2012 NBA Draft

[Ruzious]

I agree with him. I bring it up because Love has been considered here by some as 1 dimentional because of his lack of defense, and that same label is now going on Sullinger - for the same reason.

[tontoz]

Love is taking 5 three pointers a game, shooting 42% from 3. Somehow i doubt Sullinger will be that effective from long range.

.

[Dat2U]

Btw, speaking of 1 dimentional PF's, Charles Barkley (lol) just insisted that Kevin Love is the best PF in the world, and Reggie Miller agreed with him. I want Sullinger (if we can't get Davis).

Barkley also insisted Eddie Jordan was a "damn good coach". I could care less what a former player says, they can be wrong just like anyone else.

There's no way I'd take Sullinger over Davis, Drummond or MKG. Not a chance. Not sure I'd take him over Henson either. He's right in the mix with Barnes & Robinson & PJ III. But if looking top 4 (worst record in the league), he's probably not even in the conversation for me.

Right now my two favorite basketball prospects are both Kentucky Wildcats. Davis & MKG. Drummond is also in the mix because of his physical tools.

[Dat2U]

^who is better than Love at the moment?

I'd take:

Nowitzki
Z. Randolph (when healthy)
P. Gasol
Stoudemire
Aldridge
Garnett
Griffin

before I'd take Love

[Ruzious]

Btw, speaking of 1 dimentional PF's, Charles Barkley (lol) just insisted that Kevin Love is the best PF in the world, and Reggie Miller agreed with him. I want Sullinger (if we can't get Davis).

Barkley also insisted Eddie Jordan was a "damn good coach". I could care less what a former player says, they can be wrong just like anyone else.

There's no way I'd take Sullinger over Davis, Drummond or MKG. Not a chance. Not sure I'd take him over Henson either. He's right in the mix with Barnes & Robinson & PJ III. But if looking top 4 (worst record in the league), he's probably not even in the conversation for me.

Right now my two favorite basketball prospects are both Kentucky Wildcats. Davis & MKG. Drummond is also in the mix because of his physical tools.

Eddie Jordan was a good coach. If you want to discredit Barkley, you could probably come up with better examples. I just thought it was interesting that he brought it up while we have our disagreement - not to mention that Reggie MIller agreed with him.

But that's okay - we'll continue to agree to disagree on Sullinger. But it is time to delete PJ III from the discussion.

[Ruzious]

^who is better than Love at the moment?

I'd take:

Nowitzki
Z. Randolph (when healthy)
P. Gasol
Stoudemire
Aldridge
Garnett
Griffin

before I'd take Love

But do you think the difference between all those players and Love is significant?

[Dat2U]

But do you think the difference between all those players and Love is significant?

Offensively? No, not at all. Defensively, yes with the exception of maybe Blake Griffin & Amar'e Stoudemire (though I've seen Amare defend occasionally). Pau, Zach & Dirk aren't great post defenders but they have the length to challenge shots and be a deterrent.

[Dat2U]

Btw, speaking of 1 dimentional PF's, Charles Barkley (lol) just insisted that Kevin Love is the best PF in the world, and Reggie Miller agreed with him. I want Sullinger (if we can't get Davis).

Barkley also insisted Eddie Jordan was a "damn good coach". I could care less what a former player says, they can be wrong just like anyone else.

There's no way I'd take Sullinger over Davis, Drummond or MKG. Not a chance. Not sure I'd take him over Henson either. He's right in the mix with Barnes & Robinson & PJ III. But if looking top 4 (worst record in the league), he's probably not even in the conversation for me.

Right now my two favorite basketball prospects are both Kentucky Wildcats. Davis & MKG. Drummond is also in the mix because of his physical tools.

Eddie Jordan was a good coach. If you want to discredit Barkley, you could probably come up with better examples. I just thought it was interesting that he brought it up while we have our disagreement - not to mention that Reggie MIller agreed with him.

But that's okay - we'll continue to agree to disagree on Sullinger. But it is time to delete PJ III from the discussion.

Not ready to write off PJ III just yet. He's not in my top 3, probably no matter what but I'd still consider him 4 or later.

Tier 1
Anthony Davis
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
Andre Drummond

Tier 2
John Henson
Thomas Robinson
Perry Jones III
Jared Sullinger
Jeremy Lamb
Harrison Barnes

I'm probably down on Harrison Barnes more than anyone else at this point. Bradley Beal as well, just wasn't impressed by what I saw.

[Ruzious]

But do you think the difference between all those players and Love is significant?

Offensively? No, not at all. Defensively, yes with the exception of maybe Blake Griffin & Amar'e Stoudemire (though I've seen Amare defend occasionally). Pau, Zach & Dirk aren't great post defenders but they have the length to challenge shots and be a deterrent.

No. You know what I was asking. Overall, do you think there's a significant difference?

[fishercob]

^who is better than Love at the moment?

I'd take:

Nowitzki
Z. Randolph (when healthy)
P. Gasol
Stoudemire
Aldridge
Garnett
Griffin

before I'd take Love

Today? Maybe, excluding Amare and Randolph. Over the next five years, probably only Griffin and Aldridge and all 3 are in the same tier.

[theboomking]

Not ready to write off PJ III just yet. He's not in my top 3, probably no matter what but I'd still consider him 4 or later.

Tier 1
Anthony Davis
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
Andre Drummond

Tier 2
John Henson
Thomas Robinson
Perry Jones III
Jared Sullinger
Jeremy Lamb
Harrison Barnes

I'm probably down on Harrison Barnes more than anyone else at this point. Bradley Beal as well, just wasn't impressed by what I saw.

I would personally bump Lamb up to the first tier. He has elite length for the position, is a good defender, a great shooter, and is very efficient. I agree with your second tier. Do you think the second tier should include Myers Leonard?

[Severn Hoos]

This is not the draft to play it safe and go for the super smart, hard working, limited upside guy. Will Sullinger help a NBA team win games? Sure. Will he be a cornerstone for a team with championship aspirations, I have major doubts about that.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Part of me thinks we have to come out of this draft with someone who won't bust -- go the proverbial Battier over Kwame and Eddy Curry, even if it means limiting some upside.

I know Perry Jones has a huge ceiling, but we're halfway into his second season and I'm not seeing anything close to a can't miss prospect and couldnt say with any conviction that he won't turn out like Jonathon Bender or Tim Thomas. Same worry about Henson; I can't look at him and be sure he's not Hakim Warrick or Stromile Swift.

By the same token, the thought of ending up with that proverbial Battier instead of a Paul Gasol makes me a little sick to my stomach. So.... I dunno.

Well, as you noted above - the real choice is Battier vs. Kwame (proverbially speaking), not Battier vs. Gasol - after all, the Grizz wound up with both of them. Gasol was actually a pretty sure bet, based on his proven track record in Europe, it's just that in 2001 it was hard for GMs to see that, since there weren't many examples other than Dirk.

Kwame was the "ridiculous upside" pick, and Battier was the boring, safe, athletically limited pick. Funny thing is, one of them just keeps winning wherever he goes, and the other....doesn't. I know Gasol is the obvious choice now, but if you could go back to 2001, with the condition that you had to take either Kwame or Battier, which one do you choose?

Point is, you can't conjure up an elite talent/difference maker/"dominating two-way big man" by wishing it to be so. I'm happy to give Drummond the rest of the year to show that he can fit that bill, but at this point, I am firmly on the fence, and leaning to the skeptical side.

No question, I'd take Davis #1 overall, and take him at #2 if someone else foolishly passed on him at the top spot. After that? I'd actually look to auction off Drummond if the market is there, especially if we could do it without falling out of the top 5.

And that next tier (with Davis alone in my first tier) has to include Sullinger, Lamb, and probably MKG.

Finally, although we all bow at the altar of the BPA, I still believe that - if it's close - you should consider the makeup of your team when making a pick. Henson simply reinforces of the things that the team already has (although he certainly does them far better than what we have now), but I don't think he brings some of the elements - especially shooting/scoring - that we so desperately need.

And there's no way I want to add PJ3 to the roster. Again, not because he's not a good prospect, but can we afford to add another guy with any type of maturity question? I hate to say it, because I've always been a long-term view guy, but it would be better for the Wiz to get a player who will be very good immediately than to take someone who might be great in a few years. The development of Wall and the rest of the young players is too important to take that chance, IMO. Davis is worth that risk, not sure I'm ready to take it for Drummond or PJ3.

[nate33]

No question, I'd take Davis #1 overall, and take him at #2 if someone else foolishly passed on him at the top spot. After that? I'd actually look to auction off Drummond if the market is there, especially if we could do it without falling out of the top 5.

A scenario that could play out would be us picking at #2 and Cleveland picking at #4 or so. In that scenario, should we consider trading Blatche plus the #2 for Varajeo plus the #4? The basketball IQ and intensity would certainly be raised quite a bit if we dumped Blatche and added Varajeo and Kidd-Gilchrist. Meanwhile, we instruct Vesely to live in the weight room all summer:

PG Wall/Mack
SG E.Gordon*/Vet Free agent
SF Kidd-Gilchrist/Singleton
PF Vesely/Booker
C McGee/Varajeo

We'd need McGee to continue to develop as a post threat, and the shooting is still a bit suspect, but the team should play some wicked defense and they'd play hard every night.

*(or N.Young if New Orleans matches Gordon)

[The Consiglieri]

This is not the draft to play it safe and go for the super smart, hard working, limited upside guy. Will Sullinger help a NBA team win games? Sure. Will he be a cornerstone for a team with championship aspirations, I have major doubts about that.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Part of me thinks we have to come out of this draft with someone who won't bust -- go the proverbial Battier over Kwame and Eddy Curry, even if it means limiting some upside.

I know Perry Jones has a huge ceiling, but we're halfway into his second season and I'm not seeing anything close to a can't miss prospect and couldnt say with any conviction that he won't turn out like Jonathon Bender or Tim Thomas. Same worry about Henson; I can't look at him and be sure he's not Hakim Warrick or Stromile Swift.

By the same token, the thought of ending up with that proverbial Battier instead of a Paul Gasol makes me a little sick to my stomach. So.... I dunno.

Well, as you noted above - the real choice is Battier vs. Kwame (proverbially speaking), not Battier vs. Gasol - after all, the Grizz wound up with both of them. Gasol was actually a pretty sure bet, based on his proven track record in Europe, it's just that in 2001 it was hard for GMs to see that, since there weren't many examples other than Dirk.

Kwame was the "ridiculous upside" pick, and Battier was the boring, safe, athletically limited pick. Funny thing is, one of them just keeps winning wherever he goes, and the other....doesn't. I know Gasol is the obvious choice now, but if you could go back to 2001, with the condition that you had to take either Kwame or Battier, which one do you choose?

Point is, you can't conjure up an elite talent/difference maker/"dominating two-way big man" by wishing it to be so. I'm happy to give Drummond the rest of the year to show that he can fit that bill, but at this point, I am firmly on the fence, and leaning to the skeptical side.

No question, I'd take Davis #1 overall, and take him at #2 if someone else foolishly passed on him at the top spot. After that? I'd actually look to auction off Drummond if the market is there, especially if we could do it without falling out of the top 5.

And that next tier (with Davis alone in my first tier) has to include Sullinger, Lamb, and probably MKG.

Finally, although we all bow at the altar of the BPA, I still believe that - if it's close - you should consider the makeup of your team when making a pick. Henson simply reinforces of the things that the team already has (although he certainly does them far better than what we have now), but I don't think he brings some of the elements - especially shooting/scoring - that we so desperately need.

And there's no way I want to add PJ3 to the roster. Again, not because he's not a good prospect, but can we afford to add another guy with any type of maturity question? I hate to say it, because I've always been a long-term view guy, but it would be better for the Wiz to get a player who will be very good immediately than to take someone who might be great in a few years. The development of Wall and the rest of the young players is too important to take that chance, IMO. Davis is worth that risk, not sure I'm ready to take it for Drummond or PJ3.

Battier is exactly what he is now, which to me makes him a false dichotomy. Your choice isn't always gonna be best case scenario at this time (there is a reason Battier fell so far), or the worst (Kwame being the worst ever #1 in some circles for potential versus pay off and pick utilized), in fact it almost never is. And what did he actually win exactly? As far as I can tell, nothing. Indeed if he ever wins anything, a conference title, let alone a title, it's going to require being on a team with TWO franchise players, and not just one in Wade and LeBron (not coincidentally players generally considered 1 and 2 in the league as the premiere players period, over the last five+ years or so, and they also have Bosh, a player probably better than virtually any and perhaps any player that Battier ever played with till now).

I don't get the argument. What do we want, Boulez '86-'88, '95-'98, and '04-'07 again? Do we miss those halcyon days of 40-42 to 45-37 records and 7 and 8 seeds, is the mass suffering for thirty years to be expiated by watching glorious examples of try hard guys working their way to 7 or 8 seeds and NBA playoff irrelevance.

I definitely agree that teams could always use a Battier, and that they are wonderful assets particularly for teams on the cusp of becoming great, he could be a missing piece, great locker room guy, does dirty work, gets the job done, and is a perfect example of a player with great character who squeezed every drop possible out of his NBA potential, the polar opposite of Kwame.

That's the point in the end to me. Even if you did hit on Battier, and max his potential in the best case scenario, and miss so badly on Kwame you hit on the absolute worst case scenario that Grantland lead with a story about him the other day

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7421210/kwame-brown

(and how often does that actually happen with draft picks? it doesnt even happen that often with seasons although i still present my season picks as Ceiling (7-9), floor (3-13), expectation (5 or 6 wins) when i post on CPND, how often does the Battier complext max his potential, while the high ceiling stud in waiting not only fails, but fails in all ways, and to the worst extent humanly possible) what have you actually got? A serviceable piece, a good glue guy, an essential 3rd or 4th piece on a team that still requires 2 franchise players AT LEAST, to compete for anything worthwhile.

That's why the Kwame-Battier lesson holds no water for me. I am not ever going to believe in drafting scared. Not for a team that has stunk out loud since Carter was president. As Oscar Wilde said, 'We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars," that's worth remembering on draft day.

I dont have a problem with Sully as a prospect in general, I have a problem with Sully and guys like him or Battier for that matter for franchises like ours, where he simply isn't what we need to become great. We are at the bottom of the barrell now, barring monumental luck and landing a franchise player in the bottom quarter of the draft, we will probably never have a better chance to land a (or another depending upon how Wall turns out) franchise player like we will this June. You do not have that opportunity, and then choose to bunt. Swing the frick away, aim for the stars. It's the only way you have a chance of reaching them.

Once you're there, and have a shot at a guy like Battier as a cherry on top, by all means take him, as a final piece, sure take him, but every draft every day of the week and twice on sunday I'm swinging for the fences with a top lottery pick. I think it's pure insanity to do differently.

The only way in which I agree with you is that there is evidence that Kwame never got it, and if you'd dug deeply enough, like the equipment guy at Washington State back in '98 (who warned teams that Leaf was just not mature AT ALL), you probably could have seen the passivity, and disinterestedness, and apathetic, even perhaps shy aspects to Kwame that would be warning signs. For sure look at character, if the guy is a cancer, then that is a huge warning sign, and with a guy like PJ3 that may be the case (though I've heard PJ's issue is more that he's odd, passive and a beta kid, rather than an arse, or an idiot alpha male), then you may want to go with the B option, but you should never be picking the option that you know has a ceiling that will never get you anywhere, when your team desperately needs a high ceiling difference making player.

There should be guys like that in this draft. I am begining to think it's a virtual lock that we'll pick top 5, and with any luck top 2 or 3 next June, so who are those guys? I don't know right now, I just know we should definitely be doing due diligence on Davis, Drummond, and MKG and the other massive upside guys, and we should also be looking to do secondary explosions to the roster (I agree with another poster who said we already blew up the team, but it is definitely clear now that Wall should not have to play with clowns like Blatche and any other guys that can't get with his program. Find which players are building blocks, which guys are glue guys, and blow the rest of them out the door, I'd rather have Wall playing and losing with guys that work hard and show total committment in defeat, than the clowns we've got surrounding him all too often now.

[montestewart]

^
You're a pretty inspiring poster. You need to visit some of the other threads.

[The Consiglieri]

Thanks, i don't know nearly as much about basketball as you guys though, Im just big on team building and draft day strategy (football, hockey, baseball and soccer are more my bag in terms of working knowledge of the game), appreciate it.

Some extra reasoning behind my stridancy on the subject:

As someone who grew up in the bay area, I'm particular familiar with the technique of the safe route as the Golden State Warriors entered their 18 year stretch of misery precisely by following the battier model, after the Webber fiasco in '94, the Warriors eschwed any and all prospects that weren't vanilla, or of questionable character or age and doubled down on the strategy after chokegate with Spreewell in '97:

'95: Joe Smith over Rasheed Wallace and Kevin Garnett

'96: Rather than risk Kobe Bryant not signing, or going for a euro like Stojackovic or Potapenko, or another foreigner and local in Steve Nash they went vanilla with Todd Fuller.

'97: The safe character guy in Colgate big man Adonal Foyle over the riskier Tracy McGrady

'98: Character guy Antawn Jamison over Euro Nowitzski, and flashier Vince Carter

'99: Traded non-entity Jeff Foster for non-entity Vonteego Cummings and future #1

'00: Traded pick.

'01: Jason Richardson and Troy Murphy (not bad all things considered)

'02: Mike Dunleavy over foreigner Nene Hilario, and high schooler Amare Stoudemire

'03: Nice guy Mikael Pietrus

'04: Chris Mullin takes over and changes the draft day philosophy and the "nice, safe and vanilla philosophy is over" not coincidentally they make the playoffs a few short years later and upset Dallas in the opening round before the lack of high picks, and the team being centered around noted slacker Baron Davis began to fall apart.

[fishercob]

Battier is exactly what he is now, which to me makes him a false dichotomy. Your choice isn't always gonna be best case scenario at this time (there is a reason Battier fell so far), or the worst (Kwame being the worst ever #1 in some circles for potential versus pay off and pick utilized), in fact it almost never is. And what did he actually win exactly? As far as I can tell, nothing. Indeed if he ever wins anything, a conference title, let alone a title, it's going to require being on a team with TWO franchise players, and not just one in Wade and LeBron (not coincidentally players generally considered 1 and 2 in the league as the premiere players period, over the last five+ years or so, and they also have Bosh, a player probably better than virtually any and perhaps any player that Battier ever played with till now).

I don't get the argument. What do we want, Boulez '86-'88, '95-'98, and '04-'07 again? Do we miss those halcyon days of 40-42 to 45-37 records and 7 and 8 seeds, is the mass suffering for thirty years to be expiated by watching glorious examples of try hard guys working their way to 7 or 8 seeds and NBA playoff irrelevance.

I definitely agree that teams could always use a Battier, and that they are wonderful assets particularly for teams on the cusp of becoming great, he could be a missing piece, great locker room guy, does dirty work, gets the job done, and is a perfect example of a player with great character who squeezed every drop possible out of his NBA potential, the polar opposite of Kwame.

That's the point in the end to me. Even if you did hit on Battier, and max his potential in the best case scenario, and miss so badly on Kwame you hit on the absolute worst case scenario that Grantland lead with a story about him the other day

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7421210/kwame-brown

(and how often does that actually happen with draft picks? it doesnt even happen that often with seasons although i still present my season picks as Ceiling (7-9), floor (3-13), expectation (5 or 6 wins) when i post on CPND, how often does the Battier complext max his potential, while the high ceiling stud in waiting not only fails, but fails in all ways, and to the worst extent humanly possible) what have you actually got? A serviceable piece, a good glue guy, an essential 3rd or 4th piece on a team that still requires 2 franchise players AT LEAST, to compete for anything worthwhile.

That's why the Kwame-Battier lesson holds no water for me. I am not ever going to believe in drafting scared. Not for a team that has stunk out loud since Carter was president. As Oscar Wilde said, 'We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars," that's worth remembering on draft day.

I dont have a problem with Sully as a prospect in general, I have a problem with Sully and guys like him or Battier for that matter for franchises like ours, where he simply isn't what we need to become great. We are at the bottom of the barrell now, barring monumental luck and landing a franchise player in the bottom quarter of the draft, we will probably never have a better chance to land a (or another depending upon how Wall turns out) franchise player like we will this June. You do not have that opportunity, and then choose to bunt. Swing the frick away, aim for the stars. It's the only way you have a chance of reaching them.

Once you're there, and have a shot at a guy like Battier as a cherry on top, by all means take him, as a final piece, sure take him, but every draft every day of the week and twice on sunday I'm swinging for the fences with a top lottery pick. I think it's pure insanity to do differently.

The only way in which I agree with you is that there is evidence that Kwame never got it, and if you'd dug deeply enough, like the equipment guy at Washington State back in '98 (who warned teams that Leaf was just not mature AT ALL), you probably could have seen the passivity, and disinterestedness, and apathetic, even perhaps shy aspects to Kwame that would be warning signs. For sure look at character, if the guy is a cancer, then that is a huge warning sign, and with a guy like PJ3 that may be the case (though I've heard PJ's issue is more that he's odd, passive and a beta kid, rather than an arse, or an idiot alpha male), then you may want to go with the B option, but you should never be picking the option that you know has a ceiling that will never get you anywhere, when your team desperately needs a high ceiling difference making player.

There should be guys like that in this draft. I am begining to think it's a virtual lock that we'll pick top 5, and with any luck top 2 or 3 next June, so who are those guys? I don't know right now, I just know we should definitely be doing due diligence on Davis, Drummond, and MKG and the other massive upside guys, and we should also be looking to do secondary explosions to the roster (I agree with another poster who said we already blew up the team, but it is definitely clear now that Wall should not have to play with clowns like Blatche and any other guys that can't get with his program. Find which players are building blocks, which guys are glue guys, and blow the rest of them out the door, I'd rather have Wall playing and losing with guys that work hard and show total committment in defeat, than the clowns we've got surrounding him all too often now.

"You're not a wartime consigliere, Tom. Things may get rough with the move we're trying."

Kidding aside, I don't think we disagree on that much, but I do think you're operating under one false premise that I will address shortly. I agreed with much of what Sev said, if we're top 2 (maybe 3), we take Davis, MKG, or possibly Drummond. I'm a little concerned that Drummond has been more productive, let alone dominant, given his physical tools. Time should tell us more with him. But if it doesn't and we're faced with the opportunity to take someone with the physical characteristics of someone who might be great, versus an actually productive player, we MUST go for the latter.

But for simplification's sake, let's say we got unlucky and are picking 5th, The aforementioned dudes went top 3, Lamb 4th. It's to us and Sullinger, Perry Jones, and Henson are on the board.

Sullinger lacks the upside of the other two, yet he has to be the pick. To your bolded passage, Sullinger isn't bunting. He's likely a double -- may be a triple when you look at what Kevin Love is doing. More to the point, this premise that this is going to be the Wizards' last chance to get a great player just isn't true. You need to get a player that helps everything you're trying to do and live to fight another day. What you CANNOT have under any circumstance is a guy who flames out -- not with this franchise and its history. The negativity would be too strong and the subsequent risk of losing Wall too great. Drafting good players this and next year, and making a good move or two with trades/free agency wouldn't be a bad thing. Drafting a total bust would.

[The Consiglieri]

Battier is exactly what he is now, which to me makes him a false dichotomy. Your choice isn't always gonna be best case scenario at this time (there is a reason Battier fell so far), or the worst (Kwame being the worst ever #1 in some circles for potential versus pay off and pick utilized), in fact it almost never is. And what did he actually win exactly? As far as I can tell, nothing. Indeed if he ever wins anything, a conference title, let alone a title, it's going to require being on a team with TWO franchise players, and not just one in Wade and LeBron (not coincidentally players generally considered 1 and 2 in the league as the premiere players period, over the last five+ years or so, and they also have Bosh, a player probably better than virtually any and perhaps any player that Battier ever played with till now).

I don't get the argument. What do we want, Boulez '86-'88, '95-'98, and '04-'07 again? Do we miss those halcyon days of 40-42 to 45-37 records and 7 and 8 seeds, is the mass suffering for thirty years to be expiated by watching glorious examples of try hard guys working their way to 7 or 8 seeds and NBA playoff irrelevance.

I definitely agree that teams could always use a Battier, and that they are wonderful assets particularly for teams on the cusp of becoming great, he could be a missing piece, great locker room guy, does dirty work, gets the job done, and is a perfect example of a player with great character who squeezed every drop possible out of his NBA potential, the polar opposite of Kwame.

That's the point in the end to me. Even if you did hit on Battier, and max his potential in the best case scenario, and miss so badly on Kwame you hit on the absolute worst case scenario that Grantland lead with a story about him the other day

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7421210/kwame-brown

(and how often does that actually happen with draft picks? it doesnt even happen that often with seasons although i still present my season picks as Ceiling (7-9), floor (3-13), expectation (5 or 6 wins) when i post on CPND, how often does the Battier complext max his potential, while the high ceiling stud in waiting not only fails, but fails in all ways, and to the worst extent humanly possible) what have you actually got? A serviceable piece, a good glue guy, an essential 3rd or 4th piece on a team that still requires 2 franchise players AT LEAST, to compete for anything worthwhile.

That's why the Kwame-Battier lesson holds no water for me. I am not ever going to believe in drafting scared. Not for a team that has stunk out loud since Carter was president. As Oscar Wilde said, 'We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars," that's worth remembering on draft day.

I dont have a problem with Sully as a prospect in general, I have a problem with Sully and guys like him or Battier for that matter for franchises like ours, where he simply isn't what we need to become great. We are at the bottom of the barrell now, barring monumental luck and landing a franchise player in the bottom quarter of the draft, we will probably never have a better chance to land a (or another depending upon how Wall turns out) franchise player like we will this June. You do not have that opportunity, and then choose to bunt. Swing the frick away, aim for the stars. It's the only way you have a chance of reaching them.

Once you're there, and have a shot at a guy like Battier as a cherry on top, by all means take him, as a final piece, sure take him, but every draft every day of the week and twice on sunday I'm swinging for the fences with a top lottery pick. I think it's pure insanity to do differently.

The only way in which I agree with you is that there is evidence that Kwame never got it, and if you'd dug deeply enough, like the equipment guy at Washington State back in '98 (who warned teams that Leaf was just not mature AT ALL), you probably could have seen the passivity, and disinterestedness, and apathetic, even perhaps shy aspects to Kwame that would be warning signs. For sure look at character, if the guy is a cancer, then that is a huge warning sign, and with a guy like PJ3 that may be the case (though I've heard PJ's issue is more that he's odd, passive and a beta kid, rather than an arse, or an idiot alpha male), then you may want to go with the B option, but you should never be picking the option that you know has a ceiling that will never get you anywhere, when your team desperately needs a high ceiling difference making player.

There should be guys like that in this draft. I am begining to think it's a virtual lock that we'll pick top 5, and with any luck top 2 or 3 next June, so who are those guys? I don't know right now, I just know we should definitely be doing due diligence on Davis, Drummond, and MKG and the other massive upside guys, and we should also be looking to do secondary explosions to the roster (I agree with another poster who said we already blew up the team, but it is definitely clear now that Wall should not have to play with clowns like Blatche and any other guys that can't get with his program. Find which players are building blocks, which guys are glue guys, and blow the rest of them out the door, I'd rather have Wall playing and losing with guys that work hard and show total committment in defeat, than the clowns we've got surrounding him all too often now.

"You're not a wartime consigliere, Tom. Things may get rough with the move we're trying."

Kidding aside, I don't think we disagree on that much, but I do think you're operating under one false premise that I will address shortly. I agreed with much of what Sev said, if we're top 2 (maybe 3), we take Davis, MKG, or possibly Drummond. I'm a little concerned that Drummond has been more productive, let alone dominant, given his physical tools. Time should tell us more with him. But if it doesn't and we're faced with the opportunity to take someone with the physical characteristics of someone who might be great, versus an actually productive player, we MUST go for the latter.

But for simplification's sake, let's say we got unlucky and are picking 5th, The aforementioned dudes went top 3, Lamb 4th. It's to us and Sullinger, Perry Jones, and Henson are on the board.

Sullinger lacks the upside of the other two, yet he has to be the pick. To your bolded passage, Sullinger isn't bunting. He's likely a double -- may be a triple when you look at what Kevin Love is doing. More to the point, this premise that this is going to be the Wizards' last chance to get a great player just isn't true. You need to get a player that helps everything you're trying to do and live to fight another day. What you CANNOT have under any circumstance is a guy who flames out -- not with this franchise and its history. The negativity would be too strong and the subsequent risk of losing Wall too great. Drafting good players this and next year, and making a good move or two with trades/free agency wouldn't be a bad thing. Drafting a total bust would.

I say bunt only in the sense that it is a safe play, a move the guys over play. Metrics say that bunting ignores the fact that baseball is consistently won by big innings, not by bleeding runs in here and there in small trickles with small, safe decisions. That's why i used the bunting analogy. I see what you're saying and I definitely believe there are scenario's in which Sully would be the pick and that in some ways they are seemingly the most likely considering our miserable draft day luck (always stay in place or move down (usually move down) save the awful Kwame draft, and the Wall draft). Sully is the better pick in a lot of scenario's where we have miserable luck in the lottery, for now, and i emphasize "For now" because a ton could change in the next month or too. Last year's draft dramatically changed in the space of just 2 months afterall. We'll see how these young guys play as they go from just barely getting their sea legs to playing in their 35th-40th games as compared to their first 10-15.

There is a scenario where Sully should be the pick, it just isn't in the top 3 in my view, and with kids like PJ3, it's absolutely crucial that we do due dilligence with mental make up. I want to know why he plays the way he does, why he defers so much and doesnt impose himself considering his raw ability. If you can get into the psychology of a kid, you can often find your answers before draft day itself and not make huge mistakes on draft day or in his training (like we did with Kwame, failing to realize how passive, disinterested, uncompetitive, and mentally fragile he was). We should do massive due dilligence on these guys because so many are kids, particularly of the ones we suspect will be at the top of the draft day board.

I dont have a huge issue with Sully if we can't get a high upside guy, i think it would do the team well to have a hard worker who does all the little things, and the big things right, I just think a pick like that should be made only if we are absolutely hosed in the lottery, and/or we do my dream and trade plenty to move into the top 10 so we can get either a high upside guy or a Sully as well (in the top 5). I would love to move almost anything off the roster in February for a top 3 or 5 protected pick in '12. I don't think we should be attached to anything on this roster at all save Wall (and maybe not even Wall if we got enough back, though it would have to be an absolute ton) and thus should move plenty in Feb if we can get more picks because we don't have the guys right now to win with Wall, moving a few kids and vets for more ammo makes a lot of sense to me (then sign glue guy vet after the draft, and utilize the '13 crop for an elite guy, hopefully).

[nate33]

My issue with Sullinger is that I think it's more important to have a mobile help defender and rebounder as a big man than it is to have a low post scorer (particularly if McGee continues to improve his post game). If I was choosing between a big man who was a "9" on offense and a "4" on defense; and a big man who was a "4" on offense and a "9" on defense, I'd take the defensive guy. You play defense on every play and you can't hide lousy big men on defense.

If we end up picking 5th, we might be looking at a choice between Sullinger and Thomas Robinson. Both are good character guys and hard workers who play the game "the right way". One is a beast defensively and modestly competent on offense (Robinson looks like he'll develop a reliable jumper). The other is a beast offensively and modestly competent on defense (Sullinger won't challenge shots, but he does get defensive boards). I'd lean toward Robinson.

(All that said, I'm not the draft guru that some are on this board. It may well be the case that Sullinger's superiority on offense is greater than Robinson's superiority on defense, making Sullinger the better overall player. My point is that if we consider them roughly equal in overall talent, I'll take the defensive guy.)

[Severn Hoos]

Good posts, Consiglieri - thanks for the well-thought responses. This sure beats trying to top each other in new ways to say how much Blatche sucks...

And as fish says, I don't think we're that far apart in philosophy. It's not like I'd prefer to go the safe route when there's a legitimate franchise player (1st/2nd team All-Star) with a high likelihood of achieving that status. We're not talking about Dwight Howard vs. Okafor here. I am totally convinced - Davis is the real deal, and fits that category, so he's my pick hands down.

Now, the question is, do Drummond, PJ3, and MKG fit the category of likely 1st/2nd team all-NBA players? At this point, I remain unconvinced. When Howard was 6 months out of high school, he was already putting up a double double in the NBA, with a PER of over 17. Drummond is playing against a non-conference schedule full of small to mid-size college kids, and is averaging fewer than 10 points and 7 rebounds per game, with a FT% in the 30s. Sorry, but that raises some red flags to me.

PJ3 is averaging 13 & 7, and his team is undefeated. All good, as far as I'm concerned. But is he really that difference-maker? Is he another T-Mac? Do you even want to draft the next T-Mac?

You make great points about getting into the psychology of the kids, see what they're made of, can they take the pressure of the NBA, do they want the ball, refuse to back down, etc. What is the size of the fight in the dog, so to speak. We saw what happened with Kwame. Maybe PJ3 has "it." Maybe not. I absolutely believe Sullinger has "it." The question is, will his physical limitations hold him back more than someone else's intangibles? Only time will tell.

Hey, when you have to make the safe play, you go for the safe play. If your pitcher is throwing a gem, you have him bunt the guy over rather than telling him to swing away in hopes of a HR - or worse, taking him out for a pinch hitter. On 4th and long in your own territory, you punt the ball. Sure, you might convert the 1st down, but you're as likely (or more) to have it blow up in your face. Better to live to fight another day.

If the Wiz don't have a shot at a high-percentage franchise guy (Davis, IMO, and I'm open-minded about MKG), then definitely hoping for Sullinger or Lamb, even if it means shifting the focus to find that difference-maker via FA or trade instead of hoping for it from the draft.

Bottom line - if there are too many "IFs", then I'd rather pass. (IF this guy fills out, IF he develops a relaible jumper, IF he can play more aggressive, IF he's in the right situation, etc.) In that case, give me the sure thing and I'll be on my way.