Official 2016 Draft Thread

[Phenom]

For the first time this season, when I looked at the standings, instead of looking at conference to see the playoff picture, I looked at league standings to see our draft position.

[TeamRicky [enjin:6648771]]

I noticed a couple things on Nbadraft.net's most recent mock. Skal Labissiere is no longer in the mock and Jamal Murray is sliding. Their top 5 are Simmons, Ingram, Brown, Dunn and Rabb.

[TheFuture]

These are the players im currently paying attention to not named Ben Simmons.

Bigs : Skal Labissiere, Dragan Bender, Jakob Poeltl, Henry Ellenson, Domantas Sabonis, Ivan Rabb. I'm really high on Domantas Sabonis and Jakob Poeltl.

Wings: Denzel Valentine, Jaylen Brown, Taurean Prince.

PGs: I like a lot of the PGs in this draft. The favorites being Kris Dunn, Wade Baldwin, and Gary Payton II. All 3 are great defenders, while Dunn and Baldwin are decent 3pt shooters as well. Demetrius Jackson and Melo Trimble are 2 others.

Valentine and Payton are not the sexy picks, but they may be the 2 who would step in right away and contribute. Both should be available in the late 1st, so that opens up a trade back. If we don't get Simmons, and have a top 2 or 3 pick (Cool says we will, so we will!) id prefer to trade back to pick up either Domantas Sabonis/Jakob Poeltl and Valentine/Payton.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Need to turn focus towards Brandon Ingram. That guy might have the highest ceiling in this draft, including Ben Simmons.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Need to turn focus towards Brandon Ingram. That guy might have the highest ceiling in this draft, including Ben Simmons.

I feel like that between LaVine, Wiggins, and Towns, we've hit our "high upside, but is young and has to fill out more" quota. I mean, how many more 19/20 year old kids do we really need on this roster?

And one thing seems to be true with even the most promising rookies: They almost always are a net negative in their first year.

I don't know - I almost feel like trading down and getting a guy that actually has a track record of producing and having filled out is a better route to go this year (like a Denzell Valentine type). Or just trade the pick for a young-ish veteran that has taken a few laps around league and knows what he's doing out there.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Need to turn focus towards Brandon Ingram. That guy might have the highest ceiling in this draft, including Ben Simmons.

I feel like that between LaVine, Wiggins, and Towns, we've hit our "high upside, but is young and has to fill out more" quota. I mean, how many more 19/20 year old kids do we really need on this roster?

And one thing seems to be true with even the most promising rookies: They almost always are a net negative in their first year.

I don't know - I almost feel like trading down and getting a guy that actually has a track record of producing and having filled out is a better route to go this year (like a Denzell Valentine type). Or just trade the pick for a young-ish veteran that has taken a few laps around league and knows what he's doing out there.

I'm not opposed to trading the pick, but I just don't see many young-ish veterans that I'd trade for that would actually be available. And I'd rather not water down a top-five pick by going for four-year college players that have limited upside. They're harder to project in today's game, in my opinion.

PS: Ingram's absolute floor is a 6'9/6'10 legitimate 3/D player. Just turned 18 on September 2nd. Second youngest player in the class. Youth is one of his selling points.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Need to turn focus towards Brandon Ingram. That guy might have the highest ceiling in this draft, including Ben Simmons.

I feel like that between LaVine, Wiggins, and Towns, we've hit our "high upside, but is young and has to fill out more" quota. I mean, how many more 19/20 year old kids do we really need on this roster?

And one thing seems to be true with even the most promising rookies: They almost always are a net negative in their first year.

I don't know - I almost feel like trading down and getting a guy that actually has a track record of producing and having filled out is a better route to go this year (like a Denzell Valentine type). Or just trade the pick for a young-ish veteran that has taken a few laps around league and knows what he's doing out there.

Never draft for who can help the most immediately. Always draft for who can help you the most in 5 years especially when talking about a lottery pick. Which is more important? Being better than someone for the first couple years in the league or being better than them during your prime years? I would argue prime years because that's when you're at your overall best. People wanted Parker over Wiggins because he was more NBA ready. Even if Parker didn't get injured that would have been what, 1-2 years being better before Wiggins passed him for the duration of their careers? Would that have been worth picking Parker over Wiggins because he would have been better (and was better pre-injury) right out of the gate? You pick the guy who's gonna be best in 5 years and you take the time to develop him and not worry about short term success. If we get a top 3 pick we need to come out with Simmons, Ingram or Skal no matter what. They're the 3 guys who project to be the best given time for development. Flip swung for the fences on Zach and now there was an insider article posted about a week ago saying we got 2 of the current 3 best players in that draft class in Wiggins and Zach. That's why you draft the guys with the high potential over who's going to help you the most now. You do have to be careful though. We were lucky that Zach is by all accounts a gym rat. If he wasn't then someone that raw ends up being like an Anthony Randolph so be sure when you pick someone that they're gonna put the work in.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Need to turn focus towards Brandon Ingram. That guy might have the highest ceiling in this draft, including Ben Simmons.

I feel like that between LaVine, Wiggins, and Towns, we've hit our "high upside, but is young and has to fill out more" quota. I mean, how many more 19/20 year old kids do we really need on this roster?

And one thing seems to be true with even the most promising rookies: They almost always are a net negative in their first year.

I don't know - I almost feel like trading down and getting a guy that actually has a track record of producing and having filled out is a better route to go this year (like a Denzell Valentine type). Or just trade the pick for a young-ish veteran that has taken a few laps around league and knows what he's doing out there.

I'm not opposed to trading the pick, but I just don't see many young-ish veterans that I'd trade for that would actually be available. And I'd rather not water down a top-five pick by going for four-year college players that have limited upside. They're harder to project in today's game, in my opinion.

PS: Ingram's absolute floor is a 6'9/6'10 legitimate 3/D player. Just turned 18 on September 2nd. Second youngest player in the class. Youth is one of his selling points.

I haven't really thought about much who might be available that I'd like in terms of trading the pick, so I really have no idea. I also agree that if we end up in the top 5 and don't trade out of it, then yeah, we pretty much have to go with a high upside young dude. I'm just tired of waiting for these guys to get good. LaVine and Wiggins logged thousands of minutes last season and neither have showed much progress as 2nd year vets. LaVine has been downright awful of late.

While I appreciate your knowledge of the college game, it's hard for me to take very serious any absolute declaration on a player like Ingram (in this case, what his floor is). Even the best college prospect prognosticators and front offices miss badly on occasion.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Need to turn focus towards Brandon Ingram. That guy might have the highest ceiling in this draft, including Ben Simmons.

I feel like that between LaVine, Wiggins, and Towns, we've hit our "high upside, but is young and has to fill out more" quota. I mean, how many more 19/20 year old kids do we really need on this roster?

And one thing seems to be true with even the most promising rookies: They almost always are a net negative in their first year.

I don't know - I almost feel like trading down and getting a guy that actually has a track record of producing and having filled out is a better route to go this year (like a Denzell Valentine type). Or just trade the pick for a young-ish veteran that has taken a few laps around league and knows what he's doing out there.

Never draft for who can help the most immediately. Always draft for who can help you the most in 5 years especially when talking about a lottery pick. Which is more important? Being better than someone for the first couple years in the league or being better than them during your prime years? I would argue prime years because that's when you're at your overall best. People wanted Parker over Wiggins because he was more NBA ready. Even if Parker didn't get injured that would have been what, 1-2 years being better before Wiggins passed him for the duration of their careers? Would that have been worth picking Parker over Wiggins because he would have been better (and was better pre-injury) right out of the gate? You pick the guy who's gonna be best in 5 years and you take the time to develop him and not worry about short term success. If we get a top 3 pick we need to come out with Simmons, Ingram or Skal no matter what. They're the 3 guys who project to be the best given time for development. Flip swung for the fences on Zach and now there was an insider article posted about a week ago saying we got 2 of the current 3 best players in that draft class in Wiggins and Zach. That's why you draft the guys with the high potential over who's going to help you the most now. You do have to be careful though. We were lucky that Zach is by all accounts a gym rat. If he wasn't then someone that raw ends up being like an Anthony Randolph so be sure when you pick someone that they're gonna put the work in.

Sure, that's the common-held belief. But I would argue that answering the question of who will help you more in 5 years is a lot harder than you think and it's not always determined by one's ability to jump high and run fast at age 18.

As for the guys you mention, at least Ingram and Simmons are actually very productive players as freshman, so I don't necessarily have a problem with them. Potential is what potential does.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Need to turn focus towards Brandon Ingram. That guy might have the highest ceiling in this draft, including Ben Simmons.

I feel like that between LaVine, Wiggins, and Towns, we've hit our "high upside, but is young and has to fill out more" quota. I mean, how many more 19/20 year old kids do we really need on this roster?

And one thing seems to be true with even the most promising rookies: They almost always are a net negative in their first year.

I don't know - I almost feel like trading down and getting a guy that actually has a track record of producing and having filled out is a better route to go this year (like a Denzell Valentine type). Or just trade the pick for a young-ish veteran that has taken a few laps around league and knows what he's doing out there.

I'm not opposed to trading the pick, but I just don't see many young-ish veterans that I'd trade for that would actually be available. And I'd rather not water down a top-five pick by going for four-year college players that have limited upside. They're harder to project in today's game, in my opinion.

PS: Ingram's absolute floor is a 6'9/6'10 legitimate 3/D player. Just turned 18 on September 2nd. Second youngest player in the class. Youth is one of his selling points.

I haven't really thought about much who might be available that I'd like in terms of trading the pick, so I really have no idea. I also agree that if we end up in the top 5 and don't trade out of it, then yeah, we pretty much have to go with a high upside young dude. I'm just tired of waiting for these guys to get good. LaVine and Wiggins logged thousands of minutes last season and neither have showed much progress as 2nd year vets. LaVine has been downright awful of late.

While I appreciate your knowledge of the college game, it's hard for me to take very serious any absolute declaration on a player like Ingram (in this case, what his floor is). Even the best college prospect prognosticators and front offices miss badly on occasion.

They're 20 year old sophomores for crying out loud.

Tell me who's who as sophomores.

12.1/5.6/2.4/1.6 30 MPG's
20.4/3.8/1.7/.79 35 MPG's

13.4/3.1/3.2/.6 24 MPG's
8.6/4.0/1.4/1.0 26 MPG's

The answers are PG13 compared to Wiggins and Lavine compared to Jimmy Butler. So Wiggins is slightly behind PG13 at this point overall and Lavine is slightly ahead of Butler at this point. Butler in fact didn't click until his 4th year. Expecting 2nd year players to do even more than they already are seems greatly impatient. You might want to come back down to earth and join the rest of us because your expectations seem too high for such young players. Love didn't turn it on until year 3 either for us either so I'm not sure why you are expecting so much out of sophomores just because they played a bunch on a horrible team as rookies. It typically takes 3 years so I'm not sure why you're impatient during the second year. If we're in the same spot next year then I'd get impatient.