2019-2020 College/Draft thread (Part 4)

[god shammgod]

.

Been following the BAF playoffs?

no. why ? is there fighting in there again ?

[mpharris36]

i value good role players, i just don't value drafting them high in the lottery or overpaying them in free agency before you have the stars you need. i've seen many good teams change role players every other year and it doesn't really affect the team all that much. if you have the stars to build around, keeping a specific role player isn't nearly as important. they're a lot more replaceable. you can approximate their value to the team with a close to equivalent player quite often. why waste a high draft pick on someone who has very little potential to be better than that.

I don't think anyone drafts a guy in the lottery to just be a role player. I think if you are being realistic about the history of the draft. If you nab a good role player in the mid or later part of the lottery you are actually drafting fairly well.

Its just about managing those expectations.

[King of Canada]

.

Been following the BAF playoffs?

no. why ? is there fighting in there again ?

It’s worth following as there is no IRL sports right now.

[newyorker4ever]

We missed out on one athletic NY born guard, I'd hate to miss out on another just because people say he's not a big time passer.

Cole Anthony couldn't average over 5 assists on a Roy Williams's coached UNC Tarheels squad.........think about that.

Research all the UNC Tarheel point guards that were drafted in the first round in the last several years and see their college assist numbers, then check out Cole Anthony's. Cole ain't a PG. They know it too because they are considering paying 85 million to have CP3 teach him. Its a bad decision, leading to another bad decision.

All because they didn't draft Donovan? Its a pure lolknicks move.

Quick name another decent player on that team...........
In order to have good assist numbers you need to have a team that can shoot. From my understanding he had good numbers in high school. Yes I understand that's a lot different but it shows the willingness to pass.

Ummmmmm you also get assists from passing to a player for layups and dunks as well.

[robillionaire]

like if frank starts hitting 3s, he can be a good role player. but it will have taken him 4 years to become that. and so now faced with the fact that we have to pay him, unless he signs for cheap, the likely smart thing to do at this point is let him walk. you can find a similar player later when you have your main players in place.

For all we know Frank doesn't want to be here anyway. I wouldn't if I was him. He's probably counting down the days until next summer. Not to say he's a great player or anything but it's clear we're not going to give him the opportunity he could probably get elsewhere

[mpharris36]

like if frank starts hitting 3s, he can be a good role player. but it will have taken him 4 years to become that. and so now faced with the fact that we have to pay him, unless he signs for cheap, the likely smart thing to do at this point is let him walk. you can find a similar player later when you have your main players in place.

can you, because you just described frank taking 3 years to get to decent role player status. If you finally get good do you want to take 3 additional years to find good role players?

I do believe its important to build your core first....but sometimes your core can include role players if there value matches there production. For example if you can end up signing say Frank for a reasonable deal that you can eventually trade him and he's not considered a "negative" contract. Then it doesn't matter you can move him.

The only way it catches up to you if you pay a guy that then has negative value. That is where you get in trouble.

[mpharris36]

like if frank starts hitting 3s, he can be a good role player. but it will have taken him 4 years to become that. and so now faced with the fact that we have to pay him, unless he signs for cheap, the likely smart thing to do at this point is let him walk. you can find a similar player later when you have your main players in place.

For all we know Frank doesn't want to be here anyway. I wouldn't if I was him. He's probably counting down the days until next summer. Not to say he's a great player or anything but it's clear we're not going to give him the opportunity he could probably get elsewhere

many of the fan base loves him

[god shammgod]

i value good role players, i just don't value drafting them high in the lottery or overpaying them in free agency before you have the stars you need. i've seen many good teams change role players every other year and it doesn't really affect the team all that much. if you have the stars to build around, keeping a specific role player isn't nearly as important. they're a lot more replaceable. you can approximate their value to the team with a close to equivalent player quite often. why waste a high draft pick on someone who has very little potential to be better than that.

I don't think anyone drafts a guy in the lottery to just be a role player. I think if you are being realistic about the history of the draft. If you nab a good role player in the mid or later part of the lottery you are actually drafting fairly well.

Its just about managing those expectations.

yes. but that's why i said high in the lottery. the knicks are 6th. at 6 why settle for a guy who the projections are, at best, high level role player ? those things can obviously be wrong but you better be damn sure they are picking that high.

[HEZI]

You guys just don't value defense enough. Mikal is turning into one of the best defensive players in the league. And he is not a liability on offense with a 62% ts%. He does a little of everything. At #9/#10, you are most likely getting just a solid starter and Mikal is turning into that.

Not bpa, but still better then Miles/Knox.

Knox pretty much is a liability on both ends. Miles is ok, but just not efficient. A player like Mikal is more valuable

It's a lot easier to appreciate Mikal when you realize he is who he is and you know what role he has. You plug him into lineup as a role player surrounded by stars and ask him to do two things and two things only, play defense on the perimeter and occasionally knock down a jumper, yeah there is value in that. You can do that when you have building blocks in place and stars capable of carrying the weight. You can't do that with a role player when you don't have the building pieces in place.

Mikal isn't even a lethal outside shooter. He averages 34% for his career on outside shots in 3 attempts a game. He's not even a sniper from deep, he's just capable but that's it. His efficiency comes from people sending traps on Booker or double teaming Ayton, so that's pretty easy to sneak in for a layup when all the attention is on your stars and nobody is really worried or cares about you scoring. Mikal isn't even a high end role player, he's on the lower end of it.

So in that regard, you can easily apply Miles and even Knox down the road as he gets better to play those types of roles. Wilson Chandler had a role on a winning Nuggets squad too. So I mean if we really want to talk value when we have to consider the amount of help that needs to be present for that value to really mean something, then you can really just take any NBA player and put them in that scenario.

True on needing stars, but odds are low on finding a star at #9/#10. Miles Bridges isnt a no star either last i checked

I dont see how he can be a good pick, and Mikal is a bad pick. I prefer Mikal, but they aren't that far apart either way. Its an ok pick for that range. It just is what it is in that the odds are low at finding a star.

And again, Mikal was coming around and Suns fans really seem to like him a lot.

24 games as a starter this year
11.4ppg/4.6rpg/2.7apg/1bpg/1.5spg/52%fg/42%3pt/66%ts, along with great defense and 1.5 3s a game.

Def benefits and is a nice fit on the sun's, but not everyone can do that and play great d.

Chandler was a good pick too. He was pretty decent before he got hurt.

24 games is not a good sample size to label him a good starter.

Here are Miles Bridges splits when given legit starters minutes

30-39 MPG through 38 games (34 MPG average)

16 PPG / 6 RPG / 2 APG / 44% FG / 36% 3PG / 86 % FT / 55% TS / 1.2 SPG / 1.2 BPG

When you compare that to Mikal's legit starter minutes of 30+, it's pretty obvious who the better player is and it's Miles

[god shammgod]

like if frank starts hitting 3s, he can be a good role player. but it will have taken him 4 years to become that. and so now faced with the fact that we have to pay him, unless he signs for cheap, the likely smart thing to do at this point is let him walk. you can find a similar player later when you have your main players in place.

can you, because you just described frank taking 3 years to get to decent role player status. If you finally get good do you want to take 3 additional years to find good role players?

I do believe its important to build your core first....but sometimes your core can include role players if there value matches there production. For example if you can end up signing say Frank for a reasonable deal that you can eventually trade him and he's not considered a "negative" contract. Then it doesn't matter you can move him.

The only way it catches up to you if you pay a guy that then has negative value. That is where you get in trouble.

yes. there are 3 and d guards all over the league. that's what he will be at the end of the day. some defend better, some shoot better, but they're everywhere. good teams seem to be able to add them after that fact for cheap. bad teams draft them and overpay them in free agency.

[3toheadmelo]

like if frank starts hitting 3s, he can be a good role player. but it will have taken him 4 years to become that. and so now faced with the fact that we have to pay him, unless he signs for cheap, the likely smart thing to do at this point is let him walk. you can find a similar player later when you have your main players in place.

[Mecca]

Mikal is already borderline elite on defense. Y’all need to chill.

[HEZI]

like if frank starts hitting 3s, he can be a good role player. but it will have taken him 4 years to become that. and so now faced with the fact that we have to pay him, unless he signs for cheap, the likely smart thing to do at this point is let him walk. you can find a similar player later when you have your main players in place.

can you, because you just described frank taking 3 years to get to decent role player status. If you finally get good do you want to take 3 additional years to find good role players?

I do believe its important to build your core first....but sometimes your core can include role players if there value matches there production. For example if you can end up signing say Frank for a reasonable deal that you can eventually trade him and he's not considered a "negative" contract. Then it doesn't matter you can move him.

The only way it catches up to you if you pay a guy that then has negative value. That is where you get in trouble.

yes. there are 3 and d guards all over the league. that's what he will be at the end of the day. some defend better, some shoot better, but they're everywhere. good teams seem to be able to add them after that fact for cheap. bad teams draft them and overpay them in free agency.

Preach

[mpharris36]

i value good role players, i just don't value drafting them high in the lottery or overpaying them in free agency before you have the stars you need. i've seen many good teams change role players every other year and it doesn't really affect the team all that much. if you have the stars to build around, keeping a specific role player isn't nearly as important. they're a lot more replaceable. you can approximate their value to the team with a close to equivalent player quite often. why waste a high draft pick on someone who has very little potential to be better than that.

I don't think anyone drafts a guy in the lottery to just be a role player. I think if you are being realistic about the history of the draft. If you nab a good role player in the mid or later part of the lottery you are actually drafting fairly well.

Its just about managing those expectations.

yes. but that's why i said high in the lottery. the knicks are 6th. at 6 why settle for a guy who the projections are, at best, high level role player ? those things can obviously be wrong but you better be damn sure they are picking that high.

maybe 6 in this class is 8 or 9 in other classes. Who knows?

But I think we are on the same page. What I am missing is the people who don't like Frank are compainging for a guy that has super glue guy potential.

[mpharris36]

can you, because you just described frank taking 3 years to get to decent role player status. If you finally get good do you want to take 3 additional years to find good role players?

I do believe its important to build your core first....but sometimes your core can include role players if there value matches there production. For example if you can end up signing say Frank for a reasonable deal that you can eventually trade him and he's not considered a "negative" contract. Then it doesn't matter you can move him.

The only way it catches up to you if you pay a guy that then has negative value. That is where you get in trouble.

yes. there are 3 and d guards all over the league. that's what he will be at the end of the day. some defend better, some shoot better, but they're everywhere. good teams seem to be able to add them after that fact for cheap. bad teams draft them and overpay them in free agency.

Preach

He's preaching to not pick Haliburton because he believes Haliburton is a 3 and D guy

[god shammgod]

I don't think anyone drafts a guy in the lottery to just be a role player. I think if you are being realistic about the history of the draft. If you nab a good role player in the mid or later part of the lottery you are actually drafting fairly well.

Its just about managing those expectations.

yes. but that's why i said high in the lottery. the knicks are 6th. at 6 why settle for a guy who the projections are, at best, high level role player ? those things can obviously be wrong but you better be damn sure they are picking that high.

maybe 6 in this class is 8 or 9 in other classes. Who knows?

But I think we are on the same page. What I am missing is the people who don't like Frank are compainging for a guy that has super glue guy potential.

i agree with you there

[3toheadmelo]

It's a lot easier to appreciate Mikal when you realize he is who he is and you know what role he has. You plug him into lineup as a role player surrounded by stars and ask him to do two things and two things only, play defense on the perimeter and occasionally knock down a jumper, yeah there is value in that. You can do that when you have building blocks in place and stars capable of carrying the weight. You can't do that with a role player when you don't have the building pieces in place.

Mikal isn't even a lethal outside shooter. He averages 34% for his career on outside shots in 3 attempts a game. He's not even a sniper from deep, he's just capable but that's it. His efficiency comes from people sending traps on Booker or double teaming Ayton, so that's pretty easy to sneak in for a layup when all the attention is on your stars and nobody is really worried or cares about you scoring. Mikal isn't even a high end role player, he's on the lower end of it.

So in that regard, you can easily apply Miles and even Knox down the road as he gets better to play those types of roles. Wilson Chandler had a role on a winning Nuggets squad too. So I mean if we really want to talk value when we have to consider the amount of help that needs to be present for that value to really mean something, then you can really just take any NBA player and put them in that scenario.

True on needing stars, but odds are low on finding a star at #9/#10. Miles Bridges isnt a no star either last i checked

I dont see how he can be a good pick, and Mikal is a bad pick. I prefer Mikal, but they aren't that far apart either way. Its an ok pick for that range. It just is what it is in that the odds are low at finding a star.

And again, Mikal was coming around and Suns fans really seem to like him a lot.

24 games as a starter this year
11.4ppg/4.6rpg/2.7apg/1bpg/1.5spg/52%fg/42%3pt/66%ts, along with great defense and 1.5 3s a game.

Def benefits and is a nice fit on the sun's, but not everyone can do that and play great d.

Chandler was a good pick too. He was pretty decent before he got hurt.

24 games is not a good sample size to label him a good starter.

Here are Miles Bridges splits when given legit starters minutes

30-39 MPG through 38 games (34 MPG average)

16 PPG / 6 RPG / 2 APG / 44% FG / 36% 3PG / 86 % FT / 55% TS / 1.2 SPG / 1.2 BPG

When you compare that to Mikal's legit starter minutes of 30+, it's pretty obvious who the better player is and it's Miles

Yep. Miles is the superior player and quite underrated

[HEZI]

yes. there are 3 and d guards all over the league. that's what he will be at the end of the day. some defend better, some shoot better, but they're everywhere. good teams seem to be able to add them after that fact for cheap. bad teams draft them and overpay them in free agency.

Preach

He's preaching to not pick Haliburton because he believes Haliburton is a 3 and D guy

He wants Coleslaw

I'm with him

[Deeeez Knicks]

i value good role players, i just don't value drafting them high in the lottery or overpaying them in free agency before you have the stars you need. i've seen many good teams change role players every other year and it doesn't really affect the team all that much. if you have the stars to build around, keeping a specific role player isn't nearly as important. they're a lot more replaceable. you can approximate their value to the team with a close to equivalent player quite often. why waste a high draft pick on someone who has very little potential to be better than that.

Def true, but a lot of it is where we pick. Its not really likely to draft a star picking 8 to 10. We can all hope and try, but the odds are against us.

So yea, Mikal wouldn't have made a difference here and we would all hate him... wouldn't have been the right pick (SGA the answer). So agree with all there. Best for the knicks to swing for fence.

For other teams, Mikal is a good player and good pick so don't see him as a bust for the suns

[mpharris36]

like if frank starts hitting 3s, he can be a good role player. but it will have taken him 4 years to become that. and so now faced with the fact that we have to pay him, unless he signs for cheap, the likely smart thing to do at this point is let him walk. you can find a similar player later when you have your main players in place.

can you, because you just described frank taking 3 years to get to decent role player status. If you finally get good do you want to take 3 additional years to find good role players?

I do believe its important to build your core first....but sometimes your core can include role players if there value matches there production. For example if you can end up signing say Frank for a reasonable deal that you can eventually trade him and he's not considered a "negative" contract. Then it doesn't matter you can move him.

The only way it catches up to you if you pay a guy that then has negative value. That is where you get in trouble.

yes. there are 3 and d guards all over the league. that's what he will be at the end of the day. some defend better, some shoot better, but they're everywhere. good teams seem to be able to add them after that fact for cheap. bad teams draft them and overpay them in free agency.

I find this funny that the 2 people who AND-1 your post are compaigning for Haliburton who you believe has a limited ceiling role player. Which is what started this whole back and forth in the first place