The draft is one week away, rank the 3 probable targets:

[MikkeMan]

I like Thorpe too, Jerry, and am not opposed to drafting Hield at 5 (although not my first choice), but I do have issues with some of Thorpe's assertions. I don't want to gin up the age discrimination discussion again, but Thorpe's comment that Hield would be #1 if he were a freshman this year is flawed logic. Hield as a freshman averaged only 8 PPG and only 24% on threes, not good enough to be the #1 pick in the draft. Thorpe means to say "If Hield put up in his freshman year the same stats he put up his senior year, he would be #1". I don't disagree, but it's an absurd concept. Hield's actual stats as a freshman is the only valid comparison we have to the other freshmen in this year's draft.

I also take issue with his assertion that Hield has been a very good long-distance shooter for the past three years. While he had a stellar senior year shooting 3's at 46%, his junior year 3-point 36% rate is only average. I'm always skeptical of college players who make a big leap ahead in shooting percentage their final year in college, because I often find it's not sustainable in the pros. Many of us (including me) fell for the Victor Oladipo hype when he dramatically improved his 3-point shooting his junior year to 44%, but in his first three years in the NBA he has proven to be what we should have known he was by his early college years...a below average 3-point shooter.

And I find the Steph Curry comparison flawed also. Curry shot over 41% on threes for his entire 3-year college career, and actually had his highest percentages his first two years.

I think Hield will likely be a pretty good NBA player, but I didn't find Thorpe's article about him to be his best work.

One counter example about guy whom shot three pointers well only in his senior season (41.8%) but has been even more successful in NBA is Danny Green. Of course he struggled in beginning to even get any minutes in NBA but even then he shot really well three pointers in D-league. Weirdest thing is that he shot terribly treys when he played one season in Europe. Even with shorter line he wasn't able to hit 30% of his 3-pointers but after joining Spurs, he had four consecutive seasons with better than 40% 3P%.

Wesley Matthews is maybe another valid example. He had good 3P% as freshman but since he hit just 14 three pointers, good 3P% was mainly just good luck. He struggled to hit 30% of his three pointers in next two seasons and finally asa senior he his 36.8% with pretty nice volume (42/114). He has beenmuch more successful in NBA from the very beginning.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Mikkeman, thanks for providing a couple examples of NCAA players who dramatically improved their 3-point shooting as seniors and are also competent 3-point shooters in the pros. I find it interesting that both of them have been primarily reserves in the NBA, and still think a big uptick in 3-point success as a senior has to be taken with a grain of salt.

While I am not opposed to selecting Hield with the first pick, I am also wary. There's a big difference, both physically and mentally, between 22 year-old seniors and 18 year-old freshman, and we should expect 22 year olds to dominate teenagers. That's why NBA executives are cautious about 4-year players, especially when their numbers jump up in their senior year.

I don't agree with those who say Hield was anything better than an average 3-point shooter his junior year (and then admittedly jumped way up his senior year)...the numbers just don't support that assertion. While 36% 3-point shooting sounds really good from a Wolves standpoint :) , it's really quite average at best in college with less effective defenses and a shorter line. One red flag for me is how Buddy shot the final 8 games of the season, in the conference and NCAA tournaments when defenses get much tougher...38% is respectable but not much above average in college, and a big drop from his 46% regular season rate. Case in point...there were 115 teams, not players, who shot better than 36% (Buddy's junior year percentage) last season. JJ Reddick is a 4-year player who has become an effective player in the NBA, but it must be noted that he was 40% or better on threes all 4 years at Duke.

Before selecting Hield, I want Thibs to fully understand how Hield jumped 10 percentage points (36% to 46%) from his junior year to his senior year, and to be confident that the improvement is sustainable. Did he change his form? Did Oklahoma change their offense to give him better looks? Did he dedicate himself to shooting in the offseason before his senior year, and spend much more time in the gym? Or since so much of shooting is a confidence thing, did Buddy's coach tell him before his senior year that he was the man on offense, and to have no qualms about putting up a shot every time he got the ball? I don't know the answer, but I suspect Thibs will. If we are looking for pure 3-point shooting though, Murray and Russell seem like safer options to me.

[bleedspeed]

I am in the camp of Bender or Murray or trade down.

Rather have a combo of players then Dunn/Hield. I am thinking a player out of tier 4 and 5.

http://minnesotasports.enjin.com/forum/m/15059925/viewthread/27524520-ford-2016-draft-tiers

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

I am in the camp of Bender or Murray or trade down.

Rather have a combo of players then Dunn/Hield. I am thinking a player out of tier 4 and 5.

http://minnesotasports.enjin.com/forum/m/15059925/viewthread/27524520-ford-2016-draft-tiers

Bleed, you have very concisely summarized where I am right now...although I would also add a straight-up trade for Russell to my preferences. Russell, Bender, and a combination of 2 players from tiers 4 and 5 are just slightly ahead of Murray for me. The next level for me would be Dunn, Hield, Brown and a trade for Butler, but as I have said before, I'm not going to be unhappy if Thibs goes that route.

[bleedspeed]

I just can't see how Murray goes before the 5th pick without a trade. I would rather have Russel and Okafor then Murray. I think I might take Bender before them all. He has the highest upside as a 2-way player in that group.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Mikkeman, thanks for providing a couple examples of NCAA players who dramatically improved their 3-point shooting as seniors and are also competent 3-point shooters in the pros. I find it interesting that both of them have been primarily reserves in the NBA, and still think a big uptick in 3-point success as a senior has to be taken with a grain of salt.

While I am not opposed to selecting Hield with the first pick, I am also wary. There's a big difference, both physically and mentally, between 22 year-old seniors and 18 year-old freshman, and we should expect 22 year olds to dominate teenagers. That's why NBA executives are cautious about 4-year players, especially when their numbers jump up in their senior year.

I don't agree with those who say Hield was anything better than an average 3-point shooter his junior year (and then admittedly jumped way up his senior year)...the numbers just don't support that assertion. While 36% 3-point shooting sounds really good from a Wolves standpoint :) , it's really quite average at best in college with less effective defenses and a shorter line. One red flag for me is how Buddy shot the final 8 games of the season, in the conference and NCAA tournaments when defenses get much tougher...38% is respectable but not much above average in college, and a big drop from his 46% regular season rate. Case in point...there were 115 teams, not players, who shot better than 36% (Buddy's junior year percentage) last season. JJ Reddick is a 4-year player who has become an effective player in the NBA, but it must be noted that he was 40% or better on threes all 4 years at Duke.

Before selecting Hield, I want Thibs to fully understand how Hield jumped 10 percentage points (36% to 46%) from his junior year to his senior year, and to be confident that the improvement is sustainable. Did he change his form? Did Oklahoma change their offense to give him better looks? Did he dedicate himself to shooting in the offseason before his senior year, and spend much more time in the gym? Or since so much of shooting is a confidence thing, did Buddy's coach tell him before his senior year that he was the man on offense, and to have no qualms about putting up a shot every time he got the ball? I don't know the answer, but I suspect Thibs will. If we are looking for pure 3-point shooting though, Murray and Russell seem like safer options to me.

May be Hield's 3-point shot jumped because he simply got better. Obviously something clicked with the guy. Just given the sheer volume of 3's he made and the frequency with which those shots were contested tells me it wasn't some fluke.

And if he's our back-up 2, we don't exactly need him going out there and forcing up step-back 3s while being heavily guarded (a shot he made consistently last year). We need him to knock down open 3's, learn how to play NBA defense, and limit turnovers.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Hield made significant changes to his shooting form the summer before his senior year. That caused the increase. Half the OU games I watched (3-4 games) brought up that fact so I would bet it is well documented on the internet, but the jump came from a combination of a whole new shooting form and a new level of confidence in shooting when that form started working. That's why his work ethic is talked about so much by scouts. The guy was able to change his form and stick to the new form in one off-season of work. Most guys have a level of reverting back to old habits, but Buddy didn't. That takes hard work.

[kurrdog53 [enjin:7013678]]

My projections or hopes are as such...

1. Murray. I like Kentucky guys who can score. I am under the belief that Thibs can get anyone to play defense (I think he believes this too) so I am less worried about a 20 year old kid coming from college with a bad rap of playing defense.

2. Hield. I think he is the safest choice with an ability to help this team right away. His shooting is something this team desperately needs.

3. Dunn. I love Dunn's game but I am just not ready to turn the page on Rubio. Can they both co-exist? Yes, but for how long? If Dunn is a stud and we can trade Rubio, that adds value, but I do not like the chemistry issues it could create.

4. Bender. I would prefer that we trade down and Bender falls (very unlikely), but at 7 or later, he would be worth taking a chance on. I just fear teams seem him as the next Porzingis and he might be the next Darko.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Hield made significant changes to his shooting form the summer before his senior year. That caused the increase. Half the OU games I watched (3-4 games) brought up that fact so I would bet it is well documented on the internet, but the jump came from a combination of a whole new shooting form and a new level of confidence in shooting when that form started working. That's why his work ethic is talked about so much by scouts. The guy was able to change his form and stick to the new form in one off-season of work. Most guys have a level of reverting back to old habits, but Buddy didn't. That takes hard work.

Good info, Khans. I hadn't heard that...makes me feel better about the legitimacy of Hield's senior year.

[Hicks123 [enjin:6700838]]

I just can't see how Murray goes before the 5th pick without a trade. I would rather have Russel and Okafor then Murray. I think I might take Bender before them all. He has the highest upside as a 2-way player in that group.

I hear this a lot on this board. Why do we feel this way? Because he is tall and fairly agile? I ask because he has played so little, I don't know if he is even a capable '1 way player' let alone a 'two-way guy'. In his 10 Euro games he shot 40% from 2 and 25% from 3, and averaged 1 rpg. He is a 100% upside guy that has shown ZERO at this point. My opinion, but if the Zinger would have failed last year, Bender would probably be looked at as an early 2nd round stash type player. His performance to date certainly warrants nothing higher. An 18 year old player with little experience that has a chance to be good or bad....that's what I see. That, to me, is not worth anything near the top half of a fairly solid draft.