ImageImageImageImageImage

2012 NBA Draft

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,582
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#781 » by Ruzious » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:31 pm

Rafael122 wrote:The high FG % is misleading, the guy gets layups and dunks. He looks like a solid player, but come on now, he's being spoon fed the ball.

Secondly, please take Perry Jones III off any tier list. Invisible on both ends of the court, his body language just screams carefree and lazy. Just a disappearing act, I don't know if it's because he doesn't get the ball much, doesn't ask for the ball or both.

Also, loved Thomas Robinson's story on ESPN Gameday. Didn't know he was from DC. I wish him all the best.

Me too. It's hard not to root for TRob after seeing that. It seems like there are more reasons to like him for the Wiz every week.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
User avatar
rockymac52
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,824
And1: 73
Joined: Dec 14, 2006

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#782 » by rockymac52 » Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:14 pm

Rafael122 wrote:The high FG % is misleading, the guy gets layups and dunks. He looks like a solid player, but come on now, he's being spoon fed the ball.

Secondly, please take Perry Jones III off any tier list. Invisible on both ends of the court, his body language just screams carefree and lazy. Just a disappearing act, I don't know if it's because he doesn't get the ball much, doesn't ask for the ball or both.

Also, loved Thomas Robinson's story on ESPN Gameday. Didn't know he was from DC. I wish him all the best.


Completely agree about Jones. He's a bust waiting to happen. Hopefully there's a better player available when we're on the clock.

As far as Ratliffe, I'm going to completely disagree. Yes, he gets lots of layups and dunks. Sometimes he's wide open and is given the ball, but sometimes he has to work for his dunk/layup too. And he also scores a large percentage of his points on short-range shots in the post. The thing is, when he pulls up and shoots from 5 feet out with a man in his face, it might as well be a layup because he makes it so frequently.

Some of his close range shots kinda remind me of those scoop shots Jamison used to take. At first they don't look pretty, but then he keeps making them over and over again, and you realize he knows what he's doing.

He doesn't need to have the ball to be effective. He doesn't need to be the star (it's arguable he's our most valuable player this year, but Denmon, English, Pressey, and Dixon are all bigger names). That's why he'd be a great second round pick. He could develop into a real solid backup PF, similar to what I see Booker doing for a career. Although if Booker fills that roll for us then Ratliffe is obviously not necessary anymore.
User avatar
rockymac52
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,824
And1: 73
Joined: Dec 14, 2006

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#783 » by rockymac52 » Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:39 pm

For what it's worth, Ratliffe's college PER is currently 32.54, which is the 5th best in the entire NCAA.

Other projected lottery picks in the top ten in the NCAA in PER:
Davis (1)
Sullinger (4)
C. Zeller (8)
Robinson (9)
The Consiglieri
Veteran
Posts: 2,896
And1: 1,065
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#784 » by The Consiglieri » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:11 pm

theboomking wrote:
The Consiglieri wrote:I disagree completely. What this team needs is elite talent. This team is the worst team in the league, the FO is part of the problem, the only way to fix the problem is to infuse the best talent humanly possible, and to change the FO. The never ending rebuild idea is a red herring. When have we ever even tried a proper rebuild? Honestly? The Jordan Wizards were a quick fix team that he took the floor for, the Grunfeld Wizards were infused with vets via trades so that he could avoid a total rebuild, they short circuited it again in '09 with that moronic trade, and of course the eighties and nineties were built entirely on avoiding anything like a rebuild and desperately trying to maintain 42 win 8 seed, 3 and out playoff runs. When was the rebuild? Now it's a forever rebuild when we've spent exactly 2 offseasons attempting it? Really?

The only way to fix the damn thing is to get elite talent. If you want your Cal Cheaney's or Guggs type mediocrities that get us to 40 wins so be it, but I know Im sick to death of the two iterations of wizards and bullets hoops and the only 2, i've ever seen: 40 win garbage that's always 1 and done in the playoffs, and bad but not bad enough 25-35 win teams that get non-difference making players, exactly the sort you sound like you want, instead of difference makers come draft day.

I'd take 0-66 this year if it meant Davis. If we are ever going to be anything ever we have to actually do it right, and get the best player with the great ceiling, the only caveat I'd add, that I imagine you'd agree with is that i want an elite high ceiling guy with a great motor and a great BBIQ, we definitely don't need anymore athletes with tiny BBIQ's and/or motor questions. If the top guy is like that, yeah, pass, but I've never ever heard Davis mentioned as anything other than a hard worker, and a hyper talented kid who is already great, the best in the draft, and who also has a high ceiling to go with his great work ethic and budding talent. Why on earth should we EVER pass on that? It would be insane. Hell, its my wizards dream that we get precisely that (or failing that, a pick high enough to get one of the top 3 talents like MKG and the like).


I agree with this 100 percent. We need an elite talent this year. Full tank. Problem is, I'm not sure how full this draft is of elite talents. Davis. Maybe Drummond. Lamb, Gilchrist, Barnes, and Thomas Robinson all look good but not elite. We can't count on getting the top pick. Even if we are the worst team in the league, we only have a 25 percent chance.

Secondarily, I feel like at some point, barrign further injury woes, we will put together a run and be better than Charlotte and Detroit. In the beginning of the year we looked like the worst team in the league. In the last 5 games, we have been competitive. We beat the best team in the league, and should have beaten a very good Denver team. Look at the point differential over the last 5 games. It's night and day different from the beginning of the season.


I agree on half your points. I definitely agree that we could be screwed in terms of the lottery, indeed the odds say we're more likely to be screwed then not as does history. I dont think we have much of a clear idea of how things will go in terms of elite talent though. Not really sure, it does appear that Davis is the only guy with elite stud potential right now (Sure Drummond has that too, but he also has a ton of knocks for now, and too many of the sort to garner my interest), of the remaining guys I am intrigued a great deal by what Kidd-Gilchrist could become, at why Thomas Robinson is only getting it now, and at how Perry Jones could become an alpha dog and thereby become a franchise player, or is forever fated to be no better than a beta. I agree that every other guy i can possibly look at does not appear to have franchise player potential. No on Sully, not a high enough ceiling, no on Barnes, too complementary of a player, no on any of the other guys. So it's basically Davis, who appears to be a sure thing, Perry Jones, who is the penultimate boom or bust (and i think the majority of us believe bust), Drummond (why isn't he impacting the games?), Kidd-Gilchrist whose offensive game needs work but whose BBIQ, defense and work ethic appears peerless, and Thomas Robinson whose putting it ALL together now, but to what extent shoudl we credit a junior for dominating kids when he couldn't do the same when he was a kid? As it is, I like Robinson a lot, but am skeptical of the potential epic ceiling some see.

So to me, there's probably 3-5 guys who could be elite to me and an absolute ton of Very very very good prospects (if they all were to declare, I'd imagine that this draft 5-15 looks like a lot of drafts in the 4--8 zone), which is why i crave a trade for a pick in the teens.

I don't think we have that run in us that you suggest. I do see, and am alarmed at the more recent pythagorean type stats with our losses, it does feel like we're starting to get better, but with the schedule as insane and inane as it is, the possibility of a great run strikes me as unlikely, too much of the schedule piles in back to backers, or balances them with days off which will equally work to kill momentum. However, what about another heartbreaking, lottery ball killing win in April? Is there another opportunity for that? Yep. There is, which is infuriating. Down the stretch, in the last 15% of the schedule we have 5 of our last 10 against Charlotte (home and away), Cleveland (home and away) and Milwaukee (home), meanwhile we get Miami twice in the last 4 games including the finale, would they be resting guys? That last day its highly possible. Uggh. So I could see it RIGHT there, and looking at the schedule and the rest days and what not, it really looks like we're gonna be looking at a 14-52, or 15-51 final record, in the end though, I suspect we will be dueling with Charlotte, Detroit, and maybe New Orleans in some Monty Python-esque skit analogous to the killer rabbit scene at the end of the holy grail. It's that bad.

As long as we finish bottom 2, I'm satisfied, in the end as I suspect there will be 4-6 guys that could really, really, really help us-Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, then fall backs with Robinson, Drummond (traded I'd hope) or my ultimate fallbacks Sully, Barnes, and errr Jones III (I know, I know, he's an asset or a pick we could move, and I almost certainly would barring an interview/psyche test to find out what the hell his deal is, turning ridiculous elite, jump out the gym talent into ho hum-3rd or 4th best guy on the night, any night, talent).
theboomking
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,597
And1: 20
Joined: Jan 10, 2011

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#785 » by theboomking » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:44 pm

In terms of rapid team improvement, which I'm not sure we're looking for, our biggest talent voids are PF and SF. We may actually be better off however if we added a player like Lamb, thereby giving us a good shot at adding one more very high draft pick in 2013.

BTW, I couldn't help but think after that Celtics game that MKG would have been twice as good as any current Wizard at guarding Paul Pierce.

Singleton has been a bit disappointing since his first few games.
The Consiglieri
Veteran
Posts: 2,896
And1: 1,065
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#786 » by The Consiglieri » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:05 pm

theboomking wrote:In terms of rapid team improvement, which I'm not sure we're looking for, our biggest talent voids are PF and SF. We may actually be better off however if we added a player like Lamb, thereby giving us a good shot at adding one more very high draft pick in 2013.

BTW, I couldn't help but think after that Celtics game that MKG would have been twice as good as any current Wizard at guarding Paul Pierce.

Singleton has been a bit disappointing since his first few games.


I love the idea of MKG, I'm just very excited about his mentality, and approach and his work rate, he just seems like exactly the kind of mental make up we need. All that being said, our team needs elite talent period, id take it at any position save PG (unless we traded Wall which I believe would be foolish), any position, just get the best player on the board that isn't a mental midget (forgive the un-pc term there), i want the best player on the board who has a quality BBIQ and work rate and doesnt play PG, sounds to me like Davis, MKG, Robinson or Sully for now.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#787 » by Nivek » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:14 pm

theboomking wrote:In terms of rapid team improvement, which I'm not sure we're looking for, our biggest talent voids are PF and SF. We may actually be better off however if we added a player like Lamb, thereby giving us a good shot at adding one more very high draft pick in 2013.

BTW, I couldn't help but think after that Celtics game that MKG would have been twice as good as any current Wizard at guarding Paul Pierce.

Singleton has been a bit disappointing since his first few games.


The Wizards have so many talent needs they're safe taking best player available. They need help at every position on the floor, except maybe PG. The top prospects in this draft are PFs, Cs and SFs, and the Wiz need more talent at all those spots. And yeah, if Lamb is the BPA when they pick, they should take him. They need help at SG too.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
theboomking
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,597
And1: 20
Joined: Jan 10, 2011

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#788 » by theboomking » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:43 pm

Before the season, everyone was talking about Drummond as a PF. Is it safe to say that that idea has died? Drummond can probably defend centers man to man, and anchor a defense, but is a remarkably poor rebounder as a center. We'd best pair him with a PF that can both rebound and shoot if we draft him.

Drummond at C and trade McGee for a quality PF?
The Consiglieri
Veteran
Posts: 2,896
And1: 1,065
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#789 » by The Consiglieri » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:56 pm

theboomking wrote:Before the season, everyone was talking about Drummond as a PF. Is it safe to say that that idea has died? Drummond can probably defend centers man to man, and anchor a defense, but is a remarkably poor rebounder as a center. We'd best pair him with a PF that can both rebound and shoot if we draft him.

Drummond at C and trade McGee for a quality PF?


I meant Robinson, woops, I dont think anythings safe to say about Drummond yet as he's a kid, i think the only thing thats safe to say is that Davis is obviously developing much faster than Drummond, but we'll see how that goes, give it time, and its also not in a vacuum, they are playing on two distinctly different squads designed to utilize kids differently (Kentucky does a much better job of exploiting the talents of kids than anyone else but it's also a fundamental part of the design of the squad and their recruiting process, theyve bought in entirely to the idea that the kids are going to go 1 and out, and so they'll recruit those kids specifically, and sprinkle vets around them, so of course Davis and MKG would be getting a helluvalot more run than other guys like Drummond or other disappointments (maybe Beals?).

I don't want Drummond, but I'd take him if my big 4 are gone, just not before my big 4. I am also intrigued by Lamb, but obviously not in my tp 3, top 4 maybe (as I'd like to push Sully as far down as possible as I dont believe he'll be anything better than good, which means we still need 1-2 more elite super ceiling guys and have not effectively addressed that issue, still, even after a season like this, though of course getting a player with his work rate, and mental make up would be ahelp, it would still be a complementary move, not a game changer, in this draft, the only game changers to me are Davis, Drummond and PJIII if they both get it some day (I have higher hopes for Drummond than PJ3 at this point), and maybe MKG, after them, there are about 5 or 6 guys that depending upon your interest and evals are good or great complementary guys.
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 9,593
And1: 3,023
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#790 » by pancakes3 » Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:06 pm

i wouldn't draft drummond at all. i'd chance it with perry jones before i draft drummond. there's just nothing there - and he shoots 34% from the line to boot!

i wouldn't draft any other PF to play at C and trade mcgee away either. that doesn't make any sense.

also, just want to be a bit cautious about sullinger. he's a tubby one. 280 already. i know he's a hard worker but it'd be a shame if he mike sweetney's himself out of the league.

draft rankings (essentially PF rankings)
Davis, Gilchrist, Sullinger, Henson, Beal, Robinson, Jones.
Bullets -> Wizards
The Consiglieri
Veteran
Posts: 2,896
And1: 1,065
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#791 » by The Consiglieri » Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:47 pm

pancakes3 wrote:i wouldn't draft drummond at all. i'd chance it with perry jones before i draft drummond. there's just nothing there - and he shoots 34% from the line to boot!

i wouldn't draft any other PF to play at C and trade mcgee away either. that doesn't make any sense.

also, just want to be a bit cautious about sullinger. he's a tubby one. 280 already. i know he's a hard worker but it'd be a shame if he mike sweetney's himself out of the league.

draft rankings (essentially PF rankings)
Davis, Gilchrist, Sullinger, Henson, Beal, Robinson, Jones.


I think it's way too early to cast Drummond as an empty pair of shorts and tank top metaphorically speaking. No way no how. He's what, 20 games into his college career playing with a team that was already loaded. I am nowhere near as excited about him as I am about Davis, but at the same time I think its WAY WAY WAY too early to cast him as a straight up bust. I will say that id be much more happy drafting him after his sophmore season than now, i think he clearly needs more time, whereas i think Davis is draftable immediately.

My top few guys in a few... (not that you're all waiting with baited breath :wink: ),
User avatar
kirubel94
Sophomore
Posts: 249
And1: 11
Joined: Feb 16, 2010

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#792 » by kirubel94 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:50 am

Have you guys heard of Arnett Moultrie?, An athletic 6-11 PF with outside and inside game, really good rebounder, he is very similar to Thomas Robinson but with a better jumper.(about 4 months older than Robinson)
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Arn ... trie-5754/

Stats Compared to Robinson are very similar
Moultrie
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... t-moultrie

Robinson

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... s-robinson
User avatar
Ed Wood
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,763
And1: 330
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
Location: I appreciate Kevin Seraphin's affinity for hacks
Contact:
   

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#793 » by Ed Wood » Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:19 am

I'm actually pretty taken with Moultrie, in part because he isn't quite a fashionable item in draft circles just yet and that allow me to work him into ridiculous draft scenarios in which he's brought in for a late first and I can't believe that will shake out as a possible scenario. He's not flawless as a prospect by any means but a value investor can't be dissuaded so easily. The two major concerns to my way of thinking are:

1. That he hasn't a track record remotely in keeping with the excellent year he's been having. The fact that he has more or less no track record to speak of at all is actually mitigating in this case because it isn't a scenario where he seems to have figured out how to take advantage of inferior competition and he was always regarded as a player who doesn't lack for talent by any stretch. Really it's just a problem with the how reliably his performance would hold up over a longer statistical record. Thus far in SEC games he's kept it up pretty well so I'm fairly sanguine.

2. There have been some unkind but entirely subjective reviews based on intangibles, Givony's tweet about not really going in for defense and the like. The entire Mississippi State team like as not leaves a lot of NBA people squirrely, though that's mostly just the ambiance of the Renardo Sidney situation. I wonder if some of the character and effort noise isn't overcompensation for the general bad taste regarding the program, Moultrie's block numbers have been scrutinized but Thomas Robinson doesn't do much better and he's a saint, but there is a lot of smoke. It might turn out that he's a Marreese Speights case such that his production is quite appealing right down to his metrics and peripherals but he isn't necessarily all that valuable because he's only passingly acquainted with defense.

In sum though Moultrie looks a lot like the Platonic Andray Blatche. Big, athletic, fairly skilled, but actually fairly good with minor details like scoring efficiently and rebounding well. I'm actually a little bothered just because he seems so like what Andray's skill set should add up to but I think that's really just habitual pessimism. So yes, a fan, fond of him.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 55,042
And1: 10,567
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#794 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:23 am

fishercob wrote:
closg00 wrote:The tank-battle is actually close for-now. The Cats are supposed to shake-up things soon, I am hoping they start winning more.


Remember their "resurgence" under Paul Silas as clear evidence that all the Wiz needed to do was fire Flip? To be clear, I do think Flip should be replaced, but the point is that talent is what matters first and foremost in the NBA. There's no coach that could make the Bobs or the Wiz as currently constructed into a decent team. Hell, I'm not even sure combining the two rosters would yield a decent squad.


Recall the players that did very well under Silas were traded for purely economic reasons.

Gerald Wallace was traded when the Bobcats were playoff-eligible and had a winning record under Silas. Stephen Jackson, Kwame Brown, and Nazr Mohammed are also no longer with the Bobcats. Those guys were the guys Paul Silas won with. fish, I do believe talent wins. However, IMO coaching makes a big difference. They had the experience and enough talent to win but they lost under Larry Brown and won under Silas.

This season, Silas has a rebuilding team with guys like Walker, Henderson, Mullens, and Biyombo all jockeying for playing time. The Bobcats are not the same team this season.
Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,582
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#795 » by Ruzious » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:00 am

theboomking wrote:Before the season, everyone was talking about Drummond as a PF. Is it safe to say that that idea has died? Drummond can probably defend centers man to man, and anchor a defense, but is a remarkably poor rebounder as a center. We'd best pair him with a PF that can both rebound and shoot if we draft him.

Drummond at C and trade McGee for a quality PF?

You make some peculiar observations about Drummond. I haven't heard anyone seriously consider him as a PF, and he's not a remarkably poor rebounder by any stretch of the imagination. What he is is a remarkably talented freshman who's still on the raw side and playing on a team that doesn't pass the ball. Lamb is the overrated prospect on UConn. It's funny - people do this year after year. When a player is very underrated one year, people overcompensate for missing him the next year and end up overrating him. That's what's happened with Lamb.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
Severn Hoos
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,443
And1: 223
Joined: May 09, 2002

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#796 » by Severn Hoos » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:37 am

Or overrate one year and then underrate the next (Sullinger)?

Lamb is an interesting case. nbadraft.net has had him top 3 all year. (But then they have the Wiz taking Drummond over Davis at #1, so go figure.) draftexpress has had him outside the top 10 all year. For a projected Lottery guy, that's a huge swing of opinion.

FWIW, if I thought he really would be available for a late Lotto pick, I would absolutely do everything possible (OK, within reason) to get a pick in the 10-14 range. He'd be a huge value there. Top 3? Um, not a value pick. And if you could, for example, turn the #2 pick (Drummond) into the #5 and #10 picks (Robinson/Sullinger and Lamb), then I would pull the trigger in an instant - again, provided you knew you could get Lamb at 10.

It's interesting - I really do think that we're looking at getting a solid, contributing player. Robinson, Sullinger, Lamb, Gilchrest, Barnes all look like starters, the kind of guy who could be the third member of a Big 3, maybe even sniff an All-Star Game or two. But outside Davis, I don't see any budding superstars, and wishing for it from a PJ3 or Drummond doesn't make it so.

In other words, I have reset my expectations. Pin all our hopes on the Lotto balls, and barring that - add a solid piece, take a shot in FA if the opportunity presents itself for that franchise-changing player (Howard - yeah, right), and keep the powder dry for 2013. Not as exciting, but beats another year of sheer knuckleheadedness and historically inept offensive output (emphasis on the word "offensive").
"A society that puts equality - in the sense of equality of outcome - ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom" Milton Friedman, Free to Choose
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 9,593
And1: 3,023
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#797 » by pancakes3 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:29 pm

Severn Hoos wrote:FWIW, if I thought he really would be available for a late Lotto pick, I would absolutely do everything possible (OK, within reason) to get a pick in the 10-14 range. He'd be a huge value there. Top 3? Um, not a value pick. And if you could, for example, turn the #2 pick (Drummond) into the #5 and #10 picks (Robinson/Sullinger and Lamb), then I would pull the trigger in an instant - again, provided you knew you could get Lamb at 10.


it'd take a good bit more than just the #2 to pick up two top 10 picks. would you be willing to tack on vesely? vesely and future picks? vesely, future picks, and cash? vesely, future picks, cash, and a bad contract?
Bullets -> Wizards
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,705
And1: 23,195
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#798 » by nate33 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:04 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Severn Hoos wrote:FWIW, if I thought he really would be available for a late Lotto pick, I would absolutely do everything possible (OK, within reason) to get a pick in the 10-14 range. He'd be a huge value there. Top 3? Um, not a value pick. And if you could, for example, turn the #2 pick (Drummond) into the #5 and #10 picks (Robinson/Sullinger and Lamb), then I would pull the trigger in an instant - again, provided you knew you could get Lamb at 10.


it'd take a good bit more than just the #2 to pick up two top 10 picks. would you be willing to tack on vesely? vesely and future picks? vesely, future picks, and cash? vesely, future picks, cash, and a bad contract?

Yes. I'd trade our #2 plus Vesely for the #5 and #10, but only if Robinson was on the board at #5.
Severn Hoos
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,443
And1: 223
Joined: May 09, 2002

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#799 » by Severn Hoos » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:36 pm

nate33 wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
Severn Hoos wrote:FWIW, if I thought he really would be available for a late Lotto pick, I would absolutely do everything possible (OK, within reason) to get a pick in the 10-14 range. He'd be a huge value there. Top 3? Um, not a value pick. And if you could, for example, turn the #2 pick (Drummond) into the #5 and #10 picks (Robinson/Sullinger and Lamb), then I would pull the trigger in an instant - again, provided you knew you could get Lamb at 10.


it'd take a good bit more than just the #2 to pick up two top 10 picks. would you be willing to tack on vesely? vesely and future picks? vesely, future picks, and cash? vesely, future picks, cash, and a bad contract?

Yes. I'd trade our #2 plus Vesely for the #5 and #10, but only if Robinson was on the board at #5.

Agreed, in terms of value, #2 (Drummond) + Vesely for Sullinger/Robinson + Lamb is a great deal for the Wiz.

Problem is, the only way any team considers that deal is if they're convinced Drummond is the 1A pick in this draft. So the way to play the hand would be to take Drummond and wait to see who's there at 5. Unfortunately, if the guy we want isn't there, or the other team backs out, we could get "stuck" with Drummond. Some might not mind that, but I don't think that's best for the franchise.

It kills me to think of how the Bulls basically bought a #7 pick (Deng) and the Cavs stole the #1 pick (Irving) from the Clipps in the Baron Davis deal. Sure wish we could get in on that action. I mean, I do like grabbing extra picks in the teens, but want a real Lotto pick for once.

Houston & Boston could both have two picks in the teens. Maybe we could find a way to get one of those and then move up from there.

And last thought - right now, draftexpress has Doron Lamb at the #31 slot (owned, of course, by the Wiz). Watching Jodie Meeks last night gives a glimpse into what Lamb could be. In addition to the UK connection, they are similar size, great shooters from distance, and could be very valuable as a designated shooter, preferably off the bench.
"A society that puts equality - in the sense of equality of outcome - ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom" Milton Friedman, Free to Choose
Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,582
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: 2012 NBA Draft 

Post#800 » by Ruzious » Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:00 pm

Speaking of Meeks, there's a clone of his on Vanderbilt named John Jenkins - same size - same shooting touch on 3 balls. I also like a Dukee for that role that nobody talks about - Johnny D's son - Andre Dawkins. They're 1 dimentional players, but when you can shoot like them, you got a good shot at contributining in the NBA. Andre will probably stay at Duke for his senior year (since he might not even get drafted), but then again Duke has recruited so many shooting guards that it makes me wonder - especially if he's prominent in the NCAA Tournament.

Actually, I think Doron Lamb is a more all around player than Meeks but isn't quite as strongly built.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams

Return to Washington Wizards