2020 NBA Draft Discussion (18th and 31st pick)

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

That's the thing. If the Mavericks draft Maledon over P. Williams, I would trust their judgement. This is not a case where I feel any need to defend my choice.

The last few drafts, I have felt the Mavericks have made the best call they can make. I thought Dennis Smith was the best player available in 2017.

In retrospect DSJ looks like a bad choice and the Mavs managed to shovel the hot potato on to the Knicks. Obviously he's been in a terrible situation coaching & playing time-wise there, but this year he mostly looked like not even ready for the G-league.

Looking down the list below him is disheartening. Obviously Spider and Bam at 13,14, resp, are way aways from anything DSJ could ever hope to be and John Collins, Jarrett Allen, OG Anunoby, Pasečņiks, Kuzma and White seem very hard to catch up to even if everything somehow miraculously changed. And frankly one could throw in Luke Kennard and maybe, for upside, Harry Giles and Malik Monk as well. That's a lot of missing.

Here's DeanonDraft (back when he was obsessive) hedging his bets as hard as he could and still coming up with nothing really to make you expect DSJ to thrive in the NBA.

deanondraft.com/2017/06/22/is-dennis-smith-jr-a-loser/

You have to keep in mind that DSJ was drafted to start next to Curry. Mavs drafted for fit while drafting the best available player. There was a log jam at SF/PF. They still had Barnes, Dirk, DFS, and Maxi.

Maxi was signed after DSJ was drafted. Dirk was obviously close to retirement.

The Mavs hoped DSJ would be a Detroit DRose, but the doubts that people had came (or at least have so far come) to fruition.

But its all water under the bridge now. That's fine - the draft isn't "solved" and every team drafts busts.

On a tangent: I dislike drafting for fit pretty strongly. Always draft the BPA - although that often means the one with the most value rather than the best basketball player per se (if that could be determined).

[JJP]

On a tangent: I dislike drafting for fit pretty strongly. Always draft the BPA - although that often means the one with the most value rather than the best basketball player per se (if that could be determined).

I suspect with the modern NBA, this is pretty much a settled question in most cases.

I don't think teams really draft for position much anymore (although I'm sure height and rebounding are a special set of metrics). A draft board simply has "best players available." Team need is probably factored into the math to some degree, but I'm guessing the specific position is really a metric dinosaur.

[Teffer10]

On a tangent: I dislike drafting for fit pretty strongly. Always draft the BPA - although that often means the one with the most value rather than the best basketball player per se (if that could be determined).

I suspect with the modern NBA, this is pretty much a settled question in most cases.

I don't think teams really draft for position much anymore (although I'm sure height and rebounding are a special set of metrics). A draft board simply has "best players available." Team need is probably factored into the math to some degree, but I'm guessing the specific position is really a metric dinosaur.

I pretty much agree with both of you from a conventional perspective but I do think teams should strongly consider their draft candidate to fit their system. Non-fit players to a system probably wouldn't thrive and their trade value would most likely diminish.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

On a tangent: I dislike drafting for fit pretty strongly. Always draft the BPA - although that often means the one with the most value rather than the best basketball player per se (if that could be determined).

I suspect with the modern NBA, this is pretty much a settled question in most cases.

I don't think teams really draft for position much anymore (although I'm sure height and rebounding are a special set of metrics). A draft board simply has "best players available." Team need is probably factored into the math to some degree, but I'm guessing the specific position is really a metric dinosaur.

You'd hope. But I think some teams are going to do weird, non-optimal stuff under salary cap/luxury tax pressure (assuming they decrease), including drafting for "positional need" - when they don't have real needs - in this draft.

Let me caveat a little: if you are a genuine contender RIGHT NOW then sure, go ahead and try to draft a ready-to-go position-of-need player if that's what you really, really want to do.

Eg, the Warriors have carte-blanche to do this if they feel it's the right move. Cleveland, Minny, Hawks, Detroit, NYK absolutely DO NOT.

As for the Mavs, this year it will still be so hard to know after the playoffs where teams really stand (with no HCA etc). However it seems unlikely to me that #18 will be where to draft for "need" for the Mavs or that the Mavs will have a clear idea of the kind of genuine needs that they have for two years out.

[Teffer10]

On a tangent: I dislike drafting for fit pretty strongly. Always draft the BPA - although that often means the one with the most value rather than the best basketball player per se (if that could be determined).

I suspect with the modern NBA, this is pretty much a settled question in most cases.

I don't think teams really draft for position much anymore (although I'm sure height and rebounding are a special set of metrics). A draft board simply has "best players available." Team need is probably factored into the math to some degree, but I'm guessing the specific position is really a metric dinosaur.

You'd hope. But I think some teams are going to do weird, non-optimal stuff under salary cap/luxury tax pressure (assuming they decrease), including drafting for "positional need" - when they don't have real needs - in this draft.

Let me caveat a little: if you are a genuine contender RIGHT NOW then sure, go ahead and try to draft a ready-to-go position-of-need player if that's what you really, really want to do.

Eg, the Warriors have carte-blanche to do this if they feel it's the right move. Cleveland, Minny, Hawks, Detroit, NYK absolutely DO NOT.

As for the Mavs, this year it will still be so hard to know after the playoffs where teams really stand (with no HCA etc). However it seems unlikely to me that #18 will be where to draft for "need" for the Mavs or that the Mavs will have a clear idea of the kind of genuine needs that they have for two years out.

I think the Mavs are clearly craving that 3rd option star so looking at their 4 options of draft, trade, FA, or develop organically, the 18th pick is probably as possible as any of the others to accomplish that goal considering their lack of existing trade pieces, history with FAs and current roster.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

On a tangent: I dislike drafting for fit pretty strongly. Always draft the BPA - although that often means the one with the most value rather than the best basketball player per se (if that could be determined).

I suspect with the modern NBA, this is pretty much a settled question in most cases.

I don't think teams really draft for position much anymore (although I'm sure height and rebounding are a special set of metrics). A draft board simply has "best players available." Team need is probably factored into the math to some degree, but I'm guessing the specific position is really a metric dinosaur.

I pretty much agree with both of you from a conventional perspective but I do think teams should strongly consider their draft candidate to fit their system. Non-fit players to a system probably wouldn't thrive and their trade value would most likely diminish.

This is a very decent point - and ties in with what I was trying to say about BPA can be the one who will have (over whatever timeframe is relevant for the team) the most value - where value is as an asset (and not solely on court) - unless you are talking future HOF-er.

Teams with good systems should draft players that can fit them, because those are likely to be high-BBIQ players! Teams with bad systems should draft BPA and change the system. And that's really the answer for most lottery teams. (Looking at you NYK.)

[Teffer10]

I suspect with the modern NBA, this is pretty much a settled question in most cases.

I don't think teams really draft for position much anymore (although I'm sure height and rebounding are a special set of metrics). A draft board simply has "best players available." Team need is probably factored into the math to some degree, but I'm guessing the specific position is really a metric dinosaur.

I pretty much agree with both of you from a conventional perspective but I do think teams should strongly consider their draft candidate to fit their system. Non-fit players to a system probably wouldn't thrive and their trade value would most likely diminish.

This is a very decent point - and ties in with what I was trying to say about BPA can be the one who will have (over whatever timeframe is relevant for the team) the most value - where value is as an asset (and not solely on court) - unless you are talking future HOF-er.

Teams with good systems should draft players that can fit them, because those are likely to be high-BBIQ players! Teams with bad systems should draft BPA and change the system. And that's really the answer for most lottery teams. (Looking at you NYK.)

One of the reasons why I don't agree with several mock drafts that have us taking Isaiah Stewart. From a traditional perspective he is exactly what we need (rebounding and a beast in the paint) but I just don't see him as a great fit to Carlisle's system.
Similar to the reservations I have about Green and other wings that are not good shooters. I think long-range shooting is a key element in Rick's system...especially on the wings.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I suspect with the modern NBA, this is pretty much a settled question in most cases.

I don't think teams really draft for position much anymore (although I'm sure height and rebounding are a special set of metrics). A draft board simply has "best players available." Team need is probably factored into the math to some degree, but I'm guessing the specific position is really a metric dinosaur.

You'd hope. But I think some teams are going to do weird, non-optimal stuff under salary cap/luxury tax pressure (assuming they decrease), including drafting for "positional need" - when they don't have real needs - in this draft.

Let me caveat a little: if you are a genuine contender RIGHT NOW then sure, go ahead and try to draft a ready-to-go position-of-need player if that's what you really, really want to do.

Eg, the Warriors have carte-blanche to do this if they feel it's the right move. Cleveland, Minny, Hawks, Detroit, NYK absolutely DO NOT.

As for the Mavs, this year it will still be so hard to know after the playoffs where teams really stand (with no HCA etc). However it seems unlikely to me that #18 will be where to draft for "need" for the Mavs or that the Mavs will have a clear idea of the kind of genuine needs that they have for two years out.

I think the Mavs are clearly craving that 3rd option star so looking at their 4 options of draft, trade, FA, or develop organically, the 18th pick is probably as possible as any of the others to accomplish that goal considering their lack of existing trade pieces, history with FAs and current roster.

I like this way of thinking about things. I'm not sure how it would work with (in a fantasy world) Giannis deciding to come - in terms of the egos, rather than the X&Os. But a #3? Surely!

I've actually been very impressed with THJ (and Seth) this year, but the Mavs probably may like an upgrade, and it isn't quite clear what THJ's next contract should be in any case (say, in terms of the %age of the salary cap rather than trying to guess a concrete number).

I'm a less pessimistic about FAs and sign-and-trade options in the near future than some (most?) people on this board. I think it is likely that Luka and KP will have much more gravitational force than Dirk did 20 years ago. Particularly now there are more non-US players in the league.

So, sure, I agree there's not much point for Dallas to try to draft a low-ceiling, high floor, ready to go player (unless they make it to the finals or whatever ... which is not impossible imo ... which is why being concrete on the draft is so hard this year). However, I think people with better information than me would have to decide who at #18 might possibly get there. And those are pretty likely to be neglected Euros.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I pretty much agree with both of you from a conventional perspective but I do think teams should strongly consider their draft candidate to fit their system. Non-fit players to a system probably wouldn't thrive and their trade value would most likely diminish.

This is a very decent point - and ties in with what I was trying to say about BPA can be the one who will have (over whatever timeframe is relevant for the team) the most value - where value is as an asset (and not solely on court) - unless you are talking future HOF-er.

Teams with good systems should draft players that can fit them, because those are likely to be high-BBIQ players! Teams with bad systems should draft BPA and change the system. And that's really the answer for most lottery teams. (Looking at you NYK.)

One of the reasons why I don't agree with several mock drafts that have us taking Isaiah Stewart. From a traditional perspective he is exactly what we need (rebounding and a beast in the paint) but I just don't see him as a great fit to Carlisle's system.
Similar to the reservations I have about Green and other wings that are not good shooters. I think long-range shooting is a key element in Rick's system...especially on the wings.

.. I too don't think the Mavs should take Stewart at #18. On the other hand, e.g., they shouldn't be exclusively looking at long-range shooting wings .. just take whatever is "best" and trade players if there is too much overlap.

[Teffer10]

This is a very decent point - and ties in with what I was trying to say about BPA can be the one who will have (over whatever timeframe is relevant for the team) the most value - where value is as an asset (and not solely on court) - unless you are talking future HOF-er.

Teams with good systems should draft players that can fit them, because those are likely to be high-BBIQ players! Teams with bad systems should draft BPA and change the system. And that's really the answer for most lottery teams. (Looking at you NYK.)

One of the reasons why I don't agree with several mock drafts that have us taking Isaiah Stewart. From a traditional perspective he is exactly what we need (rebounding and a beast in the paint) but I just don't see him as a great fit to Carlisle's system.
Similar to the reservations I have about Green and other wings that are not good shooters. I think long-range shooting is a key element in Rick's system...especially on the wings.

.. I too don't think the Mavs should take Stewart at #18. On the other hand, e.g., they shouldn't be exclusively looking at long-range shooting wings .. just take whatever is "best" and trade players if there is too much overlap.

Stewart is one of those who would see less and less PT as the season progresses if he doesn't hit the 3 with some consistency or at least stretch the floor some which would most likely diminish his TV.
However, Rick will play high motor bigs with limited offensive skills(e.g. Powell) so who knows.

My thinking though is that guys like that are a dime a dozen in today's NBA (e.g. WCS) so I'd hate to waste a draft pick on someone that we could get cheap, or without compromising any valuable assets, in different manner.

But yeah, I do agree BPA is normally the way to go as long as that draftee would be able to sustain value.

Now my rule of thumb on a 2nd rounder is ALWAYS go with BPA no matter what.

[Teffer10]

You'd hope. But I think some teams are going to do weird, non-optimal stuff under salary cap/luxury tax pressure (assuming they decrease), including drafting for "positional need" - when they don't have real needs - in this draft.

Let me caveat a little: if you are a genuine contender RIGHT NOW then sure, go ahead and try to draft a ready-to-go position-of-need player if that's what you really, really want to do.

Eg, the Warriors have carte-blanche to do this if they feel it's the right move. Cleveland, Minny, Hawks, Detroit, NYK absolutely DO NOT.

As for the Mavs, this year it will still be so hard to know after the playoffs where teams really stand (with no HCA etc). However it seems unlikely to me that #18 will be where to draft for "need" for the Mavs or that the Mavs will have a clear idea of the kind of genuine needs that they have for two years out.

I think the Mavs are clearly craving that 3rd option star so looking at their 4 options of draft, trade, FA, or develop organically, the 18th pick is probably as possible as any of the others to accomplish that goal considering their lack of existing trade pieces, history with FAs and current roster.

I like this way of thinking about things. I'm not sure how it would work with (in a fantasy world) Giannis deciding to come - in terms of the egos, rather than the X&Os. But a #3? Surely!

I've actually been very impressed with THJ (and Seth) this year, but the Mavs probably may like an upgrade, and it isn't quite clear what THJ's next contract should be in any case (say, in terms of the %age of the salary cap rather than trying to guess a concrete number).

I'm a less pessimistic about FAs and sign-and-trade options in the near future than some (most?) people on this board. I think it is likely that Luka and KP will have much more gravitational force than Dirk did 20 years ago. Particularly now there are more non-US players in the league.

So, sure, I agree there's not much point for Dallas to try to draft a low-ceiling, high floor, ready to go player (unless they make it to the finals or whatever ... which is not impossible imo ... which is why being concrete on the draft is so hard this year). However, I think people with better information than me would have to decide who at #18 might possibly get there. And those are pretty likely to be neglected Euros.

Good point and you are right that we shouldn't judge future FA signings with the past with Dirk.
The only concerning thing to me is how we would lure an existing superstar or budding superstar to this team with Luka and KP already being virtually our #1 and #2 guys.

If I'm a superstar at or entering my prime, especially a ball-dominant one, I'm not sure I'd want to join Luka and KP. Not sure a superstar ego would allow that to happen unless you have the initial KD.
I always felt one of the problems with the Mavs luring a true superstar during the Dirk era was the fact that this was CLEARLY Dirk's team and that player would have to play 2nd fiddle to him.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I think the Mavs are clearly craving that 3rd option star so looking at their 4 options of draft, trade, FA, or develop organically, the 18th pick is probably as possible as any of the others to accomplish that goal considering their lack of existing trade pieces, history with FAs and current roster.

I like this way of thinking about things. I'm not sure how it would work with (in a fantasy world) Giannis deciding to come - in terms of the egos, rather than the X&Os. But a #3? Surely!

I've actually been very impressed with THJ (and Seth) this year, but the Mavs probably may like an upgrade, and it isn't quite clear what THJ's next contract should be in any case (say, in terms of the %age of the salary cap rather than trying to guess a concrete number).

I'm a less pessimistic about FAs and sign-and-trade options in the near future than some (most?) people on this board. I think it is likely that Luka and KP will have much more gravitational force than Dirk did 20 years ago. Particularly now there are more non-US players in the league.

So, sure, I agree there's not much point for Dallas to try to draft a low-ceiling, high floor, ready to go player (unless they make it to the finals or whatever ... which is not impossible imo ... which is why being concrete on the draft is so hard this year). However, I think people with better information than me would have to decide who at #18 might possibly get there. And those are pretty likely to be neglected Euros.

Good point and you are right that we shouldn't judge future FA signings with the past with Dirk.
The only concerning thing to me is how we would lure an existing superstar or budding superstar to this team with Luka and KP already being virtually our #1 and #2 guys.

If I'm a superstar at or entering my prime, especially a ball-dominant one, I'm not sure I'd want to join Luka and KP. Not sure a superstar ego would allow that to happen unless you have the initial KD.
I always felt one of the problems with the Mavs luring a true superstar during the Dirk era was the fact that this was CLEARLY Dirk's team and that player would have to play 2nd fiddle to him.

Well, strange things do happen .. Jimmy Butler ended up on the Embiid-Simmons 76ers, where it isn't really clear which of those is the real star. But, then again, that wasn't stable for precisely that reason. Kareem-Magic-Big Game James is a rare thing.

I think the Mavs already have two players who are in the top tier. So what the Mavs want is a strong #3 and incrementally improve the surrounding cast. To be honest, I'd probably be checking out of the 2021 FA market and investing in Bertans right now (if the personal politics between him and KP are ok - I just don't know how that rolls, but that is a consideration - let's ask Paija) and trying to get better at defence. (Prize Ntikilina away from NYK somehow or someone similar.)

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

One of the reasons why I don't agree with several mock drafts that have us taking Isaiah Stewart. From a traditional perspective he is exactly what we need (rebounding and a beast in the paint) but I just don't see him as a great fit to Carlisle's system.
Similar to the reservations I have about Green and other wings that are not good shooters. I think long-range shooting is a key element in Rick's system...especially on the wings.

.. I too don't think the Mavs should take Stewart at #18. On the other hand, e.g., they shouldn't be exclusively looking at long-range shooting wings .. just take whatever is "best" and trade players if there is too much overlap.

Stewart is one of those who would see less and less PT as the season progresses if he doesn't hit the 3 with some consistency or at least stretch the floor some which would most likely diminish his TV.
However, Rick will play high motor bigs with limited offensive skills(e.g. Powell) so who knows.

My thinking though is that guys like that are a dime a dozen in today's NBA (e.g. WCS) so I'd hate to waste a draft pick on someone that we could get cheap, or without compromising any valuable assets, in different manner.

But yeah, I do agree BPA is normally the way to go as long as that draftee would be able to sustain value.

Now my rule of thumb on a 2nd rounder is ALWAYS go with BPA no matter what.

I don't want to force a false concensus, but I think we are fairly close.

The one thing I guess one should say is that drafting for value is for the expected value .. so this is definitely not a reason to draft "safely" or high floor/low ceiling - teams should properly try to estimate the probabilities of different outcomes and the value of them. This is why it makes sense for the #2-#6 teams to be looking seriously at Poku (particularly if they fall in the draft, particularly if the fall from the #6).

For the Mavs: again, I think the Mavs might actually be very close right now. But if they are three years off then, yeah, they should look at Poku at #18 if he falls to there - because of what they could possibly trade him for in three years time.

[Teffer10]

I like this way of thinking about things. I'm not sure how it would work with (in a fantasy world) Giannis deciding to come - in terms of the egos, rather than the X&Os. But a #3? Surely!

I've actually been very impressed with THJ (and Seth) this year, but the Mavs probably may like an upgrade, and it isn't quite clear what THJ's next contract should be in any case (say, in terms of the %age of the salary cap rather than trying to guess a concrete number).

I'm a less pessimistic about FAs and sign-and-trade options in the near future than some (most?) people on this board. I think it is likely that Luka and KP will have much more gravitational force than Dirk did 20 years ago. Particularly now there are more non-US players in the league.

So, sure, I agree there's not much point for Dallas to try to draft a low-ceiling, high floor, ready to go player (unless they make it to the finals or whatever ... which is not impossible imo ... which is why being concrete on the draft is so hard this year). However, I think people with better information than me would have to decide who at #18 might possibly get there. And those are pretty likely to be neglected Euros.

Good point and you are right that we shouldn't judge future FA signings with the past with Dirk.
The only concerning thing to me is how we would lure an existing superstar or budding superstar to this team with Luka and KP already being virtually our #1 and #2 guys.

If I'm a superstar at or entering my prime, especially a ball-dominant one, I'm not sure I'd want to join Luka and KP. Not sure a superstar ego would allow that to happen unless you have the initial KD.
I always felt one of the problems with the Mavs luring a true superstar during the Dirk era was the fact that this was CLEARLY Dirk's team and that player would have to play 2nd fiddle to him.

Well, strange things do happen .. Jimmy Butler ended up on the Embiid-Simmons 76ers, where it isn't really clear which of those is the real star. But, then again, that wasn't stable for precisely that reason. Kareem-Magic-Big Game James is a rare thing.

I think the Mavs already have two players who are in the top tier. So what the Mavs want is a strong #3 and incrementally improve the surrounding cast. To be honest, I'd probably be checking out of the 2021 FA market and investing in Bertans right now (if the personal politics between him and KP are ok - I just don't know how that rolls, but that is a consideration - let's ask Paija) and trying to get better at defence. (Prize Ntikilina away from NYK somehow or someone similar.)

I probably have more optimism with THJ as the 3rd option than most Mavs fans. He seemed to be developing nicely into that role before the Covid-19 situation and I'd hate to get into another Tyson Chandler situation like we did back in the 2011 off-season. In other words I hate to let him walk and then fail to upgrade that role.

I really like Ntikilna but basically see Wright currently filling a similar role.
However I love the idea of moving Wright and then signing Frank to a contract that would net us a smaller impact to our cap situation without compromising our roster. Plus Frank is younger.

I also really like Bertans as a fit but didn't realize there could possibly be some friction.

One player the Mavs should seriously consider trading for is Josh Richardson. He checks most of the boxes that fill our needs. I'd even consider moving THJ or Seth to net Richardson but only in the right deal. Richardson has a very good team friendly contract so it would take some decent assets to pry him away. I don't think Wright/Brunson/#18/#31 would cut it.

[Teffer10]

.. I too don't think the Mavs should take Stewart at #18. On the other hand, e.g., they shouldn't be exclusively looking at long-range shooting wings .. just take whatever is "best" and trade players if there is too much overlap.

Stewart is one of those who would see less and less PT as the season progresses if he doesn't hit the 3 with some consistency or at least stretch the floor some which would most likely diminish his TV.
However, Rick will play high motor bigs with limited offensive skills(e.g. Powell) so who knows.

My thinking though is that guys like that are a dime a dozen in today's NBA (e.g. WCS) so I'd hate to waste a draft pick on someone that we could get cheap, or without compromising any valuable assets, in different manner.

But yeah, I do agree BPA is normally the way to go as long as that draftee would be able to sustain value.

Now my rule of thumb on a 2nd rounder is ALWAYS go with BPA no matter what.

I don't want to force a false concensus, but I think we are fairly close.

The one thing I guess one should say is that drafting for value is for the expected value .. so this is definitely not a reason to draft "safely" or high floor/low ceiling - teams should properly try to estimate the probabilities of different outcomes and the value of them. This is why it makes sense for the #2-#6 teams to be looking seriously at Poku (particularly if they fall in the draft, particularly if the fall from the #6).

For the Mavs: again, I think the Mavs might actually be very close right now. But if they are three years off then, yeah, they should look at Poku at #18 if he falls to there - because of what they could possibly trade him for in three years time.

That is one of the things I like about taking Poku because the Mavs could possibly develop him into a very solid trade piece in a few years when we should be clear championship contenders. I know Cuban is impatient but a guy like Poku has the skills that could take this team to another level either with his play or potential trade value.

Another thing I like about Poku is that he could be possible insurance if KP goes down for length of time which could very well happen. Poku could eventually fill Powell's role (but in a different way) and create a nice frontline rotation with KP/Poku/Maxi because all 3 would be considered solid 4/5s.

The only two weaknesses of Poku that I read about and see are his lack of strength and inconsistency in his shooting which are things that should improve as he matures.

But a coordinated 7 footer with great court awareness, guard skills, average athleticism, shot blocking skills, and unlimited shooting range is something you simply cannot pass on at #18 if he is there.

[JJP]

I think Carlisle really likes having two playmakers in the backcourt. If he is mildly disappointed in Wright, it's because of that.

Given that, It's a little hard to know that skill set when watching draft videos. Nor does it mean Carlisle will weight that skill more heavily if some really good wing is available. I'm guessing not.

Poku is interesting, and I'm sure most teams are trying to imagine how he could fit. But the draft videos suggest he's not one of those guys who stands around with a catch-and-shoot mentality. He likes to move the ball around and make plays. The knock on him is that he hasn't seen good competition even in Europe, and he would likely not be able to stand the rigors with that body type - at least not yet.

I go back and forth on him. Trainers may see him as a big, hobbling injury.

I mentioned Kira Lewis as a draft possibility a few posts back. His versatility and speed are worth noting - especially on a team without much speed. He's probably the fastest player in the draft, and he has a built-in 3-point shot. I'm guessing he rates pretty high with the Mavs as a draft prospect.

[juanc]

I relly like Josh Green with our 1st round pick. He is a good athlete and a great defender. I think he is the type of player that would thrive with Luka and KP. He was shooting over 40% on catch and shoot 3pointers. I feel he also has a lot of upside and that he could develop into one of the better 3&d guys in the league.

[Teffer10]

I think Carlisle really likes having two playmakers in the backcourt. If he is mildly disappointed in Wright, it's because of that.

Given that, It's a little hard to know that skill set when watching draft videos. Nor does it mean Carlisle will weight that skill more heavily if some really good wing is available. I'm guessing not.

Poku is interesting, and I'm sure most teams are trying to imagine how he could fit. But the draft videos suggest he's not one of those guys who stands around with a catch-and-shoot mentality. He likes to move the ball around and make plays. The knock on him is that he hasn't seen good competition even in Europe, and he would likely not be able to stand the rigors with that body type - at least not yet.

I go back and forth on him. Trainers may see him as a big, hobbling injury.

I mentioned Kira Lewis as a draft possibility a few posts back. His versatility and speed are worth noting - especially on a team without much speed. He's probably the fastest player in the draft, and he has a built-in 3-point shot. I'm guessing he rates pretty high with the Mavs as a draft prospect.

Yeah I really love Lewis and his speed would be incredibly fun to watch. Seems to be another D. Fox. Kind of a mixture of Barea and Devin Harris in one. I also think he would make Brunson and Wright expendable for trades.
I honestly think the Mavs should be patient and call Markus Howard the second the draft is over if he doesn't get drafted. Man you talk about the perfect Barea replacement as a spark plug off the bench. That dude can put up some serious points quickly.

My reservations on Lewis for the Mavs would be the fact that he seems to be very ball dominant and not sure how that would mesh with Luka.
Would drafting him become another DSJ situation?

There should be some nice players available in the mid-range so I really hope we keep both picks unless we could use them to swing some type of deal for a star.

[JJP]

My reservations on Lewis for the Mavs would be the fact that he seems to be very ball dominant and not sure how that would mesh with Luka.
Would drafting him become another DSJ situation?

I suppose Carlisle's problems with two starting playmakers is that any PG drafted has to live with Luca being "the guy." Not every PG is going to work alongside Luca. DSJ may just have had a contentious attitude since he was drafted before Luca and likely had his sites set on being the primary playmaker. But watching Brunson and Wright both struggle at times next to Luca makes me think this is awkward... and may require a special personality.

Josh Green - mentioned above - is also right there with some other 3-and-D wings. Bey, Nesmith, Williams, Vassell, Green all seem to have similar physical characteristics and 3-and-D ability (Nesmith maybe more of a 3 specialist). Honestly, all those guys look pretty good.

I don't see as many rebounding PF-types that look like good draft picks for the Mavs. They may have better opportunities in free agency for a strong rebounder.

[Teffer10]

My reservations on Lewis for the Mavs would be the fact that he seems to be very ball dominant and not sure how that would mesh with Luka.
Would drafting him become another DSJ situation?

I suppose Carlisle's problems with two starting playmakers is that any PG drafted has to live with Luca being "the guy." Not every PG is going to work alongside Luca. DSJ may just have had a contentious attitude since he was drafted before Luca and likely had his sites set on being the primary playmaker. But watching Brunson and Wright both struggle at times next to Luca makes me think this is awkward... and may require a special personality.

Josh Green - mentioned above - is also right there with some other 3-and-D wings. Bey, Nesmith, Williams, Vassell, Green all seem to have similar physical characteristics and 3-and-D ability (Nesmith maybe more of a 3 specialist). Honestly, all those guys look pretty good.

I don't see as many rebounding PF-types that look like good draft picks for the Mavs. They may have better opportunities in free agency for a strong rebounder.

Good points about the PG situation!

I went from high on Josh Green to low but now I'm warming up on him. The biggest knock on him is his shooting but maybe he'd be the answer in someone to run the offense without being ball dominant. He is a good passer and has good court awareness for a 3-D guy so I'm beginning to think he wouldn't be a bad pick.

I still think there is some decent upside to Josh Reaves and he has similar skills as Green but a bit shorter. Reaves has the potential to become an elite defender but something seems to be holding him back from taking it to the next level. Not sure what that is.