2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread Volume 2

Kobblehead · Post #1161 » by **Kobblehead** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:38 pm

In hindsight, Draymond and Jae Crowder would go top 5 in the 2012 draft. Why draft an extremely flawed underclassman just because consensus big boards tell you there's perceived value with that selection? Monk and Markenen are bad Top 10 picks, IMO. I'd much rather draft Sindarious Thornwell and hope his multi-faceted dominance translates like Dray and Jae were able to.

kriss73 · Post #1162 » by **kriss73** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:45 pm

Read on Twitter

Unexpected for me: maybe he is the first big man out of board coming June.

Unbreakable99 · Post #1163 » by **Unbreakable99** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:49 pm

Williams should come out if he's a top ten selection.

Kobblehead · Post #1164 » by **Kobblehead** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:52 pm

If Embiid misses extended time yet again, we should be in good position to add an excellent big in the 2018 draft.

smittybanton · Post #1165 » by **smittybanton** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:33 pm

Unbreakable99 wrote:Hypothetical trade. What if we are picking 5th and the team picking 3rd is willing to swap with us only if we include Covington. Let's assume Ball and Fultz are off the board. Jackson is available at 3. Would you do it? I wouldn't. I would love jackson though. It would be hard to pass up.

I have no problem with DSJ at #5. His teammates were just as bad as Markelle Fultz'. I do knock him a bit for not "leading" them. But we already have Ben and Joel running the show.

Also, interesting quote from David Aldridge: "Some NBA types think Smith also was miscast in his role at N.C. State and could have more success in the pros playing more off the ball." http://www.nba.com/da-big-board-point-guards-2017-draft/

I wouldn't trade Covington to move from #5 to #3. But I would part with a future first rounder and some seconds.

LloydFree · Post #1166 » by **LloydFree** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:57 pm

Kobblehead wrote:In hindsight, Draymond and Jae Crowder would go top 5 in the 2012 draft. Why draft an extremely flawed underclassman just because consensus big boards tell you there's perceived value with that selection? Monk and Markenen are bad Top 10 picks, IMO. I'd much rather draft Sindarious Thornwell and hope his multi-faceted dominance translates like Dray and Jae were able to.

I don't agree with lumping Monk and Markkenen together as bad top 10 picks. You can win with an offense-only guard, but you can't win with a big man that does nothing on the court, except shoot standstill jumpers. If Malik Monk is nothing more than peak Ben Gordon, then he would be worth a top 7 pick. And considering Monk is better as Freshman than Ben Gordon was as a Junior, he may have a higher upside and longer peak.

Besides that, it's hard to gauge what more Monk can do in Calipari's terrible offense. The guards don't distribute in that garbage, and he wouldn't be the first Kentucky player to come into the league and show more than what he showed in college.

Kobblehead · Post #1167 » by **Kobblehead** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:12 pm

LloydFree wrote:
Kobblehead wrote:In hindsight, Draymond and Jae Crowder would go top 5 in the 2012 draft. Why draft an extremely flawed underclassman just because consensus big boards tell you there's perceived value with that selection? Monk and Markenen are bad Top 10 picks, IMO. I'd much rather draft Sindarious Thornwell and hope his multi-faceted dominance translates like Dray and Jae were able to.

I don't agree with lumping Monk and Markkenen together as bad top 10 picks. You can win with an offense-only guard, but you can't win with a big man that does nothing on the court, except shoot standstill jumpers. If Malik Monk is nothing more than peak Ben Gordon, then he would be worth a top 7 pick. And considering Monk is better as Freshman than Ben Gordon was as a Junior, he may have a higher upside and longer peak.

Besides that, it's hard to gauge what more Monk can do in Calipari's terrible offense. The guards don't distribute in that garbage, and he wouldn't be the first Kentucky player to come into the league and show more than what he showed in college.

I think that perspective is more applicable to Dennis Smith than it is Malik Monk. How much offense is Malik really bringing to the table? He has weak handle and very marginal distributing instincts.

Taking a miniature set shooter with no ball skills is just as bad a Top 10 pick as a big that can't rebound or protect the rim, in my eyes. That's the reason for my lumping of them together.

HankTheTank · Post #1168 » by **HankTheTank** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:25 pm

Kobblehead wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
Kobblehead wrote:In hindsight, Draymond and Jae Crowder would go top 5 in the 2012 draft. Why draft an extremely flawed underclassman just because consensus big boards tell you there's perceived value with that selection? Monk and Markenen are bad Top 10 picks, IMO. I'd much rather draft Sindarious Thornwell and hope his multi-faceted dominance translates like Dray and Jae were able to.

I don't agree with lumping Monk and Markkenen together as bad top 10 picks. You can win with an offense-only guard, but you can't win with a big man that does nothing on the court, except shoot standstill jumpers. If Malik Monk is nothing more than peak Ben Gordon, then he would be worth a top 7 pick. And considering Monk is better as Freshman than Ben Gordon was as a Junior, he may have a higher upside and longer peak.

Besides that, it's hard to gauge what more Monk can do in Calipari's terrible offense. The guards don't distribute in that garbage, and he wouldn't be the first Kentucky player to come into the league and show more than what he showed in college.

I think that perspective is more applicable to Dennis Smith than it is Malik Monk. How much offense is Malik really bringing to the table? He has weak handle and very marginal distributing instincts.

Taking a miniature set shooter with no ball skills is just as bad a Top 10 pick as a big that can't rebound or protect the rim, in my eyes. That's the reason for my lumping of them together.

This articulates where I am on Monk very well. I sometimes wonder if I'm just being too critical of Monk because he's never passed the looks test for me -- and the overhyping following the 47pt game put me off. I think there is a lot less risk in Smith, or even Fox, because even if they can't shoot, at least they're pg size appropriate, can be facilitators, bring multiple tools.

EBrandEra · Post #1169 » by **EBrandEra** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:30 pm

Malik Monk is not a Top 5 pick in my book. If the Sixers are drafting 5th, I'd rather they take FSU forward Jonathan Isaac than Malik Monk. Much higher ceiling player. That is if Fultz, Ball, Dennis Smith and Josh Jackson are already off the board.

the_process · Post #1170 » by **the_process** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:56 pm

At 5, if all of Fultz, Ball, Jackson, and Tatum are gone and you can't trade down... you take Issac IMO.

the_process · Post #1171 » by **the_process** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:58 pm

smittybanton wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:Hypothetical trade. What if we are picking 5th and the team picking 3rd is willing to swap with us only if we include Covington. Let's assume Ball and Fultz are off the board. Jackson is available at 3. Would you do it? I wouldn't. I would love jackson though. It would be hard to pass up.

I have no problem with DSJ at #5. His teammates were just as bad as Markelle Fultz'. I do knock him a bit for not "leading" them. But we already have Ben and Joel running the show.

Also, interesting quote from David Aldridge: "Some NBA types think Smith also was miscast in his role at N.C. State and could have more success in the pros playing more off the ball." http://www.nba.com/da-big-board-point-guards-2017-draft/

I wouldn't trade Covington to move from #5 to #3. But I would part with a future first rounder and some seconds.

Covington and 5 for Josh Jackson is a deal in my book; assuming the top 4 picks are Fultz, Ball, Jackson, and Tatum.

smittybanton · Post #1172 » by **smittybanton** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:15 pm

the_process wrote:
smittybanton wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:Hypothetical trade. What if we are picking 5th and the team picking 3rd is willing to swap with us only if we include Covington. Let's assume Ball and Fultz are off the board. Jackson is available at 3. Would you do it? I wouldn't. I would love jackson though. It would be hard to pass up.

I have no problem with DSJ at #5. His teammates were just as bad as Markelle Fultz'. I do knock him a bit for not "leading" them. But we already have Ben and Joel running the show.

Also, interesting quote from David Aldridge: "Some NBA types think Smith also was miscast in his role at N.C. State and could have more success in the pros playing more off the ball." http://www.nba.com/da-big-board-point-guards-2017-draft/

I wouldn't trade Covington to move from #5 to #3. But I would part with a future first rounder and some seconds.

Covington and 5 for Josh Jackson is a deal in my book; assuming the top 4 picks are Fultz, Ball, Jackson, and Tatum.

I wouldn't be mad at that. I just think we have too many assets to give up a sure thing and perfect fit for our squad like Covington. Now, if you convince me that we can steal Otto Porter away from the Wizards with a max deal, then I'm all in witcha!

Mik317 · Post #1173 » by **Mik317** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:37 pm

I was super high on Monk early because he in theory was just what we needed. But yeah that is just in theory. He truly is a one trick pony as of right now and while that is a trick we need desperately, when it is not on, he adds very little.

That being said Cal has hidden some skills of a lot of his players in recent years. No one knew Booker could create for himself and Towns range was all in theory because he was allowed to show it off too much. That being said, Monk really only is in play if we pick like 8 or something. I'd take Fox and hope Brett can work his jumper into form or take Smith and hope he and Simmons meshes together.

Kobblehead · Post #1174 » by **Kobblehead** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:47 pm

If Malik Monk was playing just 20 minutes a game and stifled by an overabundance of depth like some of the past prospects from Kentucky had to deal with (Bledsoe, Booker, etc), I could buy that he could have hidden talents that are being repressed.

He's out there playing over 32 minutes a game and has had a full green light to flash his talents, though.

Arsenal · Post #1175 » by **Arsenal** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:49 pm

I'm not trading Covington + #5 for #3 to take Josh Jackson. I'd be fine taking Jayson Tatum or Jonathan Issac at #5 instead. Both of those guys could become better players than Jackson in the NBA, and Covington is worth a lot also.

I see the Pippen comparisons to Josh Jackson, but I have my doubts. The biggest reason is Jackson just doesn't have the length with only a mediocre 6'10" wingspan. Most stud wing defenders like Pippen and Kawhi Leonard clock in > 7'2". Covington has a 7'2" wingspan. Those 4-6 inches matter.

Arsenal · Post #1176 » by **Arsenal** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:55 pm

New big board for the Sixers:

1) Lonzo Ball
2) Markelle Fultz
3) Josh Jackson
4) Jayson Tatum
5) Jonathan Isaac
6) Malik Monk
7) De'Aaron Fox
8) Dennis Smith Jr.
9) Frank Ntilikina
10) Miles Bridges
11) Lauri Markannen

TheAntiTrump · Post #1177 » by **TheAntiTrump** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:31 pm

Why is so many down on Dennis Smith ? The guy is Allen Iverson like fast. Can shoot way better then he ever could. And gets to the rim and draws fouls with ease. He is very confident. And his PG productivity for being on such a bad team is amazing...better then Ball IMHO. I think the league GM's that need a PG will covet him greatly. No way he falls from top-5

the_process · Post #1178 » by **the_process** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:34 pm

smittybanton wrote:
the_process wrote:
smittybanton wrote:
I have no problem with DSJ at #5. His teammates were just as bad as Markelle Fultz'. I do knock him a bit for not "leading" them. But we already have Ben and Joel running the show.

Also, interesting quote from David Aldridge: "Some NBA types think Smith also was miscast in his role at N.C. State and could have more success in the pros playing more off the ball." http://www.nba.com/da-big-board-point-guards-2017-draft/

I wouldn't trade Covington to move from #5 to #3. But I would part with a future first rounder and some seconds.

Covington and 5 for Josh Jackson is a deal in my book; assuming the top 4 picks are Fultz, Ball, Jackson, and Tatum.

I wouldn't be mad at that. I just think we have too many assets to give up a sure thing and perfect fit for our squad like Covington. Now, if you convince me that we can steal Otto Porter away from the Wizards with a max deal, then I'm all in witcha!

I agree the preference would be to keep Cov. But... after the top 4 there is a big drop off IMO and so to trade a non-top 4 pick to get up into the top 4 is a huge leap that is worth moving Cov.

LloydFree · Post #1179 » by **LloydFree** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:49 pm

TheAntiTrump wrote:Why is so many down on Dennis Smith ? The guy is Allen Iverson like fast. Can shoot way better then he ever could. And gets to the rim and draws fouls with ease. He is very confident. And his PG productivity for being on such a bad team is amazing...better then Ball IMHO. I think the league GM's that need a PG will covet him greatly. No way he falls from top-5

Because Dennis Smith not as fast as Iverson and he plays with nowhere near as much effort. Iverson was Big East Defensive player of the year at Georgetown, based on effort alone. Smith doesn't compare.

Arsenal · Post #1180 » by **Arsenal** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:51 pm

TheAntiTrump wrote:Why is so many down on Dennis Smith ? The guy is Allen Iverson like fast. Can shoot way better then he ever could. And gets to the rim and draws fouls with ease. He is very confident. And his PG productivity for being on such a bad team is amazing...better then Ball IMHO. I think the league GM's that need a PG will covet him greatly. No way he falls from top-5

Dennis Smith might put up better numbers for a bad team where he has the ball in his hands all the time. However on our team with Embiid and Simmons, we are better off with Malik Monk who is a better off-ball player, better shooter, and I think will be a better defender in time due to his physical tools.