Mike1989

Mikal makes sense if we plan to get better next year. He offers a high floor 3 and D style and if his offensive game develops further he can be an all star. So it's a floor similar to Danny Green and Otto Porter, with a ceiling that goes beyond that with development. He's also a leader, hard worker, and high character prospect. He would slot in perfectly at SG alongside Isaac as SF and Gordon at PF. The defensive potential of that trio is quite high. True, but are we tanking next year or aiming to get better? I suspect hiring Clifford points towards aiming to get better. As it stands we've got a raw high upside SF in Isaac and a still developing PF in Gordon. That leaves three spots to target. I'd argue Trae Young for PG, Mikal for SG or Carter for C offer us the best chance of a rookie contributor. That's not to say JJJ or Bamba would be bad picks, they wouldn't, but they'll need more time to develop. If the desire is to improve the win count pro ready players make sense. I actually like Mikal and think he fits perfectly at SG with his high floor 3 and D. If his offensive game develops further than that he's got all star potential. At the end of the day his worst case scenario is a Danny Green or Otto Porter like player and we could certainly use that. All we'd need to do then is sort out the PG and C spots.

I do agree that I think Trae will be a good fit for us and could be the best player available at six. I also agree that taking a forward could be problematic with Isaac and Gordon, but it all depends on whether we are going to extend Gordon. If there's a belief that so-and-so is a better fit with Isaac we could draft that prospect and look for a sign and trade, or extend Gordon and trade to acquire another prospect to upgrade another starting position. It all depends on who falls and whether the team think they are special. With that said, I'd say our most likely pick at this point is Trae Young or Mohamed Bamba.

The Lakers don't need Lonzo to be a lights out shooter. He's an excellent passer and rebounder, and can score well enough to contribute - 36% from the field and 30% from 3 point range. De'Aaron Fox can score in a number of ways and his penetration due to his excellent athleticism and quickness helps him significantly - .412 from the field, .307 from 3 point. Dennis Smith managed to average 15 points as a rookie without being a consistent shooter - .395 from the field, .313 from 3 point. The thing to remember here before criticizing these guys shooting percentages is that they are all pretty much in the same ballpark as Chris Paul and Jason Kidd's numbers as rookies: - Kidd shot 38.5 from the field and 27.2 from 3 point - Paul shot 37.2 from the field and 28.2 from 3 point As you can see Ball, Fox and Smith all shot the three ball with a higher percentage, and only Ball's field goal percentage was lower. So if Kidd and Paul became good shooters and two of the best at their respective position, then there's no reason why Ball, Smith and Fox cannot develop into reliable shooters as long as they put the work in.

I don't believe Malik Monk is awful. I think part of his problem in Charlotte was his usage. Clifford never really gave him much of an opportunity because they had Batum starting at SG and Lamb coming off the bench at SG. It didn't really allow for consistent minutes. I can totally understand why Charlotte drafted him after he fell to 11, but he did face an uphill battle for playing time. Next season might see him struggle again for consistent minutes unless Charlotte's new front office decide to blow up that roster and start a rebuild around their main young talent. With that said, I think Monk can still be a good player at the next level, perhaps not an all star, but there's no reason why he can't hit a similar level to Monta Ellis. Looking at his stat line .342% from beyond is the arc is not great but with work and more consistent usage there is no reason why Monk can't boost that stat because he can shoot. His other stats like 6.7 points per game, 1.4 assists and 1 total rebound aren't terrible considering he averaged less than 14 minutes per game and was not a go to option for them off the bench. If you look at his per-36 stat line, which some people like and others dislike, his averages would have been 17.7 points per game, 3.8 assists and 2.8 total rebounds. For a rookie they aren't terrible projections or unrealistic stats for him to reach next season under the right coach. So while I do agree with you that he didn't have a good rookie season, it wasn't as bad as people made out. Now had he started games and played 20+ minutes and put up the stats he did, fair enough criticize him, but considering his limited and inconsistent role it is a tad harsh to describe him as awful.

The question is what do we have to offer the Grizzlies? They don't have any space to take on salary without us taking someone in return. So it might require us to take on Chandler Parsons and his $24 million contract for the next two seasons in order to send them a combination like Evan Fournier ($17m) and Terrence Ross ($10.5m) or Jonathan Simmons ($6m). Alternatively they could find a Ross and Vucevic combination appealing because those two salaries would be off their books in 2019 to give them space to go after someone in free agency. It might be worth making a call if Doncic falls to four and we are high on him.

I personally would go for Ayton if I was the Suns. Try Booker back at PG, Jackson at SG, Warren at SF, Gordon at PF, and Ayton at C. They would have a young player at every starting position. I can see the appeal of Doncic, Booker, Jackson/Warren, Gordon and whoever they decide to pick at C. It would be interesting to see if Warren became available for trade or would they utilize him off the bench?

They would be a version of Brandon Jennings and Monte Ellis or Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum, which might have offensive potential, but defensively they could be terrible.

Very good player before injuries took his career.

I want to be optimistic and say this year's draft class is better and deeper, but that list makes for a fairly depressing read considering the only franchise changing talent is Damian Lillard, and the rest are so-so players. That list does seem to feature a lot of role players, but I'd add Gallinari as a next tier down guy from Lillard. His production in Denver was 16 point per game average and shot a respectable .366 from three point range. If he could stay healthy he's a capable second option on the offensive end kinda like Rudy Gay. Gallinari is probably not an all star caliber player but he can score and help space the floor. We could do worse than add that type of player to our team, but ideally our player would stay healthy!

For that line up to be a contender Oladipo and Gordon would need to be all stars with Harris, Fournier and Vuecvic playing to a borderline all star level. For me I'd agree with @HeHateMe, that line up looks like a 7th seed at best. Agreed, that line up does look like a 7th seed, but if Oladipo and Gordon became perennial all stars, while Harris, Vucevic and Fournier played to a good level, that line up could be competitive in the eastern conference because it's pretty well rounded. I doubt we'd win any defensive accolades but from an offensive stand point that five can all score, plus Harris was decent from 3 point range, while Oladipo and Fournier were acceptable. So floor spacing shouldn't be a major issue. Like I said it looks like a 7th seed, but in the east it could spring a surprise depending on how the top four seed plays.

Clifford wouldn't have been my choice. I would have been trying to find our Brad Stevens or Brett Brown. Someone that can come in and put in place the philosophy and style of basketball we want to play going forwards while we begin a new rebuild. Stay committed to them and hopefully win with them. I wanted our next coach to be here long term. Maybe Clifford has been hired for that very reason but I can't help but feel this is us going for another Skiles like coach to get us on track to compete for a play off spot next season rather than go all in on a youth development program.

I wouldn't rule out top five odds because Detroit, Charlotte, Chicago, Memphis, both LA teams, Denver, Dallas, and possibly Sacramento will all look to get better next season. The Knicks might tank with KP injured, the Nets might tank now they own their draft picks, and Atlanta and Phoenix both look years from being competitive without significant moves. Unless our first round pick this year comes in and makes a Donovan Mitchell like impact, or we make substantial moves in free agency or through trades, or a player has an all star breakout, I'd fancy us to have top ten odds in the lottery next year if not top five if we don't make attempts to get better. It depends on the outlook of this front office. Are we going to be competitive and get better, or are we going to tank and gut this roster to start over with this front office's picks (i.e. Isaac, this year's pick etc)?

It's an interesting deal. If given a choice I'd probably take Rozier/Brown and the picks because I'm not totally sold on Bamba being what this team needs in today's NBA. However, I'm not sure Boston needs to go with that deal because it really doesn't seem to benefit them. It makes sense to get something back for Rozier, but I wouldn't be selling the 2019 Sacramento pick because that could be a very high value pick if they struggle next season. Maybe package Rozier and #27 for a proven veteran, but I wouldn't be giving up too much because Boston are well set going forward and in a sense they might be wise to keep Rozier as insurance for the often injured Kyrie.

I'd agree that we should stay patient and not try to do some quick fix, however if you look at John Hammond's record with Milwaukee from 2008 they didn't spend seasons tanking. They tried to turn things around as quickly as possible and that potentially is what we might try to do because we've spent long enough at the bottom. There might be a belief that Isaac, Gordon and this year's first round pick is the core we will build around, and we'll make moves to upgrade the other spots through trades and free agency. It wouldn't surprise me if the desire for next season is to improve the win count and try to make a push for the play offs rather than tank for a top five pick. I'd certainly be surprised if we tried for a top five pick the next two seasons. I could be wrong and maybe we will tank a couple more seasons but I don't see that being this front office's M.O because both our GM and President came from teams that rebuilt on the fly rather than spent lots of time tanking.

Let's be patient and see what happens. We tried to replicate the OKC/San Antonio method under Rob Hennigan and Jacque Vaughn and it didn't work. Now we have gone down a different route by hiring personnel with experience in Milwaukee and Toronto, so hiring a coach like Clifford fits a more veteran orientated approach, and we'll see what happens because maybe Clifford gets the best out of these players and we improved significantly next season, and the front office nail their draft picks and we get a star. It's not all doom and gloom. Is Clifford a flashy hire? Nope, but let's give it a chance.

I think we do need to give Steve Clifford some credit for his time with Charlotte because as the Bobcats they had generally been terrible, but from his first season the Bobcats (now Hornets) improved and became more competitive. In his first season with them they finished with a 43-39 record, which was 22 wins more than the previous season, and they made the play offs. In his third season they won 48 games and took Miami to seven games in the play offs. His first three seasons they finished in the top ten defensively and the past two they have still had positive ratings. So there are positives to his time in Charlotte and I'd argue that their front office didn't do a great job in supporting him, which is why they have cleared house. Is he a good hire for us? I'm not sure. We have tried the veteran coach the past two times and not had much success. I think this hire points towards our front office's desire to be better defensively, be more competitive and win more games. Hopefully Clifford can get the most out of our existing roster, but how much we can improve with our current collection of players is debatable. In Charlotte his first season was boosted by the arrival of Al Jefferson and in his third I think they acquired Nic Batum and Jeremy Lin. So if we are to see a significant improvement next season i suspect moves will need to be made to get an upgrade at certain positions otherwise we'll continue to see 20-30 win basketball. Fingers crossed this hire works out for us.

I guess I could see Ayton, JJJ, Bamba, Bagley, Doncic, Young, Mikal, Carter or Sexton going in the top eight. But I very much doubt the Knicks would pass on Porter if he's there at 9, he's a perfect pick for them because he can play SF with KP at PF, or PF with KP at C. But if they passed on him, the 76ers would be silly not to stash him, the Hornets could use him, and the Clippers would be silly not to take a gamble with one of their picks.

Not necessarily. For the conspiracy theorists out there the non-calls on Harden in the third quarter on those three point attempts are "evidence" that the game was rigged for the Warriors. I personally don't see it that way. The Rockets got their tactics wrong in the second half and that's what cost them, not the refs. But hey some people do look for things that aren't there when something doesn't go their way.

They led by like 11 points at half time by driving to the basket and taking good three point shots. I'd love to know the reason why they changed tactic in the third quarter to try and out shoot the Warriors. Had they continued to grind it out like they did in the first half they would have probably won that game, but by changing tactic and missing all those threes they cost themselves a finals place. You can't afford to come away with that many empty possessions against the Warriors, in fact most teams to some extent would have taken advantage of the Rockets stupidity. They only started to go back to what they did in the first half when they had fallen behind, by that point it was a lost cause. I'm not going to suggest that game was fixed like some fans have, but the Rockets certainly did throw away victory with their stupidity. Their head coach needs to rethink his tactics and Harden needs to take a long look at himself because without Chris Paul he doesn't seem able to carry that team to the next level. In fact Gordon showed more fight in the second half than Harden, especially towards the end. Just going to throw this out there, but anyone think Chris Paul will walk in free agency?

Good point. The only thing in our favor is they already have Irving's backup in Rozier under contract for next season and hold his rights, and they could draft a backup shooting guard like Donte DiVincenzo late in the first round. So perhaps some team could be able to pry him away from them because they will not want to over pay Smart and tie themselves to a burdensome contract, but in their situation I could see them matching any sensible offer because he adds a lot to their second unit. Not many teams can boast talent like him off the bench. For me, I wouldn't overpay him. I think we should look elsewhere.

The issue with Marcus Smart is that he is not really a true point guard because he's not a top passer, and as a shooting guard he's solid defensively but offensively he's streaky and isn't really an accurate shooter. So unless he does something unexpected and breaks out as a star on a different team that pays and features him, then I would say his best fit would be on a play off team because he can provide them production off the bench leading their second unit and is more than capable of starting if required. But I am not sure he's a good fit for us because he's not really a true point guard and he's not a lights out shooter or scorer to make him ideal at shooting guard.

I'd rather have Mikal than Bamba as well, but that's on the basis that Mikal projects to be a very good 3 and D player that can play SG and SF. In today's NBA he can stay on the floor at crunch time in the play offs whereas Bamba would be riding the pine if he doesn't develop offensively (unless of course we follow Utah and keep our big on the floor). The other reason I'd take Mikal is it would fit with what we've got here. Mikal, Isaac and Gordon would be pretty good defensively and in small ball can all slide up a spot to SF PF and C to allow other shooters onto the court. In normal line ups having them at SG SF and PF gives us a good core. Mikal has a high floor as a 3 and D guy, so he's not ideal at 6 but he's a very safe pick whereas Trae Young carries risk because of his size, Bamba might never develop offensively and although he should be good defensively those types of bigs aren't playing prominent roles in the play offs, Sexton is a project shooter and if he doesn't put it together he's Payton mark II, and Carter is a decent all round talent but if he doesn't take his skills to the next level he could be another O'Quinn. So other prospects with potentially higher ceilings might not offer the same floor as Mikal. Also, if Mikal develops offensively he could become a potential all star. So he's not one dimensional as many think because sometimes players like this surprise us (e.g. Leonard). Ideally we want a star at 6, but we could do worse than draft a high floor guy like Mikal and bet on him being the next Butler or Leonard unheralded pick.

Perhaps, but Schroder does give them a proven talent to pair with Ntilikina in their back court. At 19 they could then target Porter or Spellman if they want a PF/C, or there's other decent prospects. A pick like 30 or 33 could get them Hutchinson. Like you, I think Trae is their ideal pick, but Schroder will tempt someone to trade for him.

True, things might change and teams might go away from small ball line ups, but it would require a Utah title or two to change people's minds because if the West is dominated by the Rockets and Warriors (or another team that plays in the same manner) and the same occurs in the East, then I don't envisage a significant change when we are ready to compete. For me, I'd rather see us lay the foundation now because that way we aren't left scrambling seasons from now trying to reshape our roster to fit current trends. We are better off drafting and signing players that fit how we want to play long term and investing in their development. If that's going for elite defense with acceptable offense without relying on three point shooting, go for prospects that fit that criteria. However, if we want to play positionless basketball and shoot there's at a good rate, go for the prospects that fit that criteria. It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to trade him to an existing lottery team for another pick. Would a team like the Knicks consider Schroder and #19 (maybe #30 or #33 as well) for #9 if Trae Young or Collin Sexton are there? If Schroder want a out and they can package him and get a replacement that could be an option for them. I think he's a good player for teams to consider, especially on that contract.

Can we afford to draft another project on the offensive end? We already have a project with Jonathan Isaac, that would mean we would have two athletic and lengthy players in our front court that could be liabilities at the offensive end if they don't develop as predicted. I don't doubt they can make contributions defensively, but in today's NBA teams need to have players on the court that can shoot and score, while playing acceptable defense. It would interesting to see what we could do if we did go against the grain and tried to win a championship based on elite defense, but considering teams are scoring over a 100 points per night it would be very difficult to win a best of seven series based on defense alone. We would need to have a scoring back court and Gordon would need to become a more consistent shooter and scorer as well if we put two defensively minded and offensively limited players on the court. I can see the appeal of Bamba but his selection worries me if he doesn't develop offensively because in today's NBA he would be riding the pine for lengthy periods of time unless we decided to go against the grain.