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

[Stribor]

AD is surely now completely off the table for anyone. If we luck in to number 1 I would try to trade down and acquire additional pick in future drafts to keep our asset pool going.

Absolutely, I think this is the best scenario. I like both Ayton and Doncic, but both have some minuses that will need to be repaired, and that will need time that after this good run in Playoffs we will not have. Trade to about 5-6 for a future unprotected pick and draft Bridges.

I would also not trade it for Kawhi because after this season I really have problems with his mentality and a possibility to screw up team chemistry royally. Stars I do not want to see wearing our jersey, are LBJ, RW, Kawhi and Kyrie. I think they are all great players but potentially have toxic personalities. Paul George, Love, AD and some others on the other hand look like a team first stars (just like Jojo and Ben) and this is what I want.

[XtremeDunkz]

AD is surely now completely off the table for anyone. If we luck in to number 1 I would try to trade down and acquire additional pick in future drafts to keep our asset pool going.

Absolutely, I think this is the best scenario. I like both Ayton and Doncic, but both have some minuses that will need to be repaired, and that will need time that after this good run in Playoffs we will not have. Trade to about 5-6 for a future unprotected pick and draft Bridges.

I would also not trade it for Kawhi because after this season I really have problems with his mentality and a possibility to screw up team chemistry royally. Stars I do not want to see wearing our jersey, are LBJ, RW, Kawhi and Kyrie. I think they are all great players but potentially have toxic personalities. Paul George, Love, AD and some others on the other hand look like a team first stars (just like Jojo and Ben) and this is what I want.

Yup. Having good players on rookie contracts is HUGE for maintaining a contender. We are looking at drafting in the high 20s for the foreseeable future. Depth is gonna go fast when Simmons and Saric get their extensions. Trading for another star sounds great until you realize it is gonna be the starters and then 10 minimum salary ring chasers.

[Sixers2125]

AD is surely now completely off the table for anyone. If we luck in to number 1 I would try to trade down and acquire additional pick in future drafts to keep our asset pool going.

Absolutely, I think this is the best scenario. I like both Ayton and Doncic, but both have some minuses that will need to be repaired, and that will need time that after this good run in Playoffs we will not have. Trade to about 5-6 for a future unprotected pick and draft Bridges.

I would also not trade it for Kawhi because after this season I really have problems with his mentality and a possibility to screw up team chemistry royally. Stars I do not want to see wearing our jersey, are LBJ, RW, Kawhi and Kyrie. I think they are all great players but potentially have toxic personalities. Paul George, Love, AD and some others on the other hand look like a team first stars (just like Jojo and Ben) and this is what I want.

Yup. Having good players on rookie contracts is HUGE for maintaining a contender. We are looking at drafting in the high 20s for the foreseeable future. Depth is gonna go fast when Simmons and Saric get their extensions. Trading for another star sounds great until you realize it is gonna be the starters and then 10 minimum salary ring chasers.

This is why I would trade both of our 1st round picks for future 1sts this year. I'm sure some team will over pay too. That will really set us up depth wise when we are capped out in a few years.

Sent from my [device_name] using [url]RealGM mobile app[/url]

[Sixerscan]

Read on Twitter

2020 could be loaded

[Negrodamus]

Read on Twitter

2020 could be loaded

Yep. And it’s going to murder interest in the NCAA (probably deservedly so) and make evaluating talent much harder.

[Kobblehead]

I refuse to go back to and1 mixtape-style scouting high school players.

[Ericb5]

Read on Twitter

2020 could be loaded

Yep. And it’s going to murder interest in the NCAA (probably deservedly so) and make evaluating talent much harder.

You don’t solve anything by simply allowing them to come straight out of high school. If you are going to allow high school seniors then there should be a rule that if you DO go to college that you have to stay for 2-3 years like baseball.

People often talk about this issue as if the only stakeholder is the players. The nba, and the NCAA are also both stakeholders here, and the one and done rule isn’t good for the NCAA. If they allowed high schoolers to go pro it would be good for the players that were good enough to do it, but if they forced any players that decided to go to college to play at least 2 years then it would be better for the NCAA and the nba.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sarni]

Read on Twitter

2020 could be loaded

Yep. And it’s going to murder interest in the NCAA (probably deservedly so) and make evaluating talent much harder.

You don’t solve anything by simply allowing them to come straight out of high school. If you are going to allow high school seniors then there should be a rule that if you DO go to college that you have to stay for 2-3 years like baseball.

People often talk about this issue as if the only stakeholder is the players. The nba, and the NCAA are also both stakeholders here, and the one and done rule isn’t good for the NCAA. If they allowed high schoolers to go pro it would be good for the players that were good enough to do it, but if they forced any players that decided to go to college to play at least 2 years then it would be better for the NCAA and the nba.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wouldn't that completely discourage players from going to college though? You would need to wait at least 2 or 3 years to get into the NBA and make good money, surely nobody who has any chance going in the first round would risk that (a lot of things can happen during two years, including an injury or simply turning out not to be that great).

[Ericb5]

Yep. And it’s going to murder interest in the NCAA (probably deservedly so) and make evaluating talent much harder.

You don’t solve anything by simply allowing them to come straight out of high school. If you are going to allow high school seniors then there should be a rule that if you DO go to college that you have to stay for 2-3 years like baseball.

People often talk about this issue as if the only stakeholder is the players. The nba, and the NCAA are also both stakeholders here, and the one and done rule isn’t good for the NCAA. If they allowed high schoolers to go pro it would be good for the players that were good enough to do it, but if they forced any players that decided to go to college to play at least 2 years then it would be better for the NCAA and the nba.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wouldn't that completely discourage players from going to college though? You would need to wait at least 2 or 3 years to get into the NBA and make good money, surely nobody who has any chance going in the first round would risk that (a lot of things can happen during two years, including an injury or simply turning out not to be that great).

It wouldn’t discourage it anymore than it does in football or baseball. The college game matters. The nba game matters. We can’t think only of the players here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Negrodamus]

You don’t solve anything by simply allowing them to come straight out of high school. If you are going to allow high school seniors then there should be a rule that if you DO go to college that you have to stay for 2-3 years like baseball.

People often talk about this issue as if the only stakeholder is the players. The nba, and the NCAA are also both stakeholders here, and the one and done rule isn’t good for the NCAA. If they allowed high schoolers to go pro it would be good for the players that were good enough to do it, but if they forced any players that decided to go to college to play at least 2 years then it would be better for the NCAA and the nba.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wouldn't that completely discourage players from going to college though? You would need to wait at least 2 or 3 years to get into the NBA and make good money, surely nobody who has any chance going in the first round would risk that (a lot of things can happen during two years, including an injury or simply turning out not to be that great).

It wouldn’t discourage it anymore than it does in football or baseball. The college game matters. The nba game matters. We can’t think only of the players here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Players would definitely go to the NBDL over college basketball if it turned into a 3 year ordeal. The NCAA should have tested the 2 year situation out when they had a chance.

Also, the one and done rule has been a godsend to the NCAA. What have been the downfalls other than individual schools getting in trouble? The NCAA made millions because an Australian kid wore 25 for LSU for a few months and made them somewhat interesting.

[Sixerscan]

You don’t solve anything by simply allowing them to come straight out of high school. If you are going to allow high school seniors then there should be a rule that if you DO go to college that you have to stay for 2-3 years like baseball.

People often talk about this issue as if the only stakeholder is the players. The nba, and the NCAA are also both stakeholders here, and the one and done rule isn’t good for the NCAA. If they allowed high schoolers to go pro it would be good for the players that were good enough to do it, but if they forced any players that decided to go to college to play at least 2 years then it would be better for the NCAA and the nba.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wouldn't that completely discourage players from going to college though? You would need to wait at least 2 or 3 years to get into the NBA and make good money, surely nobody who has any chance going in the first round would risk that (a lot of things can happen during two years, including an injury or simply turning out not to be that great).

It wouldn’t discourage it anymore than it does in football or baseball. The college game matters. The nba game matters. We can’t think only of the players here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assure you you don't have to worry about a bunch of teenagers having more say in this than two billion dollar industries.

The sooner the NBA distances itself from the NCAA's racket the better as far as I'm concerned. Raising the age limit is fine but they have to keep developing alternatives.

Not a shocker that all of this seems to be coming a few months after all the shoe company stings happened. Nike and Adidas don't want to be put at risk by putting up with the NCAA's veil of amateurism anymore.

[Ericb5]

Wouldn't that completely discourage players from going to college though? You would need to wait at least 2 or 3 years to get into the NBA and make good money, surely nobody who has any chance going in the first round would risk that (a lot of things can happen during two years, including an injury or simply turning out not to be that great).

It wouldn’t discourage it anymore than it does in football or baseball. The college game matters. The nba game matters. We can’t think only of the players here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Players would definitely go to the NBDL over college basketball if it turned into a 3 year ordeal. The NCAA should have tested the 2 year situation out when they had a chance.

Also, the one and done rule has been a godsend to the NCAA. What have been the downfalls other than individual schools getting in trouble? The NCAA made millions because an Australian kid wore 25 for LSU for a few months and made them somewhat interesting.

If players choose to go to other professional leagues instead of college then so be it. It will only be beneficial to them if they are truly elite talents. If they are just your typical top 25 recruits then college will be the best place for them to get exposure.

If the G league gets good enough to rival college basketball then that wouldn't be a bad thing.

There are three interests that need to be considered.

1. The Lebron's and Ben Simmons' of the world that are ready for the NBA need to have the ability to go straight to the NBA.
2. The NBA needs more time to evaluate prospects before they invest millions of dollars in them.
3. The NCAA needs a cohesive sport that isn't reset every single year.

So nobody gets exactly what they want, but all interests are considered by making a rule that says that you can either go straight to the nba or you have to then wait 2 years, and 3 years would be even better.

The one size fits all one and done thing is not good for anyone. Its like the Veterans Stadium approach to hosting baseball and football games. It sucks for both.

[Negrodamus]

It wouldn’t discourage it anymore than it does in football or baseball. The college game matters. The nba game matters. We can’t think only of the players here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Players would definitely go to the NBDL over college basketball if it turned into a 3 year ordeal. The NCAA should have tested the 2 year situation out when they had a chance.

Also, the one and done rule has been a godsend to the NCAA. What have been the downfalls other than individual schools getting in trouble? The NCAA made millions because an Australian kid wore 25 for LSU for a few months and made them somewhat interesting.

If players choose to go to other professional leagues instead of college then so be it. It will only be beneficial to them if they are truly elite talents. If they are just your typical top 25 recruits then college will be the best place for them to get exposure.

If the G league gets good enough to rival college basketball then that wouldn't be a bad thing.

There are three interests that need to be considered.

1. The Lebron's and Ben Simmons' of the world that are ready for the NBA need to have the ability to go straight to the NBA.
2. The NBA needs more time to evaluate prospects before they invest millions of dollars in them.
3. The NCAA needs a cohesive sport that isn't reset every single year.

So nobody gets exactly what they want, but all interests are considered by making a rule that says that you can either go straight to the nba or you have to then wait 2 years, and 3 years would be even better.

The one size fits all one and done thing is not good for anyone. Its like the Veterans Stadium approach to hosting baseball and football games. It sucks for both.

When the NBA starts pouring enormous amounts of money into the G League (which I assume is coming with these decisions), that's when the NBA wins. Because if I'm Kevin Knox (not a top 5 recruit, but a five star) from last year, I could go to the G League and work on my game all day while being paid. I'm sure the G League games will eventually be televised with this transition so we will be able to see the young talent in their transition to the NBA.

In the end, college basketball will be extraordinarily boring to watch.

[sixers78]

AD is surely now completely off the table for anyone. If we luck in to number 1 I would try to trade down and acquire additional pick in future drafts to keep our asset pool going.

Absolutely, I think this is the best scenario. I like both Ayton and Doncic, but both have some minuses that will need to be repaired, and that will need time that after this good run in Playoffs we will not have. Trade to about 5-6 for a future unprotected pick and draft Bridges.

I would also not trade it for Kawhi because after this season I really have problems with his mentality and a possibility to screw up team chemistry royally. Stars I do not want to see wearing our jersey, are LBJ, RW, Kawhi and Kyrie. I think they are all great players but potentially have toxic personalities. Paul George, Love, AD and some others on the other hand look like a team first stars (just like Jojo and Ben) and this is what I want.

I’m not against trading down and I think Bridges will be a solid 3 and D guy. But if you get pick 1 and trade down for him? That’s not smart imo. Why not take Porter Jr? Jaren Jackson?

[Stribor]

Well at least one of them would be available on position less than 1. I am also not sure that the number 1 is written in stone for this draft, which suggests you could get good guys lower. In the end, I did not watch that much draft picks as some of the other guys on the board, but from my limited observation - I have a feeling that Bridges could be the Tatum of this draft. Good in everything, no glaring weaknesses, but for some reason marked as low ceiling guy (and I am not sure why).

[BNelley24]

Let’s not get our hopes up for #1 lol. 1% doesn’t really get my juices flowing. Then again it only took me 7 rolls this morning to land #1 on tankathon.

Over last few weeks I was sort of hoping the pick fell to 2 or 3 so the Celtics got it and we kept the Kings pick next year, but I’ve come around. I’ll be happy to keep #10. We could still draft a young impact role player. Who knows maybe even a sleeper stud. Keeping the pick this year at 10 & obviously 1 adds more ammo for us to use in any potential trade.

Not really adding anything here. #1 would be epic. It would open up so many countless possibilities... we’ll see.

[Sixerscan]

Pretty amazing that the lottery is only a few days a way. For the last 4 years I've counted down the days now I've barely thought about it.

[Kobblehead]

If we do win the #1, we'd probably end up with Doncic. Would be a great fit but might just end up a high end role player. One of the shotcreaters that should fall to #10 (Sga, Young, Sexton) might have higher upsides.

[ProcessDoctor]

I'm ok with nothing exciting happening next week. I'll be relieved if they announce us at 10.

[KrazySixersD]

if we keep the lakers pick this year? what does that mean for what we owe boston then?