Darius Garland

[PerkinsFor3]

Some are saying Suns, but that's being refuted, and there's a notion that the Bulls are putting misinformation out there to try and backpedal on the news.

Surely one of those 2 teams, though.

Bulls will be fortunate if he's available at 7.

What if it's the Lakers (who would be nuts to hand out a promise in the position they're at, but I have little faith in their front office capabilities)?

[clyde21]

I admit ahead of time I didn't watch much of Garland, what am I missing here??

He almost reminds me of Buddy Hield with a bit more ballhandling.

outstanding shooter and might have the best live dribble since Kyrie (Trae is another but I prefer Garlands).

[clyde21]

Some are saying Suns, but that's being refuted, and there's a notion that the Bulls are putting misinformation out there to try and backpedal on the news.

Surely one of those 2 teams, though.

Bulls will be fortunate if he's available at 7.

What if it's the Lakers (who would be nuts to hand out a promise in the position they're at, but I have little faith in their front office capabilities)?

only if New Orleans wants him...the Lakers will want someone that can contribute immediately.

[PhilBlackson]

I admit ahead of time I didn't watch much of Garland, what am I missing here??

He almost reminds me of Buddy Hield with a bit more ballhandling.

outstanding shooter and might have the best live dribble since Kyrie (Trae is another but I prefer Garlands).

Wow that's quite high praise.

If that's true I'd arguably like a prospect like that more than Ja. Hopefully you're right and one of CHI or PHX strikes gold. I'll definitely be tuning in to see.

[Stillwater]

I admit ahead of time I didn't watch much of Garland, what am I missing here??

He almost reminds me of Buddy Hield with a bit more ballhandling.

outstanding shooter and might have the best live dribble since Kyrie (Trae is another but I prefer Garlands).

Wow that's quite high praise.

If that's true I'd arguably like a prospect like that more than Ja. Hopefully you're right and one of CHI or PHX strikes gold. I'll definitely be tuning in to see.

He is a solid ballhandler but I don't see KI level , but the kid can get buckets

[Showtime:Part2]

I admit ahead of time I didn't watch much of Garland, what am I missing here??

He almost reminds me of Buddy Hield with a bit more ballhandling.

outstanding shooter and might have the best live dribble since Kyrie (Trae is another but I prefer Garlands).

Wow that's quite high praise.

If that's true I'd arguably like a prospect like that more than Ja. Hopefully you're right and one of CHI or PHX strikes gold. I'll definitely be tuning in to see.

Garland is a pure scorer and very good at that. Not much of a playmaker like ja and he’s not a good defender... but who really needs defense from pgs these days?

[Showtime:Part2]

I will honestly cry if we keep our pick and choose someone like hunter over garland. Garland has Kyrie upside

[Jcool0]

I will honestly cry if we keep our pick and choose someone like hunter over garland. Garland has Kyrie upside

No. He does not.

[Upperclass]

I just don't see this amazing handle that everyone keep referencing. He actually reminds me of another Darius that used to play in the league... Darius Morris from uMich

[bon]

I admit ahead of time I didn't watch much of Garland, what am I missing here??

He almost reminds me of Buddy Hield with a bit more ballhandling.

Buddy is exactly who I thought of as well

[PhilBlackson]

I will honestly cry if we keep our pick and choose someone like hunter over garland. Garland has Kyrie upside

I think you would regret the opposite. Hunter all day.

[Michael Lucky]

I just don't see this amazing handle that everyone keep referencing. He actually reminds me of another Darius that used to play in the league... Darius Morris from uMich

That's quite funny considering Darius wasn't much of a shooter. I definitely don't see that comparison at all. Darius was supposed to be more of a PG with good vision when drafted. Garland is definitely the score first type.

[clyde21]

I just don't see this amazing handle that everyone keep referencing. He actually reminds me of another Darius that used to play in the league... Darius Morris from uMich

???

are we watching a different player?

[No-Man]

Garland has great handles, he is also not incisive or decisive at all with them so that's why people don't see them making that much of a difference on tape that often, he is not aggressive with his dribble

[Prospect Dong]

It could well be Bulls. Paxson said when there's players of a similar tier they will take positional need in to account, and he said 'we're happy with our talent at the 2/3/4/5'. We're in a range where a promise would make sense (f.e. don't see the point in a team as high as LA promising), and the Bulls have shown a willingness to promise guys if they like them (see Hutchison last year, which also happened really early on in the pre-draft process).

Thoughts on the fit? Shooting will be really excellent between Garland/Lavine/Porter/Markkanen/WCJ. My concern is the backcourt D between Garland/Lavine and the lack of a high decision maker/facilitator floor general type. Will have to run some offense through WCJ imo.

Things work out well with Garland and we might be following the Portland model a bit, but with much more firepower from the forward spots.

The Lonzo trade deal talk interests me as well. Talk on twitter is with #7 it would take an additional asset to get him, which I think is a bit rich given his injury/shooting/baggage issues, but I am a bigger Lonzo fan than most and think his skill-set is a better fit. Interested to hear where people are on Lonzo now.

#7 sounds significantly too high for Ball - he's had a bad couple of years since going #2. I'd say he's worth late lotto - may you could trade down with Boston and send the #14 and a small sweetener to the lakers and keep one or more of Boston's later picks.

[King Ken]

It could well be Bulls. Paxson said when there's players of a similar tier they will take positional need in to account, and he said 'we're happy with our talent at the 2/3/4/5'. We're in a range where a promise would make sense (f.e. don't see the point in a team as high as LA promising), and the Bulls have shown a willingness to promise guys if they like them (see Hutchison last year, which also happened really early on in the pre-draft process).

Thoughts on the fit? Shooting will be really excellent between Garland/Lavine/Porter/Markkanen/WCJ. My concern is the backcourt D between Garland/Lavine and the lack of a high decision maker/facilitator floor general type. Will have to run some offense through WCJ imo.

Things work out well with Garland and we might be following the Portland model a bit, but with much more firepower from the forward spots.

The Lonzo trade deal talk interests me as well. Talk on twitter is with #7 it would take an additional asset to get him, which I think is a bit rich given his injury/shooting/baggage issues, but I am a bigger Lonzo fan than most and think his skill-set is a better fit. Interested to hear where people are on Lonzo now.

#7 sounds significantly too high for Ball - he's had a bad couple of years since going #2. I'd say he's worth late lotto - may you could trade down with Boston and send the #14 and a small sweetener to the lakers and keep one or more of Boston's later picks.

What the Lakers want for Ball is a superstar or star. PHX called them recently and the answer was still the same. Devin Booker. I don't see the Lakers trading him for anything other than AD.

[Prospect Dong]

It could well be Bulls. Paxson said when there's players of a similar tier they will take positional need in to account, and he said 'we're happy with our talent at the 2/3/4/5'. We're in a range where a promise would make sense (f.e. don't see the point in a team as high as LA promising), and the Bulls have shown a willingness to promise guys if they like them (see Hutchison last year, which also happened really early on in the pre-draft process).

Thoughts on the fit? Shooting will be really excellent between Garland/Lavine/Porter/Markkanen/WCJ. My concern is the backcourt D between Garland/Lavine and the lack of a high decision maker/facilitator floor general type. Will have to run some offense through WCJ imo.

Things work out well with Garland and we might be following the Portland model a bit, but with much more firepower from the forward spots.

The Lonzo trade deal talk interests me as well. Talk on twitter is with #7 it would take an additional asset to get him, which I think is a bit rich given his injury/shooting/baggage issues, but I am a bigger Lonzo fan than most and think his skill-set is a better fit. Interested to hear where people are on Lonzo now.

#7 sounds significantly too high for Ball - he's had a bad couple of years since going #2. I'd say he's worth late lotto - may you could trade down with Boston and send the #14 and a small sweetener to the lakers and keep one or more of Boston's later picks.

What the Lakers want for Ball is a superstar or star. PHX called them recently and the answer was still the same. Devin Booker. I don't see the Lakers trading him for anything other than AD.

Is it possible that Phoenix accidentally ended up calling Lavar instead of whoever is running the lakers right now? Because that sounds like Lavar talking...

I guess it's possible that the lakers (whoever that means these days) still really love Ball and wouldn't move him unless it's for a star, but that just means they've declared him untouchable - once you've set a player's price well above their market value, it's not really important how much higher you're going.

[King Ken]

#7 sounds significantly too high for Ball - he's had a bad couple of years since going #2. I'd say he's worth late lotto - may you could trade down with Boston and send the #14 and a small sweetener to the lakers and keep one or more of Boston's later picks.

What the Lakers want for Ball is a superstar or star. PHX called them recently and the answer was still the same. Devin Booker. I don't see the Lakers trading him for anything other than AD.

Is it possible that Phoenix accidentally ended up calling Lavar instead of whoever is running the lakers right now? Because that sounds like Lavar talking...

I guess it's possible that the lakers (whoever that means these days) still really love Ball and wouldn't move him unless it's for a star, but that just means they've declared him untouchable - once you've set a player's price well above their market value, it's not really important how much higher you're going.

I don't think they are trying to trade him.

[clyde21]

if it's Garland to Phoenix, I'd look to trade Book tbh while his stock is pretty damn high...I just don't like that fit at all on defense

[clyde21]

#7 for Ball is okay value, but I'd almost rather just take Coby at that point...you get 2 extra years of Coby on the rookie scale, and I don't think he's that much worse as a prospect at this point.