Cade Cunningham

[DCasey91]

Starters:
Joseph
Green (instead of Cade)
Grant
Bey
Stewart

Bench:
Hayes
Mcgruder
Sekou
Jackson
Plumlee

There is some merit for the Pistons here. Lot of youngsters to develop. Not a bad list to work with imo

[buzzkilloton]

Terrible teams dont need to draft for fit. Regardless Cade being a big playmaker that can guard multiple positions he is an amazing fit. Really Cade fits any team in the top four hence why everyone wants to trade up to take him.

Say the Cavs or Rockets who're interested in trading up for the best prospect in Cade made an offer Weaver couldnt refuse, the target would be Mobley.Givony reported that Weaver was esp interested in Mobley already fwiw. Mobley has alot of traits that Weaver likes in players so if we did trade down thats going to be the guy. Green is a nice prospect the next Lavine but Mobley is the next Bosh and a Bosh is much more valuable then a one dimensional scoring guard when the goal is titles.

[NO-KG-AI]

I feel like Cade would be a better fit for Houston as presently constructed and Jalen Green would fit better in Detroit.

DET just took Hayes to be their PG of the future #7 last draft. He can't play off ball. Cade can but that won't be playing to his strength. Taking Cade basically forces Hayes off ball which would be disastrous and prove to the world what a terrible pick he was, or force Cade off ball which will not showcase his abilities and piss him off. I think Cade should be the pick and DET forced to admit they screwed up the Hayes pick and that's likely how it'll go. But I CAN see why DET might decide to trade back and take Mobley or Green.

HOU has a very talented combo guard in KPJ who is actually very capable of playing the role they would take Cade for and also the role Green could provide. But he's a knucklehead and I don't think they can trust him which is why they are trying to trade up for Cade.

As far as roster construction, it DOES matter no matter what stage of a rebuild a team is in. You want to maximize your assets no matter what. It's why DET taking Cade #1 a year after taking Hayes art #7 is a terrible mismanagement of assets. Same goes with Sexton followed by Garland.

Luckily for DET, HOU and CLE, this draft is so good at the top that they are guaranteed to get difference makers that will make fans forget about past mistakes.

If Hayes can’t play off ball, he needs to be dumped. It’s hard to win with only one ballhandler when that ballhandler is a GOAT candidate. You’re really not winning a title if you only can have one guy dominate the ball, and that one guy is Killian Hayes.

[Charm]

Green: 22.9 points, 3.8 assists, 3.4 turnovers per 40
Cade: 22.8 points, 3.9 assists, 4.6 turnovers per 40

[buzzkilloton]

Green: 22.9 points, 3.8 assists, 3.4 turnovers per 40
Cade: 22.8 points, 3.9 assists, 4.6 turnovers per 40

If only we had a huge sample size of prospect data from Gleague to NBA to go by to know how relevant the numbers are for a spot like this. Guys like Henry Ellenson and Sekou look good in the Gleague. I know many guys look good in college and are bad pros as well but we get a bigger sample size on that. Luckily we can look at things like Fiba where Cade vastly outperformed Green to add to our data. Of course most scouts believe that Cades numbers will look better if he played with better spacing and teammates I'm sure you know this by this point of the process.

Hollinger just updated his big board yesterday. Cade 1 and Green 5. He calls Greens Gleague season good but not great fwiw. Calls Green a "developmental pick".

Green's fine a good prospect I'd take him at 3 but if I was 2 or 3 I'd be doing exactly what the 2 and 3 teams are currently doing, trying to trade up for Cade.

[Charm]

Green: 22.9 points, 3.8 assists, 3.4 turnovers per 40
Cade: 22.8 points, 3.9 assists, 4.6 turnovers per 40

If only we had a huge sample size of prospect data from Gleague to NBA to go by to know how relevant the numbers are for a spot like this. Guys like Henry Ellenson and Sekou look good in the Gleague. I know many guys look good in college and are bad pros as well but we get a bigger sample size on that. Luckily we can look at things like Fiba where Cade vastly outperformed Green to add to our data. Of course most scouts believe that Cades numbers will look better if he played with better spacing and teammates I'm sure you know this by this point of the process.

Hollinger just updated his big board yesterday. Cade 1 and Green 5. He calls Greens Gleague season good but not great fwiw. Calls Green a "developmental pick".

Green's fine a good prospect I'd take him at 3 but if I was 2 or 3 I'd be doing exactly what the 2 and 3 teams are currently doing, trying to trade up for Cade.

I'm not super high on either of them, I just think it's funny to call Green a one-dimensional scorer while you laud Cade for his all-around game. They're both good scorers, competent playmakers, and (optimistically) competent defenders.

Also, I think it's generally a bad sign if you're falling back on FIBA stats from two summers ago to back up your point. Like, yeah, Cade had 10 assists in a 50-point win over Latvia in 2019. Do I care? Absolutely not.

[Colbinii]

Green: 22.9 points, 3.8 assists, 3.4 turnovers per 40
Cade: 22.8 points, 3.9 assists, 4.6 turnovers per 40

If only we had a huge sample size of prospect data from Gleague to NBA to go by to know how relevant the numbers are for a spot like this. Guys like Henry Ellenson and Sekou look good in the Gleague. I know many guys look good in college and are bad pros as well but we get a bigger sample size on that. Luckily we can look at things like Fiba where Cade vastly outperformed Green to add to our data. Of course most scouts believe that Cades numbers will look better if he played with better spacing and teammates I'm sure you know this by this point of the process.

Hollinger just updated his big board yesterday. Cade 1 and Green 5. He calls Greens Gleague season good but not great fwiw. Calls Green a "developmental pick".

Green's fine a good prospect I'd take him at 3 but if I was 2 or 3 I'd be doing exactly what the 2 and 3 teams are currently doing, trying to trade up for Cade.

I'm not super high on either of them, I just think it's funny to call Green a one-dimensional scorer while you laud Cade for his all-around game. They're both good scorers, competent playmakers, and (optimistically) competent defenders.

Also, I think it's generally a bad sign if you're falling back on FIBA stats from two summers ago to back up your point. Like, yeah, Cade had 10 assists in a 50-point win over Latvia in 2019. Do I care? Absolutely not.

The thing is, Green hasn't shown a feel for offense in the same way Cade has shown, and it's Cade's ability to control tempo which sets him apart from Green more than anything.

[buzzkilloton]

Green: 22.9 points, 3.8 assists, 3.4 turnovers per 40
Cade: 22.8 points, 3.9 assists, 4.6 turnovers per 40

If only we had a huge sample size of prospect data from Gleague to NBA to go by to know how relevant the numbers are for a spot like this. Guys like Henry Ellenson and Sekou look good in the Gleague. I know many guys look good in college and are bad pros as well but we get a bigger sample size on that. Luckily we can look at things like Fiba where Cade vastly outperformed Green to add to our data. Of course most scouts believe that Cades numbers will look better if he played with better spacing and teammates I'm sure you know this by this point of the process.

Hollinger just updated his big board yesterday. Cade 1 and Green 5. He calls Greens Gleague season good but not great fwiw. Calls Green a "developmental pick".

Green's fine a good prospect I'd take him at 3 but if I was 2 or 3 I'd be doing exactly what the 2 and 3 teams are currently doing, trying to trade up for Cade.

I'm not super high on either of them, I just think it's funny to call Green a one-dimensional scorer while you laud Cade for his all-around game. They're both good scorers, competent playmakers, and (optimistically) competent defenders.

Also, I think it's generally a bad sign if you're falling back on FIBA stats from two summers ago to back up your point. Like, yeah, Cade had 10 assists in a 50-point win over Latvia in 2019. Do I care? Absolutely not.

Fiba is just interesting to use because their on the same team playing same comp and u can see how much more valuable Cade is. Its not like fiba is the dealbreaker of why Cades the consensus 1 guy. Its just adding to the sample size of data. Green played what 15 games only in gleague? You got to look at everything.

[Charm]

If only we had a huge sample size of prospect data from Gleague to NBA to go by to know how relevant the numbers are for a spot like this. Guys like Henry Ellenson and Sekou look good in the Gleague. I know many guys look good in college and are bad pros as well but we get a bigger sample size on that. Luckily we can look at things like Fiba where Cade vastly outperformed Green to add to our data. Of course most scouts believe that Cades numbers will look better if he played with better spacing and teammates I'm sure you know this by this point of the process.

Hollinger just updated his big board yesterday. Cade 1 and Green 5. He calls Greens Gleague season good but not great fwiw. Calls Green a "developmental pick".

Green's fine a good prospect I'd take him at 3 but if I was 2 or 3 I'd be doing exactly what the 2 and 3 teams are currently doing, trying to trade up for Cade.

I'm not super high on either of them, I just think it's funny to call Green a one-dimensional scorer while you laud Cade for his all-around game. They're both good scorers, competent playmakers, and (optimistically) competent defenders.

Also, I think it's generally a bad sign if you're falling back on FIBA stats from two summers ago to back up your point. Like, yeah, Cade had 10 assists in a 50-point win over Latvia in 2019. Do I care? Absolutely not.

The thing is, Green hasn't shown a feel for offense in the same way Cade has shown, and it's Cade's ability to control tempo which sets him apart from Green more than anything.

He's definitely somewhat more ball-dominant than Green...I don't think that gives him some huge edge as a prospect, though. Again, not a huge Green fan, but this is also the first I've heard someone complain about his "feel" on offense.

[Colbinii]

I'm not super high on either of them, I just think it's funny to call Green a one-dimensional scorer while you laud Cade for his all-around game. They're both good scorers, competent playmakers, and (optimistically) competent defenders.

Also, I think it's generally a bad sign if you're falling back on FIBA stats from two summers ago to back up your point. Like, yeah, Cade had 10 assists in a 50-point win over Latvia in 2019. Do I care? Absolutely not.

The thing is, Green hasn't shown a feel for offense in the same way Cade has shown, and it's Cade's ability to control tempo which sets him apart from Green more than anything.

He's definitely somewhat more ball-dominant than Green...I don't think that gives him some huge edge as a prospect, though. Again, not a huge Green fan, but this is also the first I've heard someone complain about his "feel" on offense.

Who is complaining?

I'm saying Cade has a very strong feel, stronger than Green's [Which to me helps seperate Cade from Green].

[Big J]

If only we had a huge sample size of prospect data from Gleague to NBA to go by to know how relevant the numbers are for a spot like this. Guys like Henry Ellenson and Sekou look good in the Gleague. I know many guys look good in college and are bad pros as well but we get a bigger sample size on that. Luckily we can look at things like Fiba where Cade vastly outperformed Green to add to our data. Of course most scouts believe that Cades numbers will look better if he played with better spacing and teammates I'm sure you know this by this point of the process.

Hollinger just updated his big board yesterday. Cade 1 and Green 5. He calls Greens Gleague season good but not great fwiw. Calls Green a "developmental pick".

Green's fine a good prospect I'd take him at 3 but if I was 2 or 3 I'd be doing exactly what the 2 and 3 teams are currently doing, trying to trade up for Cade.

I'm not super high on either of them, I just think it's funny to call Green a one-dimensional scorer while you laud Cade for his all-around game. They're both good scorers, competent playmakers, and (optimistically) competent defenders.

Also, I think it's generally a bad sign if you're falling back on FIBA stats from two summers ago to back up your point. Like, yeah, Cade had 10 assists in a 50-point win over Latvia in 2019. Do I care? Absolutely not.

Fiba is just interesting to use because their on the same team playing same comp and u can see how much more valuable Cade is. Its not like fiba is the dealbreaker of why Cades the consensus 1 guy. Its just adding to the sample size of data. Green played what 15 games only in gleague? You got to look at everything.

Cade has poor athleticism for an NBA athlete. He’s going to be a decent player because he can shoot. But his top end is capped because athleticism is the one skill that cannot be improved on with reps. Green is in the top 1% for athleticism. All of his ancillary skills will get better with reps. He is already a completely different player than when he was doing that FIBA nonsense, so that data is pretty much worthless at this point.

[Yuri Vaultin]

I'm not super high on either of them, I just think it's funny to call Green a one-dimensional scorer while you laud Cade for his all-around game. They're both good scorers, competent playmakers, and (optimistically) competent defenders.

Also, I think it's generally a bad sign if you're falling back on FIBA stats from two summers ago to back up your point. Like, yeah, Cade had 10 assists in a 50-point win over Latvia in 2019. Do I care? Absolutely not.

Fiba is just interesting to use because their on the same team playing same comp and u can see how much more valuable Cade is. Its not like fiba is the dealbreaker of why Cades the consensus 1 guy. Its just adding to the sample size of data. Green played what 15 games only in gleague? You got to look at everything.

Cade has poor athleticism for an NBA athlete. He’s going to be a decent player because he can shoot. But his top end is capped because athleticism is the one skill that cannot be improved on with reps. Green is in the top 1% for athleticism. All of his ancillary skills will get better with reps. He is already a completely different player than when he was doing that FIBA nonsense, so that data is pretty much worthless at this point.

Did you say the same about Doncic and argue in favor of Bagley's athleticism?

[buzzkilloton]

I'm not super high on either of them, I just think it's funny to call Green a one-dimensional scorer while you laud Cade for his all-around game. They're both good scorers, competent playmakers, and (optimistically) competent defenders.

Also, I think it's generally a bad sign if you're falling back on FIBA stats from two summers ago to back up your point. Like, yeah, Cade had 10 assists in a 50-point win over Latvia in 2019. Do I care? Absolutely not.

Fiba is just interesting to use because their on the same team playing same comp and u can see how much more valuable Cade is. Its not like fiba is the dealbreaker of why Cades the consensus 1 guy. Its just adding to the sample size of data. Green played what 15 games only in gleague? You got to look at everything.

Cade has poor athleticism for an NBA athlete. He’s going to be a decent player because he can shoot. But his top end is capped because athleticism is the one skill that cannot be improved on with reps. Green is in the top 1% for athleticism. All of his ancillary skills will get better with reps. He is already a completely different player than when he was doing that FIBA nonsense, so that data is pretty much worthless at this point.

I'm sure you would be saying the same things about Luka,Curry,Harden,Tatum or any other top prospect who doesnt have top 1% athleticism coming out in the draft.

Green has all star potential. Hes just not built like guys like Wade,Kobe, and MJ who're those two way monster SGs that I'd take over guys like Cade or Mobley. I'd take him 3 in this draft but I'm not surprised to see some of the best NBA draft writers having Green down at 5 either.

I think the compelling debate isnt Cade vs Green. Its Mobley vs Green at 2. Even Mobley vs Cade I think has more merit then Green over Cade. Like if Mobley turns into more of a 3 or 4 than a 5 getting better handles and improving his 3pt shot that could be a guy worth taking over Cade. Green isnt a guy I'd take over either Mobley or Cade. Clearly the top of the draft teams arent debating Green over Cade either as they all want to move up to 1 to take Cade.

[Hoopz Afrik]

I feel like Cade would be a better fit for Houston as presently constructed and Jalen Green would fit better in Detroit.

DET just took Hayes to be their PG of the future #7 last draft. He can't play off ball. Cade can but that won't be playing to his strength. Taking Cade basically forces Hayes off ball which would be disastrous and prove to the world what a terrible pick he was, or force Cade off ball which will not showcase his abilities and piss him off. I think Cade should be the pick and DET forced to admit they screwed up the Hayes pick and that's likely how it'll go. But I CAN see why DET might decide to trade back and take Mobley or Green.

HOU has a very talented combo guard in KPJ who is actually very capable of playing the role they would take Cade for and also the role Green could provide. But he's a knucklehead and I don't think they can trust him which is why they are trying to trade up for Cade.

As far as roster construction, it DOES matter no matter what stage of a rebuild a team is in. You want to maximize your assets no matter what. It's why DET taking Cade #1 a year after taking Hayes art #7 is a terrible mismanagement of assets. Same goes with Sexton followed by Garland.

Luckily for DET, HOU and CLE, this draft is so good at the top that they are guaranteed to get difference makers that will make fans forget about past mistakes.

Agreed with this. And like you said, I don't see how it's possible for anyone in the top 3 to "fumble the bag" and botch the pick.

[NO-KG-AI]

Every team drafting in the top 6 should draft bpa because they suck. Drafting for need at the first pick is just plain stupid.

Drafting for need is always a crap shoot, because almost no rookie comes in ready to fill the need that year, so you're basically trying to fill a NOW need with a guy that probably won't be a winning player or contributor on a playoff team for at least a year or two.

Just have to fill out your roster with as much talent as possible and use trades and FA to fill those last needs. You need guys that are ready to contribute at a high level to adequately fill needs, and that's almost always not rookies.

[Laimbeer]

Size is what sets Cade apart. 6'8 220 is much different than 6'5 180 (Green) or 6'4 205 (Suggs). Green and Suggs would need to be much more skilled than Cade to offset that.

[Big J]

Size is what sets Cade apart. 6'8 220 is much different than 6'5 180 (Green) or 6'4 205 (Suggs). Green and Suggs would need to be much more skilled than Cade to offset that.

Green's athleticism more than offsets the size difference. Cade can't separate from defenders and is going to need to make a lot of tough shots. Will he be able to do that in the league? I have my doubts. Green will be getting wide open looks from his separation. He's got Iverson level quickness and VC hops.

[hoophabit]

Size is what sets Cade apart. 6'8 220 is much different than 6'5 180 (Green) or 6'4 205 (Suggs). Green and Suggs would need to be much more skilled than Cade to offset that.

Green's athleticism more than offsets the size difference. Cade can't separate from defenders and is going to need to make a lot of tough shots. Will he be able to do that in the league? I have my doubts. Green will be getting wide open looks from his separation. He's got Iverson level quickness and VC hops.

I won't argue about Green possessing exceptional athleticism, but "Cade can't separate" has no basis in fact. He plays the change of speed, herky jerky, step back game to a tee. further, that action will help him shoot a lot of FTs. People are overplaying Cade's "poor athleticism."

[Marcus]

the rookie thread should be fun this year

[tmorgan]

It’s pretty much a done deal at this point. Those that (rightly) see Cade’s lack of explosiveness as a detriment to his future performance have made their points. I understand the doubt. Just remember how many truly elite players there have been that weren’t in any way exceptional athletes in terms of speed, leaping, and quickness. Starting with Bird… and Magic.

Feel for the game, vision. change of pace, posting up smaller guards, these are all real things. Cade does them. I honestly don’t know how Cade’s NBA career will unfold, as he’s a fairly unique player. But he’s definitely worthy of the top pick for a team like Detroit.