Dylan Harper

[Sactowndog]

Interesting article on the negative net rating of Fox and Haliburton. San Antonio will have the same issue with Fox and Harper.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/why-the-kings-traded-away-tyrese-haliburton-to-the-pacers-in-one-of-the-decades-most-shocking-moves/#

[EMG518]

I'm taking Tre Johnson at #2 or shopping the pick if I'm the Spurs. I don't see how Tre doesn't become a real scoring threat in the league. I don't see anything out of a Devin Booker that he won't eventually be able to give you.

I'm not taking Harper, regardless of fit, albeit its a terrible fit with Fox and Castle. Been burned by this archetype one too many times and this is not conducive to team basketball, having a ball dominant guard that needs the ball to have any impact on the game.

[The-Power]

I'm not taking Harper, regardless of fit, albeit its a terrible fit with Fox and Castle. Been burned by this archetype one too many times and this is not conducive to team basketball, having a ball dominant guard that needs the ball to have any impact on the game.

That's interesting to read considering that I think the Booker archetype (score-first SG on non-elite efficiency with limited defense and without elite size or athleticism) is burning people a lot more often. Booker is a already a rather high-end outcome and nobody should be surprised if it's closer to Beal or Jalen Green (and that's not the low-end outcome either).

Who do you consider part of the same archetype as Harper, if I may ask? I tend to agree with the concerns about fit with Fox and Castle, though. But if I were the Spurs, I would either trade the pick for a star or I pick Harper and move around other pieces. There's no way taking anyone but Harper at #2 makes sense. If you cannot trade for a star and really do not like Harper, you're much better off trading down and picking up additional assets.

[NO-KG-AI]

Fox nor Castle are good enough to stop anyone getting picked for fit reasons. Look what happened the last time a star got traded for not fitting with Fox.

[FarBeyondDriven]

Fox nor Castle are good enough to stop anyone getting picked for fit reasons. Look what happened the last time a star got traded for not fitting with Fox.

conversely Harper isn't good enough to take when you already have a stacked backcourt. With Wembanyama being so young I'm kinda surprised the Spurs would rather go forward with Fox than Harper. I think Fox is Harper's ceiling and he should be able to do most of what Fox can except he'd be doing it much cheaper. Is it possible Fox and not the #2 pick would be what is used to trade for Giannis? Or Fox going elsewhere to recoup the pick used to trade for him? I find it hard to believe the Spurs will take Harper and sign Fox to an extension and keep Castle.

[NO-KG-AI]

Fox nor Castle are good enough to stop anyone getting picked for fit reasons. Look what happened the last time a star got traded for not fitting with Fox.

conversely Harper isn't good enough to take when you already have a stacked backcourt. With Wembanyama being so young I'm kinda surprised the Spurs would rather go forward with Fox than Harper. I think Fox is Harper's ceiling and he should be able to do most of what Fox can except he'd be doing it much cheaper. Is it possible Fox and not the #2 pick would be what is used to trade for Giannis? Or Fox going elsewhere to recoup the pick used to trade for him? I find it hard to believe the Spurs will take Harper and sign Fox to an extension and keep Castle.

I’m not saying you have to take Harper or believe he is a star, just that Fox and Castle haven’t done anything to make you go fit over talent.

I’m not sure where they’d rank the assets. Like they might like Castle slightly more than Harper but feel like they can get much more back for a #2 pick that isn’t spent yet, ya know?

[EMG518]

I'm not taking Harper, regardless of fit, albeit its a terrible fit with Fox and Castle. Been burned by this archetype one too many times and this is not conducive to team basketball, having a ball dominant guard that needs the ball to have any impact on the game.

That's interesting to read considering that I think the Booker archetype (score-first SG on non-elite efficiency with limited defense and without elite size or athleticism) is burning people a lot more often. Booker is a already a rather high-end outcome and nobody should be surprised if it's closer to Beal or Jalen Green (and that's not the low-end outcome either).

Who do you consider part of the same archetype as Harper, if I may ask? I tend to agree with the concerns about fit with Fox and Castle, though. But if I were the Spurs, I would either trade the pick for a star or I pick Harper and move around other pieces. There's no way taking anyone but Harper at #2 makes sense. If you cannot trade for a star and really do not like Harper, you're much better off trading down and picking up additional assets.

He has more length than any of the guys mentioned, Green, Beal, etc. Im not expecting an above avg defender but he can be fine, i wouldnt expect him to be worse than Harper, and he can impact the game without the ball, he is dangerous moving around the court, he is a willing passer and moves the ball around but he can really shoot it, like really shoot it. I would say coming off his freshman year playing at 18, he was better than any of those guys, some it wasn't even close. Green still can't shoot well, his shot is super repeatable, beautiful to watch. Literally shot 87% from the line and 40% from 3 as a freshman and alot of those shots were not your catch and shoot open 3s.were he was set up. Dude can post.up and shoot over you, like I said earlier moves without the ball and gets himself.shots, Harper can't shoot yet, is not.good defensively, and needs the ball in his hands or he is a negative on the court, and will he be able to get to the rim and bully guys in the NBA the same as in college, nothing special as a passer or vision, not something I want at #2.

Scoot is the most recent archetype for me, has to have the ball or can't help the team, learning to shoot still and I will no longer bet on guys learning too shoot unless they have a certain type of shot and athleticism, these guys don't have that form I'm looking for. Harpers type of shots he can take with his form look limited to me.

[bucknut]

if you look closely the harden comparisons aren't there besides both being lefties going downhill and ability to split double teams

Harden is much more deceptive, better setups and fakes and dribble package. looks like a quicker first step and gets narrow better. Better step back and jumpshot. Where is his floaters that harden has ? that is not a good sign of touch.

Harper is winning primarly due to his body and strength like ben simmons. ..or Michael Beasley. It comes so easy.

The shot being flat imo is a huge concern. It doesn't look like a professional scorer easy bucket - the lift on his jumper, explosion after getting cut off at the hoop and going back up. The arc being flat - it all looks like taller and more athletic defenders could bother it.

And he's a high usage ball dominant chucker that without being a rare next level anticipator and creator like luka , is not the best for winning.

[FarBeyondDriven]

Fox nor Castle are good enough to stop anyone getting picked for fit reasons. Look what happened the last time a star got traded for not fitting with Fox.

conversely Harper isn't good enough to take when you already have a stacked backcourt. With Wembanyama being so young I'm kinda surprised the Spurs would rather go forward with Fox than Harper. I think Fox is Harper's ceiling and he should be able to do most of what Fox can except he'd be doing it much cheaper. Is it possible Fox and not the #2 pick would be what is used to trade for Giannis? Or Fox going elsewhere to recoup the pick used to trade for him? I find it hard to believe the Spurs will take Harper and sign Fox to an extension and keep Castle.

I’m not saying you have to take Harper or believe he is a star, just that Fox and Castle haven’t done anything to make you go fit over talent.

I’m not sure where they’d rank the assets. Like they might like Castle slightly more than Harper but feel like they can get much more back for a #2 pick that isn’t spent yet, ya know?

definitely disagree. A motivated Fox was all-nba and led us to the playoffs and we gave the Warriors a scare in the first round with Fox putting up 27/5/8. Fox has led the league in steals and is just entering his prime so he absolutely has proven he's a star. Castle just won Rookie of the Year despite only starting half the season. That's not nothing. What has Harper done to suggest you should ignore fit? He couldn't even lead his team to the tournament with another top 3 talent.

I'd rank the assets, with contracts in mind as:

#2 pick
Castle
Fox

When you have the #2 pick and a promising guy like Harper (or someone else) imagination comes into play. He could be an MVP candidate!! Once that player is chosen and plays it seems like that goes away and then you're dealing with reality and despite Castle winning ROY and having reasonable star upside he's a known quantity, at least more than Harper, and also further into his career and closer to getting paid more. Fox is the best player now and likely ever tbh but he's also due to make bank. That's why I have them ordered as I do.

I think they should trade back with the Nets if the Nets are offering #8 and an unprotected 2026 (which would be moronic imo) because there's so much more talent next year. But I do think this is a possibility because it's not like the Nets cupboard is bare. A potential dynamic guard and face of the franchise and local hero in Harper that grew up in NJ and played at Rutgers, would be a box office draw and if he lived up to his hype, along with the other rookies they draft, they'd have a nice little core moving forward. He'd have a couple of 3 and D wings and a rim-running PnR partner to work with. There are worse starts to a rebuild than that. I think that or some other trade is something the Spurs are likely hoping happens so it takes them off the hook so to speak.

[The-Power]

Harden is much more deceptive, better setups and fakes and dribble package. looks like a quicker first step and gets narrow better. Better step back and jumpshot. Where is his floaters that harden has ? that is not a good sign of touch.

Are you sure you're not comparing prime Harden to current Harper here?

[The-Power]

He has more length than any of the guys mentioned, Green, Beal, etc.

He has a bit more length, yes. But is he using it in any kind of way that separates him from this archetype of player?

The point (below) about his shooting could be more valid. It doesn't take away from my broader characterization but if he indeed becomes one of the very best 3pt shooters in the entire NBA (>40% on high volume and high degree of difficulty) then that would for sure help separate him from those players. And that seems at least possible which is why he still holds a lot of draft value even for me.

Im not expecting an above avg defender but he can be fine, i wouldnt expect him to be worse than Harper, and he can impact the game without the ball, he is dangerous moving around the court, he is a willing passer and moves the ball around but he can really shoot it, like really shoot it. I would say coming off his freshman year playing at 18, he was better than any of those guys, some it wasn't even close. Green still can't shoot well, his shot is super repeatable, beautiful to watch. Literally shot 87% from the line and 40% from 3 as a freshman and alot of those shots were not your catch and shoot open 3s.were he was set up. Dude can post.up and shoot over you, like I said earlier moves without the ball and gets himself.shots,

Yes, he can shoot (and use that for off-ball purposes, too). That's for sure and that's the primary appeal without a doubt. But that's pretty much all you're resting his case on. ‘Can be fine defensively’ and ‘willing passer who moves the ball around’ isn't exactly a ringing endorsement in those areas.

Keep in mind also that ‘player X can surely be average on defense’ is one of the main tropes in the pre-draft process for defensively challenged prospects. A lot of those players never become average, not least because it is really not easy to become an average NBA defender – especially for a Guard who's been a pretty bad defender in college. And most Guards can pass a fair bit. The question that truly matters when it comes to his archetype is whether he can consistently create advantages and exploit those against NBA defenses enough to put the ball in his hands and/or design the offense around him. That's a much higher bar to clear.

Harper can't shoot yet, is not.good defensively, and needs the ball in his hands or he is a negative on the court, and will he be able to get to the rim and bully guys in the NBA the same as in college, nothing special as a passer or vision, not something I want at #2.

Scoot is the most recent archetype for me, has to have the ball or can't help the team, learning to shoot still and I will no longer bet on guys learning too shoot unless they have a certain type of shot and athleticism, these guys don't have that form I'm looking for. Harpers type of shots he can take with his form look limited to me.

Let me preface this comment by saying that if you don't believe Harper can be a primary on-ball player then it makes a lot of sense to have him much lower. Plenty of players maximize their value by having the ball in their hands a lot. Those who aren't good enough to be the center of an NBA offense lose a lot of their value, I'd agree. But those who are good enough don't lose their value because you want the ball in their hands a lot (the Lukas, Traes, Brunsons, Shais, Hardens and Cades of the world). So the question is where you'd put Harper on this spectrum and clearly you are cooler on him than I am. Which is fair enough and reasonable minds can differ.

Now, that being said, I don't think you're characterization here is entirely fair (especially when compared to how you describe Tre Johnson). For instance, I'd definitely rate Harper higher as a defender – now and going forward. This is not to say that I expect some huge impact on that end but he should hold up better with his physical profile. You make it sounds like Harper has more defensive concerns than Tre.

I'm also not sure that your statement about bullying is correct. We have plenty of examples of players whose physicality absolutely translated and they continued to be able to impose their strength and power on an NBA court. I do expect Harper to be able to bully a lot of NBA players who'll guard him (he'll always be much stronger than most other Guards and Wings), and the much improved spacing plus hopefully a consistent lob threat may actually turn him into an even scarier driver at the next level.

On his passing: you say he's ‘nothing special’ and that's perhaps true depending on your definition of special. But he's still a genuine PG who's a very good passer and that's a big advantage he has over Tre. So to the extent that this comment is supposed to indicate a non-significant difference between the two, I'd very firmly disagree.

Finally, I don't subscribe to the idea that he's definitely a net negative off the ball. In fact, I can see Harper being a valuable off-ball player if he wants to be (which remains to be seen). He should excel in a lot of actions that have him come off-screens, for example. Now, maybe he never becomes a good off-ball player. If that's because he is very good with the ball in his hands, it wouldn't matter all that much, though.

I can see the point about his shot for sure. The form is wonky and raises some concerns. The numbers, however, weren't terrible. And so it could go in a lot of different directions with him. The uncertainty is to be taken into account but I would not treat him as a genuinely poor shooting prospect either in my calculations.

RE: Scoot. You seemed to reject Beal and Green as comparisons for Tre in part because Tre has better measurements. Yet the difference between Scoot and Harper is considerably bigger in terms of physical profile. Harper has great size for a SG and should even be able to handle a bunch of SFs defensively due to his weight and strength. That makes a big difference in how those two can be projected. Harper's biggest strength by far is also his driving ability and Scoot was just nowhere near that level (he had to bridge that gap by being a very good midrange shooter). For those two reasons I find it hard to consider them the same archetype though I do where you're coming from. Do you have anyone else in mind considering that Scoot is only one player and a still young and very recent draft pick, too?

[tmorgan]

Ok, so I just spent an hour watching Harper film. I’ve been totally befuddled by the extreme hype on this kid, and I felt I owed it to myself to try and answer my own questions about him.

I’d say, overall, my opinion of him is very slightly improved. I already thought of him as the #2 guy, so that didn’t change, but there’s somewhat more separation in my mind now. San Antonio is going to need to decide what to do with the potential trio of Fox, Castle and (hypothetical) Harper, because two of them need the ball in their hands to be positive players, and all three would likely prefer to play point long term.

Without further ado:

Athleticism is a B. His functional vertical is not good. He has a 8’6” standing reach and does not dunk the ball that easily. He does have very nice body control, though, and good strength for a young kid at guard. Obviously extremely coordinated. First step is above average but not elite, but that’s more than good enough, because…

Handle is an A. Extremely slick. Huge bag of moves. He’s going to shake people at the next level.

Shooting is a B-. Too flat. He has to use that slick handle to get separation to get his shot up, because he brings it up in an easily swipe-able motion that bothers me. He does have potential from all three levels, though. It’s not broken, just needs work. Will take some time.

Passing is an incomplete. This is the big deal that needs to be sorted out. I get it, he played with bums and Ace Bailey, who wanted to create his own shot too often to look better. If you believe in Harper as an actual point guard, even a shoot-first one, I can understand the excitement. He hasn’t had much of a chance (or need) to show it yet.

Defense is a C. Again, it feels like his season at Rutgers was an extended NBA tryout that mostly went well, but the effort in some areas just wasn’t there. He didn’t use his length to be disruptive, and he wasn’t even good at staying in front most of the time. He half-assed it, which leaves one wondering what’s possible as a defender.

So yeah, he’s gonna have a top 5 handle on Day One. That’s worth being excited about. How much better can he get as a shooter? Is he a point guard when he plays with and against better players? Can he play solid defense? I still don’t see this “strong #2 pick” everyone is raving about, but I guess his strengths had faded a bit in my mind, because I like him more today than I did yesterday.

[EMG518]

He has more length than any of the guys mentioned, Green, Beal, etc.

He has a bit more length, yes. But is he using it in any kind of way that separates him from this archetype of player?

The point (below) about his shooting could be more valid. It doesn't take away from my broader characterization but if he indeed becomes one of the very best 3pt shooters in the entire NBA (>40% on high volume and high degree of difficulty) then that would for sure help separate him from those players. And that seems at least possible which is why he still holds a lot of draft value even for me.

Im not expecting an above avg defender but he can be fine, i wouldnt expect him to be worse than Harper, and he can impact the game without the ball, he is dangerous moving around the court, he is a willing passer and moves the ball around but he can really shoot it, like really shoot it. I would say coming off his freshman year playing at 18, he was better than any of those guys, some it wasn't even close. Green still can't shoot well, his shot is super repeatable, beautiful to watch. Literally shot 87% from the line and 40% from 3 as a freshman and alot of those shots were not your catch and shoot open 3s.were he was set up. Dude can post.up and shoot over you, like I said earlier moves without the ball and gets himself.shots,

Yes, he can shoot (and use that for off-ball purposes, too). That's for sure and that's the primary appeal without a doubt. But that's pretty much all you're resting his case on. ‘Can be fine defensively’ and ‘willing passer who moves the ball around’ isn't exactly a ringing endorsement in those areas.

Keep in mind also that ‘player X can surely be average on defense’ is one of the main tropes in the pre-draft process for defensively challenged prospects. A lot of those players never become average, not least because it is really not easy to become an average NBA defender – especially for a Guard who's been a pretty bad defender in college. And most Guards can pass a fair bit. The question that truly matters when it comes to his archetype is whether he can consistently create advantages and exploit those against NBA defenses enough to put the ball in his hands and/or design the offense around him. That's a much higher bar to clear.

Harper can't shoot yet, is not.good defensively, and needs the ball in his hands or he is a negative on the court, and will he be able to get to the rim and bully guys in the NBA the same as in college, nothing special as a passer or vision, not something I want at #2.

Scoot is the most recent archetype for me, has to have the ball or can't help the team, learning to shoot still and I will no longer bet on guys learning too shoot unless they have a certain type of shot and athleticism, these guys don't have that form I'm looking for. Harpers type of shots he can take with his form look limited to me.

Let me preface this comment by saying that if you don't believe Harper can be a primary on-ball player then it makes a lot of sense to have him much lower. Plenty of players maximize their value by having the ball in their hands a lot. Those who aren't good enough to be the center of an NBA offense lose a lot of their value, I'd agree. But those who are good enough don't lose their value because you want the ball in their hands a lot (the Lukas, Traes, Brunsons, Shais, Hardens and Cades of the world). So the question is where you'd put Harper on this spectrum and clearly you are cooler on him than I am. Which is fair enough and reasonable minds can differ.

Now, that being said, I don't think you're characterization here is entirely fair (especially when compared to how you describe Tre Johnson). For instance, I'd definitely rate Harper higher as a defender – now and going forward. This is not to say that I expect some huge impact on that end but he should hold up better with his physical profile. You make it sounds like Harper has more defensive concerns than Tre.

I'm also not sure that your statement about bullying is correct. We have plenty of examples of players whose physicality absolutely translated and they continued to be able to impose their strength and power on an NBA court. I do expect Harper to be able to bully a lot of NBA players who'll guard him (he'll always be much stronger than most other Guards and Wings), and the much improved spacing plus hopefully a consistent lob threat may actually turn him into an even scarier driver at the next level.

On his passing: you say he's ‘nothing special’ and that's perhaps true depending on your definition of special. But he's still a genuine PG who's a very good passer and that's a big advantage he has over Tre. So to the extent that this comment is supposed to indicate a non-significant difference between the two, I'd very firmly disagree.

Finally, I don't subscribe to the idea that he's definitely a net negative off the ball. In fact, I can see Harper being a valuable off-ball player if he wants to be (which remains to be seen). He should excel in a lot of actions that have him come off-screens, for example. Now, maybe he never becomes a good off-ball player. If that's because he is very good with the ball in his hands, it wouldn't matter all that much, though.

I can see the point about his shot for sure. The form is wonky and raises some concerns. The numbers, however, weren't terrible. And so it could go in a lot of different directions with him. The uncertainty is to be taken into account but I would not treat him as a genuinely poor shooting prospect either in my calculations.

RE: Scoot. You seemed to reject Beal and Green as comparisons for Tre in part because Tre has better measurements. Yet the difference between Scoot and Harper is considerably bigger in terms of physical profile. Harper has great size for a SG and should even be able to handle a bunch of SFs defensively due to his weight and strength. That makes a big difference in how those two can be projected. Harper's biggest strength by far is also his driving ability and Scoot was just nowhere near that level (he had to bridge that gap by being a very good midrange shooter). For those two reasons I find it hard to consider them the same archetype though I do where you're coming from. Do you have anyone else in mind considering that Scoot is only one player and a still young and very recent draft pick, too?

Let's agree to disagree for now. I honestly hope I'm wrong because if Harper is what many think he is, great for the league and the Spurs. I have no personal stake in it.

I personally am not looking at drafting either of these guys for defensive purposes, if either of them can be close to average I'm happy and am not worried about it going in because ultimately if they aren't what they are supposed to be on offense, that will decide whether the pick was worth it.

I can't just in good conscious get behind him at #2, rather trade the pick. The shooting form is too much of a concern to me. I think Tre is a better passer as a 2 than Harper is as a 1 relatively.

With Tre he may not be a 1a, but he might be a 1b, I really do think the shooting is being underrated with the degree of difficulty of shots he can make. With the Spurs as well, they already have Fox and Castle, if they can't find a trade or decide not to make one, I think he would light it up on that team.

[bucknut]

Harden is much more deceptive, better setups and fakes and dribble package. looks like a quicker first step and gets narrow better. Better step back and jumpshot. Where is his floaters that harden has ? that is not a good sign of touch.

Are you sure you're not comparing prime Harden to current Harper here?

i would say going back to arizona state harden had more of an old school playground feel and more flowy and natural scorer feel. Even if harpers dribbling looks decent; I think he is more just outmaning guys due to size and speed then deception. Lot of that is natural.

Id rate kasparas jackucionis step back and perimeter jump creation better then harper.

Harper has a great stop start and can change direction behind the back once he gets going down hill and that is why he can split double teams so well. But it just doesn't transition into as smooth a scoring J.

once he gets downhill his body is better then james and he has some craftiness but I think there are questions if he can downhill as easily and what he has in his game when he cant

[One_and_Done]

Fox nor Castle are good enough to stop anyone getting picked for fit reasons. Look what happened the last time a star got traded for not fitting with Fox.

Spurs are probably taking Harper, and are probably right to do so. He would have gone #1 some drafts (e.g. 24, 22, maybe 21, maybe 17, 16, 14, 13, etc).

[tmorgan]

Fox nor Castle are good enough to stop anyone getting picked for fit reasons. Look what happened the last time a star got traded for not fitting with Fox.

Spurs are probably taking Harper, and are probably right to do so. He would have gone #1 some drafts (e.g. 24, 22, maybe 21, maybe 17, 16, 14, 13, etc).

I don’t agree with this assessment (Paolo? Cade? Come on.), but ignoring that, who cares? Risacher was a weak ass #1 pick, as was Bennett. That doesn’t affect the value of drafting Harper any more than saying he might go 5th or 6th next year. Every draft is different.

[One_and_Done]

Fox nor Castle are good enough to stop anyone getting picked for fit reasons. Look what happened the last time a star got traded for not fitting with Fox.

Spurs are probably taking Harper, and are probably right to do so. He would have gone #1 some drafts (e.g. 24, 22, maybe 21, maybe 17, 16, 14, 13, etc).

I don’t agree with this assessment (Paolo? Cade? Come on.), but ignoring that, who cares? Risacher was a weak ass #1 pick, as was Bennett. That doesn’t affect the value of drafting Harper any more than saying he might go 5th or 6th next year. Every draft is different.

Paolo wasn't even going #1 until right before the draft. Until the 11th hour people thought Jabari Smith was going #1, and Paolo was going #3. It's revisionist to suggest most people thought he'd be this good.

Cade has exploded this year, but he wasn't very hyped at the time, and some people didn't even think he should go #1. I feel pretty confident knowing what we did now about all 3 prospects that Harper would go first over them. He'd probably go behind both Zion and Morant though, and certainly behind Oden & KD. Every draft is different, but some guys are viewed more like #1 calibre picks, and some guys aren't. Harper would legitimately go #1 a bunch of years. If it wasn't for the optics, I'm not 100% convinced he wouldn't be getting more of a look in at #1 this year.

[tmorgan]

Spurs are probably taking Harper, and are probably right to do so. He would have gone #1 some drafts (e.g. 24, 22, maybe 21, maybe 17, 16, 14, 13, etc).

I don’t agree with this assessment (Paolo? Cade? Come on.), but ignoring that, who cares? Risacher was a weak ass #1 pick, as was Bennett. That doesn’t affect the value of drafting Harper any more than saying he might go 5th or 6th next year. Every draft is different.

Paolo wasn't even going #1 until right before the draft. Until the 11th hour people thought Jabari Smith was going #1, and Paolo was going #3. It's revisionist to suggest most people thought he'd be this good.

Cade has exploded this year, but he wasn't very hyped at the time, and some people didn't even think he should go #1. I feel pretty confident knowing what we did now about all 3 prospects that Harper would go first over them. He'd probably go behind both Zion and Morant though, and certainly behind Oden & KD. Every draft is different, but some guys are viewed more like #1 calibre picks, and some guys aren't. Harper would legitimately go #1 a bunch of years. If it wasn't for the optics, I'm not 100% convinced he wouldn't be getting more of a look in at #1 this year.

Paolo was going #1 the whole time. The Magic just didn’t tell anyone, because they were trying to figure out if trading out could still get them their guy. His skillset and size made a better prospect than Harper, zero doubt. He hasn’t developed as well as you’d like yet, but that’s not relevant here.

Cade was a better prospect if you care at all about winning. Harper has a cool highlight skill set with that handle, but Cade actually dragged a sad ass roster of zero other NBA talent to much better results. And Cade didn’t explode this year — he just had NBA caliber teammates and his defense has started to catch up. He was plenty hyped. He’s an actual point guard, even with that sloppy handle of his.

You chimed in numerous times during the season, even late in the season, about taking Harper over Flagg. I’ll just leave that here for others to evaluate.

[azcatz11]

Hollinger and Duncan were talking about this on their podcast. Fox is done in SA it sounds like

[One_and_Done]

Hollinger and Duncan were talking about this on their podcast. Fox is done in SA it sounds like

I listened to that podcast, and they said pretty much the opposite; that a Fox deal has probably already been agreed to, and you basically have to do it. Also that it's no biggie, because Harper will need a few years to develop anyway. They would both personally prefer to build around Harper and move Fox, but both recognised it's not what is going to happen.