Operation Beast: Prospect Thread II

Krapinsky · Post #421 » by **Krapinsky** » Thu Jun 3, 2010 11:00 pm

Derek Character has lost 40 lbs. By that notion we should draft him at #16!!!

Casperkid23 · Post #422 » by **Casperkid23** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 12:15 am

Krapinsky wrote:Derek Character has lost 40 lbs. By that notion we should draft him at #16!!!

Awesomely awesome. :thumbsup:

Krapinsky · Post #423 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 12:36 am

Ah, give me a break. I basically type everything the way it sounds and so do 1/2 the people on the internets. I've mispelled Favors' name 100 times too.

dunkonu21 · Post #424 » by **dunkonu21** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 5:29 pm

Ya but Stephenson is actually good?

Esohny · Post #425 » by **Esohny** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 5:44 pm

dunkonu21 wrote:Ya but Stephenson is actually good?

Is he?

Krapinsky · Post #426 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 6:27 pm

dunkonu21 wrote:Ya but Stephenson is actually good?

I'm not really a fan. I'm warming up to him, but he's not too bright, can't shoot, and is another ball stopper, which is not something our offensive needs.

horaceworthy · Post #427 » by **horaceworthy** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 10:13 pm

Esohny wrote:
dunkonu21 wrote:Ya but Stephenson is actually good?

Is he?

He certainly wasn't at Cincy. He's interesting because he's got the stereotypical Coney Island guard's game, nice handle, can absorb contact around the rim, shaky jump shot, and capable of making some ridiculous passes, but he's a lot bigger than guys like Marbury or Telfair were. #23 seems pretty high to consider him, given all the areas of concern.

and1GS · Post #428 » by **and1GS** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 2:56 am

Stephenson will grope every female in Minny if you guys draft him. Just know you were warned

In all seriousness, kid's not very smart and his skills have regressed as his opponents have gotten bigger. I don't think he has the mental state to make it in the NBA.

Krapinsky · Post #429 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 4:35 pm

Bonerjams 2010

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Pau ... view-3495/

Krapinsky · Post #430 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 4:42 pm

My big board looks like this --

1. Wall
2. Turner
3. Favors
4. Cousins
5. George
6. Johnson

Post #431 » by **Worm Guts** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 4:55 pm

George ahead of Johnson? It seems like you're trying to hard.

Krapinsky · Post #432 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:07 pm

Worm Guts wrote:George ahead of Johnson? It seems like you're trying to hard.

I'm just not inline with internet group think. People treat Chad Ford and DX as gospel, which shouldn't be the case. It's not the first time I've said George over Johnson. They both have great jumpers. George is longer. George is a better ball handler and much, much better creating off the dribble. George is two years younger. Johnson is quicker, has better hops, and is better in transition. I like them both and ideally I want to get them both, but if I can only have 1, I like George's upside better. Just seems like he has more natural basketball talent.

LOBO 7 · Post #433 » by **LOBO 7** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:11 pm

Krapinsky wrote:Bonerjams 2010

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Pau ... view-3495/

Yes. That is a total Bonerjam.

My latest dream:
Pull the trigger on Love (+something? #16? Ellington?)/Randolph+6
Attempt to trade down from 4 with Sacto for 5 + something (Casspi or Greene?)

Take Wes Johnson at 5
Go ahead and take George at 6

(Rubio)Flynn/Sessions
Johnson/George/Brewer
Randolph/Johnson/Brewer
Al/Randolph
Darko/Al

With 2011 rotation something like this:

Rubio(25)/Flynn(23)
Johnson(20)/George(25)/Brewer(3)
Randolph(12-situational)/Johnson(15)/Brewer(21)
Al(22)/Randolph(26)
Darko(32)Al(16)

Now, as i typed that out a couple things rubbed me weird:
The 2/3 rotation might be complicated to sort out as far as who should play how many minutes at what position, but there are enough minutes to go around, and I think all of Brewer, George, and Johnson are versatile enough to use them situationally at each spot. All of them are athletic and can spread the floor, which is why I've fallen in love with getting that rotation.

Since I've left Gomes, Sessions, Ellington, Hollins, #16 and #23 off of that depth chart, I guess by default those are the pieces I would be willing to give up to get it done.

That depth chart is just hypothetical, but it shows that we could have a solid 8 - man rotation where everybody gets enough minutes to prove themselves. If anyone steps up and shows they deserve more minutes we could react accordingly as pretty much everybody on that roster would have decent trade value.

I don't know, I've taken some time off from posting recently because all the possible outcomes for this summer are literally maddening, so this is just one of many ideas mud wrestling in my head.

Krapinsky · Post #434 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:19 pm

You just copied that from the Randolph thread!! You left out Morrow though.

LOBO 7 · Post #435 » by **LOBO 7** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:24 pm

^^^^^^

My worry is that if we have to give up #4 with Love for Randolph and #6 Johnson won't be there at #6, then we'd have to try and trade up with Sacto for Johnson and trade up again for George. I also forgot to mention Pek as an asset we could use to get it done. Is Sessions, Eliington, Pek, Gomes, #16, #23, Hollins enough to get this done?

slinky · Post #436 » by **slinky** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:24 pm

LOBO 7 wrote:I don't know, I've taken some time off from posting recently because all the possible outcomes for this summer are literally maddening, so this is just one of many ideas mud wrestling in my head.

I kind of agree, we just need the draft to happen. And once we fit 2-3 more players into the roster, I think we will get a better sense of what Kahn's direction is this summer. And then hopefully we can narrow down our trade pieces/roster. Cause right now there is so much speculation that we literally have had trade scenarios for every single player on our roster and even those not on our roster. (except oddly enough Brewer)

Krapinsky · Post #437 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:25 pm

LOBO 7 wrote:^^^^^^

My worry is that if we have to give up #4 with Love for Randolph and #6 Johnson won't be there at #6, then we'd have to try and trade up with Sacto for Johnson and trade up again for George. I also forgot to mention Pek as an asset we could use to get it done. Is Sessions, Eliington, Pek, Gomes, #16, #23, Hollins enough to get this done?

I think you just wait til Golden State is picking at 6. If he's there, you make a deal. If he's not, you got to rethink your ink

LOBO 7 · Post #438 » by **LOBO 7** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:27 pm

Krapinsky wrote:You just copied that from the Randolph thread!! You left out Morrow though.

Haha, I saw that just after I posted this. That's why I went back and conceded that we may have to give up the #4, which complicates things.

Great minds think alike I guess. :dontknow:

Krapinsky · Post #439 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:31 pm

I just re-read the DX article and caught this ---

"In terms of pure upside, though, there may not be five players in this draft with more overall talent than what we saw from George in Los Angeles. The buzz around him has been gradually building over the past few weeks, to the point that it’s no longer a stretch to say he could be the first wing player taken after Wesley Johnson. "

LOBO 7 · Post #440 » by **LOBO 7** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 5:32 pm

Krapinsky wrote:
LOBO 7 wrote:^^^^^^

My worry is that if we have to give up #4 with Love for Randolph and #6 Johnson won't be there at #6, then we'd have to try and trade up with Sacto for Johnson and trade up again for George. I also forgot to mention Pek as an asset we could use to get it done. Is Sessions, Eliington, Pek, Gomes, #16, #23, Hollins enough to get this done?

I think you just wait til Golden State is picking at 6. If he's there, you make a deal. If he's not, you got to rethink your ink

But I think we should have a back-up plan in place, expecting that Sacto takes Johnson at #5 as BPA. He's not a great fit there, where as Monroe would be. I think we should be in talks with them about that situation, as well.
As far as George is concerned, I really think he winds up going top-10, and it may be tough for us to get back into the mix for him, but we do have a lot of assets to work with, so who knows.