2018 Pick Watch (Philly, LAL 1 or 6-30, etc)

[MR28]

you guys are on another level.
i'm on realgm everyday and literally haven't opened this thread until right now.

i'm so burned out after 4 years of obsessing over draft picks and lottery picks, i'm officially over it. can't pay any attention to the 2018 Draft. Embiid/Simmons/Saric/Fultz is the core. this is what we have and this is what we're rolling with.

The accuracy of this post. I will be watching NCAA basketball as usual, but I absolutely do not have it in me to obsess over more players this year.

[Benfitnyc]

you guys are on another level.
i'm on realgm everyday and literally haven't opened this thread until right now.

i'm so burned out after 4 years of obsessing over draft picks and lottery picks, i'm officially over it. can't pay any attention to the 2018 Draft. Embiid/Simmons/Saric/Fultz is the core. this is what we have and this is what we're rolling with.

Amen

[the_process]

After they traded Lou the only time they won games was when they were tanking. id be more concerned if they were the east and actually playing these other tanking teams. They don't have a very good shot against most of the west team regardless of whether they want to win games. If they end up 14th or 15th in the west they will have lost lots of games by default.

the lakers will be bottom eight 100% In no particular order: Suns, nets, bulls , lakers, orlando, Knicks( they are really bad with carmelo, but they could be worse if they move him), Atlanta, Indiana?, Kings.

I think they have as good a chance as anyone to be the worst team in the league. Sixscan is right that they were something like 2-20 after trading Lou Will and before tank season (the last couple weeks of the season), and the only thing they did was add Lopez while subtracting Russell. Lopez is talented but he'll only maybe win you more than a couple extra games--and even though Russell wasn't very good last year he was their best shot creator. Ball will be fun to watch but even setting aside bust potential, rookies very rarely improve their teams and I don't recall a rookie PG significant helping a team since CP3.

They also only have about $20m left and they need to preserve space for the year after, so it's hard to see who they could add that's make a difference. Rudy Gay on a one-year cash-in? Tyreke Evans as a rental? There's just no one that useful left.

How's KCP on a 1-18 deal grab ya?

[76ciology]

Haha Lakers and Kings pick. BC is a genius

[kingofthecourt67]

I think the KCP signing is a great thing for us. There was a very small chance that Laker pick was going to be #1 next year. The worst case scenario is the Lakers pick conveys to the Celtics next year because there is no way the Kings are going to be in the 1-5 range the following year (i.e. able to provide us better value if the Lakers pick conveys). At this point we just have to hope with the KCP signing that the Lakers are good enough to end up around the 8-12 spot.

[PLO]

I think the KCP signing is a great thing for us. There was a very small chance that Laker pick was going to be #1 next year. The worst case scenario is the Lakers pick conveys to the Celtics next year because there is no way the Kings are going to be in the 1-5 range the following year (i.e. able to provide us better value if the Lakers pick conveys). At this point we just have to hope with the KCP signing that the Lakers are good enough to end up around the 8-12 spot.

A recent article on odetooden I linked to on the wrong thread the other day discusses how under-rated KCP is and the reasons why. He's certainly going to improve the Lakers defense markedly, especially given how porous they'll be with Lonzo Ball on the court.

[Ericb5]

I think the KCP signing is a great thing for us. There was a very small chance that Laker pick was going to be #1 next year. The worst case scenario is the Lakers pick conveys to the Celtics next year because there is no way the Kings are going to be in the 1-5 range the following year (i.e. able to provide us better value if the Lakers pick conveys). At this point we just have to hope with the KCP signing that the Lakers are good enough to end up around the 8-12 spot.

No way that the Kings pick is 1-5 the following year? Why not?

They still have nothing, but unproven young players, and none of their young players have franchise upside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M3]

Just Curious, If the Sixers make the playoffs and the Lakers don't (which they won't), do we send a representative to the draft lottery, since its technically Boston's pick, but could be ours?

Thanks in Advance.

[HotelVitale]

I think they have as good a chance as anyone to be the worst team in the league. Sixscan is right that they were something like 2-20 after trading Lou Will and before tank season (the last couple weeks of the season), and the only thing they did was add Lopez while subtracting Russell. Lopez is talented but he'll only maybe win you more than a couple extra games--and even though Russell wasn't very good last year he was their best shot creator. Ball will be fun to watch but even setting aside bust potential, rookies very rarely improve their teams and I don't recall a rookie PG significant helping a team since CP3. They also only have about $20m left and they need to preserve space for the year after, so it's hard to see who they could add that's make a difference. Rudy Gay on a one-year cash-in? Tyreke Evans as a rental? There's just no one that useful left.

How's KCP on a 1-18 deal grab ya?

Ha, it's unexpected obviously--KCP was a Pistons' RFA when I wrote that--but I also don't think it's as great as you might think. KCP is valuable because he's young and plays one of the rarest and most desirable niches in the league: the legit 3D role player, who's also athletic enough to attack the basket and help in transition. He's a good complementary player if you have other 1st/2nd/3rd options; but as a key guy on a team without an identity I don't think he's moving the needle much. Guy's WAY below average in shooting efficiency (below 52% TS, below 40% from the field), is fairly low volume, doesn't create much, etc. I actually think getting someone like Rudy Gay would've helped them more.

The move still makes them a little better--as I've said before, competent guys at a couple positions makes a big difference for gutter teams since they blow leads less and don't flub games the other team gives them--and I might put teams like the Bulls lower than them now. But the rotation is still basically Lopez, KCP, and then 8 guys who had negative VORPs last year. That's a tank-esque squad.

[HotelVitale]

A recent article on odetooden I linked to on the wrong thread the other day discusses how under-rated KCP is and the reasons why. He's certainly going to improve the Lakers defense markedly, especially given how porous they'll be with Lonzo Ball on the court.

KCP rates pretty poorly on defense in advanced #s, and his rep as a stopper was pretty overblown to begin with (big reason why DET kicked him down the road). The squad he's joining was already terrible on defense, doubt he's going to work miracles there. Lopez--who's obviously a bad defender--is also going to take minutes away from the only good defender they had last year, Nance Jr. And like you said, Ball will likely be even worse on that end than Russell. And giving more minutes to Clarkson--who's consistently been one of the worst defenders playing big minutes in the NBA--also won't help.

[the_process]

I think they have as good a chance as anyone to be the worst team in the league. Sixscan is right that they were something like 2-20 after trading Lou Will and before tank season (the last couple weeks of the season), and the only thing they did was add Lopez while subtracting Russell. Lopez is talented but he'll only maybe win you more than a couple extra games--and even though Russell wasn't very good last year he was their best shot creator. Ball will be fun to watch but even setting aside bust potential, rookies very rarely improve their teams and I don't recall a rookie PG significant helping a team since CP3. They also only have about $20m left and they need to preserve space for the year after, so it's hard to see who they could add that's make a difference. Rudy Gay on a one-year cash-in? Tyreke Evans as a rental? There's just no one that useful left.

How's KCP on a 1-18 deal grab ya?

Ha, it's unexpected obviously--KCP was a Pistons' RFA when I wrote that--but I also don't think it's as great as you might think. KCP is valuable because he's young and plays one of the rarest and most desirable niches in the league: the legit 3D role player, who's also athletic enough to attack the basket and help in transition. He's a good complementary player if you have other 1st/2nd/3rd options; but as a key guy on a team without an identity I don't think he's moving the needle much. Guy's WAY below average in shooting efficiency (below 52% TS, below 40% from the field), is fairly low volume, doesn't create much, etc. I actually think getting someone like Rudy Gay would've helped them more.

The move still makes them a little better--as I've said before, competent guys at a couple positions makes a big difference for gutter teams since they blow leads less and don't flub games the other team gives them--and I might put teams like the Bulls lower than them now. But the rotation is still basically Lopez, KCP, and then 8 guys who had negative VORPs last year. That's a tank-esque squad.

I totally agree that KCP is generally overvalued. But as far as what the Lakers could've done with their money.... this was about as best case scenario as they could've hoped for. Still too early to post predictions, but right now at just a quick glance I'd say the Lakers are not in the bottom 5.

[HotelVitale]

I totally agree that KCP is generally overvalued. But as far as what the Lakers could've done with their money.... this was about as best case scenario as they could've hoped for. Still too early to post predictions, but right now at just a quick glance I'd say the Lakers are not in the bottom 5.

Disagree there. Not sure what people are seeing on that team but it's Lopez (who'll probably be moved), Nance (decent young guy), and then bad players. I get that the Hawks and Bulls are gutted and the Kings and Nets remain weak, but the Lakers don't have anything to put them out of that level. It's definitely possible they'll be out of the top 5 but I think I'd still bet on them landing there.

[the_process]

Disagree there. Not sure what people are seeing on that team but it's Lopez (who'll probably be moved), Nance (decent young guy), and then bad players. I get that the Hawks and Bulls are gutted and the Kings and Nets remain weak, but the Lakers don't have anything to put them out of that level. It's definitely possible they'll be out of the top 5 but I think I'd still bet on them landing there.

Cursory glance, without ranking them, the worst teams in the league:

Atlanta, Brooklyn, Chicago, New York, Orlando, Dallas, Lakers, Phoenix, Sacramento.

That's 9. I don't know. I have the Lakers better than 5 of those teams, maybe 6; and that's not counting any teams that might decide during the year to have a fire sale and tank. It's going to be close for the pick.

[HotelVitale]

Cursory glance, without ranking them, the worst teams in the league: Atlanta, Brooklyn, Chicago, New York, Orlando, Dallas, Lakers, Phoenix, Sacramento. That's 9. I don't know. I have the Lakers better than 5 of those teams, maybe 6; and that's not counting any teams that might decide during the year to have a fire sale and tank. It's going to be close for the pick.

Hmm, maybe you're letting the allure of prospects or the 'Lakers' cloud things here: the Lakers have two or three regular NBA rotation players and then junk guys or too-soon prospects. Almost all those other teams have more than that:
--ORL crushes them in depth of real players, no reason anyone should see them as bottom 3 next year
--DAL won 33 last year and only got better
--PHX was unhealthy and super young last year and still won more than the Lakers should this year
--SAC was about at LAL's level and then added a really good player (G Hill) and some okay vets (Z Bo, Vince Carter)
--NYK's longterm outlook isn't great and things will depend somewhat on return in a Carmelo trade; but things would need to go pretty badly to get to LAL level

Even the Bulls and Nets have a couple of solid vets mixed in with their rebuilding nothings. Again, you may be confusing guys like Ball and Ingram's future (really nice!) with their present abilities (probably awful overall!) and seeing this team as better than they are a result.

[shawn_hemp]

I think the KCP signing is a great thing for us. There was a very small chance that Laker pick was going to be #1 next year. The worst case scenario is the Lakers pick conveys to the Celtics next year because there is no way the Kings are going to be in the 1-5 range the following year (i.e. able to provide us better value if the Lakers pick conveys). At this point we just have to hope with the KCP signing that the Lakers are good enough to end up around the 8-12 spot.

No way that the Kings pick is 1-5 the following year? Why not?

They still have nothing, but unproven young players, and none of their young players have franchise upside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They did sign George Hill and I think Buddy Heild is actually a decent shooter but I also think this upward trending of the Kings mainly comes from De'Aaron Fox.

Don't get me wrong, he's a good player. But he's not really a guy who will make people around him better IMO. Which is what Sac would benefit from the most, considering their team is full of two extremes: guys who are about to retire (Randolph, VC) and young players (WCS, Buddy, Skal). Wtf is Sac even trying to do?

Then, you have to factor in the ownership and management into the equation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. People laud the Kings for their moves recently when in reality, they just weren't the terrible decisions we have become used to seeing from them. It's not like their working miracles out there.

They got an attack-first PG who can't really shoot and can play solid defense. Unfortunately, by rule, there's 4 other guys on the court for the other team who will still be an issue.

Justin Jackson could be the next Andre Roberson with a better mid range game, but is that still really a player to write home about? I think he will be a better scorer than Roberson, but a worse defender. And honestly, that kind of leaves him at not good enough to do either side overly well IMO. Still have that National Championship Game going through my head of him just bricking shot after shot. I want to say he went 0-9 from 3 that game. Fairly open shots for the most part.

If anything, due to their 2018 1st being intact, they should strive to be as bad as possible this year and take on bad contracts like the Nets are, and then try to be competitive the following year when their pick is irrelevant.

But instead they sign George Hill, who I really like as a player, but seems kind of redundant to have him paired with Fox

[the_process]

Cursory glance, without ranking them, the worst teams in the league: Atlanta, Brooklyn, Chicago, New York, Orlando, Dallas, Lakers, Phoenix, Sacramento. That's 9. I don't know. I have the Lakers better than 5 of those teams, maybe 6; and that's not counting any teams that might decide during the year to have a fire sale and tank. It's going to be close for the pick.

Hmm, maybe you're letting the allure of prospects or the 'Lakers' cloud things here: the Lakers have two or three regular NBA rotation players and then junk guys or too-soon prospects. Almost all those other teams have more than that:
--ORL crushes them in depth of real players, no reason anyone should see them as bottom 3 next year
--DAL won 33 last year and only got better
--PHX was unhealthy and super young last year and still won more than the Lakers should this year
--SAC was about at LAL's level and then added a really good player (G Hill) and some okay vets (Z Bo, Vince Carter)
--NYK's longterm outlook isn't great and things will depend somewhat on return in a Carmelo trade; but things would need to go pretty badly to get to LAL level

Even the Bulls and Nets have a couple of solid vets mixed in with their rebuilding nothings. Again, you may be confusing guys like Ball and Ingram's future (really nice!) with their present abilities (probably awful overall!) and seeing this team as better than they are a result.

I hate Ball and have predicted him as the biggest bust in this draft. The difference is I am not nearly as high or ready to give credit to those other teams. ORL is hot garbage. NY still has an uninterested Melo and no direction. The Nets are just piling assets right now. Sacto added a bunch of old guys to their mediocre kiddie crew. Phoenix is bad and trying to trade Bledsoe and übertank. The only thing keeping that trash roster in Dallas together is the best coach in the league. The Bulls best player is a 50 year old Dwayne Wade.

It seems we agree, though, on the putridness of Atlanta.

[HotelVitale]

I hate Ball and have predicted him as the biggest bust in this draft. The difference is I am not nearly as high or ready to give credit to those other teams. ORL is hot garbage. NY still has an uninterested Melo and no direction. The Nets are just piling assets right now. Sacto added a bunch of old guys to their mediocre kiddie crew. Phoenix is bad and trying to trade Bledsoe and übertank. The only thing keeping that trash roster in Dallas together is the best coach in the league. The Bulls best player is a 50 year old Dwayne Wade. It seems we agree, though, on the putridness of Atlanta.

I mean they're all bad teams, I think we're agreeing on that. Just saying I don't get why you're elevating LAL out of that mess: their roster really is Lopez, KCP, Nance, and a bunch of guys that ranked somewhere between slightly negative players and dumpster fires last season. I get not seeing much light on the other teams but my pt is that the cave the Lakers are in is pretty durn dark. (I also don't quite get the hate for DAL and ORL: when you're talking about bad teams, just having like 4-5 guys who are competent NBA rotation players makes a huge difference, e.g. between us winning 10 games two years ago and us winning almost 30 this year (even with Embiid down, we were far better this year than last); those two teams are just meh bad teams, not totally depleted tank rosters).

[shawn_hemp]

The only thing keeping that trash roster in Dallas together is the best coach in the league.

Wait what?

Dallas is squarely below average, but they are definitely better than the other teams you mentioned.

I think Noel will have a good year and DSJ could very well win Rookie of the Year. Barnes, while probably not ever a 1 or 2 option on a real team, is still a good player. Matthews is in the same boat, except drop that number down to 4th or 5th option

Dirk can't do much besides shoot at this point, but he is still one of the greatest shooters of all time.

Cuban never tries to tank either. The Mavs will be better this year. I would almost guarantee that barring a rash of freak injuries

[shawn_hemp]

I could see the West finishing something like this

1.GS
2.HOU
3.SA
4.OKC
5.MIN
6.NOP
7.POR
8.DEN
--------------
9.UTA
10.MEM
11.LAC
12.DAL
13.SAC
14.LAL
15.PHX

Now that I look at it like that, no way do the Clippers make the playoffs this year

[SavageBel]

We own our own 1st round pick for sure, right?