2012 NBA Draft - Part II

[Severn Hoos]

Mike Scott says, "Remember kids, stay in school. It pays off in the long run."

[Jay81]

If Cousins can become a dominant center....no reason why Drummond cant. I still think Drummond ends up going #2. MKG 3 and Robinson 4

[llcc25]

++If we land Davis and SAC offers up Cousins + their #1, for Davis and Vesely (to make salaries work) do we bite or pass? As much as I love Davis, he still has alot of work to do on offensive end to be an effective low post threat. Cousins has shown that he can really dominate on the offensive side of the ball and he IMO has eclipsed Bynum as arguably the 2nd best cener NBA behind Howard. If he keeps his head straight, there is no reason he can't be #1 center for years to come. I'd lean toward making the trade if we could add Beal.

Our realistic lineup could look like this:

C-Cousins, Seraphin
PF-Nene, Booker, Blatche
SF- FA (Gerald/Danny Green)/Singleton
SG-Beal, Crawford
PG-Wall, Mack

[tontoz]

If Cousins can become a dominant center....no reason why Drummond cant. I still think Drummond ends up going #2. MKG 3 and Robinson 4

First of all Drummond wasn't nearly as productive as Cousins in college. Secondly Cousins is pretty far from dominant. He has the highest usage rate of any 4/5 in the NBA but there are 100 bigs with a higher TS%.

Speaking strictly about scoring Cousins is the Jordan Crawford of bigs. In fact his TS% is only 1% better than Crawford. He is a good rebounder but his offense isn't that good.

[FAH1223]

++If we land Davis and SAC offers up Cousins + their #1, for Davis and Vesely (to make salaries work) do we bite or pass? As much as I love Davis, he still has alot of work to do on offensive end to be an effective low post threat. Cousins has shown that he can really dominate on the offensive side of the ball and he IMO has eclipsed Bynum as arguably the 2nd best cener NBA behind Howard. If he keeps his head straight, there is no reason he can't be #1 center for years to come. I'd lean toward making the trade if we could add Beal.

Our realistic lineup could look like this:

C-Cousins, Seraphin
PF-Nene, Booker, Blatche
SF- FA (Gerald/Danny Green)/Singleton
SG-Beal, Crawford
PG-Wall, Mack

Bynum is much better. Bynum is also more efficient. Bynum's only issue is health and motivation.

Cousins is still not efficient enough despite the big games he has had.

[Ruzious]

Btw, there's an absolutely dominant 6'8 big on Baylor - goes by the name of Griner... might be a bigger celebrity there right now than RG3.

[Dat2U]

I wouldn't trade the #1 pick for anyone. Davis is just too good. Plus we'd have him on a rookie deal for 4 years! Not passing that up.

I would consider trading the pick or trading down if we miss on Davis. I'm still sold on Kidd-Gilchrist at 2. So I would have to be blown away there. The lower we are in the lottery the more predisposed I would be to trading the pick.

TIER ONE: surefire All-Stars/franchise players.
1. PF Anthony Davis

TIER TWO: starters and potential All-Stars.
(None, I've come to agree with Sev that there are no clear cut guaranteed all-stars in this class outside of Davis)

TIER THREE: NBA All-Star potential, but all have significant weaknesses that could keep them from living up to it.
2. SF Michael Kidd-Gilchrist... jump shot
3. PF Thomas Robinson... offensive skillset, ability to challenge shots?
4. SG Bradley Beal... ceiling? height?
5. CE Andre Drummond... motivation? immaturity
6. PF Jared Sullinger... weight, athleticism
7. PF John Henson... offensive limitations
8. PG Damian Lillard... competition in college
9. CE Meyers Leonard... motivation?
10. PF Terrence Jones... antoine walker gene?

TIER FOUR: potential starters or quality depth off the bench.
11. CE Tyler Zeller... limited upside. Doesn't have great length or athleticism
12. SG Dion Waiters... streaky shooter
13. SG Jeremy Lamb... motivation
14. PF Tony Mitchell... competition in college
15. SG Will Barton... slight frame, decision making
16. SF Harrison Barnes... ball-handling. Abit one dimensional
17. PF Perry Jones III... motivation, defense
18. SG Terrence Ross... ballhandling, slashing ability
19. SF Jae Crowder... older prospect. tweener?

TIER FIVE: potential role players but all have significant weaknesses that could keep them from being in a regular rotation. Roster depth.
20. CE Fab Melo... character?
21. SG Austin Rivers... overall effectiveness. Tunnel vision?
22. PF Arnett Moultrie... immaturity. offensive skillset
23. PF Andrew Nicholson... defense?
24. SG Doron Lamb... contributions outside of scoring?
25. PG Kendall Marshall... ability to score, make shots
26. SF Evan Fournier... lateral quickness
27. PF Mason Plumlee... lack of offensive skill. Terrible ft shooter.
28. SG John Jenkins... athleticism
29. SF Maurice Harkless... efficiency, effectiveness
30. SF Draymond Green... undefined position. tweener-ish

[dobrojim]

I wouldn't trade the #1 pick for anyone. Davis is just too good. Plus we'd have him on a rookie deal for 4 years! Not passing that up.

I would consider trading the pick or trading down if we miss on Davis. I'm still sold on Kidd-Gilchrist at 2. So I would have to be blown away there. The lower we are in the lottery the more predisposed I would be to trading the pick.

[snip]

+1 on both thoughts, although I am slightly leery of MKG, but only slightly.

no major disagreements with your tier placements either although I like
Zeller more than you do. I just have a feeling about the guy.

If we drop to 4/5, I would definitely consider trading down for multiple picks.
There are a bunch of guys who have a chance to be much better than they are
currently ranked by DX. But that's probably true most years anyway.

[doclinkin]

I wouldn't trade the #1 pick for anyone. Davis is just too good. Plus we'd have him on a rookie deal for 4 years! Not passing that up.

I would consider trading the pick or trading down if we miss on Davis. I'm still sold on Kidd-Gilchrist at 2. So I would have to be blown away there.

I do suspect MKG is vulnerable to slip a bit in the interview process. By accounts out of Kentucky he's a good kid, hard working, strong drive to win, instituted their Breakfast Club to be first in the gym every day, but as I said in the 'smarts' thread, he's inarticulate to the point of insensibility at times, raising question marks.

Coach Cal's system is noted for allowing players the freedom to improvise within a basic structure, but for teams that run a less free-form system I suspect his ability to grasp it may be in question following one-on-ones with GMs and coaches. Saying nothing about his actual intelligence -- of which I have no knowledge one way or the other, maybe he's shy, maybe whatever-- just saying I suspect doubts will be raised in the minds of the decision-makers.

[Ruzious]

MKG has some kind of studdering problem. It's not the standard kind that's often mimicked, but one where he pauses for a while...

...

in between words. It's got nothing to do with intelligence.

[dangermouse]

I'd do the #2 pick in the draft +whatever it took to get Cousins here. I wouldnt use #1 - Anthony Davis as bait. All scouts are now saying he is a franchise changer. We can't give that up if we get it. At #2 i'm doing MKG over T-Rob. I have soured on T-Rob of late, and will continue to sour depending on his actual height, and I think MKG has Pippen potential. Well, at least Iguodala potential.

[Dat2U]

So was Moses Malone. I'm not sure it means much of anything. I know some successful hardworking businessmen that totally butcher the english language with every sentence they utter. If GM's are scared off because player is inarticulate then their probably in the wrong profession.

[dobrojim]

I'm a lot more interested in his IQ on the court than off unless
there was clearly an egregious problem (off) which we don't have.
And stuttering has nothing to do with smarts. My father, a MS Elect
Engineer who did satellite communications when it was brand new
stuttered most of his life. He was no dummy.

[DCZards]

I do suspect MKG is vulnerable to slip a bit in the interview process. By accounts out of Kentucky he's a good kid, hard working, strong drive to win, instituted their Breakfast Club to be first in the gym every day, but as I said in the 'smarts' thread, he's inarticulate to the point of insensibility at times, raising question marks.

Coach Cal's system is noted for allowing players the freedom to improvise within a basic structure, but for teams that run a less free-form system I suspect his ability to grasp it may be in question following one-on-ones with GMs and coaches. Saying nothing about his actual intelligence -- of which I have no knowledge one way or the other, maybe he's shy, maybe whatever-- just saying I suspect doubts will be raised in the minds of the decision-makers.

Glad you added that last part, doc, you had me worried for a minute. Because I'm sure you know folks who are inarticulate yet, at the same time, very bright. I'm sure the decision-makers will consider MKG's bball IQ, work ethic and physical gifts much more than consider his ability to speak the King's English.

[The Consiglieri]

I wouldn't trade the #1 pick for anyone. Davis is just too good. Plus we'd have him on a rookie deal for 4 years! Not passing that up.

I would consider trading the pick or trading down if we miss on Davis. I'm still sold on Kidd-Gilchrist at 2. So I would have to be blown away there. The lower we are in the lottery the more predisposed I would be to trading the pick.

TIER ONE: surefire All-Stars/franchise players.
1. PF Anthony Davis

TIER TWO: starters and potential All-Stars.
(None, I've come to agree with Sev that there are no clear cut guaranteed all-stars in this class outside of Davis)

TIER THREE: NBA All-Star potential, but all have significant weaknesses that could keep them from living up to it.
2. SF Michael Kidd-Gilchrist... jump shot
3. PF Thomas Robinson... offensive skillset, ability to challenge shots?
4. SG Bradley Beal... ceiling? height?
5. CE Andre Drummond... motivation? immaturity
6. PF Jared Sullinger... weight, athleticism
7. PF John Henson... offensive limitations
8. PG Damian Lillard... competition in college
9. CE Meyers Leonard... motivation?
10. PF Terrence Jones... antoine walker gene?

TIER FOUR: potential starters or quality depth off the bench.
11. CE Tyler Zeller... limited upside. Doesn't have great length or athleticism
12. SG Dion Waiters... streaky shooter
13. SG Jeremy Lamb... motivation
14. PF Tony Mitchell... competition in college
15. SG Will Barton... slight frame, decision making
16. SF Harrison Barnes... ball-handling. Abit one dimensional
17. PF Perry Jones III... motivation, defense
18. SG Terrence Ross... ballhandling, slashing ability
19. SF Jae Crowder... older prospect. tweener?

TIER FIVE: potential role players but all have significant weaknesses that could keep them from being in a regular rotation. Roster depth.
20. CE Fab Melo... character?
21. SG Austin Rivers... overall effectiveness. Tunnel vision?
22. PF Arnett Moultrie... immaturity. offensive skillset
23. PF Andrew Nicholson... defense?
24. SG Doron Lamb... contributions outside of scoring?
25. PG Kendall Marshall... ability to score, make shots
26. SF Evan Fournier... lateral quickness
27. PF Mason Plumlee... lack of offensive skill. Terrible ft shooter.
28. SG John Jenkins... athleticism
29. SF Maurice Harkless... efficiency, effectiveness
30. SF Draymond Green... undefined position. tweener-ish

Beautifully done, and it helps for me that we are on the same page with so many players.

[doclinkin]

So was Moses Malone. I'm not sure it means much of anything. I know some successful hardworking businessmen that totally butcher the english language with every sentence they utter. If GM's are scared off because player is inarticulate then their probably in the wrong profession.

Agree or disagree I suspect it will happen. When a player like Anthony Davis is lauded for his sophisticated grasp of defensive concepts and evident understanding of the entire game, when he is interviewed post-game and clearly can iterate and analyze the team's shortcomings in a situation, we don't discount it as a useless skill. To the contrary, it's a key reason why he's held in high regard. He's both poised, hard-working, talented, and bright.

Consider pigskin prospect RG3. No way do we take a 2nd mortgage against our future draft picks if he interviewed like even a supertalent like Mike Vick. Vick's a fine player, but RG3 was able to breakdown the Skins' offense, discuss packages where he fit, suggest options within the package etc, and leave the Shanihannikins salivating over his evident intellect.

MKG may have all the capacity needed to understand and execute his coaches' game plans. So far I wonder if he's best able to act as his own advocate though. If a GM asks where he sees himself fitting in next to player X, how he sees his role in X system, and he has no answer, it may prove to be a conversation in the front office discussions. 'Do we trade out of this spot if someone offers a pitch?' vs 'Trade everything you can to get him.' Raises a question about his ultimate capacity to adjust when talent alone won't carry him.

(Granted, re RG3: a QB has a far different role to play in terms of gameplanning and execution of complex tasks. Just saying, you Interview Players for a reason. 'Talk Smarts' is part of the equation).

[Ruzious]

It's a good point that Doc brings up - how you handle and present a player with a speech problem. I worked with a young talented guy for a couple years - who had a speech impediment, and we just treated him like everyone else - sent him to clients like everyone else, and there weren't any real problems. But it's another thing to deal with the situation in front of millions of basketball fans. Then again, I don't think they expect him to be the face of the franchise - like the Skins likely want RG3 to be. And on the basketball court - it shouldn't be a problem.

[Severn Hoos]

Plus, I hate to say it, but basketball, like all sports, is a business first, entertainment second, and competition only third. Why did the Jets trade for Tebow? Have anything to do with selling tickets and jerseys, perhaps?

It would be foolish for a team to pick one guy or not pick another only because of the perceptions/fan buzz or whatever you want to call it. But I guarantee it comes into play as one of the factors. When fans identify with a player, they are more likely to root for the team in a way that goes to the emotional level. They are more likely to buy his jersey, come see him play live, etc. When they feel like they can't relate to the player(s), they are more likely to become indifferent. (and yes, there's the possibility that there could be a "rally round the kid" effect if he's taken in as "one of our boys" and the tribe feels that he's being mocked. You know, kind of like the fans did with McGee after the running downcourt while the team was on offense incident.)

And lastly - again, hate to say it, but they're just now emerging from the Nick Young experiment. It's obviously not a fair comparison, but it still could stick in their minds.

[Ruzious]

Channeling Mary Poppins - "Just a spoon full of cinnamon helps the IQ go down, the... IQ go down, the... IQ go down.

In the most destupid way."

[GhostsOfGil]

Via Chad Ford:

Once you form an early opinion of a player, it's hard to let go of that. Everyone (including me) loved Barnes so much in high school that we are always looking for the greatness and hanging on the glimpses of it. While I've personally started to come to grips with the fact that it's more likely he's a solid scoring wing, others still see greatness there. I've had some GMs tell me they'd still take him No. 2. Others have him much lower. I could say that about a lot of guys in this draft however.

Didnt Ernie fall in love with this guy last year?