2022 Draft Prospects Thread :Bulls get 18th pic: Poll added

[ThisGuyFawkes]

I don’t see Liddell being the right fit. We need length and bounce and mobile defense.

I have to admit though, I’ve never seen it in Liddell. Not as a desirable NBA player anyway. Every time I watched him play at Ohio State I was always left with the “I don’t get it” feeling. But admittedly a big part of that feeling was me “not getting” how he was being so dang effective all the time.

So maybe he’s just one of those guys who looks like he should not be as good as he is, yet always just finds a way to be that good.

I’d probably pass on him. But he’s one of those guys I openly acknowledge I just may not really understand.

I get what you're saying, but I think the kid is just a basketball player. He finds ways to contribute to winning basketball. He'll have a lot of work to do on individual skills like ball handling, but I like his feel for the game. I'm not sure if I like him more than Eason, but I think Liddell will be the best player available at 18.

[sco]

I don’t see Liddell being the right fit. We need length and bounce and mobile defense.

I have to admit though, I’ve never seen it in Liddell. Not as a desirable NBA player anyway. Every time I watched him play at Ohio State I was always left with the “I don’t get it” feeling. But admittedly a big part of that feeling was me “not getting” how he was being so dang effective all the time.

So maybe he’s just one of those guys who looks like he should not be as good as he is, yet always just finds a way to be that good.

I’d probably pass on him. But he’s one of those guys I openly acknowledge I just may not really understand.

I get what you're saying, but I think the kid is just a basketball player. He finds ways to contribute to winning basketball. He'll have a lot of work to do on individual skills like ball handling, but I like his feel for the game. I'm not sure if I like him more than Eason, but I think Liddell will be the best player available at 18.

I'm with you it's all about BPA in the 1st round...you play the hand you're dealt and don't reach for need!

[Dresden]

I don’t see Liddell being the right fit. We need length and bounce and mobile defense.

I have to admit though, I’ve never seen it in Liddell. Not as a desirable NBA player anyway. Every time I watched him play at Ohio State I was always left with the “I don’t get it” feeling. But admittedly a big part of that feeling was me “not getting” how he was being so dang effective all the time.

So maybe he’s just one of those guys who looks like he should not be as good as he is, yet always just finds a way to be that good.

I’d probably pass on him. But he’s one of those guys I openly acknowledge I just may not really understand.

I get what you're saying, but I think the kid is just a basketball player. He finds ways to contribute to winning basketball. He'll have a lot of work to do on individual skills like ball handling, but I like his feel for the game. I'm not sure if I like him more than Eason, but I think Liddell will be the best player available at 18.

I'm with you it's all about BPA in the 1st round...you play the hand you're dealt and don't reach for need!

I think you would be dumb not to reach for need. The question is how far you would reach. Why wouldn't you reach one or two spots to get a player that is exactly what you need, instead of picking a guy that maybe evaluates out as just every so slightly ahead of him, but would cause major duplications? Like drafting Marcus Fizer when we already had Elton Brand.

[sco]

I get what you're saying, but I think the kid is just a basketball player. He finds ways to contribute to winning basketball. He'll have a lot of work to do on individual skills like ball handling, but I like his feel for the game. I'm not sure if I like him more than Eason, but I think Liddell will be the best player available at 18.

I'm with you it's all about BPA in the 1st round...you play the hand you're dealt and don't reach for need!

I think you would be dumb not to reach for need. The question is how far you would reach. Why wouldn't you reach one or two spots to get a player that is exactly what you need, instead of picking a guy that maybe evaluates out as just every so slightly ahead of him, but would cause major duplications? Like drafting Marcus Fizer when we already had Elton Brand.

I trust AKME's drafting acumen later in the draft. That said, I'm a firm believer that needs should be addressed via trades and FA. Taking a guy who isn't the highest on your board to fill a need at your picks rarely works out well. The draft is the only chance you have to hit a home run...sacrifice bunting makes little sense.

[DuckIII]

I'm with you it's all about BPA in the 1st round...you play the hand you're dealt and don't reach for need!

I think you would be dumb not to reach for need. The question is how far you would reach. Why wouldn't you reach one or two spots to get a player that is exactly what you need, instead of picking a guy that maybe evaluates out as just every so slightly ahead of him, but would cause major duplications? Like drafting Marcus Fizer when we already had Elton Brand.

I trust AKME's drafting acumen later in the draft. That said, I'm a firm believer that needs should be addressed via trades and FA. Taking a guy who isn't the highest on your board to fill a need at your picks rarely works out well. The draft is the only chance you have to hit a home run...sacrifice bunting makes little sense.

Teams draft with tiers. Sometimes a tier can only have one player, but that’s how you do it. After the high end of the lottery, need becomes more of a consideration within a tier and you have to balance it.

Point being, I would hate to learn that a GM of my team believed “BPA no matter what!” is a good draft philosophy. It’s more nuanced than that.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

I think you would be dumb not to reach for need. The question is how far you would reach. Why wouldn't you reach one or two spots to get a player that is exactly what you need, instead of picking a guy that maybe evaluates out as just every so slightly ahead of him, but would cause major duplications? Like drafting Marcus Fizer when we already had Elton Brand.

I trust AKME's drafting acumen later in the draft. That said, I'm a firm believer that needs should be addressed via trades and FA. Taking a guy who isn't the highest on your board to fill a need at your picks rarely works out well. The draft is the only chance you have to hit a home run...sacrifice bunting makes little sense.

Teams draft with tiers. Sometimes a tier can only have one player, but that’s how you do it. After the high end of the lottery, need becomes more of a consideration within a tier and you have to balance it.

Point being, I would hate to learn that a GM of my team believed “BPA no matter what!” is a good draft philosophy. It’s more nuanced than that.

Mmm, unfortunately not all the time.

Watch on YouTube

[DuckIII]

True.

[Repeat 3-peat]

Watch on YouTube

[Dresden]

I'm with you it's all about BPA in the 1st round...you play the hand you're dealt and don't reach for need!

I think you would be dumb not to reach for need. The question is how far you would reach. Why wouldn't you reach one or two spots to get a player that is exactly what you need, instead of picking a guy that maybe evaluates out as just every so slightly ahead of him, but would cause major duplications? Like drafting Marcus Fizer when we already had Elton Brand.

I trust AKME's drafting acumen later in the draft. That said, I'm a firm believer that needs should be addressed via trades and FA. Taking a guy who isn't the highest on your board to fill a need at your picks rarely works out well. The draft is the only chance you have to hit a home run...sacrifice bunting makes little sense.

So you wouldn't reach down one spot to get a player who fills an urgent need?

[Repeat 3-peat]

Read on Twitter

[Jvaughn]

Like Patrick Williams? You wont find Giannis and KD guys at our range.

But Giannis was literally drafted in our range. Is it likely that we get a generational talent in that slot? No, but there are great players in every draft selected after the lottery.

2020- Bey, Quickley, Bane
2019- Poole, Bazley, THT
2018- RWiii, Simons, Heuerter
2017-OG, Collins, Allen
2016- Dejounte, Pascal, Levert
2015- Oubre, Tyus, Portis

Just have to be a good enough scout to recognize the talent. There are reasons why teams Toronto, Miami, and San Antonio continually find gems in late round situations.

Drafting Giannis or Jokic is like finding a needle in a haystack. It happens 2 times in a decade. I wouldn’t get my hopes up that the Bulls will find that type of player drafting at 18. They can still get a good player but very unlikely that this guy will be a generational player.

I explicitly stated that it's unlikely we draft a generational talent there. My point was that we can't take that draft position for granted. Very good to great players are found there every year.

[sco]

I think you would be dumb not to reach for need. The question is how far you would reach. Why wouldn't you reach one or two spots to get a player that is exactly what you need, instead of picking a guy that maybe evaluates out as just every so slightly ahead of him, but would cause major duplications? Like drafting Marcus Fizer when we already had Elton Brand.

I trust AKME's drafting acumen later in the draft. That said, I'm a firm believer that needs should be addressed via trades and FA. Taking a guy who isn't the highest on your board to fill a need at your picks rarely works out well. The draft is the only chance you have to hit a home run...sacrifice bunting makes little sense.

So you wouldn't reach down one spot to get a player who fills an urgent need?

Given that 90% of the guys taken at 18 end up being busts, it's "BPA or bust" - literally for me. I would think your chances are better signing some vet on a min deal than what you can realistically expect (vs. hope) to get from #18, in terms of filling need.

[DuckIII]

I trust AKME's drafting acumen later in the draft. That said, I'm a firm believer that needs should be addressed via trades and FA. Taking a guy who isn't the highest on your board to fill a need at your picks rarely works out well. The draft is the only chance you have to hit a home run...sacrifice bunting makes little sense.

So you wouldn't reach down one spot to get a player who fills an urgent need?

Given that 90% of the guys taken at 18 end up being busts, it's "BPA or bust" - literally for me. I would think your chances are better signing some vet on a min deal than what you can realistically expect (vs. hope) to get from #18, in terms of filling need.

Here’s another thing with “BPA or bust!” How often does it actually work? How would we really even know which strategy works the best. For every Bowie-over-Jordan-cuz-Drexler there is probably a Fizer/Brand or Flynn/Rubio.

Or, perhaps most illustrative of the unpredictability, you have Embiid. He was taken as BPA when the Sixers had just drafted Noel, which was great. And then the very next year they took Okafor, which was harmful.

Plus, these are just high lottery examples (where I agree BPA should be the very, very heavily favored strategy). But imagine how many times teams took “need” over BPA later in the draft only to have the need player end up significantly better than the supposedly BPA guy they passed on? Or visa versa?

Much respect to you sco, but if the GM of my team came out and said “I always take BPA no matter what” or “I always draft need no matter what” I would immediately be thinking the team should find a new GM.

No approach should be that rigid. That is why the tiers matter so much, especially later in the draft where we will be picking. I definitely agree though that you don’t *ever* drop down a tier to address need.

Let’s use an example using the upcoming draft with some names some mocks have projected to be in our range. Let’s say the Bulls have Tari Eason (PF) and Kennedy Chandler (PG) in the same tier using a numerical ranking system. And Chandler is one spot above Eason within that tier by a couple of points. Should the Bulls “definitely” take Chandler since he’s technically their BPA?

Ignore the names. I think we all agree Eason is the better prospect. It’s just an illustration.

[sco]

So you wouldn't reach down one spot to get a player who fills an urgent need?

Given that 90% of the guys taken at 18 end up being busts, it's "BPA or bust" - literally for me. I would think your chances are better signing some vet on a min deal than what you can realistically expect (vs. hope) to get from #18, in terms of filling need.

Here’s another thing with “BPA or bust!” How often does it actually work? How would we really even know which strategy works the best. For every Bowie-over-Jordan-cuz-Drexler there is probably a Fizer/Brand or Flynn/Rubio.

Or, perhaps most illustrative of the unpredictability, you have Embiid. He was taken as BPA when the Sixers had just drafted Noel, which was great. And then the very next year they took Okafor, which was harmful.

Plus, these are just high lottery examples (where I agree BPA should be the very, very heavily favored strategy). But imagine how many times teams took “need” over BPA later in the draft only to have the need player end up significantly better than the supposedly BPA guy they passed on? Or visa versa?

Much respect to you sco, but if the GM of my team came out and said “I always take BPA no matter what” or “I always draft need no matter what” I would immediately be thinking the team should find a new GM.

No approach should be that rigid. That is why the tiers matter so much, especially later in the draft where we will be picking. I definitely agree though that you don’t *ever* drop down a tier to address need.

Let’s use an example using the upcoming draft with some names some mocks have projected to be in our range. Let’s say the Bulls have Tari Eason (PF) and Kennedy Chandler (PG) in the same tier using a numerical ranking system. And Chandler is one spot above Williams within that tier by a couple of points. Should the Bulls “definitely” take Chandler since he’s technically their BPA?

Ignore the names. I think we all agree Eason is the better prospect. It’s just an illustration.

I hear you, but I'll stick to my guns. A counter example of where I think what you are noting was the 2019 draft. I'm thinking (but don't know because no GM comes out and says anything about it) we had guys ranked a little higher than Coby, but reached a little to get him and ended up with JAG.

[Wingy]

I just don’t see how an absolutist strategy can work when it comes to the draft. I have a similar post pages ago.

You have to factor in your current team makeup (i.e. - opportunity), and how far apart the players you are considering are.

I mean, if you have a guy you grade at 83 that fills a gaping hole (eg - backup PF/C), but there’s a “better” guy who grades at 84 that will have to sit behind Zach/DeMar/Caruso/Lonzo/Ayo/maybe even Coby/Javonte...you’re really taking that “BPA” over the need guy? If yes...oof.

Now if you’re talking an 86 vs an 81 and the 86 guy slid for no great reason, and you sensed great intangibles in the 86...then heck yeah, go for that guy even if they’re behind a log jam.

It’s a combo of many factors. Read the hand at hand.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

Earlier when I said that I think Liddell will be the BPA at 18, I also think he fills a need for us. Gives us some size, shooting, interior defense, switchability on defense, passing, and front court depth. He's not elite at any of those (except maybe his timing and instinct on shot blocking), but he helps contribute to all of them. He won't be able to guard bigs like Giannis and Embiid, but he's a big body that we can throw at them.

I think he'd be a home run pick.

[R3AL1TY]

It looks like there may be a few guys available at #18 who are better than Liddell IMO. Guys like Agbaji, Eason and Kendall Brown.

[TeamMan]

I'm with you it's all about BPA in the 1st round...you play the hand you're dealt and don't reach for need!

I think you would be dumb not to reach for need. The question is how far you would reach. Why wouldn't you reach one or two spots to get a player that is exactly what you need, instead of picking a guy that maybe evaluates out as just every so slightly ahead of him, but would cause major duplications? Like drafting Marcus Fizer when we already had Elton Brand.

I trust AKME's drafting acumen later in the draft. That said, I'm a firm believer that needs should be addressed via trades and FA. Taking a guy who isn't the highest on your board to fill a need at your picks rarely works out well. The draft is the only chance you have to hit a home run...sacrifice bunting makes little sense.

Totally agree.

A case could be made that Ayo Dosunmu was not the player that the Bulls needed at that draft position.

Instead AKME made the "right decision" and got a player that went to the NBA All Star weekend.

Meanwhile AKME went all out to get the "need players" in free agency.

IMO it's exactly the same strategy that he should follow again this year.

[ghostinthepost1]

Leonard Miller is a super young 6'11 wing with high upside that should be available at 18...

Watch on YouTube

[holv03]

Jalen Duren is the player I want with the 18th pick. He's a very athletic 6'11 player with a 7'5 wingspan. He needs to develop certain parts of his game but shows a lot of promise defensively.