Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part V

[The Consiglieri]

Bullock.

Bullock is the better player, he can knock down shots but his offense is more advanced, he can do other things, he's more athletic, can run the pick&roll a little bit, his handles are better.

And in defense,... it's not even fair.

Crabbe played in an awful team, he's good shooter using screens... and thats about it, also he can't play the 3, while Bullock can.

Bullock also has a high character, sometimes too high though.. but it's a good thing, the guy plays hard.

Crabbe's a lethal catch and shoot guy, as a Cal alum and fan, he was a disappointment to me, for what I thought he might have been capable of. If all we want is a guy who can come off the bench and catch and shoot 3's from time to time, then he's fine, if you want anything more than that (and I think we should, especially considering he will be off the board in the 20's and will require a trade up), he is not the ticket. Totally agree with you. I don't want either of those guys though, I'd trade up for Mitchell who represents a potential top 5 player if he turns everything around, a guy who could end up playing the Bennett role if we drafted Porter.

[The Consiglieri]

I don't know if anyone's quoted this post from the draft model dude, but have you seen this quote about Porter,

link:
http://shutupandjam.net/2013/04/29/its- ... the-draft/

"....But this year is a bit peculiar. It is almost universally considered to be a “weak” draft, especially after the decisions of a number of high profile potential draftees (Marcus Smart in particular). More specifically though, it’s viewed as a draft with a handful of solid players but no sure-bet all-star types. Accordingly, a pick in the two to five range isn’t viewed as that much better than a pick in the six to fourteen range this year, at least if you believe the prominent media, who purportedly have a great deal of contact with the general managers who actually make the decisions.

And that’s exactly where you can pull a fast one this year. In the three to eight range sits a man named Otto Porter. Now, I’m not Miss Cleo or John Titor, but my draft model has Otto as better than a +3. And if you recall, I consider +2 or better to be as close to a sure thing as you’ll see.

In other words, I believe Otto Porter has a pretty good chance to be an all-star caliber NBA forward a few years down the road. Don’t let Georgetown’s poor performance in the tournament fool you, Otto’s supporting cast was not particularly impressive, and the fact that they rode his coattails to the Big East’s best record is remarkable in itself. I think it’s actually a testament to Otto’s ability to lift an average team to elite levels. And that shouldn’t be a surprise if you watched him play this year. He is a do-everything type player who puts up superb numbers across the board and adds plenty of intangibles that don’t show up in the box score. He is a very good shooter (and scorer) in spite of his shooting form. He’s also an excellent if underrated passer who has a LeBron-esque ability to find the open man anywhere on the court. And while he lacks elite athleticism, he makes up for it with craftyness, a high basketball IQ, and a great overall feel for the game. He is also valuable because of his ability to play either forward position on both offense and defense and have a matchup advantage against most of the league because of his size-skill combination. This is a 6-8 guy with a 7-2 wingspan who shot 42% from long range and showed a terrific ability to steal the ball, block shots, and simply menace opponents on defense. Because of all this, I think that he’s arguably the best player in this class.

And that’s why I think it’s worth taking a shot to try to move up to a position where you can draft Porter. Of course this is easier said than done, but if your team has assets of some value, it’s worth making some calls to see what you might be able to get for them, especially if the assets are either expiring contracts or reasonably expendable given their relative value or redundancy. Because of the overall lukewarm attitude toward this draft, I’m willing to bet that someone will listen. And if you can spin this kind of asset into Otto Porter, I’m confident it will have been well worth it..."

I'm not a Porter booster, but that's a nice rad.

[montestewart]

^
Does that guy have any history of being right? That's a pretty good writeup.

[BigA]

^
Does that guy have any history of being right? That's a pretty good writeup.

HA! At least it's not Mike Wilbon.

[montestewart]

^
Does that guy have any history of being right? That's a pretty good writeup.

HA! At least it's not Mike Wilbon.

Yeah, there's only one of those, but he sort of openly lives in a fantasy world.

[sfam]

Consig, that type of write-up makes me feel better about getting Porter. He really does have some fans. It would be great if he's a significant step up from Ariza - someone we would want to be paying near max for in a few years.

[montestewart]

Consig, that type of write-up makes me feel better about getting Porter. He really does have some fans. It would be great if he's a significant step up from Ariza - someone we would want to be paying near max for in a few years.

Still not getting any wow sense about Porter, but he sure seems closer to Beal than to Vesely. Veteran Hoyas and NBA watchers, I'd like to hear more about why he can score as successfully as a pro. Also, is he likely to remain that skinny, and how will that frame or a filled-out frame affect his game?

[WizarDynasty]

Porter, the poor man's Evan Turner. We see where that got Philadelphia. And Evans accomplished way more than Porter. Looks like we have mini Grunfelds on the board.

[The Consiglieri]

It depends on what you mean by a bust. If you mean a guy who won't score, he won't be a bust. If you mean a guy who won't help his team win, he will likely be a bust.

I have an issue with a defining a player as a finished product after his freshman year. Maybe it's just because that's what happened with Young, and McGee, but I find something fundamentally wrong with highlighting what Porter can do, and might do, and emphasizing what Bennett or Muhammad didn't do as a freshman in college.

Are they finished products already?

Maybe that's the key area of disagreement. The Porter boosters want the bird in the hand, and see no value in drafting someone whose good now, and could be great later, or might not be (granted our development record isn't terrific). Not sure, my major issue though is in defining who a player is, and will be, based upon his sole college season. That just seems crazy to me. The vast majority of players evolve, at least to some extent. Believing only the players you like will do so, or can do so, while others can't seems a stretch to me.

This isn't directed at you so much as just everyone's take on numerous freshman they don't like. Porter has evolved, and he's a second year guy, why are we denying that Bennett, and Muhammad could just as easily evolve in their second year out of high school?

Porter is also 3 months younger than Bennett and 7 months young than Shabazz, and he didn't grow up in a highly touted program. If anything, Porter should be getting the bonus points on room for development. And he's better now and a high character guy. Win, win, win situation drafting him.

And that's all well and good, but what's being compared and being taken issue with has nothing to do with physical development, and everything to do with coaching and professionalism. There's a helluvalot of difference between getting coaching from JTIII for two years, and getting only 1 year, at, as someone mentioned yesterday, a school rumored to be run like an AAU squad (UNLV and Bennett), and the clusterflutch that was Howland's last year at UCLA.

Porter gets mega bonus points for being younger for sure, but what Porter's credited most with is related to coaching and familial background, and his precocious basketball smarts, while Bennett and guys like Muhammad are trashed when they played in vastly inferior environments and only for their freshman year.

So I completely disagree with you (though I totally agree that Porter being in this place this young is fantastic, and I was already well aware of that).

[The Consiglieri]

Consig, that type of write-up makes me feel better about getting Porter. He really does have some fans. It would be great if he's a significant step up from Ariza - someone we would want to be paying near max for in a few years.

Me too, my opinion on Porter fluctuates and changes, and unlike a lot of the Porter contingent, I don't hate Porter. I think Porter would probably evolve into being one of the best third options in the entire league, and possibly one of the top half of second options in the league, maybe better. I think at worst, he'll be above average. My fear is that essentially, at #3, why aim for someone with such a limited ceiling. It goes completely and totally against my philosophy built on watching teams bungle or own the draft over the past 25+ years. Over that time period, in watching, trends develop across the league and even in sports, and one of the most fatal consistent mistakes is preferring the guy whose a sure, and solid thing. Teams that go that route almost never win squat, especially if they still lack key top end talent AND depth.

However, I still like Porter, and imagine that he could become a very good player.

And that write up makes him sound amazing, and that metrics dude is the guy people were discussing yesterday w/his '10-'12 draft math projections.

[sfam]

Consig, that type of write-up makes me feel better about getting Porter. He really does have some fans. It would be great if he's a significant step up from Ariza - someone we would want to be paying near max for in a few years.

Me too, my opinion on Porter fluctuates and changes, and unlike a lot of the Porter contingent, I don't hate Porter. I think Porter would probably evolve into being one of the best third options in the entire league, and possibly one of the top half of second options in the league, maybe better. I think at worst, he'll be above average. My fear is that essentially, at #3, why aim for someone with such a limited ceiling. It goes completely and totally against my philosophy built on watching teams bungle or own the draft over the past 25+ years. Over that time period, in watching, trends develop across the league and even in sports, and one of the most fatal consistent mistakes is preferring the guy whose a sure, and solid thing. Teams that go that route almost never win squat, especially if they still lack key top end talent AND depth.

However, I still like Porter, and imagine that he could become a very good player.

And that write up makes him sound amazing, and that metrics dude is the guy people were discussing yesterday w/his '10-'12 draft math projections.

I'm right there with you, hence my favoring of Bennett over Porter. Buts its nice to feel the sure thing won't be that bad, and may really mesh with Wall and Beal's positives.

[Earth2Ted]

No, athletic like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajwa8j79vd0[/youtube]

Those are some phenomenal highlights. I really like what I've seen of him- though I'll admit that I have caught only his good games (UK, Duke at home, and UNC in the ACC tournament).

His interview on DX.com is amazing too- to paraphrase Randy Wittman, just try going to the Ukraine and see if YOU can pick up Ukrainian as quick as he's mastered English.

I know he's got high bust potential, but if I were Ernie, and there wasn't anything too dire in the medical reports on the ankle, I would be seriously tempted to roll the dice on Len and see what he could do with a real point guard like John Wall.

[hands11]

No, athletic like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajwa8j79vd0[/youtube]

Those are some phenomenal highlights. I really like what I've seen of him- though I'll admit that I have caught only his good games (UK, Duke at home, and UNC in the ACC tournament).

His interview on DX.com is amazing too- to paraphrase Randy Wittman, just try going to the Ukraine and see if YOU can pick up Ukrainian as quick as he's mastered English.

I know he's got high bust potential, but if I were Ernie, and there wasn't anything too dire in the medical reports on the ankle, I would be seriously tempted to roll the dice on Len and see what he could do with a real point guard like John Wall.

As has been mentioned, where is the high bust potential ? Only thing that would make him a bust would be if he can't play. Even Big Z who had foot problems played 3x seasons of 81 plus games, three in a row of 78, then one of 73 and one of 65 before winding down his career. He had a run of 5 years missing only 14 games.

Now I'm not putting in my final vote for Len, but the idea that he has some bust potential should be put in context. His bust potential is very low. He is young, tall, shown skills, a fast learner and have proven he can add weight.

I would prefer getting to see these young players over a two year window so there is more to go one. I would also prefer a center with a stronger trunk. But I don't see the bust potential.

[pancakes3]

I watch Len and I can't help but see Cole Aldrich. Granted Aldrich only graded out at 6'9 barefoot and Len in all likelihood will be at least 6'11, but I just don't see too much difference in the two except that Aldrich was more active defensively.

[mhd]

I watch Len and I can't help but see Cole Aldrich. Granted Aldrich only graded out at 6'9 barefoot and Len in all likelihood will be at least 6'11, but I just don't see too much difference in the two except that Aldrich was more active defensively.

Aldrich was almost 23 by the time he was drafted. Len is 19. Len is the superior athlete, and he's a better shooter. I don't see any similarities.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

You know looking at Len, as bad as it seemed he played this year, it's kind of impressive he actually still averaged 12 and 8, plus 2 blocks and an assist in only 26 min a game.

[hands11]

Consig, that type of write-up makes me feel better about getting Porter. He really does have some fans. It would be great if he's a significant step up from Ariza - someone we would want to be paying near max for in a few years.

A better Trevor A is at least a tested plug and play idea, so it has some appeal. But is a Trevor A type game what we need from our starter, or is it Websters game?

The Wizard made a lot of strides toward a winning formula last year. Defense is showing as a sound model again. The top playoff teams all are top defensive teams. From there you have to build that out with offense and the Wizards are already tooled pretty well for that with Wall and Beal so they aren't starting from scratch. Walls break out with the J and Beals 2nd half of the season ( excluding injuries ) give the team a ton of promise. Both are two way players. They have offense and defense.

Keep in mind, the Wizards went through a huge transition last year. They played

87 different line ups
and only 4 for 100 mins or more.

Here is what those 4 line ups looks like. Of course, small sample size but there is good line up in here that we just didnt get to see enough so I don't think it has sunk in.

http://stats.nba.com/teamLineups.html?T ... erPage=100

(1) Nene, Okafor, Martell, Beal, Wall NetRtg 24, OffRtg 108.4 DffRtg 84.4

(2) Nene, Okafor, Martell, Beal, Price NetRtg 17.2, OffRtg 109.2 DffRtg 92

(3) Nene, Okafor, Martell, Temp, Wall NetRtg -6.5, OffRtg 99.8 DffRtg 106,4

(4) Okafor, Trev B, Trev A, Beal, Price NetRtg -17.1, OffRtg 85.7 DffRtg 102.9

Trevor A did not start in the best to line ups, Webster did. Trevor A has good value, but it was off the bench.

[hands11]

Between 1 and 2, Price is the only change. The offense stayed about the same but they took a good hit on D swopping Price for Wall. Wall has defensive impact. Not surprised.

#3 From 1 to 3, Beal is the only change. Remove Beal and both offense and defense take a huge hit.

#4, no Nene, Wall or Webster... all hell breaks loose.

Of all teams in the league and all 5 players line ups regardless of minutes, that Wizards (1) team ranked 10th best in NetRtg

Other teams on that list with 5 players line ups in similar minutes from the top down to 10th
MIA, BOS, LAL, POR, MIA, MEM, NYK, OKC, BOS

Teams after 10th
LAC, MIA, IND, LAL, CHI, MIA, OKC, BRK, MIA, MEM

Notice MIA, LAL, MEM, OKC all have several listing. They are deeper.

I expect Beal to come back in year 2 even better. Added handles. He will be a top 2 guard next year. Wall I expect to pick up where he left off and if he does, he is a top PG. I expect Nene to be a lot healthier and when he is, he one of the better PF in the league.

That #1 line up is nothing to sneeze at and its only going to get better next year. Web is the perfect compliment at SF and Okafor is a solid defensive center double double machine.

What the Wizards most need is Beal and Nene protection. A cheaper Trevor A would be nice. So would a better Price. And they to start planning for Okafor not starting, but Okafor is only 30. They don't really need to replace him right now.

If you go by this data and draft projection slotting VO is probably your pick. Maybe Len if you want to take a shot at a center of the future.

If you trade back, CJM, Zeller, Kelly O, Adams. If you go CJM/VO, I hope they get a Mascala or Jackie Carmichael

I wanta add Withey in the list of center. I like his ability to block shots without fouling and rebound. He is 2nd only to Noel in major teams. But like Noel, he gets pushed around and has no offense. And he has less upside, less athletic and he will be 24. I see some Tiago Splitter how. Withey will get stronger, no doubt.

Otto would be nice, but Webster has already shown he is an effect SF in a model that works for offense and defense. And next years draft has more SF. Plus the Wiz have more cap room. They can trade Trevor A and or Ves as expiring if they really want to move them. Resign Okafor.

[fishercob]

No, athletic like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajwa8j79vd0[/youtube]

Those are some phenomenal highlights. I really like what I've seen of him- though I'll admit that I have caught only his good games (UK, Duke at home, and UNC in the ACC tournament).

His interview on DX.com is amazing too- to paraphrase Randy Wittman, just try going to the Ukraine and see if YOU can pick up Ukrainian as quick as he's mastered English.

I know he's got high bust potential, but if I were Ernie, and there wasn't anything too dire in the medical reports on the ankle, I would be seriously tempted to roll the dice on Len and see what he could do with a real point guard like John Wall.

I like Len more than most -- talked about him a lot in the couple weeks running up to the lotto, and mentioned the language thing. While I think it's great, I've re-thought it just a bit. It's impressive, but doesn't necessarily mean he's an amazingly hard worker who can;t fail as a prospect. He may just have a proclivity for language and immersed himself in the culture. It's a nice tidbit, but not a reason to draft a guy (or not).

[sfam]

Consig, that type of write-up makes me feel better about getting Porter. He really does have some fans. It would be great if he's a significant step up from Ariza - someone we would want to be paying near max for in a few years.

A better Trevor A is at least a tested plug and play idea, so it has some appeal. But is a Trevor A type game what we need from our starter, or is it Websters game?

The Wizard made a lot of strides toward a winning formula last year. Defense is showing as a sound model again. The top playoff teams all are top defensive teams. From there you have to build that out with offense and the Wizards are already tooled pretty well for that with Wall and Beal so they aren't starting from scratch. Walls break out with the J and Beals 2nd half of the season ( excluding injuries ) give the team a ton of promise. Both are two way players. They have offense and defense.

Keep in mind, the Wizards went through a huge transition last year. They played

87 different line ups
and only 4 for 100 mins or more.

Here is what those 4 line ups looks like. Of course, small sample size but there is good line up in here that we just didnt get to see enough so I don't think it has sunk in.

http://stats.nba.com/teamLineups.html?T ... erPage=100

(1) Nene, Okafor, Martell, Beal, Wall NetRtg 24, OffRtg 108.4 DffRtg 84.4

(2) Nene, Okafor, Martell, Beal, Price NetRtg 17.2, OffRtg 109.2 DffRtg 92

(3) Nene, Okafor, Martell, Temp, Wall NetRtg -6.5, OffRtg 99.8 DffRtg 106,4

(4) Okafor, Trev B, Trev A, Beal, Price NetRtg -17.1, OffRtg 85.7 DffRtg 102.9

Trevor A did not start in the best to line ups, Webster did. Trevor A has good value, but it was off the bench.

Ideally we'd want a combo of Ariza and Webster, which is what many hope Porter is. One problem with this is Nene and Okafor aren't going to be healthy all year, and obviously won't play 48 minutes, hence the need for another big. We just disagree to which one to get.