2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[3noD]

On or off ball, with LeBron on the floor or not, Garland makes a heap of sense for the Lakers roster.

Garland’s ball handling would be wasted with the Lakers. Sure, he can shoot, but so can Hunter


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Was Kyrie Irving's ball-handling wasted on the Cavs whilst LeBron was there?

I'm going to assume this idea that Garland not fitting in LA next to James is born out of hope that he somehow slides and ends up in Chicago.

If Garland's near facsimile is some version of Irving or Lillard, he's a perfect fit in LA.

I like the idea of Garland but am just as intrigued with Reddish, Culver, White and even Hunter. All these kids are right now is potential. Nothing more. And with each one, you can see an upside scenario. Reddish and Garland seem more naturally gifted. Hunter and Culver are more tested and have demonstrated the work ethic that it takes to keep improving. I’d be fine with any. I just don’t think a small ball dominant guard is what Lebron is looking for. Just my 2 cents.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Red Larrivee]

Or people can have other opinions. The reply from the SI article that JCool posted is obviously thoughtful analysis.

They absolutely can. Whether those opinions are rational or not, is another story. Hunter having a mediocre ceiling is one that isn't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Read on Twitter

You didn't quote anything that says Hunter has a mediocre ceiling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Red Larrivee]

They absolutely can. Whether those opinions are rational or not, is another story. Hunter having a mediocre ceiling is one that isn't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

110% agree. This notion that somehow Culver and Reddish have infinitely better ceiling than Hunter is just absurd.
The fans that want former 2 are just bringing up excuses to draft them over a prospect who is very a similar prospect to college Kawhi.

I don't think anyone is saying Culver and Reddish have an "infinitely better ceiling". Kawhi was the #15 pick who had an highly unusual, borderline unprecedented growth path, so a similar prospect probably should be around #15 again.

But, a player who had an all-time awful season for a lottery pick, should go Top 7.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[SfBull]

We should get a poll going.

I think if the Knicks pass on RJ at 3, they are going to be sorry. I have him at #2 ahead of Ja. I just can't get over Ja's utter lack of effort on defense. He plays so upright. RJ played in Zion's shadow, which I think really hurt his stock. I would still take Ja in the top 5.

My board top 15. I know it deviates greatly from most mocks but... it's who I like not anybody else.

Zion
RJ
Ja
Culver
Hunter
Garland
Rui Hachimura
Coby White
Sekou D.
Goga Bitazde
Nassir Little
Bruno Fernando
Reddish
Hayes
Brandon Clarke


Check out the poll from last year about 5 days before the draft.. it's interesting.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1715795&start=140

Yikes! Praying THAT doesn't happen!
Rui Hachimura? Um, hard pass! Absolutely wrong pick and fit!
Hard Pass!

He's a top 10 in some mocks.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

I'm trying to work out why such a mediocre ceiling is being placed on Deandre Hunter.

He scored 19pp/40 on one of the slowest paced teams in basketball, on 62% TS, hes functionally a pretty good athlete, he can pull up OTD, he has a mid-post creation game, solid feel/makes the right passes, can handle decently, gets to the line at a solid rate. Obviously a talented defender. Low stl/blks scare me a little bit but Virginia play a conservative scheme.

What's the catch? I get he's not a flashy player and he's on the older side, but from everything I can tell, he was a strong scorer in college at all 3 levels. He can only stand to up the 3 point volume, which seems inevitable given the super efficient % on a medium volume, and he the tools to further develop his on-ball game.

Even guys that like him in this draft are calling him a plug and play Hawks - Demarre Carroll type, which seems like a major undersell.

In the NBA you need some elite-level traits to reach a high ceiling. What you just described is a guy who’s decent at a lot of things and shows no elite traits. And now we’re three years into college already, so what is his elite talent going to be?

I think he does have elite traits - elite on ball defense, and elite efficiency.

Now, by all means, if we're talking star/superstar territory, maybe he doesn't have the dynamism to reach that ceiling unless he has top %tile further development, like a Butler/Leonard case, but beyond the top 15 players or so in the league, there's a ton of guys who make incredible levels of impact simply through good efficiency, high IQ play, and strong defensive output.

I just grabbed the first list I came across on google, so you can dispute some rankings here or there (and it's also a year old), but this gives a largely fair reflection of top player rankings, roughly -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/sports/nba-top-100-players-2018/?utm_term=.9ad0ed89f3c3

Al Horford (19), Jrue Holiday (30), Kyle Lowry (33), Kris Middleton (36), Paul Millsap (38), Gary Harris (39), Otto Porter (49), Joe Ingles (50), etc., are all guys who are just super fundamentally sound, well rounded, and smart players. I don't think they have particularly outlier athleticism or were pegged as having star-like offensive games out of college. Even of the top 15 guys, your Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green types were considered jack-of-all trade, defensive first guys.

None of those are perfect comparisons to Hunter's strength's and weaknesses, I understand that, but my point is that high end role players can turn out to be top 50 players in the league, and quite often going for these types, while maybe less appealing, is often a way surer bet at what is not just dime a dozen play, but like top 3 or 4 player on a playoff team level, and in saying that I'm not completely dismissing his chance to be more, either.

Like for instance, Garland, a big favourite on this board, would have to be like a top %tile dynamic off the dribble shooter to reach the ceiling comparisons of a Lillard, Kemba, etc... and the threshold for undersized PG's who can't play defense making positive contributions as lead ball handlers on teams is super high, and that chance is compounded down further by the fact that he's not an outstanding play-maker. It's playing devil's advocate a little bit here, but whose to say Garland being an absolutely insane OTD shooter is a bigger bet than Hunter breaking out of his perceived ceiling and adding a more elite offensive skill-set? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but when you weigh out the two's floor's or moderate outcomes, I'm tempted to give the edge to Hunter.

I'm still going through this whole thought process right up to the draft, so this is me thinking out loud here and arguing different viewpoints a bit. I haven't definitively decided Hunter > Garland, but I can see the argument for it. All I know right now is that I want one of Culver, Hunter or Garland at 7 (realistically), and guys like White and Reddish less so.

For me the appeal in Garland is what he could do to our offense at a position of need. High powered offense nowadays is a must if you want to compete.

[cjbulls]

They absolutely can. Whether those opinions are rational or not, is another story. Hunter having a mediocre ceiling is one that isn't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Read on Twitter

You didn't quote anything that says Hunter has a mediocre ceiling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It is implied there, you must have missed it. Click on the links for Vecenie's follow-up tweets for more implication:

"To me, I’d be totally happy ending up with someone like a ready-made Hawks-level De’Marre Carroll at No. 5 in this draft. That’s not sexy, but I think that’s where I’m at in this messy draft. Even if that’s what he is, I’m totally good with it at No. 5."

And here is Vecenie praising the SI author for thoughtful analysis, again it's implied: "I’ll also just note that Jeremy is someone whose work I think is good and worth reading. Think he does a really nice job covering the draft. He also notes Langford/Clarke, both of whom I wrote about in my previous mock draft in a similar vein."

[SfBull]

Read on Twitter

Sounds like Hunter could fall a bit.

He had:
Culver 4th
Cam going 5th
Garland 6th
White 7th
Hunter going 8th.

I'll be fine if we get to choose between Hunter and White. Might even be able to trade down with the Wiz if you really want White. I doubt Atlanta takes him at #8.

The Bulls choosing White over Hunter is pretty much my draft nightmare.

But why? White could potentially solve our pg problems.

[SfBull]

forcing zion to play with barrett again is too cruel to even think about

They worked very well playing together for Duke,maybe getting Barrett makes more sense for the Lakers and NOP.I suspect that Barrett would be very useful for Zion's development in the NBA.

[panthermark]

But why? White could potentially solve our pg problems.

I prefer Hunter, but I'm not totally against White. I have him a step above Reddish.

With that said, no matter who we draft, we will need a vet PG regardless. Drafting a PG will probably be the end of one of our younger PG's because we will have the Vet, the draft pick, and Dunn already on the roster....especially if the vet PG only plays PG (like Rubio as an example).

It is another reason why I'm super high on Brodgon...as he can play both PG and SG on offense and defense. (Not a true PG, but can work while playing next to a ball handling SG).

[cjbulls]

110% agree. This notion that somehow Culver and Reddish have infinitely better ceiling than Hunter is just absurd.
The fans that want former 2 are just bringing up excuses to draft them over a prospect who is very a similar prospect to college Kawhi.

I don't think anyone is saying Culver and Reddish have an "infinitely better ceiling". Kawhi was the #15 pick who had an highly unusual, borderline unprecedented growth path, so a similar prospect probably should be around #15 again.

But, a player who had an all-time awful season for a lottery pick, should go Top 7.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

His floor seems to be Atlanta. What do you want me to say? The scouting community disagrees with you.

[SfBull]

i guesss there's a case to be made for rui as a late bloomer worth betting on considering his background, but still, he's got a lavine-esque ability to make you go "how is someone who is good at some basketball stuff so fundamentally awful at other, seemingly basic basketball stuff?"

That is really interesting that you mentioned Zach....I just read this about Rui.


Pacers PSA: Whatever you do, don’t draft Rui Hachimura
https://8points9seconds.com/2019/05/27/pacers-psa-rui-hachimura/

The major limiting factor for Rui Hachimura’s offensive game is his complete lack of feel for the game and slow overall processing.

Decision making is king in the NBA and is a key trait for everyone who is not an elite shot-maker or generational athlete to possess.

It is the trait limiting a supremely talented player like Zach LaVine from ever being as valuable as he could be.

Interesting,but I didn't watch that limitation on Hachimura's game,on the contrary,he finished very well on fast breaks playing along Clarke and could shoot from outside.I don't see poor decision making as being a limiting trait for Zach grows into a star, perhaps his defense need for improvement would be,adding sone stability from Chicago's starting lineup as well which certainly would include a better point than Dunn.

[Red Larrivee]

His floor seems to be Atlanta. What do you want me to say? The scouting community disagrees with you.

Who is the scouting community that values Reddish more than Hunter?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[cjbulls]

His floor seems to be Atlanta. What do you want me to say? The scouting community disagrees with you.

Who is the scouting community that values Reddish more than Hunter?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

What are you talking about? Most would agree that Reddish has a higher ceiling than Hunter. So much so that I'm not even going to bother posting links. And I myself have repeatedly said I would take Hunter over Reddish despite the lower ceiling. You really need to read the posts before jumping to conclusions.

And stop being so one-track minded. It's possible to point out the positives of Reddish (because people are overly-negative here on him) and the negatives of Hunter (because people are overly-positive on him), but still prefer Hunter over Reddish. These postings are just snippets of opinions.

[bad knees]

If Garland and White go before 7, I hope the Bulls have the balls to trade down. Hunter, Reddish and the other guys in the second half of the lottery either have limited upside (Hunter, Clarke and Washington), have huge red flags (Reddish), play center - a position that is of lesser relevance in today's NBA and at which the Bulls are already stocked (Hayes and Bol) or are massive projects with a small likelihood of ever being really good (Doumbouya, Bol again and Langford). All of these guys would be mid-teen draft picks at best in a decent draft, and we should not choose one at 7 when we can trade down and get two or three relatively equal opportunities to find someone of real value.

I think this is an extremely weak draft overall (after Williamson of course), but if there is value, I believe it lies in the 20's. Samanic appears to have as good a floor and ceiling as the guys mocked at 7-14, and he is projected to go in the mid-20's. Cam Johnson will be a great pro, and could be a viable replacement for Porter when Lauri and Wendell come off their rookie contracts. And, as I have said before, I am on the Carsen Edwards train as a guy who can get his own shot and who has been the centerpiece of two incredibly efficient offenses at Purdue. We desperately need another player who can get his own shot, and lord knows an increase in efficient offense - especially one based on 3 point shooting - would be most welcome. There are others of interest who are projected to go in the 20's, including Kabengele and Okeke.

I mentioned before that my conversion to the Edwards bandwagon was largely driven by the Stepien's analysis of him, including how he compares to Garland and White. Here are links to the relevant articles.

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/15/draft-notes-carsen-edwards-part-1/

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/15/draft-notes-carsen-edwards-kenpom-team-adjo-part-two/

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/23/2019-guard-class-pull-shot-versatility-functionality-gravity/

The best way of getting multiple picks in this part of the draft would be to trade 7 to the Celtics for 14 and 20, and then trading 14 to the Spurs for 19 and 29. I think both are doable. If only the Bulls have the cojones to acknowledge that the tank is not going to yield a superstar in the making this year. I doubt they have the courage to do it, but I think it's the best path given our current circumstance.

[bad knees]

double post

[cjbulls]

If Garland and White go before 7, I hope the Bulls have the balls to trade down. Hunter, Reddish and the other guys in the second half of the lottery either have limited upside (Hunter, Clarke and Washington), have huge red flags (Reddish), play center - a position that is of lesser relevance in today's NBA and at which the Bulls are already stocked (Hayes and Bol) or are massive projects with a small likelihood of ever being really good (Doumbouya, Bol again and Langford). All of these guys would be mid-teen draft picks at best in a decent draft, and we should not choose one at 7 when we can trade down and get two or three relatively equal opportunities to find someone of real value.

I think this is an extremely weak draft overall (after Williamson of course), but if there is value, I believe it lies in the 20's. Samanic appears to have as good a floor and ceiling as the guys mocked at 7-14, and he is projected to go in the mid-20's. Cam Johnson will be a great pro, and could be a viable replacement for Porter when Lauri and Wendell come off their rookie contracts. And, as I have said before, I am on the Carsen Edwards train as a guy who can get his own shot and who has been the centerpiece of two incredibly efficient offenses at Purdue. We desperately need another player who can get his own shot, and lord knows an increase in efficient offense would be most welcome. There are others of interest who are projected to go in the 20's, including Kabengele and Okeke.

I mentioned before that my conversion to the Edwards bandwagon was largely driven by the Stepien's analysis of him, including how he compares to Garland and White. Here are links to the relevant articles.

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/15/draft-notes-carsen-edwards-part-1/

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/15/draft-notes-carsen-edwards-kenpom-team-adjo-part-two/

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/23/2019-guard-class-pull-shot-versatility-functionality-gravity/

The best way of getting multiple picks in this part of the draft would be to trade 7 to the Celtics for 14 and 20, and then trading 14 to the Spurs for 19 and 29. I think both are doable. If only the Bulls have the cojones to acknowledge that the tank is not going to yield a superstar in the making this year. I doubt they have the courage to do it, but I think it's the best path given our current circumstance.

I don't completely disagree with your assessment, but I don't mind taking a high floor/low ceiling player. The Bulls adding young talent that will deliver has value given that 80% of the players picked after 7 probably won't be in the NBA in 5 years

But more importantly, the problem with a trade down is the Bulls need less young talent. A team needs veterans to grow and we already have too many guys on their first contract. Adding four more rookies to a team with a very young core is only going to complicate the locker room and team structure. It's a step in the wrong direction. They need to be bringing in vets. I would be ok with trading 7 for a vet before trading for more picks this year (future firsts or something like 7/38 for 8/10 could be a different story).

[Red Larrivee]

His floor seems to be Atlanta. What do you want me to say? The scouting community disagrees with you.

Who is the scouting community that values Reddish more than Hunter?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

What are you talking about? Most would agree that Reddish has a higher ceiling than Hunter. So much so that I'm not even going to bother posting links. And I myself have repeatedly said I would take Hunter over Reddish despite the lower ceiling. You really need to read the posts before jumping to conclusions.

And stop being so one-track minded. It's possible to point out the positives of Reddish (because people are overly-negative here on him) and the negatives of Hunter (because people are overly-positive on him), but still prefer Hunter over Reddish. These postings are just snippets of opinions.

I honestly don't know who most would prefer. You apparently have a pulse on the entire scouting community. You keep doing this thing where you post one or two links and attribute it as "the league" or "the community" disagrees. Reddish is possibly the most polarizing prospect in this draft, so I don't think he's consistently viewed as favorable.

Keep in mind that you responded to a post of mine, where you tried to justify opinions that view Hunter's ceiling as mediocre as not being lazy. You simply don't have to respond.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bad knees]

If Garland and White go before 7, I hope the Bulls have the balls to trade down. Hunter, Reddish and the other guys in the second half of the lottery either have limited upside (Hunter, Clarke and Washington), have huge red flags (Reddish), play center - a position that is of lesser relevance in today's NBA and at which the Bulls are already stocked (Hayes and Bol) or are massive projects with a small likelihood of ever being really good (Doumbouya, Bol again and Langford). All of these guys would be mid-teen draft picks at best in a decent draft, and we should not choose one at 7 when we can trade down and get two or three relatively equal opportunities to find someone of real value.

I think this is an extremely weak draft overall (after Williamson of course), but if there is value, I believe it lies in the 20's. Samanic appears to have as good a floor and ceiling as the guys mocked at 7-14, and he is projected to go in the mid-20's. Cam Johnson will be a great pro, and could be a viable replacement for Porter when Lauri and Wendell come off their rookie contracts. And, as I have said before, I am on the Carsen Edwards train as a guy who can get his own shot and who has been the centerpiece of two incredibly efficient offenses at Purdue. We desperately need another player who can get his own shot, and lord knows an increase in efficient offense would be most welcome. There are others of interest who are projected to go in the 20's, including Kabengele and Okeke.

I mentioned before that my conversion to the Edwards bandwagon was largely driven by the Stepien's analysis of him, including how he compares to Garland and White. Here are links to the relevant articles.

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/15/draft-notes-carsen-edwards-part-1/

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/15/draft-notes-carsen-edwards-kenpom-team-adjo-part-two/

https://www.thestepien.com/2019/05/23/2019-guard-class-pull-shot-versatility-functionality-gravity/

The best way of getting multiple picks in this part of the draft would be to trade 7 to the Celtics for 14 and 20, and then trading 14 to the Spurs for 19 and 29. I think both are doable. If only the Bulls have the cojones to acknowledge that the tank is not going to yield a superstar in the making this year. I doubt they have the courage to do it, but I think it's the best path given our current circumstance.

I don't completely disagree with your assessment, but I don't mind taking a high floor/low ceiling player. The Bulls adding young talent that will deliver has value given that 80% of the players picked after 7 probably won't be in the NBA in 5 years

But more importantly, the problem with a trade down is the Bulls need less young talent. A team needs veterans to grow and we already have too many guys on their first contract. Adding four more rookies to a team with a very young core is only going to complicate the locker room and team structure. It's a step in the wrong direction. They need to be bringing in vets. I would be ok with trading 7 for a vet before trading for more picks this year (future firsts or something like 7/38 for 8/10 could be a different story).

Good points about adding a lot of rookies. But in my view, it would not be 4. Samanic is extremely raw, and I would use 38 on someone like Jontay Porter if it is not bundled with another pick to move up. Take two swings at young guys with big upside. Neither will need a lot, or any, minutes next year. Johnson and Edwards could contribute next year right away.

7 and 38 for 8 and 10 is a pipe dream. As for trading for a vet, do you have any vet in mind - one that includes a decent theory as to why a team would want to trade him for 7 in this draft? Because I certainly don't see one out there.

[johnnyvann840]

i guesss there's a case to be made for rui as a late bloomer worth betting on considering his background, but still, he's got a lavine-esque ability to make you go "how is someone who is good at some basketball stuff so fundamentally awful at other, seemingly basic basketball stuff?"

That is really interesting that you mentioned Zach....I just read this about Rui.


Pacers PSA: Whatever you do, don’t draft Rui Hachimura
https://8points9seconds.com/2019/05/27/pacers-psa-rui-hachimura/

The major limiting factor for Rui Hachimura’s offensive game is his complete lack of feel for the game and slow overall processing.

Decision making is king in the NBA and is a key trait for everyone who is not an elite shot-maker or generational athlete to possess.

It is the trait limiting a supremely talented player like Zach LaVine from ever being as valuable as he could be.

Interesting,but I didn't watch that limitation on Hachimura's game,on the contrary,he finished very well on fast breaks playing along Clarke and could shoot from outside.I don't see poor decision making as being a limiting trait for Zach grows into a star, perhaps his defense need for improvement would be,adding sone stability from Chicago's starting lineup as well which certainly would include a better point than Dunn.

Yeah I'm not seeing the same limitations that I've heard a lot of other people talk about. He does a lot of good things in this video. And actually it looks like he has a really good feel on the offensive end. Even shows a lot of potential on the defensive side of the ball as well he just needs to gain some knowledge and awareness. I think a lot of it stems from him not being able to speak English really much for his first couple of years at Gonzaga. I really think he has a lot more upside than most people are giving him credit for.

He flat-out outplayed Culver in the Texas Tech game in the tournament. And pretty much in every way.

Watch on YouTube

[panthermark]

I think Rui will be fine in a few years. I don't want him (at #7) because he does not really help us now....not even as depth. Our team is too much of a mess to nurture him.

I hate to say this....but he needs to go to a "good" organization. If he goes to the Spurs, he will be an All-Star 5 years from now.