Bucks_Pre wrote:the closer we get to the draft , the more it looks like we might be drafting Parker, with his father now saying he wouldnt mind his son playing only a hour away from home and how the owners love parker. Wiggins in the long term is the perfect fit to play next to Giannis, but it looks like we have to get used to the idea of trying to fit Parker and Giannis together.
How is that the case exactly that Wiggins is the long-term perfect fit next to Giannis? Neither are good shooters for wings, they'd blunt each other's defensive versatility contribution to a team, and one of Wiggins' biggest strengths is offensive rebounding which he can't utilize at the 2 next to Giannis because he'll have transition d duties.
If we're talking about fit, Parker is better next to Giannis and Sanders, because they'll negate his defensive issues somewhat, while by being a stretch 4 and potential go-to-guy on offense he'll negate the spacing and lack of scoring issues they may create. Parker, fit-wise, works GREAT here.
I think you're rationalizing Wiggins is a particularly good fit, let alone compared to Parker, because he's the guy you like more. And it's fine that you like him more. But you don't need to create extra, fantastical reasons as to why the Bucks should take him as well. Just propose they should take him because you think he's bpa. That would be more than a justifiable enough reason, even though I'd disagree with the assessment. It remains to be seen who all these guys are as players, caliber-wise. But stylistically, right now Parker is the better "fit". I don't even see how that's debatable. Fit involves compensating for other's weaknesses, not adding to strengths that already exist.
* (***)
