Draft Thread Part 2

[bwgood77]

I'd rather draft LeVert in the 2nd than Valentine in the lottery.

Yeah, I guess he almost has the EXACT same numbers as Valentine (except 4.6 apg and rpg 5.3) but shooting almost identical, and pretty solid across the board.

[bwgood77]

Love Denzel but I wont touch him in the lotto.

This is the trouble we find ourselves in. Our philosophy has been to draft BPA - easier when you have a roster devoid of young talent. Now we have a young starting SG, SF and C. We have two picks in the lottery. It's deep at the 2 spot. The PFs are a mix of very risky and low-ceiling prospects. There are no great young PG prospects, with the possible exception of Dunn. Exactly one small forward and center projected in the lottery.

So what do you do? Fischella would recommend Chriss at the top I guess. We might be best served by drafting the best PF available at 4/5/6 or 13, and dealing the other. But for what? For whom? Can't be for lower picks; after all, we're trying to get rid of a first rounder, not pick one up.

If we want a PG prospect, perhaps we'd be better served taking that player at #28 or #35. Even better, we could try to pull of a trade for Cam Payne, whom I like better than any of the PG prospects in this draft. As far as young PFs, Portis could very well be available also. But these guys may be easier attained by trading our vets - Knight, Chandler, Tucker.

This is going to be a very interesting offseason, to say the least.

Portis available? I'd say by all accounts Chicago wants to get younger not older. An aging Noah, Pau and overpaid injury prone Rose are the players they need to get rid of. They are slowly falling into the same boat as us but with their young talent being Butler, Portis and McDermott.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Love Denzel but I wont touch him in the lotto.

This is the trouble we find ourselves in. Our philosophy has been to draft BPA - easier when you have a roster devoid of young talent. Now we have a young starting SG, SF and C. We have two picks in the lottery. It's deep at the 2 spot. The PFs are a mix of very risky and low-ceiling prospects. There are no great young PG prospects, with the possible exception of Dunn. Exactly one small forward and center projected in the lottery.

So what do you do? Fischella would recommend Chriss at the top I guess. We might be best served by drafting the best PF available at 4/5/6 or 13, and dealing the other. But for what? For whom? Can't be for lower picks; after all, we're trying to get rid of a first rounder, not pick one up.

If we want a PG prospect, perhaps we'd be better served taking that player at #28 or #35. Even better, we could try to pull of a trade for Cam Payne, whom I like better than any of the PG prospects in this draft. As far as young PFs, Portis could very well be available also. But these guys may be easier attained by trading our vets - Knight, Chandler, Tucker.

This is going to be a very interesting offseason, to say the least.

Portis available? I'd say by all accounts Chicago wants to get younger not older. An aging Noah, Pau and overpaid injury prone Rose are the players they need to get rid of. They are slowly falling into the same boat as us but with their young talent being Butler, Portis and McDermott.

I say Portis may be available based solely on the frequency with which he comes up in Chicago fans' trade suggestions.

[bwgood77]

This is the trouble we find ourselves in. Our philosophy has been to draft BPA - easier when you have a roster devoid of young talent. Now we have a young starting SG, SF and C. We have two picks in the lottery. It's deep at the 2 spot. The PFs are a mix of very risky and low-ceiling prospects. There are no great young PG prospects, with the possible exception of Dunn. Exactly one small forward and center projected in the lottery.

So what do you do? Fischella would recommend Chriss at the top I guess. We might be best served by drafting the best PF available at 4/5/6 or 13, and dealing the other. But for what? For whom? Can't be for lower picks; after all, we're trying to get rid of a first rounder, not pick one up.

If we want a PG prospect, perhaps we'd be better served taking that player at #28 or #35. Even better, we could try to pull of a trade for Cam Payne, whom I like better than any of the PG prospects in this draft. As far as young PFs, Portis could very well be available also. But these guys may be easier attained by trading our vets - Knight, Chandler, Tucker.

This is going to be a very interesting offseason, to say the least.

Portis available? I'd say by all accounts Chicago wants to get younger not older. An aging Noah, Pau and overpaid injury prone Rose are the players they need to get rid of. They are slowly falling into the same boat as us but with their young talent being Butler, Portis and McDermott.

I say Portis may be available based solely on the frequency with which he comes up in Chicago fans' trade suggestions.

Oh, I was thinking he came up a lot in Phoenix fans' trade suggestions of what they believe Chicago might trade.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Portis available? I'd say by all accounts Chicago wants to get younger not older. An aging Noah, Pau and overpaid injury prone Rose are the players they need to get rid of. They are slowly falling into the same boat as us but with their young talent being Butler, Portis and McDermott.

I say Portis may be available based solely on the frequency with which he comes up in Chicago fans' trade suggestions.

Oh, I was thinking he came up a lot in Phoenix fans' trade suggestions of what they believe Chicago might trade.

Nah, looking at the Trades and Transactions thread. Chicago fans don't seem to propose anything that doesn't involve Portis - essentially the opposite of the way we treat Booker.

[bwgood77]

I say Portis may be available based solely on the frequency with which he comes up in Chicago fans' trade suggestions.

Oh, I was thinking he came up a lot in Phoenix fans' trade suggestions of what they believe Chicago might trade.

Nah, looking at the Trades and Transactions thread. Chicago fans don't seem to propose anything that doesn't involve Portis - essentially the opposite of the way we treat Booker.

Oh, maybe I haven't seen too many recently. I saw one where we get Portis and they get Booker, but that's it.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Oh, I was thinking he came up a lot in Phoenix fans' trade suggestions of what they believe Chicago might trade.

Nah, looking at the Trades and Transactions thread. Chicago fans don't seem to propose anything that doesn't involve Portis - essentially the opposite of the way we treat Booker.

Oh, maybe I haven't seen too many recently. I saw one where we get Portis and they get Booker, but that's it.

Last one I saw had us getting Portis and #1 for Booker in a three-way deal with the Lakers. Second or third comment said the Suns were getting shafted.

[bwgood77]

Nah, looking at the Trades and Transactions thread. Chicago fans don't seem to propose anything that doesn't involve Portis - essentially the opposite of the way we treat Booker.

Oh, maybe I haven't seen too many recently. I saw one where we get Portis and they get Booker, but that's it.

Last one I saw had us getting Portis and #1 for Booker in a three-way deal with the Lakers. Second or third comment said the Suns were getting shafted.

Yeah, but that would be Portis and likely the Lakers 2019 #1 if they keep their pick this year. That just seems like a terrible deal for the Lakers and Suns. It COULD be an ok deal for the Suns if that pick was unprotected and it ended up #1 but even if a deal like that was going to take place, it would likely be heavily protected and may not convey for years.

[Saberestar]

I don't even like Portis. He seems a role player at best, like it was Tyrone Hill or like John Henson nowadays.
Those players have value if they play next to All Stars.

[Saberestar]

I don't want to play with a conventional PF in our starting lineup. It's getting old.

If you have an outstanding PF ( like Griffin or Aldridge) is OK, but that is not our case. If you aren't going to put a terrific PF out there is better for your team to put a big SF with strength and mobility who can shoot the ball.

If we draft Ingram or Jaylen Brown they can be that player for us in the future...probably even in his rookie season.

I prefer Brown over Ellenson, Chriss or Sabonis just for that reason.

[bwgood77]

I don't want to play with a conventional PF in our starting lineup. It's getting old.

If you have an outstanding PF ( like Griffin or Aldridge) is OK, but that is not our case. If you aren't going to put a terrific PF out there is better for your team to put a big SF with strength and mobility who can shoot the ball.

If we draft Ingram or Jaylen Brown they can be that player for us in the future...probably even in his rookie season.

I prefer Brown over Ellenson, Chriss or Sabonis just for that reason.

But Brown can't really shoot the ball. I'd love him as a small ball four if he could shoot.

[Saberestar]

I don't want to play with a conventional PF in our starting lineup. It's getting old.

If you have an outstanding PF ( like Griffin or Aldridge) is OK, but that is not our case. If you aren't going to put a terrific PF out there is better for your team to put a big SF with strength and mobility who can shoot the ball.

If we draft Ingram or Jaylen Brown they can be that player for us in the future...probably even in his rookie season.

I prefer Brown over Ellenson, Chriss or Sabonis just for that reason.

But Brown can't really shoot the ball. I'd love him as a small ball four if he could shoot.

I think that he is a decent shooter and can be better.

3pt 0.9 / 3pa 3 per game. 29.7%

He made nearly one triple per game and his mechanics are good, his shoot is not broken. He can be a good shooter...at least a decent shooter like Warren is now.

Khawi Leonard had worse numbers regarding 3p shooting (even like a sophomore) and he is now a tremendous shooter

[bwgood77]

I don't want to play with a conventional PF in our starting lineup. It's getting old.

If you have an outstanding PF ( like Griffin or Aldridge) is OK, but that is not our case. If you aren't going to put a terrific PF out there is better for your team to put a big SF with strength and mobility who can shoot the ball.

If we draft Ingram or Jaylen Brown they can be that player for us in the future...probably even in his rookie season.

I prefer Brown over Ellenson, Chriss or Sabonis just for that reason.

But Brown can't really shoot the ball. I'd love him as a small ball four if he could shoot.

I think that he is a decent shooter and can be better.

3pt 0.9 / 3pa 3 per game. 29.7%

He made nearly one triple per game and his mechanics are good, his shoot is not broken. He can be a good shooter...at least a decent shooter like Warren is now.

Khawi Leonard had worse numbers regarding 3p shooting (even like a sophomore) and he is now a tremendous shooter

On this shot chart, he looks like he is a good shooter from likely one area.

http://vorped.com/4-ncaam/2015-2016/player/7341/jaylen-brown/shotchart/

And when he is SO good at finishing at the rim, and still overall only shoots 40%, that is not going to work unless he makes DRASTIC improvements in his shooting.

It looks a little similar to this.

http://vorped.com/1-nba/2015-2016/player/1587/archie-goodwin/shotchart/

He gets to the line often, which is a plus, but this is kind of the take on him..

At the moment, Brown is more athlete than basketball player. That can be said of a lot of one-and-done guys showcasing the difficulty in transitioning from high school to college, but Brown’s case is particularly pronounced. He’s a poor shooter across multiple contexts; Brown forces the issue and frequently takes contested pull-ups in addition to being a below-average player in catch-and-shoot situations. The aformentioned free-throw prowess helps offset this a little, but his field-goal percentage at the rim (61.6) leaves a lot to be desired for a guy who isn’t knocking down many looks elsewhere.

Not having a “go-to” set of shots you can hit is problematic once your athleticism becomes less of a dividing point between you and the competition. If you want Brown to be a primary initiator on offense, he’d need to rein in his shot selection and become more of a threat from mid-range. If you prefer him to play off-ball to take advantage of his athleticism off screens and cuts, he has to improve from deep. Both are big asks at the moment — he shot 30.1 percent on 2-point jumpers and 29.4 percent from 3-point range, respectively.

Unlike in the case of Ben Simmons, Brown doesn’t have the skill set of creator/playmaker to fall back on if he can’t score at the next level. His box score numbers are underwhelming for a player who rarely faced opponents with the size and athleticism to deal with him.

High turnover numbers are sometimes a sign of a young player testing the limits of pass safety, but Brown’s 0.68 A/TO ratio underscore a problem that has plagued him for years. He is prone to forcing the issue far too often, in addition to his handle (specifically going left) being permanently under construction. Trustworthy draft models have suggested the translation of TOV% from NCAA to pros can be determined in large part by 3-point shooting (which we’ve already established is bad) and ORB%, a category where Brown struggled.

If Brown were being considered as a mid-late pick in the first round, a lot of these concerns would be shrugged off fairly easily. Rolling the dice on athleticism and hoping the guy can figure it out is a time-honored tradition for NBA execs. The thinking there is simple — you can teach a man to shoot or pick up other skills, but you can’t alter a player’s genetic structure. It’s easy to talk yourself into a future for Brown; when spacing opens up for him at the next level, he’ll be able to leverage his strengths in a way he couldn’t at Cal. A dearth of shooting put him behind the proverbial eight ball, and Ivan Rabb’s presence in the paint didn’t exactly clear space for him to operate.

But Brown is not being pushed forward as some late-first project some team can take a flier on. In play with one of the top-five selections in this June’s draft, Brown would likely be asked to take on a primary role for a rebuilding franchise, a role that he currently seems woefully unequipped for. The flashes are blinding, but they feel too distant from one another to be relied on consistently.

[Waylay13]

But Brown is not being pushed forward as some late-first project some team can take a flier on. In play with one of the top-five selections in this June’s draft, Brown would likely be asked to take on a primary role for a rebuilding franchise, a role that he currently seems woefully unequipped for. The flashes are blinding, but they feel too distant from one another to be relied on consistently.

[/quote]

Personally I am looking Brown being the 3rd option behind Bledsoe and Booker. I would much rather have Ingram or Simmons but if the Suns dont get one of the top 2 picks they are another couple years before they are back in the playoffs. That gives Brown time to grow and get better but even if all that happens is that he replaces Tucker in the line I think we are still better off then we are right now. If you can pick up a solid power forward that can rebound and hit the 15 footer and play center with a small ball line up then we can grow into a better defensive team. I would love to see a movement offense with maybe a trapping defense like the Sonics used to run with Payton but using Bledsoe and a quick player that can recover quickly like Brown. Heck I wouldnt be mad at picking up Luwawu as a small forward if he can step in and play.

[bwgood77]

But Brown is not being pushed forward as some late-first project some team can take a flier on. In play with one of the top-five selections in this June’s draft, Brown would likely be asked to take on a primary role for a rebuilding franchise, a role that he currently seems woefully unequipped for. The flashes are blinding, but they feel too distant from one another to be relied on consistently.

Personally I am looking Brown being the 3rd option behind Bledsoe and Booker. I would much rather have Ingram or Simmons but if the Suns dont get one of the top 2 picks they are another couple years before they are back in the playoffs. That gives Brown time to grow and get better but even if all that happens is that he replaces Tucker in the line I think we are still better off then we are right now. If you can pick up a solid power forward that can rebound and hit the 15 footer and play center with a small ball line up then we can grow into a better defensive team. I would love to see a movement offense with maybe a trapping defense like the Sonics used to run with Payton but using Bledsoe and a quick player that can recover quickly like Brown. Heck I wouldnt be mad at picking up Luwawu as a small forward if he can step in and play.

Are you talking about Brown primarily being a PF that could play center? Or are you referring to someone else? Because that doesn't make a ton of sense. He has the size for a wing.

Since he's really more of a SF, I wouldn't want him taking time from TJ Warren. Check out his shot chart. He NEEDS to be an offensive option far before a guy like Jaylen Brown would be.

http://vorped.com/1-nba/2015-2016/player/1849/tj-warren/shotchart/

TJ needs to get better defensively, and I think he works hard and will. Jaylen Brown has more of the athletic ability that makes it easier to become a good NBA defender, but it doesn't mean he's going to. That is they main argument for Brown is for good wing defense with hopes he some day has some offense. We have enough guys who are good from inside 5 feet.

I'm really curious as to how McD views Brown though. People's thoughts on him are all over the board, and his draft range has dropped quite a bit, especially at ESPN where he is 10th on Ford's big board.

It just seems crazy to me to take another SF when we have a glaring PF hole. As much as some people dislike Tucker, I have a pretty good feeling McD really likes him as does the coach and team. I think with him as the energy guy vet, and Warren as the young scorer is a pretty nice mix at the 3. Obviously Booker and Warren need to improve defense, and maybe Tucker plays at the 4 to switch on wings in some lineups until that happens, but if Simmons, Ingram and Bender are gone and it's our pick, unless we drop to 6 or 7 (in which case we should take the highest PF on our board), we should open up for trade talks. I wouldn't draft a guy because you believe he is BPA and even though you don't need him you will trade him because that backfires. Tyler Ennis over Harris and Hood is an example of this. Or possibly even Okafor for Philly last year.

We also might have 5 PFs ranked about the same and feel sure one is going to be there at 13 and trade for a future pick or possibly a young player maybe from last year's draft or something.

[Waylay13]

I really like TJ as a player who can come in and score in bunches but I think is best suited as a 6th man that will come in and score kind of Cedric Ceballos was in 93. If the Suns can pick up a player who would be all around better then him in the draft as long as he was better. There are 3 (4 if you count Simmons as a small forward) players in the draft who I think have the possibility of being a better all around player then TJ at small forward and they are Ingram, Brown and Luwawu. I think Brown maybe a Marion lite type of player who maybe able to spend some time at the 2, 3 and even a little time at the 4 in a small ball line up.

Think of a line up Bledsoe, Knight, Booker, Brown and Davis; they would be very quick and could score and rebound from all over the floor about the biggest knock on them is the passing. Heck if you were to move Knight and put Bogdanovic in I think you would be in even better shape.

[bwgood77]

I really like TJ as a player who can come in and score in bunches but I think is best suited as a 6th man that will come in and score kind of Cedric Ceballos was in 93. If the Suns can pick up a player who would be all around better then him in the draft as long as he was better. There are 3 (4 if you count Simmons as a small forward) players in the draft who I think have the possibility of being a better all around player then TJ at small forward and they are Ingram, Brown and Luwawu. I think Brown maybe a Marion lite type of player who maybe able to spend some time at the 2, 3 and even a little time at the 4 in a small ball line up.

Think of a line up Bledsoe, Knight, Booker, Brown and Davis; they would be very quick and could score and rebound from all over the floor about the biggest knock on them is the passing. Heck if you were to move Knight and put Bogdanovic in I think you would be in even better shape.

I still don't know why you think Brown will be better than Warren. If Warren was coming out in this draft he would likely go higher than Brown.

Warren was far better across the board in college and is bigger (at least according to their heights and weights on sports-ref).

Warren as a frosh: 63% from 2, 52% from 3 (overall 62%), 12 pts, 4.2 rebounds, 1.2 steals in 27 minutes (but far from #1 option - came off bench much or most of year)

Warren as a soph: 58% from 2, 27% from 3 (overall 52.5%) 25 pts, 7 rebounds, 1.8 steals in 35 minutes and won ACC player of the year over Jabari Parker

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/tj-warren-1.html

Warren basically proved he was an ELITE short AND mid range game player and the only fear was why did his 3 pt shooting decline so much, but now it is back up to 40% in his 2nd year in the NBA. His overall % likely dropped as as a soph primarily from being best scorer in ACC, so always drew double and sometimes triple teams.

Brown as a frosh: 48% from 2 (and finishing is supposed to be his GREAT offensive game), 29% from 3, (43% overall), 14.6 pts, 5.4 rebounds, .8 steals on 27 minutes a game

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jaylen-brown-1.html

Steals are supposed to be good indication of translation. Brown also fouls a ton.

But basically, Brown put up slightly higher #s but on FAR less efficiency than Warren as a freshman, and Brown was the main go to guy, while Warren was mostly coming off the bench (did start some though).

Warren also played in a WAY tougher conference. I just think if Brown had THIS much trouble scoring in the PAC12, how is that going to look against NBA defenders?

IF Brown can turn into a great NBA defender, his upside is probably Michael Kidd Gilchrist, though MKG shot 49% in college, with 53.5% from 2 and 25.5% from 3 and his big knock is shooting..but he still is even much more efficient offensively than Brown, and the big knock on MKG in the NBA IS his offense. It's finally coming around a bit in year 4, but he is supposed to be as hard as worker as there is.

Brown measures very similar to MKG but isn't quite as highly thought of as MKG was as a prospect.

There is just a lot that scares me about the guy.

Though I hope I'm wrong if we draft him.

[bhawk]

Nice new piece on Buddy. He seems like a high character / team leader type of guy who is arguably the most competitive player in the draft. I am warming up to a Booker / Buddy combination. Thoughts from the board? What if we cut bait on Knight and started over with Buddy? How does he compare with Knight?

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Buddy-Hield-NBA-Draft-Scouting-Report-and-Video-Breakdown-5469

[Mulhollanddrive]

Chad Ford latest mock (in order).

1 Simmons
2 Ingram
3 Murray
4 Dunn
5 Bender
6 Hield
7 Ellenson
8 Chriss
9 Poeltl
10 Brown
11 Labissiere
12 Sabonis
13 Valentine
14 Davis

Key moves:
- Murray up to 3
- Bender down to 5, Hield down to 6, Brown down to 10

[AtheJ415]

Portis available? I'd say by all accounts Chicago wants to get younger not older. An aging Noah, Pau and overpaid injury prone Rose are the players they need to get rid of. They are slowly falling into the same boat as us but with their young talent being Butler, Portis and McDermott.

I say Portis may be available based solely on the frequency with which he comes up in Chicago fans' trade suggestions.

Oh, I was thinking he came up a lot in Phoenix fans' trade suggestions of what they believe Chicago might trade.

I think all fan suggestions are probably a bad way to judge who is available.