Everything Draft 2021

[grindhouse]

I think small ball doesn't necessitate small guards that are under a specific size. I think its more about the front court being smaller and faster. Relying on skill.

And with that said look at Portland I don’t think that’s a model we should be trying to copy

[TrueTorontoFan]

And with that said look at Portland I don’t think that’s a model we should be trying to copy

I wasn't even thinking of them but VERY good point. I mean we can do small ball in spurts. In the playoffs. With Siakam at the 5, OG at the 4 etc etc. but no not a fan of the short guard lineups anymore. I was ok with it for the past two years. Done with it now. This coming from a fellow short man lol.

[Kagemusha]

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.....

Which begs the ever recurring question-

How do you spot legit talents?

You really have to dig way way deep.
Interview nor just his family, but his friends, neighbors, teachers, classmates etc.
Find out how he was brought up, how many times he got bullied, or cried in grade school. How he reacted to adversities at a very young age, etc..

[TrueTorontoFan]

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?

I mean to be fair I have talked myself into Green. We would need to be patient though. He will look a bit rough early on in terms of his rookie mistakes but he would be perfect on this team honestly. Suggs would be OK but Yeah I hear you that said Suggs is 6'5 apparently so again you aren't quite running into the CJ/Dame.

I just think Suggs fits into the current dynamic well. Either one you wouldn't be disappointed in.... Long term if its not Mobley or Cade and we are in the top 4 and not picking 1... you pick green if he is available like I suggested or Kuminga.

[Kagemusha]

I mean to be fair I have talked myself into Green. We would need to be patient though. He will look a bit rough early on in terms of his rookie mistakes but he would be perfect on this team honestly. Suggs would be OK but Yeah I hear you that said Suggs is 6'5 apparently so again you aren't quite running into the CJ/Dame.

I just think Suggs fits into the current dynamic well. Either one you wouldn't be disappointed in.... Long term if its not Mobley or Cade and we are in the top 4 and not picking 1... you pick green if he is available like I suggested or Kuminga.

I'm a big fan of Suggs too!
A sliiiightly taller version of CJ/ Dame is not bad.
I'd be happy with either him or Green.

I think Suggs will contribute from day 1.
Green will have some growing pains but his ceiling is atmospheric.

[LJ2]

You guys realize our short backcourt has had more success than most right? Wall/Beal, Dame/CJ, Harden/Westbrook...Lowry/FVV have had more success than all of them. If all things are equal then great get bigger players, but talent and fit trump size.

[TrueTorontoFan]

You guys realize our short backcourt has had more success than most right? Wall/Beal, Dame/CJ, Harden/Westbrook...Lowry/FVV have had more success than all of them. If all things are equal then great get bigger players, but talent and fit trump size.

wall and beal aren't the best example because that's one year.. in terms of overall.. no they haven't really because they have been together for two years.. and in those two years they haven't made it past the second round. last year dame Westbrook and harden went up against lebron to be fair and I don't think they should have traded cp3. so really its harden and cp3. westbrook shot them out of games so that's not a fair comparison. wall hasn't played in years because guess what.. he has been seriously injured so bad example dame and cj are one comparison point but again in a two year sample size its not enough to compare but you aren't convincing me. Point is its more than just size but if you don't have to pick a short player then why?

while we are at it we can pick up Isaiah Thomas in FA right now.. even add earl boykins .

[magoon]

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.

The problem is that all front offices think they're good front offices, which is where a lot of the variance comes in. (Remember Vivek Ranadive proudly predicting "Stauskas is our guy!"?) Player development is so, so underrated, which Masai understands and which was crucial to our improvement as a franchise.

Basically, look at the history of draft reaches to see how front offices "going rogue" from established consensus works out. Cleveland drafting Collin Sexton in 2018 at #8 was a sizable reach, and while he's not a bad player they left Shai, Mikal Bridges and MPJ on the table to do that. Chicago drafting Lauri Markkanen at #7 was a reach too and it didn't work out very well. Thon Maker at #10 was a massive reach for the Bucks in 2016, as was Georgios Papagiannis at #13 for the Kings, and they're both out of the league. And of course, there's Anthony Bennett and we all know what happened there.

As a general rule, if you've got a high pick and don't like any of the highly-esteemed prospects, it makes a lot more sense to trade down in the draft than it does to reach. You get more assets, and you don't look stupid if your reach doesn't pan out.

[LJ2]

wall and beal aren't the best example because that's one year.. in terms of overall.. no they haven't really because they have been together for two years.. and in those two years they haven't made it past the second round. last year dame Westbrook and harden went up against lebron to be fair and I don't think they should have traded cp3. so really its harden and cp3. westbrook shot them out of games so that's not a fair comparison. wall hasn't played in years because guess what.. he has been seriously injured so bad example dame and cj are one comparison point but again in a two year sample size its not enough to compare but you aren't convincing me. Point is its more than just size but if you don't have to pick a short player then why?

while we are at it we can pick up Isaiah Thomas in FA right now.. even add earl boykins .

Not saying you should pick a short player for the sake of it lol. You pick what you believe is the best player and if he happens to be shorter then so be it.

[golden]

The problem is that all front offices think they're good front offices, which is where a lot of the variance comes in. (Remember Vivek Ranadive proudly predicting "Stauskas is our guy!"?) Player development is so, so underrated, which Masai understands and which was crucial to our improvement as a franchise.

Basically, look at the history of draft reaches to see how front offices "going rogue" from established consensus works out. Cleveland drafting Collin Sexton in 2018 at #8 was a sizable reach, and while he's not a bad player they left Shai, Mikal Bridges and MPJ on the table to do that. Chicago drafting Lauri Markkanen at #7 was a reach too and it didn't work out very well. Thon Maker at #10 was a massive reach for the Bucks in 2016, as was Georgios Papagiannis at #13 for the Kings, and they're both out of the league. And of course, there's Anthony Bennett and we all know what happened there.

As a general rule, if you've got a high pick and don't like any of the highly-esteemed prospects, it makes a lot more sense to trade down in the draft than it does to reach. You get more assets, and you don't look stupid if your reach doesn't pan out.

What I got out of this is: don't do what the Cavs and Kings front offices do and have a look at what the Nuggets are doing.

[TrueTorontoFan]

Which begs the ever recurring question-

How do you spot legit talents?

You really have to dig way way deep.
Interview nor just his family, but his friends, neighbors, teachers, classmates etc.
Find out how he was brought up, how many times he got bullied, or cried in grade school. How he reacted to adversities at a very young age, etc..

I think you can spot talent but you also have to do deep dives as you mentioned. You have to also look at several things. Does this person have talent (skill), do they have athletic potential or ability, do they have the willingness and drive to work to improve, how will they fit within the culture, how will they fit within the team's timeline, how will they fit within the team's development structure.


If they don't fit the timeline or development, then the question question becomes.. is it worth it to then pick this person.. They have to be THAT special to change course or reconfigure your team.

[TrueTorontoFan]

The problem is that all front offices think they're good front offices, which is where a lot of the variance comes in. (Remember Vivek Ranadive proudly predicting "Stauskas is our guy!"?) Player development is so, so underrated, which Masai understands and which was crucial to our improvement as a franchise.

Basically, look at the history of draft reaches to see how front offices "going rogue" from established consensus works out. Cleveland drafting Collin Sexton in 2018 at #8 was a sizable reach, and while he's not a bad player they left Shai, Mikal Bridges and MPJ on the table to do that. Chicago drafting Lauri Markkanen at #7 was a reach too and it didn't work out very well. Thon Maker at #10 was a massive reach for the Bucks in 2016, as was Georgios Papagiannis at #13 for the Kings, and they're both out of the league. And of course, there's Anthony Bennett and we all know what happened there.

As a general rule, if you've got a high pick and don't like any of the highly-esteemed prospects, it makes a lot more sense to trade down in the draft than it does to reach. You get more assets, and you don't look stupid if your reach doesn't pan out.

I disagree with the trading down rule. You don't always get more assets. Just pick the guy you want.

[MixxAOR]

I would look at 2017 draft specifically between 76ers and Celtics.

BOSTON – The Boston Celtics announced today that they have acquired the third overall selection of the 2017 NBA Draft and the favorably-protected rights to a future first round pick from the Philadelphia 76ers in exchange for the first overall pick in this year’s draft.

The future first round pick will be the Los Angeles Lakers’ 2018 pick if it’s within the No. 2 to No. 5 range of the 2018 draft. If it is not, the Celtics will instead receive either Sacramento’s or Philadelphia’s first round pick in 2019, whichever is more favorable. However, if either of those 2019 picks result in the first overall selection, Boston will instead receive the other first round pick.

So 76ers select Fultz and Celtics pick a guy who they always wanted and who they valued more. So GMs gotta be smart.

[golden]

Tre Mann definitely has shades of Lillard and Beal. Probably the same on defense, lol. But who cares.

Shot creation or bust should be the goal for this off-season, either by draft or trade.

[The Great One]

I would look at 2017 draft specifically between 76ers and Celtics.



So 76ers select Fultz and Celtics pick a guy who they always wanted and who they valued more. So GMs gotta be smart.

The Celtics took the best player in their rankings. If the Celtics kept the first pick they still would take take Tatum, they traded down because they probably had inside info that Philly wanted Fultz and LA wanted Lonzo.