2012 NBA Draft - Part III

[7-Day Dray]

Lastly, as much as I hate really, really long posts, I wanted to chime in on Gordon and Harden. I agree that we shouldn't pursue Gordon. I remain however, very enamoured with Harden. He seems like the only legitimate big free agent aquisition we might make prior to having to re-up with Wall. I must admit that although it isn't smart, part of my reluctance regarding Beal is that I would like to see the Wizards take a player at another position, and sign Harden as a FA. I think Harden probably is worth max money. I still think there is a solid chance he winds up having a better career than Westbrook. I don't think the thunder bite on this offer, but I would consider offering the second pick for Harden if we miss out on Davis. I'm not sure I see Gilchrist, Beal or Robinson being better NBA players than Harden. Maybe the Thunder think they can't afford Harden and either try to draft a replacement in Beal, or go for a high ceiling center in Drummond.

Why shouldn't we pursue Gordon? He's a very good player and has shown no ill-effects since coming back from injury. While his injury history is a legit concern, in order for the Wizards to become a good team, I think they have to explore taking risk like that as star SGs are hard to come by these days. Personall, I'd offer him the max, but I think NO would match any offer., so all this talk might be moot.

Harden is probably more attainable though because OKC will have so many contracts on the books in 2013.

I don't think Beal is on either of these two guys level.

[popper]

I'd love to acquire Harden but I think OKC figures out a way to keep him. I've only seen MKG a couple of times but he looks like he has Gerald Wallace potential. Beal looks like he could potentially become a superstar as well. I like Robinson but I'd almost rather have Zeller.

[DCZards]

As much as I want to like Crowder, I just don't see a ranking that puts him in the top ten players in this draft. I watched a lot of Marquette games and have always felt that Crowder played more like a PF than a SF, and the things that Jae was able to do in the paint at 6-6 in college he won't be able to do in the NBA.

As this paragraph from the DraftExpress write up about Crowder points out, Jae lacks some essential SF skills.

"Crowder's biggest weakness as a small forward prospect is his inability to create his own shot. A below average ball-handler, he has a difficult time scoring in isolation settings, not looking very fluid with the ball, and struggling to change directions on the fly. It's not a stretch to say that he will need to live off scraps in the NBA, which makes increasing the range and consistency of his jump-shot that much more important."

[truwizfan4evr]

Charles Barkley says they need to change the draft rules to keep bad teams from tanking for more lottery balls. I hope not lol

[The Consiglieri]

I think that Barnes has excellent foot strength and you see it on his step back k jumpers. Barnes has an alpha dog mentality and entire defenses in college were designed just to stop his pump fake dribble drive. Barnes has amazing body control and drive power. His jump shot will always force a defender to charge him and his ability to attack the rim with excellent body control and bulk is a tier two level talent for the wizards. I love the aggressiveness he shows attacking the rim. Since last year I said he reminds of Paul pierce long term. I think he is s better fit for us than Davis. I think Barnes is night and day a better fit for the wizards over mkg. Barnes is a player that Carries your team offensively and defensively each night especially next tho a guy like Wall. Barnes is a scorer, Wall is what i call break down point guard that punches holes in the defense but not a scorer. Barnes is a clean up man sort of like what Javale was on alley hoops when wall gets double teamed on a drive.
ONly thing better than a Barnes/Wall match made in heaven what Drummond will with 95 percent certainty transform into after three years with Nene. There is nothing scarier in the league than that him and Wall combined. Start racking up the championship Banners. I don't see another in the lottery with mentor that could get to Drummond like Nene can.
What I like about Barnes is that he is a player that is not only a great three point threat but when he drives into the lane, he has alot of bulk and size that is hard to knock off balance. Barnes is a serious offensive threat even after his intial shot is challenge. Complex defenses have to be designed to stop him and wall at the same time because not only can barnes attack from three point land, not only can he attack off pump fakes, but he has a beautiful post game like paul pierce. He also has the footspeed to guard shooting guards and you never have to worry about him getting posted up.
Barnes next to wall is a franchise player. He is a better fit next to wall over mkg, beal, and davis. His intangibles fit the wizards culture perfectly. if we come away with Barnes I think we have picked the player that for years becomes our version of paul pierce. Paul pierce for many years is the engine that carries the celtics when crunch time arises and we desperately need our paul pierce in Barnes. Barnes completely fits my description of the perfect save for the fact that is first step isn't elite but it is definitely effective considering that he has 230lb frame and will be one of the deadliest three point shooters in the league for years to come. Aggressive winner with a high basketball IQ and fits wall and the wizards perfectly. He needs wall just as badly as wall needs him.

I don't think it's humanly possible for me to disagree more.

Barnes dropped like a rock the last 18 months in terms of value. He has absolutely cratered. Not sure what you were watching but he was ANYTHING BUT an alpha dog. Hell, he was third banana on his own damn team. Zeller was 10x the impact player he was this year, and Henson was better too. He was a miserable disappointment to virtually everyone in terms of expectations and he's dropped in terms of projection from a guy seen as a lock to go somewhere between 1 and 3 in '11 and 1 and 3 in '12, into a guy who many believe will fall out of the top 10 entirely.

He would be an absolutely horrific pick for the Wizards. Truly horrific. He is most definitely NOT Paul Pierce.

There's a reason MKG is slotted at 2 on most boards, while Barnes value has fallen off a cliff. MKG lived up to and beyond expectations, and Barnes managed to dig much farther below expectations than anyone anywhere expected or conceived possible, in terms of an overall, projectable floor. Particularly when compared to his peers (Sully, Irving, and guys like Davis, MKG, Beal and the like this past year).

This isn't to say I don't think he represents value. I do, if he drops as expected, but the guy shouldnt be touched in the top 8, at the very least. He was so underwhelming in 2 years it was indescribable. Ford has his ears in just about all the FO's, and as he said yesterday, sometimes, players simply don't play at all in college up to the expectations and ratings of scouts, and players turn out to be less than what was imagined, and less than what they appeared when playing with and against high schoolers, and Barnes was one of those players.

I think he has the tools to be an effective player at the next level, he wont but a bust, but he'd be a total and complete waste at 2, 3 or 4.

[The Consiglieri]

I'm a BPA proponent, but I think Mufasa makes a good point: sometimes it's hard to tell who the BPA is. At #1 this year, it's easy. After that, in my analysis, players are falling into groups with similar ratings. At that point, "best" can depend on lots of different variables. In this draft, Davis is in a class by himself. After that, I think Crowder is #2. I have MKG on that same tier, but the more research I do on him, the less I think he belongs there -- I think he's in with that next group with guys like Robinson, Beal, etc.

The point is that Robinson, Beal and MKG (for example) rate about the same. In that instance, picking the guy who's the best fit makes a lot of sense. It would be idiocy to be sitting at #2 and take Perry Jones because the team "needs" a SF. Because he's rated a few tiers away.

However, let's say that a tier ends at 7 players. If I'm picking 7th, I'm not going to reach into that next tier down for that selection. I'm going to pick from that higher tier, even if there's only one guy left, even if I might already have a guy on the roster who can fill that need. (Well, really what I'd be trying to do there is trade out of the pick, but assuming I couldn't do that right away, I'd pick the guy I think is best.)

What do you think should be done when scouts rate the ceilings of these guys, and view MKG as a guy who, if he reached his ceiling, would be an all star, and potentially a franchise player. Ford was quoted as saying that's a view around the league the other day. That while he isn't that player now, his mentality, work habits, energy, leadership, and skill set and motor suggest that if he can get his jumper to go, he will be a potential franchise player. That would explain why he appears to be the consensus #2.

[The Consiglieri]

I don't believe a third tier guy should ever be drafted in the top 3. We are better off going the Ray Allen route that Boston took when Green was traded to the Sonics. Much better value. 1st and 2nd tier player definitely should be drafted in top 4. Going for a third tier player doesn't pay off in the long run with a top3-5 pick.

Value is a important factor. Maximize you assets.

That is why I like evaluating what we could get in trading out of the first with NO for there 3rd or 4th depending on where they land. With that pick we get Beal and Zeller with the 10th. This is something that could be possible when you have a player like Davis so highly valued. Maybe you can get Eric Gordan in a package and maybe that leads to a Harden trade in a year. Makes things kind of interesting. What if we could walk from the draft with Gordon/Beal now and maybe Harden/Beal later ? That gets my attention.

If not, can then keep Zeller or trade down again if there is a player you think fits better in a trade package or later in the draft. Maybe you can pick up a Kendall Marshall.

I know. Very unconventional but fun to think about if you think you can maximize assets in a different way. No one knows how these kids will turn out and how quickly. I see Davis as a Marcus Camby type. He is going to block a lot of shots, but he is going to get pushed around his first year or two. You can count on that. The kid isn't going to just show up and tear up the league being 6-10 220. He is going to very likely have a nice NBA career, but how soon and what could you get while you are waiting for him to file out. And what do you most need now that are already good NBA players. Gordon/Beal now. Harden/Beal later. Is that worth more then Davis now as a 19 skinny kid.

The other trade down scenario is if we end up at 5 and Drummonds is sitting there.

The trade down scenario in play, I think, is if Davis, MKG, and Beal are off the board because we got a crappy slot. In that case, I think we might try to deal down. I haven't heard ANY reports linking us to Robinson. None. I've heard links to all four other guys, and in particular Davs, MKG, and Beal for very specific reasons: Davs-Best player, MKG-next best player and would complete radical culture change (apparently he was the clear leader of the Kentucky team this year, in the locker room, and on the floor, which is interesting), Beal-plug him in, and we suddenly have some major issues solved going forward, and can start filling in holes, and looking for one last elite player. I don't know what we think about Drummond, clearly he has the highest or second highest upside in the draft, and we may be interested in that, but we also are almost certainly alarmed by the high bust risk in the kid. Robinson-no links, I like Robinson, but my guess is, if we are slotted in a position where only Robinson is left, we very well could deal down, and we might w/the Drummond scenario too. I think if any of the other 3 are on the board, we most definitely are not trading down (and of course, maybe Drummond too, just can't get a clear picture on that, sifting through the reports).

[The Consiglieri]

The fundamental problem that haunts any plan to move that first overall pick is that Anthony Davis just towers over the rest of the draft board in terms of value. So as to fit in with the cool crowd let me couch this in terms of what I assume Kevin's draft evaluator is doing with each player. A significant component of the titillation factor for a guy like Michael Kidd-Gilchirst is basically that he lookin' good in a pair of shorts and a tank top. That's to say that based on present play he's a perfectly fine prospect but what really elevates him is the fact that his physical ability is so highly thought of. Davis pretty much hits that same altitude purely based on production.

Davis was, in fact, (and despite having been popularly considered as much, as evidenced by his having won every major award) the best player in college basketball this year. Dude was first in PER, first in WS/48. He had the third highest ORtg in the country behind two guys who almost literally did nothing but hit three pointers all year (Brady Heslip and Dylan Royer). Based purely on production, if he were a fat short senior he would be worthy of consideration towards the top of the draft. Couple that to physical characteristics that are every bit as impressive as any other player in the draft, probably more so, and I don't see how you make up the difference in value trading out of that pick. If you're creating a logjam in the interior by taking him you take a Trevor Booker or Jan Vesely out back behind the woodshed because you are making space for Anthony Davis.

I know these boards are for discussion, fun, and speculating in general, but yeah, when it comes to situations like the 1 slot, I don't even see the point.

There is litterally zero chance. ZERO. That the Wizards would trade the 1 slot if they landed it. They would just draft Davis, and call it a day. Yes technically if they got some insane offer, they'd do it, but that won't come. At the end of the day, everyone knows that Davis is viewed as one of those special #1 overall picks and the last time one of those picks was moved, was twenty years ago, when the Warriors traded for Webber. There's a reason it virtually never happens, and it won't happen this year. Whomever lands the 1 slot will keep it. Period.

I enjoy speculating about 2-5, because there are 2 guys and maybe 3, that we value as the 2 and 3 slot guys, but in terms of slot 1. We wouldn't trade out of the Davis pick, period. The only exception would be a trade offer so nutty, it wouldn't happen in the first place.

[The Consiglieri]

Charles Barkley says they need to change the draft rules to keep bad teams from tanking for more lottery balls. I hope not lol

Its pointless and idiotic. Teams aren't stupid. They know that their fortunes, can, and often do entirely depend upon landing a pick high enough to land a difference making, once in a generation player at an especially crucial position, or possessing qualities that make him capable of leading teams to titles. How many of these guys exist per decade? The eighties had what, Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon, Robinson, (Magic, Bird, McHale and Isiah popping on either side of the decade change) and a few others, the nineties had Shaq, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, Duncan and a few others, the aughts had LeBron, Wade, Howard, Paul, Durant and a few others.

There just aren't many of these guys, and unless you land one, you wil NEVER win a title in the given decade, period. Other than Detroit, i can't really think of any teams that have pulled it out w/o one of these guys. And w/free agency, basically unless you have a no state income tax city, or you are in a great marketing city (LA, New York, Chicago, Boston), you're screwed in terms of luring the vast majority of these guys when they have played out their contracts.

So the total and complete horse doody that is the anti-tank brigade bitching and moaning needs to shut the hell up. They are being totally disingenuous when they make these stupid arguments for the integrity of the game. What integrity? The integrity that guarantees that more than 3/4's of the leagues teams have no shot whatsoever at elite franchise player free agents, period, no matter how well they're run? The marketing dollars of the northeast, Los Angeles, and Chicago, as well as the allure of the tax friendly states make certain franchises, and only those franchises, the contenders for 90-95% of the franchise player free agent movement that has happened. For 3/4's of the NBA, the only hope whatsoever, is in the tank. PERIOD. I'm glad we built one Rommel, Zhukov, and Patton would have been proud of this year. We just couldn't account for the genius that was MJ's leadership down in Charlotte. He was running an M1A1 Abrams while the rest of the league might as well have been plowing around in Sherman's and T34's.

[truwizfan4evr]

Just because a team tank don't mean they will win the first over all pick. Anyway they should keep the rule like they are.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Charles Barkley says they need to change the draft rules to keep bad teams from tanking for more lottery balls. I hope not lol

Charles really hates the Wizards.

[Ruzious]

As much as I want to like Crowder, I just don't see a ranking that puts him in the top ten players in this draft. I watched a lot of Marquette games and have always felt that Crowder played more like a PF than a SF, and the things that Jae was able to do in the paint at 6-6 in college he won't be able to do in the NBA.

As this paragraph from the DraftExpress write up about Crowder points out, Jae lacks some essential SF skills.

"Crowder's biggest weakness as a small forward prospect is his inability to create his own shot. A below average ball-handler, he has a difficult time scoring in isolation settings, not looking very fluid with the ball, and struggling to change directions on the fly. It's not a stretch to say that he will need to live off scraps in the NBA, which makes increasing the range and consistency of his jump-shot that much more important."

That type of analysis is why Crowder hasn't been rated as a prospect. It's the - putting a round peg into a square hole analysis - rather than figuring out how to use a player according to his strengths and weaknesses. Maybe you devise an offense where you don't need your small forward to be a shot creater. Maybe he can be used like he was at Marquette - and he did play out on the perimeter quite a lot.

[DCZards]

As much as I want to like Crowder, I just don't see a ranking that puts him in the top ten players in this draft. I watched a lot of Marquette games and have always felt that Crowder played more like a PF than a SF, and the things that Jae was able to do in the paint at 6-6 in college he won't be able to do in the NBA.

As this paragraph from the DraftExpress write up about Crowder points out, Jae lacks some essential SF skills.

"Crowder's biggest weakness as a small forward prospect is his inability to create his own shot. A below average ball-handler, he has a difficult time scoring in isolation settings, not looking very fluid with the ball, and struggling to change directions on the fly. It's not a stretch to say that he will need to live off scraps in the NBA, which makes increasing the range and consistency of his jump-shot that much more important."

That type of analysis is why Crowder hasn't been rated as a prospect. It's the - putting a round peg into
a square hole analysis - rather than figuring out how to use a player according to his strengths and weaknesses. Maybe you devise an offense where you don't need your small forward to be a shot creater. Maybe he can be used like he was at Marquette - and he did play out on the perimeter quite a lot.

MKG may be the kind of talent that you draft with a top pick and then devise an offense around his shortcomings. I don't think Crowder is however.

[Ruzious]

You don't have to devise a new system. You just adjust make some adjustments that college coaches and probably high school and middle school and YWCA and 10 and under girls camp coaches could make.

[Knighthonor]

As much as I want to like Crowder, I just don't see a ranking that puts him in the top ten players in this draft. I watched a lot of Marquette games and have always felt that Crowder played more like a PF than a SF, and the things that Jae was able to do in the paint at 6-6 in college he won't be able to do in the NBA.

As this paragraph from the DraftExpress write up about Crowder points out, Jae lacks some essential SF skills.

"Crowder's biggest weakness as a small forward prospect is his inability to create his own shot. A below average ball-handler, he has a difficult time scoring in isolation settings, not looking very fluid with the ball, and struggling to change directions on the fly. It's not a stretch to say that he will need to live off scraps in the NBA, which makes increasing the range and consistency of his jump-shot that much more important."

That type of analysis is why Crowder hasn't been rated as a prospect. It's the - putting a round peg into
a square hole analysis - rather than figuring out how to use a player according to his strengths and weaknesses. Maybe you devise an offense where you don't need your small forward to be a shot creater. Maybe he can be used like he was at Marquette - and he did play out on the perimeter quite a lot.

MKG may be the kind of talent that you draft with a top pick and then devise an offense around. I don't think Crowder is however.

MKG can't shoot. He seem like a lesser John Wall.

http://swishscout.com/?page_id=710

[theboomking]

That type of analysis is why Crowder hasn't been rated as a prospect. It's the - putting a round peg into a square hole analysis - rather than figuring out how to use a player according to his strengths and weaknesses. Maybe you devise an offense where you don't need your small forward to be a shot creater. Maybe he can be used like he was at Marquette - and he did play out on the perimeter quite a lot.

Meh. There are tons of guys in the NCAA every year with great stats. C.J. McCollum and Doug McDermott are in the top 4 of NCAA PER this year. Are they deserving of being top 5 picks? You can't just look at the stats of college players. Nivek himself said none of Crowder's evaluation came from his physical traits.

Nivek, how does your projection evaluate McDermott?

[C-Droppa]

MKG can't shoot. He seem like a lesser John Wall.

http://swishscout.com/?page_id=710

Personally, I wouldn't completely say he can't shoot. From what I've seen Gilchrist has a serviceable mid-range jumper that teams have to respect somewhat..unlike Wall. Gilchrist is not a 3pt shooter by any means but I still think his skill set brings so much more to the table. His defense, rebounding, athletiscism, and play-making skills could really add to the Wiz team. The players he is compared to like Gerald Wallace and Iguodala weren't reliable jump shooters either when they came into the league but were able to develop. The kid is only 19. He reminds me of Kawhi Leonard from last year who is having a good season with the Spurs. They said he couldn't shoot either, but has been making teams pay for leaving him open.

I would take Gilchrist at #2 and try to get a shooter like Jenkins or Will Barton later in the draft. Shooting can be taught however, the hustle, IQ, and instints that Gilchrist brings is much harder to come by as we Wizards fan should know.

[closg00]

Thorpe thinks Beal is the perfect fit for us

Let's forget for a moment about players' "value" and where they are selected. Simply, Beal, as a basketball player, is the antithesis of Nick Young, and Beal can shoot and score. Beal has a complete game, and maturity that is much-needed in Washington. Beal gives John Wall a permanent backcourt partner, one who should be a great shooter and a defensive demon -- both outstanding complements to Wall's talents and his weaknesses as a shooter.

Beal also can play some small forward, allowing the Wizards to play Jordan Crawford alongside Wall for a potentially high-scoring guard trio late in games. Now, does Beal deserve to be drafted second over players like Kidd-Gilchrist or Robinson? Perhaps not. If all these prospects reach their potential, Beal likely finishes behind them. But that is not a guarantee. What is a guarantee is Beal's very low risk and his very high likelihood of being an excellent guard, and maybe a future All-Star, who impacts the game in all three areas.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog/_/n ... team-needs

[pancakes3]

offense, defense, special teams?

[Rafael122]

Yeah I want Beal, as much as people rave about Michael's motor or Thomas Robinson's mental toughness, that's all great and all, but there are parts of their games that will be exposed in the pros. I'm not suggesting Beal is a finished product, but he fits a need and may very well be the 2nd or 3rd best player in the draft. I'd rather see Wall drive to the hoop and kick it out to a wide open Beal than to kick it out to a Kidd-Gilchrist or Chris Singleton.