Joined: 15 Jul 2009 Posts: 18492 Location: The Garden Island
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:08 pm Post subject:
shortodom wrote:
Probably nothing but when Bres interviewed Luke he said we're a bit short on guards cause "some moves". Then Luke said "well we cant talk about the moves right now". We only made one move so far that sent only one guard out. But like I said probably nothing.
I noticed that also. Feels like it's when-not if JC gets traded.
I really like the Ball and Hart picks; Ball and Hart are plus offensive and defensive impact players for wing positions, and that's what really matters at the end. Plus, both shot over 40% from deep (although based on Ball's on assisted shots rate and foul shooting, I have his projected shooting a smidge below average in the NBA). Both Ball and Hart can also really steal the basketball despite perceived athleticism slights (Ball actually has the Shaun Livingston off-ball cut dunk thing going; I hope we put back to good use), and Hart really goes after dboards as well. Hart's general offense is light green, but the most impressive thing about the dude is he doesn't have any major weaknesses (even his athleticism is a smidge below average only). In my metrics, Jae Crowder and James Harden were within his top 10 comparisons, actually (but I had him 27th overall in this draft). Those are top notch picks.
I also like how we broke the 28th picks into the 30th and 42nd picks--I knew this FO was incredibly proactive after we worked out 99 guys, and it was clear they wanted more (I did project this to be a deep draft up until the first 45 picks or so). We actually got more value by trading Tony Bradley (a deceptive analytics darling who doesn't stand out in any one thing whatwsoever) for guys who rated better than him in Josh Hart and Thomas Bryant. Sly move for sure, and I liked that.
To Thomas Bryant--I had him 29th in this draft. Solid pickup. He's just got a light green skill polish (handles, vision, shooting, gravity) and has a 7'5" wingspan which he uses in more slightly green steals and blocks. He doesn't excel in anything in particular, but there's enough interesting things here. He's just an OK athlete and prefers to play inside more than most bigs, but my biggest quibble is, to make up for the Brook Lopez god-awful rebounding, is that this dude doesn't d-board well either. But other than that, for the 42nd pick, definitely enough of a skillset here, with that intriguing wingspan. Surprised some didn't like him as much. I do feel there were guys we could have had here--Ike Anigbogu and Isaiah Hartenstein were projected mid-1st rounders for me--but Bryant is alright.
The worst pick here was Kyle Kuzma. I have 146 names I put in my draft model...and Kuzma ranked 145th. Eek. The swing category for Kuzma is his shooting--but he whiffs. Even for a big, I project him to be a very poor shooter--dude only hits 32% of his threes and 66% of his foul shots, and his numbers were worse in his prior two seasons! I just think Kuzma lacks major toughness and athleticism--he's a complete non-entity for a shotblocker despite standing 6'9", doesn't really steal the ball, and wasn't much of a dunker in college (in fact, really bad for a big). He's tantalizing on the surface because for his size, he has excellent ballhandling ability and court vision and defensive rebounding chops, but all that goes to moot if you can't shoot. Randle has a similar baseline of handles-vision-rebounding and no steals-blocks. We don't need more of that, honestly. How the sam hill did we not pick Jordan Bell here?
An A+ draft would have been Ball-Bell-Hart-Hartenstein or Anigbogu. That would have been amazing. And we had chances on all of them.
As it is: Ball (A+)/ Kuzma (F)/ Hart (A)/ Bryant (A-). Three out of four isn't particularly bad, and credit for splitting the second draft pick as well. So I'd say this was a A range draft for sure.
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:17 pm Post subject:
tox wrote:
jorkerjork wrote:
I really like the Ball and Hart picks; Ball and Hart are plus offensive and defensive impact players for wing positions, and that's what really matters at the end. Plus, both shot over 40% from deep (although based on Ball's on assisted shots rate and foul shooting, I have his projected shooting a smidge below average in the NBA). Both Ball and Hart can also really steal the basketball despite perceived athleticism slights (Ball actually has the Shaun Livingston off-ball cut dunk thing going; I hope we put back to good use), and Hart really goes after dboards as well. Hart's general offense is light green, but the most impressive thing about the dude is he doesn't have any major weaknesses (even his athleticism is a smidge below average only). In my metrics, Jae Crowder and James Harden were within his top 10 comparisons, actually (but I had him 27th overall in this draft). Those are top notch picks.
I also like how we broke the 28th picks into the 30th and 42nd picks--I knew this FO was incredibly proactive after we worked out 99 guys, and it was clear they wanted more (I did project this to be a deep draft up until the first 45 picks or so). We actually got more value by trading Tony Bradley (a deceptive analytics darling who doesn't stand out in any one thing whatwsoever) for guys who rated better than him in Josh Hart and Thomas Bryant. Sly move for sure, and I liked that.
To Thomas Bryant--I had him 29th in this draft. Solid pickup. He's just got a light green skill polish (handles, vision, shooting, gravity) and has a 7'5" wingspan which he uses in more slightly green steals and blocks. He doesn't excel in anything in particular, but there's enough interesting things here. He's just an OK athlete and prefers to play inside more than most bigs, but my biggest quibble is, to make up for the Brook Lopez god-awful rebounding, is that this dude doesn't d-board well either. But other than that, for the 42nd pick, definitely enough of a skillset here, with that intriguing wingspan. Surprised some didn't like him as much. I do feel there were guys we could have had here--Ike Anigbogu and Isaiah Hartenstein were projected mid-1st rounders for me--but Bryant is alright.
The worst pick here was Kyle Kuzma. I have 146 names I put in my draft model...and Kuzma ranked 145th. Eek. The swing category for Kuzma is his shooting--but he whiffs. Even for a big, I project him to be a very poor shooter--dude only hits 32% of his threes and 66% of his foul shots, and his numbers were worse in his prior two seasons! I just think Kuzma lacks major toughness and athleticism--he's a complete non-entity for a shotblocker despite standing 6'9", doesn't really steal the ball, and wasn't much of a dunker in college (in fact, really bad for a big). He's tantalizing on the surface because for his size, he has excellent ballhandling ability and court vision and defensive rebounding chops, but all that goes to moot if you can't shoot. Randle has a similar baseline of handles-vision-rebounding and no steals-blocks. We don't need more of that, honestly. How the sam hill did we not pick Jordan Bell here?
An A+ draft would have been Ball-Bell-Hart-Hartenstein or Anigbogu. That would have been amazing. And we had chances on all of them.
As it is: Ball (A+)/ Kuzma (F)/ Hart (A)/ Bryant (A-). Three out of four isn't particularly bad, and credit for splitting the second draft pick as well. So I'd say this was a A range draft for sure.
Always appreciate the insight
Yep. Great write-ups from jorkerjork and BVH tonight.
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:19 pm Post subject:
dino wrote:
re: kuzma - hope you guys are right...cook was no slouch in college - think he was upper echelon scoring amd rebounding, too...
I wouldn't worry too much about that. Adam Morrison, Bobby Hurley, Ed O'Bannon, Jimmer Fredette...I could go on for paragraphs, but the point is that there are guys who can be very good or even dominant college players that simply can't make good NBA players.
I know this is going to make very little sense but I dunno about thomas bryant since we already have (or are about to have) a retired number with that last name.
I just feel like whenever we retire a jersey, any players that have that name that come later never do well for us (see the johnsons we've had after magic) _________________ Kobe
Joined: 15 Jul 2009 Posts: 18492 Location: The Garden Island
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:35 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Chad Ford's notes from the NBA Combine:
Utah's Kyle Kuzma also had a strong game, scoring 20 points, going 4-for-5 from 3-point territory, grabbing five boards and blocking a shot. He fared better than expected in the athletic testing, ranking fourth among all the players on Thursday at the shuttle run and showing off a 34-inch vertical.
He has solid size, length and reach for his position as well.
"I didn't really see Kuzma as much of a prospect before this," one GM said. "But he'll force us to go watch more tape. What he did today is exactly the thing we are asking 4s to do in our league now. I really liked him."
Utah's Kyle Kuzma also had a strong game, scoring 20 points, going 4-for-5 from 3-point territory, grabbing five boards and blocking a shot. He fared better than expected in the athletic testing, ranking fourth among all the players on Thursday at the shuttle run and showing off a 34-inch vertical.
He has solid size, length and reach for his position as well.
"I didn't really see Kuzma as much of a prospect before this," one GM said. "But he'll force us to go watch more tape. What he did today is exactly the thing we are asking 4s to do in our league now. I really liked him."
I remember reading this last month and thinking he was worth a long look at 28. Love how we never heard anything about him after his workout.
Pelinka said they also went to his own agent workout or something. Along with our workout, and the combine... Said he was amazing in multiple workouts.
Lakers might officially have the worst FO in the NBA.
Even the Kings have started to make good decisions. Their roster looks better than the Lakers right now.
What ?! Why ?!
They just added 4 players who will contribute or becomes pieces in a trade, and they all fill needs.
Lonzo is Lonzo, KK is a 2 way player and his game is similar to Ben Simmons just by taking a glance, Hart is an eatablish 2 way player who brings a winning, hard working habit, and Bryant is a agile big guy who can stretch the floor as well as play in the post and defend.
Yeah we passed on Bell and whatever. But its not a make a break since we had extra picks.
Kuzma is not similar to Simmons. Ben, IMO, will go down as a great. Hart is a good player but let's not act like any of those 3 are going to help us win games.
DLO Trade: F
Lonzo: A
Kuzma: C
Hart: B
Bryant: B
That's how I sum up the draft.
Semi should have been the pick at 27 and I liked Bell a lot.
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:52 pm Post subject:
I would've taken Bolden at 27 and really believe in him, but I thought this was a good haul. Hard to complain. Really like Hart, in particular. I think he's going to be like the anti-Clarkson out there. He does things that winning players do. If we're able to add two All-Stars in free agency next year (or trade for PG now and get another one next year), Hart is the type of smart, well-rounded rotation player that good teams need.
I would've taken Bolden at 27 and really believe in him, but I thought this was a good haul. Hard to complain. Really like Hart, in particular. I think he's going to be like the anti-Clarkson out there. He does things that winning players do. If we're able to add two All-Stars in free agency next year (or trade for PG now and get another one next year), Hart is the type of smart, well-rounded rotation player that good teams need.
Hopefully he can be a better Shumpert - more skilled/smarter off the bounce, make defense your calling card(since you're a dog), and make sure you can hit the 3
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:57 pm Post subject:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
I would've taken Bolden at 27 and really believe in him, but I thought this was a good haul. Hard to complain. Really like Hart, in particular. I think he's going to be like the anti-Clarkson out there. He does things that winning players do. If we're able to add two All-Stars in free agency next year (or trade for PG now and get another one next year), Hart is the type of smart, well-rounded rotation player that good teams need.
Hopefully he can be a better Shumpert - more skilled/smarter off the bounce, make defense your calling card(since you're a dog), and make sure you can hit the 3
I would've taken Bolden at 27 and really believe in him, but I thought this was a good haul. Hard to complain. Really like Hart, in particular. I think he's going to be like the anti-Clarkson out there. He does things that winning players do. If we're able to add two All-Stars in free agency next year (or trade for PG now and get another one next year), Hart is the type of smart, well-rounded rotation player that good teams need.
Hopefully he can be a better Shumpert - more skilled/smarter off the bounce, make defense your calling card(since you're a dog), and make sure you can hit the 3
Could he be like Brogdon? Better?
I didn't watch the Bucks unfortunately.. But, Hart isn't a distributor like that. They have extremely similar body types and measurements(give wingspan, take reach) both have a dog in them.
Hart will be in more of a traditional SG role - so I want him to be a better Shumpert archetype, more versatile in it
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:21 am Post subject:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
I would've taken Bolden at 27 and really believe in him, but I thought this was a good haul. Hard to complain. Really like Hart, in particular. I think he's going to be like the anti-Clarkson out there. He does things that winning players do. If we're able to add two All-Stars in free agency next year (or trade for PG now and get another one next year), Hart is the type of smart, well-rounded rotation player that good teams need.
Hopefully he can be a better Shumpert - more skilled/smarter off the bounce, make defense your calling card(since you're a dog), and make sure you can hit the 3
Could he be like Brogdon? Better?
I didn't watch the Bucks unfortunately.. But, Hart isn't a distributor like that. They have extremely similar body types and measurements(give wingspan, take reach) both have a dog in them.
Hart will be in more of a traditional SG role - so I want him to be a better Shumpert archetype, more versatile in it
Yeah I think he can be more versatile than Shumpert. And I thought Shumpert had him in height by plenty, but that's not the case. Clearly, I was fooled by Shump's hair.
ooo sweet another tall 6'6 guard in dozier, 20yo with a nice wingspan. i like it, even with his flaws i appreciate the fo's desire to find a gem. you cant teach size!! he covers a lot of ground for every dribble, and with the other prospects i like the spacing (esp if nance, randle and zu improve their shooting like theyre attempting to this summer) _________________ speak it into existence
I would've taken Bolden at 27 and really believe in him, but I thought this was a good haul. Hard to complain. Really like Hart, in particular. I think he's going to be like the anti-Clarkson out there. He does things that winning players do. If we're able to add two All-Stars in free agency next year (or trade for PG now and get another one next year), Hart is the type of smart, well-rounded rotation player that good teams need.
Hopefully he can be a better Shumpert - more skilled/smarter off the bounce, make defense your calling card(since you're a dog), and make sure you can hit the 3
Could he be like Brogdon? Better?
I didn't watch the Bucks unfortunately.. But, Hart isn't a distributor like that. They have extremely similar body types and measurements(give wingspan, take reach) both have a dog in them.
Hart will be in more of a traditional SG role - so I want him to be a better Shumpert archetype, more versatile in it
Yeah I think he can be more versatile than Shumpert. And I thought Shumpert had him in height by plenty, but that's not the case. Clearly, I was fooled by Shump's hair.
Thought I remembered Shumpert having a longer wingspan to boot. Nope. His defense is straight effort and kinda quick feet
im rewatching everyones highlights(except lonzo ive seen enough). strengths/weaknesses/highlights.. i know i aint the only one _________________ speak it into existence
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
