Everything Draft 2021

[LJ2]

None of those tough-minded guards started out like that, though. Alvin Williams sucked under Butch Carter. Lowry was terrible at first, with Casey trying to get him to play like Jose and almost getting trading the next year. FVV couldn't make a layup (... still can't consistently) and had to go the G-League. The only Raptor PG on your list that played well in their first year with the team was Damon.

After Nurse gave Flynn minutes AND let him run the offense with his in/out style.... Flynn won Rookie of the Month. You could be 100% right about Flynn, but let's give it another season before we throw out the baby with the bath water.

That said... I totally agree that we shouldn't be adding Davion Mitchell to an already tiny backcourt rotation. On his own, Mitchell is fine, but on this roster... nah.

The reference to those guards wasn't related to performance, it was to describe the characteristics of what ...at least in my mind...is a Raptors guard. Flynn hasn't shown that sort of toughness and grit.

That is not to say what he brings now or may develop into isn't of value.

The tandem of Lowry and FVV has worked out a lot better than many of their taller ("star")counterparts around the league so I'm not stressing the height issue too much. If Davion is the best player available and they think he's a lot better than the other prospects then you take him regardless.

[LJ2]

I'm not actually a huge fan of Mitchell full stop (defence good but being older that's sometimes a little suspect, the rest of his game is solid, not great). In the late first he's a great option but I'm not sold on using a lotto pick on him. But yeah, throw in the fit issues with so many small guards and he'd lose any tie breaks he was in anyway.

Fair enough, and if that is the scouting departments assessment then I trust that. The age thing is something I have a difficult time understanding...he's not 25/26 where players typically reach their prime. If his game is already further along than a 19 year olds does it matter if the time between now and reaching that peak is shorter?

[The Great One]

This is just one example why teams shouldn't be paying attention to mock drafts. That year Josh Jackson I think was top 5 on most mocks. And If I remember correctly, draft experts were calling Ntilikina and Smith Jr as top 10 talents in that draft. Denver took Mitchell 13th overall that year and traded him to Utah for a late 1st round pick and Trey Lyles(dumb). The only thing that I remember about Mitchell that year was the player comparison. One mock draft had NORMAN POWELL as Mitchell's player comparison. Yeah.....

[LJ2]

LOL, can you imagine these billion dollar organizations using mock drafts to provide reliable information?

[TrueTorontoFan]

Fair enough, and if that is the scouting departments assessment then I trust that. The age thing is something I have a difficult time understanding...he's not 25/26 where players typically reach their prime. If his game is already further along than a 19 year olds does it matter if the time between now and reaching that peak is shorter?

I think Sam Vecenie of the athletic covered this in a podcast he ran at one time or another this year. Basically you run in to the issue with older guys where yes their game is developed but ideally you want to be the one developing a player under our sphere of influence, gaining the skills and whatever you want them to gain. That isn't to say development is already done but instead you have limited HUGE leaps of development left. BUT again you want more time with your development staff ideally not less time. Like basically they arne't saying he is soo much better. his stock was boosted based on his tournament play by comparison to Moses moody whose stock diminished a bit.

What you typically have is a player who is what they are, not necessarily a bad thing. But they have a much lower ceiling, at the same time they have a much higher floor.


His size is something I can discuss another time but yeah focusing on the seniority of the pick. This is why I suggested getting Springer if you really wanted to develop someone. The question is do you want someone who will 100% contribute this year but eventually be phased out or traded as almost a certainty, OR would you rather a guy who is starting off who has a less sure of a chance to contribute. By contribution I mean 10-15 minutes of rotation minutes. Possibly 5-10 consistent minutes in a play offsetting but not closing the game.


I would play the long game if we are serious about contending. I think an older guy is better if you are drafting later on because you get someone who you know more about their game potentially. That isn't to say drafting older guys is bad. It is just not necessarily always what your team needs. Sometimes it is. I think its beneficial if you have a team that is closer to contention than we currently are. I would rather draft someone who ultimately could be part of the future core going forward if we give the current core a chance and decide that in 3 years time it isn't enough.


A chance to get a player who is 2 years younger with higher upside but still a high floor (in the lottery essentially), in my opinion is something that is too good to give up on. Why limit the ceiling on a guy who you will eventually have to trade.


OK NOW the size thing. We have Flynn, Fred, Lowry. Even if Lowry leaves that is enough short guards. Whether you consider Fred a point guard or a shooting guard. Can small ball work? Sure but that isn't necessarily small ball... its like micro ball. In the playoffs you area all wanting someone who can create a shot.. then why are we focusing on someone who will have a harder time with bigger stronger players around them to get a shot. Thats the thing about his height. People think OH HE IS KYLE. We haven't even seen him play. I would even argue that again someone like Springer is close to Kyle.

Unless the guy is Donavan Mitchell, but again I would prefer not to have two short players in the backcourt. If we got Suggs, or Green (in the top 4 of course) this allows us to trend away from that. I am not talking about drafting someone who is a stiff and cant move. Just someone who is a few inches taller where we aren't going to struggle.


Also yes there seems to be some fascination with finding the next lowry.... but guess what? The guy got lucky this year and the other years of his college career aren't consistent with that level of shooting. He does play defence well but so do some of the other people on the board.

Want more evidence of the shot being an issue. Look no further than his freethrow percentage. OG also struggled with his shot but OG was also a taller player so that wouldn't be an issue anyways for him Freethrows in college were pretty bad and still frankly need work. I trust our development staff but I have a feeling Davion actually slides a bit.


I genuinely believe picking him for this specific team would be a mistake especially given that we have a guard glut already you might as well get something different and unique.

[magoon]

This is just one example why teams shouldn't be paying attention to mock drafts. That year Josh Jackson I think was top 5 on most mocks. And If I remember correctly, draft experts were calling Ntilikina and Smith Jr as top 10 talents in that draft. Denver took Mitchell 13th overall that year and traded him to Utah for a late 1st round pick and Trey Lyles(dumb). The only thing that I remember about Mitchell that year was the player comparison. One mock draft had NORMAN POWELL as Mitchell's player comparison. Yeah.....

You keep arguing, for some reason, that teams are "paying attention to mock drafts" rather than mock drafts being a general summary of expert opinion about potential draftees - which itself is not monolithic. Teams aren't "paying attention to mock drafts." They have their own draft boards, and a lot of those draft boards tend to mirror mock drafts not because they're blindly following them but because there's a reasonable amount of agreement about where young players excel and where they need work.

So, going back and looking at what people were saying about them going into the draft:

1. Donovan Mitchell had knocks on him coming into the draft - he was definitely undersized for an SG, his driving and explosiveness wasn't quite at an NBA level despite his overall athleticism, and his shot selection was mediocre at best (despite being a good shooter overall), but people praised his character and work ethic. A lot of people felt he would need the right team to thrive. It turned out Utah was a perfect fit for him, because Utah didn't expect him to play point guard and their playstyle meant that he got a chance to work on his playmaking (turning into an excellent secondary playmaker), let him work out his issues at the rim and taught him a lot about shot selection. He got the chance to work on all his flaws and turn them into neutrals or even positives and now he's a star player.

2. Frank Ntilikina's praise coming into the draft was expressly for him being a project, since he had demonstrated NBA-level passing and defense already but needed to really be taught offense, and so he was widely considered to need a team that could successfully nurture young talent. He went to the Knicks in 2017, and I don't think I really need to say anything more than that about how his game wasn't developed and coached properly. He's still a great defender, though.

3. Dennis Smith Jr., in college, was physically explosive and could score in a variety of ways, although there were concerns about character. He came into the NBA and he was immediately a solid secondary scoring option (15.2 ppg in his first season for Dallas), but the character issues raised their head the moment it became clear Luka was their star of the future and that was a large part of the reason they traded him to New York. In New York he was scoring well before an injury, and then over the next two seasons he barely played because of the injury and because RJ Barrett became their primary scoring option in the backcourt so he started complaining again, and the Knicks traded him for Derrick Rose early this season.

None of these players were guaranteed stars or locks to fail. If Frankie Smokes had been drafted by the Spurs or Raptors or Celtics, could he have developed his offensive game and become a good NBA player? Sure, that could have happened. If Mitchell had been drafted by the 2017 Knicks would they have given him time to grow? Doubtful. Is there a team that could have gotten through to Dennis Smith Jr. and made him not be a knucklehead? Possibly.

Having a team that has a good development and training culture is deeply important, which is one of the reasons Masai has made sure the Raptors have invested so strongly in that part of the organization. And even then, nothing is guaranteed (see: Bruno).

[TrueTorontoFan]

You keep arguing, for some reason, that teams are "paying attention to mock drafts" rather than mock drafts being a general summary of expert opinion about potential draftees - which itself is not monolithic. Teams aren't "paying attention to mock drafts." They have their own draft boards, and a lot of those draft boards tend to mirror mock drafts not because they're blindly following them but because there's a reasonable amount of agreement about where young players excel and where they need work.

So, going back and looking at what people were saying about them going into the draft:

1. Donovan Mitchell had knocks on him coming into the draft - he was definitely undersized for an SG, his driving and explosiveness wasn't quite at an NBA level despite his overall athleticism, and his shot selection was mediocre at best (despite being a good shooter overall), but people praised his character and work ethic. A lot of people felt he would need the right team to thrive. It turned out Utah was a perfect fit for him, because Utah didn't expect him to play point guard and their playstyle meant that he got a chance to work on his playmaking (turning into an excellent secondary playmaker), let him work out his issues at the rim and taught him a lot about shot selection. He got the chance to work on all his flaws and turn them into neutrals or even positives and now he's a star player.

2. Frank Ntilikina's praise coming into the draft was expressly for him being a project, since he had demonstrated NBA-level passing and defense already but needed to really be taught offense, and so he was widely considered to need a team that could successfully nurture young talent. He went to the Knicks in 2017, and I don't think I really need to say anything more than that about how his game wasn't developed and coached properly. He's still a great defender, though.

3. Dennis Smith Jr., in college, was physically explosive and could score in a variety of ways, although there were concerns about character. He came into the NBA and he was immediately a solid secondary scoring option (15.2 ppg in his first season for Dallas), but the character issues raised their head the moment it became clear Luka was their star of the future and that was a large part of the reason they traded him to New York. In New York he was scoring well before an injury, and then over the next two seasons he barely played because of the injury and because RJ Barrett became their primary scoring option in the backcourt so he started complaining again, and the Knicks traded him for Derrick Rose early this season.

None of these players were guaranteed stars or locks to fail. If Frankie Smokes had been drafted by the Spurs or Raptors or Celtics, could he have developed his offensive game and become a good NBA player? Sure, that could have happened. If Mitchell had been drafted by the 2017 Knicks would they have given him time to grow? Doubtful. Is there a team that could have gotten through to Dennis Smith Jr. and made him not be a knucklehead? Possibly.

Having a team that has a good development and training culture is deeply important, which is one of the reasons Masai has made sure the Raptors have invested so strongly in that part of the organization. And even then, nothing is guaranteed (see: Bruno).

Yeah I saw that... I agree with you I don't think any of these teams are "paying attention to mock drafts" unless someone in the front office had a stroke.. there is a reason they have their own scouting departments. That said, there is a reason why in the top 5 there is typically consensus in the vast majority of years.

[golden]

You keep arguing, for some reason, that teams are "paying attention to mock drafts" rather than mock drafts being a general summary of expert opinion about potential draftees - which itself is not monolithic. Teams aren't "paying attention to mock drafts." They have their own draft boards, and a lot of those draft boards tend to mirror mock drafts not because they're blindly following them but because there's a reasonable amount of agreement about where young players excel and where they need work.

So, going back and looking at what people were saying about them going into the draft:

1. Donovan Mitchell had knocks on him coming into the draft - he was definitely undersized for an SG, his driving and explosiveness wasn't quite at an NBA level despite his overall athleticism, and his shot selection was mediocre at best (despite being a good shooter overall), but people praised his character and work ethic. A lot of people felt he would need the right team to thrive. It turned out Utah was a perfect fit for him, because Utah didn't expect him to play point guard and their playstyle meant that he got a chance to work on his playmaking (turning into an excellent secondary playmaker), let him work out his issues at the rim and taught him a lot about shot selection. He got the chance to work on all his flaws and turn them into neutrals or even positives and now he's a star player.

2. Frank Ntilikina's praise coming into the draft was expressly for him being a project, since he had demonstrated NBA-level passing and defense already but needed to really be taught offense, and so he was widely considered to need a team that could successfully nurture young talent. He went to the Knicks in 2017, and I don't think I really need to say anything more than that about how his game wasn't developed and coached properly. He's still a great defender, though.

3. Dennis Smith Jr., in college, was physically explosive and could score in a variety of ways, although there were concerns about character. He came into the NBA and he was immediately a solid secondary scoring option (15.2 ppg in his first season for Dallas), but the character issues raised their head the moment it became clear Luka was their star of the future and that was a large part of the reason they traded him to New York. In New York he was scoring well before an injury, and then over the next two seasons he barely played because of the injury and because RJ Barrett became their primary scoring option in the backcourt so he started complaining again, and the Knicks traded him for Derrick Rose early this season.

None of these players were guaranteed stars or locks to fail. If Frankie Smokes had been drafted by the Spurs or Raptors or Celtics, could he have developed his offensive game and become a good NBA player? Sure, that could have happened. If Mitchell had been drafted by the 2017 Knicks would they have given him time to grow? Doubtful. Is there a team that could have gotten through to Dennis Smith Jr. and made him not be a knucklehead? Possibly.

Having a team that has a good development and training culture is deeply important, which is one of the reasons Masai has made sure the Raptors have invested so strongly in that part of the organization. And even then, nothing is guaranteed (see: Bruno).

You really sound like you're trying to argue both sides, because I'm really confused. Your previous post in this thread had this:

Mock drafts are generally useful as a sense of league consensus, because most of the professionals who write them know the general feeling around the league about these players in addition to their own assessments. Certainly teams will have their own rankings, and the Raptors certainly do (that would be why they drafted Bruno, or drafted Pascal 27th when he was a consensus second-rounder at the time).

But teams' individual draft boards aren't going to differ that much from the consensus, as a general rule: there might be a few players a team is higher on than average, and a few they're warier of than average, but there usually isn't going to be that much variance.

Sounds pretty clear that you believe that the team boards and the consensus mock boards are extremely close... and should be. If that is really true then it just shows how much opportunity there is for smart front-offices that don't give AF what the mocks are saying. BPA becomes meaningless, in that scenario because it would & should vary wildly from team to team.

[golden]

Yeah I saw that... I agree with you I don't think any of these teams are "paying attention to mock drafts" unless someone in the front office had a stroke.. there is a reason they have their own scouting departments. That said, there is a reason why in the top 5 there is typically consensus in the vast majority of years.

Because agents of guys Michael Olowokandi, Mario Hezonja & Dante Exum are masters at promoting their clients before the draft?

[TrueTorontoFan]

Because agents of guys Michael Olowokandi, Mario Hezonja & Dante Exum are masters at promoting their clients before the draft?

Good point good point.

[TrueTorontoFan]

You really sound like you're trying to argue both sides, because I'm really confused. Your previous post in this thread had this:



Sounds pretty clear that you believe that the team boards and the consensus mock boards are extremely close... and should be. If that is really true then it just shows how much opportunity there is for smart front-offices that don't give AF what the mocks are saying. BPA becomes meaningless, in that scenario because it would & should vary wildly from team to team.

I think you could see teams' draft boards mimic consensus but even then again to what end?

[Rudy Bargnani]

Who you like at pick 22?

Been listening to some podcasts RE what went wrong with the Lakers. Schroeder/Lowry came up. Lots of criticism of the Lakers for not making the trade for Lowry. I want no part of Schroeder but after the draft happens the Lakers can trade their pick. Maybe a 3 team trade where Schroeder goes sign and trade to team 3, Lowry to the Lakers, we get the Lakers pick and piece from team 3.

Considering Lowry can walk for nothing and we may draft a PG in the top 10 is that a trade that makes sense and who you like at 22?

[TrueTorontoFan]

Who you like at pick 22?

Been listening to some podcasts RE what went wrong with the Lakers. Schroeder/Lowry came up. Lots of criticism of the Lakers for not making the trade for Lowry. I want no part of Schroeder but after the draft happens the Lakers can trade their pick. Maybe a 3 team trade where Schroeder goes sign and trade to team 3, Lowry to the Lakers, we get the Lakers pick and piece from team 3.

Considering Lowry can walk for nothing and we may draft a PG in the top 10 is that a trade that makes sense and who you like at 22?

The counterpoint to that is we have FVV who can play point guard. Yes, he isn't the playmaker Lowry is, however he has demonstrated the ability, and willingness, to expand that part of his game. Furthermore, we have Flynn. I think if you get into the top 4 and its not at a position to draft Mobley, Suggs is available as an option. I don't think we HAVE to draft someone when we already have point guards who are in our development pipeline. To me if a point guard is available great... otherwise no thanks. I would also say no thanks to Schroeder. Similar to what you suggested.

[TrueTorontoFan]

Who you like at pick 22?

Been listening to some podcasts RE what went wrong with the Lakers. Schroeder/Lowry came up. Lots of criticism of the Lakers for not making the trade for Lowry. I want no part of Schroeder but after the draft happens the Lakers can trade their pick. Maybe a 3 team trade where Schroeder goes sign and trade to team 3, Lowry to the Lakers, we get the Lakers pick and piece from team 3.

Considering Lowry can walk for nothing and we may draft a PG in the top 10 is that a trade that makes sense and who you like at 22?

at 22, I'd pick Usman, or Kai Jones if either is still available. or if you really have a random dude available like Jalen Johnson that is the place where you take a gamble on him.

[Kagemusha]

The counterpoint to that is we have FVV who can play point guard. Yes, he isn't the playmaker Lowry is, however he has demonstrated the ability, and willingness, to expand that part of his game. Furthermore, we have Flynn. I think if you get into the top 4 and its not at a position to draft Mobley, Suggs is available as an option. I don't think we HAVE to draft someone when we already have point guards who are in our development pipeline. To me if a point guard is available great... otherwise no thanks. I would also say no thanks to Schroeder. Similar to what you suggested.

Flynn has to be out future PG.
Kid has game and grit.

What we need is a scoring 2 or 3.
A legit shot creator.

If we draft Suggs, we'd have our Dame- CJ.
is that what you have in mind?