2012 NBA Draft - Part III

[7-Day Dray]

If we don't get #1, I'd strongly consider trading down w/ Portland for their two picks. I think a haul of Sullinger & Rivers (just one combo, could use more) is better than getting Beal/T-Rob/MKG alone. I just don't think that highly of the top 5 prospects in this draft outside of Davis.

[hands11]

^
Any measuring system is sure to have a shortcoming or two. There's some things that no one's figured out how to accurately measure, and some things people might not even know to measure at all. Nivek's never claimed it was a perfect predictor and has even mentioned some unusual cases results and efforts to refine. Still Hands, don't you think you should wait a few years before making that claim? You might not remember you said it five years from now, but I will. (Not because I have the hots11 for ya. I just have a good memory.) I don't know, maybe he won't be better, but he might end up being as good.

I will remember. I got it on my iPhone as a reminder even

Waiting a few years. Yeah. It is going to take a few years.

[hands11]

I find the Camby bashing interesting. Like others, I fully expect Davis to turn out to be far better than Marcus, but Camby has had a better career than some on this board appear to be giving him credit for. While his highest pts. per game average was a little over 14 in his rookie season with Toronto, Camby has averaged 10 pts, 10 rebs and more than 2.5 blocks for his career. He's had some 10 seasons where he's averaged 10-12 rebounds for game (with a high of 13 boards in 2007) and five seasons of more than 3 blocks a game.

Camby deserves some props, imo. Those rebound and block numbers are not those of your average, run-of-the-mill NBA player. If Davis can at least match Camby's rebound and block numbers (something I think he will do with ease) and score, say, 18-20 pts per game, he'll have a very good NBA career and almost certainly warrant being this year's #1 pick.

Saying like Camby is no insult in my book. And if Camby would have be healthier earlier, that would have helped. My point was based on how long it would take for him to develop and what you could get for the pick that would contribute more sooner.

[hands11]

Considering we're locked into a top 5 pick, there's really only 5 players I'm considering at this point

Harrison Barnes is not one of them. When people say Barnes is so talented or has so much upside I wonder what exactly are people looking at? When I see Barnes I see:

1. Limited ballhandling skills - The inability to create space off the dribble or get past even marginal college defenders
2. Stiff hips - Not much wiggle in his game. Not very shifty or slick.
3. No explosiveness - Not a great athlete. An okay athlete but NBA athleticism is passable at best.
4. Volume shooter with so-so efficiency - Doesn't get to the line enough because he can't get to the rim. And he's not a pure shooter in the Ray Allen or Glen Rice mode.
5. He's too cool for school - Doesn't appear to love the game. No fire or intensity. Has backed down at times and gone into a shell.

I don't know why he's still considered a lottery pick in some circles. He's a mid-to-late 1st rounder in my book.

Barnes loves one-dribble pull-ups, preferably going to his left. He loves step-back jumpers, as well. If you leave Barnes wide-open from three-point land, he is knocking it down every time....


And Barnes is an excellent mid-range players, a lost art in today’s game. Barnes will probably never be a 37% three-point shooter for his career but he will be a better player than granger.

Are we all dancing around the name that should not be mentioned. Arvis ?

[theboomking]

Not a huge fan of trading down at all. We need quality not quantity. And the absolute last thing we need is 3 marginal 1st round picks. But if we land #4 or #5 and Beal & MKG are gone then I'd consider trading OUT the draft altogether if we could a youngish all-star quality talent.

Thanks Dat. It boggles my mind how everyone on this forum consistently proposes drafting as if this were the NFL. Lets trade down for multiple picks and add shooters and quality depth? When has that ever worked? Has any NBA champion built their team with trade downs? You can buy picks in the teens. We need to take a shot on elite talent. Playing it safe and trading down for Sullinger and Jae Crowder is the kind of move that breeds mediocrity. Where would OKC be if they traded out of the pick they used on Westbrook, who was no better a prospect than Beal or MKG? As little as we can afford to whiff, we really can't afford not to swing.

[Nivek]

I'm usually against trading down in the NBA draft. Usually, you want to move up. However, in this year's draft, there isn't much difference between the guy you might get at 4 and the guy you might get at 10 or 12 or 15. And, there might be a guy available at 32 who's better than any of them.

And, there really aren't elite prospects in this draft after Davis. Good prospects who MIGHT develop into a terrific players if they work hard enough? Sure. But Davis is the only "can't miss" prospect.

So, this might be a year to move down and get a couple guys who can help instead of going "all in" on someone you HOPE can become an elite player, but probably won't.

Not saying anything for sure here. Just sorta musing in public. Nobody call the cops. I'll stop now.

[Dat2U]

I'm usually against trading down in the NBA draft. Usually, you want to move up. However, in this year's draft, there isn't much difference between the guy you might get at 4 and the guy you might get at 10 or 12 or 15. And, there might be a guy available at 32 who's better than any of them.

And, there really aren't elite prospects in this draft after Davis. Good prospects who MIGHT develop into a terrific players if they work hard enough? Sure. But Davis is the only "can't miss" prospect.

So, this might be a year to move down and get a couple guys who can help instead of going "all in" on someone you HOPE can become an elite player, but probably won't.

Not saying anything for sure here. Just sorta musing in public. Nobody call the cops. I'll stop now.

I'd always prefer to move up. But certainly you can target certain players later in the draft and make a concerted effort to acquire them (As YODA suggests, Jae Crowder may be the one to get). But trading down from a top 5 pick seems like a bad idea given historical precedent. And Davis, Beal & MKG fit the ideal profile of top 5 picks in any year. I have questions beyond that so I'm not totally against trading the pick. But we'd have to get hosed in the draft for me to get on board with that idea.

[dangermouse]

How does Drummond compare with Favors?

[hands11]

I'm usually against trading down in the NBA draft. Usually, you want to move up. However, in this year's draft, there isn't much difference between the guy you might get at 4 and the guy you might get at 10 or 12 or 15. And, there might be a guy available at 32 who's better than any of them.

And, there really aren't elite prospects in this draft after Davis. Good prospects who MIGHT develop into a terrific players if they work hard enough? Sure. But Davis is the only "can't miss" prospect.

So, this might be a year to move down and get a couple guys who can help instead of going "all in" on someone you HOPE can become an elite player, but probably won't.

Not saying anything for sure here. Just sorta musing in public. Nobody call the cops. I'll stop now.

I'd always prefer to move up. But certainly you can target certain players later in the draft and make a concerted effort to acquire them (As YODA suggests, Jae Crowder may be the one to get). But trading down from a top 5 pick seems like a bad idea given historical precedent. And Davis, Beal & MKG fit the ideal profile of top 5 picks in any year. I have questions beyond that so I'm not totally against trading the pick. But we'd have to get hosed in the draft for me to get on board with that idea.

What historical precedent are you talking about ?

[montestewart]

Celtics trading the #1 (Joe Barry Carroll) for the #3 (Kevin McHale) and Robert Parish

[Dat2U]

I'm usually against trading down in the NBA draft. Usually, you want to move up. However, in this year's draft, there isn't much difference between the guy you might get at 4 and the guy you might get at 10 or 12 or 15. And, there might be a guy available at 32 who's better than any of them.

And, there really aren't elite prospects in this draft after Davis. Good prospects who MIGHT develop into a terrific players if they work hard enough? Sure. But Davis is the only "can't miss" prospect.

So, this might be a year to move down and get a couple guys who can help instead of going "all in" on someone you HOPE can become an elite player, but probably won't.

Not saying anything for sure here. Just sorta musing in public. Nobody call the cops. I'll stop now.

I'd always prefer to move up. But certainly you can target certain players later in the draft and make a concerted effort to acquire them (As YODA suggests, Jae Crowder may be the one to get). But trading down from a top 5 pick seems like a bad idea given historical precedent. And Davis, Beal & MKG fit the ideal profile of top 5 picks in any year. I have questions beyond that so I'm not totally against trading the pick. But we'd have to get hosed in the draft for me to get on board with that idea.

What historical precedent are you talking about ?

That the elite talent is generally found at the top of draft.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I'm usually against trading down in the NBA draft. Usually, you want to move up. However, in this year's draft, there isn't much difference between the guy you might get at 4 and the guy you might get at 10 or 12 or 15. And, there might be a guy available at 32 who's better than any of them.

And, there really aren't elite prospects in this draft after Davis. Good prospects who MIGHT develop into a terrific players if they work hard enough? Sure. But Davis is the only "can't miss" prospect.

So, this might be a year to move down and get a couple guys who can help instead of going "all in" on someone you HOPE can become an elite player, but probably won't.

Not saying anything for sure here. Just sorta musing in public. Nobody call the cops. I'll stop now.

+1

[rockymac52]

Personally I think Drummond is our worst case scenario, and I'd be really upset if we ended up with him with our pick, given what I know about him right now. Simply put, he's a project. These days it's so easy for physically gifted and athletic big men to dominate at the college level, even as a freshman. And Drummond couldn't even do that.

Even if we meet with him and believe in his future potential and talent, I just don't see how it will work out for us. If we wasn't ready to dominate the NCAA last year, then there's no way he's ready to dominate in the NBA next season, or even be solid as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps he puts it together down the line, but I don't think this team can afford to wait on guys much longer. It's important to me that we fill our roster with guys who can all play at this very moment. Sure, Vesely didn't look that comfortable at the beginning, and has a lot of room to grow still, but at least he contributed towards the end of the year. Everyone else was ready to play this season (you could very well argue that despite logging heavy minutes, Singleton was NOT ready to play). We currently have Nene, Seraphin, Booker, Vesely, and Blatche as our big men. We'll see if Blatche is still on the team come November, but for now, he's still on our team, and I can't imagine any teams are going to be trading for him this summer. And hate Blatche all you want, but he knows he's on the chopping block (not just from the Wizards, but subsequently from the NBA now). I think he's going to have a big summer. It might not be enough to convince us to keep him around long-term, but I think it will be enough that we would be stupid to not give him some minutes.

But basically, even if Blatche is amnestied or traded, we have a solid rotation of big men as is, and I just don't know where Drummond fits into that. How many minutes would you expect him to get for us his rookie year?

Also, how many "project" big men have actually went on to have success in the NBA? Like, if a big man is drafted and supposed to have a lot of potential, if he's sent to the D League his rookie season or if he averages something like 10-15 minutes off the bench, is there any realistic chance that he develops into a good player in the next 2-3 years? I'm talking about guys who have so much potential that they're drafted in the top 5 or so, not guys who are late 1st round picks, don't get that many minutes at first, but then carve out their roll and become a solid contributor (aka Booker and Seraphin).

I can't help but think of Thabeet when I think about Drummond. Maybe it's 95% because of the whole UCONN center thing, but I just can't help it. I always felt with Thabeet that once he started his rookie year getting only 10-15 minutes per game, barely producing, and being labeled as having "potential", that he was doomed for. You can't expect many players to go to the D League and end up succeeding in the NBA. Or have a player sit on the bench getting rare minutes in mop up time here and there. Bottom line, you don't draft a guy in the top 5 to let him rot on your bench or develop in the D League. You just don't. We're not in "win now" mode by any means, and we're building for long-term success, but let's be real, we need to start turning the corner this coming season or two, and I'd much rather add an asset that's ready to contribute, even if his ceiling isn't nearly as high, than add a "project" who won't be ready for 2-4 years at the earliest, and may never actually contribute at all.

[rockymac52]

Oh, and I forgot to mention... Drummond shot less than 30% from the FT line in his freshman season at UCONN. NO THANK YOU.

[rockymac52]

While I'm not convinced Beal is a future all-star, I can't help but think he's going to be a quality starting SG at the next level. And I think he is the perfect fit for us.

1. He can shoot the ball. I don't care if he only shot 33% from beyond the arc as a freshman, he was supposed to be one of the best shooters in his entire class, and I have faith that he'll get it done in the NBA.

2. He rebounds and blocks! You don't see this often from guards. And for a team like ours who has such difficulties with rebounding, I think having a SG who can help out on the boards would be incredibly valuable. He averaged 6.7 rpg last season in 34 minutes. That's phenomenal. Drummond averaged 7.6 rpg in 28 minutes... Beal averaged 5.4 DRPG, Drummond averaged 4.2 DRPG... And that's the guy we want to have anchoring the paint? I'll pass on Drummond and reap the benefits of Beal instead. And as far as blocks, .8 bpg for a guy his size is pretty damn good! Wall is also an incredible shot blocker for a guard. Love the idea of having two guards who can swat the ball phenomenally.

[rockymac52]

I know I'm just talking to myself at this point, but I wanted to touch on MKG. Everything I read about him makes me want him on my team, because he seems like the perfect teammate. But even though I try and be optimistic, I just don't see how he fits in with our team. Mainly (probably only) because he simply cannot shoot the ball from deep. If Wall develops a long range jumper, then it wouldn't matter nearly as much that MKG can't shoot. But if Wall doesn't develop a deep shot (or if it's just so so), then we already have 3 of our core players (Wall, MKG, Nene) who can't shoot the ball. Yes, we can find a SG who can drain the three ball fairly easily, but it might be hard to acquire one who does that and also has a complete game aside from the three ball. And then we're just about forced to acquire a stretch 4. Stretch 4's don't grow on trees as far as I'm concerned. Not ones that can also rebound halfway decently or play a lick of defense, anyways.

Perhaps we should start figuring out if it's possible to win (and win a LOT) with hardly any three point shooters. I'd feel a lot better if someone could demonstrate that teams have been successful in the past despite not having any long range threats. Otherwise, I hate to say it, but MKG just doesn't have a place here. On most other teams I think he'd be a great pick and will be a valuable contributor, but given our current issues from deep, I just can't see it working out (unless we are very confident that Wall and/or MKG will have a good three point shot in the very near future).

[Spence]

I don't have a problem trading down -- from 2 to 4, for example -- as long as we don't lose Beal in the process. If we can't have Anthony, and there is an 80% chance we cannot, then Beal makes a very nice consolation prize. If some team wants to move up to take Robinson I'd have no problem trading out of 2 as long as we stay high enough to take Beal or, if necessary, MKG.

[jangles86]

If we were to trade down what do we think of a combination of Terrence Jones and Harrison Barnes?

I see them both as sleepers in this draft. Both have skill sets that will translate well into the nba

[jangles86]

Also I'm in the mold of thinking that we won't take Beal, due to the fact we'll have Max space in 2013 and Harden will be a major target.

[hands11]

It does concern me just how often we end up with Drummonds on this thing.

http://espn.go.com/nba/lottery2012/mockdraft