fit, position, it was better picking Tatum, even if you feel Ball was the BPA?

Sure, in the context of the Kryie trade and the Hayward signing, I think you could make a compelling argument that Tatum over Ball was the better pick for this situation. My one quibble would be Isaac, I think he's a higher value player, has a skillset that's rarer league wide, and fits a particular need on this team, so may have represented the best pick possible. Tatum and Hayward roughly approximate each other and play the same position so while the Kryie trade did change the draft equation quite a bit after the fact I still wouldn't say Tatum's the perfect pick. He's gonna be good though, so this is more a discussion of degrees of value. Throwing in the potential pick from the Lakers/Kings, it's probably a wash and simply a matter of preference and taste.

As for Ball, I felt he was superior to Fultz and a better fit with IT. Kyrie is a ridiculously talented player but I wouldn't have done that trade based on one variable: Doncic. I think Doncic will be the best sub-7 foot player in the NBA during the 2020s. I would have never parted with the Nets pick on that basis alone. I would have picked Ball, hoped IT got healthy and was willing to resign at a reasonable rate (and let him walk if he didn't), and then moved heaven and earth to get Doncic in 2018. My timeline is probably more long term than Danny's but I think winning the 2020s is a reasonable goal and I skeptical about loading up towards psuedocontender status while Lebron and the Ws are still in their prime. I felt we had a punchers chance with Kryie/Hayward/Brad this season (pre injury) but overall didn't see it as a good gamble. My preferred gamble was gearing up to win the 2020s with Doncic.

The Hayward/Kyrie combo almost certainly outlasts the Warriors core remaining intact though.

Fultz/Tatum/Isaac were my top 3 - and very much think they will be by the time their rookie deals are up.

We've talked about this, Isaac is super-role player ready, but Orlando will have to develop him into a scorer as he is far too willing to take a back seat.

I knew these three inside and out by draft day. Would have been fine with any of them on Boston, they all fit, but I can't deny my thrill at getting Tatum - he's playing exactly as I expected given the situation.

Very interesting stuff regarding "vaginal toggling" or whatever it was though


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[SmartWentCrazy]

[spoiler]

Sure, in the context of the Kryie trade and the Hayward signing, I think you could make a compelling argument that Tatum over Ball was the better pick for this situation. My one quibble would be Isaac, I think he's a higher value player, has a skillset that's rarer league wide, and fits a particular need on this team, so may have represented the best pick possible. Tatum and Hayward roughly approximate each other and play the same position so while the Kryie trade did change the draft equation quite a bit after the fact I still wouldn't say Tatum's the perfect pick. He's gonna be good though, so this is more a discussion of degrees of value. Throwing in the potential pick from the Lakers/Kings, it's probably a wash and simply a matter of preference and taste.

As for Ball, I felt he was superior to Fultz and a better fit with IT. Kyrie is a ridiculously talented player but I wouldn't have done that trade based on one variable: Doncic. I think Doncic will be the best sub-7 foot player in the NBA during the 2020s. I would have never parted with the Nets pick on that basis alone. I would have picked Ball, hoped IT got healthy and was willing to resign at a reasonable rate (and let him walk if he didn't), and then moved heaven and earth to get Doncic in 2018. My timeline is probably more long term than Danny's but I think winning the 2020s is a reasonable goal and I skeptical about loading up towards psuedocontender status while Lebron and the Ws are still in their prime. I felt we had a punchers chance with Kryie/Hayward/Brad this season (pre injury) but overall didn't see it as a good gamble. My preferred gamble was gearing up to win the 2020s with Doncic.

The Hayward/Kyrie combo almost certainly outlasts the Warriors core remaining intact though.

Fultz/Tatum/Isaac were my top 3 - and very much think they will be by the time their rookie deals are up.

We've talked about this, Isaac is super-role player ready, but Orlando will have to develop him into a scorer as he is far too willing to take a back seat.

I knew these three inside and out by draft day. Would have been fine with any of them on Boston, they all fit, but I can't deny my thrill at getting Tatum - he's playing exactly as I expected given the situation.

Very interesting stuff regarding "vaginal toggling" or whatever it was though


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Do you see Isaac ever developing the handle necessary to create enough offense for himself? Personally, I did not, and struggle to see him as more than a 16-17 PPG guy, but am interested in your opinion.

[ryaningf]

[spoiler]

Sure, in the context of the Kryie trade and the Hayward signing, I think you could make a compelling argument that Tatum over Ball was the better pick for this situation. My one quibble would be Isaac, I think he's a higher value player, has a skillset that's rarer league wide, and fits a particular need on this team, so may have represented the best pick possible. Tatum and Hayward roughly approximate each other and play the same position so while the Kryie trade did change the draft equation quite a bit after the fact I still wouldn't say Tatum's the perfect pick. He's gonna be good though, so this is more a discussion of degrees of value. Throwing in the potential pick from the Lakers/Kings, it's probably a wash and simply a matter of preference and taste.

As for Ball, I felt he was superior to Fultz and a better fit with IT. Kyrie is a ridiculously talented player but I wouldn't have done that trade based on one variable: Doncic. I think Doncic will be the best sub-7 foot player in the NBA during the 2020s. I would have never parted with the Nets pick on that basis alone. I would have picked Ball, hoped IT got healthy and was willing to resign at a reasonable rate (and let him walk if he didn't), and then moved heaven and earth to get Doncic in 2018. My timeline is probably more long term than Danny's but I think winning the 2020s is a reasonable goal and I skeptical about loading up towards psuedocontender status while Lebron and the Ws are still in their prime. I felt we had a punchers chance with Kryie/Hayward/Brad this season (pre injury) but overall didn't see it as a good gamble. My preferred gamble was gearing up to win the 2020s with Doncic.

The Hayward/Kyrie combo almost certainly outlasts the Warriors core remaining intact though.

Assuming somewhat normal age related decline, I don't see how they outlast them by more than 1-2 seasons. And that's a scenario where we'd be assuming Jaylen or Jayson step into that 3rd star role within 3-4 years, and/or we manage to flip Al and other assets for a franchise big.

I'm also of the mind that Lebron has at least another 3-5 years in him at his current level, and then another 2-3 years at super role player level. I just don't see much championship window equity in the next 3 years, though if both Jaylen *and* Jayson develop into studs we may be able to play both the short and long term game.

Very interesting stuff regarding "vaginal toggling" or whatever it was though

I don't know about any vaginal toggling (sounds nice) but polyvagal theory may be of interest to you as a way to buttress the kind of value you provide but of course I can only speculate at that since it's proprietary and you keep thwarting my attempts to get you to spill the beans on your methodology lol.

[sam_I_am]

Sure, in the context of the Kryie trade and the Hayward signing, I think you could make a compelling argument that Tatum over Ball was the better pick for this situation. My one quibble would be Isaac, I think he's a higher value player, has a skillset that's rarer league wide, and fits a particular need on this team, so may have represented the best pick possible. Tatum and Hayward roughly approximate each other and play the same position so while the Kryie trade did change the draft equation quite a bit after the fact I still wouldn't say Tatum's the perfect pick. He's gonna be good though, so this is more a discussion of degrees of value. Throwing in the potential pick from the Lakers/Kings, it's probably a wash and simply a matter of preference and taste.

As for Ball, I felt he was superior to Fultz and a better fit with IT. Kyrie is a ridiculously talented player but I wouldn't have done that trade based on one variable: Doncic. I think Doncic will be the best sub-7 foot player in the NBA during the 2020s. I would have never parted with the Nets pick on that basis alone. I would have picked Ball, hoped IT got healthy and was willing to resign at a reasonable rate (and let him walk if he didn't), and then moved heaven and earth to get Doncic in 2018. My timeline is probably more long term than Danny's but I think winning the 2020s is a reasonable goal and I skeptical about loading up towards psuedocontender status while Lebron and the Ws are still in their prime. I felt we had a punchers chance with Kryie/Hayward/Brad this season (pre injury) but overall didn't see it as a good gamble. My preferred gamble was gearing up to win the 2020s with Doncic.

The Hayward/Kyrie combo almost certainly outlasts the Warriors core remaining intact though.

Assuming somewhat normal age related decline, I don't see how they outlast them by more than 1-2 seasons. And that's a scenario where we'd be assuming Jaylen or Jayson step into that 3rd star role within 3-4 years, and/or we manage to flip Al and other assets for a franchise big.

I'm also of the mind that Lebron has at least another 3-5 years in him at his current level, and then another 2-3 years at super role player level. I just don't see much championship window equity in the next 3 years, though if both Jaylen *and* Jayson develop into studs we may be able to play both the short and long term game.

Very interesting stuff regarding "vaginal toggling" or whatever it was though

I don't know about any vaginal toggling (sounds nice) but polyvagal theory may be of interest to you as a way to buttress the kind of value you provide but of course I can only speculate at that since it's proprietary and you keep thwarting my attempts to get you to spill the beans on your methodology.

Lebron the dominant PF post player with a decent 3 ball will allow him to star until age 40.

[FutureIsGreen]

Someone with more time than I have needs to look up the poll on who we should draft. No way at all 64% of you liked it from the start. The pro Tatum thread had like 10 of us in there. Too funny. The poll leader should be, didn't like it then, love it now.