If Minnesota picks 3rd, who do they take?

Post #61 » by **revprodeji** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:34 pm

no, your number 6 becomes Gallinari. The draft is 6 deep for the wolves.

deeney0 · Post #62 » by **deeney0** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:46 pm

I don't see the draft as six deep at all, I don't see why Randolph or Gallinari are any better for the Wolves than Gordon, Bayless, Love, or Jordan. I see the pack starting at pick 5.

Post #63 » by **revprodeji** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:09 pm

Randolph and Gallinari are better prospects that fill a better need than Gordon/Bayless/love/jordan

Gordon is a mobley 6'3 sg. We dont need or want him
Bayless is a less version of what we already have in Foye
Love is athletically challenged in every possible way
Jordon has the work ethic of your average welfare child

Randolph put similar numbers as Chris Bosh in the same conf, with a similar style. In high school he was considered Miles-like as a 6'9 SF, now he is a 6'11 PF that has a very good BBIQ and a playmaking desire.

Gallinari might be the highest regarded euro prospect ever. At 19 he has years of experience in their best league and is considered a playmaking SF. DX even called him the euro King James.

Not saying Randolph or Gallinari are top 3, but they are above Gordon/Bayless/love/Jordan. At least on the wolves board.

john2jer · Post #64 » by **john2jer** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:24 am

revprodeji wrote:no, your number 6 becomes Gallinari. The draft is 6 deep for the wolves.

Gallinari was my 6th spot, but I just can't find myself excited to draft ANOTHER SF.

If we draft Bayless or Gordon, I'm seriously becoming a Blazers fan until McHale is "dealt with."

Post #65 » by **revprodeji** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:20 am

yea, Bayless and Gordon are my no-no's also.

Gallinari is a 3, but not in the same way Brewer is. If anything they would compliment each other very well. As a matter of fact Gallinari would probably compliment Foye better than anyone. (based on what I hear about the kid)

Post #66 » by **Klomp** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:11 am

revprodeji wrote:Randolph put similar numbers as Chris Bosh in the same conf, with a similar style.

Ummm......

LSU is in the SEC.
GT is in the ACC

Post #67 » by **revprodeji** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:02 pm

oh, yea, my bad. I meant against similar level of play. I have issues with conferencing because they make no sense to me.

deeney0 · Post #68 » by **deeney0** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:11 pm

I don't agree with the general premise of looking at fit and complimenting for the Wolves. They still ought to be in serious rebuild mode. Best player available. This is not the time to be worrying about fit. Just get talent.

john2jer · Post #69 » by **john2jer** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:23 pm

BPA, sure, which is why I like Rose, Mayo, Beasley, and Randolph.

But if the BPA isn't an upgrade over what we already have as a long term option at that spot, what's the point?

If we're selecting a 1, 2, or 3, he has to be a decided upgrade over Foye, McCants, or Brewer. Gordon and Bayless aren't.

deeney0 · Post #70 » by **deeney0** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:39 pm

Personally, I think Gordon is a big upgrade over Shad.

hard49 · Post #71 » by **hard49** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:15 pm

As a Grizz fan @ 3 my board for us looks like this:

Mayo
Randolph
Gallinari

I want no part of Lopez. If we fall out of the top 5, it is a nightmare scenario.

PeeDee · Post #72 » by **PeeDee** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:28 pm

hard49 wrote:As a Grizz fan @ 3 my board for us looks like this:

Mayo
Randolph
Gallinari

I want no part of Lopez. If we fall out of the top 5, it is a nightmare scenario.

I share your sentiments as a Wolves fan as well.

john2jer · Post #73 » by **john2jer** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:06 pm

deeney0 wrote:Personally, I think Gordon is a big upgrade over Shad.

Gordon is 6'2" chucker who struggled with the college three point line, good luck stepping back further, and he can't defend shooting guards in the NBA.

Gordon would be ok if the Wolves had a Joe Johnson, Brandon Roy(whoops), or Kobe Bryant type that handle the ball a lot as a 2.

Shad struggled on defense this year, but at least he has a little more size over Gordon to have a chance, and Shad can actually shoot.

Post #74 » by **revprodeji** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:17 pm

Even if Gordon was an upgrade from Shad (which I do not think he is) He is not a better prospect in potential or fit than Randolph/Gallinari or even Lopez.

The wolves board comes down to this.

-Rose/Beasley fighting for the first 2 (I think it will go to Rose)
-Mayo as the clear 3
-Gallinari/Randolph/Lopez
(perhaps in that order, I do not know)

Lowest we can go is 6 so those are the names we pay attention to.

deeney0 · Post #75 » by **deeney0** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm

Shad can't defend the 2 either. I don't think Shad is any bigger than Gordon. Maybe an inch, but I've gone to enough Wolves games to know that Shad isn't the 6'4 he's listed at. When he stands next to Randy, Randy is noticeably taller.

Again, stop thinking about fit. Stop thinking about the other pieces on the Wolves. It's too soon in the rebuild to think like that. They've just got to take the best player available. And they may feel that Gallinari is better than Gordon or Bayless - that's fine, I haven't seen Gallinari so I don't know. but they shouldn't pick him just because he "fits" better.

john2jer · Post #76 » by **john2jer** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:05 pm

My point is that Gordon isn't the BPA or the best fit amongst the top 6. I'd possibly go Bayless over Gordon, but there's 6 guys that I'd select in front of both of them, based on BPA and fit.

Rose isn't the best fit, either, but he's clearly the BPA and a huge upgrade over what we already have. Gordon isn't on either account.

GJense4181 · Post #77 » by **GJense4181** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:12 pm

Brook Lopez is not going to be a great NBA player. Certainly not worth a top 3 pick.

horaceworthy · Post #78 » by **horaceworthy** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:04 pm

[quote="deeney0"Again, stop thinking about fit. Stop thinking about the other pieces on the Wolves. It's too soon in the rebuild to think like that. They've just got to take the best player available. And they may feel that Gallinari is better than Gordon or Bayless - that's fine, I haven't seen Gallinari so I don't know. but they shouldn't pick him just because he "fits" better.[/quote]

I don't think rev was thinking about fit in his last post, I think he was speaking about who he thinks/has heard the Wolves feel are the 6 best prospects.

I don't really have much of an objection to that list, although I'd probably toss Love into the final group. I'm in the same boat about not knowing much about Gallinari, so I can't comment too firmly on where he should be slotted.

jumanji · Post #79 » by **jumanji** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:09 pm

GJense4181 wrote:Brook Lopez is not going to be a great NBA player. Certainly not worth a top 3 pick.

Historically speaking you dont expect great NBA players picking 3rd, just ask Danny Ferry, Darius Miles, Joe Smith, Darko and on and on.....some who went higher than 3.

Post #80 » by **revprodeji** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:10 pm

deeney0 wrote:Shad can't defend the 2 either. I don't think Shad is any bigger than Gordon. Maybe an inch, but I've gone to enough Wolves games to know that Shad isn't the 6'4 he's listed at. When he stands next to Randy, Randy is noticeably taller.

Again, stop thinking about fit. Stop thinking about the other pieces on the Wolves. It's too soon in the rebuild to think like that. They've just got to take the best player available. And they may feel that Gallinari is better than Gordon or Bayless - that's fine, I haven't seen Gallinari so I don't know. but they shouldn't pick him just because he "fits" better.

Without Shoes Shad is--------------------------6' 2.75"
With shoes(what NBA measurements are)----6' 4"

Which sounds horrible for a shooting guard, but then you figure the
Wingspan of-----------------6' 10.75"
And standing reach of------8' 7.5"

and the standing reach is more that of an average Small forward. Shad literally has freaky long arms.

To give a reference his standing reach is only 1 inch smaller than Sean May, 2 inches more than Rudy Fernandez, more than Franscico Garza, and more than Danny Granger. WHich is how his height is not a negative. He is able to get his shot off at a very, very high point.

Also, add that Shad is an amazingly creative offensive player.

btw, Foye has similarly long arms(just not as long)
6' 2.25"(without shoes--so shorter than Shad)
6' 3.25" (w/shoes)
6' 6.25" (wingspan)
8' 1" (reach)

but that does not matter, my point was they are better prospects AND better fits (which should be considered)

john2jer wrote:My point is that Gordon isn't the BPA or the best fit amongst the top 6. I'd possibly go Bayless over Gordon, but there's 6 guys that I'd select in front of both of them, based on BPA and fit.

Rose isn't the best fit, either, but he's clearly the BPA and a huge upgrade over what we already have. Gordon isn't on either account.

agree on first point,
Bayless is on my bust list also. Not only is he not a true pg, but he has stubby lil arms and that hurts any chance of him being a combo guard. He either needs to learn pg or be off the bench.
Rose could be argued as the best fit because a 3 man group of rose/foye/shad would be damn sexy.