Wizards 2019 Draft thread. (Tank for Zion, or OTHER NAME HERE)

[Wizfanman]

Well, Justin Anderson is a bust, and of those players Hunter is most similar to...

Justin Anderson was the 21st pick in the draft. He'll probably have a 10 year career in the NBA, albeit as a bench player. Thats probably what you would expect from the #21 pick.

Will he? He’s on his 3rd team in 4 years and couldn’t get on the court playing for a lottery team.

Fair points, but he's shown flashes of being a solid contributor. I think he'll stick around in the league.

[payitforward]

Will he? He’s on his 3rd team in 4 years and couldn’t get on the court playing for a lottery team.

Actually, Anderson played pretty well until this year. What was going on with him who knows -- was he nicked up perhaps?

Wizfanman... I'm getting the idea that you're not much of an NBA fan. Don't follow the game very closely (let alone college basketball).

Anyone who thinks that there is some particular level of production one would "expect from the #21 pick" can't have been paying much attention over the years. All the more oddly dense is the statement in that yesterday you confidently predicted Hunter to become as good a player as Tobias Harris -- who was the #19 pick. In case my point isn't obvious, that's only 2 picks from #21.

Wow you're reaching. I get the idea you just like to argue to try to sound intelligent. You act as if one has to watch every game to form an opinion. Get real. The vast majority of people form their opinions on prospects by scouting reports and highlights.

Was I wrong by saying that the #21 pick is lucky to turn out to be a journeymen bench player? What kind of weak point were you trying to make by stating Tobias Harris was #19? There's always exceptions.

Payitforward, I could be mistaken but I remember you being pro the Ian Mahinmi signing. That hardly gives you any room to question someones knowledge of the game.

Well... you would certainly be correct that I'd have disqualified myself had I been pro the Mahinmi signing! But... I wasn't. Still, it's nice to know that I sound intelligent to you, Wizfanman. Plus... didn't I just agree with you about Anderson?!

But, yes, you are specifically & completely incorrect to say that "the #21 pick is lucky to turn out to be a journeyman bench player." Here's why -- & btw this is not a desire to argue. I expect that after reading the below you will agree with me; otoh if I misrepresent you please correct me.

Your claim about the #21 pick implies that later picks, guys taken after #21, have an even smaller likelihood of doing well in the league. That is, more generally, you seem to be saying that level of success as an NBA player is correlated with pick position at a statistically significant level. Now, if you didn't mean that, if it's somehow just about the #21, then I take back my criticism. But... I don't know what you could possibly have meant in that case, so I assume that's precisely your point.

The problem is that it's not true -- or, rather, it's not true past the first 3 picks in the draft. After that, there is no statistically significant correlation between where a guy was picked & how well he plays in the NBA.

In fact, even for the first 3 players in the draft the correlation is surprisingly weak. Let me illustrate: tell me, in the 40 drafts from 1976 to 2015 how often do you think all 3 guys have become good NBA players? Lets use a weak standard, ok? Not stars or even "really good" in any sense: I just mean average or better. How many times in 40 years did all 3 guys picked 1-3 become average NBA players?

Obviously, no one has the information about 40 drafts in his head -- so I'm not asking that you name anything or anybody. I'm just wondering what you think is a likely answer. As a number or a percentage or a fraction. I'll put it in a spoiler, since maybe others will wonder as well.

Spoiler:

I have to say, this blew me away. The answer is twice -- 2 times in 40 years. In 1984 with Hakeem Olajuwon, Sam Bowie, and Michael Jordan (Bowie's career was cut short by injury, but he was above average before that). & in 1999 with Elton Brand, Steve Francis, and Baron Davis -- not great but all above average.

OTOH, here are 10 names: Ryan Anderson, Courtney Lee, Kosta Koufos, Serge Ibaka, Nicholas Batum, George Hill, Nikola Pekovic, Mario Chalmers, DeAndre Jordan & Omer Asik. All of those guys are/were better than "journeyman bench players." Some have been tremendous; every one of them has been a starter at some point in his career. One of them had his career cut short by injuries but was generally regarded as quite good when he played (Chalmers).

Only 1 of them was a #21 pick -- Ryan Anderson. That's because they are 10 of the 16 guys taken from 21-36 in the 2008 draft. One draft! Yet, 7 guys picked in the lottery that year were terrible (including both the #2 & the #3 picks in the draft -- Michael Beasley & O.J. Mayo).

I hope you are starting to get my point. & that you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight. What I'm trying to do is contribute to an actual understanding of what actually happens in the draft year after year. Which I'm trying to do as a way of supporting my suggestion that we should trade down for multiple picks.

[gtn130]

The problem is that it's not true -- or, rather, it's not true past the first 3 picks in the draft. After that, there is no statistically significant correlation between where a guy was picked & how well he plays in the NBA.

PIF, you keep making this point and you're still wrong. For starters, going back 40 years of drafts is kind of insane. In 1985 guess what the salary cap was?

Spoiler:

$3,600,000
(Today's dollars: $7,934,034)

Do you think teams were investing the time and resources into drafting in 1985 as they are today? How about the fact that we have internet today and HD video streams and ways to capture scouting reports across the globe with relative ease? Your methodology here is highly questionable, man.

But all that said, is what you're saying even true on its face? Like go look at the last 30 years of the #4 pick.

Jaren Jackson Jr.
Kristaps Porzingis
Aaron Gordon
Tristan Thompson
Tyreke Evans
Russell Westbrook
Mike Conley
Chris Paul
Chris Bosh
Lamar Odom
Antawn Jamison
Stephon Marbury
Rasheed Wallace
Jamal Mashburn
Jim Jackson
Dikembe Mutombo
Glen Rice

---

Cody Zeller
Dion Waiters
Shaun Livingston*
Drew Gooden
Antonio Daniels
Dennis Scott

That's 23/30 picks in which those guys at least had long NBA careers. By my count that's 14/30 picks in which they are All-Star caliber or better.

Do you think the 23rd pick in the 2nd round looks anything like this? Or the 19th pick in the 1st round?

This claim you keep making seems totally off, man.

[Wizfanman]

Actually, Anderson played pretty well until this year. What was going on with him who knows -- was he nicked up perhaps?

Wizfanman... I'm getting the idea that you're not much of an NBA fan. Don't follow the game very closely (let alone college basketball).

Anyone who thinks that there is some particular level of production one would "expect from the #21 pick" can't have been paying much attention over the years. All the more oddly dense is the statement in that yesterday you confidently predicted Hunter to become as good a player as Tobias Harris -- who was the #19 pick. In case my point isn't obvious, that's only 2 picks from #21.

Wow you're reaching. I get the idea you just like to argue to try to sound intelligent. You act as if one has to watch every game to form an opinion. Get real. The vast majority of people form their opinions on prospects by scouting reports and highlights.

Was I wrong by saying that the #21 pick is lucky to turn out to be a journeymen bench player? What kind of weak point were you trying to make by stating Tobias Harris was #19? There's always exceptions.

Payitforward, I could be mistaken but I remember you being pro the Ian Mahinmi signing. That hardly gives you any room to question someones knowledge of the game.

Well... you would certainly be correct that I'd have disqualified myself had I been pro the Mahinmi signing! But... I wasn't. Still, it's nice to know that I sound intelligent to you, Wizfanman. Plus... didn't I just agree with you about Anderson?!

But, yes, you are specifically & completely incorrect to say that "the #21 pick is lucky to turn out to be a journeyman bench player." Here's why -- & btw this is not a desire to argue. I expect that after reading the below you will agree with me; otoh if I misrepresent you please correct me.

Your claim about the #21 pick implies that later picks, guys taken after #21, have an even smaller likelihood of doing well in the league. That is, more generally, you seem to be saying that level of success as an NBA player is correlated with pick position at a statistically significant level. Now, if you didn't mean that, if it's somehow just about the #21, then I take back my criticism. But... I don't know what you could possibly have meant in that case, so I assume that's precisely your point.

The problem is that it's not true -- or, rather, it's not true past the first 3 picks in the draft. After that, there is no statistically significant correlation between where a guy was picked & how well he plays in the NBA.

In fact, even for the first 3 players in the draft the correlation is surprisingly weak. Let me illustrate: tell me, in the 40 drafts from 1976 to 2015 how often do you think all 3 guys have become good NBA players? Lets use a weak standard, ok? Not stars or even "really good" in any sense: I just mean average or better. How many times in 40 years did all 3 guys picked 1-3 become average NBA players?

Obviously, no one has the information about 40 drafts in his head -- so I'm not asking that you name anything or anybody. I'm just wondering what you think is a likely answer. As a number or a percentage or a fraction. I'll put it in a spoiler, since maybe others will wonder as well.

Spoiler:

I have to say, this blew me away. The answer is twice -- 2 times in 40 years. In 1984 with Hakeem Olajuwon, Sam Bowie, and Michael Jordan (Bowie's career was cut short by injury, but he was above average before that). & in 1999 with Elton Brand, Steve Francis, and Baron Davis -- not great but all above average.

OTOH, here are 10 names: Ryan Anderson, Courtney Lee, Kosta Koufos, Serge Ibaka, Nicholas Batum, George Hill, Nikola Pekovic, Mario Chalmers, DeAndre Jordan & Omer Asik. All of those guys are/were better than "journeyman bench players." Some have been tremendous; every one of them has been a starter at some point in his career. One of them had his career cut short by injuries but was generally regarded as quite good when he played (Chalmers).

Only 1 of them was a #21 pick -- Ryan Anderson. That's because they are 10 of the 16 guys taken from 21-36 in the 2008 draft. One draft! Yet, 7 guys picked in the lottery that year were terrible (including both the #2 & the #3 picks in the draft -- Michael Beasley & O.J. Mayo).

I hope you are starting to get my point. & that you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight. What I'm trying to do is contribute to an actual understanding of what actually happens in the draft year after year. Which I'm trying to do as a way of supporting my suggestion that we should trade down for multiple picks.

I see where you're coming from but I totally disagree. Theres no logic in trading down in the NBA unless your shooting for mediocrity maybe.

There were 29 NBA Allstars last year. 25 of them were drafted in the top 15 picks. 23 were drafted in the top 10. Only 4 players who made the allstar team were drafted from the 16th overall pick to the end of the second round. Those players were Kyle Lowry, Jimmy Butler, Goran Dragic, and Draymond Green. 4 of the lesser talented players.

[payitforward]

You don't get it, & really it must be b/c I'm not being clear. Tho God knows I've tried. Tell you what, rather than wanting to keep fight about this, please be kind enough to read the following paragraphs, & tell me if I'm failing to be clear.

There is no point in your presenting an argument that the 4th pick produces better players overall than the 19th pick, because it's an obvious fact. Of course it does! & for that reason, no one in his right mind would trade the #4 pick straight up for the #19 pick.

In fact, it's equally obvious that no one would rather to have the #5 pick instead of the #4 pick. "No one" includes me. I would not prefer that. So, no one would trade the #4 pick for the #5 pick -- why would you do that?

Now, I'm sure you'll agree that the difference between the #4 pick & the #5 pick is small -- especially compared to the difference between either of them & the #19 pick. & in fact, if we go back through, say, all the drafts since 2001, we'll find that sometimes the #4 pick has produced the better player (2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) but other times the #5 pick has been better (2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2016, 2017), & other times it's too close to call (2008, 2011). Surely that's no surprise. But, still, what possible reason would you have to exchange the #4 for the #5?

Am I being clear so far? Good. So, then, what can I possibly mean when I say there's no statistically meaningful correlation between pick position & how good a player? If, that is, I don't mean any of the above? Well, for there to be a meaningful correlation between pick position & how good a player is, the #4 pick for example, would have to show a high correlation with being the 4th best player to enter the league that year, & the 5th with being the 5th best. More importantly for my point the #19 pick would have to show a high correlation with being the 19th best player to enter the league that year.

To the degree that that is not the case -- especially at #19 -- it means there are likely to be good players available at #19, when that pick comes. &, as you know, there often are. Sometimes really good players. Sometimes great players. Because, after all, in a given draft, every player taken from #19 all the way down through #60 is "available at #19."

Now, look back at #4 & #5. There is clearly little to choose over all between #4 & #5. In most drafts, you might be quite happy to trade your #4 for the #5 -- plus the #19. Sometimes you might not want to do that. Goes without saying. But usually... yeah.

E.g. in 2001, for example, the #4 pick delivered Eddy Curry. The #5 delivered Jason Richardson. You might very well want to trade the #4 for the #5 & the #19 -- since that pick would have added Zach Randolph to your haul.

In 2011, it would have been Valanciunas & Tobias Harris instead of Tristan Thompson. How about De'Aaron Fox & John Collins instead of Josh Jackson in 2017. Or even Kriss Dunn & Malik Beasley instead of Dragan Bender in '16.

IOW, the point is not that the #19 pick is as good as the #4 pick. The point is that the #5 & another pick lower in R1 or even high in R2 is likely to be better than the #4 pick. Not always. But, a lot of the time.

That's why, if we have the #6 pick I want to trade down for multiple picks. That is what one learns from the statistical correlation information. Not that it makes no difference what pick you have!

[gtn130]

IOW, the point is not that the #19 pick is as good as the #4 pick. The point is that the #5 & another pick lower in R1 or even high in R2 is likely to be better than the #4 pick. Not always. But, a lot of the time.

That's why, if we have the #6 pick I want to trade down for multiple picks. That is what one learns from the statistical correlation information. Not that it makes no difference what pick you have!

PIF, you ignored the first half of my post, which was me saying that looking back 40 years is a fundamentally bad idea. Can you address that point?

Also, to remind you, this is what I was critiquing:

The problem is that it's not true -- or, rather, it's not true past the first 3 picks in the draft. After that, there is no statistically significant correlation between where a guy was picked & how well he plays in the NBA.

What you're addressing above is not the same thing as I've quoted here. Maybe you misstated what you meant originally, I guess, but these two things are unquestionably different.

It's worth noting that if you controlled for all of the variables you're ignoring (era, learnings over time, technology) and had a large enough sample (way larger), we would 100% absolutely see a correlation between each draft slot and relative player value in the league.

I don't even see why this point you're making matters. We have a tiny sample of 40 drafts with lots of bad data, and nobody functionally operates in the terms you're describing anyway - there's a firm market value associated with each draft slot. 1>2>3>4>5.

Why continue to make this point? It's incorrect, derails the thread and serves no purpose.

[payitforward]

...I see where you're coming from but I totally disagree. Theres no logic in trading down in the NBA unless your shooting for mediocrity maybe.

There were 29 NBA Allstars last year. 25 of them were drafted in the top 15 picks. 23 were drafted in the top 10. Only 4 players who made the allstar team were drafted from the 16th overall pick to the end of the second round. Those players were Kyle Lowry, Jimmy Butler, Goran Dragic, and Draymond Green. 4 of the lesser talented players.

Ok, that's an improvement in tone between us. I'll try to keep it that way.

No one aims at mediocrity. Please assume that I'm aiming at contending for a title. It's to that end that I'm talking about trading down. Feel free to differ with me, but you'll need to find a real basis for argument. As to the above point, there are a bunch of ways that your metric -- "all star players" -- leads you into logical errors.

First off, you can't substitute a popularity contest for an actual measure of how good players are. So, suppose we just made it the top 10% of players in the league by some metric we agreed on?

Even in that case, for your argument to have merit you'd need to start from the other end by determining what % of high picks become terrific players (not the reverse). IOW, you'd have to make a quantitative claim not a qualitative one.

How many guys drafted #6, lets say (since it's what we'd do with that pick -- nab Hunter or trade down -- is the underlying topic), become outstanding players according to that agreed-upon metric? You'd have to compare that # to the # of guys who reach that same level who were taken at both the pick positions we got for that #6 we traded.

That's obvious, I trust. But... there's a lot more you'd need to look at. You'd need to look at the "decay slope" on high picks -- most guys taken very high are also very young. What happens to the ones who don't become terrific? Do more of them wash out vs. guys taken at both the traded-for pick positions (lower positions, hence maybe on average slightly older players?).

Aside from this range of issues, it's also the case that your argument keeps things on an abstract plane; this is about actual choice to be made in the present tense (well... soon).

To illustrate -- in 2011 we had the #6 pick, the #18 pick & the #34 pick. What would have been the optimum move to make? We could have picked Leonard #6. We could have picked someone else #6 & traded the #34 & #18 for the #15 (presumably, since Indy did trade the pick) & picked him at that spot. We could have picked Vesely as we did, then picked Jimmy Butler @#18. Just some examples.

We also could have tried to trade up -- our #6 & 1 or both of our other picks. With that higher pick (lets say it would have been either #2 or #3) we could have picked Derrick Williams or Enes Kanter or Tristan Thompson.

Which of those moves would have been better than picking Leonard at 6 & Butler at 18? Trading up... terrible!

Suppose instead we'd traded our #6 to Charlotte for their #9 & #19 (a realistic trade in this scenario), then traded their #19 & our #34 to Chicago for their #s 28 & 30 (equally realistic). Now we take Kawhi Leonard (#9), Tobias Harris (#18), Jimmy Butler (#28) & Bojan Bogdanovic (#30).

Ok ok... this is a fantasy scenario -- it's point is only to illustrate the fact that, no, trading down does not need to aim at mediocrity. Nor does having & using lower picks: would you call the Spurs a mediocre franchise?

[payitforward]

Also, to remind you, this is what I was critiquing:

The problem is that it's not true -- or, rather, it's not true past the first 3 picks in the draft. After that, there is no statistically significant correlation between where a guy was picked & how well he plays in the NBA.

What you're addressing above is not the same thing as I've quoted here. Maybe you misstated what you meant originally, I guess, but these two things are unquestionably different.

IOW, the point is not that the #19 pick is as good as the #4 pick. The point is that the #5 & another pick lower in R1 or even high in R2 is likely to be better than the #4 pick. Not always. But, a lot of the time.

That's why, if we have the #6 pick I want to trade down for multiple picks. That is what one learns from the statistical correlation information. Not that it makes no difference what pick you have!

Is it these 2 statements that you are saying are "not the same thing?"

In a sense you are right. That is, even if the players descended in impact in the exact order that they descended in pick position, it would still be possible that 2 lower picks could deliver more value than 1 higher pick. Most obviously, you could assume that, say, the #5 & #6 pick would give more value together than the #4 pick on its own.

But, the fact that this isn't even so, i.e. that there's plenty of evidence, plain as can be, that sometimes the #4 pick in a draft looks bad/unlikely to work out (Josh Jackson) while the #14 pick (Bam Adebayo), the #17 pick (John Collins), the #22 pick (Jarrett Allen), the #29 pick (Derrick Whie), the #30 pick (Josh Hart), the #36 pick (Jonah Bolden), the #38 pick (Jordan Bell), the #42 pick (Thomas Bryant), the #51 pick (Monte Morris), & the #59 pick (Jaron Blossingame) & several others picked lower than #4 range from quite promising to absolutely terrific.

Players do not perform in the league along a descending scale of excellence that mirrors their pick positions. Period. They don't. To some degree the #s 1-3 (overall) come closer; below that, no.

[payitforward]

Wizfanman/gtn -- I think I should stop trying to explain my POV. That is, I think it's probably boring a bunch of other people to tears. & anyway I'd rather be talking about prospects, players, trades, etc. I'm sure we all would.

The Grunfeld era has come to an end. That's a good thing. Along with Ernie's departure, his generation of the Wizards has also come to an end. From my point of view, the most important thing to talk about here are the moves that can reboot this team.

[Illmatic12]

Just can't shake the feeling that it would be a mistake for Washington to pass on Doumbaya at #6 . He could hold down our starting PF position for a long time.

Big, agile, fluid, intelligent player with an NBA frame.. and only 18 years old. In 3 years time, won't he be ahead of where 21yo Deandre Hunter is now?

Watch on YouTube

[Dat2U]

Just can't shake the feeling that it would be a mistake for Washington to pass on Doumbaya at #6 . He could hold down our starting PF position for a long time.

Big, agile, fluid, intelligent player with an NBA frame.. and only 18 years old. In 3 years time, won't he be ahead of where 21yo Deandre Hunter is now?

Developing raw 18 yr old role players is a tricky science. Development is not a straight line nor is it guaranteed. We all assumed Kevin Seraphin would be better in time. We were all impressed by his personality and stated desire to improve. Initially there were no questions about his work ethic.

The NBA draft is littered with the failures of player development. Some guys never get, some guys take half a decade or more. Some teams get frustrated and move on only to see their hard work benefit another team.

I'm not a huge Hunter fan but here's the advantages he has over Doumbouya: Theoretically he's a plug & play, ready for immediate minutes in a NBA rotation. He's already a solid shooter and has the IQ to be an immediate contributor on the defensive end. He should be productive on his rookie deal even if his ceiling isn't very high.

Doumbouya theoretically has a higher ceiling but it is still the ceiling of a role player as well. Obviously with more tools defensively and the workings of a more advanced skillset offensively. Doumbouya in time should be able to attack closeouts on offense and guard multiple positions on D however at 18, it's a stretch to assume he's ready for immediate minutes.

His time line also does not fit Bradley Beal's. Brad is in his prime right now. Doumbouya is arguably a few years from making a positive impact... By the time Doumbouya is supposedly ready to be our PF of the future, we may need an SG of the future as well. If your big on keeping Beal and surrounding him with the best team possible, Sekou would probably not be the direction to go in.

Like i said, I have no problem with the kid after the #15 pick but he is without a doubt, a project. He's absolutely the exact type of player Ernie Grunfeld would fall in love with. Raw, toolsy, plenty of "physical upside". That doesn't make Sekou the wrong pick. I just don't think it's clear cut that he becomes everything you've projected onto him.

[nate33]

Just can't shake the feeling that it would be a mistake for Washington to pass on Doumbaya at #6 . He could hold down our starting PF position for a long time.

Big, agile, fluid, intelligent player with an NBA frame.. and only 18 years old. In 3 years time, won't he be ahead of where 21yo Deandre Hunter is now?

Watch on YouTube

I'm really impressed with the left-handed shovel pass at 1:05, and the cross-court pass at 1:30. He makes a couple of other good skip passes in that video as well. His ability to see the floor and use his left hand give him a much higher ceiling than a lot of guys who are merely good athletes. I could live with drafting Doubaya at #6 or #7 if Garland was off the board. I like Clarke more, but I could be wrong. I at least see the merit in gambling on Doumbaya.

[Illmatic12]

Just can't shake the feeling that it would be a mistake for Washington to pass on Doumbaya at #6 . He could hold down our starting PF position for a long time.

Big, agile, fluid, intelligent player with an NBA frame.. and only 18 years old. In 3 years time, won't he be ahead of where 21yo Deandre Hunter is now?

Developing raw 18 yr old role players is a tricky science. Development is not a straight line nor is it guaranteed. We all assumed Kevin Seraphin would be better in time. We were all impressed by his personality and stated desire to improve. Initially there were no questions about his work ethic.

The NBA draft is littered with the failures of player development. Some guys never get, some guys take half a decade or more. Some teams get frustrated and move on only to see their hard work benefit another team.

I'm not a huge Hunter fan but here's the advantages he has over Doumbouya: Theoretically he's a plug & play, ready for immediate minutes in a NBA rotation. He's already a solid shooter and has the IQ to be an immediate contributor on the defensive end. He should be productive on his rookie deal even if his ceiling isn't very high.

Doumbouya theoretically has a higher ceiling but it is still the ceiling of a role player as well. Obviously with more tools defensively and the workings of a more advanced skillset offensively. Doumbouya in time should be able to attack closeouts on offense and guard multiple positions on D however at 18, it's a stretch to assume he's ready for immediate minutes.

His time line also does not fit Bradley Beal's. Brad is in his prime right now. Doumbouya is arguably a few years from making a positive impact... By the time Doumbouya is supposedly ready to be our PF of the future, we may need an SG of the future as well. If your big on keeping Beal and surrounding him with the best team possible, Sekou would probably not be the direction to go in.

Like i said, I have no problem with the kid after the #15 pick but he is without a doubt, a project. He's absolutely the exact type of player Ernie Grunfeld would fall in love with. Raw, toolsy, plenty of "physical upside". That doesn't make Sekou the wrong pick. I just don't think it's clear cut that he becomes everything you've projected onto him.

That's the thing - Doumbouya is a plug and play just like Hunter is, only much younger. He's 18yo but already has the body of a man, and has been playing against men. Even if development isn't linear , Doumbouya today is capable of being an NBA rotation player. He doesn't get major role on his French team because he's 18yo and European coaches usually operate based on on seniority & payscale, they don't care about developing a young kid who is going to leave anyways.

His IQ is much higher than you're crediting him for. I know that often times foreign prospects are falsely portrayed in the US media due to lack of information, but I just want to point out that Doumbouya wasn't found in some dirt soccer field in a remote part of the world, he's not a Giannis. This guy has has been at an elite basketball academy in France since age 12 (same as where Boris Diaw, Nic Batum, Frank Ntilikina were trained) that is known for developing NBA players, and he has been around pro coaches and players for much of his life now.

Watch around 9:30 if you want to get a better idea of his background. Great to see the globalization of basketball, and they've really got an interesting movement there in France:

Watch on YouTube

My response is - how will he not make an immediate impact? An intelligent 6'10 230lb hyper-quick PF who can rebound, switch on defense and shoot threes will get minutes on any team in this league. The NBA is different now, it's been proven in recent years that younger players who are physically ready can come in and play right away. Jaren Jackson Jr was an 18yo kid who started this year and looked like a young phenom in Memphis. Mitchell Robinson (who many of us here wanted to trade down for , despite the "character red flags" which I knew was BS) had an immediate impact for the Knicks. Sure sometimes you have kids like Mo Bamba who can't play as rookies , but only because Bamba is physically frail. Sekou is built more like JJJ or Robinson, his physique won't hold him back in any way so I see no reason why he wouldn't make an impact.

If Washington drafts Sekou , he would likely be the starting PF by 2020 training camp and that certainly fits their timeline. He would be a cheap starter for 4 years, and right when he's up for RFA extension is when Wall's $46M comes off the books. I like the idea of potentially having an offensive anchor in Beal, paired with a defensive anchor in Doumbouya. Then hopefully Troy Brown and Thomas Bryant have come along as well. Brad is so young he can fit any timeline, and you can always supplement the locker room with vets of his choosing like Jeff Green , Ariza etc.

[Dat2U]

Here's the only way I'd trade Zion if the Wizards land the #1 pick.

Anthony Davis (only if he agrees to resign)
Jrue Holiday

For

Rights to Zion Williamson
John Wall
Ian Mahinmi
Dwight Howard

Wizards New Roster:
F Anthony Davis 27.1 mil 2019-20 salary
G Bradley Beal 27.1 mil
G Jrue Holiday 26.7 mil
F Troy Brown Jr 3.2 mil

Key Free Agents:
G Tomas Satoransky 5.9 mil cap hold
C Thomas Bryant 3.0 mil cap hold
F Jeff Green 1.6 mil cap hold

Incomplete roster charge: (6) 5.4 mil cap hold

Non-guaranteed contracts:
G Jordan McRae 1.4 mil
G Tarik Phillip 1.4 mil

The Wizards would be about $9 mil UNDER the cap in this scenario. The max cap space the Wizards could create is approximately $18 mil including incomplete roster charges.

[Illmatic12]

Just can't shake the feeling that it would be a mistake for Washington to pass on Doumbaya at #6 . He could hold down our starting PF position for a long time.

Big, agile, fluid, intelligent player with an NBA frame.. and only 18 years old. In 3 years time, won't he be ahead of where 21yo Deandre Hunter is now?

Watch on YouTube

I'm really impressed with the left-handed shovel pass at 1:05, and the cross-court pass at 1:30. He makes a couple of other good skip passes in that video as well. His ability to see the floor and use his left hand give him a much higher ceiling than a lot of guys who are merely good athletes. I could live with drafting Doubaya at #6 or #7 if Garland was off the board. I like Clarke more, but I could be wrong. I at least see the merit in gambling on Doumbaya.

Idk nate.. I would like to see Clarke shoot and make a 3-pointer (with proper mechanics) before I would even consider him at #6. In today's league, the idea of drafting a non-shooting, non-creating tweener in the lottery just feels wrong . I am watching these playoffs and feel like Clarke will be unplayable in the postseason setting, opposing teams just straight up won't guard him in a 7 game series. It will be like playing 4 vs 5 offense. And he can't post up or anything , so all you have to do is hide your worst defender on him and he won't take advantage.

Garland has a lot of upside too, just not sure about his medicals.

[nate33]

Idk nate.. I would like to see Clarke shoot and make a 3-pointer (with proper mechanics) before I would even consider him at #6. In today's league, the idea of drafting a non-shooting, non-creating tweener in the lottery just feels wrong . I am watching these playoffs and feel like Clarke will be unplayable in the postseason setting, opposing teams just straight up won't guard him in a 7 game series. It will be like playing 4 vs 5 offense. And he can't post up or anything , so all you have to do is hide your worst defender on him and he won't take advantage.

You don't score 17 points a game on a TS% of 70% by having no offensive skills. He certainly has a post game because he can turn around and jump over defenders to get his shot off. And he shot 73% from the FT line over his last 30 games this year so i think his shooting will be fine.

I think he'll have a Pascal Siakam type of impact, or at least a much better-defending version of Kenneth Faried.

[Illmatic12]

Idk nate.. I would like to see Clarke shoot and make a 3-pointer (with proper mechanics) before I would even consider him at #6. In today's league, the idea of drafting a non-shooting, non-creating tweener in the lottery just feels wrong . I am watching these playoffs and feel like Clarke will be unplayable in the postseason setting, opposing teams just straight up won't guard him in a 7 game series. It will be like playing 4 vs 5 offense. And he can't post up or anything , so all you have to do is hide your worst defender on him and he won't take advantage.

You don't score 17 points a game on a TS% of 70% by having no offensive skills. He certainly has a post game because he can turn around and jump over defenders to get his shot off. And he shot 73% from the FT line over his last 30 games this year so i think his shooting will be fine.

I think he'll have a Pascal Siakam type of impact, or at least a much better-defending version of Kenneth Faried.

Well the problem with the Siakam comp is we're talking about a forward who can handle the ball in transition and beat other forwards off the dribble. Also Siakam has a 7'4 wingspan which gives him a greater ability to guard up, switch on D etc . Clarke if I had to guess won't measure out at more than a 7' wingspan. That's kind of a key difference bc there aren't many guys with sub -7' wingspans who can have success guarding NBA 5s. Even Draymond Green despite being undersized has a 7'1 wingspan. So you put him at the 4 I guess, but that necessitates playing a stretch 5 at all times since Clarke's defender will be clogging the paint.

If Clarke had more size then I would be all in. But his lack of size, combined with shaky shooting ability makes me question how effectively he will match up with opposing teams on a regular basis. I've gone back and forth on Clarke, I'm sure he will be a quality NBA rotation player but just not convinced on his offensive upside.

There are so many players who would be great if they could shoot, so we've heard that one before. I would have to see it first to believe it. But it's possible that I am underrating his offensive game and perimeter skills. If Wizards drafted him at #6, I guess it's because they're very high on his offensive toolset and feel that he has skills that were underutilized in college.

[Dat2U]

Just can't shake the feeling that it would be a mistake for Washington to pass on Doumbaya at #6 . He could hold down our starting PF position for a long time.

Big, agile, fluid, intelligent player with an NBA frame.. and only 18 years old. In 3 years time, won't he be ahead of where 21yo Deandre Hunter is now?

Developing raw 18 yr old role players is a tricky science. Development is not a straight line nor is it guaranteed. We all assumed Kevin Seraphin would be better in time. We were all impressed by his personality and stated desire to improve. Initially there were no questions about his work ethic.

The NBA draft is littered with the failures of player development. Some guys never get, some guys take half a decade or more. Some teams get frustrated and move on only to see their hard work benefit another team.

I'm not a huge Hunter fan but here's the advantages he has over Doumbouya: Theoretically he's a plug & play, ready for immediate minutes in a NBA rotation. He's already a solid shooter and has the IQ to be an immediate contributor on the defensive end. He should be productive on his rookie deal even if his ceiling isn't very high.

Doumbouya theoretically has a higher ceiling but it is still the ceiling of a role player as well. Obviously with more tools defensively and the workings of a more advanced skillset offensively. Doumbouya in time should be able to attack closeouts on offense and guard multiple positions on D however at 18, it's a stretch to assume he's ready for immediate minutes.

His time line also does not fit Bradley Beal's. Brad is in his prime right now. Doumbouya is arguably a few years from making a positive impact... By the time Doumbouya is supposedly ready to be our PF of the future, we may need an SG of the future as well. If your big on keeping Beal and surrounding him with the best team possible, Sekou would probably not be the direction to go in.

Like i said, I have no problem with the kid after the #15 pick but he is without a doubt, a project. He's absolutely the exact type of player Ernie Grunfeld would fall in love with. Raw, toolsy, plenty of "physical upside". That doesn't make Sekou the wrong pick. I just don't think it's clear cut that he becomes everything you've projected onto him.

That's the thing - Doumbouya is a plug and play just like Hunter is, only much younger. He's 18yo but already has the body of a man, and has been playing against men. Even if development isn't linear , Doumbouya today is capable of being an NBA rotation player. He doesn't get major role on his French team because he's 18yo and European coaches usually operate based on on seniority & payscale, they don't care about developing a young kid who is going to leave anyways.

His IQ is much higher than you're crediting him for. I know that often times foreign prospects are falsely portrayed in the US media due to lack of information, but I just want to point out that Doumbouya wasn't found in some dirt soccer field in a remote part of the world, he's not a Giannis. This guy has has been at an elite basketball academy in France since age 12 (same as where Boris Diaw, Nic Batum, Frank Ntilikina were trained) that is known for developing NBA players, and he has been around pro coaches and players for much of his life now.

Watch around 9:30 if you want to get a better idea of his background. Great to see the globalization of basketball, and they've really got an interesting movement there in France:

Watch on YouTube

My response is - how will he not make an immediate impact? An intelligent 6'10 230lb hyper-quick PF who can rebound, switch on defense and shoot threes will get minutes on any team in this league. The NBA is different now, it's been proven in recent years that younger players who are physically ready can come in and play right away. Jaren Jackson Jr was an 18yo kid who started this year and looked like a young phenom in Memphis. Mitchell Robinson (who many of us here wanted to trade down for , despite the "character red flags" which I knew was BS) had an immediate impact for the Knicks. Sure sometimes you have kids like Mo Bamba who can't play as rookies , but only because Bamba is physically frail. Sekou is built more like JJJ or Robinson, his physique won't hold him back in any way so I see no reason why he wouldn't make an impact.

If Washington drafts Sekou , he would likely be the starting PF by 2020 training camp and that certainly fits their timeline. He would be a cheap starter for 4 years, and right when he's up for RFA extension is when Wall's $46M comes off the books. I like the idea of potentially having an offensive anchor in Beal, paired with a defensive anchor in Doumbouya. Then hopefully Troy Brown and Thomas Bryant have come along as well. Brad is so young he can fit any timeline, and you can always supplement the locker room with vets of his choosing like Jeff Green , Ariza etc.

I do not see Jaren Jackson Jr. Jackson was on another level in terms of altheticism and feel. Most 18 year olds do struggle and struggle significantly, especially if their not a basketball savant.

Doumbouya has not hasn't proven to be a consistent 3 pt threat, high level rebounder or impactful defender. He's flashed these traits and it bodes well that he could potentially develop into an Aminu 2.0 but it is one heck of an assumption. The sample size is small. His skill level is not polished. The awareness, while improving (a good sign) is still developing. I don't think he's a guy moves the needle on court for a few years. If he's the starting PF in 2020 it's only because there's not an entrenched veteran there.

[Dat2U]

At 6-8, I want:

1. G Darius Garland - most skilled perimeter scorer in the draft.
2. C Goga Bitadze - Think Enes Kanter who can defend.
3. G Tyler Herro - best shooter in the draft. Most skilled SG.
4. F Brandon Clarke - Advanced defense & rebounding skills. Jump shot is lone questionmark.

I would be happy with any of these four. Thrilled if I could trade down slightly and get two if them.

Guys I would be okay with at 6-8:

5. Jaxson Hayes - Raw, toolsy. Great hands, excellent athlete.
6. Bol Bol - Most skilled big offensively in draft. Questions center around defense & if he's coachable.

Guys I'm ambivalent about at 6-8:

1. Sekou Doumbouya ... Another raw & toolsy big. Projects as a 3 & D power forward. I think he'll take some time.
2. Bruno Fernando ... throwback big. Good ft shooter. Not the quickest at reading & reacting but tries hard.
3. Coby White ... knows only two things. Jacking 3s and straight line forays to the rim. Plays only one speed. Predictable.
4. DeAndre Hunter ... You know what your getting. Open shot maker & solid defender. Not much else.

Favorite candidates if we acquire a later pick:

1. Dylan Windler ... does everything at a solid level. Can score at all levels, handles it a bit, rebounds at a high level. I think he's a potential steal.
2. P.J. Washington ... showed significant growth. Can contribute right away. Tough competitor who will make open shots.
3. Mfiondu Kabengele ... instant offense with decent shot blocking instincts. First open is to shoot with the 2nd & 3rd being to shoot as well. Very skilled, moves fluidly for his size but he is a black hole offensively.

Guys I'd avoid, let another team take the risk:

1. Cameron Reddish ... Doesn't think the game. Panics when he's forced to make a decision with the ball in his hands. Likely looks elite playing against chairs.
2. Romeo Langford ... Skill needs a ton of work. Doesn't do anything exceedingly well.
3. Jarrett Culver ... I like his IQ. I hate his slow release and first step and especially the broken jumper. Without the jumper, how does he score?
4. Kevin Porter Jr. ... could be the modern version of Lance Stephenson but I'd prefer to stay away. Doesn't seem to get it. Didnt seem to know plays just does his own thing.
5. Nassir Little ... His three best attributes are motor, athleticism & body but the IQ & skill level betray him. Maybe he can be someone's defensive specialist.
6. Rui Hachimura ...Would have worked as a SF in the 90s. Now? I'm not sure. He doesn't rebound or defend well enough to be a starting PF. Hesistant on shooting from range. Much more comfortable in the mid post area. Not a clean fit for today's NBA.

Guys worth buying a pick for in the 2nd round:

1. Jontay Porter ... Injuries should keep his stock low but if healthy his skill level makes him a 1st round talent.
2. Shamorie Ponds ... Bucket getter the moment he stepped on SJU's campus. More creative, crafty than athletic.
3. Neemias Queta ... raw toolsy defensive specialist.
4. Ethan Happ ... productive big with unique skillset. Excellent feel.
5. Dedric Lawson .. can do a little bit of everything. Fits well in modern NBA. Switchable defender.

[nate33]

Great list, as usual, Dat2U

Favorite candidates if we acquire a later pick:

1. Dylan Windler ... does everything at a solid level. Can score at all levels, handles it a bit, rebounds at a high level. I think he's a potential steal.

I love his numbers, particularly the rebounding, but I looked at his game log and he really padded his stats against cakewalk opponents. His numbers dropped precipitously anytime he played a half-decent team with an SRS ranking in the top 100:



Basically, with the exception of the Maryland game, he couldn't score against good teams... at all.

In his 27 games against teams with a SRS ranking below 100, he averaged 23.0 points per game with a ridiculous .727 TS%. But in his 6 games against half-decent teams, he averaged just 13.5 points with a TS% of .483. Take away the Maryland game and it's just 9.2 points on a TS% of .399.