Official 2021 NBA Draft Thread Part 2

[RookieStar]

I'm not even considering Kispert with our picks. I don't see it. Pick up a late first and snag Duarte instead. Kispert might be Joe Harris. He might be Luke Kennard. How valuable are these guys? Due to his size, I don't think he will flame out as so many other one-dimensional players do, but I think he will always be a liability at the defensive end and I don't think his shooting makes up for his deficiencies. He isn't a dynamic offensive player. He isn't a creator. He is just a shooter. He did what you expect a 22 year old to do against younger opponents.

He'll probably get into an NBA rotation earlier than a lot of other guys in his draft and so he will be proclaimed a success, but I just don't see much upside here. I'd be very interested in him if I were running the Lakers or 76ers, but he doesn't make sense for us. We have the playing time available to develop talent and build value. We don't have to draft someone that can slot in and fill an immediate need.

Just curious, despite JJ being only 6'4 with average/short wingspan, he became a good quality NBA player. He worked on his D when he was with us.

Why couldnt Kispert do the same? Like grind and work on his D like JJ? He probably has better tools already cuz he is taller than JJ for his spot.

There just doesn’t seem to be enough high upside potential in him. Even JJ at his ceiling was less impact than you’d hope for from an asset as valuable as a top 10 pick. Still a great and valuable player, but a commodity which has been moving around the league a lot lately, and often cheaply. Fournier was just moved for a couple of 2nd round picks and cap space, for example.

Maybe I’m wrong and he can become a new gen Klay alongside a new gen Curry, but I’d rather take a punt on someone with elite playmaking and creation skills with room to improve scoring efficiency than someone with great efficiency but much less potential to become a creator. At this point in our rebuild, anyway.

There’s always a balance to be struck. We don’t want too many raw prospects like Hampton, and guys like Ingles/Harris/Robinson/JJ are good stabilisers on the court and in a locker room. Just have to make sure we don’t overpay for them with our best assets at this point in the rebuild.

picks 1-8 yeah cant imagine Kispert there unless he wows the interview workouts measurements and test. But I think 9 and below is a good pick for him... especially with the skillset he bringa which we are lacking and desperate for

[Xatticus]

Kispert is 22. what is wrong with his age and our timeline?

I'm not even considering Kispert with our picks. I don't see it. Pick up a late first and snag Duarte instead. Kispert might be Joe Harris. He might be Luke Kennard. How valuable are these guys? Due to his size, I don't think he will flame out as so many other one-dimensional players do, but I think he will always be a liability at the defensive end and I don't think his shooting makes up for his deficiencies. He isn't a dynamic offensive player. He isn't a creator. He is just a shooter. He did what you expect a 22 year old to do against younger opponents.

He'll probably get into an NBA rotation earlier than a lot of other guys in his draft and so he will be proclaimed a success, but I just don't see much upside here. I'd be very interested in him if I were running the Lakers or 76ers, but he doesn't make sense for us. We have the playing time available to develop talent and build value. We don't have to draft someone that can slot in and fill an immediate need.

Just curious, despite JJ being only 6'4 with average/short wingspan, he became a good quality NBA player. He worked on his D when he was with us.

Why couldnt Kispert do the same? Like grind and work on his D like JJ? He probably has better tools already cuz he is taller than JJ for his spot.

He could. He could make a lot of money. That doesn't change the upside.

Being a productive player is different from being a good player. Having a tool set that makes you useful in a particular situation has some value, but we are talking about what a player is capable of and the upside isn't there with him.

He'll be able to defend in a team setting, but he'll never be switchable or someone you can throw at an elite wing. He could develop into a passable defender, but he will never provide value at that end. More than likely he will be someone you have to hide or keep off the floor in crunch time. He is just a catch-and-shoot guy at the offensive end. This archetype is going to be available much later in the draft. I wouldn't use a lot of draft capital on that player. Again, Duarte is going to be available much later.

I'd try to convince Mathurin to stay in the draft and pick up a late first to give him a guarantee as incentive. He will probably go back to school and become a lottery prospect next year. He wasn't heralded coming out of high school, but he can clearly shoot, attack a closeout, and he has more defensive upside. Why spend more draft capital to get an inferior talent? The goal in scouting should be to identify and acquire talent before it manifests for everyone to see.

I'm not saying Kispert is going to be terrible. I just think we can do much better with our picks given where they will land.

It's actually funny hearing Jeff Turner bitch about the upside of guys that spend four years in college. This is almost certainly because he was one of those guys. The irony here is that he serves as a perfect example of why you don't waste draft capital on prospects with limited upside.

[RookieStar]

I'm not even considering Kispert with our picks. I don't see it. Pick up a late first and snag Duarte instead. Kispert might be Joe Harris. He might be Luke Kennard. How valuable are these guys? Due to his size, I don't think he will flame out as so many other one-dimensional players do, but I think he will always be a liability at the defensive end and I don't think his shooting makes up for his deficiencies. He isn't a dynamic offensive player. He isn't a creator. He is just a shooter. He did what you expect a 22 year old to do against younger opponents.

He'll probably get into an NBA rotation earlier than a lot of other guys in his draft and so he will be proclaimed a success, but I just don't see much upside here. I'd be very interested in him if I were running the Lakers or 76ers, but he doesn't make sense for us. We have the playing time available to develop talent and build value. We don't have to draft someone that can slot in and fill an immediate need.

Just curious, despite JJ being only 6'4 with average/short wingspan, he became a good quality NBA player. He worked on his D when he was with us.

Why couldnt Kispert do the same? Like grind and work on his D like JJ? He probably has better tools already cuz he is taller than JJ for his spot.

He could. He could make a lot of money. That doesn't change the upside.

Being a productive player is different from being a good player. Having a tool set that makes you useful in a particular situation has some value, but we are talking about what a player is capable of and the upside isn't there with him.

He'll be able to defend in a team setting, but he'll never be switchable or someone you can throw at an elite wing. He could develop into a passable defender, but he will never provide value at that end. More than likely he will be someone you have to hide or keep off the floor in crunch time. He is just a catch-and-shoot guy at the offensive end. This archetype is going to be available much later in the draft. I wouldn't use a lot of draft capital on that player. Again, Duarte is going to be available much later.

I'd try to convince Mathurin to stay in the draft and pick up a late first to give him a guarantee as incentive. He will probably go back to school and become a lottery prospect next year. He wasn't heralded coming out of high school, but he can clearly shoot, attack a closeout, and he has more defensive upside. Why spend more draft capital to get an inferior talent? The goal in scouting should be to identify and acquire talent before it manifests for everyone to see.

I'm not saying Kispert is going to be terrible. I just think we can do much better with our picks given where they will land.

It's actually funny hearing Jeff Turner bitch about the upside of guys that spend four years in college. This is almost certainly because he was one of those guys. The irony here is that he serves as a perfect example of why you don't waste draft capital on prospects with limited upside.

Thats the thing.. we dont know where our picks will land. Persobally I think its in the 10-14 range and until the combine meausrements come I think the SFs of the draft like Wagner Jalen Zaire Kispert belongs there. So i kinda agree in the sense that picking him anywhere in the 1-9 range is insane.

Kispert to me has that elite skillset which is shooting esp from the 3pt range coupled with the height at his position... and unless in the combine shows that he really has no athleticism to get shots off or slide into D then I think his advertised ceiling can justify his draft range.

[GelbeWand09]

Just curious, despite JJ being only 6'4 with average/short wingspan, he became a good quality NBA player. He worked on his D when he was with us.

Why couldnt Kispert do the same? Like grind and work on his D like JJ? He probably has better tools already cuz he is taller than JJ for his spot.

He could. He could make a lot of money. That doesn't change the upside.

Being a productive player is different from being a good player. Having a tool set that makes you useful in a particular situation has some value, but we are talking about what a player is capable of and the upside isn't there with him.

He'll be able to defend in a team setting, but he'll never be switchable or someone you can throw at an elite wing. He could develop into a passable defender, but he will never provide value at that end. More than likely he will be someone you have to hide or keep off the floor in crunch time. He is just a catch-and-shoot guy at the offensive end. This archetype is going to be available much later in the draft. I wouldn't use a lot of draft capital on that player. Again, Duarte is going to be available much later.

I'd try to convince Mathurin to stay in the draft and pick up a late first to give him a guarantee as incentive. He will probably go back to school and become a lottery prospect next year. He wasn't heralded coming out of high school, but he can clearly shoot, attack a closeout, and he has more defensive upside. Why spend more draft capital to get an inferior talent? The goal in scouting should be to identify and acquire talent before it manifests for everyone to see.

I'm not saying Kispert is going to be terrible. I just think we can do much better with our picks given where they will land.

It's actually funny hearing Jeff Turner bitch about the upside of guys that spend four years in college. This is almost certainly because he was one of those guys. The irony here is that he serves as a perfect example of why you don't waste draft capital on prospects with limited upside.

Thats the thing.. we dont know where our picks will land. Persobally I think its in the 10-14 range and until the combine meausrements come I think the SFs of the draft like Wagner Jalen Zaire Kispert belongs there. So i kinda agree in the sense that picking him anywhere in the 1-9 range is insane.

Kispert to me has that elite skillset which is shooting esp from the 3pt range coupled with the height at his position... and unless in the combine shows that he really has no athleticism to get shots off or slide into D then I think his advertised ceiling can justify his draft range.

JJ was a liability too in most of his PO runs & he had much better off ball movement than Kispert. Miami would have loved to trade Robinson for value this trade deadline. He is gonna be too expensive for what he brings too when they have to pay him soon. Harris only had such value, because of the buildup of those Nets teams, with tons of iso scorers. First Russell, LeVert & Dinwiddie & now the big 3. Shamet is traded every season, despite his shooting....
Players like him have value but in our situation, at the beginning of a 2-3 year long rebuild at least, i dont see it.

+ I dont care for his combine numbers at all. Combine open gym athletic, has nothing to do with in game athletics. The Zellers would be the most athletic bigs in the NBA, when you go after those stuff. We seen how his athletic abilities looked in game & against athletic teams.

[RookieStar]

First off.. he was a liability his first few years with us BUT after? He was useful and productive.

In NCAA yes JJ looked more fluid because that was Dukes ganeplan. If you cant drop it to the landlord, make sure all other guys screen, bump scream just yo get JJ open. Sadly that isnt how GON play so we really do not know how quick Kispert can be. Thats why I keep repeating I cant wait to measure and test them.

But as you say we are rebuilding, a 22 year old rookie would be perfect when he is 25 and we are ready to challenge the top teams in the east no? IF he really does put in the work like JJ and have the same development curve, then him hitting his prime is just when we are ready to compete seriously.

[RookieStar]

He could. He could make a lot of money. That doesn't change the upside.

Being a productive player is different from being a good player. Having a tool set that makes you useful in a particular situation has some value, but we are talking about what a player is capable of and the upside isn't there with him.

He'll be able to defend in a team setting, but he'll never be switchable or someone you can throw at an elite wing. He could develop into a passable defender, but he will never provide value at that end. More than likely he will be someone you have to hide or keep off the floor in crunch time. He is just a catch-and-shoot guy at the offensive end. This archetype is going to be available much later in the draft. I wouldn't use a lot of draft capital on that player. Again, Duarte is going to be available much later.

I'd try to convince Mathurin to stay in the draft and pick up a late first to give him a guarantee as incentive. He will probably go back to school and become a lottery prospect next year. He wasn't heralded coming out of high school, but he can clearly shoot, attack a closeout, and he has more defensive upside. Why spend more draft capital to get an inferior talent? The goal in scouting should be to identify and acquire talent before it manifests for everyone to see.

I'm not saying Kispert is going to be terrible. I just think we can do much better with our picks given where they will land.

It's actually funny hearing Jeff Turner bitch about the upside of guys that spend four years in college. This is almost certainly because he was one of those guys. The irony here is that he serves as a perfect example of why you don't waste draft capital on prospects with limited upside.

Thats the thing.. we dont know where our picks will land. Persobally I think its in the 10-14 range and until the combine meausrements come I think the SFs of the draft like Wagner Jalen Zaire Kispert belongs there. So i kinda agree in the sense that picking him anywhere in the 1-9 range is insane.

Kispert to me has that elite skillset which is shooting esp from the 3pt range coupled with the height at his position... and unless in the combine shows that he really has no athleticism to get shots off or slide into D then I think his advertised ceiling can justify his draft range.

JJ was a liability too in most of his PO runs & he had much better off ball movement than Kispert. Miami would have loved to trade Robinson for value this trade deadline. He is gonna be too expensive for what he brings too when they have to pay him soon. Harris only had such value, because of the buildup of those Nets teams, with tons of iso scorers. First Russell, LeVert & Dinwiddie & now the big 3. Shamet is traded every season, despite his shooting....
Players like him have value but in our situation, at the beginning of a 2-3 year long rebuild at least, i dont see it.

+ I dont care for his combine numbers at all. Combine open gym athletic, has nothing to do with in game athletics. The Zellers would be the most athletic bigs in the NBA, when you go after those stuff. We seen how his athletic abilities looked in game & against athletic teams.

Wait a min... isnt the problem with Kispert is that people see him as a slow unathletic shooter only? But in the combine ( extreme example) it shows that he really can sprint as fast as Usain Bolt, jump as high as Vince and can move as quick as Isaac it wont change the perception of people? And you combine that with his elite skillset which is shooting?

disclaimer : I am.not rooting for Kispert against the other SF. What I am saying is that picking him with our pick if it goes 9-14 isnt the end of the world but in fact an understandble choice.

[GelbeWand09]

Thats the thing.. we dont know where our picks will land. Persobally I think its in the 10-14 range and until the combine meausrements come I think the SFs of the draft like Wagner Jalen Zaire Kispert belongs there. So i kinda agree in the sense that picking him anywhere in the 1-9 range is insane.

Kispert to me has that elite skillset which is shooting esp from the 3pt range coupled with the height at his position... and unless in the combine shows that he really has no athleticism to get shots off or slide into D then I think his advertised ceiling can justify his draft range.

JJ was a liability too in most of his PO runs & he had much better off ball movement than Kispert. Miami would have loved to trade Robinson for value this trade deadline. He is gonna be too expensive for what he brings too when they have to pay him soon. Harris only had such value, because of the buildup of those Nets teams, with tons of iso scorers. First Russell, LeVert & Dinwiddie & now the big 3. Shamet is traded every season, despite his shooting....
Players like him have value but in our situation, at the beginning of a 2-3 year long rebuild at least, i dont see it.

+ I dont care for his combine numbers at all. Combine open gym athletic, has nothing to do with in game athletics. The Zellers would be the most athletic bigs in the NBA, when you go after those stuff. We seen how his athletic abilities looked in game & against athletic teams.

Wait a min... isnt the problem with Kispert is that people see him as a slow unathletic shooter only? But in the combine ( extreme example) it shows that he really can sprint as fast as Usain Bolt, jump as high as Vince and can move as quick as Isaac it wont change the perception of people? And you combine that with his elite skillset which is shooting?

disclaimer : I am.not rooting for Kispert against the other SF. What I am saying is that picking him with our pick if it goes 9-14 isnt the end of the world but in fact an understandble choice.

No. I mean there is a chance he looks better than expected at the combine, but that doesnt change anything for me because we seen him in game. Many players have good combine numbers but cant translate that on the court, because its totally different.
I have nothing against him & he probably gonna have a long career, but i dont draft him that high. Players like him, just doesnt have much impact, because of there weaknesses. To go away from the white stereotype. Hield is one of the best one dimensional high volume 3P shootets in the leaque for a long time & even he doesnt move the needle.
2nd You can find those guys like def. Centers in almost every draft at the end of the 1st round or even the 2nd round. Reason i wont draft def. Center or one dimensional shooters in the lottery.
People wanted to draft Nesmith with the same arguments in the lottery & he projected even as a better defender but he looks pretty bad too so far.

[pepe1991]

Sometimes you just should take specialist ... It's no secret that Joe Harris is way more valuable player than Ben McLemore despite Mclemore having much better physical profile.
If you think xy player fits need of modern basketball in a role that is suited for him better than outside shot at "star" who might just as easly be washed without single defined nba skill other than being faster than college kids, maybe you should take first profile of player ahead.

This is like Marqueese Chriss- Sabonis thing. Chriss had amazing athletic profile, comparable to Amare Stoudemire, Sabonis was "ground" player but way more skilled. One turned into allstar, other in dust.

[GelbeWand09]

Sometimes you just should take specialist ... It's no secret that Joe Harris is way more valuable player than Ben McLemore despite Mclemore having much better physical profile.
If you think xy player fits need of modern basketball in a role that is suited for him better than outside shot at "star" who might just as easly be washed without single defined nba skill other than being faster than college kids, maybe you should take first profile of player ahead.

This is like Marqueese Chriss- Sabonis thing. Chriss had amazing athletic profile, comparable to Amare Stoudemire, Sabonis was "ground" player but way more skilled. One turned into allstar, other in dust.

But thats not what i said I doesnt say draft the raw athlete. I said doesnt draft the one dimensional shooter, who projects as a bad defender.
Despite the importance of shooting in todays NBA, most of those one dimensional shooters, without playmaking or defense, are the same journeyman they were 10 or 20 years ago. If you draft him in the lottery, he needs to have 3 & D potential or playmaking skills like Bogdan for me.

[pepe1991]

Sometimes you just should take specialist ... It's no secret that Joe Harris is way more valuable player than Ben McLemore despite Mclemore having much better physical profile.
If you think xy player fits need of modern basketball in a role that is suited for him better than outside shot at "star" who might just as easly be washed without single defined nba skill other than being faster than college kids, maybe you should take first profile of player ahead.

This is like Marqueese Chriss- Sabonis thing. Chriss had amazing athletic profile, comparable to Amare Stoudemire, Sabonis was "ground" player but way more skilled. One turned into allstar, other in dust.

But thats not what i said I doesnt say draft the raw athlete. I said doesnt draft the one dimensional shooter, who projects as a bad defender.
Despite the importance of shooting in todays NBA, most of those one dimensional shooters, without playmaking or defense, are the same journeyman there were 10 or 20 years ago. If you draft him in the lottery, he needs to have 3 & D potential or playmaking skills like Bogdan for me.

Tbh i find this draft terrible outside Cade, and some outside shot that Mobley, Suggs,Green can have some few time allstar- potentials.
But once you move away from projected top 4-5 players, rest of a lottery is some of worst prospects i have seen in years, projected to be picked in lottery. Johnny Juzang is lottery pick in same mocks... Same profile of player could just as easly go undrafted and i wouldn't be shocked.

[RookieStar]

JJ was a liability too in most of his PO runs & he had much better off ball movement than Kispert. Miami would have loved to trade Robinson for value this trade deadline. He is gonna be too expensive for what he brings too when they have to pay him soon. Harris only had such value, because of the buildup of those Nets teams, with tons of iso scorers. First Russell, LeVert & Dinwiddie & now the big 3. Shamet is traded every season, despite his shooting....
Players like him have value but in our situation, at the beginning of a 2-3 year long rebuild at least, i dont see it.

+ I dont care for his combine numbers at all. Combine open gym athletic, has nothing to do with in game athletics. The Zellers would be the most athletic bigs in the NBA, when you go after those stuff. We seen how his athletic abilities looked in game & against athletic teams.

Wait a min... isnt the problem with Kispert is that people see him as a slow unathletic shooter only? But in the combine ( extreme example) it shows that he really can sprint as fast as Usain Bolt, jump as high as Vince and can move as quick as Isaac it wont change the perception of people? And you combine that with his elite skillset which is shooting?

disclaimer : I am.not rooting for Kispert against the other SF. What I am saying is that picking him with our pick if it goes 9-14 isnt the end of the world but in fact an understandble choice.

No. I mean there is a chance he looks better than expected at the combine, but that doesnt change anything for me because we seen him in game. Many players have good combine numbers but cant translate that on the court, because its totally different.
I have nothing against him & he probably gonna have a long career, but i dont draft him that high. Players like him, just doesnt have much impact, because of there weaknesses. To go away from the white stereotype. Hield is one of the best one dimensional high volume 3P shootets in the leaque for a long time & even he doesnt move the needle.
2nd You can find those guys like def. Centers in almost every draft at the end of the 1st round or even the 2nd round. Reason i wont draft def. Center or one dimensional shooters in the lottery.
People wanted to draft Nesmith with the same arguments in the lottery & he projected even as a better defender but he looks pretty bad too so far.

Fair enough. I respect your viewpoint as to why we shouldnt draft Kispert if our pick lands in the 9-14 range.

Even though i disagree with both " we can find someone like kispert in the 2nd " - 6'7 sg/sf lights out 3 point shooter? I mean there is huff, hurt and other bigs that is around 6'8 above but they are bigs not wings. And of course the part about we saw him.play. Yeah they were a few stinkers esp for me the final games but the majority? It showed why he is an offensive threat from anywhere in the court and he delivers. Which i prefer rather than defensive players being taught shooting.

[Xatticus]

Wait a min... isnt the problem with Kispert is that people see him as a slow unathletic shooter only? But in the combine ( extreme example) it shows that he really can sprint as fast as Usain Bolt, jump as high as Vince and can move as quick as Isaac it wont change the perception of people? And you combine that with his elite skillset which is shooting?

disclaimer : I am.not rooting for Kispert against the other SF. What I am saying is that picking him with our pick if it goes 9-14 isnt the end of the world but in fact an understandble choice.

No. I mean there is a chance he looks better than expected at the combine, but that doesnt change anything for me because we seen him in game. Many players have good combine numbers but cant translate that on the court, because its totally different.
I have nothing against him & he probably gonna have a long career, but i dont draft him that high. Players like him, just doesnt have much impact, because of there weaknesses. To go away from the white stereotype. Hield is one of the best one dimensional high volume 3P shootets in the leaque for a long time & even he doesnt move the needle.
2nd You can find those guys like def. Centers in almost every draft at the end of the 1st round or even the 2nd round. Reason i wont draft def. Center or one dimensional shooters in the lottery.
People wanted to draft Nesmith with the same arguments in the lottery & he projected even as a better defender but he looks pretty bad too so far.

Fair enough. I respect your viewpoint as to why we shouldnt draft Kispert if our pick lands in the 9-14 range.

Even though i disagree with both " we can find someone like kispert in the 2nd " - 6'7 sg/sf lights out 3 point shooter? I mean there is huff, hurt and other bigs that is around 6'8 above but they are bigs not wings. And of course the part about we saw him.play. Yeah they were a few stinkers esp for me the final games but the majority? It showed why he is an offensive threat from anywhere in the court and he delivers. Which i prefer rather than defensive players being taught shooting.

Let me put it this way... would you rather draft Kispert with a lottery pick this year or would you rather have drafted him in the 2nd round last year? He didn't enter the draft then, I know. Had he entered the draft at that point, he probably goes undrafted. It's the same guy... yes? There is a development curve at play here and I'm arguing that Kispert is overvalued at this point because he is further along his developmental curve and because Gonzaga's undefeated season garnered so much attention.

Players tend to enter the draft once they are guaranteed to go in the first round. Some enter without such assurances while others may wait an extra year for some reason or another. You can look at so many terrific NBA players and see how many of them didn't stand out early in their collegiate careers. The value in scouting is in identifying which prospects are destined to become NBA quality players. There is significant value in figuring this out before your competition.

[RookieStar]

No. I mean there is a chance he looks better than expected at the combine, but that doesnt change anything for me because we seen him in game. Many players have good combine numbers but cant translate that on the court, because its totally different.
I have nothing against him & he probably gonna have a long career, but i dont draft him that high. Players like him, just doesnt have much impact, because of there weaknesses. To go away from the white stereotype. Hield is one of the best one dimensional high volume 3P shootets in the leaque for a long time & even he doesnt move the needle.
2nd You can find those guys like def. Centers in almost every draft at the end of the 1st round or even the 2nd round. Reason i wont draft def. Center or one dimensional shooters in the lottery.
People wanted to draft Nesmith with the same arguments in the lottery & he projected even as a better defender but he looks pretty bad too so far.

Fair enough. I respect your viewpoint as to why we shouldnt draft Kispert if our pick lands in the 9-14 range.

Even though i disagree with both " we can find someone like kispert in the 2nd " - 6'7 sg/sf lights out 3 point shooter? I mean there is huff, hurt and other bigs that is around 6'8 above but they are bigs not wings. And of course the part about we saw him.play. Yeah they were a few stinkers esp for me the final games but the majority? It showed why he is an offensive threat from anywhere in the court and he delivers. Which i prefer rather than defensive players being taught shooting.

Let me put it this way... would you rather draft Kispert with a lottery pick this year or would you rather have drafted him in the 2nd round last year? He didn't enter the draft then, I know. Had he entered the draft at that point, he probably goes undrafted. It's the same guy... yes? There is a development curve at play here and I'm arguing that Kispert is overvalued at this point because he is further along his developmental curve and because Gonzaga's undefeated season garnered so much attention.

Players tend to enter the draft once they are guaranteed to go in the first round. Some enter without such assurances while others may wait an extra year for some reason or another. You can look at so many terrific NBA players and see how many of them didn't stand out early in their collegiate careers. The value in scouting is in identifying which prospects are destined to become NBA quality players. There is significant value in figuring this out before your competition.

If you are tellig me that Kispert is/was available at the 2nd round last draft ( cole's draft ) , a draft where a lot said it was pretty meh.. then of course I would have taken him then. Same answer if you tell me that Bouknight was available late 1st round last draft over lotto draft this year.

[tiderulz]

Sometimes you just should take specialist ... It's no secret that Joe Harris is way more valuable player than Ben McLemore despite Mclemore having much better physical profile.
If you think xy player fits need of modern basketball in a role that is suited for him better than outside shot at "star" who might just as easly be washed without single defined nba skill other than being faster than college kids, maybe you should take first profile of player ahead.

This is like Marqueese Chriss- Sabonis thing. Chriss had amazing athletic profile, comparable to Amare Stoudemire, Sabonis was "ground" player but way more skilled. One turned into allstar, other in dust.

But thats not what i said I doesnt say draft the raw athlete. I said doesnt draft the one dimensional shooter, who projects as a bad defender.
Despite the importance of shooting in todays NBA, most of those one dimensional shooters, without playmaking or defense, are the same journeyman they were 10 or 20 years ago. If you draft him in the lottery, he needs to have 3 & D potential or playmaking skills like Bogdan for me.

except everything ive seen says Kispert does not project as a bad defender.

[VFX]

Ideally you don’t want to spend lotto picks on role players with a potentially low ceiling. However, Orlando can’t be beggars if a player like Kispert provides everything they lack on the roster top to bottom. The current stash of wings and guards can’t stretch the floor reliably, or are stopgaps like Bacon and Ennis.

The question becomes; is Kispert a better selection than
Moody, Bouknight, Wagner, and Zaire Williams in terms of upside and skill set? Probably yes in most cases if he’s on the board with Chicago’s pick and Orlando isn’t looking to add another point guard or big man. The bigger question with Kispert is can he guard forwards in the nba? Probably.

[VFX]

Nightmare scenario: Bulls jump Orlando in the draft lotto. Orlando picks 5th with Mobley still left on the board.

[Creativetran]

Nightmare scenario: Bulls jump Orlando in the draft lotto. Orlando picks 5th with Mobley still left on the board.

With the luck of our rebuilds that is the most likely outcome.

[Nyce_1]

Nightmare scenario: Bulls jump Orlando in the draft lotto. Orlando picks 5th with Mobley still left on the board.

Getting Mobley, arguably the #1/2 prospect this draft, at #5 is hardly a nightmare.

[Blue_and_Whte]

I worry about kisperts age aligning with out timeline but he’d be solid pick at 10.
And Giddey....I just worry about the comp he played with and against.

Kispert is 22. what is wrong with his age and our timeline?

It’s probably not a big deal In reality just seems they would go with a younger prospect with a high ceiling instead of a high floor. Like I said he’d be a great pick depending on where the bulls pick falls

[Blue_and_Whte]

Nightmare scenario: Bulls jump Orlando in the draft lotto. Orlando picks 5th with Mobley still left on the board.

Getting Mobley, arguably the #1/2 prospect this draft, at #5 is hardly a nightmare.

In no capacity Would that be a “nightmare”