2024 NBA Draft Thread - June 26/27

[Brewhoopfan]

We did win a championship with PJ Tucker giving you basically nothing on offense not too long ago.

50% from the field, 50% from three in the Finals, though.

Plus 2 offensive rebounds per game.

PJ scored 4 ppg and shot 4/8 from 3 in the finals. That's about as close as you're going to get to "nothing" for a player averaging over 30 minutes per game.

[German Athens]

That defensive tape on Dunn is amazing but he must be an absolute zero on offense to be in our range. I still think he’s my favorite pick at 23.

Dunn = Thybulle with worse shooting

No. Dunn is a big who can defend down. Thybulle is guards and wings. We could use them both. I want a team full of menaces.

Look at Dennis over here.

Same, though.

[BroncoBuck]

Feel like Stephon Castle should be the #1 pick in this weak draft. I know other people are starting to come around on it, but Vegas is so against it that it doesn’t seem likely at all.

Sarr gives me so many Thomas Robinson vibes. It’s crazy to me that he is the front runner to go number 1.

[Bernman]

Yea, that's a b.s. narrative Holmes is a mid-major bully. He did well in the tourney and has a lot of big games out of conference.

My issue with drafting the Holmes types are they just have a tough time hitting in the league.

You’re drafting an undersized big in the hopes that he’ll be quick enough to be switchable defensively, because you know he’s not big enough or athletic enough to be a traditional anchor. My problem is unless they are emphatically switchable, and that’s super clear on film, then there’s a pretty good chance they won’t be, and if they aren’t, then they pretty much lose all their value.

They don’t have a fallback option, because they don’t have the physical tools.

I do want that switchable big, but I’d much rather trade for the ones who’ve actually proven they can do it in the league than draft one. Holmes best case scenario is probably Naz, but I don’t think he’s a lock to get there, and at that point that’s just not that high of upside.

How is 6'10 w/ shoes, 7'1 wing, 9' standing reach, 236 lbs, undersized? It's similar to a Horford or Bobby.

He's a 4/5. Could play either spot, depending on match-ups.

You're saying best case is Naz Reid. Well we don't even fully know who he is yet. I mean he's blocked by 2 premier bigs w/ seniority. He could prove better than both. In the playoffs, he arguably was.

He wouldn't lose his all his value if he's not switchable. Bobby hasn't. He could be Bobby, w/ better passing, athleticism, hedging & recovering, & supportive rim protection. That's still a good player. Bobby still useful as is. Would be a good pick at 23.

[Ron Swanson]

Yea, that's a b.s. narrative Holmes is a mid-major bully. He did well in the tourney and has a lot of big games out of conference.

My issue with drafting the Holmes types are they just have a tough time hitting in the league.

You’re drafting an undersized big in the hopes that he’ll be quick enough to be switchable defensively, because you know he’s not big enough or athletic enough to be a traditional anchor. My problem is unless they are emphatically switchable, and that’s super clear on film, then there’s a pretty good chance they won’t be, and if they aren’t, then they pretty much lose all their value.

They don’t have a fallback option, because they don’t have the physical tools.

I do want that switchable big, but I’d much rather trade for the ones who’ve actually proven they can do it in the league than draft one. Holmes best case scenario is probably Naz, but I don’t think he’s a lock to get there, and at that point that’s just not that high of upside.

How is 6'10 w/ shoes, 7'1 wing, 9' standing reach, 236 lbs, undersized? It's similar to a Horford or Bobby.

He's a 4/5. Could play either spot, depending on match-ups.

You're saying best case is Naz Reid. Well we don't even fully know who he is yet. I mean he's blocked by 2 premier bigs w/ seniority. He could prove better than both. In the playoffs, he arguably was.

He wouldn't lose his all his value if he's not switchable. Bobby hasn't. He could be Bobby, w/ better passing, athleticism, hedging & recovering, & supportive rim protection. That's still a good player. Bobby still useful as is. Would be a good pick at 23.

Between this and the post I saw saying Ware could be a "more athletic Brook", I think some of you guys really need to temper your expectations here. What you're describing is a Top-15 guy in this league.

[Badgerlander]

We need talent(s) that can develop into legit rotation and starting caliber players the next 2-3 years. The sooner people abandon this fantasy that any rookie is gonna come in here and be a key contributor towards a championship this season, the more clarity you'll have with this class in general, instead of just pigeonholing guys into archetypes and drafting for immediate need.

This is not really addressed directly to you, it's more 'inspired by'.

There's a distinction to be made between drafting for 'need' and drafting for 'fit' which I want to define because I think people think of and use these terms interchangeably.

I think you have to consider fit, which I think of as a fuzzier mix of culture and general traits of a player, and really I think that guys who don't fit for whatever reason (for me, this would be set of exclusionary characteristics: low-feel, physically inadequate, bad motor, is an ****) should not be considered at all. Take them off the board. You're always going to have a choice between a guy who fits and a guy who doesn't, so why would you ever take the guy who doesn't?

Need, on the other hand, would be some very specific player traits or type that you want to add to try to address some current deficit, things like: a rebounder, a shooter, a back-up pass-first point guard. You draft based on this stuff, and I think I make this point every year, you're drafting a tomorrow player for a today need. You're trying to thread the dual needles of future team needs with future player development, which is damn hard, and still doesn't fill the current need. Do not do this.

If we draft an 18 year old bub then I really don’t have expectations much beyond Livingston for his first season but if we draft an older player like a Shannon etc then my hope is that they would be able to contribute right away at a near ddv level. Of course if we trot out a Malik Beasley caliber starting SG then my hopes go even higher. While I tend to rant about our lack of guard depth I am always a bpa guy come draft time. I hone in on the best guys that I think will be available but on occasion a guy that I wasn’t expecting slips to us

[SupremeHustle]

Yea, that's a b.s. narrative Holmes is a mid-major bully. He did well in the tourney and has a lot of big games out of conference.

My issue with drafting the Holmes types are they just have a tough time hitting in the league.

You’re drafting an undersized big in the hopes that he’ll be quick enough to be switchable defensively, because you know he’s not big enough or athletic enough to be a traditional anchor. My problem is unless they are emphatically switchable, and that’s super clear on film, then there’s a pretty good chance they won’t be, and if they aren’t, then they pretty much lose all their value.

They don’t have a fallback option, because they don’t have the physical tools.

I do want that switchable big, but I’d much rather trade for the ones who’ve actually proven they can do it in the league than draft one. Holmes best case scenario is probably Naz, but I don’t think he’s a lock to get there, and at that point that’s just not that high of upside.

How is 6'10 w/ shoes, 7'1 wing, 9' standing reach, 236 lbs, undersized? It's similar to a Horford or Bobby.

He's a 4/5. Could play either spot, depending on match-ups.

You're saying best case is Naz Reid. Well we don't even fully know who he is yet. I mean he's blocked by 2 premier bigs w/ seniority. He could prove better than both. In the playoffs, he arguably was.

He wouldn't lose his all his value if he's not switchable. Bobby hasn't. He could be Bobby, w/ better passing, athleticism, hedging & recovering, & supportive rim protection. That's still a good player. Bobby still useful as is. Would be a good pick at 23.

What you described hear sounds like healthy Antonio McDyess.

[ReasonablySober]

I'm just excited for all the better Al Horfords available at #23.

[bdpecore]

Yea, that's a b.s. narrative Holmes is a mid-major bully. He did well in the tourney and has a lot of big games out of conference.

My issue with drafting the Holmes types are they just have a tough time hitting in the league.

You’re drafting an undersized big in the hopes that he’ll be quick enough to be switchable defensively, because you know he’s not big enough or athletic enough to be a traditional anchor. My problem is unless they are emphatically switchable, and that’s super clear on film, then there’s a pretty good chance they won’t be, and if they aren’t, then they pretty much lose all their value.

They don’t have a fallback option, because they don’t have the physical tools.

I do want that switchable big, but I’d much rather trade for the ones who’ve actually proven they can do it in the league than draft one. Holmes best case scenario is probably Naz, but I don’t think he’s a lock to get there, and at that point that’s just not that high of upside.

How is 6'10 w/ shoes, 7'1 wing, 9' standing reach, 236 lbs, undersized? It's similar to a Horford or Bobby.

He's a 4/5. Could play either spot, depending on match-ups.

You're saying best case is Naz Reid. Well we don't even fully know who he is yet. I mean he's blocked by 2 premier bigs w/ seniority. He could prove better than both. In the playoffs, he arguably was.

He wouldn't lose his all his value if he's not switchable. Bobby hasn't. He could be Bobby, w/ better passing, athleticism, hedging & recovering, & supportive rim protection. That's still a good player. Bobby still useful as is. Would be a good pick at 23.

Between this and the post I saw saying Ware could be a "more athletic Brook", I think some of you guys really need to temper your expectations here. What you're describing is a Top-15 guy in this league.

To be fair, I said Ware’s ceiling is a more athletic Brook. I never said he would ever reach his ceiling. Honestly, most NBA players never come close to reaching their ceilings. But I think sometimes you have to swing for the fences when the right opportunity presents itself and drafting a player with unicorn C potential is worth it at #23.

[Bernman]

How is 6'10 w/ shoes, 7'1 wing, 9' standing reach, 236 lbs, undersized? It's similar to a Horford or Bobby.

He's a 4/5. Could play either spot, depending on match-ups.

You're saying best case is Naz Reid. Well we don't even fully know who he is yet. I mean he's blocked by 2 premier bigs w/ seniority. He could prove better than both. In the playoffs, he arguably was.

He wouldn't lose his all his value if he's not switchable. Bobby hasn't. He could be Bobby, w/ better passing, athleticism, hedging & recovering, & supportive rim protection. That's still a good player. Bobby still useful as is. Would be a good pick at 23.

Between this and the post I saw saying Ware could be a "more athletic Brook", I think some of you guys really need to temper your expectations here. What you're describing is a Top-15 guy in this league.

Who says they're most likely projections? Edey's projected by some to go around our pick, and it's not impossible he's the next Yao. It's just very unlikely, therefore he slips.

I was responding to someone who claimed if Holmes is not fully switchable he loses almost all his value. Bobby was a good launching point to refute that argument. He's not a guy totally reliant on d regardless.

That said, I don't agree w/ this notion Holmes doesn't have any core potential. That's wrong-headed too, cuz you can put the ball in his hands, & he can make something happen for himself + others.

Now that we're on this topic, it's higher than Dunn, who has effectively 0 core potential. If you're viewing beyond the next 2-3 yrs, the lifespan of our current core, he's the better option. Maybe in that 2-3 yr span & yr 1 too, cuz he can space the floor, & play in it better than our current bigs. Dunn develops better shooting over time to play w/ a core that no longer exists?

[Bernman]

What you described hear sounds like healthy Antonio McDyess.

TBH, on the spectrum of McDyess & Portis, Holmes is probably closer to Bobby athletically. McDyess was an uber-athlete. Bobby's below the rim. You could throw some lobs to Holmes (unlike Bobby), but I doubt he's a consistent factor in that dept. His significantly better, but again not consistent factor shot-blocking, comes of being a tier above athletically, & superior timing.

I think he's similar to Bobby in that you can throw the ball into him in the high or low post, watch him exploit mismatches burying his way down low, while facing them up in the high post for a shot or drive. But he's not a black hole. He's a notably solid & willing passer, unlike Bobby, which frustrates us.

I don't have a specific player he closely resembles, but we've seen that mold of player be an asset a lot over the yrs, the game hasn't evolved beyond him cuz he can shoot & move, & I don't think it constitutes particularly low upside or unreliable. So I like these permutation of outcomes.

[Ron Swanson]

As far as Holmes as a prospect, I think his weaknesses should be pretty obvious. He tested well enough, but he's kind of a stiff athlete on tape. Not a super explosive leaper, nearly every dunk is off two-feet, and while I wouldn't say the footwork is an issue, he appears really mechanical at times in his movements (post spins, up and under).

Looking beyond the raw block numbers and it's awfully hard for me to see him as a plus rim-protector in the NBA. He's light (yes, 230-ish isn't exactly ideal Center size) and gets pushed off his spots by smaller players too often for my liking, and that's kinda reflected in his meh rebounding numbers. Despite the low foul rate, he tends to launch himself into players on contests which makes me question how good his body control is on the defensive end. Like, I see zero evidence that he's a switchable dude on defense, so I'm not sure why we're thinking he has that potential. Not really a screener/lob guy so what does he do when he has to play so much off-ball next to Giannis/Dame/Khris when he's also not a good offensive rebounder? Is he just a pick and pop guy?

The shooting mechanics are solid and I expect to translate, and for a guy his size, he's got a really solid handle. That raises his offensive ceiling more than the usual double-double guy and reflects how he's able to get to the line so much. But ultimately, I'm wary of guys with his playstyle translating because the speed difference between college and the NBA is gonna make everything he excels at much tougher. He'll have the same issues as Bobby getting his 3PT shot off when teams go small. His rebounding and strength deficiencies will only get worse if you ask him to guard bigger and more athletic 4's/5's. Etc.

[Bernman]

I'm just excited for all the better Al Horfords available at #23.

Hyperbolic straw men aside, I do like being in this area of the draft this yr. There's little difference between early 20's and top 5, where you'd usually get those guys as probable instead of realistic outcomes.

That's why I'd even like to get another pick around this range to increase your chances from 10-15% chance at an Al Horford or Middleton level guy, to a 20-30%. Acquire another pick or two next yr & you get close to a coin flip to extend the Giannis yrs.

That's the best strategy I have, in lieu of trading Dame or Middleton now/soon, before their value bottoms out.

[WeMajor34]

In the Ringer’s latest mock draft, KOC said that the speculation around the league surrounding Holmes is that he has a promise from the Nuggets, which is why he’s shutting down workouts with other teams.

With Holmes maybe getting a promise and a 50/50 shot of Ware being in our pick range, I think we’re going to be looking at defensive-minded wings like Dunn instead of holding out hope for a rotational center or power forward to fall into our laps.

[ReasonablySober]

I'm just excited for all the better Al Horfords available at #23.

Hyperbolic straw men aside, I do like being in this area of the draft this yr. There's little difference between early 20's and top 5, where you'd usually get those guys as probable instead of realistic outcomes.

That's why I'd even like to get another pick around this range to increase your chances from 10-15% chance at an Al Horford or Middleton level guy, to a 20-30%. Acquire another pick or two next yr & you get close to a coin flip to extend the Giannis yrs.

That's the best strategy I have, in lieu of trading Dame or Middleton now/soon, before their value bottoms out.

Like I've said, I think this summer is going to see minimal impact moves. When you look at the lineup data, there's really no reason to shake things up. You can expect a healthy Bucks team to dominate, and given Dame has a full offseason to train with Giannis, Middleton, Bobby, and Brook I anticipate this team looking like a 60 win monster.

Next summer is when everything becomes interesting.

[msiris]

Only 27% of lotto picks become all stars. Only 7% come from the rest of the 1st round. Only 2% come from the 2nd round. No one here has a clue who will be the better player. The floor ceiling thing is overrated on this board since most players will not even come close to the ceiling. At our picks hitting on potential is so low that it doesnt matter. There are no experts when it comes to the draft.

[emunney]

Yea, that's a b.s. narrative Holmes is a mid-major bully. He did well in the tourney and has a lot of big games out of conference.

My issue with drafting the Holmes types are they just have a tough time hitting in the league.

You’re drafting an undersized big in the hopes that he’ll be quick enough to be switchable defensively, because you know he’s not big enough or athletic enough to be a traditional anchor. My problem is unless they are emphatically switchable, and that’s super clear on film, then there’s a pretty good chance they won’t be, and if they aren’t, then they pretty much lose all their value.

They don’t have a fallback option, because they don’t have the physical tools.

I do want that switchable big, but I’d much rather trade for the ones who’ve actually proven they can do it in the league than draft one. Holmes best case scenario is probably Naz, but I don’t think he’s a lock to get there, and at that point that’s just not that high of upside.

How is 6'10 w/ shoes, 7'1 wing, 9' standing reach, 236 lbs, undersized? It's similar to a Horford or Bobby.

He's a 4/5. Could play either spot, depending on match-ups.

You're saying best case is Naz Reid. Well we don't even fully know who he is yet. I mean he's blocked by 2 premier bigs w/ seniority. He could prove better than both. In the playoffs, he arguably was.

He wouldn't lose his all his value if he's not switchable. Bobby hasn't. He could be Bobby, w/ better passing, athleticism, hedging & recovering, & supportive rim protection. That's still a good player. Bobby still useful as is. Would be a good pick at 23.

Between this and the post I saw saying Ware could be a "more athletic Brook", I think some of you guys really need to temper your expectations here. What you're describing is a Top-15 guy in this league.

Ware is a phenomenally gifted player, but I don't trust him at all. I also don't think he's a lot like Brook. Skill wise and in terms of physical tools, though, he checks every box. OTOH, he shrivels up whenever he's matched up against the kind of guy he'll see every night in the NBA.

[Bernman]

In the Ringer’s latest mock draft, KOC said that the speculation around the league surrounding Holmes is that he has a promise from the Nuggets, which is why he’s shutting down workouts with other teams.

With Holmes maybe getting a promise and a 50/50 shot of Ware being in our pick range, I think we’re going to be looking at defensive-minded wings like Dunn instead of holding out hope for a rotational center or power forward to fall into our laps.

The Nuggets pick 5 spots behind us, so this doesn't present a problem.

Even if Holmes, Ware, Edey, etc.; go before that, and our primary interest was to add a big w/ that pick, we might still be able to land a not so offensively-limited but solid d perimeter guy like Shannon or Bub.

There are a plethora of options w/ some core upside and/or early usage for the Bucks. So watch Horst draft a role player project like Tyler Smith. That's his m.o.

[machu46]

Feel like Stephon Castle should be the #1 pick in this weak draft. I know other people are starting to come around on it, but Vegas is so against it that it doesn’t seem likely at all.

Sarr gives me so many Thomas Robinson vibes. It’s crazy to me that he is the front runner to go number 1.

His insistence on playing PG despite not really showing any PG skills in college probably removes him from #1 pick consideration.

Personally, I think he’s a tad bit overrated as a prospect even without the weirdness around him but I can see why people would be high on him.

For me, if I’m trying for a PG, it’s Reed Sheppard or Devin Carter over Castle, and if I’m trying for a defensive-minded wing, I’d go for Holland, Risacher, or Cody Williams over Castle.

Also no idea what the Vegas odds say but it seems like most are shifting towards Risacher as the #1 pick now, but I don’t think anyone has a really good idea at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bernman]

Like I've said, I think this summer is going to see minimal impact moves. When you look at the lineup data, there's really no reason to shake things up. You can expect a healthy Bucks team to dominate, and given Dame has a full offseason to train with Giannis, Middleton, Bobby, and Brook I anticipate this team looking like a 60 win monster.

Next summer is when everything becomes interesting.

The 3-man lineups were strong, but 5-man and beyond, situational, and shaky.

You need to shake-up around the core at minimum, just to not suppress their overall effectiveness, & get killed when they're off the floor.

Some of this shake-up can include trading Brook or Bobby for younger versions of them (Edey, Holmes), added depth/picks, and flexibility otherwise. Hopefully one will hit bigger to replace a core player in a couple yrs.

The plan can't be to just the core keep aging into oblivion with no plan b even & all our own 1sts given up thru '30+.