Kanyewest wrote:
1) Nick Calathes; I would be happy with with a 2nd rounder but not a 1st rounder.
2) Darren Collison: same as Calathes
3) I agree that in potential vs production, there is a high risk/reward. But that's what EG is paid to do. As terms of a fit,
4) I like DeRoazan's frame and mid range game. While he's friends with Nick Young, he s a much better rebounder and even plays a some defense. He's actually less than 2 weeks older than Harden.
5) Tyreke Evans did a pretty good job keeping Memphis competitive with a team that lost Derrik Rose, CDR, and Dorsey. Maybe Evans learned something from Callipari .
6) James Harden- from what I've seen from him in games, granted only 2-3 times, nothing has jumped out at me. He's called a winner but he certainly didn't help his cause in the NCAA tournament. He's helped make Arizona State relevant again. Maybe there's something behind the scenes that we don't see like how he's a leader inside the locker room. People compare him to Paul Pierce and Caron Butler but I just don't see it. Aside from shooting, I don't see what separates him from Gerald Henderson (who I don't like that much). He is young and if his role on the Wizards is simply to b a defender and knock down the open 3 I would be fine with that.
7) Stephen Curry: as of this moment, I like him more than Harden but a bit less than the high potential/risk guys in Evans and DeRoazan. If he has the tools to become a solid defender, I take him even if it's only on point guards. Remember Gilbert has had problems with his defense as well. With Curry stretching the floor will make it that much easier for Gilbert Arenas can get to the rim; he also provides insurance if Gilbert isn't healthy. I also like the scenario of just drafting him and trading him to the highest bidder.
Overall, while I think the Wizards could use someone who could step in right away, I just don't see the Wizards becoming true contenders this season because the roster as a whole lacks enough playoff experience especially with the young guys. I think the Wizards realistically should pick someone who can step in but improve down the line.
1&2. Depends how far back you trade, and what position you fill by doing so.
There's little difference between a late first and a early 2nd rounder except the late firsts are locked into a low-dollar contract while the rd 2 guys have a little more flexibility in how the deal gets structured. Picking up a solid-state back-up PG who fills in all the categories needed for bench success is simply savvy.
3, 4, 5. I suspect Ernie agrees with you. Sometimes I do sometimes I don't. This year this (depleted) draft I'm thinking it's not a bad thing to land a solid roleplayer rather than roll the dice on a high-caliber talent. My impression is teams will get better value from the safer pick in this bunch.
In general I believe in the theory of 'best player available', regardless of position. My difference: the part that goes by the wayside is the variable of on-court IQ in the algebra of 'best'. Often I see nascent intelligence dismissed in favor of insane athleticism. I see why-- you need both to succeed, and one can hope that raw athleticism improves with experience and coaching, but it's not often possible to suddenly develop mad hops later in life.
But teams like the Spurs do just fine adding more smarts than mad hops. And right now we're trying hard to incubate a few raw athletes into reliable veterans. Occasionally it's alright to make a chemistry pick, err on the side of a player with a proven track record but lesser upside to help his young bench peers to season quicker. A catalyst, to hope that smarts are contagious.
I'll deal with 4&5 in a separate post so DCZards doesn't have to quote a book-length post.
6. I mostly would have agreed with you on Harden a few of the games I saw. DeRozan outplayed him in their head-up games. 'Defender' we still don't know about since that zone scheme rarely tested his mano-a-mano skills. But so much of that team offense pivoted around him and flowed around him. I think I watched 6-7 ASU games, and one way or the other he was involved in every key play in some way, the pass, the timely rebound, the long range shot, the drive to force a foul on a lynchpin defender. Nothing flashy, the only thing remarkable was his ability to get to the line despite not being as quick as many of his match-ups, plus he finished after contact even though he looked awkward doing it.
I was on the side of the doubters most of the year -- saying sure, a nice player, smart role-player in the NBA but without top athletics he's not worth a high pick-- with the caveat that he was carrying a spare tire and it's possible he'd unearth athleticism if he'd put down the fork.
Well vids I see show a respectable transformation in his silhouette, and he's getting about 6 extra inches off his jump. Still looks awkward, still looks odd, but still fills the bucket. There's room for improvement on a baseline of fundamentally smart play. And the ability to work on your weaknesses, to make the adjustment, is key for survival in the NBA. Basically I trust him to do it.
After that, well he adds so many of the small items on our shopping list for longterm success. Low-ego baller who looks to set-up his teammates first. Sneaky gritty player who has to use smarts to succeed, willing to scratch and claw a bit. Solid 2nd line rebounder with low-post skills (won't look as pretty as Nick flying towards the hoop, but won't try to finesse it either, will take a bump and find a way to drop it in). Long range shooter who can hit an open shot and knows when to take it -vs- when to pass. Experience in a zone system. Knows how to use a pick/screen. Knows how to set-up his Bigs.
Basically in everything except the certitude of improved Defense, he has precisely what we lack in a backcourt teammate for Gil. It's just tough to pass up the Lego-block that fits in favor of one for a cooler model (requiring a different set of pieces). My read on Harden is that while he's not the most talented player in the draft, he will play on a championship team at some point in his career.
7. Curry is the better player, though at less of a need position. But given that a top quality PG is the second toughest position to fill, it seems shortsighted not to take him when available. If we're looking at true PG, Tyreke Evans had 3 other double digit scorers on the team and couldn't manage 4 assists per game, was #1 in the NCAA's in turnovers. Curry had one 10 pt scorer to pass to, on a team that couldn't hit 50% in 4-on-3 situations, but most of the year Curry hovered around 7 assists per 40. From watching (what few games were available on internet feed) he proved a smart heads-up passer, given an inch of space when he wasn't smothered by 2-3 defenders. Yeah he's not the fastest. He's still a smarter baller than most.
The position of point guard isn't just a short guy who can run fast and dribble.
