2012 NBA Draft - Part II

[7-Day Dray]

What I want to ask the pro-MKG people is what makes him more of a sure thing than Barnes? If Barnes fails to develop his game further, he at least has something to fall back on. MKG is the least skilled projected top-5 pick.

[The Consiglieri]

What I want to ask the pro-MKG people is what makes him more of a sure thing than Barnes? If Barnes fails to develop his game further, he at least has something to fall back on. MKG is the least skilled projected top-5 pick.

The only skill he lacks is shooting. He's talented at every single aspect of the game save that, and he's not a horrible shooter like Ves, it's just his greatest weakest for now. Exceptionally high motor, BBIQ, play on defensive end, play on the boards, he does EVERYTHING, while Barnes does little other than shoot, and he didnt improve in any area since leaving high school. Barnes is easily the least attractive option of any guy i can think of going top 10 because of all of these issues and more.

If it isnt MKG (and Im not locked on MKG at 2), there is still Beal, and Robinson and even Drummond as reasonable options at 2, hell, Id take Drummond 10 times out of 10 at 2 then Barnes as at least Drummond represents possibilities.

The problem I have with Barnes was elegantly and emphatically articulated in Grantland (and referenced by me and other earlier in this thread), at the end of the day, he improved on little, impacts little, and is not a great or even very good college player for all intents and purposes. I wouldn't take him top 15 at this point, and maybe not top 20.

That's another interesting thing, MKG can fall back on every single thing he does, and he does them all, on the court when his shot isn't falling, the telling thing is turning around your premise and showing that when Barne's shot isn't falling, he impacts the game not at all. MKG impacts it across the board, shot falling or no. That's what I love about the big 4, all four of these guys do the little things, have great motors, mental make ups, BBIQ, and are great team players with a highly energetic and hungry approach to the game. Barnes is cerebral but without that "Finish him Johnny, Finish him!" cutthroat purposefullness to his BBIQ, he's a violinist in a room full of percussionists. Barnes will be a great, great fit for a team that already has all the pieces in place and could just use a dead eye shooter, for a team in desperate need of help like us, or the other high lotto squads, he'd be a disaster. Hell, if we took him, we should just change our minds and go with PJ3 who at least has the capacity of greatness in him, if, like Barnes, lacks the mental make up and approach for it (though in PJ3's case, he does actually have the talent for the role).

Interesting sidenote, I was telling my brother about the prospects available, and i just did a cursory look at Robinson's performance since he was interviewed on SVP, and talked about his disappointment in himself, and in owning the failure of Kansas in the big12 tourney 4 weeks ago. He was so classy in that interview, i was so so so damn impressed with him. He acted as a leader, and owned everything, showed neither defensiveness, nor justifications or blaming of others. He was totally accountable. Then he and Kansas played in the NCAA's and he did this:

16-13

11-13

18-15

18-9

19-8

18-17


Remarkably consistent and reliable. I really like that.

[gesa2]

...
I think you're referencing me twice, as I was the one who went after Nivek's Drummond take. I also said we couldn't afford to swing and miss, and I still feel that way, though I'd also be someone who could (and has) repeatedly said that you can't afford to go it safe on draft day (part of the reason i attacked the hell out of the Marcus Morris and associated low ceiling targets), but Drummond is a huge risk for a team that probably wont pick this high again for a while unless it loses Wall to free agency. I definitely agree that you can't be gunshy with the draft, that you have to take risks, but when you measure the risk and upside of Drummond with MKG/Beal and even Robinson, I don't believe you can say yes to Drummond when you have a team like ours. If we had much better leadership, FO support, and a quality locker room I might not be so steadfast against it, but with our issues, what we need most of all is a great mix of raw ability, BBIQ, motor and leadrship. The best combination of those qualities, and clearly Drummond only has one of the four in spades, while the others have 3 or all 4 of the 4 qualities. As such, and considering the ceilings of the second tier guys are all in the "Above average to potential all star" area, I don't believe its worth passing on them for the higher ceiling of Drummond, until 5.

As for the Drummond, Robinson deal. I also said that. Robinson didnt produce because he had better players ahead of him and didnt have anywhere near the same demands placed upon him, his metrics are meaningless from that year because the sampling data is far far far too small to be illustrative of anything. All one can take away from it to me is that Robinson wasn't good enough to start ahead of admittedly better options than him and what Drummond had to contend with at UConn.

Drummond lacks qualities Robinson has now, but Drummond is also a kid, and a kid who it wasnt even clear would go to college, let alone UConn until the very last minute. Im inclined to give the kid some room and understanding because of all the variables at work in his poor season. Lack of leadership, terrible overall performance by the vets, radical instability at the coaching staff level (and with his health), and in his own choices it was never clear till the last second what he was actually going to do, go to school or not, where, etc. It was ANYTHING but ideal, and definitely not like going to Kentucky to play with team first, high BBIQ, character guys like Davis, and MKG, or play with Donovan and a vet Florida team like Beal did (though Beal also disappointed for the first half, but not the second, of the season), or play at UNC with a great collection of talent and BBIQ like McAdoo got, and great coaching. Drummond picked a ghastly scenario, and it played out as bad as it could have.

As it plays out it will be a hugely interesting debate going forward and thru the next year or two:

1. Davis

2. MKG/Beal/Robinson-a justification can be made for any of them at 2,3 and 4.

5. Drummond-Rated #1 overall slightly ahead of Davis last June, and now having fallen quite a bit.

The rest (great options last at least till 20).

After slot 1, we will be debating the choice for potentially a really long time, but for now, Im just savoring the 3 game lead with 10 to play over New Orleans, and the hopes that at worst, we lock in 2 overall pre-lottery.

Very nicely worded summary Consiglieri, and I agree with your reasoning to a point. Production has to matter more than potential past pick #4 though. I would favor trading down over taking the risk of drafting Drummond. If we could get 2 1sts, or a mid-late lottery and dump Blatche, I think we'd be better off. Too much downside risk to be worth it IMO. I think Drummond belongs with PJ3 as interesting picks in late lottery, not worth the risk earlier.

[The Consiglieri]

...
I think you're referencing me twice, as I was the one who went after Nivek's Drummond take. I also said we couldn't afford to swing and miss, and I still feel that way, though I'd also be someone who could (and has) repeatedly said that you can't afford to go it safe on draft day (part of the reason i attacked the hell out of the Marcus Morris and associated low ceiling targets), but Drummond is a huge risk for a team that probably wont pick this high again for a while unless it loses Wall to free agency. I definitely agree that you can't be gunshy with the draft, that you have to take risks, but when you measure the risk and upside of Drummond with MKG/Beal and even Robinson, I don't believe you can say yes to Drummond when you have a team like ours. If we had much better leadership, FO support, and a quality locker room I might not be so steadfast against it, but with our issues, what we need most of all is a great mix of raw ability, BBIQ, motor and leadrship. The best combination of those qualities, and clearly Drummond only has one of the four in spades, while the others have 3 or all 4 of the 4 qualities. As such, and considering the ceilings of the second tier guys are all in the "Above average to potential all star" area, I don't believe its worth passing on them for the higher ceiling of Drummond, until 5.

As for the Drummond, Robinson deal. I also said that. Robinson didnt produce because he had better players ahead of him and didnt have anywhere near the same demands placed upon him, his metrics are meaningless from that year because the sampling data is far far far too small to be illustrative of anything. All one can take away from it to me is that Robinson wasn't good enough to start ahead of admittedly better options than him and what Drummond had to contend with at UConn.

Drummond lacks qualities Robinson has now, but Drummond is also a kid, and a kid who it wasnt even clear would go to college, let alone UConn until the very last minute. Im inclined to give the kid some room and understanding because of all the variables at work in his poor season. Lack of leadership, terrible overall performance by the vets, radical instability at the coaching staff level (and with his health), and in his own choices it was never clear till the last second what he was actually going to do, go to school or not, where, etc. It was ANYTHING but ideal, and definitely not like going to Kentucky to play with team first, high BBIQ, character guys like Davis, and MKG, or play with Donovan and a vet Florida team like Beal did (though Beal also disappointed for the first half, but not the second, of the season), or play at UNC with a great collection of talent and BBIQ like McAdoo got, and great coaching. Drummond picked a ghastly scenario, and it played out as bad as it could have.

As it plays out it will be a hugely interesting debate going forward and thru the next year or two:

1. Davis

2. MKG/Beal/Robinson-a justification can be made for any of them at 2,3 and 4.

5. Drummond-Rated #1 overall slightly ahead of Davis last June, and now having fallen quite a bit.

The rest (great options last at least till 20).

After slot 1, we will be debating the choice for potentially a really long time, but for now, Im just savoring the 3 game lead with 10 to play over New Orleans, and the hopes that at worst, we lock in 2 overall pre-lottery.

Very nicely worded summary Consiglieri, and I agree with your reasoning to a point. Production has to matter more than potential past pick #4 though. I would favor trading down over taking the risk of drafting Drummond. If we could get 2 1sts, or a mid-late lottery and dump Blatche, I think we'd be better off. Too much downside risk to be worth it IMO. I think Drummond belongs with PJ3 as interesting picks in late lottery, not worth the risk earlier.

Oh, I'm totally w/you, i just think if we were stuck at 5, drummond should be the pick, but id definitely want the trade down. I'd do that in a second for a pick in the 6-10 area and one in that 10-16 area just because i think the strength of the draft is its depth (about 20 picks deep).

[Jay81]

Robinson will be declaring tomorrow for nba draft

[Severn Hoos]

Then he and Kansas played in the NCAA's and he did this:

16-13

11-13

18-15

18-9

19-8

18-17


Remarkably consistent and reliable. I really like that.

Sigh - I know I'm the hater here, but the fact remains:

.538

.167

.412

.375

.444

.353

Remarkably consistent, you might say

[gesa2]

Then he and Kansas played in the NCAA's and he did this:

16-13

11-13

18-15

18-9

19-8

18-17


Remarkably consistent and reliable. I really like that.

Sigh - I know I'm the hater here, but the fact remains:

.538

.167

.412

.375

.444

.353

Remarkably consistent, you might say

The rebounds were consistent though. With anybody but Davis, we're looking at players with at least one hole in their game, but significant strengths too. Robinson's not as much of a scorer as his counting stats indicate, but he has other strengths.

[Mizerooskie]

To say MKG is talented at every skill other than shooting is a stretch.

He's not a very good passer, and only an okay ball handler. (as indicated by his 1.9/2.2 assist-to-turnover ratio).

He's quickly becoming overrated on here. His upside is probably a slightly better version of Gerald Wallace. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that. A better version of Gerald Wallace would be an excellent player. But I don't see a franchise player. When was the last time a 3 came into the league and became a top-tier player that shot under 30% from 3 in college?

I'm more and more falling into the school of thought that after Davis, there's no one terribly exciting.

[miller31time]

I still want Beal as the draft pick. We've sort of forgotten about him because of the allure of potentially adding Anthony Davis (not happening), and Thomas Robinson leading his team to the championship game. But Bradley Beal, at just 18 years of age, is clearly the best player on his team and a steadying presence -- something that impresses me a lot out of a kid so young.

I think his transition to the NBA game will be easier than most in this draft.

RE: Michael Kidd-Gilchrest -- I'm not impressed. I know it's sort of elementary to say and ignores a lot of statistics that point to him being an impact player at the next level but he just doesn't stand out enough. He doesn't have that "wow" factor that is so common from players taken in the top of the draft. Deeming him a rich man's Gerald Wallace assumes he'll be as good as Gerald Wallace which I'm not convinced is a certainty.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

For this team, I think Brad Beal is a very good pick, miller. The Wizards just drafted Singleton and Vesley. Cartier Martin can fill in at SF, too. Also, there are FAs like Gerald Green, Alonzo Gee for cheap. Batum is there if they want to spend money. I really believe DC has a good shot at Batum.

If the Wizards draft Beal and Will Barton, along with Scott Machado; they will address their deficiencies in defense, rebounding, and shooting on the perimeter. Jordan Crawford is a guy they need to deal.

[Mizerooskie]

For this team, I think Brad Beal is a very good pick, miller. The Wizards just drafted Singleton and Vesley. Cartier Martin can fill in at SF, too. Also, there are FAs like Gerald Green, Alonzo Gee for cheap. Batum is there if they want to spend money. I really believe DC has a good shot at Batum.

If the Wizards draft Beal and Will Barton, along with Scott Machado; they will address their deficiencies in defense, rebounding, and shooting on the perimeter. Jordan Crawford is a guy they need to deal.

I'd be very happy with a top 2 of Beal and Barton. Beal does really seem to be emerging as the best fit after Davis.

I could go either way on Machado. I wouldn't be upset with his selection, and I wouldn't be too excited. I'm prefer a guy like Jae Crowder if he falls, or a shooter like Hollis Thompson. Though I suppose a late 2nd round pick has a minimal chance of making any impact in the long run, anyway.

[Ruzious]

If the Wiz get the 4th or 5th pick in the lotto show, my first post will likely be "Pencil in Beal". He's the safe pick, because he's a nice fit, and he's a good player. And a case could be made that he'd be the BPA.

[pcbothwel]

I have to ask all the people who think Drummond is some "special" talent. What exactly seperates him from a guy like jeremy Tyler (who went in the mid-2nd last year)?...Seriously

[DCZards]

If the Wizards draft Beal and Will Barton, along with Scott Machado; they will address their deficiencies in defense, rebounding, and shooting on the perimeter. Jordan Crawford is a guy they need to deal.

I wouldn't be so quick to dump Crawford. Yes, he's still a chucker and his D is not that good, but if you look at Jordan's numbers since Nick was traded they've been impressive. Crawford brings a toughness, a competitiveness, an ability to score in bunches, a confidence and a swag that I really, really like.

In addition to being the Zards current starting SG, he is also probably the team's second best PG. Crawford, imo, is capable of being a decent backup at both guard positions. If the Zards do draft Beal, which may be the way to go, I'd expect (and want) them to keep Jordan as instant offense of the bench rather than depend on an unproven rookie like a Barton or Machado to fill that role.

Of course, if you can get a quality player in a deal for Jordan, you'd have to consider it.

[DCZards]

I think the Zards should look for toughness and rebounding with one of their second round picks. My sleeper there is W.V.'s Kevin Jones.

[Nivek]

I think the Zards should look for toughness and rebounding with one of their second round picks. My sleeper there is W.V.'s Kevin Jones.

I like Jones -- he has a late 1st/early 2nd score in my stuff. I've been pimping Crowder for awhile now, but he's the guy I'd want in the 2nd round. Crowder is a good rebounder (about a rebound less per 40 minutes than Jones), he'd add toughness, and he also brings some 3pt shooting.

Another "toughness and rebounding" pick in the 2nd round could be Ricardo Ratliffe from Missouri. Tony Mitchell from North Texas (better known for producing first-rate euphonium players) is another guy I like, but he'll probably go in the 1st round (if he enters the draft).

[Ruzious]

I have to ask all the people who think Drummond is some "special" talent. What exactly seperates him from a guy like jeremy Tyler (who went in the mid-2nd last year)?...Seriously

Didn't Tyler have all kinds of off-court issues?

[dobrojim]

I want to see Kev hit 3/10 FTs blindfolded
I have serious doubts but I'd be beyond impressed if he could do it.
I have guest passes at the Y in Reston. Verbal8 can verify.
And I also doubt you can out FT shoot my daughter.
(neither can I)

I like Beal as a pick and I'd love to add Crowder or Dra Green

Craft would also be a nice pickup with our 2nd 2nd if he lasts that long

I'm with zards on Crawford. He has more potential than some here are
giving him credit for. The flaws are so obvious that folks are overlooking
what he has accomplished. Now if you believe he is already everything
he might become, than I'd have less hope. I'm not ready to make that assumption.

[pcbothwel]

I have to ask all the people who think Drummond is some "special" talent. What exactly seperates him from a guy like jeremy Tyler (who went in the mid-2nd last year)?...Seriously

Didn't Tyler have all kinds of off-court issues?

Not really. In fact, if you listen to all his predraft interviews you will hear how he has matured and been humbled by the overseas experience. Both guys are identical in measurements and tools(Drummond is probably a better passer where Tyler was stronger down low).

DCZards - I could not agree more with Crawford. I think if you take Beal and make Crawford your back-up PG/SG you'll see a huge improvement in the Start line up ball movement and our backups scoring. It simply adds a cerebrel Harden type player next to Wall(what he needs) and accentuates Crawfords positives. Beal in the 1st with a PF/SF combo in the second such as PF:Nicholson/Jones/Gordon, SF:Crowder/Barton/Thompson would be a VERY good draft.

[Nivek]

I want to see Kev hit 3/10 FTs blindfolded
I have serious doubts but I'd be beyond impressed if he could do it.
I have guest passes at the Y in Reston. Verbal8 can verify.
And I also doubt you can out FT shoot my daughter.
(neither can I)

I was a really good FT shooter a million years ago in high school. I'm not that proficient any more -- I haven't touched a ball in a year (frigging knees). I actually used to practice shooting free throws with my eyes closed. Once I had my feet where I wanted them, I had a routine I'd do and then the shot was almost automatic. I don't think I could hit 3-in-10 blindfolded today, but I could probably do it in a few weeks.

I like Beal as a pick and I'd love to add Crowder or Dra Green

In my stuff, if you take out the guys who rate high but won't go until later (Crowder, Lillard and Denmon), I have Beal rated a little behind MKG and Robinson -- in a group with T.Zeller and Sullinger. If the Wizards pick 4th, I think Beal would be fine. Davis, MKG and Robinson are ahead of him in my stuff, though.

Craft would also be a nice pickup with our 2nd 2nd if he lasts that long

He's just a sophomore so he's almost certainly going back to school.

I'm with zards on Crawford. He has more potential than some here are
giving him credit for. The flaws are so obvious that folks are overlooking
what he has accomplished. Now if you believe he is already everything
he might become, than I'd have less hope. I'm not ready to make that assumption.

Inefficient gunners are easy to replace. I like Crawford's competitiveness, but I don't like his game. I think the Wizards could upgrade there with a quality 2nd round pick -- a guy like Denmon would better, I think.