Poll: Would you trade Giannis for Parker or Wiggins?

[Baddy Chuck]

13 pages and the primary argument against a deal is because these two have a lot of hype.

And they have a lot of hype because of their skill/talent level. The same reason Giannis has hype around him.

In the Ford's 25 best prospects lists Wiggins and Parker both had one thing in common: if they had been able to come out after high school, they would have been much higher on the list. They went to school and their stock dropped. The hype surrounding them wasn't indicative of their actual abilities.

And yet he still has both in the top 12(?) overall, showing that maybe the early predictions were overblown but were certainly justified to some extent.

Don't see why people need to give a full detailed novel on why they believe one or two players are more talented then Giannis. "Hype" certainly plays into Giannis being higher on peoples boards as well. "What would he have done in college!?!! What would he have done in a different role!?!!". He very well have could have "floundered" to the same extent Wiggins and Parker did in college, or possibly even lower. We don't know. Nobody does. We do know in the role he was played in he certainly had a less then stellar rookie season overall, though flashes were there obviously. It's all projections and hype with Giannis just like with Parker and Wiggins.

[PkrsBcksGphsMqt]

Sherman Douglas is getting to the point where he's basically cheering and hoping for the demise of Giannis. I've never seen a "fan" piss on their team's most promising player as much as he has.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

One thing I that would stop me from trading Giannis is thinking how amazing he would've been at the college level last year. If he made all the plays this year but with more scoring opportunities as the number 1 option I would be drooling all over him

[ReasonablySober]

And they have a lot of hype because of their skill/talent level. The same reason Giannis has hype around him.

In the Ford's 25 best prospects lists Wiggins and Parker both had one thing in common: if they had been able to come out after high school, they would have been much higher on the list. They went to school and their stock dropped. The hype surrounding them wasn't indicative of their actual abilities.

And yet he still has both in the top 12(?) overall, showing that maybe the early predictions were overblown but were certainly justified to some extent.

Don't see why people need to give a full detailed novel on why they believe one or two players are more talented then Giannis. "Hype" certainly plays into Giannis being higher on peoples boards as well.

My perspective is almost entirely tools/physical based. If one of the two between Wiggins and Parker had some kind of skill to make up for the fact that they aren't 6'11" with a 7'4" wingspan and elite athleticism, I'd be more inclined to see the other-side.

But even when you ignore the size and length advantage, you still have two way player with advantages as a shooter and playmaker. I just don't see what, as a prospect, makes Wiggins or Parker better.

[europa]

Ford ranks Wiggins and Parker ahead of the following players:

Blake Griffin
Chris Paul
John Wall
Dwight Howard

That's a whole lotta hype.

[ReasonablySober]

Ford ranks Wiggins and Parker ahead of the following players:

Blake Griffin
Chris Paul
John Wall
Dwight Howard

That's a whole lotta hype.

And behind Darko.

[europa]

Ford ranks Wiggins and Parker ahead of the following players:

Blake Griffin
Chris Paul
John Wall
Dwight Howard

That's a whole lotta hype.

And behind Darko.

Didn't say the list was perfect.

My point is that there must be something here besides just hype. If they fell off so badly after playing in college but are still ranked ahead of four of the best players in the game, they must have more to offer and more potential that can be realized.

At least in one person's opinion.

I do think both Wiggins and Parker are being undersold in this forum. I don't think they're highly regarded because they've been hyped up so much. I think they've been hyped up so much because both are very talented and have very high NBA ceilings.

[ReasonablySober]

Ford ranks Wiggins and Parker ahead of the following players:

Blake Griffin
Chris Paul
John Wall
Dwight Howard

That's a whole lotta hype.

And behind Darko.

Didn't say the list was perfect.

My point is that there must be something here besides just hype. If they fell off so badly after playing in college but are still ranked ahead of four of the best players in the game, they must have more to offer and more potential that can be realized.

At least in one person's opinion.

I do think both Wiggins and Parker are being undersold in this forum. I don't think they're highly regarded because they've been hyped up so much. I think they've been hyped up so much because both are very talented and have very high NBA ceilings.

Remember, this is how they were perceived as prospects coming out. None of those four were considered future top 10 players.

As for Wiggins and Parker, I think they've been overhyped if anything. Many people around here still consider them franchise changing prospects.

[SupremeHustle]

Sherman Douglas is getting to the point where he's basically cheering and hoping for the demise of Giannis. I've never seen a "fan" piss on their team's most promising player as much as he has.

You don't remember my Yi posts, do you?

[europa]

As for Wiggins and Parker, I think they've been overhyped if anything. Many people around here still consider them franchise changing prospects.

I don't think that viewpoint is restricted to some of us in this forum. I think there are a lot of people around the league who like both of those guys a lot. What I've seen more of in this forum anyway is people trying to find reasons not to like Wiggins and/or Parker with Embiid having emerged. Personally, I think it's OK to like all three of these guys a lot and think all three of them have a high ceiling. But that's just me.

[H2tObes]

Giannis is still a prospect, he's a special prospect in fact. A ridiculously unique skillset that can potentially be proficient in every facet of the game. I don't see why it's so ridiculous to be enamored with him knowing what we know

[Baddy Chuck]

My perspective is almost entirely tools/physical based. If one of the two between Wiggins and Parker had some kind of skill to make up for the fact that they aren't 6'11" with a 7'4" wingspan and elite athleticism, I'd be more inclined to see the other-side.

But even when you ignore the size and length advantage, you still have two way player with advantages as a shooter and playmaker. I just don't see what, as a prospect, makes Wiggins or Parker better.

And I think both do. I think Wiggins' first step explosiveness and Parker's all around scoring ability will outmatch any of the extra stuff Giannis' game provides. I feel as though both of those players have scoring tools that Giannis does not posses. Scoring isn't everything in the game of basketball obviously, but I feel as though that Giannis' other tools are being blown out of proportion as much as anything that Wiggins or Parker has is. I feel he'll be a AK-47 type player. Good at a lot, great at close to nothing. Obviously others may feel differently but neither is more than an opinion.

Basically all your doing with comment like "I haven't seen a good argument for Wiggins/Parker besides hype" is trying to lure people in to making an argument and saying "you're wrong, I'm right" because you are obviously set in your ways with all three players. You don't think they have better tools, great, others do.

[LUKE23]

I don't think he will be quite as good of defender as AK, but I think he can do a lot more with the ball in his hands.

[ReasonablySober]

My perspective is almost entirely tools/physical based. If one of the two between Wiggins and Parker had some kind of skill to make up for the fact that they aren't 6'11" with a 7'4" wingspan and elite athleticism, I'd be more inclined to see the other-side.

But even when you ignore the size and length advantage, you still have two way player with advantages as a shooter and playmaker. I just don't see what, as a prospect, makes Wiggins or Parker better.

And I think both do. I think Wiggins' first step explosiveness and Parker's all around scoring ability will outmatch any of the extra stuff Giannis' game provides. I feel as though both of those players have scoring tools that Giannis does not posses. Scoring isn't everything in the game of basketball obviously, but I feel as though that Giannis' other tools are being blown out of proportion as much as anything that Wiggins or Parker has is. I feel he'll be a AK-47 type player. Good at a lot, great at close to nothing. Obviously others may feel differently but neither is more than an opinion.

Basically all your doing with comment like "I haven't seen a good argument for Wiggins/Parker besides hype" is trying to lure people in to making an argument and saying "you're wrong, I'm right" because you are obviously set in your ways with all three players.

I was with you, even if I didn't necessarily agree with you, until the bolded part. I'm just looking for an argument, whether it's based on skill set, tools, whatever that might make someone prefer Wiggins or Parker to Giannis.

[Baddy Chuck]

I don't think he will be quite as good of defender as AK, but I think he can do a lot more with the ball in his hands.

I do as well, I don't think he's going to be top of league exceptional at it though. Still see him in that role as a Kirilenko-Odom 3rd-4th wheel type player where I see Wiggins and Parker as legit #2s. Again, opinions and all though.

[Nycballa2k]

And behind Darko.

Didn't say the list was perfect.

My point is that there must be something here besides just hype. If they fell off so badly after playing in college but are still ranked ahead of four of the best players in the game, they must have more to offer and more potential that can be realized.

At least in one person's opinion.

I do think both Wiggins and Parker are being undersold in this forum. I don't think they're highly regarded because they've been hyped up so much. I think they've been hyped up so much because both are very talented and have very high NBA ceilings.

Remember, this is how they were perceived as prospects coming out. None of those four were considered future top 10 players.

As for Wiggins and Parker, I think they've been overhyped if anything. Many people around here still consider them franchise changing prospects.

I'm failing to see how they are not. When Parker brings in energy, emotion and excitement like we had for one year of Jennings (which was a fun season which doesn't get enough love) and starts putting up great performances and being in the rookie of the year talk how is that not franchise changing? When he develops chemistry with Giannis and they develop chemistry how is that not franchise changing? We've literally had nothing to be excited about and Parker brings that.

[Ruben Quevedo]

Jennings was never the prospect Giannis is, and I don't think there's any revisionism in saying that.

Yes, Jennings had a great start and the 55 point game, but he didn't have the athleticism of the "new breed" PG's like Rose and Westbrook and he never showed he could finish in the paint or draw fouls consistently. His early success was the product of unsustainably high outside shooting percentages, which regressed quicker than I think people remember.

His ceiling was always limited by his diminutive stature (only Iverson every turned into a superstar with that frame). Giannis has no such limitations.

[Sherman Douglas]

Sherman Douglas is getting to the point where he's basically cheering and hoping for the demise of Giannis. I've never seen a "fan" piss on their team's most promising player as much as he has.

bull. I said I can see him being a starting player on a title team and I'd be thrilled if he's even close to Kirilenko, let alone better than anyone in this draft.

You're just pissy cus your utterly ridiculous statement is in the sig.

[Sherman Douglas]

Jennings was never the prospect Giannis is, and I don't think there's any revisionism in saying that.

This thread tells me differently: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=958639

[Bucks_MacGyver]

I don't think ak47 played sg at any point in his career so to compare him to him is kind of stupid. No one has ever seen a player like giannis so let's stop trying to compare him to other players and just wait until we see what he is

Sent from my SM-G900P using RealGM Forums mobile app