2017 NBA Draft

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

I like how quick Fox is, but man.... 17% on 3's. There's bad... and then there's the rocky 5 sequel... and then there's fox's 3 point shooting.

Understand the concern but Harris' sophomore season with the Mavs was a dismal 23.8% from 3 and he turned out to be a pretty decent player. His career is only 32.4% so he has done pretty well without being a good shooter but is probably one of the major reasons he has never blossomed into an elite PG.

Shooting can be corrected....speed, quickness and court awareness can't so I still think Fox would be a decent pick.

If it comes down to Fox or Ntilikina I'd probably prefer Ntilikina....curious what you and Underdog (and some others) think about choosing between those two which is something Donnie might have to decide.
Or do we take Tatum, Monk or Markkanen over either of those two?

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

Understand the concern but Harris' sophomore season with the Mavs was a dismal 23.8% from 3 and he turned out to be a pretty decent player. His career is only 32.4% so he has done pretty well without being a good shooter but is probably one of the major reasons he has never blossomed into an elite PG.

Shooting can be corrected....speed, quickness and court awareness can't so I still think Fox would be a decent pick.

If it comes down to Fox or Ntilikina I'd probably prefer Ntilikina....curious what you and Underdog (and some others) think about choosing between those two which is something Donnie might have to decide.
Or do we take Tatum, Monk or Markkanen over either of those two?

Yeah shooting can be corrected but 17% in college is alarmingly low. Devin Harris shot 37% from 3 in college. Rajon Rondo shot 28% from 3 in college. He does have a mid range shot from what I read but my concern is in a pnr heavy offense if the pg cant shoot they will always 100% go under the screen so that will take away from his quickness.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

Yeah shooting can be corrected but 17% in college is alarmingly low. Devin Harris shot 37% from 3 in college. Rajon Rondo shot 28% from 3 in college. He does have a mid range shot from what I read but my concern is in a pnr heavy offense if the pg cant shoot they will always 100% go under the screen so that will take away from his quickness.

That is one of the things we need to consider when drafting. If it takes several years to develop our pick into starter material it might be better for us to take someone who is more NBA ready.
Ntilikina might be more NBA ready than Fox and might be a better fit with Curry.
With Curry and Barnes in their mid-20s we don't have a lot of time to develop key pieces of our core.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

Yeah shooting can be corrected but 17% in college is alarmingly low. Devin Harris shot 37% from 3 in college. Rajon Rondo shot 28% from 3 in college.

Sure, but you're missing a bit of context in the sample size...

Devin Harris: 96 games, 187-499
Rajon Rondo: 68 games, 28-99
De'Aaron Fox: 27 games, 9-52

Sometimes shooters go cold... Remember that terrible 3-point streak Barea had to start our championship season? His Nov-Jan numbers look very similar to Fox's freshman numbers, and he was a 5th year pro:

JJ Barea: 31 games, 10-64 (6.4%)

He went on to finish the season 133-157 (35%)... My point is that shooting can be streaky -- there's still plenty of time for Fox to fix those numbers.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Sure, but you're missing a bit of context in the sample size...

Devin Harris: 96 games, 187-499
Rajon Rondo: 68 games, 28-99
De'Aaron Fox: 27 games, 9-52

Sometimes shooters go cold... Remember that terrible 3-point streak Barea had to start our championship season? His Nov-Jan numbers look very similar to Fox's freshman numbers, and he was a 5th year pro:

JJ Barea: 31 games, 10-64 (6.4%)

He went on to finish the season 133-157 (35%)... My point is that shooting can be streaky -- there's still plenty of time for Fox to fix those numbers.

So if given the choice would you take Fox over Ntilikina?

The big negative I see with Ntilikina is a possible lack of aggression....especially getting into the lane and finishing. I don't ever recall seeing a player improve aggression so that is a huge concern I have for any player.

Fox seems to be extremely aggressive but lacks offensive skills that are critical to have in our system. The big question is how long will it take him to develop a shot that can be respected by defenses?

[Bryan_Wilson]

Yeah it could be sample size, the fact he can shoot the mid range is encouraging. He just scares me more than any other top 10 pick. If you have a guy who shoots 45% from mid range then that would be 90 points in 100 possessions. That means a pg who shoots only 30% on 3's can give you the same production in terms of points. That's how the nba is trending. I'm just scared of Fox until I can see him make 3's with any kind of mediocre consistency. If he can shoot the 3 he could admittedly be as good as or better than any of these pgs.

I decided to look up his high school numbers and it makes me feel better I suppose.
http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/deaa...ball-stats.htm

In 500 3's he shot 34%. So at least maybe it is more of a sample size issue.

[Bryan_Wilson]

If you would have asked me this morning who I would take between Frank and Fox I would say Frank. But then Rim and UD had to go and ruin the opinion I had of Fox and now if Fox can indeed shoot or at least shows the signs of being a shooter then I would take Fox personally. And ask me again in a week and I'm sure I'll say something different.

I want more picks.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

If you would have asked me this morning who I would take between Frank and Fox I would say Frank. But then Rim and UD had to go and ruin the opinion I had of Fox and now if Fox can indeed shoot or at least shows the signs of being a shooter then I would take Fox personally. And ask me again in a week and I'm sure I'll say something different.

I want more picks.

Lets hope Smith slips to us or we get damn lucky with the lotto balls and we won't have to make that decision.

Not acquiring a young starter quality PG this off-season will vastly impede our ability to develop a young core.
It's looking like Yogi isn't going to develop into that role and Curry doesn't appear to be a playmaking PG.
Maybe this Cook kid has something to offer.

[Underdog]

Yeah, I'm not sure if I'd take Fox or Frank higher, seeing as they both have far more warts than the other PGs ahead of them... But all the best players outside the PG position play the exact same positions as the best players on our roster.

Like, the only way you could make Tatum, Monk or Markkanen work would be to either trade Wes, or have Dirk retire -- otherwise I see those guys getting buried in he rotation... And you'd still have to figure out someone better than Yogi at PG if you want to become a true contender.

[rimrocker]

Any PG options out there to trade for our pick?
Rubio is about the only one I can think of but he doesn't fit our system.

The FA list is pretty dismal....Teague is about the only one I'd want but he is getting up there in age for our situation.

[mac222b]

BPA. Don't care if its a Center, PG, Harriosn Barnes twin double. Just take the #1 guy left on your board.

[mac222b]

Drafting for need is how we wound up with Shane anti-freak Larkin

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mac222b

Drafting for need is how we wound up with Shane anti-freak Larkin

Drafting BPA at the same positions as your best players is how we ended up wasting the Crowder and Anderson picks.

The good news is that 1/2 of the top-10 players are PGs, and we need a PG... Basically, need & BPA are the same thing in this draft.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Drafting BPA at the same positions as your best players is how we ended up wasting the Crowder and Anderson picks.

The good news is that 1/2 of the top-10 players are PGs, and we need a PG... Basically, need & BPA are the same thing in this draft.

And one of the reasons why we got Noel so cheap from a team with totally screwed up chemistry.

I get that BPA strategy in the top 5 (or maybe 7 in this draft) and bottom 5 in the draft but not so much on the players in between...especially when there are several areas of need on a rebuilding team.

But yeah, if Isaac or Jackson are there when we pick then no way do I take Fox or Ntilikina over either of them.
A realistic decision will be between Fox, Ntilikina, Tatum, Markkanen, Monk and maybe a few others where talents and positions differ but overall impact will most likely be similar. That's where you go for need imo.

[sefant77]

We are going to draft #11-15...Knicks/Kings/Bobcats gonna suck for the rest of the season.

Goodbye sneaking into the Top-3 too

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by sefant77

We are going to draft #11-15...Knicks/Kings/Bobcats gonna suck for the rest of the season.

Goodbye sneaking into the Top-3 too

We're looking at Patton or Allen then.

[sefant77]

Could be pretty annoying. The top is incredible deep at guard but after #10 its pretty much just bigs.

And with Barnes/Dirk/Noel + Powell its pointless to draft big. Just if you think you draft the by far BPA.

[MavzMan]

I'm not understanding why everyone keeps saying don't draft a big. Dirk is going to retire at MOST in 2 years. If you draft a big, you are extremely lucky if he's even producing in two years let alone taking playing time from an established veteran player. Powel, much as I really hate to admit it, is looking more and more like a bust. So that leaves us with Barnes and Noel essentially as Salah is no spring chicken either.

Take the best player there and if it's a big, then maybe in 3-4 years we have a solid 3 way rotation at the C/PF positions. Then if you manage to really hit big, no pun intended, you have a good trade chip later on. This team needs PG playing making skills plus rebounding, and it's highly unlikely you get that in one player. In summary, get the guy that is going to fit with this team mentally because that appears to be the biggest issue in today's NBA and then get the guy with the most/best (future) talent.

[Bryan_Wilson]

I'm fine with just about everyone projected currently in the top 20 with the sole exception of Williams from A&M. No idea why he's projected as high as top 12 in these mocks.

Edit-
But as far as pg vs the field talks... If it's close I'd rather have a pg. But if our scouts have someone with a top 7 grade who has fallen to us and we only have top 12 grades on the pg's left I do not want the pg at that point.

[rimrocker]

If I'm not mistaken there are only 5 PGs projected in the 1st round and all of them have a good chance to go in the top 10 so we might have to look elsewhere for one.
Rick mentioned that Curry's playmaking is improving so I'm wondering if they plan to groom him for the starting PG spot next season if we are unable to acquire one in the draft or FA.

I can see Curry/Matthews/Barnes/Dirk/Noel as our primary starters and closers next season.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

If I'm not mistaken there are only 5 PGs projected in the 1st round and all of them have a good chance to go in the top 10 so we might have to look elsewhere for one.
Rick mentioned that Curry's playmaking is improving so I'm wondering if they plan to groom him for the starting PG spot next season if we are unable to acquire one in the draft or FA.

I can see Curry/Matthews/Barnes/Dirk/Noel as our primary starters and closers next season.

Could be... I know when Seth had his career-high 31 points against Minny a few days ago, Carlisle said, "Yeah he had a great individual game scoring wise but tomorrow we have to get more guys involved" because he only had 1 assist... Pretty much everybody on this board had a WTF reaction, but Curry heard the message loud & clear and responded with 8 assists the next day.

I still think of him as more of a SG, but Rick might actually see him as more of a PG. I know he's talked about Seth's playmaking and ball handling abilities in the past -- maybe playing him at the 2 was more out of necessity with Deron on the roster (as well as Yogi's extended audition as a starter).

So I agree that outside the top-10, there probably aren't any better options to run our offense than what we have... But I'd still roll the dice on Fox/Frank over Monk/Markkanen if any of those guys fall outside the top-10 (big "if" at this point)... I just don't want to see our first-rounder get buried behind Wes/Dirk and get traded away like Crowder/Anderson before they get a chance to develop.

But I'm all for BPA if those top 5 PGs are off the board when we pick.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Could be... I know when Seth had his career-high 31 points against Minny a few days ago, Carlisle said, "Yeah he had a great individual game scoring wise but tomorrow we have to get more guys involved" because he only had 1 assist... Pretty much everybody on this board had a WTF reaction, but Curry heard the message loud & clear and responded with 8 assists the next day.

I still think of him as more of a SG, but Rick might actually see him as more of a PG. I know he's talked about Seth's playmaking and ball handling abilities in the past -- maybe playing him at the 2 was more out of necessity with Deron on the roster (as well as Yogi's extended audition as a starter).

So I agree that outside the top-10, there probably aren't any better options to run our offense than what we have... But I'd still roll the dice on Fox/Frank over Monk/Markkanen if any of those guys fall outside the top-10 (big "if" at this point)... I just don't want to see our first-rounder get buried behind Wes/Dirk and get traded away like Crowder/Anderson before they get a chance to develop.

But I'm all for BPA if those top 5 PGs are off the board when we pick.

Completely agree!
Curry moving to PG would strictly be out of necessity and a way to address the issue we will most likely have at the 3-5 spot.
Noel will get paid well so there is no way he comes off the bench, Dirk won't come off the bench and Barnes definitely won't so moving Curry to PG would make the most sense unless we draft one of the top 3.
I'm not sure Rick would turn it over to Fox or Ntilikina unless they really prove something over the summer but both of them will probably take some time to develop.

I agree we definitely take Fox or Ntilikina over Markkanen, Monk and Tatum but I'd take Jackson or Isaac over those two for sure.

I'm beginning to think we'll end up with Giles.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Drafting BPA at the same positions as your best players is how we ended up wasting the Crowder and Anderson picks.

The good news is that 1/2 of the top-10 players are PGs, and we need a PG... Basically, need & BPA are the same thing in this draft.

UD I usually love your postings but this is absurd. Drafting for need over BPA has screwed thousands of teams, in all sports, over the years. Much more so than the inverse. Not even sure what your example of Crowder and Anderson even means? How did taking either of them set the franchise back? Not to mention one is a really good player in the league and Anderson still has time. Larkin is already a bust.

I highly doubt Shane Larkin was the best guy left on their board that draft. That's how you miss on much better players. If Josh Jackson is their highest rated guy left and he's there when they pick, pick him. If its Tatum, pick him. There are two ways to aquire a superstar:draft him(Greek Freak)or stockpile assets(Harden) and trade for him.

[sefant77]

Nets
Magic
Sixers (shutting down Embiid)
Knicks (Porz limited, probably soon shutted down)

Wolves
Kings
Lakers
Suns

Thats eight teams for sure ahead of us, so best case we are looking at #9

Hornets have really bad past weeks, with the Bucks Parker is down (and now Beasley too) so its pretty much just Giannis left. In the west the Pelicans are a giant questionmark but i wouldnt be surprised if we end up with a better record. So eight teams for sure (in my opinion) and another three with a bad feeling.

And i think at #9 Markkanen will be gone and im glad. Suns, Kings, Wolves, Hornets...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mac222b

UD I usually love your postings but this is absurd. Drafting for need over BPA has screwed thousands of teams, in all sports, over the years. Much more so than the inverse.

I never said we should draft need over BPA -- I said 5 of the top 10 best players available are point guards... And we need a point guard. So BPA and need are the same thing. What's absurd about that statement?

Not even sure what your example of Crowder and Anderson even means? How did taking either of them set the franchise back? Not to mention one is a really good player in the league and Anderson still has time.

Crowder and Anderson didn't set the franchise back, but they were ultimately wasted picks because they got buried behind much better & more experienced players in the rotation... We got the best player available and it created a logjam, so they never really got an opportunity to develop into true rotational players, and therefore became expendable. More than anything, those guys were a poor fit for a "win-now" team (which is an entirely different topic that I don't want to get into right now).

Larkin is already a bust.

I highly doubt Shane Larkin was the best guy left on their board that draft. That's how you miss on much better players.

I agree that Shane Larkin was an awful pick and we should have taken the guy that our GM wanted because Giannis was both the best player available AND played a position of need, since Marion's contract was expiring... I don't know what the hell Cuban was thinking there.

If Josh Jackson is their highest rated guy left and he's there when they pick, pick him. If its Tatum, pick him.

Yes, and I'm saying Fultz, Ball, Smith, Fox, and Ntilikina are all going to be top-10 BPA... Our needs line up perfectly with the top players in this draft, no reason not to weigh that into our pick.

Hell, chances are that most of these guys won't be available if we end up picking somewhere in the 10-15 range, which is looking most likely...

Hypothetical: let's say we have the #10 pick and Markkanen is the #10 player on our board, and Ntilikina is the #11 player, then I'm taking Frank because need should absolutely weigh in if the choices are close... On the other hand, if we have Jackson at #3 on our board and he miraculously slips down to #10, then obviously I take him over #11 ranked Ntilikina, regardless of need...

You just can't be so black & white about how to approach the draft or else you end up like Philly... They took "BPA without considering need" to the extreme and picked big men 3 years in a row after getting Noel, creating such a logjam that they basically had to give away a top-6 pick.

[hayth.james.g]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I never said we should draft need over BPA -- I said 5 of the top 10 best players available are point guards... And we need a point guard. So BPA and need are the same thing. What's absurd about that statement?



Crowder and Anderson didn't set the franchise back, but they were ultimately wasted picks because they got buried behind much better & more experienced players in the rotation... We got the best player available and it created a logjam, so they never really got an opportunity to develop into true rotational players, and therefore became expendable. More than anything, those guys were a poor fit for a "win-now" team (which is an entirely different topic that I don't want to get into right now).



I agree that Shane Larkin was an awful pick and we should have taken the guy that our GM wanted because Giannis was both the best player available AND played a position of need, since Marion's contract was expiring... I don't know what the hell Cuban was thinking there.



Yes, and I'm saying Fultz, Ball, Smith, Fox, and Ntilikina are all going to be top-10 BPA... Our needs line up perfectly with the top players in this draft, no reason not to weigh that into our pick.

Hell, chances are that most of these guys won't be available if we end up picking somewhere in the 10-15 range, which is looking most likely...

Hypothetical: let's say we have the #10 pick and Markkanen is the #10 player on our board, and Ntilikina is the #11 player, then I'm taking Frank because need should absolutely weigh in if the choices are close... On the other hand, if we have Jackson at #3 on our board and he miraculously slips down to #10, then obviously I take him over #11 ranked Ntilikina, regardless of need...

You just can't be so black & white about how to approach the draft or else you end up like Philly... They took "BPA without considering need" to the extreme and picked big men 3 years in a row after getting Noel, creating such a logjam that they basically had to give away a top-6 pick.

In the end there is no one perfect answer to this. You cannot always pick purely BPA because as you referenced, you have to weigh in the needs of a franchise. I do get that this league is absolutely super star driven, and an argument can be made in 2017 that you must have multiple superstars, but right now we are just trying to find one. I think it's fair to say we avoid the 4/5 position this year. After that it's BPA.

[rimrocker]

I think the main point is the level (talent/skill) of difference between BPA and need. UD's example of Markkanen, Jackson and Ntilikina is a good one. If there is clearly a huge difference in talent level then obviously you take the guy who could be a much better player in the league.

I am starting to warm up on Tatum though and think I'd consider taking him over Ntilikina and maybe Fox. The dude just seems to be a complete player and mature and is relentless on going to the basket and plays good D.
Only problem is that his game seems to be similar to Barnes'. Barnes is more athletic but Tatum seems a little more savvy....just seems to understand how to play.
I would not be upset if the Mavs take him as Wes' eventual replacement.

[Bryan_Wilson]

I'm still hoping someway somehow we get another pick. Although with us not having our 2nd from Noel, I'd even take a mid-later 2nd. There are a decent amount of interesting guys that can go in the 2nd this year that are intriguing. Guys like Bacon, Jackson(UNC), Morris were guys I was hoping to fall for our 2nd when we had it.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by sefant77

Nets
Magic
Sixers (shutting down Embiid)
Knicks (Porz limited, probably soon shutted down)

Wolves
Kings
Lakers
Suns

Thats eight teams for sure ahead of us, so best case we are looking at #9

Hornets have really bad past weeks, with the Bucks Parker is down (and now Beasley too) so its pretty much just Giannis left. In the west the Pelicans are a giant questionmark but i wouldnt be surprised if we end up with a better record. So eight teams for sure (in my opinion) and another three with a bad feeling.

And i think at #9 Markkanen will be gone and im glad. Suns, Kings, Wolves, Hornets...

I've seen Tatum compared to Pierce and Markkanen compared to Dirk (don't necessarily agree) and if we pick at 9 then it could be 1998 all over again

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Need versus BPA depends entirely on the draft.

And I think you'd get ahead of yourself if you didn't think a big man or three might be a need this summer. I'm hoping the FO will try and move Powell and Matthews if they can do so without hurting future cap space.

I don't think who we draft will matter as much as what you're going to do with Nerlens, Dirk, and Barnes. One of them has to come off the bench (really Nerlens or Dirk). That will play a role on what type of top pick you'll bring in and where they will get minutes.

I also think people are jumping the gun with Yogi not being able to start. The team wins with him starting, and he has done a good job running the team. His shooting has vanished but he rebounds well and plays defense. He also doesn't turn the ball over.

And honestly, Frank might be the only PG available where we pick. If we keep winning, then he'll likely be off the board when we pick.

[Bryan_Wilson]

My main concern with Yogi is something he can get a lot better at so it's not like I've given up totally on him as a future starter... but until I see it I'm going to be skeptical. And that's his recognition of making the right play as the initiator of the offense and really his basketball IQ in general. He gets a screen from Dirk and the pg switches onto Dirk... and he doesn't even make an attempt to give it to Dirk in an obvious mismatch a few feet above the ft line. He gets a screen and now has stopped driving into the paint which is what made him so successful early on here and instead seems to be dribbling the air out like Dwill used to. Barnes runs a screen for him and flashes to the baseline and he doesn't even look at him, something Dwill made his first read. Like I said he can fix it but so far he is alarmingly too consistent in his recognition of reads to be a starter.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

My main concern with Yogi is something he can get a lot better at so it's not like I've given up totally on him as a future starter... but until I see it I'm going to be skeptical. And that's his recognition of making the right play as the initiator of the offense and really his basketball IQ in general. He gets a screen from Dirk and the pg switches onto Dirk... and he doesn't even make an attempt to give it to Dirk in an obvious mismatch a few feet above the ft line. He gets a screen and now has stopped driving into the paint which is what made him so successful early on here and instead seems to be dribbling the air out like Dwill used to. Barnes runs a screen for him and flashes to the baseline and he doesn't even look at him, something Dwill made his first read. Like I said he can fix it but so far he is alarmingly too consistent in his recognition of reads to be a starter.

One of Yogi's supposed strengths coming in before he played one game for us was his high BBIQ. I think he'll be able to improve in all of the mental aspects of the game.
My biggest concern isn't so much him as our backcourt situation with him and Curry starting together. They are vastly undersized and that could become a problem but Yogi does make up for a lot of that with his great defense so it could work out.

I'm not giving up on him but I'm apprehensive about getting caught up in all the hype because he has a ways to go to be considered starter quality imo.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Tonight at 10 is UCLA vs Washington. AKA Ball vs Fultz... not like we have a shot at either at this point but w/e.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Omg... Fultz is out for this game?

[sefant77]

The more i read about the nutjob Daddy Ball, i dont want us to take him if we jump into the top-3

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by sefant77

The more i read about the nutjob Daddy Ball, i dont want us to take him if we jump into the top-3

I wouldn't take him if he fell to 15 because of his dad seriously.

[Melonhead]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Markkanen only makes sense if Barnes moves back to SF, or if Dirk plays exclusively as a 10-15 MPG backup center. Otherwise I see him getting lost in the shuffle a la Crowder/Anderson, especially with a "Carlisle guy" like Finney-Smith starting to step up his game.

I'd still target a PG in this draft, with Yogi taking on the Barea role off the bench... Seems like we still have way too many players at the 2-4 positions for anyone else to make sense... And no reason to go after a center with a high pick either if we can get Noel locked up on a longterm deal.

Fultz, Ball, Smith Jr, Fox, Ntilikina -- whoever is there when we pick.

This is the right answer.

[rimrocker]

IDK...the more I watch Tatum the more I like his game.
Kennard is more aggressive and active than I thought and wouldn't be a bad pick if we're in the 12-16 range.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

IDK...the more I watch Tatum the more I like his game.

Yeah, he probably isn't going outside the top-5 or so... We're trending in the wrong direction to get him.

[mac222b]

I would love Josh Jackson or Tatum. Issacs even. Noel, Barnes, Jackson/Tatum would be such a long and defensively versatile frontline. Get our PG in FA as Sefant has suggested and we would be dangerous again. After that we'd just need a big body to bang and rebound. Someone along the lines of Amir Johnson.

I like what DFS brings and think he brings 60-70% of what those guys bring much more cheaply. But it sure would be nice to have another offensive weapon at the 3. Quality point guards are easier to come by wings. Realize it's probably a moot point as we'll more likely be pick 8-12