Kyle Anderson

[Onus]

I believe prospects need an opportunity to flourish. CJ McCollum do you think he'll get full value even though he was bpa for Por now that he's playing behind Dame and Mo?

bull. This is how people make excuses for Harrison Barnes. Players *earn* their opportunities.

Cream rises to the top.

Your example of Evan Turner is exactly the type of player who didn't earn his opportunity and he SUCKS. He still sucks even given as big an opportunity as anyone can be given.

Hell, they traded Andre Iguodala to give that bozo all the opportunity in the world. Draymond gets 13 mpg for much of the season, and had everybody begging to give him more time. Barnes was given a starting job from day 1, and never earned it, then everybody cries when they give his job to Iguodala.

lol, it's a losers mentality. You earn your minutes. Period. Lillard would have earned playing time, just like Bledsoe did even though he was playing with Chris Paul. And his trade value netted them Redick and Jared Dudley.

That's keeping it real GM. BPA. No excuses.

I actually agree with you for the most part. Great players will become great regardless, Lebron would be Lebron anywhere. However not everyone is wired that way or can shine through whatever environment they're placed in. Role players need to find the right situation to shine. I don't believe Kyle can shine through whatever environment he's thrust in. There are a few situations that he could struggle, guarding 3s or playing with another ball dominant player.

Some players need the right situation and right opportunity to have their moment. There are a ton of players that could be in the league right now if they were thrust in the right situation and given the right opportunity, but instead was in a different situation and now out of the league.

a good example is Jeremy Lin. Another is Gerald Green. Jermaine O'neal when he first came into the league. Eric Bledsoe was traded for Redick, Dudley do you think that's good value in return? There are a ton of examples. Everything isn't black and white. Especially development of young prospects. If the draft were a science then there wouldn't be such variation.

[EvanZ]

a good example is Jeremy Lin. Another is Gerald Green. Jermaine O'neal when he first came into the league. Eric Bledsoe was traded for Redick, Dudley do you think that's good value in return? There are a ton of examples. Everything isn't black and white. Especially development of young prospects. If the draft were a science then there wouldn't be such variation.

You're not drafting Jeremy Lin or Gerald Green in the top 5. If you are, you're doing something wrong.

The bottom line is if you're drafting at the top, you better be trying to identify the best talent.

[Onus]

a good example is Jeremy Lin. Another is Gerald Green. Jermaine O'neal when he first came into the league. Eric Bledsoe was traded for Redick, Dudley do you think that's good value in return? There are a ton of examples. Everything isn't black and white. Especially development of young prospects. If the draft were a science then there wouldn't be such variation.

You're not drafting Jeremy Lin or Gerald Green in the top 5. If you are, you're doing something wrong.

The bottom line is if you're drafting at the top, you better be trying to identify the best talent.

Conveniently left out O'neal and Bledsoe ...

Here's another scenario with the Celtics upcoming draft. they have Sullinger and Olynk at the pf spot and the prospects projected to go around 6 right now are:
Smart (pg/sg)
Randle (pf)
Vonleh (pf)
McBuckets (sf/pf)
Gordon (pf)
Saric (pf)
Nurkic (c)

So basically if Smart gets taken 5th they're looking at another pf, which should diminish the value of Sully and Olynk since they'll be playing the same position. The Wolves just went through a situation where they had an overlap of talent at the pf position Love and Dwill. They shipped out Dwill (#2 draft pick) for Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. Dwill at the time was pretty much a consensus top 2 pick. Meaning they didn't get great value for that #2 draft pick. Now if they draft another pf they're going to get less back for Sully/Olynk/Prospect and it really will have nothing to do with them being bad prospects but because there won't be the opportunity for one of them or they'll be learning to play a different role or position and thus stunting their growth for their natural position.

I have a feeling that the C's will be shopping the #6 pick or at least they should be.

[EvanZ]

So basically if Smart gets taken 5th they're looking at another pf, which should diminish the value of Sully and Olynk since they'll be playing the same position. The Wolves just went through a situation where they had an overlap of talent at the pf position Love and Dwill. They shipped out Dwill (#2 draft pick) for Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. Dwill at the time was pretty much a consensus top 2 pick. Meaning they didn't get great value for that #2 draft pick. Now if they draft another pf they're going to get less back for Sully/Olynk/Prospect and it really will have nothing to do with them being bad prospects but because there won't be the opportunity for one of them or they'll be learning to play a different role or position and thus stunting their growth for their natural position.

I have a feeling that the C's will be shopping the #6 pick or at least they should be.

They have to make that decision. If I'm them I'm drafting Vonleh if he's available, and shipping out Sullinger. Or see if Vonleh can play stretch 5 (I think he can easily). Sullinger is not nearly good enough to build a team around him or let him dictate who you should pick.

It's not hard to make these decisions if you get the talent evaluation right.

[fuzzy1]

Chances this dude is available when the Hawks pick at #15? I'm real high on the dude.

[cammac]

Anderson is one of 2 players I would love for the Raptors.
He could run the second unit out of SF I know he won't be great defensively but instead of resigning Vasquez as a back-up PG get Livingston.

2nd unit
Livingston 6ft7 PG
Ross 6ft6 SG maybe sign Vince 6ft6
Anderson 6ft9 SF
Patterson 6ft9 PF
Jonas 6ft11 or hopefully draft Bachnyski 7ft2.5 Cs

With Anderson they would brutalize any 2nd unit in the league.
In a year as he gains weight move him to PF

[Onus]

So basically if Smart gets taken 5th they're looking at another pf, which should diminish the value of Sully and Olynk since they'll be playing the same position. The Wolves just went through a situation where they had an overlap of talent at the pf position Love and Dwill. They shipped out Dwill (#2 draft pick) for Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. Dwill at the time was pretty much a consensus top 2 pick. Meaning they didn't get great value for that #2 draft pick. Now if they draft another pf they're going to get less back for Sully/Olynk/Prospect and it really will have nothing to do with them being bad prospects but because there won't be the opportunity for one of them or they'll be learning to play a different role or position and thus stunting their growth for their natural position.

I have a feeling that the C's will be shopping the #6 pick or at least they should be.

They have to make that decision. If I'm them I'm drafting Vonleh if he's available, and shipping out Sullinger. Or see if Vonleh can play stretch 5 (I think he can easily). Sullinger is not nearly good enough to build a team around him or let him dictate who you should pick.

It's not hard to make these decisions if you get the talent evaluation right.

But you're trading a pf to open up the opportunity for your prospect. You don't see your contradiction here?

[EvanZ]

But you're trading a pf to open up the opportunity for your prospect. You don't see your contradiction here?

It's not to open up an opportunity. It's to improve. Boston needs more talent. At any position it can do upgrade.

Regardless, you take the talent now and worry about the deal later. Welcome to the Daryl Morey school of "That's how we do business."

You said before you understood the tier principles, but you clearly don't as each of these last few posts have demonstrated.

The basic idea is that you are looking for value and talent, regardless of need. Talent is the key factor. That is what will enable you to improve your team one way or another.

For example, if the Warriors had the 5th pick and Dante Exum was available and he is in a tier above everybody else left on the board, you draft him. No questions. Doesn't matter that you already have Curry or Klay.

[Baller2014]

From what I can see, I wouldn't want my team anywhere near this guy. Certainly not sooner than 20th, and even then maybe not. He looks like he could have major, major transition problems. Best case he becomes Jalen Rose, who was himself a horribly overrated player.

[Onus]

But you're trading a pf to open up the opportunity for your prospect. You don't see your contradiction here?

It's not to open up an opportunity. It's to improve. Boston needs more talent. At any position it can do upgrade.

Regardless, you take the talent now and worry about the deal later. Welcome to the Daryl Morey school of "That's how we do business."

You said before you understood the tier principles, but you clearly don't as each of these last few posts have demonstrated.

The basic idea is that you are looking for value and talent, regardless of need. Talent is the key factor. That is what will enable you to improve your team one way or another.

For example, if the Warriors had the 5th pick and Dante Exum was available and he is in a tier above everybody else left on the board, you draft him. No questions. Doesn't matter that you already have Curry or Klay.

I think it's different when its generational talent like a Durant or Lebron, you take those players regardless, but for fringe all-stars, I'll take the complimentary player over the slight marginal difference in talent.

When has drafting bpa when they aren't a surefire all-star while it overlapping with a position of strength led to the maximum value of assets? I'll say Monta is somewhat of an example but that's trading for an injury prone player.

Yea I take Exum second but he fits in perfectly with our best player Curry. He would compliment our franchise player not hinder. Klay isn't good enough to worry about his development. That is a tier principle, but that's mainly cuz I think Exum is going to be a stud.

I ascribe to the Spurs model. I'll take the talent that fits and has the opportunity to excel and grow in their position and role rather than try and fit a circular peg into a square hole.

[EvanZ]

I ascribe to the Spurs model. I'll take the talent that fits and has the opportunity to excel and grow in their position and role rather than try and fit a circular peg into a square hole.

I'll take the Spurs draft model if it means drafting 25-30 every year.

I thought we were talking about top 10 picks where this stuff actually matters. Down where the Spurs pick, it's usually just find a guy who might become a rotation player. Kind of a different game.

[Onus]

I ascribe to the Spurs model. I'll take the talent that fits and has the opportunity to excel and grow in their position and role rather than try and fit a circular peg into a square hole.

I'll take the Spurs draft model if it means drafting 25-30 every year.

I thought we were talking about top 10 picks where this stuff actually matters. Down where the Spurs pick, it's usually just find a guy who might become a rotation player. Kind of a different game.

1-5 is different from 6-10 as well, which is different from 11-15


Pick Number Number of All-Stars Drafted There Since 1997 -2011
#6 3
#7 3
#8 2
#9 0
#10 5
#11 0
#12 0
#13 0
#14 0
#15 0

[EvanZ]

I'm not sure what that list is supposed to mean to me.

I do know what the tier system is, and I think you either don't know, are too stubborn to admit you do know, or simply disagree with it.

And this is my last comment about it with you.

[Onus]

I'm not sure what that list is supposed to mean to me.

I do know what the tier system is, and I think you either don't know, are too stubborn to admit you do know, or simply disagree with it.

And this is my last comment about it with you.

I didn't find the all-stars 1-5 but there's a steep drop off from there to 6-10 and then none 11-15. Which means your strategy should be changing when you're not picking 1-5 and especially after 10.

I agree with the tier system when you're talking about generational talents and sure fire all-stars. After that fringe all-star to me means he needs to be in the right situation to achieve his potential as there are tons of prospects that have turned into fringe all-stars based on role and opportunity as well that weren't labeled fringe all-stars at the draft.

To me in this draft there's a clear drop off after 4 (Embiid, Exum, Parker, Wiggins). After that you get to fringe all-stars who may make an all-star team or 2 from 5-13 where they'll need a lot to go right to achieve their full potential. I think Anderson falls into that 2nd tier in this draft 5-13 but I think all of these prospects need the right situation to thrive and to reach their potential.

[Blast Tyrant]

From what I can see, I wouldn't want my team anywhere near this guy. Certainly not sooner than 20th, and even then maybe not. He looks like he could have major, major transition problems. Best case he becomes Jalen Rose, who was himself a horribly overrated player.

Jalen was under rated if anything. He was a terrifically versatile defender early in his career who became the leading scorer on a team that went to the finals. Post-Indiana he clearly declined as a defender. He was a great scorer in Chicago but his knees were bad and from Toronto to the end of his career he was on a steep decline.

[Onus]

Another example of lack of opportunity degrading a player is Chris bosh


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[zjl3]

Kyle can be a huge difference maker if he is in the right situation. At the very least, he can grab the rebound and take it coast to coast and lay it in or dish it to a teammate for an assist. As long as he gets stronger, he should have no problem guarding power forwards.

[BoutPractice]

Seems like a high risk prospect who could struggle to adapt to the NBA, but isn't he also high reward?
That is, isn't there an outside chance he turns out to be an absolute stud in the right situation?

After all, this is a perimeter player with a 7'2 wingspan, a 8'11 standing reach and a high release, who averaged 9 rebounds, 6.5 assists (most per 40 of all draft prospects), 2 steals and 1 block per game along with 48% 3P shooting.
He seems to be good at pretty much every single aspect of offense AND exceptional at a few of them. He doesn't defend but neither did Magic.

UCLA's draft track record is also fairly impressive: Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, Aron Afflalo, Jrue Holiday... Many UCLA players who were thought to have limitations in college have turned out to be major contributors in the league.His IQ and court vision seem absolutely elite, reminiscent among contemporary players of the ever-underrated Boris Diaw, and most importantly, his game though effective looks weird, unconventional, and not prototypically NBA-like which may cause some to underrate him, similar to what happened to Love.

Any thoughts on his best case scenario from people who've watched more of him? Does he have more or less potential than Saric? Is there a remote possibility he turns out to be one of the very best players from the whole draft? Chances LaVine and Anderson are the next Westbrook and Love? (Not in terms of playing style, but in terms of being an All-Star duo from the same team) LaVine and Anderson seem like complete opposites on the court: a pure athlete who does all the things that look great on YouTube but is actually quite raw VS a slow-footed grandpa who is a flat out baller in the most old school way imaginable.

[ManualRam]

the way diaw has performed in the playoffs, has shown his versatility and the value of a big man decision maker who can handle in the middle of the floor should give anderson more looks from teams. he's not exactly like diaw, but i think if he embraces being a skilled, versatile big man as opposed to a wing he can have a similar impact. anderson is kinda soft though. i could see him being resistant to making that kind of transition early on.

[ALL HAIL]

Kyle Anderson has the type of talent that you could build around.

In fact, he is unusual because you almost have to build around him for him to have success.

Ideally, he will play PG on offense and PF on defense. That in itself requires some fancy shuffling around.

Anderson has to play alongside a forward who can guard both SF and PF on defense and play both of those positions on offense as well ... think James Johnson.

He'd also need to play with another wingman who can guard PGs on defense and play either SG or SF on offense ... think Eric Bledsoe or even Wesley Johnson.

For example, if he were to go to the Lakers:

on offense
PG - Anderson
SG - Bledsoe
C - Gasol
PF - J. Johnson
SF - Bryant

on defense
PG - Bledsoe
SG - Bryant
C - Gasol
PF - Anderson
SF - J. Johnson

It reminds me of the Tim Tebow/Johnny Manziel situation/question: Does his talent justify building around him, bringing in specialized hybrid players to allow him to flourish in his uniqueness?