2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[mg]

complaining about a 6'7" wing not having enough spacing is silly, because he was the primary reason duke had crappy spacing. if you're a wing whose primary skill is volume scoring, ya gotta be able to shoot.

givony has compared barrett to harden, which is such a dumb comparison because harden's game is almost entirely predicated on his outside shot being a gigantic threat!

Givony and Schmitz's evals don't hit like they used to. Maybe they've stayed the same while draft analysis has advanced a bit. Not sure. Stuff like this drives me crazy though.

I agree Givony has gone downhill since he joined ESPN.
Take a listen to the Dunc'd On podcast and their deep dive of Barrett which I believe is more accurate. Personally I take a hard pass on RJ but the Bulls won't have to make the decision on him anyway.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

complaining about a 6'7" wing not having enough spacing is silly, because he was the primary reason duke had crappy spacing. if you're a wing whose primary skill is volume scoring, ya gotta be able to shoot.

givony has compared barrett to harden, which is such a dumb comparison because harden's game is almost entirely predicated on his outside shot being a gigantic threat!

Givony and Schmitz's evals don't hit like they used to. Maybe they've stayed the same while draft analysis has advanced a bit. Not sure. Stuff like this drives me crazy though.

I agree Givony has gone downhill since he joined ESPN.
Take a listen to the Dunc'd On podcast and their deep dive of Barrett which I believe is more accurate. Personally I take a hard pass on RJ but the Bulls won't have to make the decision on him anyway.

I love Dunc'd On and yeah -- that was the most detailed (and damning) breakdown of Barrett's game I've come across.

[taj2133]

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

[taj2133]

Read on Twitter

/video/1

[Chi town]

I agree with you. All I'm saying is that the 2/3 positions could get crowded (the backups in particular).

If we go Hunter Lauri will probably play a lot of backup C.

If we go culver Zach will probably play some PG.

Hunter
Otto 32 Hunter 10
Lauri 16 Hunter 16 Hutch 16
WCJ 32 Lauri 16

Culver
PG 32 Zach 10
Zach 24 Culver 12 Val 12
Otto 32 Culver 10 Val 10
Lauri 24 Culver 6 Hutch 18

And then the Bulls sign a PG in free agency?

Ideally Brogdon. Collison or Beverley as backup plans.

[Dan Z]

Hutchison and Valentine haven't shown anything that would guarantee them a spot in the rotation. Everything is up for grabs except the starting 2-5.

I agree with you. All I'm saying is that the 2/3 positions could get crowded (the backups in particular).

Denzel Valentine and Chandler Hutchison are absolutely meaningless players in terms of being concerned about minutes. Neither has been a good player in the league and neither has any special skills or abilities. Sure either or both could become solid players, maybe even role playing starters one day for a team in the right circumstances, but if neither ever plays another NBA minute cause better players/prospects jumped ahead of them, no one should bat an eye.

Denzel showed improvement from year 1 to 2. DanTown8587 explains it better in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1840332&start=100

I'm not saying I have high hopes for Denzel (I don't), but it's possible that he improves and provides value to the team (with his shooting in particular).

As for Hutchison he only played 44 games. Are the Bulls suppose to give up on him already? They drafted him for a reason.

I agree with you that neither player has shown enough to stop The Bulls from drafting a better player, but I think there's a chance that the bench 2/3 positions could get crowded.

[taj2133]

Read on Twitter

/video/1

[League Circles]

I agree with you. All I'm saying is that the 2/3 positions could get crowded (the backups in particular).

Denzel Valentine and Chandler Hutchison are absolutely meaningless players in terms of being concerned about minutes. Neither has been a good player in the league and neither has any special skills or abilities. Sure either or both could become solid players, maybe even role playing starters one day for a team in the right circumstances, but if neither ever plays another NBA minute cause better players/prospects jumped ahead of them, no one should bat an eye.

Denzel showed improvement from year 1 to 2. DanTown8587 explains it better in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1840332&start=100

I'm not saying I have high hopes for Denzel (I don't), but it's possible that he improves and provides value to the team (with his shooting in particular).

As for Hutchison he only played 44 games. Are the Bulls suppose to give up on him already? They drafted him for a reason.

I agree with you that neither player has shown enough to stop The Bulls from drafting a better player, but I think there's a chance that the bench 2/3 positions could get crowded.

I guess I don't really understand what is meant by crowded. NBA rosters pretty much all have 15 guys on them, plus usually 2 two way players. So there are 5+ guys on each team that are third string players who don't play barring injury. Many, many of those players are similar to guys like Denzel and Hutch in terms of pedigree, ability and performance. If they are the guys that don't play, I don't see how that's any more crowded than any other team.

[Chi town]

Read on Twitter

/video/1

I’d take Culver over Barrett all day.

Culver is a winner and he’s crazy versatile on both sides of the ball. His handle is what separates him from Hunter.

I could see the Lakers taking him. He won’t last pay Cavs.

Our pick will be between White Garland or Hunter. Culver will be long gone.

[imagge]

Because what happens if it is the rookie that you draft that is the third stringer because the depth in front of him is better. i.e. Kelly Oubre is an example of drafting a position that you were already strong...

[Repeat 3-peat]

If Garland falls to #5, I predict that the Bulls move up for him.

[HoopsterJones]

If Garland falls to #5, I predict that the Bulls move up for him.

It’s going to take a good asset to move up to 5 from 7. 38 is not going to be enough. Would have to be a player they like (I doubt it) or a future pick (Bulls should not trade a future pick).

[johnnyvann840]

complaining about a 6'7" wing not having enough spacing is silly, because he was the primary reason duke had crappy spacing. if you're a wing whose primary skill is volume scoring, ya gotta be able to shoot.

givony has compared barrett to harden, which is such a dumb comparison because harden's game is almost entirely predicated on his outside shot being a gigantic threat!

Yeah, I don't like the Harden comp. The guy you would be looking at drafting ahead of him as a wing is Culver and I think RJ would be my choice.

Barrett was just more versatile of a scorer. Their usage rating is identical. RJ shot the deep ball about the same as Culver, actually better in conference play (Culver shot just .247 in conference). RJ had more rebounds per 40, more assists per 40, a higher offensive rating, Culver was slightly higher TS% but they were very comparable. Culver was a better defender for sure. But as an offensive weapon overall, Barrett was more effective and he didn't have the shooters that Culver had around him. Culver is also almost two years older and played another year in college.

Honestly, it's a close comp and I love Culver. He's definitely a top 6 pick. I would be very happy if the Bulls were to get Culver somehow.

[Repeat 3-peat]

If Garland falls to #5, I predict that the Bulls move up for him.

It’s going to take a good asset to move up to 5 from 7. 38 is not going to be enough. Would have to be a player they like (I doubt it) or a future pick (Bulls should not trade a future pick).

Very possible but could a weak draft lessen the overall trade value?

Chicago could take back a contract like Clarkson in return to help Cleveland get out of the tax.

[Chi town]

If Garland falls to #5, I predict that the Bulls move up for him.

It’s going to take a good asset to move up to 5 from 7. 38 is not going to be enough. Would have to be a player they like (I doubt it) or a future pick (Bulls should not trade a future pick).

Very possible but could a weak draft lessen the overall trade value?

Chicago could take back a contract like Clarkson in return to help Cleveland get out of the tax.

It will be cheap. ATL’s guy would have to be there at 7. It’s been reported they like Culver and Reddish.

Basically lakers have to take Hunter or Reddish so Garland falls.

[johnnyvann840]

If the Bulls were to get either Hunter or Culver I would be thrilled. If we could somehow move up for Barrett, even more so. I still think RJ has super star potential in this league. I still have him as my #2 to Zion.

[jump]

If we end up with Hunter or Culver, we absolutely have to trade up to get Carson Edwards. The value of 3pt offense off the bench is paramount. Brogdon would be ideal to sign, but if that is impossible, there is plenty of money to sign a vet PG and Taj. Move Dunne for a future pick or include him in the trade up to get Edwards

Satoransky (or Collison, Rubio, Beverly), Edwards, Arci
Lavine, Valentine, Shaq
Otto, Hunter, Hutch
Lauri, Taj, (Hutch, Hunter, Otto)
WCJ, Taj, (Lauri), Felicio

That would be a marked improvement for this team.

[Drellberg]

I would give up 7 and next year’s top 10 protected first to move up to 5. Bulls have plenty of youthful players and if they improve they can recruit free agents. They need to begin consolidating.

[jump]

I would give up 7 and next year’s top 10 protected first to move up to 5. Bulls have plenty of youthful players and if they improve they can recruit free agents. They need to begin consolidating.

It would need to be Lottery protected for me.

[Dan Z]

Denzel Valentine and Chandler Hutchison are absolutely meaningless players in terms of being concerned about minutes. Neither has been a good player in the league and neither has any special skills or abilities. Sure either or both could become solid players, maybe even role playing starters one day for a team in the right circumstances, but if neither ever plays another NBA minute cause better players/prospects jumped ahead of them, no one should bat an eye.

Denzel showed improvement from year 1 to 2. DanTown8587 explains it better in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1840332&start=100

I'm not saying I have high hopes for Denzel (I don't), but it's possible that he improves and provides value to the team (with his shooting in particular).

As for Hutchison he only played 44 games. Are the Bulls suppose to give up on him already? They drafted him for a reason.

I agree with you that neither player has shown enough to stop The Bulls from drafting a better player, but I think there's a chance that the bench 2/3 positions could get crowded.

I guess I don't really understand what is meant by crowded. NBA rosters pretty much all have 15 guys on them, plus usually 2 two way players. So there are 5+ guys on each team that are third string players who don't play barring injury. Many, many of those players are similar to guys like Denzel and Hutch in terms of pedigree, ability and performance. If they are the guys that don't play, I don't see how that's any more crowded than any other team.

I guess you see Valentine and Hutchison as nothing more than 3rd string players? I have no idea how well they'll play next year, but I'd like to see what the Bulls have in them before they move on.