Ford Mock 6.0 #2 Embiid

LUKE23 · Post #1901 » by **LUKE23** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:32 pm

Didn't Ford's latest say we are also leaning Parker, or no?

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #1902 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:33 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Didn't Ford's latest say we are also leaning Parker, or no?

Yeah. I would be shocked if he doesn't have us taking Parker in his next mock.

Badgerlander · Post #1903 » by **Badgerlander** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:34 pm

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:New thread worthy? Update thread title of this thread? Or neither?

I can add it to the title if you guys want I just don't personally think Goodman is nearly as relevant as Ford or even Givony.

SkilesTheLimit · Post #1904 » by **SkilesTheLimit** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:35 pm

This is no-lose guys. Parker will be a stud.

Id also be curious to see Ford and Goodman's mocks last year. Didn't everyone have Noel going #1?

LUKE23 · Post #1905 » by **LUKE23** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:36 pm

If we did take Parker, gotta think he's our starting PF next year. I wanted to move Ilyasova anyway, but I'd like to package him with #31 or even a couple of our 2nd round picks to see if we could move up for someone like Jordan Adams or Elfrid Payton. Our backcourt is a hot mess at the moment, would like to add a good prospect there.

Post #1906 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:37 pm

REMINDER: Ford doesn't actually know ****.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #1907 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:38 pm

DocHoliday wrote:
PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:New thread worthy? Update thread title of this thread? Or neither?

I can add it to the title if you guys want I just don't personally think Goodman is nearly as relevant as Ford or even Givony.

That's probably true and why I wasn't sure what to do with it. I do think Goodman has some pretty solid sources though. I think this is his first year doing NBA draft stuff. He has always been more of a college basketball guy.

LUKE23 · Post #1908 » by **LUKE23** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:39 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:REMINDER: Ford doesn't actually know ****.

As of today, I don't put much stock in it. Once we get to right before the draft, I do. He's been very on with our picks historically. Maybe that changes with the new owners, but he's been good. He was in on us taking Giannis last year. And if you go back under JH, he's been really good at finding out who we like.

Siefer · Post #1909 » by **Siefer** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm

LUKE23 wrote:If we did take Parker, gotta think he's our starting PF next year. I wanted to move Ilyasova anyway, but I'd like to package him with #31 or even a couple of our 2nd round picks to see if we could move up for someone like Jordan Adams or Elfrid Payton. Our backcourt is a hot mess at the moment, would like to add a good prospect there.

I'd love to pick up Adams in the 2nd half of the 1st round.

Zeezprah · Post #1910 » by **Zeezprah** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:REMINDER: Ford doesn't actually know ****.

if the draft were held yesterday, i'm told 25 teams would've taken dario saric number 1.

but today, i got a hold of a more reliable source within the cavs organization, and he told me their big board has completely changed.

my new mock reflects that (insider)

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #1911 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm

LUKE23 wrote:If we did take Parker, gotta think he's our starting PF next year. I wanted to move Ilyasova anyway, but I'd like to package him with #31 or even a couple of our 2nd round picks to see if we could move up for someone like Jordan Adams or Elfrid Payton. Our backcourt is a hot mess at the moment, would like to add a good prospect there.

I want to trade Henson and Ersan no matter who we pick, but you are right, if it's Parker it makes even more sense to move some of our front court pieces.

BucksFanSD · Post #1912 » by **BucksFanSD** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:43 pm

I do hope we pick Wiggins at 2 (Embiid unfortunately is going #1 IMO) since he's the best prospect available. But if we're not targeting Wiggins I hope we play our cards right and attempt to trade back to 3 or 4 to get Parker or Exum and try to pick up another high pick as part of it. I don't think there is much of a gap between 2-4, but if say Philly does for example, you would be best to profit off that.

Personally i feel like Parker and Exum are better fits. They would easier allow Knight to move to the 2, where he is better off. I think Wiggins would play SG here, with Giannis and Middleton at the 3, meaning Knight would play PG. PG minutes should be given mostly to Nate Wolters.

One thing I really would like about Parker is that he can score in the low post and also complements Sanders. Other than Bogut's FTD year in 2009 this has been a jump shooting team the last 15 years since it's severely lacked post scorers. It's driven me crazy, and I'm ready for a more balanced team.

I like Wiggins the most however, I think he has skills that translate well as a complete basketball player. I think we would have to be extremely patient with him however because I don't think he will be a stellar ball handler or shooter right off the bat.

If we draft Wiggins we need a scoring PF because we just don't have one right now (unless Ersan is resurrected by some miracle) and that hurts. Personally I'd draft Wiggins then trade all our 2nds to move up to draft Adreian Payne and call it a day.

Badgerlander · Post #1913 » by **Badgerlander** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:44 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:REMINDER: Ford doesn't actually know ****.

I think up until last year Ford usually gets the top 3-5 picks correct, more often than anyone else

Post #1914 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:45 pm

Ford is simply a vessel for all the bulls**t that NBA front offices want out there. That's all.

LUKE23 · Post #1915 » by **LUKE23** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:48 pm

Ford's final mock for us:

2013: Giannis
2012: Ross
2011: Brooks
2010: Sanders
2009: Jennings
2008: Westbrook

So the only draft where we passed on a guy he had mocked to us was Marshon Brooks in 2011. He's hit on the 3 picks, and it's very likely Ross and Westbrook would have been Bucks if they fell to our slot. He's hit on three picks 10 or later for us, so clearly he was getting intel.

BucksFanSD · Post #1916 » by **BucksFanSD** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:51 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Ford's final mock for us:

2013: Giannis
2012: Ross
2011: Brooks
2010: Sanders
2009: Jennings
2008: Westbrook

So the only draft where we passed on a guy he had mocked to us was Marshon Brooks in 2011. He's hit on the 3 picks, and it's very likely Ross and Westbrook would have been Bucks if they fell to our slot. He's hit on three picks 10 or later for us, so clearly he was getting intel.

I feel like the Bucks (i.e. Hammond) have been shockingly honest however about who they really like (and thereby will draft). While most teams use smoke screens, the Bucks have stated who they like, and then not surprisingly gone out and drafted them. Maybe they are trying to show small market loyalty. Anyways, I don't think it's smart. Furthermore, if they say they like Parker, don't be surprised when they draft Parker.

LUKE23 · Post #1917 » by **LUKE23** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:54 pm

It's either that or someone in the scouting department was talking to Ford. I agree that in general, Ford gets fed a lot of BS. But for us that clearly has not been the case. You don't get lucky three times outside the top 10. And we were high on Ross/Westbrook those other years according to BuckPack, if I remember correctly. I'm positive we were high on Ross.

theFireBlanket · Post #1918 » by **theFireBlanket** » Thu May 29, 2014 5:00 pm

LUKE23 wrote:It's either that or someone in the scouting department was talking to Ford. I agree that in general, Ford gets fed a lot of BS. But for us that clearly has not been the case. You don't get lucky three times outside the top 10. And we were high on Ross/Westbrook those other years according to BuckPack, if I remember correctly. I'm positive we were high on Ross.

You're correct on both counts. Westbrook wasn't supposed to go so high and Ross was higher on their board than Henson who they were still content with taking at 14. Hence the gamble to of trading down and seeing if Ross fell (if not, Drummond, Lamb, Henson or Zeller).

machu46 · Post #1919 » by **machu46** » Thu May 29, 2014 5:01 pm

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:
Zeezprah wrote:
PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:

freaking a. the bold is what really pisses me off about keeping hammond the most. you take BPA, not the one that saves your job. if he believe jabari is BPA for our organization forward, so be it. But don't just draft him because he's most ready and you wanna keep your job.

frick.

Agreed, but I don't think there is any hard evidence to suggest this will be the case. I just seems like the popular speculation going around right now.

This. And now if we do draft Jabari, everyone will complain that we only did it because Hammond is trying to save his job and blah blah blah. There's still a very good chance he simply thinks Jabari is the 2nd best prospect in this draft.

Post #1920 » by **paulpressey25** » Thu May 29, 2014 5:02 pm

Edens and Lasry said they were going to spend today and tomorrow talking draft with John Hammond at the Cousins Center. I'd have to guess those meetings will have a large bearing on what really happens. Workouts still have to come.

I'd put zero stock in anything right now, and even afterwards I'd put zero stock in what is leaked. Lasry and Edens are too smart.

I think this board should focus on what Cleveland is thinking what might be getting leaked from there in the future on Embiid's medical reports.