|
Sometimes I want the Blazers to buy a second round pick and take a flier on Thon Maker. Then I remember he stayed an extra year in high school to play ball against people smaller than him instead of play college ball. Man, he is going to be so bad.
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:Sometimes I want the Blazers to buy a second round pick and take a flier on Thon Maker. Then I remember he stayed an extra year in high school to play ball against people smaller than him instead of play college ball. Man, he is going to be so bad. He'll go in the first.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
heh what if the guy went up and was all like "We are drafting ......... DEEZE NUTS!!!" lol could you imagine??
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Depends, what's his wingspan?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
 Ghetto SuperCzar posted:Sometimes I want the Blazers to buy a second round pick and take a flier on Thon Maker. Then I remember he stayed an extra year in high school to play ball against people smaller than him instead of play college ball. Man, he is going to be so bad. Shabazz faked a year and he's turned into a pretty alright scorer. Thon has a lot of neck height, which takes 1.5 inch from him in my draft matrix. A few days ago I asked, what happened to that Bolomboy, here's an answer quote:Joel Bolomboy Dejan Bimble fucked around with this message at 22:54 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
I appreciate that he thinks he has no chance of going 1, 2, 3, or 4
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
iamsosmrt posted:Would Okafor for #3 and one of Boston's logjam of guards be a fair trade? If this happens Simmons #1 A Boston guard Bender or Buddy #3? I dunno
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Nooner posted:heh what if the guy went up and was all like Why would Dwight Howard be announcing draft picks?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:My biggest issue with the discourse around Simmons is that, sure, there are some flaws, but that's all anyone wants to talk about when he's the only forward in this draft who currently has elite NBA skills. He's coming into the draft as a 19 year old who is currently at the same stage of development as someone like Giannis. There's no one else in this draft that combines his level of athleticism and polish in the things he CAN do. Giannis really is a much better comparison than Lebron, or Blake without a Jumper. Giannis without the fictional body, more strength, and more touch around the basket, and even better as a passer. He made passes that I see from no one but those three. Brandon Ingram keeps getting Kevin Durant comps, and while they have their similarities, they miss how much slighter he is than Texas KD, and how he lacks the slitheriness and the incredible touch from everywhere. KD is smoooth and covers ground like a spider monster, Ingram does a lot more flailing. He did play really good defense at times. His length makes that easier against college guys, I suppose. His jumper and his weird body make him really really tempting as a prospect.   He had roughly half the chest depth as the lady who was interviewing him at the lottery. He's a very very slight man.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Dejan Bimble posted:
Tats invalidate this comp.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
10 years younger and 5 pounds lighter
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Also Durant keeps his bad tattoos on his chest I really want the Magic to take Chiss but I think he doesn't pass at all, which could be a problem
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Deadbeat Dad posted:Also Durant keeps his bad tattoos on his chest Wait there's a Star Wars creature in this draft?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
chunkles posted:10 years younger and 5 pounds lighter The fact Durant has been in the league for 8 years is mind numbing
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Wait there's a Star Wars creature in this draft? I keep forgetting to add the R I'm a lost cause
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
MourningView posted:Blake Griffin has a really good jump shot and is way stronger He's an incredible athlete too. Simmons isn't explosive like that. straight up brolic posted:I'm actually working on an article about this right now. I get why Dunn and Murray are ranked above Hield on most boards, and to some extent I agree from a talent evaluation standpoint. But I think Hield has a higher floor and ceiling than those players. Trying to conceptualize the idea of diminishing returns for 'more' at the draft level i.e. why being a good player across the board is not necessarily more valuable than being elite at a few things at the NBA level. It has to be age +size. Great shooting is very valuable, Devin Booker was only a shooter, and him being such a good shooter meant that he could expand his game to take what defenses give him. He doesn't need elite quickness or handle. There are some moments where I think, ahh well okay, this craftiness against college fellows won't translate, but the shooting seems real. Dejan Bimble fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Dejan Bimble posted:
Ghetto SuperCzar fucked around with this message at 23:41 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I think he should draft ...... an nice cold bud light 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:Shabazz played well in college though. He might have been a year older, but he played against a level of competition far higher than Canadian high school . I should have expanded. Shabazz tore up high school and then was pretty good in college, once teams knew his real age his stock fell appropriately, he was picked at a fair position, and he's done alright. Thon Maker is a prospect because of his body and his decent jumper. In all odds he'd probably have an alright year in college, get 10 rebounds a game, and go in the early 2nd, just like he will now. If you remove his neck height he's below 7'. Thon Maker's HEIGHT must be viewed CRITICALLY
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Nooner posted:I think he should draft ...... an nice cold bud light Oh hell yeah
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Here's the Vertical's mock https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/version-iii--the-vertical-s-2016-nba-mock-draft-235113108.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma It seems to me that Deyonta Davis kinda sucks, how hard would people laugh if Toronto DID pick him?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Here's the Vertical's mock
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Here's the Vertical's mock Seems unlikely that Luwawu falls to the Bulls, who are going to draft Georges Niang.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
That's basically draft expresss mock. Well. It is the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Rick posted:If this was true, and it's not, then the Lakers would've drafted Okafor last year. Okafor was not what they were looking for in a center - had Towns fallen to them, he would have been the choice. Mitch had been put over a barrel for point guard by the wise acquisition of Paul torpedoed by Stern, followed by the unwise acquisition of Nash (The Curse That Almost Never Ended). I don't think Mitch would necessarily be wrong in valuing Simmons higher (assuming he does, and it's nothing more than my reading of him, so that and $7 will get you a cup of Coffee). But given the coach he hired, I would assume he'll go for a player more in line with a long term vision consistent with that when he might otherwise go for the other player.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Lockback posted:He'll go in the first. Maybe, he's right on the borderline though. Kataphract posted:Okafor was not what they were looking for in a center - had Towns fallen to them, he would have been the choice. Mitch had been put over a barrel for point guard by the wise acquisition of Paul torpedoed by Stern, followed by the unwise acquisition of Nash (The Curse That Almost Never Ended). I don't think Mitch would necessarily be wrong in valuing Simmons higher (assuming he does, and it's nothing more than my reading of him, so that and $7 will get you a cup of Coffee). But given the coach he hired, I would assume he'll go for a player more in line with a long term vision consistent with that when he might otherwise go for the other player. The Nash move wasn't unwise, it was unlucky. If you won't sacrifice some protected picks to keep your window potentially open (and see the media or the archives of this forum where people were complaining about how little the Lakers paid to get Nash). But I don't think Mitch was over a barrel for a PG, there practically is one available in every single draft, and there were a few decent ones available in free agency the Lakers could've gotten if he was.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Simmons got to the rim at will unless he was doubled or tripled much like Lebron. Or when teams figure out he can't shoot and sag way off him. It's true that people are making a lot of his weaknesses, but I think it's kinda natural to be leery about taking a guy first overall when you're not sure if he's going to be able to score consistently at the next level (unless he's like a monster defensive center in the Dwight mold or something). That said, you're right that there's a lot to love about him with his passing, ball handling for his size, ability to score in transition, and rebounding (which gets really underrated I think; he's a really incredible rebounder, even without particularly great length, which I think speaks to how advanced his feel for the game is). He definitely has the highest ceiling of anyone, and it's kinda unfortunate that the got the OMG GENERATIONAL talent thing so early because I think it gave people unrealistic expectations and made them especially picky when he didn't live up to it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Rick posted:Maybe, he's right on the borderline though. Given Nash's age, three years at 25-27 million or whatever it was isn't what I called wise even at the time of the trade, regardless of what they gave for him. It was destined to be unlucky - getting one good year out of Nash would have been lucky, and they didn't get even that. Given that he needed a point guard because of the circumstances, and one that looked pretty good was available in the draft, it's not that surprising or even all that forward looking that he took Russell. Mitch is behind the times on a number of things, but I'm not faulting him on understanding what makes for a good player.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
I'm not having this conversation with you unless you can prove you thought it was a bad trade at the time.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Nash was doing fine until he went to LA where he promptly disintegrated
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
It was a risky trade, mainly because I thought they were getting rid of important trade pieces to try to get Dwight. Despite how badly it went in the end, that Dwight Howard trade was one hell of a steal, way more than the Gasol trade.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Rick posted:I'm not having this conversation with you unless you can prove you thought it was a bad trade at the time. I'm perfectly okay with you having a different opinion than me, but dont particularly feel like going back to a forum run by a jerk to dig around to prove what I say by slogging through threads years old, especially since you'd probably then claim that wasn't me (since the handles are different) . If you wish to demand that I prove my opinion was actually my opinion, it's not a conversation I'm particularly interested in. Mitch admits to being old school, not really understanding metrics, and has been faulted by his approach to recruiting free agents by the free agents themselves. I am of the opinion that the game has passed his skill set by, which is not the same thing as saying he was without skills that helped lead the Lakers to several championships at the time. And it's just that, an opinion. Not sure why you are getting so worked up.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:It was a risky trade, mainly because I thought they were getting rid of important trade pieces to try to get Dwight. Dwight was a steal, even if it didn't work out. Wasn't at all sorry to see him go, but at the same time, I had hope that he would work out. Simultaneously, I thought Dwight working out was seriously handicapped by D'Antoni being the coach (and truth to tell, Kobe being Kobe). Still, thought it was good roll of the dice on Mitch's part.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
DOOP posted:If this happens Yeah, my ideal (and maybe realistic) trade would probably be Smart and #3 for Okafor (plus maybe a throw in like Thompson or something). Though this depends on whether people think Smart will be very very good, or just a solid rotation player. Buddy would probably be the best bet for this particular Sixers team at 3.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Yes I could see why that would be ideal.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
iamsosmrt posted:Yeah, my ideal (and maybe realistic) trade would probably be Smart and #3 for Okafor (plus maybe a throw in like Thompson or something). Though this depends on whether people think Smart will be very very good, or just a solid rotation player. Buddy would probably be the best bet for this particular Sixers team at 3.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
iamsosmrt posted:Yeah, my ideal (and maybe realistic) trade would probably be Smart and #3 for Okafor (plus maybe a throw in like Thompson or something). Though this depends on whether people think Smart will be very very good, or just a solid rotation player. Buddy would probably be the best bet for this particular Sixers team at 3. There are not gonna get Smart. They also aren't gonna get Thomas and they aren't gonna get Bradley. At best it would be like #3 and RJ Hunter if you're deadset on a guard
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
iamsosmrt posted:Yeah, my ideal (and maybe realistic) trade would probably be Smart and #3 for Okafor (plus maybe a throw in like Thompson or something). Though this depends on whether people think Smart will be very very good, or just a solid rotation player. Buddy would probably be the best bet for this particular Sixers team at 3. Boston would never do this, you'd get a future conditional unless ya'll want some bench filler. You can draft Murray at #3, he's got a nice shot.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Whip Slagcheek posted:Boston would never do this, you'd get a future conditional unless ya'll want some bench filler. You can draft Murray at #3, he's got a nice shot. If we came out of this draft with Simmons and Murray at the expense of Okafor I'd be happy
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
It's extremely bizarre to me wanting to trade a good, young, cheap known asset in Okafor in order to build around a whole lot of stuff you haven't seen in person.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:15
|
|
