PDA

View Full Version : 2012 NBA Draft



Pages : [1] 2

El_Diablo
05-30-2012, 10:11 PM
The order has been set for the first fourteen picks of the NBA Draft:

1 Hornets
2 Bobcats
3 Wizards
4 Cavaliers
5 Kings
6 Blazers (via trade)
7 Warriors
8 Raptors
9 Pistons
10 Hornets (via trade)
11 Blazers
12 Bucks
13 Suns
14 Rockets

The woeful Jordan-led Bobcats lost out on the top pick despite having the worst record in NBA history, but they only fell to #2 overall. The Hornets will in all likelihood be selecting Anthony Davis with the top pick, and they also have the #10 overall selection. The Blazers also have two picks, at #6 and #11.

CDu
05-31-2012, 09:26 AM
The order has been set for the first fourteen picks of the NBA Draft:

1 Hornets
2 Bobcats
3 Wizards
4 Cavaliers
5 Kings
6 Blazers (via trade)
7 Warriors
8 Raptors
9 Pistons
10 Hornets (via trade)
11 Blazers
12 Bucks
13 Suns
14 Rockets

The woeful Jordan-led Bobcats lost out on the top pick despite having the worst record in NBA history, but they only fell to #2 overall. The Hornets will in all likelihood be selecting Anthony Davis with the top pick, and they also have the #10 overall selection. The Blazers also have two picks, at #6 and #11.

The biggest losers in the lottery: the Nets. They had a top-3 protected pick this year that could have been a trade chip (or it could have been used on one of the four big-name prospects). Instead, they get the #6 pick and lose their pick to the Blazers.

The Hornets could really revamp their team with Anthony Davis and perhaps Terrence Ross. Their biggest needs appear to be at SF and PF, as they have a decent C (Kaman) and PG (Jack and Vazquez) and they'll get a good SG (Gordon) back from injury. Davis fits perfectly. Ross doesn't fit quite as well (he'll be a SG), but there isn't likely to be a good SF option at that point in the draft.

ChillinDuke
05-31-2012, 09:41 AM
Does Prince Harry reunite with his "brother" Kyrie?

Just wondering...

- Chillin

delfrio
05-31-2012, 09:43 AM
The biggest losers in the lottery: the Nets. They had a top-3 protected pick this year that could have been a trade chip (or it could have been used on one of the four big-name prospects). Instead, they get the #6 pick and lose their pick to the Blazers.

The Hornets could really revamp their team with Anthony Davis and perhaps Terrence Ross. Their biggest needs appear to be at SF and PF, as they have a decent C (Kaman) and PG (Jack and Vazquez) and they'll get a good SG (Gordon) back from injury. Davis fits perfectly. Ross doesn't fit quite as well (he'll be a SG), but there isn't likely to be a good SF option at that point in the draft.

At the end of the regular season, the common belief was that the Hornets were trying to get rid of Kaman. Not sure if they'll still try to do so or for who, but I wouldn't consider him a solid option there yet.

CDu
05-31-2012, 10:09 AM
At the end of the regular season, the common belief was that the Hornets were trying to get rid of Kaman. Not sure if they'll still try to do so or for who, but I wouldn't consider him a solid option there yet.

Fair enough. Maybe they go with Davis and Zeller? That's a great pairing if they get rid of Kaman; Davis provides the defense and Zeller provides the offense.

CDu
05-31-2012, 10:12 AM
Does Prince Harry reunite with his "brother" Kyrie?

Just wondering...

- Chillin

That's what Chad Ford predicts in his latest mock draft. If Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, and Beal go in the top 3 then either Drummond or Barnes is the best fit for Cleveland (they already have Tristan Thompson so Robinson and Sullinger don't make sense). If Beal is available, I'd suspect the Cavs would take him over Barnes.

superdave
05-31-2012, 10:42 AM
I was amused at how the article on the front page suggests Charlotte should trade down to get Sullinger. Uhm, no. You dont trade down to get an under-sized PF. You use your #2 pick and get the potential All-star in MKG. What a silly idea.

The only scenario where I'd trade down is if Portland gave me #6, #11 and a second round pick or two for the #2. But I still probably would not do that. Charlotte needs quality not quantity.

Super "Maybe Charlotte could trade the #2 for a new owner.....hmmm...." Dave

NSDukeFan
05-31-2012, 10:45 AM
I was amused at how the article on the front page suggests Charlotte should trade down to get Sullinger. Uhm, no. You dont trade down to get an under-sized PF. You use your #2 pick and get the potential All-star in MKG. What a silly idea.

The only scenario where I'd trade down is if Portland gave me #6, #11 and a second round pick or two for the #2. But I still probably would not do that. Charlotte needs quality not quantity.

Super "Maybe Charlotte could trade the #2 for a new owner.....hmmm...." Dave

Minor correction. Charlotte needs both quality and quantity.

roywhite
05-31-2012, 10:47 AM
I was amused at how the article on the front page suggests Charlotte should trade down to get Sullinger. Uhm, no. You dont trade down to get an under-sized PF. You use your #2 pick and get the potential All-star in MKG. What a silly idea.The only scenario where I'd trade down is if Portland gave me #6, #11 and a second round pick or two for the #2. But I still probably would not do that. Charlotte needs quality not quantity.

Super "Maybe Charlotte could trade the #2 for a new owner.....hmmm...." Dave


Is there some general consensus that Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is a better prospect (or better fit) than Thomas Robinson of Kansas?

Kidd-Gilchrist had an excellent season, but gosh, as a high school junior, he wasn't even the best player on his team. :)

blazindw
05-31-2012, 10:47 AM
At the end of the regular season, the common belief was that the Hornets were trying to get rid of Kaman. Not sure if they'll still try to do so or for who, but I wouldn't consider him a solid option there yet.

Kaman, to my knowledge, is an unrestricted free agent and it sounds like the Hornets would let him go. So, maybe they do go after their future frontcourt in Davis and another PF or C.

Jderf
05-31-2012, 10:53 AM
Does Prince Harry reunite with his "brother" Kyrie?

Just wondering...

- Chillin

Strangely, I think that would actually be one of the better places for him to land. He'd have a superb point guard setting him up, and his only competition for for playing time would be the likes of Daniel Gibson, Manny Harris and Anthony Parker.

BD80
05-31-2012, 10:54 AM
I love the prospect of MJ screwing up this draft. The only "sure-fire" pick is Davis, and every other pick has a down-side. I agree that MKG is the second best prospect from the perspective of All-Star potential, but there are 6-8 players that could prove to be better pros.

My dream scenario has MJ picking HB, who crashes and burns in specacular fashion.

Starter
05-31-2012, 11:28 AM
The biggest losers in the lottery: the Nets. They had a top-3 protected pick this year that could have been a trade chip (or it could have been used on one of the four big-name prospects). Instead, they get the #6 pick and lose their pick to the Blazers.

The Hornets could really revamp their team with Anthony Davis and perhaps Terrence Ross. Their biggest needs appear to be at SF and PF, as they have a decent C (Kaman) and PG (Jack and Vazquez) and they'll get a good SG (Gordon) back from injury. Davis fits perfectly. Ross doesn't fit quite as well (he'll be a SG), but there isn't likely to be a good SF option at that point in the draft.

Man, the Nets did it to themselves. How do you trade a lottery pick for Gerald Wallace, not exactly a transcendent player, and not get it at least Top 10 protected? Baffling move by Mr. King. It's not like Crash is going to help lure Deron to Brooklyn.

superdave
05-31-2012, 11:31 AM
The Hornets could really revamp their team with Anthony Davis and perhaps Terrence Ross. Their biggest needs appear to be at SF and PF, as they have a decent C (Kaman) and PG (Jack and Vazquez) and they'll get a good SG (Gordon) back from injury. Davis fits perfectly. Ross doesn't fit quite as well (he'll be a SG), but there isn't likely to be a good SF option at that point in the draft.

Here's the Hornets cap situation (http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_orleans.htm) for the next few years.

Kaman is gone unless they re-sign him. If they can get him and Carl Landry at decent prices, they'd be wise to re-sign. Their starters should be Okafor, Landry, Ariza, Gordon and Jack with Anthony Davis, Aminu and Vazquez off the bench. They can pick up a PG for the future with the #10 pick (Lillard) or get another big man (Zeller, Perry Jones) or package the pick with a player for something (#10 plus Aminu for Josh Smith, Danny Granger or Rudy Gay).

superdave
05-31-2012, 11:34 AM
Anyone read up on how Austin's workout are going? Seems like the mock drafts have him slipping a little so it makes me wonder if his workouts, if any, have gone ok.

Starter
05-31-2012, 11:35 AM
I love the prospect of MJ screwing up this draft. The only "sure-fire" pick is Davis, and every other pick has a down-side. I agree that MKG is the second best prospect from the perspective of All-Star potential, but there are 6-8 players that could prove to be better pros.

My dream scenario has MJ picking HB, who crashes and burns in specacular fashion.

I was thinking that too, with Barnes. It seems logical as an MJ pick in terms of potential for unintentional hilarity. I think it helps Jordan's cause, though, to have Rich Cho apparently with at least some influence. He was responsible for Biyombo last year, I believe, which could very well work out okay. If the Bobcats end up with Kidd-Gilchrist or Beal, or perhaps Robinson, either Jordan has made a rare solid pick, or he's taken a proverbial back seat and is rubber-stamping Cho's informed selections.

sagegrouse
05-31-2012, 11:46 AM
Strangely, I think that would actually be one of the better places for him to land. He'd have a superb point guard setting him up, and his only competition for for playing time would be the likes of Daniel Gibson, Manny Harris and Anthony Parker.

Plus, as a rookie, Kyrie will ensure Barnes has plenty of Duke apparel. -- sage

UrinalCake
05-31-2012, 11:53 AM
Does Prince Harry reunite with his "brother" Kyrie?

I really, really hope not. That's a no-win situation for us as Duke fans. Either a.) Barnes is a bust, in which case Kyrie doesn't gain any help, or b.) Barnes does well, in which case we don't get to make fun of him any more.

I'd rather they go a different direction, draft someone who turns out to be really good, and allow the team to develop into a contender with Kyrie at the helm.

Olympic Fan
05-31-2012, 11:56 AM
I was thinking that too, with Barnes. It seems logical as an MJ pick in terms of potential for unintentional hilarity. I think it helps Jordan's cause, though, to have Rich Cho apparently with at least some influence. He was responsible for Biyombo last year, I believe, which could very well work out okay. If the Bobcats end up with Kidd-Gilchrist or Beal, or perhaps Robinson, either Jordan has made a rare solid pick, or he's taken a proverbial back seat and is rubber-stamping Cho's informed selections.

I'd also love to see Jordan and the Bobcats crash and burn (as if they haven't already).

Realistically, I don't think there is a chance in the world that the team could be so stupid to use the pick on Barnes. Although that would be ideal.

My realistic hope is that they use the pick on Drummond, a classic underachiever. Yeah, he has great potential, but I have my doubts that he ever achieves it.

My biggest hope is that they don't take Michael Kidd Gilchrist. I LOVE that kid. Obviously, everybody is a gamble (even Davis at No. 1), but I think MKG has all-star potential and all-star character. I hated the fact that he played for such a seazy program, but I love the kid.

Just hope he doesn't wind up on my least-favorite NBA team.

gwlaw99
05-31-2012, 12:04 PM
Anyone read up on how Austin's workout are going? Seems like the mock drafts have him slipping a little so it makes me wonder if his workouts, if any, have gone ok.

He has been in the 13-14 range for quite some time. Most drafts have him going to the Suns. Do players in the combine do pre-combine workouts?

superdave
05-31-2012, 12:04 PM
I was thinking that too, with Barnes. It seems logical as an MJ pick in terms of potential for unintentional hilarity. I think it helps Jordan's cause, though, to have Rich Cho apparently with at least some influence. He was responsible for Biyombo last year, I believe, which could very well work out okay. If the Bobcats end up with Kidd-Gilchrist or Beal, or perhaps Robinson, either Jordan has made a rare solid pick, or he's taken a proverbial back seat and is rubber-stamping Cho's informed selections.


I'd also love to see Jordan and the Bobcats crash and burn (as if they haven't already).

Realistically, I don't think there is a chance in the world that the team could be so stupid to use the pick on Barnes. Although that would be ideal.

My realistic hope is that they use the pick on Drummond, a classic underachiever. Yeah, he has great potential, but I have my doubts that he ever achieves it.

My biggest hope is that they don't take Michael Kidd Gilchrist. I LOVE that kid. Obviously, everybody is a gamble (even Davis at No. 1), but I think MKG has all-star potential and all-star character. I hated the fact that he played for such a seazy program, but I love the kid.

Just hope he doesn't wind up on my least-favorite NBA team.

MKG is the consensus pick here. He's at worst a. All-NBA defender and glue guy at the 3. He's at best a 10 time All-star who picks up a consistent outside shot sooner rather than later. They have Gerald at the 2, so they wont be picking Beal and they have Biyombo at the 4 so they dont need Thomas Robinson. Their biggest needs are at the 1, 3 and 5. They are not reaching for Drummond (I hope) or a PG at #2, so MKG is the pick. Barnes is a full step below MKG in the food chain.

gwlaw99
05-31-2012, 12:05 PM
I'd also love to see Jordan and the Bobcats crash and burn (as if they haven't already).

I'd like to see Gerald succeed though.

Starter
05-31-2012, 12:07 PM
MKG is the consensus pick here. He's at worst a. All-NBA defender and glue guy at the 3. He's at best a 10 time All-star who picks up a consistent outside shot sooner rather than later. They have Gerald at the 2, so they wont be picking Beal and they have Biyombo at the 4 so they dont need Thomas Robinson. Their biggest needs are at the 1, 3 and 5. They are not reaching for Drummond (I hope) or a PG at #2, so MKG is the pick. Barnes is a full step below MKG in the food chain.

I think when a team is the worst in NBA history, no player they have is an impediment for getting a potentially better player. As such, I could see them drafting either Beal or Robinson. I'd think Cho would keep them away from Drummond, who I think will be a horrific bust, but we'll see. I think they'll take Kidd-Gilchrist, or potentially Beal, but probably Kidd-Gilchrist.

superdave
05-31-2012, 12:36 PM
I think when a team is the worst in NBA history, no player they have is an impediment for getting a potentially better player. As such, I could see them drafting either Beal or Robinson. I'd think Cho would keep them away from Drummond, who I think will be a horrific bust, but we'll see. I think they'll take Kidd-Gilchrist, or potentially Beal, but probably Kidd-Gilchrist.

What's the point in taking Beal when you have Henderson though? Henderson is young and getting better. Maggette and the other 3's on the roster are not, so I'd shore up the 3.

I think Charlotte mostly needs to stop making trades. They get taken on every trade. Just keep stockpiling young, talented players and wait for the payoff, a la OKC and Minny.

CDu
05-31-2012, 12:37 PM
MKG is the consensus pick here. He's at worst a. All-NBA defender and glue guy at the 3. He's at best a 10 time All-star who picks up a consistent outside shot sooner rather than later. They have Gerald at the 2, so they wont be picking Beal and they have Biyombo at the 4 so they dont need Thomas Robinson. Their biggest needs are at the 1, 3 and 5. They are not reaching for Drummond (I hope) or a PG at #2, so MKG is the pick. Barnes is a full step below MKG in the food chain.

I don't think Biyombo is an impediment to drafting Robinson. Biyombo is just too limited offensively, and is probably best suited to be a #3 big man (backing up both PF and C). As such, I could see them taking Robinson at #2. I agree that Henderson and Beal can't coexist. But Beal projects to be better than Henderson. So worst case you draft Beal and trade Henderson. But I would expect the choice to be either Kidd-Gilchrist or Robinson, because Beal introduces too much complication in terms of trading assets.

CDu
05-31-2012, 12:39 PM
He has been in the 13-14 range for quite some time. Most drafts have him going to the Suns. Do players in the combine do pre-combine workouts?

I don't know about "most" mock drafts having Rivers going to the Suns. There may be a mock or two that has that, but all the mocks I've seen have Rivers going anywhere from 8 to 23. Chad Ford has him pegged at 18 to the T-Wolves.

Starter
05-31-2012, 12:46 PM
What's the point in taking Beal when you have Henderson though? Henderson is young and getting better. Maggette and the other 3's on the roster are not, so I'd shore up the 3.

I think Charlotte mostly needs to stop making trades. They get taken on every trade. Just keep stockpiling young, talented players and wait for the payoff, a la OKC and Minny.

If you think Beal is the best player available, you take Beal rather than someone you're not sold on at another position. Gerald's definitely made some strides, especially in the scoring department, but we're not exactly talking about Kobe Bryant here. Beal has All-Star potential right off the bat.

Since MKG will be available and would be my No. 2 pick regardless, I think it's all probably irrelevant. But Beal wouldn't stun me, is all.

Starter
05-31-2012, 12:47 PM
I don't think Biyombo is an impediment to drafting Robinson. Biyombo is just too limited offensively, and is probably best suited to be a #3 big man (backing up both PF and C). As such, I could see them taking Robinson at #2. I agree that Henderson and Beal can't coexist. But Beal projects to be better than Henderson. So worst case you draft Beal and trade Henderson. But I would expect the choice to be either Kidd-Gilchrist or Robinson, because Beal introduces too much complication in terms of trading assets.

This is true, Biyombo played primarily at center.

Duvall
05-31-2012, 12:48 PM
I'd also love to see Jordan and the Bobcats crash and burn (as if they haven't already).

Realistically, I don't think there is a chance in the world that the team could be so stupid to use the pick on Barnes. Although that would be ideal.


Anything is possible. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/kwamejordan.jpg)

Starter
05-31-2012, 12:53 PM
Anything is possible. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/kwamejordan.jpg)

I'll see your Kwame and raise you Adam Morrison (http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2011-06/23456297830940-23170049.jpg).

CDu
05-31-2012, 12:57 PM
What's the point in taking Beal when you have Henderson though? Henderson is young and getting better. Maggette and the other 3's on the roster are not, so I'd shore up the 3.

I think Charlotte mostly needs to stop making trades. They get taken on every trade. Just keep stockpiling young, talented players and wait for the payoff, a la OKC and Minny.

When you're as bad as the Bobcats, you don't worry about what you have and focus on what you can get. If you think Beal is a superstar, Henderson should not be in the way. You then trade Henderson. The Blazers made the mistake of drafting Sam Bowie instead of taking Michael Jordan because they already had a good young SG. Had they drafted Jordan instead they'd have had arguably the best SG/SF combo in NBA history in Jordan/Drexler.

I doubt they'll take Beal because Robinson or Kidd-Gilchrist create less headache. But Henderson is very tradeable if they decide that Beal is the guy they want to build around.

UrinalCake
05-31-2012, 02:19 PM
I don't personally believe in the "best player available regardless of position" line of reasoning. I mean if a guy is head and shoulders above everyone else then yes you pick him no matter what, but I don't see Beal being that kind of talent. Right now Henderson is one of the few bright spots on the team, so why would you throw that away in order to draft someone who MIGHT turn out to be as good as him? Wouldn't it make more sense to address your team's other needs?

CDu
05-31-2012, 02:38 PM
I don't personally believe in the "best player available regardless of position" line of reasoning. I mean if a guy is head and shoulders above everyone else then yes you pick him no matter what, but I don't see Beal being that kind of talent. Right now Henderson is one of the few bright spots on the team, so why would you throw that away in order to draft someone who MIGHT turn out to be as good as him? Wouldn't it make more sense to address your team's other needs?

Sure. And that's probably why they won't take Beal (among other reasons). But if the Bobcats view Beal as the most "can't miss" superstar of the draft at #2 then they should take him. Henderson can be traded. If you really like Beal and don't care for the others as much, you take Beal and trade for your SF or PF elsewhere.

Since I agree with you that Robinson and Kidd-Gilchrist are just as likely to be stars, it would make more sense (to me) for the Bobcats to take one of those two. Just saying that Henderson isn't stopping the Bobcats from taking Beal; the lack of clear superiority of Beal to the other lotto guys is what's stopping them from taking Beal.

Starter
05-31-2012, 02:42 PM
I don't personally believe in the "best player available regardless of position" line of reasoning. I mean if a guy is head and shoulders above everyone else then yes you pick him no matter what, but I don't see Beal being that kind of talent. Right now Henderson is one of the few bright spots on the team, so why would you throw that away in order to draft someone who MIGHT turn out to be as good as him? Wouldn't it make more sense to address your team's other needs?

It depends how you look at it. Beal has star potential, and I'm not convinced there are a whole lot of other teams Henderson would start for, especially considering he's a shooting guard who can't shoot threes. But I agree that he's still probably the best of this bunch, their forwards are dreadful, and Kidd-Gilchrist would be my pick regardless of any of that.

superdave
05-31-2012, 02:52 PM
I would imagine Charlotte would work out all these guys, and maybe even Drummond and Barnes too. They should just to do their due diligence (health issues or background). But I'd be shocked if anyone leapfrogs MKG. I think he's got a ton of potential and is one of the hardest working guys with elite talent I've seen in a while.

The cynic in me thinks Stern should grant them the 3rd, 4th and 5th picks in the draft as well if Michael Jordan agrees to stop making personnel decisions.

NSDukeFan
05-31-2012, 02:54 PM
I don't personally believe in the "best player available regardless of position" line of reasoning. I mean if a guy is head and shoulders above everyone else then yes you pick him no matter what, but I don't see Beal being that kind of talent. Right now Henderson is one of the few bright spots on the team, so why would you throw that away in order to draft someone who MIGHT turn out to be as good as him? Wouldn't it make more sense to address your team's other needs?

I think it might make the most sense to trade away Henderson to somewhere that he can be a solid starter or rotation player on a team that wins some games every once in awhile. If Beal forces the team to do that, I would be ok with it.

CDu
05-31-2012, 02:58 PM
It depends how you look at it. Beal has star potential, and I'm not convinced there are a whole lot of other teams Henderson would start for, especially considering he's a shooting guard who can't shoot threes. But I agree that he's still probably the best of this bunch, their forwards are dreadful, and Kidd-Gilchrist would be my pick regardless of any of that.

Yeah, it's not like Henderson is some star that you are going to build around. While PER is a somewhat-flawed stat, Henderson ranked 31st in PER last year among SG. And by most other metrics, he'd fall in the 25-30 range among SG. He's a capable starter on a lottery-bound team, but on a playoff team he's probably a backup.

That said, I agree that MKG is the pick. He's safer than Beal (who I think will be better than Henderson) but he has big upside as well.

Li_Duke
05-31-2012, 03:32 PM
The cynic in me thinks Stern should grant them the 3rd, 4th and 5th picks in the draft as well if Michael Jordan agrees to stop making personnel decisions.

With that many chances, I'd imagine even Jordan would accidentally get one right (see Khan).

BD80
05-31-2012, 06:33 PM
I think it might make the most sense to trade away Henderson to somewhere that he can be a solid starter or rotation player on a team that wins some games every once in awhile. If Beal forces the team to do that, I would be ok with it.

Frankly, I don't think there would be much of a market. Everyone has talented shooting guards. Small forwards who like to float become shooting guards, point guards who don't quite have sufficient PG skills but can shoot become shooting guards.

BlueDevilBrowns
05-31-2012, 10:10 PM
Being a die-hard Duke and Cavalier fan since the days of Price, Daughtery, Hot-Rod Williams, Larry Nance, and, wait for it...Craig Ehlo - I can state without a shadow of a doubt I DO NOT WANT HARRISON BARNES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Harrison simply has a very low ceiling of potential. I think at best he could be a Sean Elliot (pretty darn good but not great).

My 1st choice is MKG(obviously), then Ross.

I truly believe TRoss is going to BLOW UP at the next level. He reminds me of a bigger Elliot Williams with a smoother stroke and handle. I think he has the potential to be "Wade-like".

elvis14
06-01-2012, 08:46 AM
Being a die-hard Duke and Cavalier fan since the days of Price, Daughtery, Hot-Rod Williams, Larry Nance, and, wait for it...Craig Ehlo - I can state without a shadow of a doubt I DO NOT WANT HARRISON BARNES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Harrison simply has a very low ceiling of potential. I think at best he could be a Sean Elliot (pretty darn good but not great).

My 1st choice is MKG(obviously), then Ross.

I truly believe TRoss is going to BLOW UP at the next level. He reminds me of a bigger Elliot Williams with a smoother stroke and handle. I think he has the potential to be "Wade-like".

What do you have against Sean Elliot? He wasn't the greatest but he doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the likes of HWMNBN :D 9F

JBDuke
06-01-2012, 09:11 AM
Here's an article in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wizards-insider/post/wizards-have-several-options-at-no-3/2012/05/31/gJQA5a1G4U_blog.html) from columnist Michael Lee talking about the Wizards' prospects at #3. Lee seems to think that the Wiz would be best going after Bradley Beal from Florida to help shore up their perimeter game.

Olympic Fan
06-01-2012, 11:44 AM
Awesome story on grantland.com about the draft. Wade through all the conspiracy talk at the top and get to the part about two-thirds of the way down (written by Duke's Shane Ryan) about the possibility of the Black Falcon "the most overrated player in college basketball history" taken by Charlotte in the first round.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/28115/special-nba-draft-lottery-shootaround

PS Also a little blurb about how Drummond is the most likely bust that the pickers won't be able to resist.

COYS
06-01-2012, 03:08 PM
Awesome story on grantland.com about the draft. Wade through all the conspiracy talk at the top and get to the part about two-thirds of the way down (written by Duke's Shane Ryan) about the possibility of the Black Falcon "the most overrated player in college basketball history" taken by Charlotte in the first round.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/28115/special-nba-draft-lottery-shootaround

PS Also a little blurb about how Drummond is the most likely bust that the pickers won't be able to resist.

I could not agree more with the idea that Drummond will be a bust. If I were a GM, I'd be confident enough about him being a bust that I'd gladly take another player and see Drummond become an All Star. Yeah, I'd get killed for the decision, but the team that won his services was lucky, not smart in drafting him.

Newton_14
06-01-2012, 09:04 PM
What do you have against Sean Elliot? He wasn't the greatest but he doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the likes of HWMNBN :D 9F

Totally agree! :) Sean deserves much better! I doubt HB ever sees the day he becomes as good as Sean Elliot was.

As for the draft, it would be very typical if Jordan selected HB with that second pick. I don't think it will happen, but it would be very Bobcats/Jordan like if it did. I think the best thing Charlotte can do is trade the pick and try to garner multiple picks lower in the draft. After Davis, every other player has question marks. For a team as bad as Charlotte, they need lots of players, not one. I would try to trade down with one of the teams that have 2 first round picks, and try to get 2 picks in the first round, to go with the high pick in the 2nd round.

throatybeard
06-01-2012, 11:40 PM
I've seen Skype Barnes projected as high as #4.

superdave
06-04-2012, 04:47 PM
Chad Ford on the BS Report last week.
(http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=7985312) They bounce around a bit and it was recorded before the ping pong balls were drawn. Simmons is high on Austin Rivers, saying his stock is low because he was not a huge star but he's got the talent and pedigree to be a Jason Terry type player.

Greg_Newton
06-08-2012, 10:31 PM
Skimming through the combine video from earlier and Rivers is working out with the PG group (at least in the athletic testing portion), FWIW. If he really only has an 8'1" reach, he might have to.

Miles looked like he got a great no-step vert, didn't look like his best max vert though. Made a sort of awkward but surprising running hook on Zeller in the only shot I saw in the 2-on-2 drill. Rivers' max vert looked very good. Surprised the vertical numbers aren't out by now.

ThePublisher
06-08-2012, 10:37 PM
The 'lottery' is such a fake. They draw lottery balls behind closed doors??? Just so happens that a struggling franchise with a brand new big time owner happens to win the Anthony David lottery? Give me a break. I guarantee that was part of his deal in buying the hornets. 'I'll buy them if you throw in the #1 pick', and #10 for that matter. What a joke...

Double DD
06-09-2012, 05:42 AM
The 'lottery' is such a fake. They draw lottery balls behind closed doors??? Just so happens that a struggling franchise with a brand new big time owner happens to win the Anthony David lottery? Give me a break. I guarantee that was part of his deal in buying the hornets. 'I'll buy them if you throw in the #1 pick', and #10 for that matter. What a joke...

Behind closed doors where every team has representatives and with journalists present as well. You can read what Zach Lowe from SI said about what he observed this year.

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/05/31/an-nba-draft-lottery-conspiracy-it-didnt-seem-that-way/

Starter
06-10-2012, 02:34 PM
Couple of reported promises lately. Dion Waiters -- who I spent some time with in Philly and like a whole lot -- reportedly has a promise in the mid-lottery. People were talking about the Raptors at No. 8, though Colangelo has denied it. But it seems to hold water, Waiters stopped working out for anyone.

And our own Austin Rivers might have one... From Yahoo's Marc Spears:

"One NBA assistant coach said he was surprised Austin Rivers didn’t work out at the NBA's predraft combine here Thursday. The East scout expects Rivers to be selected in the Nos. 10-20 range, but an NBA source told Yahoo! Sports that Rivers has a promise late in the draft lottery. The Portland Trail Blazers, Toronto Raptors, Houston Rockets, Cleveland Cavaliers, Phoenix Suns, Washington Wizards and New Orleans Hornets plan to work out Rivers."

moonpie23
06-10-2012, 04:48 PM
why behind closed doors? is roger goodell involved?

JasonEvans
06-10-2012, 06:14 PM
why behind closed doors? is roger goodell involved?

It is behind closed doors because they want to preserve the drama of revealing the order on live TV. Plus, it is not the kind of thing where they draw a name out of a hat. It is a sorta complicated process where ping-pong balls are drawn out with numbers on them (lottery-style) and the corresponding 3-digit number is matched up with a specific team that owns that number on the lottery board. Not sure if that makes sense but the reality is that doing it behind closed doors makes perfect sense and does nothing to enhance the odds of it being fixed (which are pretty much nil).

-Jason "now, when the Knicks got Patrick Ewing, that was a whole different situation ;) " Evans

superdave
06-11-2012, 02:45 PM
Charlotte has the #2 pick where the consensus guy to take there in Michel Kidd-Gilchrist. But they need a lot at almost every position. So if you were the Bobcats' GM what would you ask for in return? Some ideas -

Portland has #6 and #11, but would likely have to throw in a player (Nolan?) or a couple of second-rounders. Charlotte could get some pretty good talent with those picks. I think Portland is not entirely happy with Ray Felton either, so he could have a Charlotte homecoming.

Cleveland has #4, #24, #33, #34. I dont know that Charlotte could get a ton of talent later in the draft, but if they are not sold on MKG and see no difference between him Brad Beal and Thomas Robinson or Harrison Barnes, trading down makes sense.

This only makes sense if either Portland or Cleveland is higher than Charlotte on MKG.

I could also see where Washington or Cleveland might be willing to trade the #3 or #4 to Portland for the #6 and #11. Portland could be aiming for Beal or Thomas Robinson, and not see anyone they are excited enough about at #11 to think they are losing much.

Other deals that could be fun -

New Orleans trades the #1 and #10 picks for a big time player - Dwight Howard is actually the only player worth Anthony Davis and the #10 who would likely be traded. But NOLA would be crazy to do this unless Dwight agreed to a long-term deal first (See: Williams, Deron; New Jersey Nets) and I dont see Dwight wanting to go to NOLA during a rebuilding phase.

New Orleans could trade the #10 for a veteran who needs a change of scenery - Rudy Gay and Josh Smith come to mind.

Greg_Newton
06-11-2012, 05:29 PM
One interesting idea that has been floating around is some deal built around the #2 for Rudy Gay. Personally, I think that would be a terrific move for the Bobcats, although I'm not sure if Memphis would be open to it. Gay is a proven star who hit some huge shots in the playoffs this year, and he's only 25. Would complement Henderson nicely as a big, athletic, number-one-option wing.

dcdevil2009
06-11-2012, 05:36 PM
I'd say Charlotte is more than a year away from contending. Instead of turning a #2 pick into a few mid-lottery picks, they might be better served by taking the best player available, surrounding him with a few good character veterans, and then hoping to strike gold in next year's lottery.

johnb
06-11-2012, 06:23 PM
Charlotte has the #2 pick where the consensus guy to take there in Michel Kidd-Gilchrist. But they need a lot at almost every position. So if you were the Bobcats' GM what would you ask for in return? Some ideas -



My impression is that, typically, a top NBA pick >> 2 late lotteries. It does seem this year that pick 2 is not >> than pick 10 (at least in terms of predictability), so if I were Charlotte, I'd definitely be interested in a trade.

Newton_14
06-11-2012, 08:46 PM
Charlotte has the #2 pick where the consensus guy to take there in Michel Kidd-Gilchrist. But they need a lot at almost every position. So if you were the Bobcats' GM what would you ask for in return? Some ideas -

Portland has #6 and #11, but would likely have to throw in a player (Nolan?) or a couple of second-rounders. Charlotte could get some pretty good talent with those picks. I think Portland is not entirely happy with Ray Felton either, so he could have a Charlotte homecoming.

Cleveland has #4, #24, #33, #34. I dont know that Charlotte could get a ton of talent later in the draft, but if they are not sold on MKG and see no difference between him Brad Beal and Thomas Robinson or Harrison Barnes, trading down makes sense.

This only makes sense if either Portland or Cleveland is higher than Charlotte on MKG.

I could also see where Washington or Cleveland might be willing to trade the #3 or #4 to Portland for the #6 and #11. Portland could be aiming for Beal or Thomas Robinson, and not see anyone they are excited enough about at #11 to think they are losing much.

Other deals that could be fun -

New Orleans trades the #1 and #10 picks for a big time player - Dwight Howard is actually the only player worth Anthony Davis and the #10 who would likely be traded. But NOLA would be crazy to do this unless Dwight agreed to a long-term deal first (See: Williams, Deron; New Jersey Nets) and I dont see Dwight wanting to go to NOLA during a rebuilding phase.

New Orleans could trade the #10 for a veteran who needs a change of scenery - Rudy Gay and Josh Smith come to mind.

Well, as the DBR GM of the Bobcats, were I allowed to do this for real, I trade that #2 pick all day long. I do everything possible to trade with one of the teams that has 2 First Rd picks, and ask for both for the #2, or the highest of the 2 picks plus a player. No way I keep the pick. That team needs far too much help to take just one player who isn't named Anthony Davis.

Charlotte needs to trade down to get as many players as possible be them 1st Rd picks this year or good players from the other team's existing roster.

Unfortunately for me, our rules will not allow me to trade the pick, so I have to use it wisely. I am down to 2 guys, just debating which one to go with. Hoping for a quality player to fall/slip into 2nd round so I can get a steal with that 2nd pick! :)

elvis14
06-11-2012, 09:28 PM
My impression is that, typically, a top NBA pick >> 2 late lotteries. It does seem this year that pick 2 is not >> than pick 10 (at least in terms of predictability), so if I were Charlotte, I'd definitely be interested in a trade.

I think this is a very good point. The NBA is driven by the stars. Lots of years you have a pretty good shot at a star with one of the top 2-3 picks. This year, I think johnb has it right, there isn't a huge difference between #2 and #10 and a trade that'll get the Bobcats a top 10 pick and another player or two top 10/11 picks would be a good trade.

UrinalCake
06-11-2012, 09:38 PM
My impression is that, typically, a top NBA pick >> 2 late lotteries. It does seem this year that pick 2 is not >> than pick 10 (at least in terms of predictability), so if I were Charlotte, I'd definitely be interested in a trade.

I agree with your first point. You need a superstar to compete for a title, and the odds of finding a superstar after the first 3-5 picks drops off considerably. Oklahoma City has provided a perfect model for how to build a contender from scratch - they drafted:

2007 Durant (#2)
2008 Westbrook (#4)
2008 Ibaka (#24)
2009 Harden (#3)

And then made some good trades to get guys like Perkins and picked up Derek Fisher for nothing. So I'd rather take a top guy every year and continue to stink for a few years while I stockpile high picks versus trading down for multiple lower-tier players, many of whom will be cut and available for nothing in a season or two.

-jk
06-11-2012, 09:49 PM
How long can you load up on rookie contracts before they start expiring (the contracts, not the rookies)?

-jk

UrinalCake
06-11-2012, 10:04 PM
How long can you load up on rookie contracts before they start expiring (the contracts, not the rookies)?

True, but if you continue to draft promising, young players and appear to be committed to winning then those rookies will want to keep playing there. See Durant, Kevin. By contrast, Cleveland tried to bring in a bunch of veterans to win a title quickly before LeBron's contract ran out, and he decided to bolt because he didn't see a future there (among other reasons).

superdave
06-11-2012, 10:20 PM
Here's their picks the past few years and who they could have had instead -

2004. #2. Emeka Okafor. Could have had Deng, Igoudala, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith. Okafor has been good, just oft-injured. I'm not sure I'd change this pick because Okafor has been a quality big.

2005. #5 Ray Felton. Could have had Andrew Bynum. #13. Sean May. Could have had Danny Granger, David Lee, Brandon Bass, Monta Ellis.

2006. #3 Adam Morrison. Could have had, well, anybody else. Including Brandon Roy, Rudy Gay, Redick, Sefolosha, Paul Milsap and......Rajon Rondo.

2007. #8. Brandan Wright. Could have had Joakim Noah who went #9. Also picked #22 Jared Dudley, and could have had Afflalo or Splitter.

2008. #9. DJ Augustin. Could have had Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert. Also picked #20 Alexis Ajinca but could have had Serge Ibaka, George Hill or Deandre Jordan.

2009. #12 Gerald Henderson. Clearly they got the right guy, although there were a few guards available (Lawson, Maynor).

2010. No pick. The Bobcats traded this pick for the #20 pick in 2008 who turned out to Alexis Ajinca (career average...3.1 points) with Denver. Denver traded it to Minnesota for the right to Ty Lawson in 2009, Minny then took Luke Babbit with the Bobcats' #16 pick. Had Charlotte kept the pick they could have had Eric Beldsoe, Avery Bradley, Eliot Williams, Jordan Crawford.

2011. #9. Kemba Walker. Could have had Kawhi Leonard. They also picked Tobias Harris at #19 but could have had Kenneth Faried.

If you change their pick to the best of the could have hads for each year, the Bobcats lineup could currently be -

Guards - Rajon Rondo, Aaron Afflalo, Avery Bradley.
Wings - Danny Granger, Kawhi Leonard.
Bigs - Joakim Noah, Roy Hibbert, Serge Ibaka, Kenneth Faried.

I'd like to see that team play against any other roster in the league. Even if they got 2-3 of those picks right, instead of the guys they took, they'd have a bright, bright future. Imagine the Bobcats with Avery Bradley, Gerald Henderson, Kawhi Leonard, Noah, Faried. That's a tough, young starting 5.

And I misspelled Bobcats in the title....

FellowTraveler
06-12-2012, 10:44 AM
Here's their picks the past few years and who they could have had instead -

I was surprised to see that your list of Bobcats' draft mistakes doesn't look worse.

2004: As you note, Okafor was a solid pick.

2005: Felton wasn't a bad pick; he's been a solid NBA PG for much of his career. Sure, you'd rather have Bynum -- but Bynum was a high school kid and thus a bit risky; 9 teams passed on him. Sean May at 13 didn't do much, but I tend to think anything after pick 10 or so is pretty much a crapshoot -- you can make a great pick after the top ten, but I'm not sure you can make an awful one. It isn't like Danny Granger was a sure thing -- he was a four-year college player who never made even 3rd team All America; 16 teams passed on him. Monta Ellis? He was the 40th pick; hard to say Charlotte should've taken him with the 13th.

2006: Morrison was an awful pick, both at the time and in retrospect. Just terrible.

2007: Wright over Noah looks bad now, but it was pretty defensible at the time. Wright averaged 15 & 6 on 65% shooting as a freshman; in three years at Florida, Noah never averaged that many points or posted that good a FG%. Obviously Noah's rebounding and defense give him a huge edge, but the consensus at the time was that Wright would be an effective low post scorer. Reasonable pick. Jared Dudley is a solid rotation player; not a bad get at #22 at all. Even with benefit of hindsight, I'd take him over Afflalo.

2008: Probably should've taken Lopez over Augustin, but, again, this isn't a terrible pick; Augustin was 1st team AA as a sophomore and demonstrated an ability to get in the lane and distribute, and the Bobcats already had Okafor. (I don't think anyone saw Hibbert as a can't-miss big coming out of college, and while he's quite valuable now, questions about quickness, stamina, and ability to avoid fouls remain.) And I'm not going to ding anyone for failing to take George Hill at #20.

2009: Gerald Henderson was one of my favorite Duke players of the last 10-15 years, but I think this was arguably Charlotte's second-biggest mistake. I know I said it's hard to make an awful pick after 10 or so, but Ty Lawson should've been a top 5 pick, and I'd have taken him over Henderson in a heartbeat. Mitigating Factor: Charlotte already had Felton & Augustin on the roster.

2010: No pick/not an awful trade..

2011: Walker over Leonard is justifiable and may turn out to be the right decision. I'd have taken Faried at 19 -- and would have seriously considered taking him at 9. But 21 teams passed on him, so it's hard to mock Charlotte for not taking him.

It's really the Morrison pick that killed them. He produced absolutely nothing for Charlotte -- actually had negative win shares. An 8 or 12 or 20 pick is always a bit of a gamble. But with the #3 pick, you have to get more than Morrison.

I suppose the other mistake was taking Augustin when they already had Felton -- Felton wasn't exactly a franchise centerpiece, but Augustin wasn't so likely to be a star that it necessarily justified the duplication. And if they'd taken a big instead of Augustin, they might've then taken Lawson instead of Henderson the next year (assuming same draft position, which is of course an insane assumption.) And having Lawson in place, they wouldn't have felt the need to take Walker in 2011, freeing them up to grab Faried or Leonard. So instead of Augustin/Henderson/Walker, they'd have Lopez/Lawson/Faried.


Even if they got 2-3 of those picks right, instead of the guys they took, they'd have a bright, bright future. Imagine the Bobcats with Avery Bradley, Gerald Henderson, Kawhi Leonard, Noah, Faried. That's a tough, young starting 5.

Young and tough, yes, but I'm not sure they'd score much. Lots of 77-74 games with that team.

Starter
06-12-2012, 11:18 AM
According to Draft Express, Harrison Barnes jumped 38 inches flat-footed, which they say is by far the best result this year and the 4th best since they started tracking it.

Obviously, vertical leap is not necessarily an indicator of future success.

But how in the world was this guy not taking over games on the regular?!? To be the shooter he is and have those sort of athletic tools? My word.

sagegrouse
06-12-2012, 11:28 AM
According to Draft Express, Harrison Barnes jumped 38 inches flat-footed, which they say is by far the best result this year and the 4th best since they started tracking it.

Obviously, vertical leap is not necessarily an indicator of future success.

But how in the world was this guy not taking over games on the regular?!? To be the shooter he is and have those sort of athletic tools? My word.

Interesting, his vertical with steps was only 1.5" higher -- 39.5 -- one of the best but below Miles at 40.5.

sage

superdave
06-12-2012, 11:28 AM
2005: Felton wasn't a bad pick; he's been a solid NBA PG for much of his career.

Sean May at 13 didn't do much, but I tend to think anything after pick 10 or so is pretty much a crapshoot -- you can make a great pick after the top ten, but I'm not sure you can make an awful one.

2006: Morrison was an awful pick, both at the time and in retrospect. Just terrible.

2007: Wright over Noah looks bad now, but it was pretty defensible at the time. Wright averaged 15 & 6 on 65% shooting as a freshman; in three years at Florida, Noah never averaged that many points or posted that good a FG%. Obviously Noah's rebounding and defense give him a huge edge, but the consensus at the time was that Wright would be an effective low post scorer. Reasonable pick.

2008: Probably should've taken Lopez over Augustin, but, again, this isn't a terrible pick;

2009: Gerald Henderson was one of my favorite Duke players of the last 10-15 years, but I think this was arguably Charlotte's second-biggest mistake. I know I said it's hard to make an awful pick after 10 or so, but Ty Lawson should've been a top 5 pick, and I'd have taken him over Henderson in a heartbeat. Mitigating Factor: Charlotte already had Felton & Augustin on the roster.

2010: No pick/not an awful trade..

2011: Walker over Leonard is justifiable and may turn out to be the right decision. I'd have taken Faried at 19 -- and would have seriously considered taking him at 9. But 21 teams passed on him, so it's hard to mock Charlotte for not taking him.

I suppose the other mistake was taking Augustin when they already had Felton -- Felton wasn't exactly a franchise centerpiece, but Augustin wasn't so likely to be a star that it necessarily justified the duplication. And if they'd taken a big instead of Augustin, they might've then taken Lawson instead of Henderson the next year (assuming same draft position, which is of course an insane assumption.) And having Lawson in place, they wouldn't have felt the need to take Walker in 2011, freeing them up to grab Faried or Leonard. So instead of Augustin/Henderson/Walker, they'd have Lopez/Lawson/Faried.

Young and tough, yes, but I'm not sure they'd score much. Lots of 77-74 games with that team.

Hindsight and all that.....but it is fun to pick apart their choices.

Let's concentrate on a few of the obvious ones here -

They drafted Felton in 2005, which means he's the PG for the next 12 years for this team. That means they do not need Kemba, Tywon Lawson or DJ Augustin.

They screwed up drafting Sean May in 2005. He was overweight, too short to be a 4 in the league and injured several times in college. He played below the rim and was obviously not a long-term solution at the 4. So let's reverse that pick and give them David Lee instead. Lee can play both the 4 and 5 and would have started his career as a backup for Okafor.

Let's nix Adam Morrison and say the Bobcats take the next best player: Brandon Roy. Tyrus Thomas was just an athlete, Shelden was not needed because of Okafor, Lee. So we'll give them Roy.

In 2007, they drafted Wright. They could have had Noah, but that gives the two 5's and a combo 4/5. So let's leave Wright because it made sense with this fake roster.

In 2008, I vote to give them Brook Lopez. This gives the Cats a 4-man rotation in the frontcourt and there's not an obvious 2 or 3 available. You take the best guy and you avoid Augustin because he's redundant with Felton.

In 2009, I'd keep Gerald as the pick. The next several guys were all frontcourt players we dont need and Gerald is the ebst player on the board at a position of need.

No pick in '10 so let's move on.

In 2011, Charlotte takes Kemba, but we've already got Felton. do we want Kemba as the change of pace reserve off the bench who can score in bunches? Hmmm. Chad Ford had Leonard ranked #7 overall and Kemba #9, so the Cats should have taken Leonard first of all as the better player and second of all because they traded away their SFs on the roster - Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson, Boris Diaw.

For their second pick, they picked Tobias who was #17 on Ford's big board while Faried was #14. You have to go Faried here.

This gives Charlotte a nucleus of Okafor (who they traded for Tyson Chandler), Felton, David Lee, Brandan Wright, Brook Lopez, Gerald Henderson, Kawhi Leonard and Kenneth Faried. They need some more backcourt depth which means maybe they swing a deal here or there. But all the guys above are productive NBA players. Only Wright has been a disappointment.

FellowTraveler
06-12-2012, 11:39 AM
According to Draft Express, Harrison Barnes jumped 38 inches flat-footed, which they say is by far the best result this year and the 4th best since they started tracking it.

Good scores on sprint, agility & bench, too. And he "measures out in a range more commonly reserved for combo forwards, as he's an inch taller than the average small forward in our database with a wingspan just under a full inch longer (http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz1xaq5P4zM)."


But how in the world was this guy not taking over games on the regular?!? To be the shooter he is and have those sort of athletic tools? My word.

He's a very good shooter and athlete with good size and strength and some refined moves. He should be a very good player. It's always possible that he has mental/confidence/etc issues that hold him back*, but I don't presume to have any way of knowing whether this is the case. One thing that has struck me when watching him is that he can at times look oddly mechanical, in the same way Andre Dawkins can sometimes look. Both players are quite skilled, at least in certain areas of play, and both are at the very least reasonably strong and athletic, so it's jarring to see them look this way. I guess this could be the result of spending much more time developing and refining specific skills/moves/footwork/etc than just playing.

In any case, while I don't expect Barnes to be an All-NBA type of player, I do think he'll be very good, and he's among the safest picks in the draft. His worst case scenario as a pro just doesn't seem that bad to me -- good shooter with size and athleticism. I do have concerns about his ability to play defense, though he obviously has the physical attributes necessary to be a good defender, and I suspect he's willing to put the work in.

Duvall
06-12-2012, 11:42 AM
According to Draft Express, Harrison Barnes jumped 38 inches flat-footed, which they say is by far the best result this year and the 4th best since they started tracking it.

Obviously, vertical leap is not necessarily an indicator of future success.

But how in the world was this guy not taking over games on the regular?!? To be the shooter he is and have those sort of athletic tools? My word.

Bear in mind, "the shooter he is" was average at best. (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=harrison-barnes)

FerryFor50
06-12-2012, 11:43 AM
Hindsight and all that.....but it is fun to pick apart their choices.

Let's concentrate on a few of the obvious ones here -

They drafted Felton in 2005, which means he's the PG for the next 12 years for this team. That means they do not need Kemba, Tywon Lawson or DJ Augustin.

They screwed up drafting Sean May in 2005. He was overweight, too short to be a 4 in the league and injured several times in college. He played below the rim and was obviously not a long-term solution at the 4. So let's reverse that pick and give them David Lee instead. Lee can play both the 4 and 5 and would have started his career as a backup for Okafor.

Let's nix Adam Morrison and say the Bobcats take the next best player: Brandon Roy. Tyrus Thomas was just an athlete, Shelden was not needed because of Okafor, Lee. So we'll give them Roy.

In 2007, they drafted Wright. They could have had Noah, but that gives the two 5's and a combo 4/5. So let's leave Wright because it made sense with this fake roster.

In 2008, I vote to give them Brook Lopez. This gives the Cats a 4-man rotation in the frontcourt and there's not an obvious 2 or 3 available. You take the best guy and you avoid Augustin because he's redundant with Felton.

In 2009, I'd keep Gerald as the pick. The next several guys were all frontcourt players we dont need and Gerald is the ebst player on the board at a position of need.

No pick in '10 so let's move on.

In 2011, Charlotte takes Kemba, but we've already got Felton. do we want Kemba as the change of pace reserve off the bench who can score in bunches? Hmmm. Chad Ford had Leonard ranked #7 overall and Kemba #9, so the Cats should have taken Leonard first of all as the better player and second of all because they traded away their SFs on the roster - Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson, Boris Diaw.

For their second pick, they picked Tobias who was #17 on Ford's big board while Faried was #14. You have to go Faried here.

This gives Charlotte a nucleus of Okafor (who they traded for Tyson Chandler), Felton, David Lee, Brandan Wright, Brook Lopez, Gerald Henderson, Kawhi Leonard and Kenneth Faried. They need some more backcourt depth which means maybe they swing a deal here or there. But all the guys above are productive NBA players. Only Wright has been a disappointment.

You're logic assumes that Charlotte keeps all the players they drafted. Let's not forget that some of the biggest reasons the Cats can't stay competitive is that they don't want to spend money, which is somewhat motivated by inability to draw fans, which is somewhat motivated by their overall crappy-ness.

They got rid of Felton because they didn't want to (over)pay him, which I think was the right move. Felton is an ok player, but not a game changer. I do agree that not taking Lawson was a mistake.

Sean May, Brendan Wright and Morrison were by far the biggest mistakes by Charlotte, but let's be fair - every team in the NBA has made a terrible pick or two in the first round in the past 10 years. For instance, the pick they gave up in 2010 became Luke Babbit. What exactly has he done to make that look bad for Charlotte?

I do find it hilarious that Charlotte keeps picking local players, as if that strategy has worked at all for them. Out of 10 picks, they've taken 3 UNC players and 2 more ACC guys...

COYS
06-12-2012, 11:57 AM
In any case, while I don't expect Barnes to be an All-NBA type of player, I do think he'll be very good, and he's among the safest picks in the draft. His worst case scenario as a pro just doesn't seem that bad to me -- good shooter with size and athleticism. I do have concerns about his ability to play defense, though he obviously has the physical attributes necessary to be a good defender, and I suspect he's willing to put the work in.

I feel similarly about Barnes' pro potential. Actually, I think his ceiling is probably Joe Johnson with the Hawks. Johnson has a lot more ball handling ability and is a tad shorter, but he is similar in that he uses his height to get his shot off at any time over shorter SG defenders. Barnes will probably be able to do the same thing at SF, most of the time. Barnes is unlikely to match Johnson's playmaking numbers (Joe Johnson peaked in 06-07 with a very solid 22% assist rate), assuming Barnes' college playmaking numbers are an accurate indicator of what he can do. On the other hand, with Barnes at SF, that won't be as much of an issue. Also, Johnson doesn't use his handle to get to the rim all that frequently. I would imagine that Johnson's and Barnes shot charts will look similar, with most shots coming off of iso sets inside the three point arc with a few shots at the basket and spot up threes from the wings sprinkled in.

I also expect Barnes to channel Joe Johnson as a defender. Johnson doesn't get many steals, but he also does a pretty consistent job staying in front of his man, using his superior size, length, and strength more than quickness. Johnson has an insanely low foul rate. Barnes' college numbers also show him to be a low-risk defender with a low foul rate. Although Hawks fans (like me) lament forever how Johnson has been overrated and is not deserving of the max contract he was awarded, he IS a very solid player. Though his PER has never eclipsed 20, it has been right around the 17.5-19.5 range for the vast majority of his career. If Barnes is able to perform similarly, he would be a great 2nd or 3rd option on a championship caliber team, which is why I actually think the Cavs might be making a smart move in drafting him. It seems there are very few surefire stars in this draft after Davis. MKG will be off the board. In Barnes they'd give Kyrie another guy who can score and, better yet, one who can score with or without Kyrie feeding him the ball. He's got good size for his position, too. He seems very unlikely to be a bust while at the same time is also unlikely to improve the Cavs so much that they won't be back in the lottery next year. From a Duke vs UNC standpoint, I'd hate to have to root for Prince Harry AND Kyrie on the Cavs when I had hoped and even expected to be able to do that when they were at Duke. But from the Cavs perspective, I don't really see too much downside to Barnes even if there is a higher risk/higher reward player still on the board.

Jderf
06-12-2012, 12:00 PM
Bear in mind, "the shooter he is" was average at best. (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=harrison-barnes)

Average at best!? You're crazy. He was phenomenal! Last year, out of all of Division I NCAA basketball, he was a top-ten shooter, at 9th overall... in field goals attempted. :D

(FG%: 651st)

Starter
06-12-2012, 12:31 PM
LOL, good point by both you guys. I really meant more skills-wise than results-wise with his shooting; much like with his athleticism, the two didn't really align.

FellowTraveler
06-12-2012, 12:32 PM
Hindsight and all that.....but it is fun to pick apart their choices.

Let's concentrate on a few of the obvious ones here -

They drafted Felton in 2005, which means he's the PG for the next 12 years for this team. That means they do not need Kemba, Tywon Lawson or DJ Augustin.

I think you're overestimating how long a team can expect to be set at PG with one player.


They screwed up drafting Sean May in 2005. He was overweight, too short to be a 4 in the league and injured several times in college. He played below the rim and was obviously not a long-term solution at the 4. So let's reverse that pick and give them David Lee instead. Lee can play both the 4 and 5 and would have started his career as a backup for Okafor.

Clearly they'd have been better off taking Lee. But do you really think it was obvious at the time that they should have? If May was too short, so was Lee -- Lee measured 6'7.75 at the combine, only 3/4 of an inch taller than May, with a shorter wingspan and slightly better reach. Verticals were essentially the same, even though May was carrying around more weight. May was coming off an 18 and 10 junior year for the national champions; Lee was a senior on an inferior team who never put up as many points (maxed out at 13.6), rebounds, or as high a FG%. May was 1st team All America; Lee wasn't even third team. Chad Ford projected Lee to go between 21 and 40 (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft/results/players/_/id/18729/david-lee) and May to go between 9 and 16. And that's what happened: May went 13, Lee went 30.

Again, using hindsight, it's clear they should've taken Lee. But using hindsight, every team could draft better. The Spurs are widely seen as being really good at the draft. Well, last year they passed on Isaiah Thomas twice, and took Cory Joseph instead. That could still turn out well, but a year later it looks unlikely to do so. Would you rather have James Anderson or Landry Fields? The Spurs took Anderson. They took Splitter and Marcus Williams when they could have had Marc Gasol and Carl Landry (or Ramon Sessions.) They took Ian Mahinmi two spots before the Knicks took David Lee. They took Beno Udrih two spots before Orlando took Anderson Verejao. And John Salmons 8 slots ahead of Carlos Boozer.

roywhite
06-12-2012, 12:33 PM
Waiting with interest to see who Newton picks #2 overall in DBR draft.

I'd probably go Thomas Robinson, but not sure.

FireOgilvie
06-12-2012, 12:38 PM
When discussing the Charlotte Bobcats draft fantasy it is important to keep in mind that if the team improves then they don't get as high of picks in the draft. You can really only examine one year at a time and comment on players they passed on. Also, Adam Morrison wasn't that bad of a pick at the time, IMO. The knee injury really did him in. His defense was always questionable but I think he could have done well over time as he worked on taking efficient shots. He averaged 28 points per game and was widely considered a better pro prospect than JJ coming out of college. Hindsight is 20/20.

superdave
06-12-2012, 12:42 PM
I do find it hilarious that Charlotte keeps picking local players, as if that strategy has worked at all for them. Out of 10 picks, they've taken 3 UNC players and 2 more ACC guys...

Yeah, Barnes could actually cause a riot down that way right now though. Unc fans really cooled on him this year when he never progressed.

Charlotte has cut some bad deals the past few years too -

They traded Gerald Wallace for Pryzbilla, Cunningham and the #17 pick in 2011. They took Tobias Harris then traded him and Stephen Jackson for eventually Corey Maggette and Bismack Biyombo. Maggette is not a solution for a rebuilding team and the jury is out on Biyombo, a great athlete but possibly not a basketball player. Wallace was the only All-Star in franchise history. You sort of ought to keep a guy like that around.

They traded Okafor for Tyson Chandler simply to save on the luxury tax. The Cats then traded Chandler and Alexis Ajinca to the Mavs for Eric Dampier, Matt Carrol and Eduardo Najera. The Cats immediately waived Dampier, while Chandler went on to win an NBA championship one year after helping Charlotte make its first ever playoff birth. You sort of ought to keep a guy like that around.

superdave
06-12-2012, 12:49 PM
When discussing the Charlotte Bobcats draft fantasy it is important to keep in mind that if the team improves then they don't get as high of picks in the draft. You can really only examine one year at a time and comment on players they passed on. Also, Adam Morrison wasn't that bad of a pick at the time, IMO. The knee injury really did him in. His defense was always questionable but I think he could have done well over time as he worked on taking efficient shots. He averaged 28 points per game and was widely considered a better pro prospect than JJ coming out of college. Hindsight is 20/20.

Adam Morrison (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/adam_morrison/career_stats.html) played in 161 career NBA games and shot 124-375 from 3 (.331).

He got paid $16.9 million (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/morriad01.html) for his troubles. That's $104,000 per game and $136,000 per 3-ball. Nice.

I'm not a Charlotte fan by any means, but I hope they can demonstrate some level of competency drafting.

FellowTraveler
06-12-2012, 01:10 PM
Also, Adam Morrison wasn't that bad of a pick at the time, IMO. The knee injury really did him in. His defense was always questionable but I think he could have done well over time as he worked on taking efficient shots. He averaged 28 points per game and was widely considered a better pro prospect than JJ coming out of college. Hindsight is 20/20.

Morrison was terrible as a rookie, before the knee injury. Negative 1.5 Win Shares, .376 FG%, 5.9 TRB% ... just an awful season. I can't think of a rookie that bad -- particularly a 22-year-old -- who went on to have a good career, though I'm sure there must be someone.

And it isn't hindsight. In college, Morrison didn't demonstrate strong skills other than scoring -- no defense, not much of a rebounder or passer, etc. His three point shooting was good his junior year but bad his previous two. He wasn't particularly quick. He got to the line a lot as a junior, but lacking exceptional quickness, ball handling ability, size, or athleticism, that was unlikely to continue in the NBA. Redick, on the other hand, had a truly elite jump shot, was a good passer, and was a competent defender in college, with the athleticism to become one in the NBA, as well. (Both of Morrison's verticals were among the worst at the combine; even Redick was 2 inches better on the no-step and 2.5 inches better on the max vertical.) I'll agree that Morrison was widely seen as the better pro prospect, but that always struck me as nuts. Morrison seemed like the quintessential great-in-college/bad-in-NBA player to me.

FerryFor50
06-12-2012, 01:15 PM
Yeah, Barnes could actually cause a riot down that way right now though. Unc fans really cooled on him this year when he never progressed.

Charlotte has cut some bad deals the past few years too -

They traded Gerald Wallace for Pryzbilla, Cunningham and the #17 pick in 2011. They took Tobias Harris then traded him and Stephen Jackson for eventually Corey Maggette and Bismack Biyombo. Maggette is not a solution for a rebuilding team and the jury is out on Biyombo, a great athlete but possibly not a basketball player. Wallace was the only All-Star in franchise history. You sort of ought to keep a guy like that around.

They traded Okafor for Tyson Chandler simply to save on the luxury tax. The Cats then traded Chandler and Alexis Ajinca to the Mavs for Eric Dampier, Matt Carrol and Eduardo Najera. The Cats immediately waived Dampier, while Chandler went on to win an NBA championship one year after helping Charlotte make its first ever playoff birth. You sort of ought to keep a guy like that around.

And all those moves scream of trying to save money.

They're the Clippers of the East, but the 1990s Clippers.

Starter
06-12-2012, 01:19 PM
I think Morrison was a pretty terrible draft pick to begin with. He shot 37 percent as a rookie before his knee went, and it was pretty fair to assess he was athletically challenged from the start. That said, it was legitimately one of the worst drafts ever. Trust me, I was there. Gay and Roy would have obviously been better picks, but I don't think either was really held in the regard Morrison was coming out of college. Past that, you have virtually no stars and surprisingly few contributors at all. So it's not like they passed on a slew of franchise-changing talents.

I agree with Henderson being a shaky pick. Not that he's the worst player in the league or anything, but I did think he'd be a better pro than he is. That said, the Bobcats made the same mistake the Knicks did with Jordan Hill and the Bucks did with Joe Alexander: They passed on point guards in a draft loaded with them. It doesn't matter if you have a couple guys at the position -- which the Knicks didn't even have -- with like five credible starting-caliber point guards still on the table, you should pick one, whether it be Lawson, Holiday, Maynor, etc.

FerryFor50
06-12-2012, 01:26 PM
I think Morrison was a pretty terrible draft pick to begin with. He shot 37 percent as a rookie before his knee went, and it was pretty fair to assess he was athletically challenged from the start. That said, it was legitimately one of the worst drafts ever. Trust me, I was there. Gay and Roy would have obviously been better picks, but I don't think either was really held in the regard Morrison was coming out of college. Past that, you have virtually no stars and surprisingly few contributors at all. So it's not like they passed on a slew of franchise-changing talents.

I agree with Henderson being a shaky pick. Not that he's the worst player in the league or anything, but I did think he'd be a better pro than he is. That said, the Bobcats made the same mistake the Knicks did with Jordan Hill and the Bucks did with Joe Alexander: They passed on point guards in a draft loaded with them. It doesn't matter if you have a couple guys at the position -- which the Knicks didn't even have -- with like five credible starting-caliber point guards still on the table, you should pick one, whether it be Lawson, Holiday, Maynor, etc.

I don't think Henderson was that bad of a pick. He's been improving since he was drafted and is a serviceable defender and has proven he can score at an NBA level - averaged 15ppg this past season.

Ty Lawson was the only other player I'd consider better than Henderson right now.

superdave
06-12-2012, 01:31 PM
I think Morrison was a pretty terrible draft pick to begin with. He shot 37 percent as a rookie before his knee went, and it was pretty fair to assess he was athletically challenged from the start. That said, it was legitimately one of the worst drafts ever. Trust me, I was there. Gay and Roy would have obviously been better picks, but I don't think either was really held in the regard Morrison was coming out of college. Past that, you have virtually no stars and surprisingly few contributors at all. So it's not like they passed on a slew of franchise-changing talents.

I agree with Henderson being a shaky pick. Not that he's the worst player in the league or anything, but I did think he'd be a better pro than he is. That said, the Bobcats made the same mistake the Knicks did with Jordan Hill and the Bucks did with Joe Alexander: They passed on point guards in a draft loaded with them. It doesn't matter if you have a couple guys at the position -- which the Knicks didn't even have -- with like five credible starting-caliber point guards still on the table, you should pick one, whether it be Lawson, Holiday, Maynor, etc.


Bringing this conversation back to this year's draft, what do you think of the point guards?

Damian Lillard is the only one projected in the top 10. Kendall Marshall is rated about 20th. The rest are likely shoot-first guards, combo guards or undersized 2's - Rivers, Waiters, Lamb and Lamb.

I understand the importance of having a point, but do you stretch and pick one of these guys in the top 10 to fill a need, or do you draft the best guy available?

FerryFor50
06-12-2012, 01:34 PM
Bringing this conversation back to this year's draft, what do you think of the point guards?

Damian Lillard is the only one projected in the top 10. Kendall Marshall is rated about 20th. The rest are likely shoot-first guards, combo guards or undersized 2's - Rivers, Waiters, Lamb and Lamb.

I understand the importance of having a point, but do you stretch and pick one of these guys in the top 10 to fill a need, or do you draft the best guy available?

In the top 10, I am of the opinion you always go best available instead of reaching for a player that isn't elite.

There is no Kyrie Irving out there this year. Heck, there isn't even a Norris Cole.

I think Marshall will get a reality check in the NBA once he sees how fast the game is played. I don't know enough about Lillard to make a judgement call on him.

COYS
06-12-2012, 01:45 PM
I don't think Henderson was that bad of a pick. He's been improving since he was drafted and is a serviceable defender and has proven he can score at an NBA level - averaged 15ppg this past season.

Ty Lawson was the only other player I'd consider better than Henderson right now.

I'd also add that Henderson has quietly become one of the best defenders at his position in the league. I'm not surprised that his offense has taken a while to come around, as he doesn't shoot well from distance and doesn't have the best handle, relying instead on his turnaround jumper (which is good, but not the highest percentage shot). He has improved, steadily and if he can continue his upward trend on the offensive end, his superior defense will make him a very valuable player. He's not a star, no, but he will be very, very valuable to someone (possibly the Bobcats) if they can put him next to a star or two.

Starter
06-12-2012, 02:03 PM
I don't think Henderson was that bad of a pick. He's been improving since he was drafted and is a serviceable defender and has proven he can score at an NBA level - averaged 15ppg this past season.

Ty Lawson was the only other player I'd consider better than Henderson right now.

I do agree with COYS that Henderson plays good defense, which will keep him in NBA rotations for some time, like Dahntay Jones. But as a shooting guard who doesn't have a lot of range, I just don't see a lot of other teams G would start for, if any. (If advanced stats are your thing, he ranked 172nd in the league in efficiency rating.) In that sense, given how bereft of talent Charlotte has been, it actually was a pretty good place for him to land; where else could he have shot the ball 13 times a game? He has the opportunity to grow on the court, which he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere. Still, I think with the five point guards that went Nos. 17-21, I'd take any of them over Henderson with the exception of Maynor -- whose game I like, it's just he's behind Westbrook and suffered a catastrophic knee injury. The other four are starting point guards on playoff teams. I particularly like Holiday, who's primed to blow up next year.


Bringing this conversation back to this year's draft, what do you think of the point guards?

Damian Lillard is the only one projected in the top 10. Kendall Marshall is rated about 20th. The rest are likely shoot-first guards, combo guards or undersized 2's - Rivers, Waiters, Lamb and Lamb.

I understand the importance of having a point, but do you stretch and pick one of these guys in the top 10 to fill a need, or do you draft the best guy available?

I think your best value is with those two-guards, hoping you can work on their skills and make them into Jason Terry-esque combo PGs. I like Waiters in particular, though I am biased since I know him a little. But I think he has an NBA-ready game and will be a superb defender. Considering the weak crop of guards, this was definitely the right year for Rivers to go pro and get drafted in the lottery, especially if he sells his own combo potential. With Marshall, who knows? I think if his shot gets a bit better and he works on his athleticism, he can stick based on his superior vision and handle. But I wouldn't pick him thinking for sure he was going to be my starting point guard anytime soon, if at all.

FireOgilvie
06-12-2012, 02:50 PM
I think Morrison was a pretty terrible draft pick to begin with. He shot 37 percent as a rookie before his knee went, and it was pretty fair to assess he was athletically challenged from the start. That said, it was legitimately one of the worst drafts ever. Trust me, I was there. Gay and Roy would have obviously been better picks, but I don't think either was really held in the regard Morrison was coming out of college. Past that, you have virtually no stars and surprisingly few contributors at all. So it's not like they passed on a slew of franchise-changing talents.

I agree with Henderson being a shaky pick. Not that he's the worst player in the league or anything, but I did think he'd be a better pro than he is. That said, the Bobcats made the same mistake the Knicks did with Jordan Hill and the Bucks did with Joe Alexander: They passed on point guards in a draft loaded with them. It doesn't matter if you have a couple guys at the position -- which the Knicks didn't even have -- with like five credible starting-caliber point guards still on the table, you should pick one, whether it be Lawson, Holiday, Maynor, etc.

I agree with you for the most part, but I still believe he wasn't a terrible draft choice at the time given the weak draft, which you mentioned. We all know that Morrison's stats show he was completely inefficient his rookie year. But, he averaged over 50% fg in college and shot an absurd 42.8% from 3 his junior year. He had multiple 40 point games and he's a 6'8" small forward. No one expects high percentage shooters to suddenly forget how to shoot. That's why they drafted him. No one expected him to compile the poor overall stats like he did his rookie year, but he still had a 30 point game as a rookie and multiple 20 point games. He absolutely showed flashes of potential. Give him a few healthy seasons in the right system and he's a Danny Granger type (he has had 42% fg for the last 3 seasons). Almost every rookie has a huge jump in FG% after their first year.

Also, back to this year - I'm not that impressed with any of the PG prospects. Lillard could be solid, but he's more of a combo guard in my opinion.

FerryFor50
06-12-2012, 02:51 PM
I do agree with COYS that Henderson plays good defense, which will keep him in NBA rotations for some time, like Dahntay Jones. But as a shooting guard who doesn't have a lot of range, I just don't see a lot of other teams G would start for, if any. (If advanced stats are your thing, he ranked 172nd in the league in efficiency rating.) In that sense, given how bereft of talent Charlotte has been, it actually was a pretty good place for him to land; where else could he have shot the ball 13 times a game? He has the opportunity to grow on the court, which he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere. Still, I think with the five point guards that went Nos. 17-21, I'd take any of them over Henderson with the exception of Maynor -- whose game I like, it's just he's behind Westbrook and suffered a catastrophic knee injury. The other four are starting point guards on playoff teams. I particularly like Holiday, who's primed to blow up next year.



I think your best value is with those two-guards, hoping you can work on their skills and make them into Jason Terry-esque combo PGs. I like Waiters in particular, though I am biased since I know him a little. But I think he has an NBA-ready game and will be a superb defender. Considering the weak crop of guards, this was definitely the right year for Rivers to go pro and get drafted in the lottery, especially if he sells his own combo potential. With Marshall, who knows? I think if his shot gets a bit better and he works on his athleticism, he can stick based on his superior vision and handle. But I wouldn't pick him thinking for sure he was going to be my starting point guard anytime soon, if at all.

To your point about the PGs and Gerald getting an opportunity to play...

Don't you think that, if Charlotte took a PG, they'd just end up rotting on the bench? Especially with Larry Brown coaching, who hated playing rookies? Didn't we learn from Minnesota that it's a bad idea to keep drafting the same position year in and year out?

I can see why Charlotte didn't take PGs. I had forgotten about Westbrook and Holiday - I would have taken them over Henderson, even before we knew how good they were all going to be, though Holiday was a bit more of an unknown at the time since he rode the pine behind Westbrook at UCLA.

Greg_Newton
06-12-2012, 04:32 PM
According to Draft Express, Harrison Barnes jumped 38 inches flat-footed, which they say is by far the best result this year and the 4th best since they started tracking it.

Obviously, vertical leap is not necessarily an indicator of future success.

But how in the world was this guy not taking over games on the regular?!? To be the shooter he is and have those sort of athletic tools? My word.

First of all, I agree - an 11'7.5" no step vert reach is really, really good (no other wing came within 3").

However, I think Barnes - clever as he is - manipulated the testing a little bit. I watched them measure his standing reach, and he didn't extend at all, which the numbers support; there's simply no way he truly only has a 8'5.5" reach. That's 0.5" higher than Rasheed Sulaimon's a 4.5" lower than Kyle Singler, for reference; in real life, I'd guess he's more like 8'9-8'10", which would put his no-step vertical in the still-very-impressive-but-more realistic 33-35" range.

Smart move on his part, though; he knows teams are concerned about his athleticism, not his size or reach for a SF.

COYS
06-12-2012, 04:40 PM
First of all, I agree - an 11'7.5" no step vert reach is really, really good (no other wing came within 3").

However, I think Barnes - clever as he is - manipulated the testing a little bit. I watched them measure his standing reach, and he didn't extend at all, which the numbers support; there's simply no way he truly only has a 8'5.5" reach. That's 0.5" higher than Rasheed Sulaimon's a 4.5" lower than Kyle Singler, for reference; in real life, I'd guess he's more like 8'9-8'10", which would put his no-step vertical in the still-very-impressive-but-more realistic 33-35" range.

Smart move on his part, though; he knows teams are concerned about his athleticism, not his size or reach for a SF.

Clever analysis. I hadn't thought of that. I did not see the workouts, but I'll take your word for it.

luvdahops
06-12-2012, 04:51 PM
First of all, I agree - an 11'7.5" no step vert reach is really, really good (no other wing came within 3").

However, I think Barnes - clever as he is - manipulated the testing a little bit. I watched them measure his standing reach, and he didn't extend at all, which the numbers support; there's simply no way he truly only has a 8'5.5" reach. That's 0.5" higher than Rasheed Sulaimon's a 4.5" lower than Kyle Singler, for reference; in real life, I'd guess he's more like 8'9-8'10", which would put his no-step vertical in the still-very-impressive-but-more realistic 33-35" range.

Smart move on his part, though; he knows teams are concerned about his athleticism, not his size or reach for a SF.

Very interesting. Though I don't think anyone doubts he is a good leaper - his trunk is very powerful, and I recall seeing at least several no step, two-footed dunks from under the hoop by him (not as easy as it may sound for a 6-8 guy). The bigger question marks around Barnes when it comes to athleticism have to do with quickness. Laterally and, especially, with his first step. Not sure those were answered at the combine.

FerryFor50
06-12-2012, 04:55 PM
Very interesting. Though I don't think anyone doubts he is a good leaper - his trunk is very powerful, and I recall seeing at least several no step, two-footed dunks from under the hoop by him (not as easy as it may sound for a 6-8 guy). The bigger question marks around Barnes when it comes to athleticism have to do with quickness. Laterally and, especially, with his first step. Not sure those were answered at the combine.

Didn't you know? Athleticism is only how high you can jump... :D

BD80
06-12-2012, 05:44 PM
First of all, I agree - an 11'7.5" no step vert reach is really, really good (no other wing came within 3").

However, I think Barnes - clever as he is - manipulated the testing a little bit. I watched them measure his standing reach, and he didn't extend at all, which the numbers support; there's simply no way he truly only has a 8'5.5" reach. That's 0.5" higher than Rasheed Sulaimon's a 4.5" lower than Kyle Singler, for reference; in real life, I'd guess he's more like 8'9-8'10", which would put his no-step vertical in the still-very-impressive-but-more realistic 33-35" range.

Smart move on his part, though; he knows teams are concerned about his athleticism, not his size or reach for a SF.

I can see someone like Barnes thinking he can manipulate the system - if he tried to, he is a fool.

This would be different than "working the system" by training specifically for measurables even if just short term and even at the expense of ones overall game. The league is setting an importance on these measurables, and training specifically for them is a sign of coachability and work ethic.

If Barnes thinks he can "fool" GMs who are about to invest millions of dollars in their 1st round pick, maybe he took too many classes with unc football players.

What does the attempt say about his character to those deciding whether to invest millions in him?

The result is that he looks like a stand-still player. He doesn't jump much better on the move than standing still - only 1 1/2 inch difference.

Greg_Newton
06-12-2012, 05:53 PM
I don't know... I haven't heard a peep from anywhere else accusing him of doing so, and even what I'm saying is just conjecture. I don't know that GMs will be watching the measurements in slow-mo to see if his shoulders didn't lift or anything; I think the main takeaway from the testing was that Barnes was far and away the champ, which is all that really matters from Barnes' standpoint. His listed reach is still fine for an NBA SF.

I don't want to take away from what he did accomplish - the highest, by far, standing vert reach among wings and the fastest sprint time in the combine is impressive enough on their own for a player perceived as not a great athlete. However, given his penchant for branding, I have no doubt that he was aware that his draft stock depended much more on athletic testing than measurements. And if you can subtly manipulate the numbers so that "good athlete, great size for a wing" turns into "terrific athlete, good size for a wing", why not do it?

I think a lot of guards/wings try to do that, actually, because they want to seem more athletic (Rivers did it himself, to some extent). I just think it's particularly noticeable with Barnes's vertical/reach numbers.

Newton_14
06-12-2012, 07:34 PM
According to Draft Express, Harrison Barnes jumped 38 inches flat-footed, which they say is by far the best result this year and the 4th best since they started tracking it.

Obviously, vertical leap is not necessarily an indicator of future success.

But how in the world was this guy not taking over games on the regular?!? To be the shooter he is and have those sort of athletic tools? My word.

This is hard to believe actually. He has never shown a jumping ability anywhere close to that. Something does not add up. Guys with hops (like Miles, Hendo, Carter) standout. HB has never stood out or wowed us with leaping ability. Color me confused.

UrinalCake
06-12-2012, 10:09 PM
This is hard to believe actually. He has never shown a jumping ability anywhere close to that. Something does not add up. Guys with hops (like Miles, Hendo, Carter) standout. HB has never stood out or wowed us with leaping ability. Color me confused.

Maybe because he never attacked the basket? It's hard to impress anyone with how high you can leap on a jump shot.

Jderf
06-13-2012, 08:57 AM
This is hard to believe actually. He has never shown a jumping ability anywhere close to that. Something does not add up. Guys with hops (like Miles, Hendo, Carter) standout. HB has never stood out or wowed us with leaping ability. Color me confused.

I don't know... I remember at least a few times when I saw Harrison Barnes explode to the rim for a mostrous putback dunk. Don't get me wrong, it didn't happen all that often, because he simply was never engaged enough to do it at every opportunity. But it still did happen from time to time. So while I by no means think Barnes is the most agile or athletic guy on the court, he has at times shown a pretty decent ability to jump. Not other-worldly, no, but impressive nonetheless.

I didn't see the actual testing, so I can't say whether or not HB smudged the numbers a bit. But I would expect that his real jumping ability is at least somehwat close to those numbers. And it still doesn't change the fact that his general agility is fairly lacking.

superdave
06-13-2012, 03:50 PM
Chad Ford draft chat. (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/44193)I have not read it yet, but I guarantee it's full of rumors, innuendo and rumors of rumors. Always entertaining this time of year.

Starter
06-13-2012, 03:53 PM
Thanks for posting. From that chat, without comment:


Chris (Palo Alto)

I would think Beal should be lock at No. 2 because the Bobcats need guys who are guaranteed scorers. Why even consider MKG or Robinson...are their upsides that much better than Beal's?
Chad Ford (1:03 PM)

I think the Bobcats are happier with Gerald Henderson than they are most of the other players on their roster. I think they feel they need a bigger upgrade at the 3 or the 4. I still believe the Bobcats most likely trade this pick for either 2 draft picks or a player and a pick. They need to get multiple players out of this and aren't in love with anyone at No. 2.

superdave
06-13-2012, 04:08 PM
Thanks for posting. From that chat, without comment:

Would Charlotte be willing to trade the #2 to Portland for #6 and #11? If so, Portland could get a starter and Charlotte could upgrade at two positions. Portland is not far away from being a playoff team again with Aldridge at the 4, Matthews at 2. They have a ton of cap space available and could get either MKG or Robinson and plug him in tomorrow.

Charlotte ought to go with a wing and a big if they get #6 and #11. I'd take Lillard, Barnes or Waiters at 6, then Henson, Zeller or Leonard at #11. That's a good deal for the #2.

Otherwise Cleveland has the #4, #24, #33, #34. If Charlotte is agnostic on Robinson vs. Beal vs. MKG, then getting any of the three at #4 is just as good as at #2, and you could get a few players.

Starter
06-13-2012, 04:31 PM
Would Charlotte be willing to trade the #2 to Portland for #6 and #11? If so, Portland could get a starter and Charlotte could upgrade at two positions. Portland is not far away from being a playoff team again with Aldridge at the 4, Matthews at 2. They have a ton of cap space available and could get either MKG or Robinson and plug him in tomorrow.

Charlotte ought to go with a wing and a big if they get #6 and #11. I'd take Lillard, Barnes or Waiters at 6, then Henson, Zeller or Leonard at #11. That's a good deal for the #2.

Otherwise Cleveland has the #4, #24, #33, #34. If Charlotte is agnostic on Robinson vs. Beal vs. MKG, then getting any of the three at #4 is just as good as at #2, and you could get a few players.

They're both very plausible scenarios, for sure. I think that Portland package sounds pretty good. I'd hope for Leonard in that case, since they're a couple years from contending anyway.

Newton_14
06-13-2012, 05:49 PM
Thanks for posting. From that chat, without comment:


Would Charlotte be willing to trade the #2 to Portland for #6 and #11? If so, Portland could get a starter and Charlotte could upgrade at two positions. Portland is not far away from being a playoff team again with Aldridge at the 4, Matthews at 2. They have a ton of cap space available and could get either MKG or Robinson and plug him in tomorrow.

Charlotte ought to go with a wing and a big if they get #6 and #11. I'd take Lillard, Barnes or Waiters at 6, then Henson, Zeller or Leonard at #11. That's a good deal for the #2.

Otherwise Cleveland has the #4, #24, #33, #34. If Charlotte is agnostic on Robinson vs. Beal vs. MKG, then getting any of the three at #4 is just as good as at #2, and you could get a few players.


They're both very plausible scenarios, for sure. I think that Portland package sounds pretty good. I'd hope for Leonard in that case, since they're a couple years from contending anyway.

As the DBR GM of the Bobcats as well as a casual fan, I will be sick to my stomach if Charlotte keeps the number 2 pick. I love MKG, but I only picked him because our rules would not allow trades. Charlotte better damn well trade that pick to obtain multiple picks in Rd 1, or at a minimum, a lower Rd 1 pick plus a good veteran player, plus an extra 2nd round pick. They need to leverage that 2 into 2 first rounders or 4 players overall. If they stand pat and pick there they are beyond incompetent.

All that said, I will be less than shocked if MJ takes HB with that pick, which would be beyond beyond incompetent and bonehead upidstae...

dcdevil2009
06-13-2012, 06:07 PM
As the DBR GM of the Bobcats as well as a casual fan, I will be sick to my stomach if Charlotte keeps the number 2 pick. I love MKG, but I only picked him because our rules would not allow trades. Charlotte better damn well trade that pick to obtain multiple picks in Rd 1, or at a minimum, a lower Rd 1 pick plus a good veteran player, plus an extra 2nd round pick. They need to leverage that 2 into 2 first rounders or 4 players overall. If they stand pat and pick there they are beyond incompetent.

All that said, I will be less than shocked if MJ takes HB with that pick, which would be beyond beyond incompetent and bonehead upidstae...

I'm with you on MJ being insane to take HB, but I disagree that they should trade the pick. If they trade down for a second first round pick and sign a veteran, they're at best a fringe playoff team next year, which would mean a late-lottery pick in next year's draft. If they take MKG at #2 and stick with the rest of the roster, they're probably looking at another high first-round pick next year too. Basically, it comes down to two high-lottery picks and a better chance to compete in year 3 or 3 mid-first round picks (maybe mid-to-late-lottery) and being a borderline playoff team for the next couple years. Personally, I'd keep the #2 and stink next year, but I'm also not a Bobcats fan so the losing doesn't bother me as much.

Greg_Newton
06-13-2012, 06:48 PM
I'm with you on MJ being insane to take HB, but I disagree that they should trade the pick. If they trade down for a second first round pick and sign a veteran, they're at best a fringe playoff team next year, which would mean a late-lottery pick in next year's draft. If they take MKG at #2 and stick with the rest of the roster, they're probably looking at another high first-round pick next year too. Basically, it comes down to two high-lottery picks and a better chance to compete in year 3 or 3 mid-first round picks (maybe mid-to-late-lottery) and being a borderline playoff team for the next couple years. Personally, I'd keep the #2 and stink next year, but I'm also not a Bobcats fan so the losing doesn't bother me as much.

Even if you eliminate the veteran angle, I still think it makes sense.

I'm of the opinion that #s 9-17 or so in this draft are going to be incredibly strong, maybe producing better NBA players than #s 2-8. If the cats could leverage their current picks into three picks in that range, I think it would be a great move for them.

For example, based on current projections, I'd take C Meyers Leonard (#12), PF Terrance Jones (#14) and SF Perry Jones (#16) in a landslide over MKG or Robinson at #2 if they could work out any sort of package. I think the Jones's could just as easily end up as top 5 players from the draft as Beal or Drummond could, and Leonard is a great true C prospect. Zeller could even work instead of Leonard, as he could provide some finesse/scoring to complement Biyombo.

Not sure how feasible anything like that would be unless they went for the Blazers' 6 and 11, but I think the mid-lottery stacks up much more favorably than the high-lottery in this draft. Plus, the Cats need all the young talent they can get...

Newton_14
06-13-2012, 08:45 PM
I'm with you on MJ being insane to take HB, but I disagree that they should trade the pick. If they trade down for a second first round pick and sign a veteran, they're at best a fringe playoff team next year, which would mean a late-lottery pick in next year's draft. If they take MKG at #2 and stick with the rest of the roster, they're probably looking at another high first-round pick next year too. Basically, it comes down to two high-lottery picks and a better chance to compete in year 3 or 3 mid-first round picks (maybe mid-to-late-lottery) and being a borderline playoff team for the next couple years. Personally, I'd keep the #2 and stink next year, but I'm also not a Bobcats fan so the losing doesn't bother me as much.


Even if you eliminate the veteran angle, I still think it makes sense.

I'm of the opinion that #s 9-17 or so in this draft are going to be incredibly strong, maybe producing better NBA players than #s 2-8. If the cats could leverage their current picks into three picks in that range, I think it would be a great move for them.

For example, based on current projections, I'd take C Meyers Leonard (#12), PF Terrance Jones (#14) and SF Perry Jones (#16) in a landslide over MKG or Robinson at #2 if they could work out any sort of package. I think the Jones's could just as easily end up as top 5 players from the draft as Beal or Drummond could, and Leonard is a great true C prospect. Zeller could even work instead of Leonard, as he could provide some finesse/scoring to complement Biyombo.

Not sure how feasible anything like that would be unless they went for the Blazers' 6 and 11, but I think the mid-lottery stacks up much more favorably than the high-lottery in this draft. Plus, the Cats need all the young talent they can get...

There is logic in both approaches, but, the Bobcats need so many players, picking up 1 per year is just going to take too long. I think they have to trade & multiply. Even with my plan, they are likely still in the mid to high lottery next year, so better to go into next year's draft needing 1 or 2 more pieces, than still needing 3 or 4 more pieces.

No offense to DCDevil, but I do think they have to trade that 2nd pick.

dcdevil2009
06-13-2012, 08:52 PM
Even if you eliminate the veteran angle, I still think it makes sense.

I'm of the opinion that #s 9-17 or so in this draft are going to be incredibly strong, maybe producing better NBA players than #s 2-8. If the cats could leverage their current picks into three picks in that range, I think it would be a great move for them.

For example, based on current projections, I'd take C Meyers Leonard (#12), PF Terrance Jones (#14) and SF Perry Jones (#16) in a landslide over MKG or Robinson at #2 if they could work out any sort of package. I think the Jones's could just as easily end up as top 5 players from the draft as Beal or Drummond could, and Leonard is a great true C prospect. Zeller could even work instead of Leonard, as he could provide some finesse/scoring to complement Biyombo.

Not sure how feasible anything like that would be unless they went for the Blazers' 6 and 11, but I think the mid-lottery stacks up much more favorably than the high-lottery in this draft. Plus, the Cats need all the young talent they can get...

I'm not disputing their need for young talent, or that they'd be better next year with Leonard and Jones than MKG, just that they might be better off with top 5 picks in this year's and next year's draft than the 6 and 11 in this year's draft and something in the 8-15 range next year. If you look at teams that have built through the draft (San Antonio, OKC, Minnesota), they all started out with top 5 picks (Duncan, Durant, Love/Rubio) and then surrounded them with veterans and quality draft picks. Charlotte needs to get that foundation guy first and then work on adding talent around him. If they trade down, they risk adding enough talent to play their way out of the bottom 5 (and a high pick) without being good enough to compete for a title, which is why I think a better move might be to hold onto the pick, even knowing that they'll be terrible again next year.

Zeb
06-13-2012, 10:34 PM
they might be better off with top 5 picks in this year's and next year's draft than the 6 and 11 in this year's draft and something in the 8-15 range next year... If they trade down, they risk adding enough talent to play their way out of the bottom 5 (and a high pick) without being good enough to compete for a title, which is why I think a better move might be to hold onto the pick, even knowing that they'll be terrible again next year.

You can argue about whether it makes more sense to trade down or not, but you should not be basing your decision on the risk of Charlotte being at the high end of the lottery next year. The 2012 Bobcats were the losingest team in NBA history. They will almost certainly still be one of the 3 or 4 worst teams in the league next year regardless of who they draft. Think about it... if you did add Leonard and Jones to the Bobcats (and I don't think the #2 pick is worth that much by the way), what teams would suddenly be worse than them?

Here's a very rough sketch of how the five worst teams besides Charlotte in 2012 will change next year. (I did not worry too much about free agency.) Also remember... the Bobcats have to win ~16 more games in 2013 just to equal the pace of these teams last year!
1. Wizards - #3 pick plus Rashard Lewis' expiring contract could improve them some. Bobcats might catch up a little, but they won't make up 16 games. Wall and Nene will be better than anyone on Bobcats next year.
2. Hornets... two lottery picks, including best player in Draft. They might be playoff dark horse.
3. Cavaliers... #4 pick, plus a healthy Varejao, and the RoY's sophomore campaign means they will stay well ahead of the Bobcats.
4. Sacramento... #5 pick, but besdies that these guys will probably be happy staying the same as 2012, which was still 15 games better than 2012 Bobcats.
5. New Jersey... they get Lopez back, but he's not enough to offset no 1st rounder (idiot GM) and Williams contract drama. Barring some major trade, they probably get worse, but probably just a few games.

Michael has dug a very deep, talentless hole in Charlotte. They will be in the lottery for a long time.

Greg_Newton
06-14-2012, 02:59 AM
I'm not disputing their need for young talent, or that they'd be better next year with Leonard and Jones than MKG, just that they might be better off with top 5 picks in this year's and next year's draft than the 6 and 11 in this year's draft and something in the 8-15 range next year. If you look at teams that have built through the draft (San Antonio, OKC, Minnesota), they all started out with top 5 picks (Duncan, Durant, Love/Rubio) and then surrounded them with veterans and quality draft picks. Charlotte needs to get that foundation guy first and then work on adding talent around him. If they trade down, they risk adding enough talent to play their way out of the bottom 5 (and a high pick) without being good enough to compete for a title, which is why I think a better move might be to hold onto the pick, even knowing that they'll be terrible again next year.

This is certainly a fair point, especially with regard to OKC. However, I'm sort of of the opinion that there's really only one real "top 5 pick" this year, then about 16 top 10-12 guys.

I also agree with Zeb to an extent; if the Bobcats' biggest problem is that their three rookies transform the worst team in NBA history into a borderline playoff contender, I wouldn't exactly complain... especially given that players tend to make much bigger impacts by years 3-4 than in their rookie years. Plus, there's the fact that the lottery is, in fact, a lottery.

When it comes to building a franchise with young talent, I think you have to just try to get the best possible without considering the following year's draft. Signing veteran FAs is certainly a different story, but drafting young players is kind of a win-win; you either get all you need, or you get another chance.

CDu
06-14-2012, 09:13 AM
I'm not disputing their need for young talent, or that they'd be better next year with Leonard and Jones than MKG, just that they might be better off with top 5 picks in this year's and next year's draft than the 6 and 11 in this year's draft and something in the 8-15 range next year. If you look at teams that have built through the draft (San Antonio, OKC, Minnesota), they all started out with top 5 picks (Duncan, Durant, Love/Rubio) and then surrounded them with veterans and quality draft picks. Charlotte needs to get that foundation guy first and then work on adding talent around him. If they trade down, they risk adding enough talent to play their way out of the bottom 5 (and a high pick) without being good enough to compete for a title, which is why I think a better move might be to hold onto the pick, even knowing that they'll be terrible again next year.

Just to note: Charlotte has another small issue to consider. The Bulls have one of their future picks, contingent upon where the pick falls. In 2013, if the pick is outside the top-12, the Bulls get it. In 2014, it is top-10 protected. In 2015, it is top-8 protected. After that, it is unprotected in 2016.

So if the Bobcats somehow manage to get out of the basement and into mediocrity, they'll lose their 1st round pick. So that's even more incentive to stink for another year or two. If they play their cards right, they can build a playoff team by 2015 and then not mind (at least not as much) losing a mid-late 1st round pick in 2015.

That said, I'm not sure that getting two guys this year will bump them out of the top-12 picks in 2013. The key will be timing it such that they don't lose a lottery pick.

superdave
06-14-2012, 09:25 AM
Even if you eliminate the veteran angle, I still think it makes sense.

I'm of the opinion that #s 9-17 or so in this draft are going to be incredibly strong, maybe producing better NBA players than #s 2-8. If the cats could leverage their current picks into three picks in that range, I think it would be a great move for them.

For example, based on current projections, I'd take C Meyers Leonard (#12), PF Terrance Jones (#14) and SF Perry Jones (#16) in a landslide over MKG or Robinson at #2 if they could work out any sort of package. I think the Jones's could just as easily end up as top 5 players from the draft as Beal or Drummond could, and Leonard is a great true C prospect. Zeller could even work instead of Leonard, as he could provide some finesse/scoring to complement Biyombo.

Not sure how feasible anything like that would be unless they went for the Blazers' 6 and 11, but I think the mid-lottery stacks up much more favorably than the high-lottery in this draft. Plus, the Cats need all the young talent they can get...

If Charlotte trades the #2 for the #6 and #11, they could flip #11 to the Rockets for #14 and #16, giving the Cats #6, 14, 16. It's plausible, and worth a shot. They could get Barnes/Drummond at 6 and Harkless/Lamb/Leonard/Zeller etc in the middle of the draft.

CDu
06-14-2012, 09:41 AM
If Charlotte trades the #2 for the #6 and #11, they could flip #11 to the Rockets for #14 and #16, giving the Cats #6, 14, 16. It's plausible, and worth a shot. They could get Barnes/Drummond at 6 and Harkless/Lamb/Leonard/Zeller etc in the middle of the draft.

Why would the Rockets trade the #14 and 16 for the #11? I can't imagine that there is such a difference between the #11 and #14 pick that they'd be willing to give up the #16 pick for it. They might be willing to do so for the #6 pick, but I really doubt it for the #11. Just seems like too much to give up for such a marginal move.

CDu
06-14-2012, 10:00 AM
On an unrelated note, there is a very interesting suggested trade on ESPN. The Bulls send Noah and the #29 pick to Sacramento for Tyreke Evans and the #5 pick.

Why it works for the Bulls? They get salary cap relief by shedding Noah's contract and they add another elite talent as a combo guard to run the offense while Rose is out and move to SG when Rose returns. They also get a lottery pick that could be used to get Drummond (to replace Noah) or Barnes (to replace Deng if they also decide to trade Deng). Basically, the Bulls are a historically penny-pinching franchise, and they're set to go over the luxury tax this coming year. That isn't likely to happen, so any moves the Bulls make are going to be to try to find cheaper options to replace more expensive pieces, even if those options aren't quite as good as the guys they replace.

Don't be surprised, for example, if Korver, Watson, and Brewer are traded for 2nd round picks. The Bulls are likely set to go with Butler over Brewer as the defensive-minded backup SG/SF, and they'll likely get a shooter somewhere in the draft to be a poor-man's Korver. Evans would effectively replace Watson.

Why it works for the Kings? In Noah they get a defensive-minded, unselfish, veteran presence to play alongside the offensively-gifted Cousins. They also get rid of Evans whom they aren't pleased with (especially now that Thomas is playing so well) and who has regressed. Giving up the #5 pick is a gamble, but getting a proven All-Star-caliber center who is still fairly young would possibly be worth it.

Honestly, I don't think this deal would happen. But the Bulls have reportedly had Barnes in for a workout and interview, which suggests they're entertaining the idea of moving up in the draft. That means they're likely entertaining the idea of trading either Deng or Noah, because nobody else aside from Rose is worth such a high pick. Don't be surprised if the Bulls make an interesting trade or two involving this year's draft.

luvdahops
06-14-2012, 10:13 AM
[QUOTE=CDu;581370]Don't be surprised, for example, if Korver, Watson, and Brewer are traded for 2nd round picks. The Bulls are likely set to go with Butler over Brewer as the defensive-minded backup SG/SF, and they'll likely get a shooter somewhere in the draft to be a poor-man's Korver. Evans would effectively replace Watson.
[QUOTE]

Interesting conjecture to be sure. But are any of the three guys mentioned above under contract with the Bulls any more? I know there has been widespread speculation that all of them may be gone next season, but thought it was primarily a function of the Bulls not wanting to pick up any of their options for another year.

CDu
06-14-2012, 10:21 AM
Interesting conjecture to be sure. But are any of the three guys mentioned above under contract with the Bulls any more? I know there has been widespread speculation that all of them may be gone next season, but thought it was primarily a function of the Bulls not wanting to pick up any of their options for another year.

Brewer and Korver have non-guaranteed contracts for next year. They'll be gone one way or the other. But technically the Bulls can still trade them. If they can't get a draft pick for them, they'll just not pick up their contracts.

Watson has a team option for next year (I'm not sure what the difference is, but his is slightly different). They may pick up the option and trade him, or they may simply not pick up the option.

So while all are technically under contract with the Bulls until otherwise decided, it's widely assumed that at least two of Brewer, Korver, Watson, and Asik (a restricted free agent who could be in for a big raise from someone) will be gone. And possibly all four of them will be gone.

nocilla
06-14-2012, 10:22 AM
If Charlotte trades the #2 for the #6 and #11, they could flip #11 to the Rockets for #14 and #16, giving the Cats #6, 14, 16. It's plausible, and worth a shot. They could get Barnes/Drummond at 6 and Harkless/Lamb/Leonard/Zeller etc in the middle of the draft.

I'm in the camp that says take the #2 pick. MKG or Beal just seem like much safer picks with potential to be all-stars. If they trade down and then take Barnes or Drummond, (who some say are the most likely bust) I would be dissappointed. If they draft Barnes and Zeller then I am officially turning in my fan card. I understand they need a lot of pieces, but if they can get a MKG or Beal and then another top 3 pick next year, they should have a foundation to build on. Kemba and Byombo still have growth potential as well. Add in a couple FAs down the road where needed.

luvdahops
06-14-2012, 10:44 AM
Brewer and Korver have non-guaranteed contracts for next year. They'll be gone one way or the other. But technically the Bulls can still trade them. If they can't get a draft pick for them, they'll just not pick up their contracts.

Watson has a team option for next year (I'm not sure what the difference is, but his is slightly different). They may pick up the option and trade him, or they may simply not pick up the option.

So while all are technically under contract with the Bulls until otherwise decided, it's widely assumed that at least two of Brewer, Korver, Watson, and Asik (a restricted free agent who could be in for a big raise from someone) will be gone. And possibly all four of them will be gone.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. And I agree that at least two and possibly all four will be gone. Asik seems like the only one the team remains interested in, but as you note, the price to resign him may be high, and not necessarily a good value. I like what he brings to the team, but Asik really regressed this year IMHO, especially on offense.

CDu
06-14-2012, 10:55 AM
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. And I agree that at least two and possibly all four will be gone. Asik seems like the only one the team remains interested in, but as you note, the price to resign him may be high, and not necessarily a good value. I like what he brings to the team, but Asik really regressed this year IMHO, especially on offense.

I agree. Part of me is really interested in the idea of drafting Plumlee or Sacre in the 2nd round and letting Asik walk. Those guys are big and athletic (Miles is especially athletic) and don't mind doing the dirty work. I love the defense that Asik provided, but I'm not so excited that I'd be in favor of paying $5+ million per year for a guy who'll play ~15 mpg in an ideal world (healthy Boozer and Noah).

I think Watson may be the most likely to stay. I think Brewer is gone for sure (he and Butler fill the same role, and Butler does it for $3 million less not including the luxury tax hit). I think Korver is gone as soon as the Bulls can get a shooter (likely in the draft). Asik will be gone if he gets an offer in the $5+ million per year range. Watson is the one guy with leverage to stay. The Bulls will need a starting PG for over half the season, and they aren't going to find anyone for less than what Watson makes. Watson isn't a great starting PG, but he's a tolerable option there (when healthy) and he's fairly cheap. All of the other guys are expendable to some degree. The only alternative to Watson at the moment is John Lucas III, and that's not a good option. And the Bulls have no other PG.

I sort of hate it, but that's the financial reality of the NBA. You can't get stuck paying role players $5+ million and maintain a good team long-term. You have to keep finding cheap options in the draft of free agency and build around 2-4 key players. For the Bulls, that's obviously Rose and maybe Deng and Noah (we'll see). Eventually they'll amnesty Boozer. But they have to find a SG and PF to fill in the gaps, and it's going to be difficult to do so in the draft. So they may have to get creative. And right now they are paying Hamilton, Brewer, and Korver a combined $14+ million to play essentially 1.5 positions (and to do it in a one-dimensional fashion). That's just not efficient spending.

CDu
06-14-2012, 12:24 PM
To add to the "fun" regarding possible Chicago trades, Chad Ford has suggested a Deng + #29 for Calderon + #8 trade with Toronto. Again, the premise being to get cheaper, get PG help, and hope to rebuild with a younger lottery guy.

Neither this idea nor the one I posted before are actual rumors. They are just ideas proposed by talking heads close to the NBA. And those ideas are springing from two things:
- The Bulls' clear desire to avoid the luxury tax; and
- The Bulls recent interview and workout with Harrison Barnes (who clearly won't be available at #29).

Deng has been an incredibly valuable player to the Bulls over the years. But he's closing in on free agency again, he's frequently injured, can't create his own shot, and chose to play in the Olympics this summer and postpone his wrist surgery (which means he'll miss the beginning of next season). I don't begrudge him the decision to play for his adopted country (England) in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. But I can see why the Bulls might decide to put the organization first and explore moving him.

As a Bulls fan, I'm both sad that the previously well-constructed team is potentially going to be dismantled. But I am also intrigued by the thought of getting a productive, cheap player in the lottery. Heck, maybe even two such players (if they also trade Noah), though I suspect that would be too bold a move.

Duvall
06-14-2012, 12:41 PM
"It would be the quintessential Bobcats pick." (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/19351971)

luvdahops
06-14-2012, 01:01 PM
"It would be the quintessential Bobcats pick." (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/19351971)

Very interesting. NFL scouts often make a distinction between "track speed" and "game speed" (or "speed on tape") when evaluating prospects. Point being that sometimes guys look great in workouts but rarely if ever translate that to the field. The converse may also be true - a WR prospect who runs a 4.6 40 at the combine may actually have genuine breakaway ability in live game situations. Barnes seems like a classic example of the former, and many GMs/scouts appear to be taking his combine performance with a grain of salt. To put it another way, I'm not sure anyone who watched HB and MKG play multiple times this year would consider the Black Falcon to be more athletic.

theAlaskanBear
06-14-2012, 01:03 PM
To add to the "fun" regarding possible Chicago trades, Chad Ford has suggested a Deng + #29 for Calderon + #8 trade with Toronto. Again, the premise being to get cheaper, get PG help, and hope to rebuild with a younger lottery guy.

Neither this idea nor the one I posted before are actual rumors. They are just ideas proposed by talking heads close to the NBA. And those ideas are springing from two things:
- The Bulls' clear desire to avoid the luxury tax; and
- The Bulls recent interview and workout with Harrison Barnes (who clearly won't be available at #29).

Deng has been an incredibly valuable player to the Bulls over the years. But he's closing in on free agency again, he's frequently injured, can't create his own shot, and chose to play in the Olympics this summer and postpone his wrist surgery (which means he'll miss the beginning of next season). I don't begrudge him the decision to play for his adopted country (England) in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. But I can see why the Bulls might decide to put the organization first and explore moving him.

As a Bulls fan, I'm both sad that the previously well-constructed team is potentially going to be dismantled. But I am also intrigued by the thought of getting a productive, cheap player in the lottery. Heck, maybe even two such players (if they also trade Noah), though I suspect that would be too bold a move.

You have a couple of great posts here CDu about the Bulls option. NBA teams really only have a 3-4 window with the same set of players, otherwise factors like age and salary start to impede team development. If you have a solid core of players they only get more expensive as time goes on, creating an impossible situation for depth and a quality bench which you need to compete for a championship.

Unfortunately Rose's injury may have doomed this current team. He is not going to be back until late next season, and then he will have to get back in game shape...so I can understand if management wants to move in a different direction.

But I think you have to give it one more year with this core. They played GREAT without Rose during the regular season last year...maybe clear out a couple of the bench players like you mentioned -- but then hang tight and see how you do. If the trading deadline approaches and you dont think contention is possible when Rose and Deng are back, then go into trade/transformation mode. If it does look like there is a shot, then you can always ride the season out and then clear space for a big offseason. I just don't see the free agent or draft talent available as being worth scrapping the season for this year. Next year with a different free agent class and a different draft class, it may be different.

Are you hearing any rumors regarding blockbuster trades? What are the chances the Bulls gut the team to grab someone like Howard, Bynum?

How soon do the Bulls have to use their amnesty? Does it have to be during this next season or can they wait until next offseason?

Starter
06-14-2012, 01:09 PM
To add to the "fun" regarding possible Chicago trades, Chad Ford has suggested a Deng + #29 for Calderon + #8 trade with Toronto. Again, the premise being to get cheaper, get PG help, and hope to rebuild with a younger lottery guy.

Neither this idea nor the one I posted before are actual rumors. They are just ideas proposed by talking heads close to the NBA. And those ideas are springing from two things:
- The Bulls' clear desire to avoid the luxury tax; and
- The Bulls recent interview and workout with Harrison Barnes (who clearly won't be available at #29).

Deng has been an incredibly valuable player to the Bulls over the years. But he's closing in on free agency again, he's frequently injured, can't create his own shot, and chose to play in the Olympics this summer and postpone his wrist surgery (which means he'll miss the beginning of next season). I don't begrudge him the decision to play for his adopted country (England) in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. But I can see why the Bulls might decide to put the organization first and explore moving him.

As a Bulls fan, I'm both sad that the previously well-constructed team is potentially going to be dismantled. But I am also intrigued by the thought of getting a productive, cheap player in the lottery. Heck, maybe even two such players (if they also trade Noah), though I suspect that would be too bold a move.

I'd probably consider this, even if it creates a hole at the 3, if only for the extra year of flexibility since Calderon comes off after next season, while Deng has an extra year at $14 million. If I can pick up a player with the potential of Lamb or Waiters to boot, I'd feel pretty good about it.

Starter
06-14-2012, 01:10 PM
How soon do the Bulls have to use their amnesty? Does it have to be during this next season or can they wait until next offseason?

Teams have until the current agreement expires, so nine more seasons. It has to be done before the season begins, IIRC.

theAlaskanBear
06-14-2012, 01:16 PM
I'd probably consider this, even if it creates a hole at the 3, if only for the extra year of flexibility since Calderon comes off after next season, while Deng has an extra year at $14 million. If I can pick up a player with the potential of Lamb or Waiters to boot, I'd feel pretty good about it.

I dunno, I think I better idea would be to sign Steve Nash, keep the team as intact as possible, and when Rose gets back have him play the 2-spot rather than Rip Hamilton, who is clearly on his last legs....

Can you imagine how much better the team would get with a PG like Nash running the floor? And Rose can learn from the master, play the 2 and backup the point...

...that would be the dream scenario.

dcdevil2009
06-14-2012, 01:21 PM
I sort of hate it, but that's the financial reality of the NBA. You can't get stuck paying role players $5+ million and maintain a good team long-term. You have to keep finding cheap options in the draft of free agency and build around 2-4 key players. For the Bulls, that's obviously Rose and maybe Deng and Noah (we'll see). Eventually they'll amnesty Boozer. But they have to find a SG and PF to fill in the gaps, and it's going to be difficult to do so in the draft. So they may have to get creative. And right now they are paying Hamilton, Brewer, and Korver a combined $14+ million to play essentially 1.5 positions (and to do it in a one-dimensional fashion). That's just not efficient spending.

I think this is a really interesting point and will be an even bigger deal after the NBA owners agreed on a revenue sharing deal in conjunction with the new CBA. When Chicago signed a lot of these deals, the luxury tax wasn't as huge of an obstacle because they could keep all of their locally generated TV dollars, but when the revenue sharing deal gets implemented over the next couple of years, they'll have to spread some of that across the league. In addition to the more severe luxury tax, you've also got these big market teams not getting to keep as much of their TV deals. Basically, teams are going to have to be more efficient with their spending on two levels, first with respect to the salary cap and second, with respect to the luxury tax. With the salary cap, you'll likely see decisions made more for basketball reasons. For example, amnestying Boozer would free up cap space to sign a free agent, but wouldn't be necessary to re-sign their own players because teams can go over the cap to do so. On the other hand, with the luxury tax, you're likely to see more cost-cutting decisions. With respect to wouldn't make sense to from a basketball perspective to amnesty Boozer to get under the luxury tax threshold because they'd still have to pay his salary, so unless you get get a better player for less money than you'd pay to keep him and pay the tax, it wouldn't make sense. However, if they're just trying to save money, they could amnesty him and sign someone to a smaller deal and still end up paying less than they would in luxury tax.

phaedrus
06-14-2012, 01:39 PM
I think this is a really interesting point and will be an even bigger deal after the NBA owners agreed on a revenue sharing deal in conjunction with the new CBA. When Chicago signed a lot of these deals, the luxury tax wasn't as huge of an obstacle because they could keep all of their locally generated TV dollars, but when the revenue sharing deal gets implemented over the next couple of years, they'll have to spread some of that across the league. In addition to the more severe luxury tax, you've also got these big market teams not getting to keep as much of their TV deals. Basically, teams are going to have to be more efficient with their spending on two levels, first with respect to the salary cap and second, with respect to the luxury tax. With the salary cap, you'll likely see decisions made more for basketball reasons. For example, amnestying Boozer would free up cap space to sign a free agent, but wouldn't be necessary to re-sign their own players because teams can go over the cap to do so. On the other hand, with the luxury tax, you're likely to see more cost-cutting decisions. With respect to wouldn't make sense to from a basketball perspective to amnesty Boozer to get under the luxury tax threshold because they'd still have to pay his salary, so unless you get get a better player for less money than you'd pay to keep him and pay the tax, it wouldn't make sense. However, if they're just trying to save money, they could amnesty him and sign someone to a smaller deal and still end up paying less than they would in luxury tax.

Right. What one might hate as a Bulls fan (a team that could probably only be considered stingy when compared against other big-market teams), with regard to luxury tax considerations, one likely would not hate as a Bucks or Hornets or Jazz fan.

Sitting here in Milwaukee, the luxury tax is the least of my concerns when it comes to thinking about how our team is going to add and keep pieces.

superdave
06-14-2012, 02:30 PM
I dunno, I think I better idea would be to sign Steve Nash, keep the team as intact as possible, and when Rose gets back have him play the 2-spot rather than Rip Hamilton, who is clearly on his last legs....

Can you imagine how much better the team would get with a PG like Nash running the floor? And Rose can learn from the master, play the 2 and backup the point...

...that would be the dream scenario.

You want last year's league mvp to backup an over-the-hill point guard who peaked in 2005? I dont think that's a very good idea. I agree that the Bulls have a window to retool while Rose is out, but Nash should not be part of that. Getting younger, cheaper and getting a 2-guard are priorities, and Nash does not fit into that.

CDu
06-14-2012, 02:36 PM
But I think you have to give it one more year with this core. They played GREAT without Rose during the regular season last year...maybe clear out a couple of the bench players like you mentioned -- but then hang tight and see how you do. If the trading deadline approaches and you dont think contention is possible when Rose and Deng are back, then go into trade/transformation mode. If it does look like there is a shot, then you can always ride the season out and then clear space for a big offseason. I just don't see the free agent or draft talent available as being worth scrapping the season for this year. Next year with a different free agent class and a different draft class, it may be different.

The danger is missing out on a window to acquire really good young talent. This is a very deep (but not top-heavy) draft. Deeper than most years because of all the sophomores who didn't go pro last year. Saving $7-8 million per year and getting a reasonable approximation of the level of productivity is going to be enticing. Who knows if Deng or Noah fetch as nice a price next offseason?

I'd obviously rather see the team go after it one more time. But I worry that next season is already a lost cause, with Rose missing at least half of the season and Deng likely missing a month or so as well. They may dig themselves in too big a hole early to avoid playing a top-tier team in the 1st round, and that would mean a lot of work to make a deep playoff run.


Are you hearing any rumors regarding blockbuster trades? What are the chances the Bulls gut the team to grab someone like Howard, Bynum?

I haven't heard any such rumors. And to be honest, I think the frugal nature of Reinsdorf combined with the difficulty of making blockbuster deals in the NBA make that an unlikely path.


How soon do the Bulls have to use their amnesty? Does it have to be during this next season or can they wait until next offseason?

They can do it at any point over the duration of Boozer's contract basically. But the most likely time will be after next year or the following year. By that point Mirotic will probably come over from the Spanish league and be ready to take over at PF.

CDu
06-14-2012, 02:38 PM
I dunno, I think I better idea would be to sign Steve Nash, keep the team as intact as possible, and when Rose gets back have him play the 2-spot rather than Rip Hamilton, who is clearly on his last legs....

Can you imagine how much better the team would get with a PG like Nash running the floor? And Rose can learn from the master, play the 2 and backup the point...

...that would be the dream scenario.

I think Nash would be interesting. But he'd have to come in on the VERY cheap. And then he'd have to accept a backup role when Rose comes back (Rose isn't well-suited to play off the ball, and he's not going to back up Nash). I think it's an unlikely scenario.

superdave
06-14-2012, 02:59 PM
Recall the summer of 2010 when Wade, Lebron and Bosh were free agents. Rose made a pitch to Wade, saying he'd be the perfect 2-guard. They also offered Ray Allen, JJ Redick but wound up with Rip Hamilton and Kyle Korver. But they did get to replace Keith Bogans, so that was nice.

The point is during that summer and again last summer, Rose said he liked this Bulls team as configured. He likes Noah and said they did not need to go after Dwight Howard. He said they should not get rid of Deng to pursue Lebron because Lebron dominates the ball and so does he. Rose was very adamant about team chemistry, continuity and the upside of this particular roster.

So I think a huge trade (meaning getting rid of Deng and/or Noah in a blockbuster) is unlikely. I could see them amnestying Boozer because his paycheck outstrips his production (and he's been injured a lot). I could maybe see them dealing one of those guys, but not two. In my opinion they would be wise to stand pat, write off 2013 under the assumption that Rose is out all year and hope for a lottery pick next year.

They are right at the cap for next season, so they can flip a few guys, as mentioned above, for 2nd round picks and stash some Europeans overseas for a year or two. But they will have to waive goodbye to Asik and maybe Taj Gibson if they do not make a deal that sheds salary. If I were calling the shots, I'd shop Boozer and if that does not work, amnesty him. His scoring and rebounds have dropped, and his minutes have dropped. I'd rather spend the $15 million he makes on Gibson, Asik and a fee agent big.

However, if there's a great deal out there, you have to consider. I'm just not sure anyone outside the top 4 in this draft are worth Noah or Deng. I'd cut salary via Boozer rather than via a draft deal.

CDu
06-14-2012, 03:09 PM
They are right at the cap for next season, so they can flip a few guys, as mentioned above, for 2nd round picks and stash some Europeans overseas for a year or two. But they will have to waive goodbye to Asik and maybe Taj Gibson if they do not make a deal that sheds salary. If I were calling the shots, I'd shop Boozer and if that does not work, amnesty him. His scoring and rebounds have dropped, and his minutes have dropped. I'd rather spend the $15 million he makes on Gibson, Asik and a fee agent big.

However, if there's a great deal out there, you have to consider. I'm just not sure anyone outside the top 4 in this draft are worth Noah or Deng. I'd cut salary via Boozer rather than via a draft deal.

The problem with cutting Boozer's salary is that it only helps them avoid the luxury tax. It won't get them under the cap, and it won't make them better. They won't amnesty Boozer until they have a replacement. And that replacement (Mirotic) probably won't be here for another year or two.

They aren't likely to let Gibson go because he's really good off the bench. Asik, Korver, and Brewer are less likely to survive the summer in Chicago. Watson is hit or miss. But even letting all of those guys go just gets the team to under the luxury tax. So they still can't bring in any talent.

Trading Deng or Noah gives them the flexibility to retain their window for an extra few years by adding young (and cheap) talent in place of older, much more expensive talent. If the team decides that next year is a lost cause, then that's a direction they'll strongly consider. And the interview of Barnes suggests they're strongly considering that possibility.

superdave
06-14-2012, 03:56 PM
The problem with cutting Boozer's salary is that it only helps them avoid the luxury tax. It won't get them under the cap, and it won't make them better. They won't amnesty Boozer until they have a replacement. And that replacement (Mirotic) probably won't be here for another year or two.

They aren't likely to let Gibson go because he's really good off the bench. Asik, Korver, and Brewer are less likely to survive the summer in Chicago. Watson is hit or miss. But even letting all of those guys go just gets the team to under the luxury tax. So they still can't bring in any talent.

Trading Deng or Noah gives them the flexibility to retain their window for an extra few years by adding young (and cheap) talent in place of older, much more expensive talent. If the team decides that next year is a lost cause, then that's a direction they'll strongly consider. And the interview of Barnes suggests they're strongly considering that possibility.

This site suggests they will be at $64 million including Rose and have $4.25 million in space. So amnestying 2013 and 2014 of Boozer's deal buys them more room.
http://passporthoops.com/2012/02/23/2012-13-nba-team-salary-cap-guide/

I've seen a cap projection of $58 million elsewhere, TBD this summer, which seems more likely.

On the Barnes question, it does suggest a deal is afoot. But I'll take Deng over Barnes every day of the week. Deng is Barnes' ceiling. But Barnes' likely will not be as good a pro as Deng (averaged 15,17,17 the last three years).

Deng and Noah are borderline All-stars. I think Rose would fight against dealing either and it would be unwise to trade either for anything less than a top 4 pick (Beal, Robinson, MKG).

dcdevil2009
06-14-2012, 04:08 PM
This site suggests they will be at $64 million including Rose and have $4.25 million in space. So amnestying 2013 and 2014 of Boozer's deal buys them more room.
http://passporthoops.com/2012/02/23/2012-13-nba-team-salary-cap-guide/

I've seen a cap projection of $58 million elsewhere, TBD this summer, which seems more likely.

On the Barnes question, it does suggest a deal is afoot. But I'll take Deng over Barnes every day of the week. Deng is Barnes' ceiling. But Barnes' likely will not be as good a pro as Deng (averaged 15,17,17 the last three years).

Deng and Noah are borderline All-stars. I think Rose would fight against dealing either and it would be unwise to trade either for anything less than a top 4 pick (Beal, Robinson, MKG).

I've seen it as the Bulls having $69 million committed to next year including Boozer (here (http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/05/11/carlos-boozer-bulls/)), with the cap projected at $58 million, which would only give them that $4 million of space if they amnestied Boozer.

Edit: I just looked at the site you linked and took it as saying they were $4.25 over the cap already.

CDu
06-14-2012, 04:20 PM
This site suggests they will be at $64 million including Rose and have $4.25 million in space. So amnestying 2013 and 2014 of Boozer's deal buys them more room.
http://passporthoops.com/2012/02/23/2012-13-nba-team-salary-cap-guide/

I've seen a cap projection of $58 million elsewhere, TBD this summer, which seems more likely.


The Bulls have $63 million invested in 7 players. They have $68-69 million once you add the necessary 5 minimum-salary guys and a rookie #29 pick. Amnestying Boozer gets them down to about $54 million (subtracting Boozer's salary but adding another minimum-salary guy). That would leave $4 million under the cap to sign a replacement PG (because they've let Watson go), either a starting or backup PF (because they lose Boozer), and/or a backup C (because they lose Asik). I assume the #29 pick would acquire a SG to replace Korver.

Simply put, that's not going to be a good team, unless some really good players decide to take a big pay cut to come to Chicago. That's just not a viable gameplan, in my opinion. It is not likely that you're going to find a better set of options than Watson and Boozer this offseason for a combined $9 million (cap space plus mid-level exception). So letting them go might just be raising the white flag anyway.

Amnestying Boozer next summer would save a bit over $14 million. And at that point, it's possible that Mirotic is ready to come over. Further, Hamilton will be off the books and Deng (if he's not traded this offseason) becomes a valuable trade chip for his expiring contract. At that point, the Bulls would be far enough under the cap to actually make a free agent splash if so desired.


On the Barnes question, it does suggest a deal is afoot. But I'll take Deng over Barnes every day of the week. Deng is Barnes' ceiling. But Barnes' likely will not be as good a pro as Deng (averaged 15,17,17 the last three years).

Deng and Noah are borderline All-stars. I think Rose would fight against dealing either and it would be unwise to trade either for anything less than a top 4 pick (Beal, Robinson, MKG).

Of course you'd take Deng over Barnes. So would I. That's not even a question. The question is will Barnes be close enough to Deng's level to make it worth the $7-8 million in savings you'd get by making the move. And that's why the discussions are being had. The Bulls are exploring whether it makes sense to make such a move.

And what Rose thinks is somewhat irrelevant at this point. He's already locked up long-term, and he's a good kid from Chicago who isn't going to quit on the team. He'll buy in to whatever the team decides because he's a team-first guy. He may not be happy at first, but he's a pro.

superdave
06-14-2012, 04:46 PM
Your points are convincing, CDu.

While it's tempting to make moves now, I think the Bulls should grab a temporary point guard and wait a year. Deng certainly could be better utilized as an expiring deal and Noah is on board for great price.

Another temptation would be to get younger and tank the 2013 season while Rose is out for a high draft pick as well next year. It get's complicated but you'd basically flip Deng for a pick and cap space, shop Boozer or amnesty him for cap relief. Then you'd look to go into 2014 with Rose back, the young player(s) you got for Deng, the 2013 draft pick, Noah, Gibson and Mirotic.

Is everyone assuming Rose will be out all next season? No reason to rush him back at his young age.

CDu
06-14-2012, 05:05 PM
Your points are convincing, CDu.

While it's tempting to make moves now, I think the Bulls should grab a temporary point guard and wait a year. Deng certainly could be better utilized as an expiring deal and Noah is on board for great price.

And that may well be what they decide to do - let Watson, Brewer, Korver, and possibly Asik go, keep the rest, bring in a mid-level PG and hope for the best with replacements among the other backups (and better health with the other starters).


Another temptation would be to get younger and tank the 2013 season while Rose is out for a high draft pick as well next year. It get's complicated but you'd basically flip Deng for a pick and cap space, shop Boozer or amnesty him for cap relief. Then you'd look to go into 2014 with Rose back, the young player(s) you got for Deng, the 2013 draft pick, Noah, Gibson and Mirotic.

That's definitely a consideration. If you trade Deng and #29 for Calderon and the #8, amnesty Boozer, and draft a PF at #8 (Henson? Sullinger?), then you're looking at Noah, Sullinger/Henson, Butler, Hamilton, Calderon, Gibson, Lucas, perhaps one of Korver/Brewer/Asik, and a bunch of minimum salary guys until Rose comes back. That team is likely lottery bound. Then, maybe you hit gold again in the lottery and get a top-5 pick. As you said, in 2013-2014, you'll have Mirotic (maybe), Rose, and a top-5 pick joining Sullinger/Henson, Noah, Gibson, and LOTS of cap space. It's a gutsy move, but an interesting one.


Is everyone assuming Rose will be out all next season? No reason to rush him back at his young age.

It's typically an 8-12 month recovery from a torn ACL. since it happened in May, that means cerca February at the earliest. And it could be the whole season. At the very best, we're talking a half-season missed. Considering that his injury may well have been a result of rushing back too soon from other ankle injuries, if the team is really playing poorly they may give him more time to fully heal and be at full strength for 2013-2014.

CDu
06-14-2012, 07:50 PM
The more I think about your "tank it" suggestion superdave, the more I'm intrigued by it. It would take guts, but it could set the franchise up for years to come. After 2013, they'd have 4-5 former lottery picks in Rose, Noah, the lottery pick for Deng, the lottery pick gained by tanking, and possibly the Charlotte pick (if not after 2013, it'll probably happen after 2014). They'd also likely add Mirotic to the mix. And they'd have enough cap space to sign a top-tier free agent. Assuming they make smart draft choices, that'd be an unbelievable wealth of talent. And due to the rookie wage scale, it would be a team in place for 3-4 years or more. And it'd be at the point at which OKC's group starts to get expensive and Miami's trio gets old.

The down side is that it would require an awful year. But the long-term view is a near-certain championship caliber team for several more years without concern for the luxury tax. Internal conflict brewing within me...

Starter
06-15-2012, 01:45 AM
Recall the summer of 2010 when Wade, Lebron and Bosh were free agents. Rose made a pitch to Wade, saying he'd be the perfect 2-guard. They also offered Ray Allen, JJ Redick but wound up with Rip Hamilton and Kyle Korver. But they did get to replace Keith Bogans, so that was nice.

The point is during that summer and again last summer, Rose said he liked this Bulls team as configured. He likes Noah and said they did not need to go after Dwight Howard. He said they should not get rid of Deng to pursue Lebron because Lebron dominates the ball and so does he. Rose was very adamant about team chemistry, continuity and the upside of this particular roster.



I always thought it was interesting how Rose handled that summer. To me, at least, he pretty clearly didn't want Wade or LeBron in Chicago with him. He was ready to make it his team, built completely in his image. It was a bold sentiment, for sure, though it's debatable how prudent it was. I mean, put LeBron on the Bulls last year, and I can't imagine they'd have lost. As we all know, LeBron and Wade knocked the Bulls out last year, and then Rose had bad luck with his knee this year. That said, it seems like that's just the way Rose is, he's a bit of an introvert and very prideful about himself and his team. And it's hard to know whether LeBron was serious about having interest in Chicago -- I"d lean towards not. But there's no doubt Wade made him feel completely welcome while Rose did not.

This (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-heatfreeagency071610) was an excellent article on how that whole free agency period went down and is definitely worth your time. The stuff about the Bulls is about three-quarters of the way down.

sagegrouse
06-15-2012, 09:11 AM
Your points are convincing, CDu.

.........

Another temptation would be to get younger and tank the 2013 season while Rose is out for a high draft pick as well next year. It get's complicated but you'd basically flip Deng for a pick and cap space, shop Boozer or amnesty him for cap relief. Then you'd look to go into 2014 with Rose back, the young player(s) you got for Deng, the 2013 draft pick, Noah, Gibson and Mirotic.

Is everyone assuming Rose will be out all next season? No reason to rush him back at his young age.


The more I think about your "tank it" suggestion superdave, the more I'm intrigued by it. It would take guts, but it could set the franchise up for years to come. After 2013, they'd have 4-5 former lottery picks in Rose, Noah, the lottery pick for Deng, the lottery pick gained by tanking, and possibly the Charlotte pick (if not after 2013, it'll probably happen after 2014). They'd also likely add Mirotic to the mix. And they'd have enough cap space to sign a top-tier free agent. Assuming they make smart draft choices, that'd be an unbelievable wealth of talent. And due to the rookie wage scale, it would be a team in place for 3-4 years or more. And it'd be at the point at which OKC's group starts to get expensive and Miami's trio gets old.

The down side is that it would require an awful year. But the long-term view is a near-certain championship caliber team for several more years without concern for the luxury tax. Internal conflict brewing within me...

I agree that the salary situation (four guys making $56 million) puts the Bulls in a quandary. But I dunno, guys. The Bulls had the best record in the NBA last season (tied with the Spurs). Do you think the fans would stand for a wholesale remake of one of the best teams in the league? Do you think management would take the economic hit?

Maybe one more year. If Deng returns in December (after presumed surgery), and Rose is available (and effective) by midseason, then the Bulls' fans have every right to expect a run in the playoffs. If the team's performance falls off, then it should consider major moves.

sagegrouse

CDu
06-15-2012, 09:27 AM
I agree that the salary situation (four guys making $56 million) puts the Bulls in a quandary. But I dunno, guys. The Bulls had the best record in the NBA last season (tied with the Spurs). Do you think the fans would stand for a wholesale remake of one of the best teams in the league? Do you think management would take the economic hit?

Maybe one more year. If Deng returns in December (after presumed surgery), and Rose is available (and effective) by midseason, then the Bulls' fans have every right to expect a run in the playoffs. If the team's performance falls off, then it should consider major moves.

sagegrouse

The question comes down to whether Rose can be healthy and effective by midseason. Is he going to be healthy enough to give them more than 15-20 good games? Is that enough to get them into the playoffs in a good enough position to challenge? That's a big gamble.

And just as importantly, that gamble will cost them the chance at getting an additional 2 extra big-time players in a push for the 2013-2014 season. If they hang on to Deng and Boozer this year, they lose out on the ability to get a lottery pick next summer. They also lose out on the ability to sign a big-time free agent next offseason by hanging on to Deng an extra year. And they potentially cost themselves that lottery pick for Deng as well (teams with a high lottery pick don't typically trade that for an expiring contract).

Essentially, if you hold the team together, you're committing to a rebuild in 2014 anyway (because that's when Deng would be a free agent and they'd certainly amnesty Boozer by/before then). But you'd be doing so without an extra 2-3 big-time pieces that you could have gotten by reconstructing early.

Tanking next year wouldn't be popular during next season for sure. But as an organization you have to look beyond the short-term and do what's best for the long-term future of the team. This move would put them in a position to avoid mediocrity, which is the death knell of a franchise in the NBA.

sagegrouse
06-15-2012, 11:10 AM
The question comes down to whether Rose can be healthy and effective by midseason. Is he going to be healthy enough to give them more than 15-20 good games? Is that enough to get them into the playoffs in a good enough position to challenge? That's a big gamble.

And just as importantly, that gamble will cost them the chance at getting an additional 2 extra big-time players in a push for the 2013-2014 season. If they hang on to Deng and Boozer this year, they lose out on the ability to get a lottery pick next summer. They also lose out on the ability to sign a big-time free agent next offseason by hanging on to Deng an extra year. And they potentially cost themselves that lottery pick for Deng as well (teams with a high lottery pick don't typically trade that for an expiring contract).

Essentially, if you hold the team together, you're committing to a rebuild in 2014 anyway (because that's when Deng would be a free agent and they'd certainly amnesty Boozer by/before then). But you'd be doing so without an extra 2-3 big-time pieces that you could have gotten by reconstructing early.

Tanking next year wouldn't be popular during next season for sure. But as an organization you have to look beyond the short-term and do what's best for the long-term future of the team. This move would put them in a position to avoid mediocrity, which is the death knell of a franchise in the NBA.

What you say is logical -- but highly risky. You are advocating (or speculating on, I know this is just a discussion) blowing up one of the best teams in the NBA. If I try to look at it from management's perspective, I would never do it. You are violating the trust with the fan base. And, of course, one could always tank next season and still make the playoffs because Thibodeaux is a good coach and the remaining players step it up. And, one could get a good position in the lottery and not get players who make any difference at all for a couple of years -- or ever. The draft is a lottery in two senses.

I would give it another year.

sage
'And am I the only person here thinks that Boozer is still an exceptional NBA player? And, having started at Duke when he was only 17, he just turned 30'

BD80
06-15-2012, 11:13 AM
Quick question: can a team trade for a player and then use the amnesty clause for that player?

For example, the Pistons have 2 players ripe for amnesty: Villanueva - who is so bad he got cut from the Dominican Republic team, and Ben Gordon - who isn't awful, but has been hurt and has a huge salary. Could the Pistons "trade" Villanueva to a team willing to amnesty him, and still have the option to jetison Gordon should he not regain form?

CDu
06-15-2012, 11:17 AM
What you say is logical -- but highly risky. You are advocating (or speculating on, I know this is just a discussion) blowing up one of the best teams in the NBA. If I try to look at it from management's perspective, I would never do it. You are violating the trust with the fan base. And, of course, one could always tank next season and still make the playoffs because Thibodeaux is a good coach and the remaining players step it up. And, one could get a good position in the lottery and not get players who make any difference at all for a couple of years -- or ever. The draft is a lottery in two senses.

I would give it another year.

I don't think it's violating the trust with the fans. The 2012-2013 season may be a lost cause already. By 2013-2014, Boozer may be done. At that point, Deng is a free agent and the Bulls will be rebuilding. Is it really fair to assume that this team as constructed can actually compete for a title again?

This team was built for last year, this year, and next year. Boozer's injuries last year sabotaged this season, and Hamilton's and Rose's injuries this year sabotaged this season. And Rose's injury (combined with Deng's injury) may sabotage any realistic shot at next season. By 2013-2014, Boozer will be too old and likely amnestied, and that team is no longer really a threat to win it anymore.

So what tanking this season does is give the team a new 3-5 year window to compete for the title starting in the 2013-2014 season as opposed to a 1-2 year window in which the team may or may not be able to compete for a title followed by a rebuild.


sage
'And am I the only person here thinks that Boozer is still an exceptional NBA player? And, having started at Duke when he was only 17, he just turned 30'

Well, it's probably you and the Boozer family at this point. The guy is occasionally a really good scorer. But he's no longer a consistent back to the basket scoring threat, he's a defensive liability who often sits the entire 4th quarter as a result, and he's REALLY expensive.

He's still a good NBA player. He's just WAY overpriced now, and he's clearly on the downhill at this point. In this era of cap restrictions, he's a liability rather than an asset.

dcdevil2009
06-15-2012, 11:51 AM
Quick question: can a team trade for a player and then use the amnesty clause for that player?

For example, the Pistons have 2 players ripe for amnesty: Villanueva - who is so bad he got cut from the Dominican Republic team, and Ben Gordon - who isn't awful, but has been hurt and has a huge salary. Could the Pistons "trade" Villanueva to a team willing to amnesty him, and still have the option to jetison Gordon should he not regain form?

I don't believe so, as the amnesty clause requires the team to have signed the player prior to the 2011-2012 season (aka when the new CBA took effect). Also, the only real benefit of using the amnesty clause is to free up cap space or get under the luxury tax -- as you still have to pay the remaining amount owned under the contract. Since a trade for a player worth amnestying would either add to a team's cap number or consolidate several bad contracts into one albatross of a bad contract, I don't see there being any benefit to trade for a guy just to amnesty him (assuming it was possible in the first place).

Chicago 1995
06-15-2012, 11:59 AM
As a Bulls fan, I'm wholly on board with the plan to sit D Rose next year the entire season and blow up the team. It would be daring and wholly out of character for GarPax, but I think it would be the smart thing to do. .

As good as it was, it wasn't good enough to win a title, and in two years, when Derrick is hopefully back to full strength, it definitely won't be.

CDu
06-15-2012, 12:23 PM
As a Bulls fan, I'm wholly on board with the plan to sit D Rose next year the entire season and blow up the team. It would be daring and wholly out of character for GarPax, but I think it would be the smart thing to do. .

As good as it was, it wasn't good enough to win a title, and in two years, when Derrick is hopefully back to full strength, it definitely won't be.

Originally, I wasn't at all on board with the idea. But the more I think about it, the more I'm growing toward the idea. Which is worse? Tanking for one season to reload for a new 4-5 year run, or clinging to an expensive core headed toward mediocrity for another two years, and then having to start a rebuild then?

I think the Bulls did a fabulous job of building a championship caliber team over the past couple of years. But the injury to Rose changes everything. Sometimes, you have to accept a bad situation and make the best move forward from there rather than trying to brute force through the bad situation with what used to be a good plan.

luvdahops
06-15-2012, 12:29 PM
As a Bulls fan, I'm wholly on board with the plan to sit D Rose next year the entire season and blow up the team. It would be daring and wholly out of character for GarPax, but I think it would be the smart thing to do. .

As good as it was, it wasn't good enough to win a title, and in two years, when Derrick is hopefully back to full strength, it definitely won't be.

I agree with all of these points. Boozer is declining rapidly. He came back in great shape this year but has no lift or explosiveness left whatsoever, and averaged a career low in FTA per game. He can still be a productive role player on a good team, but not much more. Hamilton is a pro's pro but probably doesn't have much left in the tank either. Deng has steadily improved over the course of his career, and has been a real warrior over the past 2-3 seasons, but has probably peaked and remains very injury prone. And no way would I pay Asik what it will take to retain him. He is a fairly athletic 7'2 guy who blocks shots, rebounds and sets nasty picks, but has terrible hands and can't throw the ball in the ocean when he does manage to catch it. The fact that the Bulls had the league's best record with Rose, Deng and Hamilton missing so much time is pretty astounding in hindsight.

It would definitely be daring and wholly out of character for GarPax to substantially remake the team this offseason, but it also makes perfect sense.

sagegrouse
06-15-2012, 12:46 PM
Originally, I wasn't at all on board with the idea. But the more I think about it, the more I'm growing toward the idea. Which is worse? Tanking for one season to reload for a new 4-5 year run, or clinging to an expensive core headed toward mediocrity for another two years, and then having to start a rebuild then?

I think the Bulls did a fabulous job of building a championship caliber team over the past couple of years. But the injury to Rose changes everything. Sometimes, you have to accept a bad situation and make the best move forward from there rather than trying to brute force through the bad situation with what used to be a good plan.



It would definitely be daring and wholly out of character for GarPax to substantially remake the team this offseason, but it also makes perfect sense.

This ain't no VP/GM decision. To blow up one of the best teams in the league would be a Reinsdorf decision.

sage

luvdahops
06-15-2012, 03:02 PM
This ain't no VP/GM decision. To blow up one of the best teams in the league would be a Reinsdorf decision.

sage

Reinsdorf would undoubtedly have to sign off, but GarPax would have to sell him on the idea and formulate options first

CDu
06-15-2012, 03:06 PM
Reinsdorf would undoubtedly have to sign off, but GarPax would have to sell him on the idea and formulate options first

Yeah, and Reinsdorf is incredibly frugal. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to convince him. The question is whether GarPax have the creativity and guts to go for it. That's not generally been their nature. So, while the ultimate sign-off will come from Reinsdorf, the drive for it to happen will have to come from the VP and GM.

dcdevil2009
06-15-2012, 04:04 PM
Yeah, and Reinsdorf is incredibly frugal. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to convince him. The question is whether GarPax have the creativity and guts to go for it. That's not generally been their nature. So, while the ultimate sign-off will come from Reinsdorf, the drive for it to happen will have to come from the VP and GM.

Would the Bulls really save money by bottoming out? They'd still have to pay Boozer to amnesty him, but I guess they could trade him to a team needing to hit the salary floor. I doubt they could dump Deng's $13 million or so without taking on at least $5-$7 million in return, so that would only save about $6-$8 million. Depending on what happens with Boston, I don't see them having a problem locking up a top 3-4 seed next year and hosting at least 1, maybe 2 playoff series, with the revenue from 6-8 home playoff games offsetting the savings on Deng's contract.

There's also the fact that the shortened season might have exacerbated the Bulls' health issues. With more time off between games next year, I don't see the Bulls having the same nagging injury issues that they had this year, with the possible exception of Boozer.

CDu
06-15-2012, 04:13 PM
Would the Bulls really save money by bottoming out? They'd still have to pay Boozer to amnesty him, but I guess they could trade him to a team needing to hit the salary floor. I doubt they could dump Deng's $13 million or so without taking on at least $5-$7 million in return, so that would only save about $6-$8 million. Depending on what happens with Boston, I don't see them having a problem locking up a top 3-4 seed next year and hosting at least 1, maybe 2 playoff series, with the revenue from 6-8 home playoff games offsetting the savings on Deng's contract.

There's also the fact that the shortened season might have exacerbated the Bulls' health issues. With more time off between games next year, I don't see the Bulls having the same nagging injury issues that they had this year, with the possible exception of Boozer.

They could save about $13-14 million on Deng by trading him for an expiring contract (Deng has two years left) and a draft pick. Boozer doesn't save them money this year. But amnestying him puts them in good shape to get a lottery pick next year. But the real savings comes in the following seasons when they would have a similarly competitive team at a low cost (due to the rookie wage scale in the NBA).

As for injuries, they have Deng likely to miss the first 2 months and Rose likely to miss anywhere from 4 months to the entire season already. So the best case scenario is already much less healthy than they were this year. Boozer is going to miss some games, as will Noah and Hamilton. It's going to be an injury-riddled 2012-2013 season. I'd be shocked if they can get a #3-4 seed in the East with only 20-30 games of Rose and only 50-60 games of Deng. They will likely be clawing just to make the playoffs next year.

Starter
06-15-2012, 06:09 PM
SI had some interesting Draft notes (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/06/15/drummond.nba.draft.notes/index.html) today in this story about Drummond, who I wouldn't draft if he were the last almost-7-footer on earth. A couple things from there, and from elsewhere:

-- Beal and Barnes are going to work out head to head for Cleveland. I expect Barnes to do very well in that sort of workout, personally.

-- Though it was thought New Orleans might have made the promise to Rivers, a source says it wasn't them.

-- Rivers tried the "7 Drill" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wizards-insider/post/seven-not-so-lucky-for-austin-rivers/2012/06/15/gJQADAwOfV_blog.html) for the Wizards. He won't go as high as No. 3, obviously. The Wizards also worked out Thomas Robinson, MKG and Beal this week. Drummond and Barnes are slated for early next week.

-- Jeremy Lamb messed up his ankle in his workout with Toronto and couldn't work out for Portland, two possible landing spots for Rivers (and Dion Waiters). Not a good look.

slower
06-16-2012, 06:54 AM
SI had some interesting Draft notes (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/06/15/drummond.nba.draft.notes/index.html) today in this story about Drummond, who I wouldn't draft if he were the last almost-7-footer on earth. A couple things from there, and from elsewhere:

-- Beal and Barnes are going to work out head to head for Cleveland. I expect Barnes to do very well in that sort of workout, personally.



This nugget was also buried in their latest mock draft: "Barnes helped himself at the combine. He had a maximum vertical leap of 39˝ inches (Marquette's Darius Johnson-Odom had the highest mark at 41.5) and ran the fastest three-quarter court sprint at 3.16 seconds.

I found that VERY surprising, since Barnes never seemed like a particularly fast player. Looks like poor Kyrie may be stuck with this schmuck, since the Cavs seem to like him.

superdave
06-16-2012, 08:56 AM
The 1997 Spurs went 20-62 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1997.html) with David Robinson missing most of the season. 37-year old Dominique Wilkens was their leading scorer, so you know they were hurting. They got lucky in the lottery, leaping the Celtics in the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.

They did not tank so much as they just stunk. If the Bulls were to write off 2013 because Derrick Rose is out, and commit to revamping the roster in the process I think the fans would understand. Deng for a younger, cheaper draft pick. Boozer could get amnestied, assuming his trade value is low.

The key to this is to craft a plan to overhaul the roster and execute it swiftly so you let the fans see clearly what you are doing. Letting a plan like that drift slowly or get executed poorly would be frustrating. Dealing with Booz and Deng is only two moves, really, so it should not be tough and the Bulls are competently managed. Holding on to those guy for the few years would be investing big money in a team that cannot beat the Heat and would not have the cap room to improve.

CDu
06-16-2012, 09:26 AM
The key to this is to craft a plan to overhaul the roster and execute it swiftly so you let the fans see clearly what you are doing. Letting a plan like that drift slowly or get executed poorly would be frustrating. Dealing with Booz and Deng is only two moves, really, so it should not be tough and the Bulls are competently managed. Holding on to those guy for the few years would be investing big money in a team that cannot beat the Heat and would not have the cap room to improve.

Yup. Dealing with Deng and Boozer is just one move essentially: trading Deng for a lottery pick (and whatever else is necessary to make it work). Amnestying Boozer is the other piece. From there, you build around Rose and Noah, and you do so with lots of young lottery picks and (eventually) Mirotic. Maybe you re-sign Gibson as well if he continues to progress. And you have lots of financial wiggle-room to keep the team intact and build around it.

The only thing I'll (maybe) disagree with was that the Bulls can't beat the Heat. I think they could have beaten them this year with a healthy Rose and Noah. I think they could have beaten them next year too. But in 2013-2014, I think it wouldn't happen, because I think Boozer would be too old and creaky. The Rose injury really screwed things up.

superdave
06-16-2012, 09:42 AM
They have Rondo locked up through 2015 and Avery Bradley through 2014. Those guys are locked up. Pierce is there next year with a team option for 2014. So the backcourt is set, but it would be nice to either re-sign Ray Allen for $7-8 million or replace him with a shooter who has enough size to guard 2s. Pietrus is worth bringing back at last year's salary ($1.2) for depth.

Garnett's deal has expired. Apparently the Spurs are interested but I could see KG coming back to Boston for a two-year deal worth $10 million per. But if you sign Allen and Pierce back for a combined $18 million (much cheaper than their $31 million this year) what kind of flexibility do you have?

Bass has a player option for $4 million (ok...just read he opted out and is a free agent). He cshould double that elsewhere. He could be a serious upgrade for a contender like the Heat, Spurs or Thunder. I'd bring back Stiemsma for $1.5 or so if I could. He's a live body off the bench. So a lot depends on KG. What kind of discount would he be willing to take to come back? Assume they bring back Garnett, Allen and Bass/Replacement for a combined $22 million. They have the core team back that made game 7 of the Eastern Finals. If they do all that, they will have 8 guys under contract for $54 with a cap of $58-ish. Not gonna work.

They need a scorer in the frontcourt who is either an All-Star or a young 20s stud if they want to both compete next year with an aging core, or rebuild without tanking. Who fits that mold and what assets do the C's have to get there?

Rondo is the obvious chip but he's irreplaceable and comes at a great price ($11m in 2013). Bradley is a very attractive trade chip. He could draw a late lottery pick. The C's have the #21 and #22. Could you package Bradley and those two picks for Luol Deng? Andre Igoudala? Rudy Gay? What about a frontcourt guy like Josh Smith ($12.4), Al Jefferson ($14m) or even Pau Gasol ($18.7 and unhappy).

If they go the draft route, they could package their two picks to move up to get a pick in the 14-17 range. That could get you Harkless, Jones, Ross or Moultrie. None of those guys is likely more than a role player for the next several years. But if you throw in Avery Bradley with the two picks, you could get to the 8-12 range where you might get Zeller, Henson, Leonard or a guard like Lamb or Rivers. The C's need a big and if they bring back Garnett, they are looking to win for the next two seasons before he retires. So I think packaging Bradley and the two picks for a a stud PF/C is the way to go. It's unlikely the Hawks or Lakers would want to deal with the Celtics. Why trade with a rival? So I'm betting a SF like Rudy Gay or former Celtic Al Jefferson would be the two best targets. One other team I'd talk to is the Rockets who seem to always be in the market. Scola could be had and Marcus Camby is a free agent who could replace Bass.

The other option is to write off Garnett, Allen and Bass and make a tough decision on Pierce. I'd swing for the fences first on Al Jefferson, then Rudy Gay, then Luis Scola, assuming certain teams would not deal with the C's (LA, Philly, Atlanta). I do not see this draft being useful for the short term for the Celtics and it is only minimally useful in the long term should they choose to blow things up. They really are stuck unless Ainge can hit a home run via trade.

Kdogg
06-16-2012, 06:54 PM
Garnett's deal has expired. Apparently the Spurs are interested but I could see KG coming back to Boston for a two-year deal worth $10 million per.


Really? Did somebody float that by Duncan? He really dislike Garnett. It's borderline hate.

superdave
06-17-2012, 04:45 PM
Really? Did somebody float that by Duncan? He really dislike Garnett. It's borderline hate.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/buckharvey/2012/06/duncan-and-garnett-together-at-last/
(http://blog.mysanantonio.com/buckharvey/2012/06/duncan-and-garnett-together-at-last/)

theAlaskanBear
06-17-2012, 07:59 PM
Yup. Dealing with Deng and Boozer is just one move essentially: trading Deng for a lottery pick (and whatever else is necessary to make it work). Amnestying Boozer is the other piece. From there, you build around Rose and Noah, and you do so with lots of young lottery picks and (eventually) Mirotic. Maybe you re-sign Gibson as well if he continues to progress. And you have lots of financial wiggle-room to keep the team intact and build around it.

The only thing I'll (maybe) disagree with was that the Bulls can't beat the Heat. I think they could have beaten them this year with a healthy Rose and Noah. I think they could have beaten them next year too. But in 2013-2014, I think it wouldn't happen, because I think Boozer would be too old and creaky. The Rose injury really screwed things up.

Please tell me the advantage to amnestying Boozer as opposed to trading him? I know Boozer hasn't proven himself irreplaceable, but his contract isn't too much of an albatross. There would be teams interested in a trade. His salary this year was similar to Tyson Chandler, Nene, Marc Gasol...with whom he had comparable stats (albeit These guys are better defensively) and he makes less than players like Elton Brand and Antawn Jamison.

Why would you not want to trade him and get at least a piece in return, plus you don't have to pay his salary unlike the amnesty. Even if the Bulls front office really wants to get rid of Boozer...his value is probably highest to a contending or near contending team at the deadline.

slower
06-17-2012, 08:49 PM
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/buckharvey/2012/06/duncan-and-garnett-together-at-last/
(http://blog.mysanantonio.com/buckharvey/2012/06/duncan-and-garnett-together-at-last/)

Even if San Antonio DOES hold their nose and sign Garnett (to try to win one more title, which is the ONLY reason they'd even consider it), he shouldn't try to come in and start with his "alpha dog" act. You think Duncan, Parker and Ginobili would tolerate his punk act? You think POPOVICH would tolerate it? Think again. Garnett exemplifies the opposite of everything San Antonio's about. Duncan is the epitome of class, Garnett the complete opposite.

Starter
06-17-2012, 09:08 PM
Please tell me the advantage to amnestying Boozer as opposed to trading him? I know Boozer hasn't proven himself irreplaceable, but his contract isn't too much of an albatross. There would be teams interested in a trade. His salary this year was similar to Tyson Chandler, Nene, Marc Gasol...with whom he had comparable stats (albeit These guys are better defensively) and he makes less than players like Elton Brand and Antawn Jamison.

Why would you not want to trade him and get at least a piece in return, plus you don't have to pay his salary unlike the amnesty. Even if the Bulls front office really wants to get rid of Boozer...his value is probably highest to a contending or near contending team at the deadline.

Sorry, but Boozer's absolutely an albatross. He has three years and almost 50 million left on his deal, he's trending down and he doesn't offer nearly what he used to. Boozer was a 20/10 guy for a few years there, but his scoring and rebounding have dropped precipitously over the past three years. He was never a defensive force, doesn't challenge shots at the rim. He's not nearly as good as any of the three guys you named. Boozer, like Joe Johnson, picked an excellent summer to be a free agent in that they're paid like superstars despite the fact that they aren't on that level. I'd say the only way you could deal him would be to take another horrible contract in return, and then of course, you'd have to find another team that actually wants to have Boozer. The advantage to amnestying Boozer is that with no other option, at least there's that.

Please note that Carlos was my favorite player while I was at Duke, and we got along extremely well. I'm just stating things how they are.

Deng, too, is overpaid for what he provides. His defense helps, as does the fact that he only has the two years left on his deal, though it's a massive salary. If a rebuilding team that would absolutely be best served to tank the season can get someone to cough up a lottery pick for Deng despite that he won't start the season on time, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

sagegrouse
06-18-2012, 12:05 AM
Sorry, but Boozer's absolutely an albatross. He has three years and almost 50 million left on his deal, he's trending down and he doesn't offer nearly what he used to. Boozer was a 20/10 guy for a few years there, but his scoring and rebounding have dropped precipitously over the past three years. He was never a defensive force, doesn't challenge shots at the rim. He's not nearly as good as any of the three guys you named.

Here are the stats on Mr. Albatross, Carlos Boozer. The first table are the actual numbers on a per game basis; the second table represent stats per 36 minutes of play:




Actual Game Stats
Season FG% TRB PTS
2002-03 53.6% 7.5 10.0
2003-04 52.3% 11.4 15.5
2004-05 52.1% 9.0 17.8
2005-06 54.9% 8.6 16.3
2006-07 56.1% 11.7 20.9
2007-08 54.7% 10.4 21.1
2008-09 49.0% 10.4 16.2
2009-10 56.2% 11.2 19.5
2010-11 51.0% 9.6 17.5
2011-12 53.2% 8.5 15.0
Career 53.7% 9.9 17.0

Results per 36 minutes of play
Season FG% TRB PTS
2002-03 53.6% 10.7 14.2
2003-04 52.3% 11.9 16.1
2004-05 52.1% 9.3 18.5
2005-06 54.9% 10.0 18.9
2006-07 56.1% 12.2 21.8
2007-08 54.7% 10.7 21.8
2008-09 49.0% 11.6 18.0
2009-10 56.2% 11.8 20.5
2010-11 51.0% 10.8 19.8
2011-12 53.2% 10.4 18.3
Career 53.7% 11.1 19.0



I note that the points and rebounds per 36 minutes are about the same as his career averages. He is playing fewer minutes, probably because of age, infirmity, defense, and the fact that the Bulls have better players than his prior teams in CLE and UTA. I dunno, Starter, but 15.0 and 8.5 (actual stats) vs. a career average of 17.0 and 9.9. doesn't seem to me like "he doesn't offer nearly what he used to." I watched games where he was the best player on the court, and I have watched games where he didn't play that big a role. "Albatross," "amnesty," "Carlos Boozer" seem to be the flavor of the month and not supported by his team, the stats or this fan.

sagegrouse

Starter
06-18-2012, 01:30 AM
Here are the stats on Mr. Albatross, Carlos Boozer. The first table are the actual numbers on a per game basis; the second table represent stats per 36 minutes of play:




Actual Game Stats
Season FG% TRB PTS
2002-03 53.6% 7.5 10.0
2003-04 52.3% 11.4 15.5
2004-05 52.1% 9.0 17.8
2005-06 54.9% 8.6 16.3
2006-07 56.1% 11.7 20.9
2007-08 54.7% 10.4 21.1
2008-09 49.0% 10.4 16.2
2009-10 56.2% 11.2 19.5
2010-11 51.0% 9.6 17.5
2011-12 53.2% 8.5 15.0
Career 53.7% 9.9 17.0

Results per 36 minutes of play
Season FG% TRB PTS
2002-03 53.6% 10.7 14.2
2003-04 52.3% 11.9 16.1
2004-05 52.1% 9.3 18.5
2005-06 54.9% 10.0 18.9
2006-07 56.1% 12.2 21.8
2007-08 54.7% 10.7 21.8
2008-09 49.0% 11.6 18.0
2009-10 56.2% 11.8 20.5
2010-11 51.0% 10.8 19.8
2011-12 53.2% 10.4 18.3
Career 53.7% 11.1 19.0



I note that the points and rebounds per 36 minutes are about the same as his career averages. He is playing fewer minutes, probably because of age, infirmity, defense, and the fact that the Bulls have better players than his prior teams in CLE and UTA. I dunno, Starter, but 15.0 and 8.5 (actual stats) vs. a career average of 17.0 and 9.9. doesn't seem to me like "he doesn't offer nearly what he used to." I watched games where he was the best player on the court, and I have watched games where he didn't play that big a role. "Albatross," "amnesty," "Carlos Boozer" seem to be the flavor of the month and not supported by his team, the stats or this fan.

sagegrouse

I appreciate your statistical legwork. His per minute stats in the regular season were definitely better than I thought, though I would think the drop in minutes and raw production came from the Bulls flat-out not being able to play him down the stretch in defensive situations. I also think my perception was a bit stained by his second straight horrendous postseason, including two nine-point games and a 1-for-11 in an elimination game. Perhaps the drop-off isn't yet as much as I thought it was, but maybe he wasn't on that high a level to begin with.

In a vacuum, Boozer definitely has value as a player, especially in that his offense is efficient for what he does. But I'll reiterate that we're talking about Boozer juxtaposed against two things -- his advancing age, and his absurdly overpriced contract. I think it comes down to a few questions:

-- Would any other team trade for Carlos Boozer at his current level of production, and with that contract? (No.)
-- If someone somehow would take him in a trade, would the Bulls do it in a heartbeat? (Yes.)
-- Would any team sign Carlos Boozer to a three-year, $47-ish million contract if he were a free agent? (No.)
-- Has he been even close to a $15 million a year player for the Bulls? (No.)
-- Is Carlos, as always, a good rebounder? (Yes.)
-- ...Is that in part because the next shot he contests will be the first? (Yes.)
-- Did Taj Gibson give far more bang for the buck, especially defensively, with a salary under $2 million this past season? (Yes.)


Please note that they probably won't amnesty him this offseason, nor should they. They're so far over the cap that it would have a negligible effect on their situation; they might as well just keep him and play him since they'd be paying him anyway. (I think they'll be fully able to tank the season even with Boozer's 15 ppg or whatever.) But I would expect he'll continue to decline, so I'd think they'd have to seriously consider doing it next year when they're in position to get way under the cap, add some new pieces and hopefully get Rose close to or at the level they're accustomed to.

Starter
06-18-2012, 01:59 AM
By the way, Carlos certainly did himself no favors with Bulls fans who already question his effort level with this comment after they were eliminated:

"I thought I played well, especially with the kind of season it was. We had the best record again in basketball, won our division again, had the top seed again, that's all that matters, yo."

Yikes...

theAlaskanBear
06-18-2012, 07:40 AM
By the way, Carlos certainly did himself no favors with Bulls fans who already question his effort level with this comment after they were eliminated:

"I thought I played well, especially with the kind of season it was. We had the best record again in basketball, won our division again, had the top seed again, that's all that matters, yo."

Yikes...

See I read that as him trying to say, "it's not about me, it's about the team -- it doesn't matter what my personal stats are"...kind of awkward wording.

But I am not trying to argue he is irreplaceable to the Bulls, they have very good depth up front, and Taj Gibson is probably ready to step into a starting role.

Players always become overpaid as they age -- that is the nature of professional sports -- cheap production at locked in rates turn into free agent contracts that tend to be longer than they should be (at least, this is the case in basketball and baseball). There are 30 teams in the league -- there are teams he would be a good fit with.

CDu
06-18-2012, 09:14 AM
See I read that as him trying to say, "it's not about me, it's about the team -- it doesn't matter what my personal stats are"...kind of awkward wording.

But I am not trying to argue he is irreplaceable to the Bulls, they have very good depth up front, and Taj Gibson is probably ready to step into a starting role.

Players always become overpaid as they age -- that is the nature of professional sports -- cheap production at locked in rates turn into free agent contracts that tend to be longer than they should be (at least, this is the case in basketball and baseball). There are 30 teams in the league -- there are teams he would be a good fit with.

In the NBA, teams don't trade talent for talent very often. Teams trade talent for cap space. They get rid of their bad contracts that way. But you rarely see a team trade one talented player for another. The vast majority of transactions in the NBA are fiscal decisions, not talent decisions.

Boozer would probably find a team willing to take him on. But in return, they would want to dump a bad salary (because Boozer's production isn't worth his contract). The Bulls are only interested in dropping Boozer because he's overpaid and they're concerned about the luxury tax. So acquiring another bad contract in return doesn't solve any problems. If anything, it makes their problems worse. If they could get a nice draft pick and salary relief for Boozer, I'm sure they'd do it. But I don't think anyone is going to jump at such a request. So the trade route is probably a no-fly zone for the Bulls.

That leaves 2 options: keep him on the roster and hang out near the tax for the next 3 years or amnesty him and give themselves luxury tax breathing room. Keeping him on the roster means the team is unable to make a play for any free agents for the next 3 years (because Rose, Boozer, and Noah alone put the Bulls near the cap). Boozer is heading into his decline phase and getting creakier, which means you're locked into a declining team.

Amnestying Boozer makes the Bulls immediately worse in the short-term. But such a move (along with trading Deng for a draft pick and cap relief) clears up space for the team to reload around Rose, Noah, Gibson, and (eventually) Mirotic with multiple lottery picks and cap space to sign a big name.

Starter
06-18-2012, 09:25 AM
See I read that as him trying to say, "it's not about me, it's about the team -- it doesn't matter what my personal stats are"...kind of awkward wording.

But I am not trying to argue he is irreplaceable to the Bulls, they have very good depth up front, and Taj Gibson is probably ready to step into a starting role.

Players always become overpaid as they age -- that is the nature of professional sports -- cheap production at locked in rates turn into free agent contracts that tend to be longer than they should be (at least, this is the case in basketball and baseball). There are 30 teams in the league -- there are teams he would be a good fit with.

Like in the playoff thread, very good response. Few mega-contracts look as good at the end as they do at the start, though some deals -- Ryan Howard and Barry Zito come to mind -- look lousy from the start. Boozer isn't really in that category, though it hasn't been the greatest deal ever signed either.

You're right that teams could use Boozer, especially his offense. I think he'd be best served as a reserve, where he can come in fresh and score against second units, and his defensive liabilities would be less an issue down the stretch. The problem is, he's not paid like a reserve, and I maintain nobody would want to pay him and give something up for him when they can invest that sort of money in a better player or three. Baseball skirts this issue by having no cap and allowing teams to pay off deals of players they're trading, like the Mets did with Carlos Beltran. Basketball has neither.

Man, at least the Bulls will have the option to just cut him loose at some point! The Knicks used theirs on Billups to sign Chandler. Now I'm stuck with a declining Amar'e, unless he starts aging in reverse and stops punching glass.

niveklaen
06-19-2012, 12:20 PM
Not sure if this is still the NBA Draft thread, so mods please move if this post belongs elsewhere, but I saw this list of 'over-rated' draft picks according to the guys at WOW and thought it had plenty of fodder for conversation for us.

Saddly they put Rivers down as the second most over-rated draft pick.
But then they put the black pigeon as the most over-rated draft pick :)

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/06/18/the-10-most-overrated-2012-draft-prospects-part-2/#comments

saddly I think that they are largely right about Austin, it seems like he was all first step and killer instinct with everything else coming up short

CDu
06-19-2012, 12:27 PM
Not sure if this is still the NBA Draft thread, so mods please move if this post belongs elsewhere, but I saw this list of 'over-rated' draft picks according to the guys at WOW and thought it had plenty of fodder for conversation for us.

Saddly they put Rivers down as the second most over-rated draft pick.
But then they put the black pigeon as the most over-rated draft pick :)

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/06/18/the-10-most-overrated-2012-draft-prospects-part-2/#comments

saddly I think that they are largely right about Austin, it seems like he was all first step and killer instinct with everything else coming up short

He had the least overall basketball IQ I've seen of any star player in recent memory. He was just completely incapable of playing off the ball or setting up his teammates. It's in stark contrast to his VERY refined scoring skillset. He knew how to create shots for himself when he had the ball in his hands. But he didn't seem to know how to "steal" scoring chances by moving well off the ball, and he didn't really know how to use his ballhandling gifts to create easy scoring chances for teammates. Very good scorer, but somewhat limited in his overall game.

wk2109
06-19-2012, 12:31 PM
Not sure if this is still the NBA Draft thread, so mods please move if this post belongs elsewhere, but I saw this list of 'over-rated' draft picks according to the guys at WOW and thought it had plenty of fodder for conversation for us.

Saddly they put Rivers down as the second most over-rated draft pick.
But then they put the black pigeon as the most over-rated draft pick :)

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/06/18/the-10-most-overrated-2012-draft-prospects-part-2/#comments

saddly I think that they are largely right about Austin, it seems like he was all first step and killer instinct with everything else coming up short

Love this quote from the article: "Barnes is everything a GM wants – he has great size, he is one of the most athletic guys in the draft, and he can score from anywhere (or at least that’s what they say) – except for one thing: he isn’t good."

superdave
06-20-2012, 02:40 PM
Hornets trade (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8077486/sources-washington-wizards-get-new-orleans-hornets-emeka-okafor-trevor-ariza-rashard-lewis-pick) Okafor, Ariza to the Bullets for Rashard Lewis' $23.8 million expiring contract and the #46 pick.

This points to Brad Beal being the choice at the #3 spot. They could roll out a team of Wall, Beal, Ariza, Nene and Okafor with Singleton, Vesely, Booker and Jordan Crawford off the bench. They could amnesty Blatche and get a FA or package some of their frontcourt depth for more backcourt depth.

FerryFor50
06-20-2012, 02:46 PM
Hornets trade (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8077486/sources-washington-wizards-get-new-orleans-hornets-emeka-okafor-trevor-ariza-rashard-lewis-pick) Okafor, Ariza to the Bullets for Rashard Lewis' $23.8 million expiring contract and the #46 pick.

This points to Brad Beal being the choice at the #3 spot. They could roll out a team of Wall, Beal, Ariza, Nene and Okafor with Singleton, Vesely, Booker and Jordan Crawford off the bench. They could amnesty Blatche and get a FA or package some of their frontcourt depth for more backcourt depth.

This trade epitomizes what CDu was saying about teams rarely trading for talent... it's all about the cap space.

superdave
06-20-2012, 04:34 PM
This trade epitomizes what CDu was saying about teams rarely trading for talent... it's all about the cap space.

The Hornets did not see either guy in their future and did not have to give up a first rounder to get rid of them. Great move. They intend to rebuild with Davis, Gordon, the #10 and whoever they get next year. Solid start so far.

And Washington adds two rotation guys they apparently like. they could sneak into the playoffs next year with that group. Win-win.

FerryFor50
06-20-2012, 05:33 PM
http://tracking.si.com/2012/06/20/new-orleans-hornets-portland-trail-blazers-paul-milsap-nba/

Wow.

Why would they do this over selecting Davis?

All of the players they're interested in are marginal compared to Davis... unless they also get a first rounder from the team they trade with.

That said, if I'm the Clippers, I seriously consider Bledsoe for Davis.

pfrduke
06-20-2012, 05:46 PM
http://tracking.si.com/2012/06/20/new-orleans-hornets-portland-trail-blazers-paul-milsap-nba/

Wow.

Why would they do this over selecting Davis?

All of the players they're interested in are marginal compared to Davis... unless they also get a first rounder from the team they trade with.

That said, if I'm the Clippers, I seriously consider Bledsoe for Davis.

I think they're shopping the #10, not the #1

FerryFor50
06-20-2012, 05:47 PM
I think they're shopping the #10, not the #1

Ok that makes more sense. :)

superdave
06-21-2012, 09:38 AM
Here's Chad Ford's chat (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/44280) from yesterday. Always a good read.

Starter
06-24-2012, 01:55 PM
Good article here on Bobcats GM Rich Cho revamping their scouting department. I think people think Jordan is going to call the shots on this pick and subsequently screw it up; I'm sure he's signing off on it, but I think Cho has a whole lot of input, and he's a smart guy who does his homework. If they pick Kidd-Gilchrist, I think you feel pretty good about where the franchise is headed.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/23/3337874/bobcats-hope-massive-revamp-of.html

Newton_14
06-24-2012, 02:09 PM
Good article here on Bobcats GM Rich Cho revamping their scouting department. I think people think Jordan is going to call the shots on this pick and subsequently screw it up; I'm sure he's signing off on it, but I think Cho has a whole lot of input, and he's a smart guy who does his homework. If they pick Kidd-Gilchrist, I think you feel pretty good about where the franchise is headed.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/23/3337874/bobcats-hope-massive-revamp-of.html

I am skeptical Starter. I hope that Cho has real influence and the Cats either choose MKG or T-Rob, but at this point, I am convinced they are going to take Barnes. HB is dying to play for Jordan, and the UNC connection is going to win out here. The chatter is heating up that Charlotte is now high on Barnes. If they indeed choose Barnes, it will be a terrible move, and I will hope that Gerald can get traded, so I have no reasons at all left to pull for them. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

Starter
06-24-2012, 03:02 PM
I am skeptical Starter. I hope that Cho has real influence and the Cats either choose MKG or T-Rob, but at this point, I am convinced they are going to take Barnes. HB is dying to play for Jordan, and the UNC connection is going to win out here. The chatter is heating up that Charlotte is now high on Barnes. If they indeed choose Barnes, it will be a terrible move, and I will hope that Gerald can get traded, so I have no reasons at all left to pull for them. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

I agree that if they pick Barnes, it's like they're becoming the punchline to a joke everyone has made. Whoever they pick at No. 2, if they keep the pick, will definitely indicate the direction the franchise is headed, for sure. MKG would be a great building block for this franchise, or any franchise. If they trade down with Cleveland, that's problematic too, since they'd probably be trading down for Barnes.

subzero02
06-24-2012, 10:52 PM
Having the pick right after the bobcats might be as good as having the pick right after the vikings in the 2000's

BD80
06-24-2012, 11:30 PM
Having the pick right after the bobcats might be as good as having the pick right after the vikings in the 2000's


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkQZVJshgc

UrinalCake
06-24-2012, 11:53 PM
Has anyone else heard the reports that MKG's shooting form looked horrible in workouts? Also, apparently he's awful in interviews. It's not a lack of intelligence, just that he gets really nervous when asked to do public speaking. I heard this on the radio a few days ago and was curious if anyone else heard this or thinks it will affect his draft position. A team like Charlotte that wants a new face of the franchise might need their guy to be better with the public.

subzero02
06-25-2012, 12:51 AM
Maybe Kyrie should help his old high school teammate with public speaking and shooting...

superdave
06-25-2012, 10:49 AM
Espn reports (http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8090830/chicago-bulls-luol-deng-says-surprised-trade) that Deng may be traded. Speedy Claxton, scout for the Warriors, attended England's national team practice. Golden State has the #7.

This is in addition to rumors the past week about Deng to either Toronto or Sacramento. Another consideration though - Rudy Gay and Andre Igoudala are apparently both available and play the same position as Deng.

Deng led the league in minutes last season. Not bad.


Super "The NBA draft - where rumor mongering is legal on the EK board" Dave

CDu
06-25-2012, 10:57 AM
Espn reports (http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8090830/chicago-bulls-luol-deng-says-surprised-trade) that Deng may be traded. Speedy Claxton, scout for the Warriors, attended England's national team practice. Golden State has the #7.

This is in addition to rumors the past week about Deng to either Toronto or Sacramento. Another consideration though - Rudy Gay and Andre Igoudala are apparently both available and play the same position as Deng.

Deng led the league in minutes last season. Not bad.


Super "The NBA draft - where rumor mongering is legal on the EK board" Dave

The Bulls are clearly shopping Deng for a mid/high-lottery pick. Toronto (#8), Sacramento (#5), and Golden State (#7) all fit the bill. So does Portland (#6), but Portland may have other visions of how they want to use their two picks.

It may be that the Bulls shop both Noah and Deng for picks, cap space, and trade exemptions in a cost-cutting move as they try to reload for the 2013 season and beyond. I'd be surprised if both Deng and Noah are with Chicago next year. At least one, if not both, will likely be traded for picks this week.

superdave
06-25-2012, 11:44 AM
The Bulls are clearly shopping Deng for a mid/high-lottery pick. Toronto (#8), Sacramento (#5), and Golden State (#7) all fit the bill. So does Portland (#6), but Portland may have other visions of how they want to use their two picks.

It may be that the Bulls shop both Noah and Deng for picks, cap space, and trade exemptions in a cost-cutting move as they try to reload for the 2013 season and beyond. I'd be surprised if both Deng and Noah are with Chicago next year. At least one, if not both, will likely be traded for picks this week.

Noah is on board for 4 years and about $47 million. I'm not sure you'd find a better deal among big men in the NBA. I wonder why Deng/Noah for Dwight Howard has not been seriously considered.

The Bulls would be wise to trade Deng straight up for a pick, to avoid taking salary back in the trade. If they could get a pick in the 5-8 range, that would be great for them. They could get Barnes/Lillard/Waiters/Drummond and get cheaper and younger. But replacing Deng is tough. He plays tons of minutes and does so many little things for the team.

CDu
06-25-2012, 11:51 AM
Noah is on board for 4 years and about $47 million. I'm not sure you'd find a better deal among big men in the NBA. I wonder why Deng/Noah for Dwight Howard has not been seriously considered.

The Bulls would be wise to trade Deng straight up for a pick, to avoid taking salary back in the trade. If they could get a pick in the 5-8 range, that would be great for them. They could get Barnes/Lillard/Waiters/Drummond and get cheaper and younger. But replacing Deng is tough. He plays tons of minutes and does so many little things for the team.

I'd definitely prefer to keep Noah, and I agree that replacing Deng will be tough. But I think the front office (read: Reinsdorf) is more interested in saving money rather than matching talent. They're hoping that they can find young talent with the potential to be similarly good for much less money.

The Howard for Deng/Noah deal is probably a no-fly zone because Howard will be a free agent after next season and has expressed interests in places other than Chicago. Unless there's a guarantee that he'd stay long-term, they aren't going to make that move. It would certainly make sense from the Magic perspective.

ncexnyc
06-25-2012, 12:20 PM
I'd definitely prefer to keep Noah, and I agree that replacing Deng will be tough. But I think the front office (read: Reinsdorf) is more interested in saving money rather than matching talent. They're hoping that they can find young talent with the potential to be similarly good for much less money.

The Howard for Deng/Noah deal is probably a no-fly zone because Howard will be a free agent after next season and has expressed interests in places other than Chicago. Unless there's a guarantee that he'd stay long-term, they aren't going to make that move. It would certainly make sense from the Magic perspective.

I wouldn't be so quick to take a shot at Reinsdorf. I read last week that the Bulls would explore blowing up their current roster due to the injury to Rose. With Rose out they're a decent team, but one that won't contend for a ring. The article said they'd tank next season for a chance at a very high draft choice next year, which isn't really a bad strategy if you're confident you'll be able to draft quality, young players to build around a healthy Rose.

CDu
06-25-2012, 12:24 PM
I wouldn't be so quick to take a shot at Reinsdorf. I read last week that the Bulls would explore blowing up their current roster due to the injury to Rose. With Rose out they're a decent team, but one that won't contend for a ring. The article said they'd tank next season for a chance at a very high draft choice next year, which isn't really a bad strategy if you're confident you'll be able to draft quality, young players to build around a healthy Rose.

We discussed this very scenario a lot on DBR in the last week or so. I'm actually in favor of trading Deng and amnestying Boozer, getting a lottery pick this year and next year (when they don't make the playoffs) and having the cap space to sign a free agent next offseason to go with a healthy Rose and Noah.

My point with the Reinsdorf comment is that he is notoriously frugal. I'm a Bulls fan, so I am very aware of their tendencies. He's a businessman first, and thus he'll take the bottom line rather than paying/overpaying for talent.

superdave
06-25-2012, 12:30 PM
The Bulls would be wise to trade Deng straight up for a pick, to avoid taking salary back in the trade.

Looks like the Bulls have to take back the equivalent of Deng's 2012-2013 salary to make a trade work, according to this article (http://www.csnbayarea.com/basketball-golden-state-warriors/warriors-talk/For-Warriors-is-there-a-deal-there-for-D?blockID=730146&feedID=5986). So they'd not really get any cheaper until after this coming season, assuming they get an expiring deal back.

superdave
06-25-2012, 12:36 PM
Cavs could send (http://blogs.charlotte.com/inside_the_nba/2012/06/a-bobcats-cavs-swap-of-picks-makes-sense.html) #4 and #24 to the Bobcats for the #2.

This would mean Brad Beal to Cleveland, then Charlotte would take MKG, Robinson or Barnes at #4. This might be a good way for Jordan to justify drafting Barnes, since it's a stretch to take him at #2.

This could screw up the Washington pick at #3, since they picked up Okafor and Ariza, which made Beal at #3 the obvious choice for them. They'd likely take MKG at #3 if Beal is gone already. Their frontcourt is getting a little crowded in DC (Nene, Emeka, Blatche, The Dunking Ninja, Singleton, Booker) so Thomas Robinson is an unlikely target for them.

Super "Looking like picks 2-5 could get shaken up a few times this week" Dave

CDu
06-25-2012, 12:38 PM
Looks like the Bulls have to take back the equivalent of Deng's 2012-2013 salary to make a trade work, according to this article (http://www.csnbayarea.com/basketball-golden-state-warriors/warriors-talk/For-Warriors-is-there-a-deal-there-for-D?blockID=730146&feedID=5986). So they'd not really get any cheaper until after this coming season, assuming they get an expiring deal back.

That's only true if the trade partner is over or near the cap. If the other team is under the cap, they can take on Deng's salary. The Warriors are pretty close to the cap. The Kings, for example, are under the cap and could take on Deng's salary without returning players.

Channing
06-25-2012, 01:33 PM
Although he has lots of time to make teams regret possibly passing over him, Jared Sullinger is looking like an example where coming back seriously hurt his draft status. After his freshman year he was projected no lower than the top 5. Now he hasn't even been invited to the green room, because the NBA isn't convinced he'll go top 15. Someone may still obviously pick him, but his stock has obviously slid quite a bit.

flyingdutchdevil
06-25-2012, 01:48 PM
Although he has lots of time to make teams regret possibly passing over him, Jared Sullinger is looking like an example where coming back seriously hurt his draft status. After his freshman year he was projected no lower than the top 5. Now he hasn't even been invited to the green room, because the NBA isn't convinced he'll go top 15. Someone may still obviously pick him, but his stock has obviously slid quite a bit.

A lot of that has to do with the fact that he was red-flagged during the medical examination at the combine. A more telling story is Perry Jones - a sure-fire top-five pick last year who is now a fringe lottery pick.

Channing
06-25-2012, 02:05 PM
A lot of that has to do with the fact that he was red-flagged during the medical examination at the combine. A more telling story is Perry Jones - a sure-fire top-five pick last year who is now a fringe lottery pick.

Right, although I actually think Sullinger is the bigger cautionary tale. Perry Jones has dropped off because of his play - presumably something within his control. Sullinger highlights how you can fall due to injury, which is often a freak accident or something over which you have little control.

CDu
06-25-2012, 02:17 PM
Right, although I actually think Sullinger is the bigger cautionary tale. Perry Jones has dropped off because of his play - presumably something within his control. Sullinger highlights how you can fall due to injury, which is often a freak accident or something over which you have little control.

But I don't think Sullinger's injury was new. And assuming he has had the injury for years (since it obviously hasn't kept him from playing) then it would have come up whenever he went through the testing (this year or last year). I think that was flyingdutchdevil's point: it didn't matter when he went pro, because he would have been red flagged either way.

superdave
06-25-2012, 02:31 PM
Looks like Minnesota would be willing to trade Derrick Williams to get a high draft pick. He averaged 8.8 and 4.7 in 21 minutes per last season. Not sure why they'd be willing to give up on him so quickly, especially considering Beasley and Randolph probably wont be back.

Also, Houston would like to package (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/46492/rockets-set-sights-on-moving-up-in-draft) their 14/16 picks to move up. They could go after Drummond or accumulate picks to try to swing a deal for Dwight Howard (even though he would not have signed a contract yet).

CDu
06-25-2012, 02:41 PM
Looks like Minnesota would be willing to trade Derrick Williams to get a high draft pick. He averaged 8.8 and 4.7 in 21 minutes per last season. Not sure why they'd be willing to give up on him so quickly, especially considering Beasley and Randolph probably wont be back.

Also, Houston would like to package (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/46492/rockets-set-sights-on-moving-up-in-draft) their 14/16 picks to move up. They could go after Drummond or accumulate picks to try to swing a deal for Dwight Howard (even though he would not have signed a contract yet).

I think the issue is that Minnesota wants Love to play PF and they don't see Williams as a capable SF. So they'd like to reload with another SG or SF instead.

JasonEvans
06-25-2012, 03:38 PM
Sullinger may become yet another poster child for leaving as soon as your stock hits the lottery. A year ago there is little question he would have been taking in the first half of the lottery. Instead he came back to school for a shot at a national title. But, though he performed well he was nagged by injuries a bit and his performance was not what scouts were hoping to see. What's more, his team started strongly but faded and never achieved nearly what he dreamed they would. Now, he is looking at being taken in the late-teens of the draft, perhaps not even until the 20s.

The #4 pick in last year's draft, Tristan Thompson, has a 4-year deal at just over $17 million dollars. Sullinger, if he goes in the late teens, will sign a deal worth less than half of that. It is also worth noting that teams tend to give more playing time to guys who go higher in the draft. There is more of an investment in a high lottery pick so teams give players at that level more chances to prove themselves. So, not only did Sullinger cost himself something like $10 million of salary (and even more in potential endorsements), he also lessened his chance to prove that he is a quality NBA PF.

-Jason "Sigh... pity. Seems like a really good kid" Evans

superdave
06-25-2012, 03:59 PM
Howard is under contract with Orlando for next year at $19.26 million. He will be an unrestricted free agent next summer. Earlier this year (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-01-31/sports/os-orlando-magic-news-0201-20120131_1_bulls-fans-dwight-howard-amway-center) he limited the teams he'd preferred to be traded to to the following - Nets, Lakers, Mavs.

The Mavs do not have a whole lot they can give Orlando right now. Their preference is to sign Howard via free agency next summer after signing Deron Williams this summer. The Nets would likely have to wait as well, since their only real trade chip is Brook Lopez.

The Lakers could trade Gasol straight up for Howard since the salaries work. But Orlando needs a lot more. A more likely trade would be Gasol and Bynum for Howard and Turkoglu's fat contract and smoking habit. That deal works and the Lakers could split the SF role between Artest and Turkoglu depending on matchups.

But if Howard would agree to look at other teams, this draft could really change. Houston is apparently trying to deal to get two top 10 picks in order to put together a package for Howard. They could trade their #14 and #16 to get 8, 9, or 10 possibly, then trade point guard Kyle Lowry or center Samuel Dalembert to get another pick. If they managed to get the #5 and #8 and throw in Luis Scola, would that be enough to get Howard and convince Howard to sign a new deal with the Rockets?

I would honestly not be surprised to see Howard and Deron Williams have a brief conversation and agree to head to Dallas this summer (Williams) and next (Howard) a la Lebron, Bosh and Wade.

superdave
06-25-2012, 04:04 PM
Sullinger may become yet another poster child for leaving as soon as your stock hits the lottery. A year ago there is little question he would have been taking in the first half of the lottery. Instead he came back to school for a shot at a national title. But, though he performed well he was nagged by injuries a bit and his performance was not what scouts were hoping to see. What's more, his team started strongly but faded and never achieved nearly what he dreamed they would. Now, he is looking at being taken in the late-teens of the draft, perhaps not even until the 20s.

The #4 pick in last year's draft, Tristan Thompson, has a 4-year deal at just over $17 million dollars. Sullinger, if he goes in the late teens, will sign a deal worth less than half of that. It is also worth noting that teams tend to give more playing time to guys who go higher in the draft. There is more of an investment in a high lottery pick so teams give players at that level more chances to prove themselves. So, not only did Sullinger cost himself something like $10 million of salary (and even more in potential endorsements), he also lessened his chance to prove that he is a quality NBA PF.

-Jason "Sigh... pity. Seems like a really good kid" Evans

On the flip side, if Sullinger goes to team in the mid to late first round he could play for a winner with some quality veterans. Sully could get on with the Celtics, Mavs or Nuggets and work his way into the rotation while learning from quality teammates.

A good comparison would be how Rajob Rondo went to the Celtics and learned to play point by passing to Allen, Garnett and Pierce.

He's losing out on $ now, but could land with a quality franchise which could help in the long run.

Super "That's what I'd tell him today if I were his Dad" Dave

awhom111
06-25-2012, 09:29 PM
Espn reports (http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8090830/chicago-bulls-luol-deng-says-surprised-trade) that Deng may be traded. Speedy Claxton, scout for the Warriors, attended England's national team practice. Golden State has the #7.

This is in addition to rumors the past week about Deng to either Toronto or Sacramento. Another consideration though - Rudy Gay and Andre Igoudala are apparently both available and play the same position as Deng.

Deng led the league in minutes last season. Not bad.


Super "The NBA draft - where rumor mongering is legal on the EK board" Dave

I believe Speedy followed the team to San Antonio today, so I would not be surprised if he was watching one of the British players who was actually playing in the game. It does not seem like they would need to scout Luol in this environment since it seems unlikely that they would see anything that they could not see from game film earlier this season. The rumour is that he was looking at one of the bigs, so I am guessing it was Pops Mensah-Bonsu or Matthew Bryan-Amaning or even Eric Boateng since I assume we are not trying to buy the rights to Joel Freeland from the Blazers. The fact that the Warriors have 4 draft picks this year scares me even though we might finally be getting a little bit better at drafting.

UrinalCake
06-25-2012, 10:12 PM
Sullinger may become yet another poster child for leaving as soon as your stock hits the lottery.

I mostly agree with your assessment, though the lockout was obviously a big part of his decision. What if he had gone pro and the whole season had been lost? Then he would have wasted a year. And as others have mentioned, the knee issue would have been there a year ago too, so maybe he felt like he needed to prove that it wasn't something that would affect his abilities.

superdave
06-26-2012, 09:22 AM
Their new coach says that trading down is a good idea (http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2012/story/_/id/8095532/2012-nba-draft-charlotte-bobcats-considering-trading-no-2-pick). Here's some of the deals that have been thrown out there and the pros and cons.

#2 to the Cavs for the #4 and #24. The Bobcats apparently see no difference between the players they can get at 2 through 5, so why not get #24 in return?

#2 to Minnesota for Derrick Williams (last year's 2nd overall pick) and the #18. Williams is a bit of a tweener but had a solid rookie year. This draft is also deep so the Cats could get a rotation player at 18.

Also, Portland could offer #6 and #11 for #2. That could provide Charlotte with a lot of depth - Waiters/Lillard/Drummond at 6; Zeller/Leonard/Rivers at 11. But they would miss out on the Beal/MKG/Robinson quality player they could get at 2 through 4.

Super "Jordan is trying to back into picking Harrison Barnes and it's going to work out poorly" Dave

Starter
06-26-2012, 10:59 AM
Well, that Minnesota No. 18 is off the table, traded to Houston for Chase Budinger. Interesting what Houston is doing -- they now have three mid-first-round picks to trade up for better picks to attempt to acquire Dwight Howard, who has put it out there that he won't resign there (for some reason). I guess if that falls through, they can just take a few good players with those picks, which might end up being the better way to go about it. Or, I've seen that they might go after Josh Smith. I like the boldness of their moves, though.

budwom
06-26-2012, 11:04 AM
The Boobcats taking Drummond would be just about perfect, another long, overrated stiff.

BD80
06-26-2012, 12:34 PM
Well, that Minnesota No. 18 is off the table, traded to Houston for Chase Budinger. Interesting what Houston is doing -- they now have three mid-first-round picks to trade up for better picks to attempt to acquire Dwight Howard, who has put it out there that he won't resign there (for some reason). I guess if that falls through, they can just take a few good players with those picks, which might end up being the better way to go about it. Or, I've seen that they might go after Josh Smith. I like the boldness of their moves, though.

Gotta wonder about Dumars as a GM. Makes a great move to pick Buddinger in the second round - kid can jump AND shoot. Then dumps him to Houston for a 2nd round pick this year, then Houston flips Buddinger for #18 in the 1st.

Kudos to Houston's GM. As for Joe .... well, he's a better GM than MJ.

flyingdutchdevil
06-26-2012, 12:35 PM
Is Beal known as a defensive presence? I'm asking because Kyrie is still insanely raw and may be a mediocre defender his whole career (this isn't a rip on him, but rather a possibility). Having Kyrie and Beal would be an insane offensive backcourt, but I'm a little worried about the defensive matchups...

Duvall
06-26-2012, 01:15 PM
Their new coach says that trading down is a good idea (http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2012/story/_/id/8095532/2012-nba-draft-charlotte-bobcats-considering-trading-no-2-pick). Here's some of the deals that have been thrown out there and the pros and cons.

#2 to the Cavs for the #4 and #24. The Bobcats apparently see no difference between the players they can get at 2 through 5, so why not get #24 in return?


Why would Cleveland be interested in that deal?

sporthenry
06-26-2012, 01:18 PM
Is Beal known as a defensive presence? I'm asking because Kyrie is still insanely raw and may be a mediocre defender his whole career (this isn't a rip on him, but rather a possibility). Having Kyrie and Beal would be an insane offensive backcourt, but I'm a little worried about the defensive matchups...


I think Beal comes out a more polished defender but both are seen as guys who lost focus on the defensive end. Granted this becomes more of a mental thing and you would have to hope that combining the two would lighten the offensive load enough on each of them that they could buy in on the defensive edge. I think Beal would obviously create a formidable back court and while their defense might not be amazing I don't think it would hold them back.

If the Cavs don't get Beal, I think the only other logical choice is MKG who would be a nice defensive stopper and would fit in perfectly with a guard who can set him up. If both Beal and MKG are off the board, I think the Cavs would be better off trading down or stockpiling picks for next year. T-Rob may be the most NBA ready but doesn't project to be amazing and they have Tristan Thompson. After that, it becomes fairly underwhelming with Drummond, Barnes, etc and trade down to Suns, Pistons, Raptors for their first and a future might be better off.

pfrduke
06-26-2012, 01:28 PM
Why would Cleveland be interested in that deal?

If they really like Beal/MKG, and worry that neither will be there at 4.

CDu
06-26-2012, 01:29 PM
If they really like Beal/MKG, and worry that neither will be there at 4.

Yup. Most suspect the Wizards are targeting a wing based on their recent trade, which means at least one of those guys will be gone by #4. If Charlotte picks the other, Cleveland is stuck taking a big or reaching for a guard that they don't want as much.

sporthenry
06-26-2012, 01:30 PM
Why would Cleveland be interested in that deal?

Well I think the Cavs want Beal or MKG but could be stuck with T-Rob at which point they'd be in a predicament. 24th pick isn't exactly guaranteed much even in a deep draft and they could get either a stud SG who plays perfectly off ball with Kyrie or a gutty SF who can play defense on probably 4 positions and will likewise work great with Kyrie penetrating. With Thompson they obviously don't need T-Rob and the rest of the top 5-10 isn't exactly compelling at this point. A team of Kyrie and Beal/MKG would be a few pieces away from being true contenders and while Thompson is still a question mark, that would be the makings of a very good team.

Duvall
06-26-2012, 01:30 PM
If they really like Beal/MKG, and worry that neither will be there at 4.

Stiff price to pay to avoid picking Thomas Robinson. Cavs need more 1st round picks, not fewer.

superdave
06-26-2012, 02:05 PM
Stiff price to pay to avoid picking Thomas Robinson. Cavs need more 1st round picks, not fewer.

Robinson and Thompson would not be bad in my opinion. You really need four quality bigs to compate, so Robinson makes three once you count Varejao.

But Beal appears to be the perfect guy alongside Kyrie. That's probably worth the #24 pick to move up. I'd pull the trigger on that deal knowing Beal would not slip to #4 because the Bullets want Beal too.

COYS
06-26-2012, 02:09 PM
Stiff price to pay to avoid picking Thomas Robinson. Cavs need more 1st round picks, not fewer.

I tend to agree with your logic, here. Unless the Cavs are certain that Beal will be an All Star caliber player, it seems that they really need to stalk up on 1st round talent. Tristan Thompson had a pretty good rookie season, but it remains to be seen if his flaws (namely, that he can't shoot away from the basket at all) will ever be completely fixed. Outside of Thompson, the Cavs have no young talent with which they can surround Kyrie. I feel like they need to get younger and cheaper, fast. Jamison and Varajao are both still good players, but they are better fits as role players on a contender rather than high priced vets on a team that is rebuilding. If the Cavs can entice cap-strapped teams to deal some young players for Jamison's expiring contract, I would think that would be hard to pass up. If they could accumulate some draft picks for Jamison, that'd be even better.

Of course, all bets are off if the Cavs are convinced that Beal is going to be a star or if the Bobcats are willing to do something like trade their #2 pick and their #31 pick for the Cav's #4 and #24. The Cavs could do this, move up to two and take the player they think has the best upside (which appears to be Beal), still have Jamison as trade bait, AND pick the first player in the second round, which still might include quality players in this draft. To be honest, though, I think the Cavs have to get as young and cheap as they possibly can, anyway that they can. That way, they can either try to pull a big coup and land someone like Howard (very, very, very, very, very unlikely), or simply accumulate enough assets that they have lots of trade options available to them in the future while simultaneously retaining the financial flexibility to add a "missing piece" if the young crop of players develop into a contender.

sporthenry
06-26-2012, 03:26 PM
I tend to agree with your logic, here. Unless the Cavs are certain that Beal will be an All Star caliber player, it seems that they really need to stalk up on 1st round talent. Tristan Thompson had a pretty good rookie season, but it remains to be seen if his flaws (namely, that he can't shoot away from the basket at all) will ever be completely fixed. Outside of Thompson, the Cavs have no young talent with which they can surround Kyrie. I feel like they need to get younger and cheaper, fast. Jamison and Varajao are both still good players, but they are better fits as role players on a contender rather than high priced vets on a team that is rebuilding. If the Cavs can entice cap-strapped teams to deal some young players for Jamison's expiring contract, I would think that would be hard to pass up. If they could accumulate some draft picks for Jamison, that'd be even better.

Of course, all bets are off if the Cavs are convinced that Beal is going to be a star or if the Bobcats are willing to do something like trade their #2 pick and their #31 pick for the Cav's #4 and #24. The Cavs could do this, move up to two and take the player they think has the best upside (which appears to be Beal), still have Jamison as trade bait, AND pick the first player in the second round, which still might include quality players in this draft. To be honest, though, I think the Cavs have to get as young and cheap as they possibly can, anyway that they can. That way, they can either try to pull a big coup and land someone like Howard (very, very, very, very, very unlikely), or simply accumulate enough assets that they have lots of trade options available to them in the future while simultaneously retaining the financial flexibility to add a "missing piece" if the young crop of players develop into a contender.

But what do you expect to get with the #24 pick in the draft? Even in a deep year, this year you are looking at a lot of guys with potential dropping or a lot of role players. Yes, rotational guys are necessary but when you are the Cavs, the difference between drafting Festus Ezeli or John Jenkins as opposed to signing a veteran is very small especially since the Cavs can spend some money. They could try to draft Fab Melo but he brings his own baggage. Meanwhile, what do the Cavs do if MKG and Beal are no longer available. You can't draft T-Rob with Varejao and Thompson. So they have to trade down and can accumulate more pieces but you are still looking at someone like Barnes, Rivers, Leonard, etc. Not nearly someone expected to have the same impact as MKG or Beal. But I think there is a huge gap after MKG and Beal in terms of instant help for the Cavs.

Another interesting thing to note is that with trading down, they could also trade away Varejao with the pick who has a decent cap hit with some value but probably isn't in their future plans. They could trade him for an expiring contract or just salary dump him and then they would have plenty of money to go after free agents or trades in the near future. I've seen scenarios where they trade Varejao and their 4th pick for both of Portland's picks or Varejao and 24 for Golden States selection at 7. I know they like Varejao and he is a solid player for his cap hit but he ties up close to 10 million for 3 more years. So if you really want to get young and cheap while acquiring plenty of trade pieces and money to spend, dealing Varejao would seem ideal.

NSDukeFan
06-26-2012, 03:36 PM
But what do you expect to get with the #24 pick in the draft? Even in a deep year, this year you are looking at a lot of guys with potential dropping or a lot of role players. Yes, rotational guys are necessary but when you are the Cavs, the difference between drafting Festus Ezeli or John Jenkins as opposed to signing a veteran is very small especially since the Cavs can spend some money. They could try to draft Fab Melo but he brings his own baggage. Meanwhile, what do the Cavs do if MKG and Beal are no longer available. You can't draft T-Rob with Varejao and Thompson. So they have to trade down and can accumulate more pieces but you are still looking at someone like Barnes, Rivers, Leonard, etc. Not nearly someone expected to have the same impact as MKG or Beal. But I think there is a huge gap after MKG and Beal in terms of instant help for the Cavs.

Another interesting thing to note is that with trading down, they could also trade away Varejao with the pick who has a decent cap hit with some value but probably isn't in their future plans. They could trade him for an expiring contract or just salary dump him and then they would have plenty of money to go after free agents or trades in the near future. I've seen scenarios where they trade Varejao and their 4th pick for both of Portland's picks or Varejao and 24 for Golden States selection at 7. I know they like Varejao and he is a solid player for his cap hit but he ties up close to 10 million for 3 more years. So if you really want to get young and cheap while acquiring plenty of trade pieces and money to spend, dealing Varejao would seem ideal.

Why can't they draft Robinson with Varejao and Thompson?

CDu
06-26-2012, 03:37 PM
Why can't they draft Robinson with Varejao and Thompson?

Because Robinson and Thompson play the same position. Neither is big enough to be a center, neither is skilled enough to be a SF. They could draft Robinson, but it would be strange to give up on a lottery-pick PF after just one year.

COYS
06-26-2012, 03:43 PM
it seems that they really need to stalk up on 1st round talent.

I'm calling myself out for a silly editing error here, haha. I chuckled when I read that.

COYS
06-26-2012, 03:51 PM
But what do you expect to get with the #24 pick in the draft? Even in a deep year, this year you are looking at a lot of guys with potential dropping or a lot of role players. Yes, rotational guys are necessary but when you are the Cavs, the difference between drafting Festus Ezeli or John Jenkins as opposed to signing a veteran is very small especially since the Cavs can spend some money. They could try to draft Fab Melo but he brings his own baggage. Meanwhile, what do the Cavs do if MKG and Beal are no longer available. You can't draft T-Rob with Varejao and Thompson. So they have to trade down and can accumulate more pieces but you are still looking at someone like Barnes, Rivers, Leonard, etc. Not nearly someone expected to have the same impact as MKG or Beal. But I think there is a huge gap after MKG and Beal in terms of instant help for the Cavs.

Another interesting thing to note is that with trading down, they could also trade away Varejao with the pick who has a decent cap hit with some value but probably isn't in their future plans. They could trade him for an expiring contract or just salary dump him and then they would have plenty of money to go after free agents or trades in the near future. I've seen scenarios where they trade Varejao and their 4th pick for both of Portland's picks or Varejao and 24 for Golden States selection at 7. I know they like Varejao and he is a solid player for his cap hit but he ties up close to 10 million for 3 more years. So if you really want to get young and cheap while acquiring plenty of trade pieces and money to spend, dealing Varejao would seem ideal.

We are in agreement with Varejao. If they can trade up for the #2 and flip Varejao and/or Jamison for more picks, they'd be in business and I would certainly agree with that. Really, the only difference between our positions is that I'm not as convinced that Beal will end up being so much better than the other guys who are likely to be available at 4. In fact, MKG has slipped a bit in most of the recent mocks. If the Bobcats keep the 2nd pick, they may very well decide on Barnes. The Wizards would almost certainly pick Beal, and then the Cavs could get MKG if they want him without having to move anything for him. However, I might just be flat out wrong about Beal. If the Cavs think he's going to be that other star to pair next to Kyrie, then go ahead and trade up to grab him, especially if they can add even more picks (for this year or the future) by trading their veterans.

sporthenry
06-26-2012, 04:06 PM
We are in agreement with Varejao. If they can trade up for the #2 and flip Varejao and/or Jamison for more picks, they'd be in business and I would certainly agree with that. Really, the only difference between our positions is that I'm not as convinced that Beal will end up being so much better than the other guys who are likely to be available at 4. In fact, MKG has slipped a bit in most of the recent mocks. If the Bobcats keep the 2nd pick, they may very well decide on Barnes. The Wizards would almost certainly pick Beal, and then the Cavs could get MKG if they want him without having to move anything for him. However, I might just be flat out wrong about Beal. If the Cavs think he's going to be that other star to pair next to Kyrie, then go ahead and trade up to grab him, especially if they can add even more picks (for this year or the future) by trading their veterans.

I am fairly high on Beal in that I think he complements KI very well with his shooting and he seems to be one of a few guys who can get his own shot. That said, its not so much that I'm high on Beal just that I think the Cavs need to get Beal or MKG to complement Irving. If they jump to 2 they probably grab Beal but if MKG falls to them at 4 then I think that might be even better for them. Being a high character guy who will bring it on the defensive end and may even motivate Kyrie a bit more.

Another interesting scenario would be if the Cavs tried to get Harden. They should have the money to get him via free agency but if OKC is truly shopping him, they will have the assets in picks/young players to go after Harden. Or even crazier and I only bring this up since someone started a threat; what if the Thunder traded Westbrook/Harden for some package with Kyrie and the #4 pick which could turn into Barnes or Drummond. It'd probably be one step back for the Thunder with a brighter future compared to a team built to win. I probably wouldn't do it but who knows.

NSDukeFan
06-26-2012, 04:09 PM
Because Robinson and Thompson play the same position. Neither is big enough to be a center, neither is skilled enough to be a SF. They could draft Robinson, but it would be strange to give up on a lottery-pick PF after just one year.

I am tending to agree with superdave and Duvall here. I don't think the Cavs would be "giving up on" Thompson just because they drafted someone at the same position. In a 48 minute game, it is nice to have depth up front. There aren't that many true centers out there, so I don't see why Robinson and Thompson couldn't play at the same time for several minutes a game. This was an odd year, because of the condensed schedule so some players may not have played as many minutes per game as usual. This past year there were 7 bigs (what I considered PF or C) who played more than 35.5 mpg during the regular season: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2012_leaders.html

Kevin Love 39 mpg, Dwight Howard 38.3 mpg, Pau Gasol 37.4 mpg, David Lee 37.2 mpg, Marc Gasol 36.5 mpg and LaMarcus Aldridge 36.3 mpg.
For Cleveland, Antawn Jamison averaged 33.1 mpg, Varejao 31.4 mpg, Thompson 23.7 mpg, Omri Casspi 20.6 mpg and Samardo Samuels 15.3 mpg.
That means that even if Varejao and Thompson became two of the top 7 players in the league, there would still likely be 25 minutes per game available for other big men. I expect that if the Cavs stayed at number 4, that if they believe that Robinson is the best available player, there would be room in their frontcourt so that he, Varejao and Thompson could all thrive. Yes, that would delay addressing some of their other needs, but as Duvall says the price to move might be too large.

Robinson and Thompson would not be bad in my opinion. You really need four quality bigs to compate, so Robinson makes three once you count Varejao.

But Beal appears to be the perfect guy alongside Kyrie. That's probably worth the #24 pick to move up. I'd pull the trigger on that deal knowing Beal would not slip to #4 because the Bullets want Beal too.


Stiff price to pay to avoid picking Thomas Robinson. Cavs need more 1st round picks, not fewer.

sporthenry
06-26-2012, 04:22 PM
Because Robinson and Thompson play the same position. Neither is big enough to be a center, neither is skilled enough to be a SF. They could draft Robinson, but it would be strange to give up on a lottery-pick PF after just one year.

Especially considering Thompson and T-Rob are the same age and while Robinson is further along Thompson brings more to the table in the future. Drafting T-Rob would just stunt Thompson's growth (unless you trade him in which he probably has less value than the #4 pick). Additionally, the Cavs are building for the future so drafting the most NBA ready player does little for them. And for comparison, as a freshmen at Texas, Thompson put up 13.1 points and 7.8 boards with 2.4 blocks compared to Robinson as a junior at 17.7 points, 11.9 boards and .9 blocks. So it isn't like Thompson was that far behind T-Robs numbers and that was Thompson as a year younger with two years less experience.

So instead of creating a logjam at the position, let Thompson continue to develop and grow with KI and help KI out even more with some help on the perimeter. They can draft a PF at 24 like Nicholson and not worry about it too much but to draft two PF's back to back top 5 picks isn't the smartest thing to do.

sporthenry
06-26-2012, 05:27 PM
I am tending to agree with superdave and Duvall here. I don't think the Cavs would be "giving up on" Thompson just because they drafted someone at the same position. In a 48 minute game, it is nice to have depth up front. There aren't that many true centers out there, so I don't see why Robinson and Thompson couldn't play at the same time for several minutes a game. This was an odd year, because of the condensed schedule so some players may not have played as many minutes per game as usual. This past year there were 7 bigs (what I considered PF or C) who played more than 35.5 mpg during the regular season: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2012_leaders.html

Kevin Love 39 mpg, Dwight Howard 38.3 mpg, Pau Gasol 37.4 mpg, David Lee 37.2 mpg, Marc Gasol 36.5 mpg and LaMarcus Aldridge 36.3 mpg.
For Cleveland, Antawn Jamison averaged 33.1 mpg, Varejao 31.4 mpg, Thompson 23.7 mpg, Omri Casspi 20.6 mpg and Samardo Samuels 15.3 mpg.
That means that even if Varejao and Thompson became two of the top 7 players in the league, there would still likely be 25 minutes per game available for other big men. I expect that if the Cavs stayed at number 4, that if they believe that Robinson is the best available player, there would be room in their frontcourt so that he, Varejao and Thompson could all thrive. Yes, that would delay addressing some of their other needs, but as Duvall says the price to move might be too large.

But its still tough to defend back to back top 5 picks of guys playing the exact same position at almost the same height. That borders on the ridicule the Timberwolves faced with PGs. They both sit at the average size for a PF but are fairly undersized for a C. So you would essentially be going small for those 5-10 minutes. Additionally, you would want Thompson to develop offensively but when you are bringing in the most developed offensive product, where does Thompson get his touches from? With a top 5 pick, you want more than just a rotation guy off the bench. With MKG or Beal you are looking at the very least a starter for your team who brings in instant help for Kyrie while allowing Thompson and Kyrie and that pick to all develop together.

I'm not real high on T-Rob for a team rebuilding b/c I don't see him developing that much more. I think you can find your additional quality big man later in the draft like Nicholson if you are looking for scoring or Miles for rebounding/defense to fill those 15-20 minutes the reserves will play. And if you have to sacrifice a Nicholson type who you would draft at 24 for your future starter you do it b/c it is much easier to find a rotational 4 guy than it is to find a starting SG/SF. And the Cavs have money to play with so they can sign an aging PF for 1-3 years who would come off in time to sign a big name player or resign Kyrie.

roywhite
06-26-2012, 08:45 PM
An ESPN report indicates a trade between the Charlotte Bobcats and the Detroit Pistons, with the Bobcats picking up Ben Gordon and a 2013 1st round pick for Corey Maggette (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8099623/source-charlotte-bobcats-agree-trade-corey-maggette-2013-first-round-pick-detroit-pistons-ben-gordon).

Gordon's got a big contract, but he is a legitmate outside shooter, which the Bobcats desperately need (among other things).

superdave
06-26-2012, 10:09 PM
An ESPN report indicates a trade between the Charlotte Bobcats and the Detroit Pistons, with the Bobcats picking up Ben Gordon and a 2013 1st round pick for Corey Maggette (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8099623/source-charlotte-bobcats-agree-trade-corey-maggette-2013-first-round-pick-detroit-pistons-ben-gordon).

Gordon's got a big contract, but he is a legitmate outside shooter, which the Bobcats desperately need (among other things).

They already have Kemba who dominates the ball. He and Gordon wont work together in the backcourt. Plus they have Gerald Henderson. An odd trade honestly.

I assume this rules Beal out at the #2 if the Bobcats keep the pick. This seems to be a good indication they will go with MKG, Robinson (or Barnes....snicker) or a trade. I would guess they take that deal with the Cavs and move down to #4.

diablesseblu
06-26-2012, 10:24 PM
Have not been following the draft very closely. However, am very surprised to have just heard Chad Ford trashing Austin on an ESPN pre-draft show. His criticisms were mostly based on Austin's being "coachable"/realistic re his talent.

When I watch ESPN analysts, I often feel they've had a pre-production meeting about how to engender dissent.

Guess that's why I don't watch most of their "navel gazing" shows.

BD80
06-26-2012, 10:42 PM
An ESPN report indicates a trade between the Charlotte Bobcats and the Detroit Pistons, with the Bobcats picking up Ben Gordon and a 2013 1st round pick for Corey Maggette (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8099623/source-charlotte-bobcats-agree-trade-corey-maggette-2013-first-round-pick-detroit-pistons-ben-gordon).

Gordon's got a big contract, but he is a legitmate outside shooter, which the Bobcats desperately need (among other things).

WHOOOOOOO - HOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Gordon isn't a bad guy or a bad player, but his contract is atrocious (2 yrs $25.6) and he and Stuckey don't mesh well. With Knight earning starter's minutes at the point, Gordon's contract had to go. Corey's salary ($10.9) expires this year.

This means the Pistons can amnesty Villanueva and actually have some room to work. If they couldn't trade Gordon they would have used the amnesty provision to get rid of his contract and suffered through with Villanueva. This is very good news for the Pistons.

I also think this is a good acquisition for the Pistons, as Maggette has been an under-rated player. Corey can play the 2, but will probably start at the 3, giving the Pistons a "wirey" line-up:

Monroe C
Prince PF (he is 6' 10" and long)
Maggette SF (probably stronger than the rest of the starters combined)
Stuckey SG
Knight PG

Now, to win 45 games so the 1st rounder isn't a top 20 pick!

elvis14
06-26-2012, 11:16 PM
WHOOOOOOO - HOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Gordon isn't a bad guy or a bad player, but his contract is atrocious (2 yrs $25.6) and he and Stuckey don't mesh well. With Knight earning starter's minutes at the point, Gordon's contract had to go. Corey's salary ($10.9) expires this year.

This means the Pistons can amnesty Villanueva and actually have some room to work. If they couldn't trade Gordon they would have used the amnesty provision to get rid of his contract and suffered through with Villanueva. This is very good news for the Pistons.

I also think this is a good acquisition for the Pistons, as Maggette has been an under-rated player. Corey can play the 2, but will probably start at the 3, giving the Pistons a "wirey" line-up:

Monroe C
Prince PF (he is 6' 10" and long)
Maggette SF (probably stronger than the rest of the starters combined)
Stuckey SG
Knight PG

Now, to win 45 games so the 1st rounder isn't a top 20 pick!

You forgot to mention the possible addition of Kyle Singler, he's iron!

Starter
06-26-2012, 11:25 PM
Have not been following the draft very closely. However, am very surprised to have just heard Chad Ford trashing Austin on an ESPN pre-draft show. His criticisms were mostly based on Austin's being "coachable"/realistic re his talent.

When I watch ESPN analysts, I often feel they've had a pre-production meeting about how to engender dissent.

Guess that's why I don't watch most of their "navel gazing" shows.

Rivers is a typical whipping boy for not just ESPN, but the media in general. The way he carries himself, he makes himself a target. But few players have seen their stock rise more than he has; from all accounts, he's killed his workouts and his interviews. He's in great shape, regardless of what is written about him.

-bdbd
06-27-2012, 04:52 AM
The Charlotte Bobcats have traded away former Dukie Corey Magette to Det. for (G) Gordon and (protected) first round draft pick. Interesting.

This makes Charlotte much less likely to draft Beal, and more likely to nab a F in the first round, Gilchrest, Robinson or Barnes.

Interesting to see how this impacts Kyle Singler in Det., as he and Corey both play SF.

I live in the DC area, and so follow the Wizards (can't bring myself to say "fan"). I've been living in mortal fear that the Wiz will go after Barnes at #3. Quite a few NC fans talking him up every time the Post has an article on the draft. I generally have been getting my digs in as well though... Wiz are known to like Beal, and also badly need outside shooting. So I'm hoping this helps to keep Barnes out of DC.

Hmmmm.

moonpie23
06-27-2012, 08:14 AM
how depressed will HWNSNBM be if he is passed over in the draft by his idol?

flyingdutchdevil
06-27-2012, 08:47 AM
The Charlotte Bobcats have traded away former Dukie Corey Magette to Det. for (G) Gordon and (protected) first round draft pick. Interesting.

This makes Charlotte much less likely to draft Beal, and more likely to nab a F in the first round, Gilchrest, Robinson or Barnes.

Interesting to see how this impacts Kyle Singler in Det., as he and Corey both play SF.

I live in the DC area, and so follow the Wizards (can't bring myself to say "fan"). I've been living in mortal fear that the Wiz will go after Barnes at #3. Quite a few NC fans talking him up every time the Post has an article on the draft. I generally have been getting my digs in as well though... Wiz are known to like Beal, and also badly need outside shooting. So I'm hoping this helps to keep Barnes out of DC.

Hmmmm.

What the Wizards need is a backcourt, and I think that means Beal. If Beal is available at the 3, the Wizards are taking him. That's why Cleveland desperately needs to trade up. Beal is by far the best prospect not named Davis and will provide the cornerstone for Cleveland's roster for years.

sporthenry
06-27-2012, 10:46 AM
They already have Kemba who dominates the ball. He and Gordon wont work together in the backcourt. Plus they have Gerald Henderson. An odd trade honestly.

I assume this rules Beal out at the #2 if the Bobcats keep the pick. This seems to be a good indication they will go with MKG, Robinson (or Barnes....snicker) or a trade. I would guess they take that deal with the Cavs and move down to #4.

I thought the trade worked well for both sides. The Bobcats can afford to eat Gordon's contract for 2 years for pretty much a lottery pick in the future. On top of that, Gordon provides some shooting which will help them rebuild a bit more.

I think the best strategy for the Bobcats, Wizards, and Cavs would be 3 way deal let the Wiz go up to 2, Cavs 3, and Bobcats 4 which allows the teams to select Beal, MKG, and T-Rob respectively. I'm sure some will want the Cavs to get Beal but I think MKG would help the Cavs more while the Wiz have Ariza. I also think MKG could develop offensively with KI.

Billy Dat
06-27-2012, 11:35 AM
Rivers is a typical whipping boy for not just ESPN, but the media in general. The way he carries himself, he makes himself a target. But few players have seen their stock rise more than he has; from all accounts, he's killed his workouts and his interviews. He's in great shape, regardless of what is written about him.

I listened to ESPN's NBA Today podcast where Ford and Dave Telep discussed the draft. The knock on Rivers seems to be that he is too confident for his talent. Ford and Telep were saying that if Perry Jones and Andre Drummond had Rivers' confidence and attitude, they could be NBA All Stars and top 3 picks. Because they perceive Rivers to have too much confidence for his talent, Ford feels he's the kind of kid who could wind up getting frozen out by veterans and, the analogy he used, be like an NFL rookie getting tied to the goal posts and having cold water thrown on him until he is "broken". Nice. Telep was more confident that Austin's moxie will be a positive and that his game will translate.

I am not usually one to think that media types are Duke bashers, but I do find that Ford and his Kansas-centric view of the world seems to be fairly stingy in doling out praise to Duke players and K. Maybe I am imagining things. Ford's positioning is that he doesn't provide his own opinions - he canvases the world of scouts and GMs and passes along the summary of their feelings.

What I find really funny is that this accepted narrative about Rivers never seems married to the success he had this year. People act as if he didn't have a good year. I think that grows out of the perception that he was a high usage ball hog - Telep said himself that he didn't enjoy watching Rivers play. I think that's the conclusion that a lot of people have - they think Rivers is talented but that they don't enjoy watching him play because he doesn't seem to play a team game. But, no one seems to mention that K seemed supportive of him playing that way...his playing time seems to support that notion.

Duvall
06-27-2012, 11:39 AM
I listened to ESPN's NBA Today podcast where Ford and Dave Telep discussed the draft. The knock on Rivers seems to be that he is too confident for his talent. Ford and Telep were saying that if Perry Jones and Andre Drummond had Rivers' confidence and attitude, they could be NBA All Stars and top 3 picks. Because they perceive Rivers to have too much confidence for his talent, Ford feels he's the kind of kid who could wind up getting frozen out by veterans and, the analogy he used, be like an NFL rookie getting tied to the goal posts and having cold water thrown on him until he is "broken". Nice. Telep was more confident that Austin's moxie will be a positive and that his game will translate.

I am not usually one to think that media types are Duke bashers, but I do find that Ford and his Kansas-centric view of the world seems to be fairly stingy in doling out praise to Duke players and K. Maybe I am imagining things. Ford's positioning is that he doesn't provide his own opinions - he canvases the world of scouts and GMs and passes along the summary of their feelings.

What I find really funny is that this accepted narrative about Rivers never seems married to the success he had this year. People act as if he didn't have a good year. I think that grows out of the perception that he was a high usage ball hog - Telep said himself that he didn't enjoy watching Rivers play.

I can't imagine why. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X1ewxVwhug)

It's sad that this kind of inane psychobabble passes for analysis.

sagegrouse
06-27-2012, 12:13 PM
I can't imagine why. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X1ewxVwhug)

It's sad that this kind of inane psychobabble passes for analysis.

Amen, brud-der, amen! Most rookies sputter in the NBA because they don't have confidence. Now Rivers has confidence, so that's a problem? If he is "too confident" (whatever that means) and doesn't perform well -- gee-- I guess the coach can sit him or maybe even coach him up a bit.

sagegrouse

theAlaskanBear
06-27-2012, 12:49 PM
With the Charlotte trade of Maggette, it looks to me like CHA is clearly setting up to take Barnes. By trading Corey they create a need at SF, and Gordon will prevent SG from being a top priority so that locks out Beal (who is looking like the #2 player on most GMs charts). They have also been shopping the #2...looking to move down a few spots. Ideally they would trade Portland for the #6 and #11 and try to take Barnes at 6.

The Rockets have the 14, 16, and 18 picks, and are clearly looking to make a bigger deal...

While Charlotte has a need at PF, I am unsure about Robinson's ceiling in the NBA, I think that Beal and MKG will likely be better players, I think if Sullinger stays healthy he would clearly be a better PF as well.

CDu
06-27-2012, 01:03 PM
With the Charlotte trade of Maggette, it looks to me like CHA is clearly setting up to take Barnes. By trading Corey they create a need at SF, and Gordon will prevent SG from being a top priority so that locks out Beal (who is looking like the #2 player on most GMs charts). They have also been shopping the #2...looking to move down a few spots. Ideally they would trade Portland for the #6 and #11 and try to take Barnes at 6.

The Rockets have the 14, 16, and 18 picks, and are clearly looking to make a bigger deal...

While Charlotte has a need at PF, I am unsure about Robinson's ceiling in the NBA, I think that Beal and MKG will likely be better players, I think if Sullinger stays healthy he would clearly be a better PF as well.

Either that or they could just take MKG at #2. In fact, MKG makes more sense given his defense and the fact that Gordon, Walker, and Henderson are more scorers.

Billy Dat
06-27-2012, 01:12 PM
Maybe Chad Ford does give his own opinions sometimes:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8100861/view/full/welcome-fourth-showdown-two-guys-care-nba-more-do

FORD: Look, Lillard was a late bloomer. He wasn't lightly recruited until his senior season. You may be right that Rivers would've put up better numbers as a freshman. However, here's my knock on Rivers. He thinks he's Kobe. He's not. He doesn't have the length, the height, nor the athletic ability. Take those things away from Kobe, and he's Ricky Davis — an irritating ball hog no one wants to play with and who isn't good enough to warrant the diva act.

SIMMONS: Wow, you just waved two middle fingers at Doc Rivers — you compared his son to his least favorite player to have ever coached. Why didn't you just throw a Dominique Wilkins barb in there while you were at it?

FORD: Lillard is a willing passer. Rivers isn't and will never be. Lillard made dramatic improvements from year to year. I thought Rivers was the exact player in college that he was in high school. Lillard is a team player. He was the second most efficient player in college basketball DESPITE being the only decent player on his entire roster; teams game planned to stop him and him alone every night. I just don't see Rivers ever being anywhere near as unselfish or efficient. I think Rivers will be shocked at the athleticism and length at his position. He'll try to do the same things at which he excelled in high school, spend a lot of time on the bench, get into it with his coach and teammates, get traded in a year or two to a desperate team, put up huge numbers for a cellar-dweller for a year or two, make some money, and eventually, teams will realize he can't be the alpha dog on a winning team.

SIMMONS: Other than that, you're a huge Austin Rivers fan.

FORD: I honestly think Rivers is the one guy I wouldn't touch in the lottery. Too toxic for team chemistry, doesn't have the same physical tools to make it worth it.

CDu
06-27-2012, 01:18 PM
Maybe Chad Ford does give his own opinions sometimes:

FORD: I honestly think Rivers is the one guy I wouldn't touch in the lottery. Too toxic for team chemistry, doesn't have the same physical tools to make it worth it.

I don't know if I'd go so far as toxic for team chemistry, but it will be interesting to see how Rivers handles not being the best player on his team. Because that's the situation he's about to enter for the first time in his life. In every other setting, he's been the unquestioned star. Next year, he's going to likely be a role player. I don't know if anyone is sure how he'll handle that role.

FerryFor50
06-27-2012, 01:24 PM
Maybe Chad Ford does give his own opinions sometimes:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8100861/view/full/welcome-fourth-showdown-two-guys-care-nba-more-do

FORD: Look, Lillard was a late bloomer. He wasn't lightly recruited until his senior season. You may be right that Rivers would've put up better numbers as a freshman. However, here's my knock on Rivers. He thinks he's Kobe. He's not. He doesn't have the length, the height, nor the athletic ability. Take those things away from Kobe, and he's Ricky Davis — an irritating ball hog no one wants to play with and who isn't good enough to warrant the diva act.

SIMMONS: Wow, you just waved two middle fingers at Doc Rivers — you compared his son to his least favorite player to have ever coached. Why didn't you just throw a Dominique Wilkins barb in there while you were at it?

FORD: Lillard is a willing passer. Rivers isn't and will never be. Lillard made dramatic improvements from year to year. I thought Rivers was the exact player in college that he was in high school. Lillard is a team player. He was the second most efficient player in college basketball DESPITE being the only decent player on his entire roster; teams game planned to stop him and him alone every night. I just don't see Rivers ever being anywhere near as unselfish or efficient. I think Rivers will be shocked at the athleticism and length at his position. He'll try to do the same things at which he excelled in high school, spend a lot of time on the bench, get into it with his coach and teammates, get traded in a year or two to a desperate team, put up huge numbers for a cellar-dweller for a year or two, make some money, and eventually, teams will realize he can't be the alpha dog on a winning team.

SIMMONS: Other than that, you're a huge Austin Rivers fan.

FORD: I honestly think Rivers is the one guy I wouldn't touch in the lottery. Too toxic for team chemistry, doesn't have the same physical tools to make it worth it.

All that proves is that Chad Ford is kind of an idiot.

Is Rivers a bit of a black hole on offense? Sure.

Are there plenty of NBA players like that? Yep.

Are they all named "Rickey Davis"? Nope.

Rivers is the son of a coach and will be coachable. He does need the reality check that he can't do what he did in college and HS though.

sporthenry
06-27-2012, 01:42 PM
I don't know if I'd go so far as toxic for team chemistry, but it will be interesting to see how Rivers handles not being the best player on his team. Because that's the situation he's about to enter for the first time in his life. In every other setting, he's been the unquestioned star. Next year, he's going to likely be a role player. I don't know if anyone is sure how he'll handle that role.

I would agree with you that this is the first time he is entering a situation where he won't be the best player on the court and he will have a lot of growing up to do. And normally I would have similar reservations to Ford (albeit not nearly as harsh) but the one thing that I really think will help AR is that he has been around the game his whole life. He has seen the NBA lifestyle. His father wasn't the best player in his day and has coached some of the best today so I'm sure he doesn't give unrealistic confidence to AR. I'm sure it will be humbling but the guy seems too much of a competitor to be Ricky Davis and I don't think he warrants the criticism when players like JR Smith are still kicking around in the league.

BD80
06-27-2012, 02:46 PM
I found this amusing stat from the article on Henson linked on the front page:

"Many questioned the 6-10 Henson's slim stature heading into college, but Henson gained 37 pounds in three years and enters the draft at 216 pounds and growing."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-06-17/John-Henson-North-Carolina-power-forward/55819564/1

By my calculation, that means he walked onto campus at 6'10' and 179 lbs!

Wow that's skinny.

NSDukeFan
06-27-2012, 03:45 PM
I don't know if I'd go so far as toxic for team chemistry, but it will be interesting to see how Rivers handles not being the best player on his team. Because that's the situation he's about to enter for the first time in his life. In every other setting, he's been the unquestioned star. Next year, he's going to likely be a role player. I don't know if anyone is sure how he'll handle that role.

I think Rivers isn't getting enough credit here. So what if he isn't the best player on his team? I don't think there is any more evidence that he won't thrive in that situation than that he would be toxic for team chemistry. I think Austin is a competitor with some of the best, if not the best, one-on-one offensive skills in the draft. He seemed to be a team player who was willing to work and to learn at Duke. He seems to come from a good family and seems to be quite bright. He has lots to work on, but so does every 20 year old. I believe that he will have one of the 5-8 best careers of anyone in this draft.

CDu
06-27-2012, 04:09 PM
I think Rivers isn't getting enough credit here. So what if he isn't the best player on his team? I don't think there is any more evidence that he won't thrive in that situation than that he would be toxic for team chemistry. I think Austin is a competitor with some of the best, if not the best, one-on-one offensive skills in the draft. He seemed to be a team player who was willing to work and to learn at Duke. He seems to come from a good family and seems to be quite bright. He has lots to work on, but so does every 20 year old. I believe that he will have one of the 5-8 best careers of anyone in this draft.

The issue is that he's only shown the ability to do one thing as a basketball player: score. And he's only shown that ability as a guy who creates his own shot. He's never made his teammates better, and he's never played off the ball. That's worked to this point because he's always been the best player on his team, and most importantly the best scorer on his team. But in the NBA, it's unlikely that this will be the case. There is almost certainly going to be a better shot creator on the team.

As such, he's going to have to learn another role. There are questions about whether he has the skillset and/or willingness to do it. On top of that, he's always had the alpha dog mentality. How will that play out as potentially the third or fourth best player on a team?

Again, I don't know that he won't adapt just fine. If he can make the adjustments in his game or if he can find a role as a 6th man scorer things can work out great for him. But I think it is a legitimate question.

NSDukeFan
06-27-2012, 04:22 PM
The issue is that he's only shown the ability to do one thing as a basketball player: score. And he's only shown that ability as a guy who creates his own shot. He's never made his teammates better, and he's never played off the ball. That's worked to this point because he's always been the best player on his team, and most importantly the best scorer on his team. But in the NBA, it's unlikely that this will be the case. There is almost certainly going to be a better shot creator on the team.

As such, he's going to have to learn another role. There are questions about whether he has the skillset and/or willingness to do it. On top of that, he's always had the alpha dog mentality. How will that play out as potentially the third or fourth best player on a team?

Again, I don't know that he won't adapt just fine. If he can make the adjustments in his game or if he can find a role as a 6th man scorer things can work out great for him. But I think it is a legitimate question.

I very much agree that it is a legitimate question. I just strongly disagree that it is a given that he will not be able to adapt his game in the NBA. I also think it is a bit harsh to say that he's only shown the ability to do one thing as a basketball player. That has always been his primary role, but I thought he improved his one-on-one defense and help side defense this year. Though he was certainly not great at making his teammates better, he was one of the team leaders in assists and improved greatly (at least in my opinion) in his decision making ability for when to penetrate and how far to drive as the season progressed. He also rebounded ok for a shooting guard. I doubt that Austin will be unwilling to learn in the NBA. He has some great role models and I expect he will continue to improve.