ImageImageImage

2013 Draft Targets (#9, #26, #52, #59)

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 69,573
And1: 22,943
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: 2013 Draft Targets 

Post#881 » by Klomp » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:35 pm

Krapinsky wrote:ESPN lists him at 200 lbs. Which is more than Mclemore (185ESPN/181DX) and similar to Pope (205ESPN/185DX).

Ray Allen weighs 205. Avery Bradley one of the best guard defenders in the league weighs 180.

I don't think you can dismiss him because of his "reported" size at all.

Bradley is the only one thats a fair comparison. Everyone else is two inches taller than CJ.

And just because Bradley is a good defender doesn't mean McCollum will be. Thats like saying we should draft MCW because he's big and long like Rubio is. And yes, if I had a choice, I would draft Carter-Williams over McCollum 9 times out of 10.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
User avatar
Krapinsky
RealGM
Posts: 20,712
And1: 1,952
Joined: May 13, 2007
Location: Los Angeles

Re: 2013 Draft Targets 

Post#882 » by Krapinsky » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:53 pm

Klomp wrote:
Krapinsky wrote:ESPN lists him at 200 lbs. Which is more than Mclemore (185ESPN/181DX) and similar to Pope (205ESPN/185DX).

Ray Allen weighs 205. Avery Bradley one of the best guard defenders in the league weighs 180.

I don't think you can dismiss him because of his "reported" size at all.

Bradley is the only one thats a fair comparison. Everyone else is two inches taller than CJ.

And just because Bradley is a good defender doesn't mean McCollum will be. Thats like saying we should draft MCW because he's big and long like Rubio is. And yes, if I had a choice, I would draft Carter-Williams over McCollum 9 times out of 10.


I'm not saying that means he's a good defender. I'm saying you shouldn't dismiss McCollum because of his size.

And why would you draft a point guard that can't shoot for our team? One that weighs 175 at that. He's Shved's size.
FinnTheHuman wrote: Your post is just garbage.

NewWolvesOrder wrote:Garbage post, indeed.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 69,573
And1: 22,943
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: 2013 Draft Targets 

Post#883 » by Klomp » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:58 pm

Krapinsky wrote:And why would you draft a point guard that can't shoot for our team? One that weighs 175 at that. He's Shved's size.

I'd rather draft a 6'5" PG than a 6'3" SG. We need size.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
User avatar
NikolaPekovic
Rookie
Posts: 1,117
And1: 344
Joined: Jun 27, 2012
 

Re: 2013 Draft Targets 

Post#884 » by NikolaPekovic » Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:00 pm

You can always put on muscle. but u cant get any taller.
User avatar
[RCG]
Head Coach
Posts: 7,047
And1: 135
Joined: May 24, 2010
Location: Saint Paul

Re: 2013 Draft Targets 

Post#885 » by [RCG] » Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:01 pm

I don't think McCollum will be a good on-ball defender but an above-average off-ball defender, he has good instincts but lacks the size/athleticism. I think he's an upgrade over Ridnour as the kid can really shoot and score but if we want size we could trade down and get Caldwell-Pope who could develop into a solid perimeter shooter with solid on-ball defense. He doesn't have the ball-skills or instincts that McCollum has though.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt
User avatar
Krapinsky
RealGM
Posts: 20,712
And1: 1,952
Joined: May 13, 2007
Location: Los Angeles

Re: 2013 Draft Targets 

Post#886 » by Krapinsky » Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:13 pm

McCollum's wingspan is actually longer than Pope's.
FinnTheHuman wrote: Your post is just garbage.

NewWolvesOrder wrote:Garbage post, indeed.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 69,573
And1: 22,943
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: 2013 Draft Targets 

Post#887 » by Klomp » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:35 pm

Timberwolves PR ‏@Twolves_PR 4m
#Twolves will have No. 26 pick in the first round of @NBA Draft as #Clippers won tiebreaker today w/ #Grizzlies. MIN owns MEM pick.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
User avatar
Grits n Gravy
General Manager
Posts: 9,627
And1: 1,804
Joined: Feb 22, 2010
Location: New Zealand
 

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#888 » by Grits n Gravy » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:35 am

really REALLY hope nemanja nedovic lasts until one of our second rounders, even then i'd be more than happy to take him with the memphis pick - would be nice to get a cheaper replacement for barea or ridnour with big upside. looking forward to seeing karasev and jaiteh tommorow as they could definitely be targets....karasev in particular sounds extremely interesting.
User avatar
Joel Embust
Head Coach
Posts: 6,801
And1: 3,056
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
         

Re: 2013 Draft Targets 

Post#889 » by Joel Embust » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:41 am

Krapinsky wrote:
Eleqtrique wrote:Off topic but Krapinsky, that's one awesome avatar you got there. Any chance I can watch and hear the little fella do his thing on video (youtube)?


Sorry, i just found it on imgur/r/aww



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UgdkifRN4c[/youtube]
Image
Gideon
Pro Prospect
Posts: 830
And1: 178
Joined: Feb 29, 2012

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#890 » by Gideon » Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:55 pm

Many people are overestimating the impact we are going to get from a #9 pick in a fairly weak draft IMO. McCollum might not be a sexy pick, but the guy is almost surely going to be a day-one contributor... he's an excellent shooter, very polished, and can step in right away as a combo guard, Jason Terry is a very good comparison for him IMO.

If we sign somebody like Redick or Mayo in free agency, and then have McCollum as a back-up PG/SG and Shved as a 6th-man SG/SF, that's a really solid perimeter rotation IMO.

Another option is to trade up and go for a true impact player... I like that option as well (obv depending on what we have to give up, but I like it as a general concept). If we don't trade up, however, I would rather take McCollum than a raw player who is a little taller and/or younger.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 69,573
And1: 22,943
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#891 » by Klomp » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:40 pm

Gideon wrote:Many people are overestimating the impact we are going to get from a #9 pick in a fairly weak draft IMO. McCollum might not be a sexy pick, but the guy is almost surely going to be a day-one contributor... he's an excellent shooter, very polished, and can step in right away as a combo guard, Jason Terry is a very good comparison for him IMO.

Hmm...
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
User avatar
Jukeness
Analyst
Posts: 3,335
And1: 326
Joined: Jul 13, 2012
Location: West Saint Paul, MN

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#892 » by Jukeness » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:56 pm

All in for McCollum!
Calinks
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Posts: 50,405
And1: 17,361
Joined: Mar 29, 2006
   

Cause for optimism, players drafted at or around 9 

Post#893 » by Calinks » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:00 pm

Was looking over the drafts since 2003. Look at players drafted at nine or one spot below or above. Here is everybody I saw of note.

2012: Drummond #9
2011: Kemba Walker #9
2010: Paul George #10
2009: Demar DeRozen #9 Brandon Jennings #10
2008: Brook Lopez #10
2007: Joakim Noah #9
2006: Rudy Gay #8
2005: Andrew Bynum #10
2004: Andre Iguodala #9
2003: T.J. Ford #8
2002: Amar'e Stoudemire #9

I don't know what it is but this area of the draft seems to have been very lucrative as far as NBA caliber players. Maybe it's because all the high risk high reward players get taken early and these guys are considered the more more solid, average picks. Maybe these guys had solid careers but didn't stand out enough to garner a high pick. Maybe, teams at this position were drafting for fit over potential. I can't say but this looks like one of the more consistent spots to be drafting in the NBA.

Hopefully this bodes well for us on draft night and we can get a regular contrbuter to this team. If anything, this shows that at this position there is usually still very good talent to be found.
When luck shuts the door skill comes in through the window.
User avatar
Saltine
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,396
And1: 1,002
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Location: Land o' Lakes
     

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#894 » by Saltine » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:23 pm

I'm not sure how a guy that doesn't seem to have more game than Luke or JJ is really going to help us at SG. He's a decent shooter, not quick, not big or strong, and will be 22 when the season starts... I doubt he'd start over Luke if he is still here.

at #26 he's a nice fit, but at #9 ?
is he markedly better than Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, or Allen Crabbe? or Dario Saric? this draft is a mess....
User avatar
The J Rocka
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 13,570
And1: 1,732
Joined: Jun 27, 2009
Location: Minneapolis
   

Re: Cause for optimism, players drafted at or around 9 

Post#895 » by The J Rocka » Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:46 pm

Calinks wrote:Was looking over the drafts since 2003. Look at players drafted at nine or one spot below or above. Here is everybody I saw of note.

2012: Drummond #9
2011: Kemba Walker #9
2010: Paul George #10
2009: Demar DeRozen #9 Brandon Jennings #10
2008: Brook Lopez #10
2007: Joakim Noah #9
2006: Rudy Gay #8
2005: Andrew Bynum #10
2004: Andre Iguodala #9
2003: T.J. Ford #8
2002: Amar'e Stoudemire #9

I don't know what it is but this area of the draft seems to have been very lucrative as far as NBA caliber players. Maybe it's because all the high risk high reward players get taken early and these guys are considered the more more solid, average picks. Maybe these guys had solid careers but didn't stand out enough to garner a high pick. Maybe, teams at this position were drafting for fit over potential. I can't say but this looks like one of the more consistent spots to be drafting in the NBA.

Hopefully this bodes well for us on draft night and we can get a regular contrbuter to this team. If anything, this shows that at this position there is usually still very good talent to be found.

Every 10 years there's one bust at #9. We'll be the next team to take the torch from NY (Sweetney).
Gideon
Pro Prospect
Posts: 830
And1: 178
Joined: Feb 29, 2012

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#896 » by Gideon » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:38 am

Klomp wrote:
Gideon wrote:Many people are overestimating the impact we are going to get from a #9 pick in a fairly weak draft IMO. McCollum might not be a sexy pick, but the guy is almost surely going to be a day-one contributor... he's an excellent shooter, very polished, and can step in right away as a combo guard, Jason Terry is a very good comparison for him IMO.

Hmm...



I wrote (and you conveniently didn't include in your quote) that McCollum would work well as a backup combo guard. In other words, he would contribute from day 1 as a solid backup. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find an evaluation of him by a credible source that says he isn't more NBA-ready than most other draft candidates or that he wouldn't be able to contribute right away in this sort of a supporting role. This contrast between the more developed McCollum and "high potential" candidates in a weak draft seems like a pretty clear concept to me...

So if you could at least keep from being disingenuous and quoting me out of context because you (mistakenly) think it makes you look clever or something, that would be nice.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 69,573
And1: 22,943
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (#9 lotto odds, #26, #52, #59) 

Post#897 » by Klomp » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:49 am

Works for me!

Image
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 69,573
And1: 22,943
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#898 » by Klomp » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:51 am

Gideon wrote:I wrote (and you conveniently didn't include in your quote) that McCollum would work well as a backup combo guard. In other words, he would contribute from day 1 as a solid backup. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find an evaluation of him by a credible source that says he isn't more NBA-ready than most other draft candidates or that he wouldn't be able to contribute right away in this sort of a supporting role. This contrast between the more developed McCollum and "high potential" candidates in a weak draft seems like a pretty clear concept to me...

So if you could at least keep from being disingenuous and quoting me out of context because you (mistakenly) think it makes you look clever or something, that would be nice.

Still think you're overestimating his impact. Especially for our team.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Gideon
Pro Prospect
Posts: 830
And1: 178
Joined: Feb 29, 2012

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#899 » by Gideon » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:58 am

Klomp wrote:
Gideon wrote:I wrote (and you conveniently didn't include in your quote) that McCollum would work well as a backup combo guard. In other words, he would contribute from day 1 as a solid backup. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find an evaluation of him by a credible source that says he isn't more NBA-ready than most other draft candidates or that he wouldn't be able to contribute right away in this sort of a supporting role. This contrast between the more developed McCollum and "high potential" candidates in a weak draft seems like a pretty clear concept to me...

So if you could at least keep from being disingenuous and quoting me out of context because you (mistakenly) think it makes you look clever or something, that would be nice.

Still think you're overestimating his impact. Especially for our team.


Okay... we disagree on that, I guess, but that's fair.
Devilzsidewalk
RealGM
Posts: 32,042
And1: 6,061
Joined: Oct 09, 2005

Re: 2013 Draft Targets (Wolves own #9 lotto odds, #26) 

Post#900 » by Devilzsidewalk » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:17 am

Saltine wrote:I'm not sure how a guy that doesn't seem to have more game than Luke or JJ is really going to help us at SG. He's a decent shooter, not quick, not big or strong, and will be 22 when the season starts... I doubt he'd start over Luke if he is still here.


he may not time quick, but look at his tape - repeated change of direction and hesitation moves into mid-range jumpers. That's a very rare skill set. His ball control into his individual offense is very tricky.
Image

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves