khans2k5 wrote:Simmons won't stop the 76ers from taking Ball. If he's there they would take him. They desperately need a PG and as much as Simmons might be a point forward, there's no guarantee he can do that as the primary guy. Even Lebron doesn't play PG every posession. You need multiple ball handlers and Ball/Simmons/Embiid would be huge for them because they'd just need to surround them with shooters and maybe defenders as well if they can get them (might not need them with how dominant they were defensively with Embiid in the game). Regardless I don't think Ball makes it to them. No way the Lakers take Jackson over Ball when they have Russell and Ingram.
My Predictions:
Celtics: Fultz
Lakers: Ball
76ers: Jackson
Suns: Tatum
Kings: Fox
Magic: Monk
Wolves: Isaac
Knicks: Smith
Mavs: Ntilikina
Kings: Anunoby
I think Collins and Markkanen drop just because of fit, but I think Collins could go to the Magic (replacing Vucevic), the Mavs to play behind Dirk for a year or us.
Solid predictions, Kahns. But I have the feeling that the Suns will grab Isaac. They're early in their rebuilding process and are positioned to wait on a talent like Isaac. Also, Isaac seems a better fit than Tatum for the more uptempo style the Suns' organization seems to want. So I think they'll go for upside and athleticism, which means Isaac over Tatum. They could take Fox or Smith, but with Bledsoe there I think they'll opt for Isaac. If I'm right, then Tatum and Monk will likely be on the board at #7 because I see the Kings and Magic set on drafting a potentially elite PG they can build around and that would mean Fox and Smith in that order unless Smith scares them away in interviews or with medical issues.
So that leads to my question. If I'm right and the Wolves can choose between Tatum, Monk, Anunoby and Zach Collins, who would you take?
The reason I didn't have Isaac going to the Suns is I think they need a more prototypical 3 like Tatum especially in the absence of Tucker now. I see Isaac as playing 3 as a necessity in the beginning, but eventually working his way up to the 4 which is where they just dedicated a lot of resources in last years draft with Chriss and Bender. I don't know how he can both add weight and stay on the wing. He's quick now because he's a twig, but put 30 lbs on him and I'm not willing to bet he can stay on the perimeter full time and he really shouldn't be there the whole game anyway with his rebounding and shot blocking skills. Tatum isn't ideal for them because of the shooting issues, but he's a solid prospect in his own right.
Of your list I would take Collins. Monk is an overlap with Zach (catch and shoot guy). Tatum is an overlap with Wiggins (scorer who doesn't really stretch the floor). Anunoby is too specialized for me at #7. His shooting regressed from behind the arc greatly in more attempts and his FT% doesn't make me believe he is all that close to being able to space an NBA floor. I think he's Roberson 2.0 which is not good enough to go at 7 for me. Meanwhile I don't see an overlap for Collins on the team (my optimistic side has him as a slot below KAT while playing very similarly overall). He's a very aggressive big which fits with our frontcourt as Dieng and Towns aren't really mixing it up with opposing bigs all that great right now. I think his mentality would be very welcome on this team to push Dieng and Towns to play harder and in Dieng's case possibly getting benched for a young aggressive big who wants to mix it up on the boards and in the paint. I like that we have 3 decent to good bigs in front of him in Belly, Towns and Dieng so he doesn't need to come in and play significant minutes right away so he can work on his foul issues and just develop into a more polished player. He has a great toolkit for Thibs to mold and seems to be the sky is the limit type of prospect when compared to the other 3 who each have major flaws in skill while Collins' biggest flaw is fouling too much.
I'd take Isaac if available. But if he's gone, I'd take Zach Collins for all the reasons you gave. He potentially brings in one player all the things Thibs is looking for: shot-blocking, toughness and 3-point shooting. I'm on a bit of a limb with the 3-point shooting, but he has a beautiful looking jump shot and showed very good range in college.
TheFuture wrote:Am I missing something here about Ball to the Lakers? Yes the Ball camp and the media has been driving that wagon for over half a year now, but have the lakers gave any inkling to Ball being the preferred player for them?
Hell, Fox or Jackson make plenty more sense for them. Don't act like they need to play the PR game either. that doesn't matter in LA if they are winning.
He's considered the second best prospect in the draft behind Fultz so going #2 to the Lakers makes sense. Fox just isn't even close to Ball's level so if they take a PG it will be whoever drops between Ball and Fultz. Jackson would seem to overlap with Ingram and Russell on the wing while Ball would be replacing Clarkson at the point which would be a better fit for them.
idk if the Lakers have reciprocated or not but like Kahns said Ball makes alot fo sense there. He is big and so he can guard multiple positions and suddenly you have fun mix of guards with Russell Clarkson and Ball that you might be able to even play all at the same time, All can theoretically handle the ball pass AND shoot. Add that Ingram is a versatile defender that probably will be able to do some positive things on offense at least as a complimentary player and its a pretty nice group that could play off each other well.
I'm curious about Ball being a better fit than Jackson in LA. Clarkson is not a factor here. Russell should have the ball in his hands, which is the same as Ball, Yes, ball fits defensively if you are convinced he can take the tougher matchup of the 1 or 2 guard and succeed. I'd prefer Jackson and Ingram shutting down the wings and take my chances in the PG PnR with Russell ( it will happen regardless of who is there defending).
TheFuture wrote:Am I missing something here about Ball to the Lakers? Yes the Ball camp and the media has been driving that wagon for over half a year now, but have the lakers gave any inkling to Ball being the preferred player for them?
Hell, Fox or Jackson make plenty more sense for them. Don't act like they need to play the PR game either. that doesn't matter in LA if they are winning.
He's considered the second best prospect in the draft behind Fultz so going #2 to the Lakers makes sense. Fox just isn't even close to Ball's level so if they take a PG it will be whoever drops between Ball and Fultz. Jackson would seem to overlap with Ingram and Russell on the wing while Ball would be replacing Clarkson at the point which would be a better fit for them.
idk if the Lakers have reciprocated or not but like Kahns said Ball makes alot fo sense there. He is big and so he can guard multiple positions and suddenly you have fun mix of guards with Russell Clarkson and Ball that you might be able to even play all at the same time, All can theoretically handle the ball pass AND shoot. Add that Ingram is a versatile defender that probably will be able to do some positive things on offense at least as a complimentary player and its a pretty nice group that could play off each other well.
I'm curious about Ball being a better fit than Jackson in LA. Clarkson is not a factor here. Russell should have the ball in his hands, which is the same as Ball, Yes, ball fits defensively if you are convinced he can take the tougher matchup of the 1 or 2 guard and succeed. I'd prefer Jackson and Ingram shutting down the wings and take my chances in the PG PnR with Russell ( it will happen regardless of who is there defending).
I think Ball is a better prospect than Russell. Ball would be the centerpiece creator with Russell being the secondary on the first unit and primary when Ball is off the court. You're putting all the faith in Russell to become a good PG by taking Jackson and frankly they have a high chance of getting PG13 next summer so why add another wing to push someone to the bench. Ball/PG13 is really their shot at relevancy again and if Russell/Ingram/Randle join them it would just be a bonus.
papalrep wrote:If George is going to the Lakers, put Gordon Hayward on the Celtics. The strong get stronger. I'm no expert, but I hope its someone besides Isaac we draft. Using Lip's statement that we need a fourth star, I'd rather have Dennis Smith or Markennen (sorry Ricky).
Who is up for taking a risk on OG Anunoby making a full recovery, and giving us a defensive stopper on the wing?
I'm curious about Ball being a better fit than Jackson in LA. Clarkson is not a factor here. Russell should have the ball in his hands, which is the same as Ball, Yes, ball fits defensively if you are convinced he can take the tougher matchup of the 1 or 2 guard and succeed. I'd prefer Jackson and Ingram shutting down the wings and take my chances in the PG PnR with Russell ( it will happen regardless of who is there defending).
I think Ball is a better prospect than Russell. Ball would be the centerpiece creator with Russell being the secondary on the first unit and primary when Ball is off the court. You're putting all the faith in Russell to become a good PG by taking Jackson and frankly they have a high chance of getting PG13 next summer so why add another wing to push someone to the bench. Ball/PG13 is really their shot at relevancy again and if Russell/Ingram/Randle join them it would just be a bonus.
I guess I'm not nearly as high on Ball. Kings would be the best scenario for both him and a team, my opinion.
We assume Isaac can fulfill a need at 4 for us eventually in this NBA. Yet Pg13 and Ingram cannot fulfill that role?
Russell, Jackson, pg13, Ingram , randle, nance, Zubic, clarkson seems better to me. Mozgov and Deng too but eh.
I'm curious about Ball being a better fit than Jackson in LA. Clarkson is not a factor here. Russell should have the ball in his hands, which is the same as Ball, Yes, ball fits defensively if you are convinced he can take the tougher matchup of the 1 or 2 guard and succeed. I'd prefer Jackson and Ingram shutting down the wings and take my chances in the PG PnR with Russell ( it will happen regardless of who is there defending).
I think Ball is a better prospect than Russell. Ball would be the centerpiece creator with Russell being the secondary on the first unit and primary when Ball is off the court. You're putting all the faith in Russell to become a good PG by taking Jackson and frankly they have a high chance of getting PG13 next summer so why add another wing to push someone to the bench. Ball/PG13 is really their shot at relevancy again and if Russell/Ingram/Randle join them it would just be a bonus.
I guess I'm not nearly as high on Ball. Kings would be the best scenario for both him and a team, my opinion.
We assume Isaac can fulfill a need at 4 for us eventually in this NBA. Yet Pg13 and Ingram cannot fulfill that role?
Russell, Jackson, pg13, Ingram , randle, nance, Zubic, clarkson seems better to me. Mozgov and Deng too but eh.
I know Abe has pointed out numerous times Paul George isn't willing to play PF.
I like Ingram but Isaac looks stronger and is listed as being around 10lbs heavier. Just saying.
Really at this point the Lakers are in a pretty good spot. They have options. Jackson or Ball make plenty of sense.
WildWolf2813 wrote:Lip- as much as you and everyone else wants a 4th all-star, if the 7th pick is playing meaningful minutes, Thibs and Layden failed this summer in some capacity. Maybe they failed in getting free agent reinforcements (which they should be doing even if Basketball Jesus is at 7). Maybe Thibs /Layden signed this year's version of Aldrich/Rush/Hill. Maybe one of our existing young players continues not to get better. If that 7th pick, whether he's got sky high potential or not, plays a lot next season, we're conceding next season while we say "man in 2-3 years, watch out", while teams at the bottom are like "let's do what we can to get out of the cellar as soon as possible."
I understand your point, Wild. But here's my thinking. If the current Wolves core after $30 million in free agency additions can't make the playoffs or at least come extremely close, then we're in deep you know what. The focus of this franchise has to be on becoming a championship contender. Making the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed is, at best, just a step along the way. In my view, if we end up becoming a true contender, it will be with the current core 3 (or at least a couple of them) plus another very high caliber player at the top of his game when our young core are at the top of theirs. I don't see our #7 pick landing us any current NBA player who would fit that bill without us giving up one of our current core three. Maybe Jimmy Butler, but I doubt we'd get him for just our pick and even if we did his age and history of physical breakdowns suggest he's not the answer.
I think Thibs will offer our #7 pick and Ricky for Jimmy Butler. The Bulls might take it. Some on this board would be thrilled. I'd be ok with it, but not thrilled. I don't the Celtics will trade their pick for Butler. They'll take Fultz and keep him. The Sixers might swap Okafor and their pick for Butler, which would certainly beat the #7 plus Ricky deal. It will be interesting.
The Warriors drafted Curry, Green and Thompson without a top 3 pick and they kept those picks. That's the road map for success for a franchise like ours. Again, I see your point, but IF our highly paid front office staff, including Thibs and Layden, are worth their pay, they should be expected to draft and keep an eventual elite player at #7 in what is largely regarded as a loaded, deep draft.
Making the playoffs should be the priority, not being a contender. It's not as if this team has shown they can do it and they're just biding their time. What we have is a good group of talent yet we're shocked when they can't put wins together. Next year can't be a developmental year. Otherwise they'll continue to not know how to meet expectations.
Thibs can offer the sun moon and stars for Jimmy Butler. If Boston wants Butler, they'll trump anything we can give them short of Towns. If the Bulls don't find a deal they prefer, they'll hold onto him. Jimmy Butler has 2 years left + a player option. They shouldn't be in a hurry to dump him, let alone for a lesser pick than what they could have had a year ago.
As for the Warriors, they drafted well, but they also managed to trade well and sign an all-star in David Lee. I'm not saying the Wolves should rush to trade their pick, but I am saying that 7th pick can't be a key cog of next year.
NBAdraft.net has the following mock draft based on tonight's lottery drawing:
1. Boston: Fultz
2. Lakers: Ball
3. Sixers: Jackson
4. Suns: Fox
5. Kings: Tatum
6. Orlando: Isaac
7. Wolves: Smith
8. Knicks: Monk
9. Mavs: Zach Collins
10. Kings: Ntilikina
11. Charlotte: Jarrett Allen
12. Detroit: Markkanen
13. Denver: Ferguson
14. Miami: John Collins
I don't see the Wolves taking Dennis Smith. But otherwise, I think this mock is a pretty realitic scenario. Smith is a great talent, but I don't think Thibs wants anyone with a questionable or inconsistent motor and that's the rap on Smith. But this mock reflects my view that Isaac won't last until #7. If this mock is correct through #6 and you share my view that Isaac has future star written all over him, then sliding down one slot in tonight's lottery will have turned out to be a huge negative for the Wolves.
I see Monk sliding. He looks like a one-trick poney -- perimeter scorer. He didn't measure out particularly well in the combine. So he looks like a shooting guards skill set in a point guard size body. He's a terrific athlete, but his athleticism didn't translate into much of a dribble drive game in colege. So as nbadraftnet suggests, Monk will likely be available at #7. But I'd opt for Zach Collins or Markkanen over him with Collins my strong preference between the two.
Those of us who really want Isaac have to hope that loves Dennis Smith or Ntilikina. Or maybe the Suns would like Monk next to Bledsoe, which might cause either Isaac or Tatum to slide to us at #7. If Isaac, Collins and Tatum are all gone when we're on the clock, I'll be very depressed.
Booker is the Suns SG for the next 5+ years. I can't see them taking Monk. I'd wager Bledsoe isn't the piece they are worried about building around considering his durability and Bookers progression.
TheFuture wrote:Booker is the Suns SG for the next 5+ years. I can't see them taking Monk. I'd wager Bledsoe isn't the piece they are worried about building around considering his durability and Bookers progression.
I think you're right, Future. That's why I don't see Isaac dropping to us at #7. I think the Suns will nab him at #4. Then I see Fox and Tatum going 5 and 6, although I wouldn't be surprised if the Kings or Magic took Zach Collins. Then you'd have to hope the other team takes Fox so we end up with Tatum.
