Jump to content
Bauncey Chillups

2018 NBA Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, ?4thewin said:

No we don't have the defensive players to cover for them. That's the whole point. You can't cover for a poor defensive player like Trae anymore because of the way teams head hunt specific mismatches. Even if you had Rudy Gobert back there a team like Toronto is just going to play ibaka at the five to pull gobert away from the basket, isolate Trae on DeRozan in a spread pick and roll (without the roll) and take him to the basket over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. 

We saw this a couple years ago with James harden when he didn't care about defense at all. He put up 29 and 8 on offense and was surrounded by Beverley, Ariza, and Dwight on defense. That team was the 7th best offensive team but 21st on defense. They only won 41 games and were bounced in 5 games in the first round. Harden was able to improve to average on defense because he has enough size and athleticism and look at the difference it made. 

Do you think it's reasonable to expect Trae to be a harden level offensive player? Because that's the only way he becomes a better than average starting point guard. 

Couldn't we kinda limit the head hunting of Trae by not switching? It will take discipline and good coaching, but teach guys to fight (which I think Trae can do) through screens and try to avoid the switch. If you do switch, find a way to rotate effectively where Trae ends up on man sitting in the corner. IDK. not saying he won't get targeted, especially early in his career, but there's gotta be a way to mask his liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so I just read this thread starting with the potential Memphis trade, and am just wondering if you guys are crazy.

Why would we trade any picks if we are taking back Parsons, almost no matter what the combination of players sent over is? Parsons has a bloated contract, a bad injury history, and is years removed from his last decent season. Taking him is the price for the pick. If you trade them Vuch and and Ross, they get out from under Parson's contract one year quicker, and likely still get the better players in the deal (of already NBA players.) If you trade Fournier and Mack, they get basically 11 million in immediate savings and a better player on a longer,  cheaper, and more manageable contract in Fournier. 

Both trades would shore up their wing position with either Fournier or Ross, which, if they think a healthy Conley puts them back in the running for a playoff spot, would put them in a good position. They both also could save money for Memphis. Does Memphis do it? probably not. Should we do it? If we can get that deal, fine, but not if we are having to throw additional picks into the pool. At most, throw a second rounder in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Odin said:

Wait, so I just read this thread starting with the potential Memphis trade, and am just wondering if you guys are crazy.

Why would we trade any picks if we are taking back Parsons, almost no matter what the combination of players sent over is? Parsons has a bloated contract, a bad injury history, and is years removed from his last decent season. Taking him is the price for the pick. If you trade them Vuch and and Ross, they get out from under Parson's contract one year quicker, and likely still get the better players in the deal (of already NBA players.) If you trade Fournier and Mack, they get basically 11 million in immediate savings and a better player on a longer,  cheaper, and more manageable contract in Fournier. 

Both trades would shore up their wing position with either Fournier or Ross, which, if they think a healthy Conley puts them back in the running for a playoff spot, would put them in a good position. They both also could save money for Memphis. Does Memphis do it? probably not. Should we do it? If we can get that deal, fine, but not if we are having to throw additional picks into the pool. At most, throw a second rounder in there.

Because the next 2 years don’t matter. We are gonna suck either way. The point is to obtain the best possible prospects the next 2 years and at that time, when Biz and Parsons come off the books, we can look to add free agents to our core of young talent. 

I honestly do not understand people that have an issue with taking on another bad contract for 2 more years. It means nothing to us. It’s not costing you money. It’s not hurting the team develop. We aren’t signing any big free agents this year or next anyways. Parsons contract fits in with our timeline of being competitive again when he comes off the books. If he can help net us a higher tier prospect that could potentially be the cornerstone player this team has lacked since Dwight left—you don’t hesitate to make that move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nyce_1 said:

Couldn't we kinda limit the head hunting of Trae by not switching? It will take discipline and good coaching, but teach guys to fight (which I think Trae can do) through screens and try to avoid the switch. If you do switch, find a way to rotate effectively where Trae ends up on man sitting in the corner. IDK. not saying he won't get targeted, especially early in his career, but there's gotta be a way to mask his liability.

There really isn’t. Do we mask Vuch’s poor defense? Did the Cavs not get curry on the switch whenever they wanted? If you aren’t a good defender in the nba your gonna get exposed. There are obviously ways to try and cover it up but the great offensive teams are gonna get the matchups they want regardless. Young will always be a liability on that end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HeHateMe said:

Because the next 2 years don’t matter. We are gonna suck either way. The point is to obtain the best possible prospects the next 2 years and at that time, when Biz and Parsons come off the books, we can look to add free agents to our core of young talent. 

I honestly do not understand people that have an issue with taking on another bad contract for 2 more years. It means nothing to us. It’s not costing you money. It’s not hurting the team develop. We aren’t signing any big free agents this year or next anyways. Parsons contract fits in with our timeline of being competitive again when he comes off the books. 

I don't have a problem with taking the bad contract. I have a problem taking a bad contract AND giving up a potentially valuable pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Odin said:

I don't have a problem with taking the bad contract. I have a problem taking a bad contract AND giving up a potentially valuable pick.

In a perfect deal we would keep 4 too. 

Ross, next year’s first with slight protections, give them 2 seconds if they want too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Odin said:

I don't have a problem with taking the bad contract. I have a problem taking a bad contract AND giving up a potentially valuable pick.

In a perfect deal we would keep 4 too. 

Ross, next year’s first with slight protections, give them 2 seconds if they want too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mauro Pedrosa said:

Nash won 2 mvps, Curry won 2 mvps. I don't necessarily think Young will be the best player on a championship team (I believe the point guard should be the sidekick to a star wing) but yeah, I think the sky is the limit for Young offensively

Was Nash really the MVP those years or did the media just get overly excited about a guy with a lot of assists?

I'd argue 04-05 he wasn't even the best player on his own team. 16th in PER. 15th in win shares. 61st in box score plus minus. 50th in VORP.

He's statistically has the worst two MVP seasons of any player since free agency existed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Odin said:

Wait, so I just read this thread starting with the potential Memphis trade, and am just wondering if you guys are crazy.

Why would we trade any picks if we are taking back Parsons, almost no matter what the combination of players sent over is? Parsons has a bloated contract, a bad injury history, and is years removed from his last decent season. Taking him is the price for the pick. If you trade them Vuch and and Ross, they get out from under Parson's contract one year quicker, and likely still get the better players in the deal (of already NBA players.) If you trade Fournier and Mack, they get basically 11 million in immediate savings and a better player on a longer,  cheaper, and more manageable contract in Fournier. 

Both trades would shore up their wing position with either Fournier or Ross, which, if they think a healthy Conley puts them back in the running for a playoff spot, would put them in a good position. They both also could save money for Memphis. Does Memphis do it? probably not. Should we do it? If we can get that deal, fine, but not if we are having to throw additional picks into the pool. At most, throw a second rounder in there.

I'm not sure what's hard to understand. As a team with limited tradeable assets, this is exactly what we should be doing; taking on bad contracts for assets. It's using what we have, which is the ability to be patient (because we don't really have a choice). If someone wants salary relief or to get out of a bad contract, we should pounce on that. We would need to throw in a future pick because it's not some random first rounder we're asking for, but the 4th pick. Teams just don't give away the 4th pick. It's good for us because Parsons doesn't hurt us at all. So we're trading some combination of Fournier/Vuc and Ross/Mack for the surety of the 4th pick against whatever next year's pick will be.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s up to trae if he wants to work on defense or not. It’s about effort and desire. You can be limited athletically and still be good at defense. Does he want to be an all star or a chucker?  You can’t predict what the outcome will be by watching one year in college. I take that chance on him because he has that talent on the offense that we haven’t seen since curry. It’s really simple what side of the floor do you want a project? Some of the top draft picks are projects on both sides of the floor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ?4thewin said:

Was Nash really the MVP those years or did the media just get overly excited about a guy with a lot of assists?

I'd argue 04-05 he wasn't even the best player on his own team. 16th in PER. 15th in win shares. 61st in box score plus minus. 50th in VORP.

He's statistically has the worst two MVP seasons of any player since free agency existed. 

I would be thrilled to have the player with the worst two MVP seasons! Sign me up! 

 

Trae is boom or bust. That's the story and at this point I hope we don't draft him just so this board can move on to a more interesting debate like "Can Bamba shoot 3's" or "Does a Gordon-Bagley-Isaac lineup work"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fan for too long 2 said:

It’s up to trae if he wants to work on defense or not. It’s about effort and desire. You can be limited athletically and still be good at defense. Does he want to be an all star or a chucker?  You can’t predict what the outcome will be by watching one year in college. I take that chance on him because he has that talent on the offense that we haven’t seen since curry. It’s really simple what side of the floor do you want a project? Some of the top draft picks are projects on both sides of the floor

Ehh effort and desire can only take you so far at the nba level. At some point your physical attributes are gonna either make or break you. 

I compare it to football with an elite corner that’s 5”10 vs even an average WR that’s 6”4. You can be in the best position possible but if it’s a 50/50 jump ball the 6”4 guy is gonna win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×