SameOldDrew wrote:khans2k5 wrote:SameOldDrew wrote:thedoper wrote:Draft picks should all be about talent. If Tatum falls he is that guy. Otherwise we take Monk or DSJ. Positional fit and intanglibles pale in comparison to talent in my mind when drafting a player. You sign hustle/glue guys. You draft the guy who has the most talent who can be a star. The great thing about this draft is there may be multiple players who could end up having a big impact.
I totally agree draft picks should all be about talent. But there are key talents other than iso scoring that every team needs. For my money, getting the best, most versatile defender, the best 3 point shooter, and the best shot intimidator are equally valuable to the best scorer. This is why I'd put Monk or possibly even Markkanen into the conversation for the 7 pick as the best 3 point shooters, that's why I'd consider trading down for Anunoby as the best, most versatile defender, and that's why I was kind of interested in Jeanne as a shot-blocker before the unfortunate diagnosis, and why Anigbogu and Zach Collins interest me a bit for the same reason. All three of those are crucial skills in the NBA, and they've become even more important in recent years, even as isolation and mid-range play has shrunk in importance.
Guys like Markkanen, Anunoby, Anigbogu, and Collins are definitely less likely to get voted to an All-Star game than Tatum (I do think Monk could potentially become an All Star), but I feel like the impact they could have could be as valuable as Tatum's, or even more valuable on a team like ours (with the exception of Makkanen though, who I think is going to get destroyed defensively, so he needs to end up on a great defensive team, which isn't us). Given our roster's makeup with LaVine, Wiggins and Towns already, I feel like we need versatile defense, 3 point shooting, and shot intimidation more than iso scoring, so I can see seriously considering getting the guy who can do one of those the best over the best scorer. I'm not saying draft for fit over talent. I'm saying defense, 3 point shooting, and shot-blocking are ALSO talents. And if somebody is as good at defense, as good at 3 point shooting, or as good at shot-blocking as Tatum is at iso scoring, then I'd consider them even.
It's kind of my hope, assuming Jackson is gone at 7 and Anunoby keeps dropping far enough on big boards, that we could trade down and get Anunoby plus a first rounder next year to make up for the loss of next year's pick!
In terms of drafting scorers and signing free agents to do the rest, I'm not sure it's that easy to sign guys who are very good in those three areas, especially these days. Likewise, scorers like Carmelo and Rudy Gay earned reputations over the years for not helping their teams despite their scoring, and the league is starting to recognize this. Today, very good scorers like Okafor and Kanter are almost definitely available because they don't help in other ways, and guys who used to be dismissed as role players are being recognized for the importance of their contributions.
Now that I've laid out the case for not automatically taking him if he's there at 7, watch Tatum become the next Paul Pierce or Paul George!
The problem with that argument is it doesn't always translate. Look at a guy like Stauskas or Jimmer. Elite shooters at the college level and it just didn't translate to the pros. Drafting a guy who is only "elite" at shooting like Markkanen is an extremely dangerous proposition if it just doesn't click out to the NBA 3 point line. Tatum can score and rebound. He's a very good rebounder for his size and he has the potential to be a good defender as well. Heck, Tatum grabbed more boards per game than Markkanen and Lauri has a big height advantage on him. He's not just an iso scorer. He's a good rebounder and dished out 2 assists a game as well. You say it's not a fit argument, but it just is when you consider Monk and Markkanen's shooting and OG's defense and whoever's shot blocking as equalizer's to a guy of Tatum's talent level because he's just a scorer. If those were true equalizer's those guys would be in the conversation in the top 5 like he is. Tatum does fit our team in the modern NBA after he adds some weight and plays small ball 4 for us. Meanwhile Lauri gets torched in that look, Monk may not even be on the court to end games and OG might be Aminu and can't give you almost any offense and makes you play 4 on 5 which becomes 3 on 5 with Ricky. To me that's focusing too much on fit trying to make them equalizer's to talent when talent usually wins out in this league. Tatum may not be a great fit now, but add a corner 3pt shot and play tough hard nosed defense under Thibs and he becomes a great fit with what we have and makes us a very difficult team to defend.
I'm saying if talent is equal, then yes, you should consider fit. And I'm suggesting we consider whether being the best player at something other than scoring can be considered equal talent to being the best scorer.
For years now, collective wisdom has said no, and lots of teams have chosen to take higher scorers while passing up versatile defenders like Kawhi and Draymond, shot-blockers like Gobert, 3 point shooters like Klay, and multi-skilled physical freaks like Giannis. There have been busts who were not primarily iso scorers coming out of college as well, of course, but there have also been busts who were prolific college scorers. The draft is much more about luck than people think; I just don't want to overlook a great player because I'm too focused on scoring.
But if it's worth considering skills other than scoring as equal to scoring, then I think it broadens the conversation and we should consider whether some of those guys, like Monk, Anunoby, and (*sigh* pre-diagnosis Jeanne) could be equal to Tatum because they are the best at what they do while also bringing some other strengths. I'm not saying take a role playing specialist (that's why I dismiss Markkanen, because we don't have the defenders to hide him on that end). I'm saying we shouldn't only consider scoring, especially iso midrange scoring.
I agree, Tatum is likely to improve his 3 point shooting--as I pointed out on the previous page, his great FT% is a good sign in that regard, and that's one of the best predictors of ability to shoot the NBA 3. I'm not trying to trash Tatum here, just to broaden the conversation about whether he'd be the best player for us to take.
Also, for what it's worth, while some people have OG low on their draft boards (like DX, which seems like the source of everything some people argue on this board at times), he's really high on others. Check out the guys at the Ringer, all of whom are really smart guys. Two of them have Anunoby ranked ahead of Tatum. So if your only point of reference is DX, sure, it seems crazy to project a guy pegged at 22 over a guy projected at 4 or 5. But it's better to consider multiple perspectives, and especially if we can trade way down and get Anunoby and pick up a future first in the process, that's a really good deal in my book.
https://nbadraft.theringer.com
OG is low because he's all defense and athleticism while coming off a major knee injury. That could be his career as an effective basketball player being over before he plays a game based on his skillset. That's why he's lower than Tatum in most mocks. His career might be done before it starts so you are risking an awful lot at 7 with a guy like that. Sure you could trade down and get him and pick up another guy, but I personally don't believe even more young guys is the answer for this team. I don't believe in the quantity over quality approach to the draft. You pay scouts to figure out which one's have the skills and mentality to make it. It's just a matter of opinion at this point because you have those guys on the same level as Tatum and I have him a tier above. I see role player in all the guys you mentioned and I see a possible all-star in Tatum. I think they do all add to our team in one area. I don't think they do more than that though so I'd be happy to get one if we trade down, otherwise I'm taking the higher upside of Tatum.
