2021 Draft thread. Woo! 15th pick here we come! Hoo. Ray.

[Shoe]

Cade is not too exciting in the way Wall and Simmons aren't too exciting. All fantastic players, all elevate a franchise to playoff contender, but probably can't be the best on a championship team. Also because they are point guards they kind of limit how you can build your roster. I'd probably pick him #1 though.

I think people aren't factoring that the NCAA game is very different from the NBA game. Even a guy like Luka couldn't be Luka in the NCAA's because of the zone defenses and the number of teammates who can't reliably hit shots.

I think Cade is likely to be less turnover prone and more effective finishing in the NBA than he is in college because of the superior spacing and the limitations on packing the lane. That doesn't mean Cade will be the next Luka like some seem to think he is, but I can see him at least being the next Gordon Hayward - a SF with some legit playmaking ability, even if he isn't a true PG.

I'm not sure Cade would be okay with playing off ball in the way Hayward does. It'd be like a QB switching to WR.

[9 and 20]

I have no idea who they should draft, but it seems to me like the Wizards have not done well with players like Cade Cunningham. Troy Brown is only the latest example of 'do it all' types that haven't really flourished here. The system and the coach would need to fundamentally change if they drafted Cunningham. Would probably also need to change personnel - Westbrook especially but also the ball-dominant backup point guards they get every year.

To be fair, there are many types of players that the Wizards 'have not done well with'.

[Illuminaire]

Cade is fool's gold. His absolute peak upside is "better passing Klay Thompson."

His most likely impact is in the Rudy Gay/Andrew Wiggins tier of wings. Decent players with long careers who never reach lofty expectations. He's going to disappoint whoever takes him in the top 4.

Save this post and shower it with praise in three years. (Or heap it over my head in shame. : )

[NatP4]

It’s gotta be Suggs or Mobley if you have the choice. Suggs will at worst be one of the best defensive players at the PG position and a quality rebounder and passer that can also drive and finish around the basket. Great leader that values every possession and plays with great effort.

Mobley at worst will be an efficient offensive player and a rim protecting switch everything C that can elevate any team into being a top 10 defense.

I don’t think there should be much debate about this honestly. The real question is what do you do with both of those guys off the board?

[Ruzious]

Cade is fool's gold. His absolute peak upside is "better passing Klay Thompson."

His most likely impact is in the Rudy Gay/Andrew Wiggins tier of wings. Decent players with long careers who never reach lofty expectations. He's going to disappoint whoever takes him in the top 4.

Save this post and shower it with praise in three years. (Or heap it over my head in shame. : )

I love it. I still think Cade will be the 1st pick, but I agree it should be Mobley or Suggs. Cade can score almost at will, and you know that gets people all a twitter, as people used to say. And his length and awareness allows him to make defensive plays that others can't. Still, he turns the ball over too much for my tastes (and I don't buy the theory that it's his teammate's fault), and there's too much sulking when things aren't going his way, imo.

[NatP4]

Something tells me the wiz are going to win the lottery and take Cunningham, then try to turn him into an offball 3&D wing.

[NatP4]

Giddey is back healthy and playing on Saturday.

[DCZards]

I love it. I still think Cade will be the 1st pick, but I agree it should be Mobley or Suggs. Cade can score almost at will, and you know that gets people all a twitter, as people used to say. And his length and awareness allows him to make defensive plays that others can't. Still, he turns the ball over too much for my tastes (and I don't buy the theory that it's his teammate's fault), and there's too much sulking when things aren't going his way, imo.

Ruz, you're sorta making the case for drafting Cade, imo. You mention the turnovers and sulking. Well, those are things that can--and will likely--change/improve as the 19 year old matures as a player and person. But the length, defensive awareness and ability to score in the variety of ways that you note are what you want in a player--and are hard to teach.

I expect Cunningham's game to be similar to Ben Simmons. He probably won't pass and rebound as well as Ben but he'll be a MUCH better perimeter shooter.

[Ruzious]

I love it. I still think Cade will be the 1st pick, but I agree it should be Mobley or Suggs. Cade can score almost at will, and you know that gets people all a twitter, as people used to say. And his length and awareness allows him to make defensive plays that others can't. Still, he turns the ball over too much for my tastes (and I don't buy the theory that it's his teammate's fault), and there's too much sulking when things aren't going his way, imo.

Ruz, you're sorta making the case for drafting Cade, imo. You mention the turnovers and sulking. Well, those are things that can--and will likely--change/improve as the 19 year old matures as a player and person. But the length, defensive awareness and ability to score in the variety of ways that you note are what you want in a player--and can't be taught.

I expect Cunningham's game to be similar to Ben Simmons. He probably won't pass and rebound as well as Ben but he'll be a MUCH better perimeter shooter.

I think that's more his personality than a maturity thing. Suggs has the intangibles over Cade by miles, and I don't see why that'll change. I also don't see Cunningham being like Simmons - partly because of the reasons you mentioned, and Simmons is unique - he's bigger, stronger and more athletic, and he's more facillitator than scorer. Cade's a talented passer, but he's more shooter and scorer, and I don't see him being the consistently great defender that Simmons is.

[doclinkin]

Something tells me the wiz are going to win the lottery and take Cunningham, then try to turn him into an offball 3&D wing.

Honestly not the worst idea. That is: I don't think he would ever play long in an offball role, but Cade next to high-usage Beal and Westbrook will have an effect on the team. Our defense at 3 picks up, we add another smart ball handler, we add outside shooting, steals, and without the pressure to carry a team with his dribbles and passing his current deficits (turnovers) are minimized. Plus will have targets to hit who can make points out of his passes. Cade as a tertiary passer and ballhandler is a significant asset, and at 6'8" he can make passes that smaller ballhandlers can't see. Cade to Gafford is a serious weapon that few can interrupt. Rui has good hands, Cade will figure out how to best use Rui. And when things breakdown you will have a go-to scorer who is looking to get his own when he gets a chance. As for maturity, if you listen to him in interviews and watch him break down film he seems plenty mature and poised, especially for a 19 year old kid. Between Russ and Beal he will be surrounded by guys who exemplify professionalism off the court.

Defensively he is poised and smart and reads the floor well. He sees the spacing and the play developing before it happens. He would be an ideal captain on defense to help guide players like Rui and Bryant. I see him at times directing the action on defense, same at Montverde, pointing out where they are supposed to be. As a frontcourt player he can play a role on orchestrating defense. I can see him use Gafford like a grandmaster with a castle, guiding him in position to snuff the attack and shut off avenues of offense before they get started.

Watch on YouTube

Yes Suggs is phenomenal, poised as anyone I have ever seen in college. Because of his redundancy with Westbrook and Beal he may be starved of touches early on. His greatest utility may be if he allows a coach to shift Russ to a 6th man role down the line. I still don't see that happening.

As for redundancy with Cade. Regarding Rui and Deni. To me they all seem complementary. Cade will get stronger. Deni has been streaky with the 3 ball, but that's primarily because he has not been given freedom to be a multi-level threat. There is an offense/defense blend where you can actually play all 3 of these guys at once, if you are smart about it. Either of Deni/Cade rebounds and has the option to bring it up the floor or run on attack, both have the option of making the smart pass. Redundancy becomes depth in that case since you have players who can effectively play 1-4 and guard big at their position. With Brad and a Defensive/lob-threat center, or on offense, a long ball Big there are sets and a mix that could be really interesting. We are not using the players we have to their greatest efficiency, but a smart coach will use a trio of big smart versatile 'tweeners' as the heart of a really tough team to handle. And next to a smooth scoring smart passer like Beal? There's something special there. Again I go back to Jay Wright. But still, any Euro coach would love to have these weapons.

I'm still for Evan Mobley at the top of the draft for this team. But if we get a top 3 pick I have full confidence we will land a player who proves really special on this squad.

[Illuminaire]

So real talk. If you're looking at a top-4 pick, the worst and most Grunfeld thing the Wiz can do is to base that pick off how well he would play with Westbrook.

Russ is here for 2 more years. That's it. He's not the future. He won't be around when the highly touted young draftee hits anything close to his prime. Beal could be, so that' s a fair consideration. But Russ? He's already a problem on the court. Don't let him be a problem on the draft board too.

[doclinkin]

So real talk. If you're looking at a top-4 pick, the worst and most Grunfeld thing the Wiz can do is to base that pick off how well he would play with Westbrook.

Russ is here for 2 more years. That's it. He's not the future. He won't be around when the highly touted young draftee hits anything close to his prime. Beal could be, so that' s a fair consideration. But Russ? He's already a problem on the court. Don't let him be a problem on the draft board too.

The question is about getting value for the pick. This team is likely stuck with Westbrook for those next 2 years. If so, does the player we select develop? Or is their value stunted. You take the best player available, no doubt. The problem is, here, we have long seen young players lose value based on the chemistry mix of the team we have. Here, with Beal and Russ, we would surely see a player fighting for minutes with suppressed value and usage. If we are able to retain 6'3" Beal, is 6'4" Suggs the best player to put next to him? Or would we lose synergy since coaches will choose to play one or the other, while Westbrook is eating up all the minutes and touches at the other spot.

The point of my post was: we would see value more swiftly out of Cade. If there is a real question between which one is better, and they are on the same tier, then absolutely you pick the guy who fits the chemistry of the team at a position of need.

[DCZards]

So real talk. If you're looking at a top-4 pick, the worst and most Grunfeld thing the Wiz can do is to base that pick off how well he would play with Westbrook.

Russ is here for 2 more years. That's it. He's not the future. He won't be around when the highly touted young draftee hits anything close to his prime. Beal could be, so that' s a fair consideration. But Russ? He's already a problem on the court. Don't let him be a problem on the draft board too.

I suspect that you’re preaching to the choir.

[prime1time]

There are so many bad takes in this thread about Cunningham it’s almost laughable. It’s like I’ve entered into a bizarro world where up is and down and down is up. Maybe it’s because it’s April fools day. I really don’t know. But let’s be honest. If you have the chance to take Cunningham you take Cunningham. In 2021 elite shooting is the most important tool a prospect can have. Cunningham is a KD/Harden/Lillard/Irving esque shooter. And he does everything else well. To pass on that would be insane. He already knocks down 3’s consistently off the dribble.

These terrible takes - comparing Cunningham to Rudy Gay or Demar Derozan, saying that Tatum is better - simply do not match reality. If you take Suggs over Cunningham you need to be 100% sure that Suggs can become a good/elite shooter. If you take Mobley over Cunningham you need to be convinced that Mobley can either play the the 5 consistently or develop a consistent jump shot. Regardless from a draft perspective, it simply makes no sense to take the risk.

Any discussion about Cunningham has to be based in the reality that he just shot 40% from 3 on 5.7/5.8 shots from 3 a game and 85% from the ft line. The number of players that can shoot the ball the way Cade does, plus draw ft’s at the rate he does, plus project as a good defender, plus have playmaking abilities and project as being a good a rebounder are so slim. Cunningham projects as a Kevin Durant/James Harden/Damian Lillard esque scorer. The Klay Thompson comparison is also good but Cunningham’s a better natural scorer. Thompson averaged only .9 ft’s a game his freshman year, Cunningham far exceeded that averaging 5.8 ft’s a game. Regardless, how is being compared to Thompson a knock? Dude was part of one of the greatest offenses ever and if he was healthy, GS would be a contender.

Elite shooting is the ultimate difference maker. Any comparison of Cunningham that does not factor in that he is an elite shooter is fundamentally flawed. You take Cunningham at 1 and you don’t look back.

[Dat2U]

Cade is fool's gold. His absolute peak upside is "better passing Klay Thompson."

His most likely impact is in the Rudy Gay/Andrew Wiggins tier of wings. Decent players with long careers who never reach lofty expectations. He's going to disappoint whoever takes him in the top 4.

Save this post and shower it with praise in three years. (Or heap it over my head in shame. : )

The problem with this analysis is it doesn't match the respective skill sets. Problem with Rudy & Andrew was skill. Limited handle and a shaky jumper. Cade is probably a SF but had to play PG for OK State. That tells you his handle is far more advanced than either of those 2. Secondly, he's already projects to be a much better shot maker than those 2, the ft% & 3pt% and volume confirm it. Cade is not an elite athlete with some skill, he's a solid athlete with elite skill, major difference.

Cade will not bust. He's already too skilled for that. It's just a question to me of whether he'll eventually be one of top 5 best players in the league or just a top 30 guy which is still very very good.

[NatP4]

Cunningham really didn’t play PG for Oklahoma state. He rarely brought the ball up the court or initiated offense. He was basically just an isolation wing scorer.

There’s no chance he busts, I don’t see Andrew Wiggins, but comparing him to Kevin Durant or James Harden is obnoxious. He had an 8 game stretch of shooting the lights out from 3, but even that % has been dropping through the last 9 games of the year(35%). He doesn’t finish at the rim against college defenders, he doesn’t have vision/playmaking, his defensive impact is average at best. 46% from 2pt and 109 turnovers to 94 assists is “based in reality”

I see a guy that puts up 20 points per game on 55% TS and is average on D, like Jayson Tatum or Brandon Ingram. Is that a top 30 player?

http://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=cade-cunningham--jayson-tatum

[NatP4]

If Suggs&Mobley are off the board, I’d be fine with Cunningham, but the debate for me atleast, is about Green vs Cunningham, not Cunningham vs Mobley&Suggs. What exactly makes Cunningham a better prospect than Green? Green posted a positive A/TO and shot 53% on 2s against grown men with years of professional/NCAA experience and is a much more explosive athlete.

A trade back from that position would be a much better move.

[Ruzious]

If Suggs&Mobley are off the board, I’d be fine with Cunningham, but the debate for me atleast, is about Green vs Cunningham, not Cunningham vs Mobley&Suggs.

A trade back from that position would be a much better move.

Same here. Cade certainly makes the draft stronger and would be a very fine 3rd pick - but he'd be meh as the 1st pick - which I think he will be - which works fine because we don't need to get the 1st pick to get Mobley. And if we do get #1, we could/should trade down to 2 or 3 to get Mobley.

[prime1time]

Cunningham really didn’t play PG for Oklahoma state. He rarely brought the ball up the court or initiated offense. He was basically just an isolation wing scorer.

There’s no chance he busts, I don’t see Andrew Wiggins, but comparing him to Kevin Durant or James Harden is obnoxious. He had an 8 game stretch of shooting the lights out from 3, but even that % has been dropping through the last 9 games of the year(35%). He doesn’t finish at the rim against college defenders, he doesn’t have vision/playmaking, his defensive impact is average at best. 46% from 2pt and 109 turnovers to 94 assists is “based in reality”

I see a guy that puts up 20 points per game on 55% TS and is average on D, like Jayson Tatum or Brandon Ingram. Is that a top 30 player?

http://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=cade-cunningham--jayson-tatum

I stand by the comparison. To be honest, I really don't care about true shooting percentage. True shooting by itself doesn't tell you much. How does the player get the true-shooting percentage he gets. It something that can easily translate to the NBA or not. The comparison to Harden is apt because Cunningham can make step-back 3's with a level of consistency. The comparison to Kevin Durant in terms of shooting is apt because his shooting numbers are similar to KD's. Look at Cunningham's 3-point shooting and FT shooting.
There are multiple ways to get a high true shooting percentage. Your comparison rings hollow because while Cunningham, Tatum and Ingram are similar players, Cunningham is simply better. He's a vastly better shooter and when he comes into the NBA his ability to make 3's off the dribble will translate. KD's a better player, but the shooting is comparable. Ultimately, your analysis is flawed because it treats Cunningham like he's a finished project.

The truth is that this will just be Cunningham's starting point. Knocking him for his defense is silly. Cunningham has all the tools to be a good defender, it's up to a good coach and a good organization to bring that out. He can guard 1-4 easily and has a wingspan between 7'1 and 7'2. You can knock his vision/playmaking but the reality is that you're not even objective.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=AdamSpinella

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=AdamSpinella
He's a vastly better passer in college than Tatum, Ingram or KD.
https://www.audacy.com/cbssportsradio/sports/ncaa-basketball/osus-cunningham-resembles-magic-or-lebron-big12-coach-says

“He’s like the closest I’ve really kind of seen to like a Magic Johnson or LeBron,” Beard said of Cunningham. “The best thing he does is pass, and then he can score and rebound and do all the other stuff, too. But to me, the ability to pass means you can anticipate, see things, you’re unselfish, you’re just wired right. The best players in the history of our game, they could pass… His passing ability, it’s like you’re out there with Magic or LeBron, if that makes sense... In my opinion, he’s the No. 1 pick and in my opinion, he’s an NBA All-Star one day.”

To be honest, reading your comments, I feel like you very biased against him for some reason. Does he need to improve his passing? Yes. But the reality is that Cunningham failures/turnovers were a result of trying to make the play. This is a big thing that people who focus solely on efficiency can't grasp. If you look at efficiency as a black and white entity, high efficiency is good/low efficiency is bad, than you'll completely miss the larger point. There are players like Cunningham who will have worse than ideal efficiency because they are attempting to make plays. For you, his turnovers are a negative, for me, it's an example of how a player is trying to grow and develop.

I'd much rather a young player fail while trying to make plays than have great efficiency while not even trying. When a young player fails, it's not even failing, it's learning. The problem with Tatum and Ingram is that now when they are 5 years in the league, they are finally starting to try to become playmakers. Needless to say I disagree completely with what you wrote about his playmaking. The reality is that a better shooting, better playmaking version of Jayson Tatum/Brandon Ingram should go first. And I'd argue that when you put Cunningham on a team where he doesn't have to carry a large scoring load, you'll see just how impressive his playmaking is. People who scouted him before college routinely threw out Magic and LBJ comparisons. He's the best player in the draft.

[Dat2U]

If Suggs&Mobley are off the board, I’d be fine with Cunningham, but the debate for me atleast, is about Green vs Cunningham, not Cunningham vs Mobley&Suggs.

A trade back from that position would be a much better move.

Same here. Cade certainly makes the draft stronger and would be a very fine 3rd pick - but he'd be meh as the 1st pick - which I think he will be - which works fine because we don't need to get the 1st pick to get Mobley. And if we do get #1, we could/should trade down to 2 or 3 to get Mobley.

I'd be happy with Cade, either Jalen or Evan. I think you can make a strong case for all 4 being very good players on the NBA level. I would not trade back if we get a top 4 pick. Wouldn't consider it short of trading for a proven young star under contract and even then I probably don't do it.

You draft an all-star quality player... you have him basically guaranteed for the next 7 years at a huge discount. You really shouldn't pass that up unless there's a superstar your getting back on the other end.

Once you get to 5 then I'd consider a trade down depending on what I think of Kuminga and the rest of the class.