Around the league 2017-2018

[Ericb5]

Emmanuel Mudiay has raised his true shooting to 52% but he's still not even trying defensively.

I wonder if spending a year under Larry Brown at SMU would have changed him as a prospect. China perpetuated the no-defense element of his game.

He would have no doubt drilled good habits into him. But Brown may have also messed up his draft status, by playing in his system and or sitting him behind older players. Mudiay has banked 12 million based on his decision. While a similar level prospect like Andrew Harrison, who is probably a better NBA player, is busy clawing and scratching for minimum contracts every year. Players should do what it takes to get better, but ultimately they want their financial security more.

Brown was brutal on young players. He improved them, but in just one year I’m not sure that he would have been a net positive on him in terms of getting him drafted.

If he had him for 3 years, and brought him a long slowly I would expect that a Brown would have improved him tremendously.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[spikeslovechild]

If Fultz was here shooting as badly as Mitchell the same guys praising Mitchell here would be ripping Fultz. Frankly I'm tired of the grass is always greener crowd.

You want to rip the organization for not taking Porzingis fine but Fultz hasn't even played a real game yet. Pining for Mitchell and DSJ both of which aren't even playing that well wtf is wrong with people smh.

That's not true. Fultz has looked terrible on jumpers and FTs and I've done nothing but praise him for his defense and ability to get to the rim while giving him many, many passes on his rookie mistakes.

Maybe you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations, "smh".

I tried not to call out any one specific person but since you took the mantle and ran with it...

My issue isn't with those who didn't like Fultz pre-draft and for example like Llyod wanted to take Ball number one overall. Or whomever. My issue is those who take what Fultz did in 4 games with a bum shoulder and extrapolate it for an entire 10 year career and then say we should have drafted Tatum or Mitchell or whatever. Players they in most cases weren't even pushing pre-draft.

You do realize that very few GM's hit on even 50 percent of their picks let alone all of them. The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong. For example when BC went against the consensus and took Bargs. Or when BC went against the consensus and took that SF I forget his name instead of Drummond.

He took the right guy and is getting killed. I don't get it. Not only did he take the right guy but he hasn't even played a real game where he has been able to perform healthy. Noone had any questions about Fultz shot pre draft. Watch the videos. All I would ask is if you were pro selecting Fultz or neutral you let the situation play put before deciding we should have taken someone else.

[Negrodamus]

If Fultz was here shooting as badly as Mitchell the same guys praising Mitchell here would be ripping Fultz. Frankly I'm tired of the grass is always greener crowd.

You want to rip the organization for not taking Porzingis fine but Fultz hasn't even played a real game yet. Pining for Mitchell and DSJ both of which aren't even playing that well wtf is wrong with people smh.

That's not true. Fultz has looked terrible on jumpers and FTs and I've done nothing but praise him for his defense and ability to get to the rim while giving him many, many passes on his rookie mistakes.

Maybe you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations, "smh".

I tried not to call out any one specific person but since you took the mantle and ran with it...

My issue isn't with those who didn't like Fultz pre-draft and for example like Llyod wanted to take Ball number one overall. Or whomever. My issue is those who take what Fultz did in 4 games with a bum shoulder and extrapolate it for an entire 10 year career and then say we should have drafted Tatum or Mitchell or whatever. Players they in most cases weren't even pushing pre-draft.

You do realize that very few GM's hit on even 50 percent of their picks let alone all of them. The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong. For example when BC went against the consensus and took Bargs. Or when BC went against the consensus and took that SF I forget his name instead of Drummond.

He took the right guy and is getting killed. I don't get it. Not only did he take the right guy but he hasn't even played a real game where he has been able to perform healthy. Noone had any questions about Fultz shot pre draft. Watch the videos. All I would ask is if you were pro selecting Fultz or neutral you let the situation play put before deciding we should have taken someone else.

I'd agree with you if we had the first pick, but we traded up for the first pick. So we lose assets for him. I get the gripes against Fultz because I wasn't a huge fan of him predraft. So to move up and grab him rubbed me the wrong way. I hope I'm wrong and he's the best player in this draft, but he didn't, and still doesn't, come off as a transcendent talent.

I don't think Lloyd wanted to take anyone #1 overall. I'm pretty sure he was anti trade all together in a draft like this but I won't speak for him.

Also, if you're on the consensus pick, I'm sure you were completely fine with taking Nerlens and MCW over Giannis, right?

[Unbreakable99]

That's not true. Fultz has looked terrible on jumpers and FTs and I've done nothing but praise him for his defense and ability to get to the rim while giving him many, many passes on his rookie mistakes.

Maybe you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations, "smh".

I tried not to call out any one specific person but since you took the mantle and ran with it...

My issue isn't with those who didn't like Fultz pre-draft and for example like Llyod wanted to take Ball number one overall. Or whomever. My issue is those who take what Fultz did in 4 games with a bum shoulder and extrapolate it for an entire 10 year career and then say we should have drafted Tatum or Mitchell or whatever. Players they in most cases weren't even pushing pre-draft.

You do realize that very few GM's hit on even 50 percent of their picks let alone all of them. The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong. For example when BC went against the consensus and took Bargs. Or when BC went against the consensus and took that SF I forget his name instead of Drummond.

He took the right guy and is getting killed. I don't get it. Not only did he take the right guy but he hasn't even played a real game where he has been able to perform healthy. Noone had any questions about Fultz shot pre draft. Watch the videos. All I would ask is if you were pro selecting Fultz or neutral you let the situation play put before deciding we should have taken someone else.

I'd agree with you if we had the first pick, but we traded up for the first pick. So we lose assets for him. I get the gripes against Fultz because I wasn't a huge fan of him predraft. So to move up and grab him rubbed me the wrong way. I hope I'm wrong and he's the best player in this draft, but he didn't, and still doesn't, come off as a transcendent talent.

I don't think Lloyd wanted to take anyone #1 overall. I'm pretty sure he was anti trade all together in a draft like this but I won't speak for him.

Also, if you're on the consensus pick, I'm sure you were completely fine with taking Nerlens and MCW over Giannis, right?

Yup. Exactly.

[the_process]

That's not true. Fultz has looked terrible on jumpers and FTs and I've done nothing but praise him for his defense and ability to get to the rim while giving him many, many passes on his rookie mistakes.

Maybe you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations, "smh".

I tried not to call out any one specific person but since you took the mantle and ran with it...

My issue isn't with those who didn't like Fultz pre-draft and for example like Llyod wanted to take Ball number one overall. Or whomever. My issue is those who take what Fultz did in 4 games with a bum shoulder and extrapolate it for an entire 10 year career and then say we should have drafted Tatum or Mitchell or whatever. Players they in most cases weren't even pushing pre-draft.

You do realize that very few GM's hit on even 50 percent of their picks let alone all of them. The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong. For example when BC went against the consensus and took Bargs. Or when BC went against the consensus and took that SF I forget his name instead of Drummond.

He took the right guy and is getting killed. I don't get it. Not only did he take the right guy but he hasn't even played a real game where he has been able to perform healthy. Noone had any questions about Fultz shot pre draft. Watch the videos. All I would ask is if you were pro selecting Fultz or neutral you let the situation play put before deciding we should have taken someone else.

I'd agree with you if we had the first pick, but we traded up for the first pick. So we lose assets for him. I get the gripes against Fultz because I wasn't a huge fan of him predraft. So to move up and grab him rubbed me the wrong way. I hope I'm wrong and he's the best player in this draft, but he didn't, and still doesn't, come off as a transcendent talent.

I don't think Lloyd wanted to take anyone #1 overall. I'm pretty sure he was anti trade all together in a draft like this but I won't speak for him.

Also, if you're on the consensus pick, I'm sure you were completely fine with taking Nerlens and MCW over Giannis, right?

No NBA GM was taking Giannis with a lottery pick. Good on him and good on MIL that Giannis has reached 99% of his potential. Most players don’t achieve that. Using the extreme outlier is not a valid criticism.

[OleSchool]

I hope I'm wrong and he's the best player in this draft, but he didn't, and still doesn't, come off as a transcendent talent.

There was no transcendent talent in this draft (which is why I wanted to trade out of this draft). Just a bunch of good solid players. So to fault Fultz for not being transcendent is not really fair

[JojoSlimbiid]

That's not true. Fultz has looked terrible on jumpers and FTs and I've done nothing but praise him for his defense and ability to get to the rim while giving him many, many passes on his rookie mistakes.

Maybe you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations, "smh".

I tried not to call out any one specific person but since you took the mantle and ran with it...

My issue isn't with those who didn't like Fultz pre-draft and for example like Llyod wanted to take Ball number one overall. Or whomever. My issue is those who take what Fultz did in 4 games with a bum shoulder and extrapolate it for an entire 10 year career and then say we should have drafted Tatum or Mitchell or whatever. Players they in most cases weren't even pushing pre-draft.

You do realize that very few GM's hit on even 50 percent of their picks let alone all of them. The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong. For example when BC went against the consensus and took Bargs. Or when BC went against the consensus and took that SF I forget his name instead of Drummond.

He took the right guy and is getting killed. I don't get it. Not only did he take the right guy but he hasn't even played a real game where he has been able to perform healthy. Noone had any questions about Fultz shot pre draft. Watch the videos. All I would ask is if you were pro selecting Fultz or neutral you let the situation play put before deciding we should have taken someone else.

Also, if you're on the consensus pick, I'm sure you were completely fine with taking Nerlens and MCW over Giannis, right?

Why wouldn't he be fine with that? Going in any other direction is completely reactionary.

It's nonsense to hear about Donovan Mitchell when people are discussing this pick. Ball ok, Jackson ok, Issac possible, but all these other names are laughable and based purely on hindsight(coincidentally you never hear about the first two because they've been ass and that doesn't fit into our narrative). We were never going to take some of these guys at 3 let alone #1.

[Negrodamus]

I hope I'm wrong and he's the best player in this draft, but he didn't, and still doesn't, come off as a transcendent talent.

There was no transcendent talent in this draft (which is why I wanted to trade out of this draft). Just a bunch of good solid players. So to fault Fultz for not being transcendent is not really fair

Where did I fault Fultz? I don't think anyone in our fanbase is blaming Fultz for Colangelo trading up to #1 in a draft where there's "no transcendent talent".

[Negrodamus]

I tried not to call out any one specific person but since you took the mantle and ran with it...

My issue isn't with those who didn't like Fultz pre-draft and for example like Llyod wanted to take Ball number one overall. Or whomever. My issue is those who take what Fultz did in 4 games with a bum shoulder and extrapolate it for an entire 10 year career and then say we should have drafted Tatum or Mitchell or whatever. Players they in most cases weren't even pushing pre-draft.

You do realize that very few GM's hit on even 50 percent of their picks let alone all of them. The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong. For example when BC went against the consensus and took Bargs. Or when BC went against the consensus and took that SF I forget his name instead of Drummond.

He took the right guy and is getting killed. I don't get it. Not only did he take the right guy but he hasn't even played a real game where he has been able to perform healthy. Noone had any questions about Fultz shot pre draft. Watch the videos. All I would ask is if you were pro selecting Fultz or neutral you let the situation play put before deciding we should have taken someone else.

I'd agree with you if we had the first pick, but we traded up for the first pick. So we lose assets for him. I get the gripes against Fultz because I wasn't a huge fan of him predraft. So to move up and grab him rubbed me the wrong way. I hope I'm wrong and he's the best player in this draft, but he didn't, and still doesn't, come off as a transcendent talent.

I don't think Lloyd wanted to take anyone #1 overall. I'm pretty sure he was anti trade all together in a draft like this but I won't speak for him.

Also, if you're on the consensus pick, I'm sure you were completely fine with taking Nerlens and MCW over Giannis, right?

No NBA GM was taking Giannis with a lottery pick. Good on him and good on MIL that Giannis has reached 99% of his potential. Most players don’t achieve that. Using the extreme outlier is not a valid criticism.

You don't need to look at only Giannis. Look at any massive bust over the past 10 years and it's a result of poor scouting/groupthink and a poor understanding of that players psyche. We, as fans, do not have the resources to look into the latter issue, but the former is available to everyone. I'm sure the Grizzlies would love to have that Hasheem Thabeet pick back in 2009, right?

There is the perceived value that the talking heads mold into your heads and then there's the actual value if you watch the players play and use the advanced stats as a tool.

So, when I see:

The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong.

I shake my head because if the decision is made with a sound reason, then I'm on board with making that selection and being wrong.

Fultz was a disaster on defense at UW. He took inefficient shots (to his credit he made many of them). His team was a nightmare all season. He was pretty pedestrian at the rim. Those type of things scared me a bit from selecting him at three; terrified me at #1 at the expense of a pick that could be a transcendent talent later on. That's not a sound decision.

With that said, I have been encouraged by his play. I hope he has committed to defense and is working on his body so he can finish through contact. But with the information that was at hand before the draft, he was not worth the price tag.

[Negrodamus]

I tried not to call out any one specific person but since you took the mantle and ran with it...

My issue isn't with those who didn't like Fultz pre-draft and for example like Llyod wanted to take Ball number one overall. Or whomever. My issue is those who take what Fultz did in 4 games with a bum shoulder and extrapolate it for an entire 10 year career and then say we should have drafted Tatum or Mitchell or whatever. Players they in most cases weren't even pushing pre-draft.

You do realize that very few GM's hit on even 50 percent of their picks let alone all of them. The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong. For example when BC went against the consensus and took Bargs. Or when BC went against the consensus and took that SF I forget his name instead of Drummond.

He took the right guy and is getting killed. I don't get it. Not only did he take the right guy but he hasn't even played a real game where he has been able to perform healthy. Noone had any questions about Fultz shot pre draft. Watch the videos. All I would ask is if you were pro selecting Fultz or neutral you let the situation play put before deciding we should have taken someone else.

Also, if you're on the consensus pick, I'm sure you were completely fine with taking Nerlens and MCW over Giannis, right?

Why wouldn't he be fine with that? Going in any other direction is completely reactionary.

It's nonsense to hear about Donovan Mitchell when people are discussing this pick. Ball ok, Jackson ok, Issac possible, but all these other names are laughable and based purely on hindsight(coincidentally you never hear about the first two because they've been ass and that doesn't fit into our narrative). We were never going to take some of these guys at 3 let alone #1.

Well, I've never talked about taking any player at #1 because there wasn't a player worth trading up for at #1. Second, no, nothing I'm saying is reactionary. I said those things before the draft, so I don't know what you're talking about. Third, I was a staunch critic of both Ball and Jackson before the draft and labeled them both as good role players in the NBA, so you're not pulling an a-ha moment on me.

[MR28]

Read on Twitter

[the_process]

I'd agree with you if we had the first pick, but we traded up for the first pick. So we lose assets for him. I get the gripes against Fultz because I wasn't a huge fan of him predraft. So to move up and grab him rubbed me the wrong way. I hope I'm wrong and he's the best player in this draft, but he didn't, and still doesn't, come off as a transcendent talent.

I don't think Lloyd wanted to take anyone #1 overall. I'm pretty sure he was anti trade all together in a draft like this but I won't speak for him.

Also, if you're on the consensus pick, I'm sure you were completely fine with taking Nerlens and MCW over Giannis, right?

No NBA GM was taking Giannis with a lottery pick. Good on him and good on MIL that Giannis has reached 99% of his potential. Most players don’t achieve that. Using the extreme outlier is not a valid criticism.

You don't need to look at only Giannis. Look at any massive bust over the past 10 years and it's a result of poor scouting/groupthink and a poor understanding of that players psyche. We, as fans, do not have the resources to look into the latter issue, but the former is available to everyone. I'm sure the Grizzlies would love to have that Hasheem Thabeet pick back in 2009, right?

There is the perceived value that the talking heads mold into your heads and then there's the actual value if you watch the players play and use the advanced stats as a tool.

So, when I see:

The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong.

I shake my head because if the decision is made with a sound reason, then I'm on board with making that selection and being wrong.

Fultz was a disaster on defense at UW. He took inefficient shots (to his credit he made many of them). His team was a nightmare all season. He was pretty pedestrian at the rim. Those type of things scared me a bit from selecting him at three; terrified me at #1 at the expense of a pick that could be a transcendent talent later on. That's not a sound decision.

With that said, I have been encouraged by his play. I hope he has committed to defense and is working on his body so he can finish through contact. But with the information that was at hand before the draft, he was not worth the price tag.

My main issue is with this idea that Boston is going to get two top 5 picks. They might, but the odds are they won’t. And even if they do, paying a 3 and even a future 2 for a 1 is actually a good price historically. If the argument is just Fultz was not the best player and should not have been taken at 1, that’s a completely separate argument IMO. Even though I disagree with it.

[Kobblehead]

Cavs down 10 to Atlanta with 3 minutes to go.

[Unbreakable99]

No NBA GM was taking Giannis with a lottery pick. Good on him and good on MIL that Giannis has reached 99% of his potential. Most players don’t achieve that. Using the extreme outlier is not a valid criticism.

You don't need to look at only Giannis. Look at any massive bust over the past 10 years and it's a result of poor scouting/groupthink and a poor understanding of that players psyche. We, as fans, do not have the resources to look into the latter issue, but the former is available to everyone. I'm sure the Grizzlies would love to have that Hasheem Thabeet pick back in 2009, right?

There is the perceived value that the talking heads mold into your heads and then there's the actual value if you watch the players play and use the advanced stats as a tool.

So, when I see:

The only time I really have had a problem is when a GM goes against the consensus and is wrong.

I shake my head because if the decision is made with a sound reason, then I'm on board with making that selection and being wrong.

Fultz was a disaster on defense at UW. He took inefficient shots (to his credit he made many of them). His team was a nightmare all season. He was pretty pedestrian at the rim. Those type of things scared me a bit from selecting him at three; terrified me at #1 at the expense of a pick that could be a transcendent talent later on. That's not a sound decision.

With that said, I have been encouraged by his play. I hope he has committed to defense and is working on his body so he can finish through contact. But with the information that was at hand before the draft, he was not worth the price tag.

My main issue is with this idea that Boston is going to get two top 5 picks. They might, but the odds are they won’t. And even if they do, paying a 3 and even a future 2 for a 1 is actually a good price historically. If the argument is just Fultz was not the best player and should not have been taken at 1, that’s a completely separate argument IMO. Even though I disagree with it.

Why do you say the odds are they won’t get a top 5 pick? I think the odds are greater than 50% Boston does get a top 5 pick. The trade was an awful trade. Just awful. I could understand if Fultz was a great number 1 pick but he wasn’t. He wasn’t even the best player in the draft. But if Chris freely were a great number one pick Ainge wouldn’t have traded the pick.

[Unbreakable99]

The Cavs suck.

[spikeslovechild]

Also, if you're on the consensus pick, I'm sure you were completely fine with taking Nerlens and MCW over Giannis, right?

Why wouldn't he be fine with that? Going in any other direction is completely reactionary.

It's nonsense to hear about Donovan Mitchell when people are discussing this pick. Ball ok, Jackson ok, Issac possible, but all these other names are laughable and based purely on hindsight(coincidentally you never hear about the first two because they've been ass and that doesn't fit into our narrative). We were never going to take some of these guys at 3 let alone #1.

Well, I've never talked about taking any player at #1 because there wasn't a player worth trading up for at #1. Second, no, nothing I'm saying is reactionary. I said those things before the draft, so I don't know what you're talking about. Third, I was a staunch critic of both Ball and Jackson before the draft and labeled them both as good role players in the NBA, so you're not pulling an a-ha moment on me.

Which is the point I was making all along. There are two buckets of people who are Fultz deplorables those that never fully believed Fultz was the top prospect in the draft. Those people have yet to be proven wrong or right at this point. I'm sorry but 4 games with a bum shoulder will not define Fultz's career.

He was also the consensus top prospect in the draft and remember we were not the only ones considering moving up either. LAL were as well. Think for a moment if they somehow traded for the first pick. They would have drafted Fultz. Boston Tatum. Then we would have been left with Ball or Jackson two players you purport to have been a staunch critic of. I actually liked Jackson and continue to like Jackson he's raw offensively but he'll give you value from a defensive standpoint.

The second bucket are the Ball knoblers. They wanted us to take Ball. Or DSJ both players who are struggling. They let Fultz first four games with a bum shoulder define him as a prospect all the while pumping Tatum a player they never even advocated taking. I just find it annoying. All the boards slobber over their prospects we constantly find ways to tear them down even when they have done nothing to warrant it.

[Unbreakable99]

Why wouldn't he be fine with that? Going in any other direction is completely reactionary.

It's nonsense to hear about Donovan Mitchell when people are discussing this pick. Ball ok, Jackson ok, Issac possible, but all these other names are laughable and based purely on hindsight(coincidentally you never hear about the first two because they've been ass and that doesn't fit into our narrative). We were never going to take some of these guys at 3 let alone #1.

Well, I've never talked about taking any player at #1 because there wasn't a player worth trading up for at #1. Second, no, nothing I'm saying is reactionary. I said those things before the draft, so I don't know what you're talking about. Third, I was a staunch critic of both Ball and Jackson before the draft and labeled them both as good role players in the NBA, so you're not pulling an a-ha moment on me.

Which is the point I was making all along. There are two buckets of people who are Fultz deplorables those that never fully believed Fultz was the top prospect in the draft. Those people have yet to be proven wrong or right at this point. I'm sorry but 4 games with a bum shoulder will not define Fultz's career.

He was also the consensus top prospect in the draft and remember we were not the only ones considering moving up either. LAL were as well. Think for a moment if they somehow traded for the first pick. They would have drafted Fultz. Boston Tatum. Then we would have been left with Ball or Jackson two players you purport to have been a staunch critic of. I actually liked Jackson and continue to like Jackson he's raw offensively but he'll give you value from a defensive standpoint.

The second bucket are the Ball knoblers. They wanted us to take Ball. Or DSJ both players who are struggling. They let Fultz first four games with a bum shoulder define him as a prospect all the while pumping Tatum a player they never even advocated taking. I just find it annoying. All the boards slobber over their prospects we constantly find ways to tear them down even when they have done nothing to warrant it.

Fultz wasn’t worth trading up for all that. Staying at 3 was the best option. If any trade should have been done it should have been to trade down not up.

[spikeslovechild]

Well, I've never talked about taking any player at #1 because there wasn't a player worth trading up for at #1. Second, no, nothing I'm saying is reactionary. I said those things before the draft, so I don't know what you're talking about. Third, I was a staunch critic of both Ball and Jackson before the draft and labeled them both as good role players in the NBA, so you're not pulling an a-ha moment on me.

Which is the point I was making all along. There are two buckets of people who are Fultz deplorables those that never fully believed Fultz was the top prospect in the draft. Those people have yet to be proven wrong or right at this point. I'm sorry but 4 games with a bum shoulder will not define Fultz's career.

He was also the consensus top prospect in the draft and remember we were not the only ones considering moving up either. LAL were as well. Think for a moment if they somehow traded for the first pick. They would have drafted Fultz. Boston Tatum. Then we would have been left with Ball or Jackson two players you purport to have been a staunch critic of. I actually liked Jackson and continue to like Jackson he's raw offensively but he'll give you value from a defensive standpoint.

The second bucket are the Ball knoblers. They wanted us to take Ball. Or DSJ both players who are struggling. They let Fultz first four games with a bum shoulder define him as a prospect all the while pumping Tatum a player they never even advocated taking. I just find it annoying. All the boards slobber over their prospects we constantly find ways to tear them down even when they have done nothing to warrant it.

Fultz wasn’t worth trading up for all that. Staying at 3 was the best option. If any trade should have been done it should have been to trade down not up.

Historically we paid a pittance BOS board was apocalyptic the league wide view was we won the trade. Sometimes even when you win a trade it still doesn't work out (like the Jrue trade) but stop acting like we gave up the keys to the kingdom.

Most people including myself felt we gave up very little. Also like I said the Lakers were nipping at the heels. If we didn't make the deal there is a good chance Boston would have traded down and selected Tatum 2nd. We would have been stuck with Ball.

[Negrodamus]

Why wouldn't he be fine with that? Going in any other direction is completely reactionary.

It's nonsense to hear about Donovan Mitchell when people are discussing this pick. Ball ok, Jackson ok, Issac possible, but all these other names are laughable and based purely on hindsight(coincidentally you never hear about the first two because they've been ass and that doesn't fit into our narrative). We were never going to take some of these guys at 3 let alone #1.

Well, I've never talked about taking any player at #1 because there wasn't a player worth trading up for at #1. Second, no, nothing I'm saying is reactionary. I said those things before the draft, so I don't know what you're talking about. Third, I was a staunch critic of both Ball and Jackson before the draft and labeled them both as good role players in the NBA, so you're not pulling an a-ha moment on me.

Which is the point I was making all along. There are two buckets of people who are Fultz deplorables those that never fully believed Fultz was the top prospect in the draft. Those people have yet to be proven wrong or right at this point. I'm sorry but 4 games with a bum shoulder will not define Fultz's career.

He was also the consensus top prospect in the draft and remember we were not the only ones considering moving up either. LAL were as well. Think for a moment if they somehow traded for the first pick. They would have drafted Fultz. Boston Tatum. Then we would have been left with Ball or Jackson two players you purport to have been a staunch critic of. I actually liked Jackson and continue to like Jackson he's raw offensively but he'll give you value from a defensive standpoint.

The second bucket are the Ball knoblers. They wanted us to take Ball. Or DSJ both players who are struggling. They let Fultz first four games with a bum shoulder define him as a prospect all the while pumping Tatum a player they never even advocated taking. I just find it annoying. All the boards slobber over their prospects we constantly find ways to tear them down even when they have done nothing to warrant it.

Thanks for breaking down the groups of people as if there is no other way of having a different perspective than the ones you portrayed.

Also thanks for breaking down the alternate realty where the Lakers traded assets they didn't have to move up. In this alternate reality, we are only allowed to choose between Lonzo Ball and Josh Jackson because that's what DraftExpress/ESPN told us to do.

[cksdayoff]

i hate james harden so much