Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 53 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 794
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    30,621

    Post 2014 NBA Draft 2.0 Bucks select Parker at #2

    1 Milwaukee Joel Embiid 7-0 250 C Kansas Fr.

    31 Milwaukee Semaj Christon 6-3 190 PG Xavier So.

    36 *Milwaukee PJ Hairston 6-4 230 SG USA Jr.

    48 *Milwaukee Walter Tavares 7-3 260 C Spain Intl.

    http://www.nbadraft.net/2014mock_draft

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,786
    In response to the last thread, I just can't see Lavine turning into the type of guy you guys are saying. He's lazy on d, and isn't aided by his lack of strength and isn't overly long. The only thing he has going for him on defense is his quickness, which isn't all that valuable when you consider he has a tendancy to get lazy and not get down into position. Unless he starts giving a ton of effort and aids quite a bit of muscle, he'll also be a below average defender.

    Then you look at his offense. His jumper is streaky, but he can get hot. I will give you that. However, his decision making and shot selection are terrible. He takes so many long jumpers. He never gets to the hoop in the half court game. Which is only going to get harder in the pros. In college you can't even put a hand on a guy's hip when he drives anymore. In the pros, he'll get bullied by stronger guards even more. He'll only be able to get to the hoop in transition. His court vision is terrible and doesn't get assists. If you rewatch that video, in the weaknesses section, they talk about how terrible his court vision is and how crazy low his assist numbers are compared to every other 2 guard in the class.

    Basically the package you're getting with Lavine is, in the best case scenario, a volume jump shooter who has below average court vision, especially for a guy who may be called into pg duty, and is a below average defender. He's basically Nick Young who doesn't get to the hoop as well. But will throw down a sweet fast break dunk. Edit: I was a little reluctant to add this, but figured I would. I know everyone will rip me for this because physically and athletically they aren't the same player at all. But Lavine is basically a worse distributing OJ Mayo in my eyes. His value is completely tied to his shooting because that's all he can do. He's a no D, no playmaking shooter.

    And Miller, you can't look at next years draft. What if someone emerges as an elite wing player and we end up taking Parker or Wiggins? You can't use next year's draft as a reason to pass on a guy this year. You scout each player independently and take the best player on your board for the long term. And injury history/injury potential needs to be taken into account on those ratings. But taking the "Safe" pick is a move aimed at mediocrity. The only way you get to elite status is having the best players possible. That's why you need to take BPA at this point.

    And I know I sound a bit contridictary championing Embiid and his potential and putting a damper on Lavine's potential. But for me, it lies in more than just the athleticism. It lies in the other numbers and potential too. Same thing goes for Wiggins. You have to show potential to do things that elite nba players do. And both Lavine and Wiggins don't show any real half court ability. Both struggle at the rim, especially when given their leaping ability. Those are things elite nba players do well. Embiid has shown flashes of doing things that only elite nba bigs can do.
    Last edited by crewfan13; 05-02-2014 at 09:57 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    30,621
    Curious how far we can move up with #36 and #48? Some playoff team might need some extra unguaranteed bodies for salary. 27 to 30?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,786
    Really depends which picks you're willing to give up. It may seem counterintuitive, but pick 31 is actually probably more valuable to teams than pick 28. If you find a really cash strapped team picking in the late twentines, you might be able to swap 31 straight up for it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,633
    Yeah high 2nd rounders can have a little more value than the back of round 1. I think it's very realistic that a team trying to fill out their roster on the cheap would deal something in the mid teens for #31 and #36 or even #48. You can basically get two guys for the price of one and neither has a guaranteed deal. If that helps a team fill out a roster while staying under the tax threshold, that's pretty huge.

    The Bucks will also probably have cash/cap room, so if they really wanted to they could probably move back up pretty high or more than once.
    Last edited by thornga2; 05-02-2014 at 03:36 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,633
    I think this could be an awesome trade

    Bucks get Channing Frye, #14,18,27

    Phoenix Gets #31,36,48, Future First (lottery protected)

    6.8 million is a lot for Frye, so I think he'll pick up his option, which the Suns probably wish he wouldn't because they can get similar production from the Morris brothers on the cheap which would free up more space for a big splash this offseason.

    By trading Frye and three firsts to the Bucks, they could essentially save 12 million in guaranteed contracts for next season. They can fill out the bottom of the bench on the cheap, and spend big in free agency on Bledsoe and a guy like Stevenson, Turner, or Monroe.

    The Bucks make a move that would energize the fan base when they can roll out 4 first rounders next year as part of the youth movement, or use the three to move back up into the lottery.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,658
    I agree crew, the odds of him not panning out are pretty good. But we are talking about the late 1st round though, most players in that range (and even worse in the 2nd) don't pan out. I'd rather take the athletic guy who has a chance of being somebody if he commits himself than taking a guy like Frank Kaminsky (hes not in the draft, but is a good comparison) who has limited upside and will extremely likely end up being a back of the bench rider for their career. PJ Hairston is another good example, IF Lavine bulks up and commits himself to the game he has a chance to far surpass anything that PJ Hairston could become. Do we have the right coaching staff to get it done? It remains to be seen.

    Clint Capela is another one of those high risk high reward guys towards the back part of the 1st round. I don't particularly like his game personally from what I have seen, but the athleticism is there for him to BE A SOMEBODY. I'd much rather take that risk than take the bum who will ride the end of the bench. Once again, we have ENOUGH bench riders, most of our starting lineup would not even start across the league, we need people who have a chance to be somebody if they are developed.
    Last edited by Superfly; 05-02-2014 at 06:04 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,633
    Yeah Capela is another guy with freakish length and athleticism that would be worth a flyer in the late first.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,633
    At the end of the day, I just don't want to see the Bucks drafting guys who only have role player upside- the type of guys who can be signed to cheap 1-2 year deals any given offseason.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,786
    I guess where I disagree is that in the lateish first you can find some decent role player types. I know the odds of getting a great player in the late first or second at all is slim, but you still have to try to do that. I just don't think Lavine is worth it. I get his athleticism is basically unparrelled at that point, but he just doesn't grade out well enough at anything else that even leads me to believe he can be a decent role player. I'd have to look at who else is being picked around that point, but I'd like to think that we could find someone better. Even if their athleticism isn't great.

    I guess here's the question. And I think I already know your answer to it, but I guess mine is different. Do you take the guy who has a 75% chance at being a decent bench player and a 25% chance of being low end starter or the guy who has a 1% chance of being a really good starter, but only a 25% chance of even being a guy worth playing? I'm probably taking the first guy, especially when the second guy is like Lavine, who besides being an athlete shows basically no signs of even being a decent pro.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I guess here's the question. And I think I already know your answer to it, but I guess mine is different. Do you take the guy who has a 75% chance at being a decent bench player and a 25% chance of being low end starter or the guy who has a 1% chance of being a really good starter, but only a 25% chance of even being a guy worth playing? I'm probably taking the first guy, especially when the second guy is like Lavine, who besides being an athlete shows basically no signs of even being a decent pro.
    My answer is if I am a team like the Spurs, Thunder, Bulls, Heat etc, I take the guy who has a 75% chance at being a good bench player/25% chance of being a #4 or #5 option starter in a heartbeat.

    If I am the Bucks, Magic, 76ers, etc, I take a guy with a chance to be a stud or flame out, and use my other 1 or 2 picks to try and get the bench player you described because our roster is all bench players with zero stud talent to begin with. We can't take that leap past the 8th seed because we have no true stud.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,786
    I understand what you're saying, and you're probably right, but most of those guys that fall to that point with that freakish athleticism are such flawed players, its probably not even worth the gamble. I'd rather get the guy that might have some value as a throw in for a trade down the line.

    I guess the way to look at it is using the 2012 draft as an example. Perry Jones is/was that drafts Zach Lavine. Physically, there's not a whole lot that guy couldn't do (except he is physically weak, similar to Lavine). But Jones just doesn't do anything that well, and is basically a useless bench guy. Now, he still can develop and its probably too early to write him off, but he literally barely played all year on that team. He had quite a few DNP-CD or 3-4 minute games. Now look at some of the other guys around him, for example Miles Plumlee, Jae Crowder, Draymond Green and Khris Middleton. Two of those guys are deeper role players, but have played useful minutes for playoff teams. And the other two would have played decent minutes on their teams if they made the playoffs.

    Although it seems to go against everything I've said about trading second rounders, I'd take the guy who's more likely to be useful when comparing him to someone like Lavine, who I view as the type of guy who really doesn't have the upside you guys seem to think. In order to become a stud, he would basically have to change everything about the way he plays basketball. He would have to put on quite a bit of muscle weight. He would have to learn to find open teammates. He would have to learn how to get all the way to the rim, instead of just shooting pullups. He'd have to learn how to shoot a much higher percentage at the rim when he gets there. He has to completely overhaul his defensive effort. And he would have to become league average at all of that to even be a useful player. I just don't think there's anyway he does that.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,218
    Id take McGary in a heartbeat in the 2nd.
    http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/n...pscf85bcd0.png
    _____________
    " Failure is only defined by someone's perception of what failing is."-His Airness

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    30,621
    Quote Originally Posted by time4change View Post
    Id take McGary in a heartbeat in the 2nd.
    Shows him at #39.

    http://www.nbadraft.net/2014mock_draft

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,786
    I haven't watched McGary too much, but he's the type of player that tends to pan out a little more in the second. The only reason he's probably falling as far as he did was the injury and now having to come out. Lance Stephenson sort of fit that bill in college too. Dropped because he had attitude problems (and didn't enjoy passing a whole lot in college), but he had the game that translates to the pros. Not sure McGary exactly fits that bill, but he seems to fit the mold.

Page 1 of 53 1231151 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •