2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[GimmeDat]

That I would copy+paste the info I collated from the last thread and update it when we have stuff to add in. It's a good little reference that helps get somewhat of an idea of where guys might end up and who may fall to us.

This is all the info/rumors that I've picked up reading over the last couple of days -


Stock Watch/Team Interest

- Barrett declined a private workout with Memphis, seems he's intent on going to NY (3). They are at least doing due diligence on trade down scenario's though.

- Hunter - Steve Kyler said that prevailing thought through league is LA like Hunter and Garland.

- Little, in the eyes of some talent evaluators that are high on him, think 'he could land in the top 15 (hoopshype). Per Jabari Young, word is he's climbing in to top 10 territory.

- Culver's floor is believed to be the Bulls at 7, according to sources around the league. Knicks will at least consider him at 3, prevailing thought is Garland to LA at 4, and that the Cavs would most likely take Culver at 5. (hoopshype)

- Thybulle is considered to have a promise somewhere in the 1st that satisfies him (why he withdrew from combine). Seen some say the rumor is to OKC @ 21, but from what I can gather that's purely speculative based off a Cole Zwicker tweet suggesting that's a very 'Presti pick'. 28/5 update: The rumor is now the Celtics have promised him @22.

- Morant obviously seems like the guy for Grizz at 2

- Somewhat speculative, but Mike Gribanov (Stepien) believes that it seems that Carsen Edwards has 1st round stock for most teams

- Washington - "Washington is among several players expected to receive strong consideration for the Heat’s pick at No. 13." - Miami Herald

- Samanic likely 1st round stock

- Hachimura probable late lottery promise (overwhelmingly considered to be Minnesota)

- Garland seems to have a top 7 promise - speculation is mixed, but latest rumor is exec's think it's LA or PHX (4/6). Garland was spotted with LeBron 25/5, furthering connection to LA at 4. Steve Kyler (28/5) said prevailing thought in NBA circles is LA like Garland and Hunter.

- Hayes - Prominent Realgm Draft Board user doordoor123 has combined info from twitter+interviews+workout info to surmise that Hayes has a lottery promise and a floor of 12 (being ATL's 2nd pick).

- White is considered to have a promise. Two league execs believe it's from a team picking before the Bulls (Chi. Tribune)

- Multiple sources are reporting ATL are locked in on Reddish. Reddish said that it's been indicated to him that his range is 3-10

- Nets looking for a backup to J.Allen. Current pick is 17. Bol, Bitadze, Fernando the most likely names in that range (first two may not fall that far, and ORL at 16 are rumoured to like Fernando).

- Cavs at least considering Bol/Porter Jr. as wildcards (have to imagine this is in a trade down situation)

- Heat (13) like Bol

- Hornets (12) like Clarke

- Detroit (15) like Langford

- Orlando (16) 'very high' on Fernando (Kyler - take him with a grain of salt, plus you would think ORL would want a perimeter piece). Kabengele could go here but probably a reach.

- 76ers (24) like Cam Johnson

- Spurs (19 and 29) like Jontay Porter (more likely at 29)

- Boston (14, 20, 22) like Tyler Herro

- Bucks (30) like Ty Jerome

- G.Williams has a mixed evaluation from scouts, some think he's worth a 1st, some not (possible 2nd round steal for us?)

- Lecque measured super well and withdrew from playing in the combine today because of 'feedback to his family' (Woj). Sounds positive for his stock, he was a mixed bag when he did play though (did some things great, but serious flaws still). Per reddit, a user said that the rumor is he has a promise from the Celtic's at 51 (trying to find an original source for this).

- Claxton's stock has been rising in the combine, could be a 1st rounder also

- Windler measured really well in combine; considering athletic translation was the big concern, might have helped his stock to early/mid 2nd

- Tacko Fall is being eyed by the Knicks at 55, should he fall so far (Adam Zagoria)

- Brazdeikis' agent has told him he is likely to be drafted in the 20-40 range of the draft.

[Red Larrivee]

I know that isn’t exactly what you asked for, but the point is relevant that many players have been drafted that significantly outperform their college numbers. Their numbers didn’t justify their draft position but they were picked on traits. And Reddish is loaded with NBA traits.

College stats are so dangerous because there is such variance in team, conference, role, situation, etc. You’re making the same mistake I asked you not to make: you’re pulling Paul George’s sophomore season to compare it to Reddish’s freshman season. If Reddish went to Fresno State for two years, he’d probably have very different numbers, although we’ll never really know.

I hate being the Reddish defender when at best I have him eighth, but one season’s college numbers do not make a player. The key is trying to understand why those were his numbers. I don’t have an answer for why he struggled but I don’t have the access to information that NBA scouts have.

That wasn't the question. The question was: How many success stories are there with Reddish' development arc? The context is that Reddish entered the college season as an elite recruit, with Top-5 draft hype and had an awful season. There are other players who fit the bill and they were not good pros.

This is a much different question than wondering if a player with a higher floor will produce better in the NBA.

Reddish is starting from a poor baseilne. He had a worse season than Kevin Knox at Kentucky, and Knox went on to have a really bad rookie season. Did Reddish show NBA traits? Yes, but they're outweighed by bad traits. I don't understand why Paul George was even brought up. George was not an elite recruit, nor did he have a poor freshman season. If Reddish had George's freshman season, he'd easily be a Top-5 lock.

I agree that Reddish could've went back to Duke, improved, and entered the NBA with a better long-term outlook. As I said, the hope probably stems from the fact that he was turned into an exclusive catch/shoot player at Duke, which wasn't his game coming into the year. But, when you look deeper into what he did when he had the ball, it was a mixed bag.

If Reddish goes on to become a star, then more power to him. But, I prefer not to hope that players become anomalies. There's no process in that; it's just a random hunch.

[Shill]

I just realized the Lakers got the 2nd pick in 2015, 2016, 2017, and the 4th pick this year (after signing LeBron).

SMH

[cjbulls]

I know that isn’t exactly what you asked for, but the point is relevant that many players have been drafted that significantly outperform their college numbers. Their numbers didn’t justify their draft position but they were picked on traits. And Reddish is loaded with NBA traits.

College stats are so dangerous because there is such variance in team, conference, role, situation, etc. You’re making the same mistake I asked you not to make: you’re pulling Paul George’s sophomore season to compare it to Reddish’s freshman season. If Reddish went to Fresno State for two years, he’d probably have very different numbers, although we’ll never really know.

I hate being the Reddish defender when at best I have him eighth, but one season’s college numbers do not make a player. The key is trying to understand why those were his numbers. I don’t have an answer for why he struggled but I don’t have the access to information that NBA scouts have.

That wasn't the question. The question was: How many success stories are there with Reddish' development arc? The context is that Reddish entered the college season as an elite recruit, with Top-5 draft hype and had an awful season. There are other players who fit the bill and they were not good pros.

This is a much different question than wondering if a player with a higher floor will produce better in the NBA.

Reddish is starting from a poor baseilne. He had a worse season than Kevin Knox at Kentucky, and Knox went on to have a really bad rookie season. Did Reddish show NBA traits? Yes, but they're outweighed by bad traits. I don't understand why Paul George was even brought up. George was not an elite recruit, nor did he have a poor freshman season. If Reddish had George's freshman season, he'd easily be a Top-5 lock.

I agree that Reddish could've went back to Duke, improved, and entered the NBA with a better long-term outlook. As I said, the hope probably stems from the fact that he was turned into an exclusive catch/shoot player at Duke, which wasn't his game coming into the year. But, when you look deeper into what he did when he had the ball, it was a mixed bag.

If Reddish goes on to become a star, then more power to him. But, I prefer not to hope that players become anomalies. There's no process in that; it's just a random hunch.

I have twice acknowledged that it did not answer your question, but that it was a relevant similar point. College numbers are the not the end-all be-all for NBA performance.

Paul George is brought up because that's his best-case comparison. What if I told you about a prospect that spent two years playing for a mid-major conference team that finished below .500 both years (and dead last one year!) and that player averaged 15.5pts, 6.7 reb, 2.4 assists, and 2.7 turnovers on middling efficiency, and I said he was going to be drafted in the top 10?

You would have sat here, just as you do now, saying there's no precedent and it's just a random hunch. I am sure the NBA does not view it that way as he was the hottest name that draft. Nothing about Paul George's stats justified his draft position. But his traits did.

And if Cam Reddish went to Fresno State instead of Duke, we would have some very different numbers to look at. I cannot say what they'd be, that's the mystery behind Reddish, but he did not come into a situation that any other top recruit has ever faced.

[gobullschi]

Thoughts on Nickiel Alexander-Walker?

6’6’ point guard with a lot of the skills that we are looking for. The big knock on him was that he is not an explosive athlete but is that really needed for a point guard? He is so smooth and doesn’t appear to have any issues getting past his defender. He is the cousin of Shai Gilgeous-Alexander.

If Darius Garland doesn’t get past PHX the Bulls could trade down and add a first in 2020 (much deeper draft)

Watch on YouTube

[Dresden]

I just realized the Lakers got the 2nd pick in 2015, 2016, 2017, and the 4th pick this year (after signing LeBron).

SMH

And what did they get out of all that? They still missed the playoffs. Of those 3 picks, Russell was traded, Ingram is so-so, and Ball may soon be traded and has not lived up to expectations. Imagine if the Bulls had had all that luck and were still a lousy team without much of a future? We'd be shredding the FO.

[Dresden]

-" Everyone's raving about Naz Little as an interview"

I see a lot of upside with Little. I think he gets criticized for being such a disappointment at UNC, and maybe rightfully so, but he's not lazy or a bad kid. I've ready interviews with former coach of his saying his work ethic is tremendous. He also has a good dribble-drive game that he didn't get to feature much because he didn't get to handle the ball all the much. He's got a very high ceiling, IMO, but his lack of finesse and fundamentals also make him a candidate to be a huge bust or at least a later bloomer in the nba. But I'll be watching his nba development closely, and I think some team could get a steal taking him 10th or lower.

[Red Larrivee]

I have twice acknowledged that it did not answer your question, but that it was a relevant similar point. College numbers are the not the end-all be-all for NBA performance.

Paul George is brought up because that's his best-case comparison. What if I told you about a prospect that spent two years playing for a mid-major conference team that finished below .500 both years (and dead last one year!) and that player averaged 15.5pts, 6.7 reb, 2.4 assists, and 2.7 turnovers on middling efficiency, and I said he was going to be drafted in the top 10?

George was not bad at Fresno State and he didn't post middling efficiency. He had a TS% of 57.9 in college.

Freshman: .470/.444/.697 on 58.6 TS%
Sophomore: .424/.353/.909 on 57.2 TS%

If Reddish put up either of the above statlines, his upside as an elite talent would be noticeably more believable. Yes, college stats aren't everything, but when a player with Top-5 hype produces a bad season like Reddish, it becomes a headline.

You would have sat here, just as you do now, saying there's no precedent and it's just a random hunch. I am sure the NBA does not view it that way as he was the hottest name that draft. Nothing about Paul George's stats justified his draft position. But his traits did.

And if Cam Reddish went to Fresno State instead of Duke, we would have some very different numbers to look at. I cannot say what they'd be, that's the mystery behind Reddish, but he did not come into a situation that any other top recruit has ever faced.

Again, George was not awful in college. If you go back to that draft, a lot of people on this board liked George and wanted to trade up for him.

Drafting is about process. Your process can't be built around "Well, if Reddish went to Fresno State, he'd be a better player, so maybe we shouldn't weigh this season so heavily." Otherwise, you could do that for a crap ton of prospects and really get nowhere.

I agree that Reddish with his own team likely gets to play his own game. But, when you look at his stats this season when he got to play his own game, they are a mixed bag. Yes, he was really good on pick and roll and a solid shooter off the dribble. But, he didn't draw many fouls, he was a poor finisher at the rim, and he had no reliable game below the three-point line.

When you consider everything Reddish did this season, I don't see how he's a "swing for the fences" pick, but players who were better than him and are the same age, are considered lower upside. When you look at players with comparable high school hype/stature who underwhelmed in college for various reasons, none of them became stars and very few of them became valuable players.

[jump]

-" Everyone's raving about Naz Little as an interview"

I see a lot of upside with Little. I think he gets criticized for being such a disappointment at UNC, and maybe rightfully so, but he's not lazy or a bad kid. I've ready interviews with former coach of his saying his work ethic is tremendous. He also has a good dribble-drive game that he didn't get to feature much because he didn't get to handle the ball all the much. He's got a very high ceiling, IMO, but his lack of finesse and fundamentals also make him a candidate to be a huge bust or at least a later bloomer in the nba. But I'll be watching his nba development closely, and I think some team could get a steal taking him 10th or lower.

Could he be the next Giannis? I'm not informed on what the book was on Giannis when he was drafted. I know his athleticism was recognized, but wasn't he considered too raw to go before 15? Kinda like Little?

[Hangtime84]

I just realized the Lakers got the 2nd pick in 2015, 2016, 2017, and the 4th pick this year (after signing LeBron).

SMH

And still show less promise than Chicago with their young players

[coldfish]

I have twice acknowledged that it did not answer your question, but that it was a relevant similar point. College numbers are the not the end-all be-all for NBA performance.

Paul George is brought up because that's his best-case comparison. What if I told you about a prospect that spent two years playing for a mid-major conference team that finished below .500 both years (and dead last one year!) and that player averaged 15.5pts, 6.7 reb, 2.4 assists, and 2.7 turnovers on middling efficiency, and I said he was going to be drafted in the top 10?

George was not bad at Fresno State and he didn't post middling efficiency. He had a TS% of 57.9 in college.

Freshman: .470/.444/.697 on 58.6 TS%
Sophomore: .424/.353/.909 on 57.2 TS%

If Reddish put up either of the above statlines, his upside as an elite talent would be noticeably more believable. Yes, college stats aren't everything, but when a player with Top-5 hype produces a bad season like Reddish, it becomes a headline.

You would have sat here, just as you do now, saying there's no precedent and it's just a random hunch. I am sure the NBA does not view it that way as he was the hottest name that draft. Nothing about Paul George's stats justified his draft position. But his traits did.

And if Cam Reddish went to Fresno State instead of Duke, we would have some very different numbers to look at. I cannot say what they'd be, that's the mystery behind Reddish, but he did not come into a situation that any other top recruit has ever faced.

Again, George was not awful in college. If you go back to that draft, a lot of people on this board liked George and wanted to trade up for him.

Drafting is about process. Your process can't be built around "Well, if Reddish went to Fresno State, he'd be a better player, so maybe we shouldn't weigh this season so heavily." Otherwise, you could do that for a crap ton of prospects and really get nowhere.

I agree that Reddish with his own team likely gets to play his own game. But, when you look at his stats this season when he got to play his own game, they are a mixed bag. Yes, he was really good on pick and roll and a solid shooter off the dribble. But, he didn't draw many fouls, he was a poor finisher at the rim, and he had no reliable game below the three-point line.

When you consider everything Reddish did this season, I don't see how he's a "swing for the fences" pick, but players who were better than him and are the same age, are considered lower upside. When you look at players with comparable high school hype/stature who underwhelmed in college for various reasons, none of them became stars and very few of them became valuable players.

I'll use the term "early bloomer".

There are many examples of late bloomers. People who picked up the game late, grew late or just weren't part of a good development system early in their lives. Stories about them are legion. They don't get a great rep and high school and don't dominate in college but come to the pros and after some grooming, play very well.

The other side of the coin are early bloomers. People who grow early and have great people around them to train them who absolutely dominate as teenagers but don't keep growing or develop the skills and athleticism to do the same against men.

Reddish and RJ look like early bloomers to me, not late bloomers.

Evan Turner, Marquis Teague, etc.

[DuckIII]

1. Don’t draft White. Take a risk.

2. Unless that risk is Bol Bol.

3. Don’t trade the pick for a vet role player with a known ceiling.

I will be able to make my mind rationalize any other outcome.

[CoreyVillains]

I plan on doing another film breakdown of a guy in our range. Anybody have any suggestions for who they’d like to see?

[Jiipee84]

I plan on doing another film breakdown of a guy in our range. Anybody have any suggestions for who they’d like to see?

Bol Bol is my nomination.
If you do that video i wanna know what are Bol Bol's what are his greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses.
Also would be good to know his NBA ceiling and floor and bust potential.

[JimmyJammer]

Thoughts on Nickiel Alexander-Walker?

6’6’ point guard with a lot of the skills that we are looking for. The big knock on him was that he is not an explosive athlete but is that really needed for a point guard? He is so smooth and doesn’t appear to have any issues getting past his defender. He is the cousin of Shai Gilgeous-Alexander.

If Darius Garland doesn’t get past PHX the Bulls could trade down and add a first in 2020 (much deeper draft)

Watch on YouTube

In this short clip he shows that he can do it all. But, why isn't he being talked about, though?

[dougthonus]

I'll use the term "early bloomer".

There are many examples of late bloomers. People who picked up the game late, grew late or just weren't part of a good development system early in their lives. Stories about them are legion. They don't get a great rep and high school and don't dominate in college but come to the pros and after some grooming, play very well.

The other side of the coin are early bloomers. People who grow early and have great people around them to train them who absolutely dominate as teenagers but don't keep growing or develop the skills and athleticism to do the same against men.

Reddish and RJ look like early bloomers to me, not late bloomers.

Evan Turner, Marquis Teague, etc.

This seems to be pretty accurate. I went through RSCI rankings for about 10 years in college (based on basketball reference's data which strikes me as a bit dicey), here are guys that were ranked highly and fell on draft day and became good players later:
Ty Lawson (5 to 18)
Jrue Holiday (2 to 17)
Avery Bradley (4 to 19)
Lance Stevenson (8 to 40)
Tobias Harris (5 to 19)

There are countless HS guys who were highly ranked that dropped far in the draft and the vast majority performed close to their draft slot and not towards their HS ranking.

The one caveat is that I'm not sure the basketball reference RSCI data is really all that accurate.

[Dresden]

The one or two full games I watched of VA Tech (in the tournament), NAW did nothing to stand out. He did not look any better than most of the other players on the court. Nothing about him made me thing "wow, that guy could play in the nba". But he does have a good skill set. I just don't think he's very dynamic. He could be an nba starter though, I just think 7 is too high for someone with his limitations.

[cjbulls]

I have twice acknowledged that it did not answer your question, but that it was a relevant similar point. College numbers are the not the end-all be-all for NBA performance.

Paul George is brought up because that's his best-case comparison. What if I told you about a prospect that spent two years playing for a mid-major conference team that finished below .500 both years (and dead last one year!) and that player averaged 15.5pts, 6.7 reb, 2.4 assists, and 2.7 turnovers on middling efficiency, and I said he was going to be drafted in the top 10?

George was not bad at Fresno State and he didn't post middling efficiency. He had a TS% of 57.9 in college.

Freshman: .470/.444/.697 on 58.6 TS%
Sophomore: .424/.353/.909 on 57.2 TS%

If Reddish put up either of the above statlines, his upside as an elite talent would be noticeably more believable. Yes, college stats aren't everything, but when a player with Top-5 hype produces a bad season like Reddish, it becomes a headline.

You would have sat here, just as you do now, saying there's no precedent and it's just a random hunch. I am sure the NBA does not view it that way as he was the hottest name that draft. Nothing about Paul George's stats justified his draft position. But his traits did.

And if Cam Reddish went to Fresno State instead of Duke, we would have some very different numbers to look at. I cannot say what they'd be, that's the mystery behind Reddish, but he did not come into a situation that any other top recruit has ever faced.

Again, George was not awful in college. If you go back to that draft, a lot of people on this board liked George and wanted to trade up for him.

Drafting is about process. Your process can't be built around "Well, if Reddish went to Fresno State, he'd be a better player, so maybe we shouldn't weigh this season so heavily." Otherwise, you could do that for a crap ton of prospects and really get nowhere.

I agree that Reddish with his own team likely gets to play his own game. But, when you look at his stats this season when he got to play his own game, they are a mixed bag. Yes, he was really good on pick and roll and a solid shooter off the dribble. But, he didn't draw many fouls, he was a poor finisher at the rim, and he had no reliable game below the three-point line.

When you consider everything Reddish did this season, I don't see how he's a "swing for the fences" pick, but players who were better than him and are the same age, are considered lower upside. When you look at players with comparable high school hype/stature who underwhelmed in college for various reasons, none of them became stars and very few of them became valuable players.

You continue to ignore that Paul George put up those numbers on Fresno State in the WAC on a team that finished below .500 both years in conference and out of conference, dead last one of those year. George wasn't picked based on his numbers and his numbers didn't justify even a second round draft slot. And yes, that is a very middling efficiency for a top 10 pick from a mid-major. Reddish is playing in the ACC against Virginia, Duke, Syracuse, Florida State and North Carolina.

And you are ignoring his situation, another reason why pointing to college numbers is dangerous. You could certainly argue the strengths and weaknesses of going to Duke with the other top two HS recruits and NBA draft pick projections. But I can only think of two situations where 3 elite players randomly all came together for the first time: LeBron to Miami and LeBron to Cleveland. Both times, one of the three players (Bosh and Love) took a substantial hit to their numbers. They were not the same player and both discussed at length how difficult that transition was both athletically and personally.

Now imagine instead of being 25 year old man with past NBA All-Star success and max contracts, they were 18 year old kids out on their own for the first time. How do you think those players, or anyone, would handle it?

I have Reddish in the 8-10 range, so I wouldn't end up even taking him if I was in charge of the Bulls. But there is enough reasonable doubt and NBA traits that I wouldn't pretend his college numbers mean he can't be a very good NBA player.

[Chi town]

1. Don’t draft White. Take a risk.

2. Unless that risk is Bol Bol.

3. Don’t trade the pick for a vet role player with a known ceiling.

I will be able to make my mind rationalize any other outcome.

Most likely outcomes IMO...

1. Bulls trade up for Garland via CLE

2. Bulls stay put and take White

3. Bulls trade back for 2 1sts... pick a PG or wing and trade the other first for Conley

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

1. Don’t draft White. Take a risk.

2. Unless that risk is Bol Bol.

3. Don’t trade the pick for a vet role player with a known ceiling.

I will be able to make my mind rationalize any other outcome.

Most likely outcomes IMO...

1. Bulls trade up for Garland via CLE

2. Bulls stay put and take White

3. Bulls trade back for 2 1sts... pick a PG or wing and trade the other first for Conley

These scenarios are equal parts plausible and horrible.