Everything Draft 2021

[golden]

I did see that but still pass. I need someone to play passable defence or be so elite that they are luka or trae level. I don't see this person as that good.

You’re missing another important consideration: the trade value of a young prospect when a superstar becomes available. Scoring talent always gets overvalued in trades. Especially young prospects. Like when Harden became available, the Rockets were looking for one-way offense types like Tyler Herro, instead of arguably much better 2-way players like Cam Johnson, Kelvin Johnson & Brandon Clarke.

Even this board was salivating at the thought of getting Herro in a potential Lowry deal, instead of say, Precious Achiuwa. Defense is great and all, but when a team has to reluctantly trade their superstar, it’s a lot more palatable to the fan base to be getting an exciting young scorer back. Offense sells.

[TrueTorontoFan]

tough critic hahaha

To quote Demar, "Mos Definitely"

[TrueTorontoFan]

You’re missing another important consideration: the trade value of a young prospect when a superstar becomes available. Scoring talent always gets overvalued in trades. Especially young prospects. Like when Harden became available, the Rockets were looking for one-way offense types like Tyler Herro, instead of arguably much better 2-way players like Cam Johnson, Kelvin Johnson & Brandon Clarke.

Even this board was salivating at the thought of getting Herro in a potential Lowry deal, instead of say, Precious Achiuwa. Defense is great and all, but when a team has to reluctantly trade their superstar, it’s a lot more palatable to the fan base to be getting an exciting young scorer back. Offense sells.

Matisse was also salivated about too so using that argument as a means to suggest we should draft someone without defence is weak at best. There are solid offensive players available in the draft without sacrificing defence. Heck I'd rather gamble on Giddey as an example because he is young. I would also like Springer which I suggested but people shut me down earlier on that in this thread. To me Keon is a big swing pick. Moody is a safe pick if barnes isn't available. If you really want to swing for the fences you can try and grab a Giddey and pray he can play defence, or you swing big for Springer because of his age.

[golden]

Matisse was also salivated about too so using that argument as a means to suggest we should draft someone without defence is weak at best. There are solid offensive players available in the draft without sacrificing defence. Heck I'd rather gamble on Giddey as an example because he is young. I would also like Springer which I suggested but people shut me down earlier on that in this thread. To me Keon is a big swing pick. Moody is a safe pick if barnes isn't available. If you really want to swing for the fences you can try and grab a Giddey and pray he can play defence, or you swing big for Springer because of his age.

I didn’t hear any rumors of the Rockets wanting Thybulle for Harden. Thybulle is the exact opposite prospect...terrible offense, but he is truly elite on defense.

[TrueTorontoFan]

I didn’t hear any rumors of the Rockets wanting Thybulle for Harden. Thybulle is the exact opposite prospect...terrible offense, but he is truly elite on defense.

I am talking about us. Rockets could have taken Caris who is a much better overall player. I don't want to select a player because people MAY want them to trade. I want the player that helps us win period end of story. Also skills and what is valued is sometimes overvalued. I think defence is undervalued. Hence why I like Utah so much.

[magoon]

I've been thinking about something someone said recently, so bear with me.

Two players, both one-and-done NCAA players.

Player A: Per 40 minutes - 22.8 points, 7 rebounds, 3.9 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.9 blocks, 4.6 turnovers; offensive rating of 106.4, defensive rating 97.0; PER 21.6; TS .574; eFG .515; assist % 20.4; box plus-mins 8.3.

Player B: Per 40 minutes - 16.7 points, 6.5 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 2.4 steals, 0.7 blocks, 4.0 turnovers; offensive rating 109.3, defensive rating 98.3; PER 21.4; TS .548; eFG .531; assist % 31.6; box plus-minus 7.9.

Now, Player A is Cade and Player B is Barnes, and the reason I left shooting stats out is because someone elsewhere asked "if you take out shooting, what does Cade do better than Barnes?"

And this isn't to downplay the importance of shooting, because of course shooting is a super-important NBA skill and the lack of a reliable shot is what keeps Barnes out of that top tier. (Barnes actually had a better 2P% than Cade did, mostly because his scoring was coming at the rim.) But, for the sake of comparison, consider Player C.

Player C: Per 40 minutes - 17.6 points, 8.7 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 2.1 steals, 2.1 blocks, 2.6 turnovers; offensive rating 118.5, defensive rating 99.4; PER 23.8; TS .611; eFG .611; assist % 11.0; BPM 8.9. And player C's shooting stats are FG% .557, 3P% .311, FT% .563, as compared to Barnes with FG% .503, 3P% .275, FT% .621.

Player C is OG in his second/final year at Indiana, and in his first year in the NBA his FG% took a dip (as is typical for NBA rookies who aren't steamrollering lesser college talents any more), but his three-point shooting and free throws rose significantly. If we could duplicate that progression with Barnes, we'd basically have a new OG/Pascal on our hands except he's a much better passer. That's absolutely a lottery-worthy pick.

[Kagemusha]

I've been thinking about something someone said recently, so bear with me.

Two players, both one-and-done NCAA players.

Player A: Per 40 minutes - 22.8 points, 7 rebounds, 3.9 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.9 blocks, 4.6 turnovers; offensive rating of 106.4, defensive rating 97.0; PER 21.6; TS .574; eFG .515; assist % 20.4; box plus-mins 8.3.

Player B: Per 40 minutes - 16.7 points, 6.5 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 2.4 steals, 0.7 blocks, 4.0 turnovers; offensive rating 109.3, defensive rating 98.3; PER 21.4; TS .548; eFG .531; assist % 31.6; box plus-minus 7.9.

Now, Player A is Cade and Player B is Barnes, and the reason I left shooting stats out is because someone elsewhere asked "if you take out shooting, what does Cade do better than Barnes?"

And this isn't to downplay the importance of shooting, because of course shooting is a super-important NBA skill and the lack of a reliable shot is what keeps Barnes out of that top tier. (Barnes actually had a better 2P% than Cade did, mostly because his scoring was coming at the rim.) But, for the sake of comparison, consider Player C.

Player C: Per 40 minutes - 17.6 points, 8.7 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 2.1 steals, 2.1 blocks, 2.6 turnovers; offensive rating 118.5, defensive rating 99.4; PER 23.8; TS .611; eFG .611; assist % 11.0; BPM 8.9. And player C's shooting stats are FG% .557, 3P% .311, FT% .563, as compared to Barnes with FG% .503, 3P% .275, FT% .621.

Player C is OG in his second/final year at Indiana, and in his first year in the NBA his FG% took a dip (as is typical for NBA rookies who aren't steamrollering lesser college talents any more), but his three-point shooting and free throws rose significantly. If we could duplicate that progression with Barnes, we'd basically have a new OG/Pascal on our hands except he's a much better passer. That's absolutely a lottery-worthy pick.

How about if I add a player D?

This player averaged 16 ppg, 4.3 apg, 4 rpg

On paper, players A, B and C are comparable with player D - Luka Doncic.

[golden]

I've been thinking about something someone said recently, so bear with me.

Two players, both one-and-done NCAA players.

Player A: Per 40 minutes - 22.8 points, 7 rebounds, 3.9 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.9 blocks, 4.6 turnovers; offensive rating of 106.4, defensive rating 97.0; PER 21.6; TS .574; eFG .515; assist % 20.4; box plus-mins 8.3.

Player B: Per 40 minutes - 16.7 points, 6.5 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 2.4 steals, 0.7 blocks, 4.0 turnovers; offensive rating 109.3, defensive rating 98.3; PER 21.4; TS .548; eFG .531; assist % 31.6; box plus-minus 7.9.

Now, Player A is Cade and Player B is Barnes, and the reason I left shooting stats out is because someone elsewhere asked "if you take out shooting, what does Cade do better than Barnes?"

And this isn't to downplay the importance of shooting, because of course shooting is a super-important NBA skill and the lack of a reliable shot is what keeps Barnes out of that top tier. (Barnes actually had a better 2P% than Cade did, mostly because his scoring was coming at the rim.) But, for the sake of comparison, consider Player C.

Player C: Per 40 minutes - 17.6 points, 8.7 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 2.1 steals, 2.1 blocks, 2.6 turnovers; offensive rating 118.5, defensive rating 99.4; PER 23.8; TS .611; eFG .611; assist % 11.0; BPM 8.9. And player C's shooting stats are FG% .557, 3P% .311, FT% .563, as compared to Barnes with FG% .503, 3P% .275, FT% .621.

Player C is OG in his second/final year at Indiana, and in his first year in the NBA his FG% took a dip (as is typical for NBA rookies who aren't steamrollering lesser college talents any more), but his three-point shooting and free throws rose significantly. If we could duplicate that progression with Barnes, we'd basically have a new OG/Pascal on our hands except he's a much better passer. That's absolutely a lottery-worthy pick.

First rule of comparing players on offense is to show the USG%. Stats are meaningless without it. For equal offensive stats, the higher the USG%, the better the player. Especially as you get over 25% - even small increases in USG% while maintaining good efficiency demonstrate the superior player. It’s showing how good you are when the opposing defense is game planning against you as the primary option. Those type of guys are elite. In terms of USG%:

Cade (29.1) > Barnes (23.7) > OG (20)

29.1% USG is superstar territory (Kawhi) and 23.7% is a good role player (FVV). That said, neither Cade (106) nor Barnes (109) had a great ORTG, so that’s a bit of a red flag for both of them.

[TrueTorontoFan]

I've been thinking about something someone said recently, so bear with me.

Two players, both one-and-done NCAA players.

Player A: Per 40 minutes - 22.8 points, 7 rebounds, 3.9 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.9 blocks, 4.6 turnovers; offensive rating of 106.4, defensive rating 97.0; PER 21.6; TS .574; eFG .515; assist % 20.4; box plus-mins 8.3.

Player B: Per 40 minutes - 16.7 points, 6.5 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 2.4 steals, 0.7 blocks, 4.0 turnovers; offensive rating 109.3, defensive rating 98.3; PER 21.4; TS .548; eFG .531; assist % 31.6; box plus-minus 7.9.

Now, Player A is Cade and Player B is Barnes, and the reason I left shooting stats out is because someone elsewhere asked "if you take out shooting, what does Cade do better than Barnes?"

And this isn't to downplay the importance of shooting, because of course shooting is a super-important NBA skill and the lack of a reliable shot is what keeps Barnes out of that top tier. (Barnes actually had a better 2P% than Cade did, mostly because his scoring was coming at the rim.) But, for the sake of comparison, consider Player C.

Player C: Per 40 minutes - 17.6 points, 8.7 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 2.1 steals, 2.1 blocks, 2.6 turnovers; offensive rating 118.5, defensive rating 99.4; PER 23.8; TS .611; eFG .611; assist % 11.0; BPM 8.9. And player C's shooting stats are FG% .557, 3P% .311, FT% .563, as compared to Barnes with FG% .503, 3P% .275, FT% .621.

Player C is OG in his second/final year at Indiana, and in his first year in the NBA his FG% took a dip (as is typical for NBA rookies who aren't steamrollering lesser college talents any more), but his three-point shooting and free throws rose significantly. If we could duplicate that progression with Barnes, we'd basically have a new OG/Pascal on our hands except he's a much better passer. That's absolutely a lottery-worthy pick.

So to play devils advocate I would argue that Barnes is on the other end of the scale. I think if he wasn't so redundant with OG and Siakam I would draft him but I would be hesitant depending on his shot profile. Either way, I am not really wanting to take someone who is just pure shooting because otherwise we can get Corey Kispert who I am not interested in.

[LJ2]

Another big unknown going into next season will be how good Trent Jr. can be for this team? His play was fairly limited after the trade and we never really saw him out there consistently with the full starting unit. Does he have another level? Can he be a high usage, volume scorer type we are hoping to find in the draft? If the coaches think so I wouldn't feel that bad drafting Barnes, Giddey, Sengun or Johnson with the FRP.

[MixxAOR]

Another big unknown going into next season will be how good Trent Jr. can be for this team? His play was fairly limited after the trade and we never really saw him out there consistently with the full starting unit. Does he have another level? Can he be a high usage, volume scorer type we are hoping to find in the draft? If the coaches think so I wouldn't feel that bad drafting Barnes, Giddey, Sengun or Johnson with the FRP.

Well that depends if Trent stays. Blake Murphy is saying Raptors will look at signing Monk if Trent Jr. is asking for too much money

[golden]

I am talking about us. Rockets could have taken Caris who is a much better overall player. I don't want to select a player because people MAY want them to trade. I want the player that helps us win period end of story. Also skills and what is valued is sometimes overvalued. I think defence is undervalued. Hence why I like Utah so much.

Bogdonavich and Clarkson were considered bad defenders before Utah. Oh, and it helps to have Gobert on the back line. You also need guys who can make tough shots. Raps have enough defense. A shot creator is both what we need most AND highly valued in trades. The 2-way development project could end up being neither.

[TrueTorontoFan]

Bogdonavich and Clarkson were considered bad defenders before Utah. Oh, and it helps to have Gobert on the back line. You also need guys who can make tough shots. Raps have enough defense. A shot creator is both what we need most AND highly valued in trades. The 2-way development project could end up being neither.

do we have a guy that is Gobert level on the back line?

[TrueTorontoFan]

Look we need shot creation for sure but we here is a question. If you all want shot creation why are you all targeting Davion the short guard?

[TrueTorontoFan]

Bogdan was always good because he could shoot but also he made others around him better. With his ability to playmaker. Hence why Giddey again is one option especially off the bench. I just don't think Mann is good enough offensively at the next level to overcome his short comings.. if he was he would be top 4