Draft reality check

[Monster]

If you consider 8 PPG and 5 RPG's a significant contribution, then we have two very different definitions of what a significant contributor is. He had to drop 20 multiple times to win the playoff MVP, so I would say he wasn't much of a factor in year 1. Hummel can give us 8 and 5.

Wow are you even being serious? Did you not watch any of those games? So you don't think the starting SF for the team that lost the WCF in 7 games wasn't a significant contributor as a rookie?

[Lipoli390]

LST you make some great points but why are you killing the draft buzz so early? Lol The draft reality is when you go into the draft where we were picking the odds aren't in your favor for getting guys that will help you right away and realistically ever. Its draft time so we can be excited and positive and hope for the best.

One of the weirdest things in the draft was how nobody (experts and most fans) really brought up Gary Harris being so short. I mean guys can overcome a couple inches but serious the dude is comboguard sized at best. I'd have been happy with him at #13 but he had some drawbacks that's for sure.

The reality is its a crapshoot. Hopefully Flip pulled out something with LaVine I'm warming up to the pick and he might be able to contribute he shot the ball from 3 at a good rate last year. I don't expect it but Flip will probably give him some chances this year which may be fun we will see.

Yeah, Gary's measurement without shoes really killed him in the draft. You gotta wonder if he got a bad measurement, because he only measures 1 1/4 inches shorter than LaVine in shoes. Harris was funny in his interviews talking about this and said "It's a good thing most NBA players play in shoes!"

It's not his height. Harris has an 8'0 overhead reach. That's PG size, not NBA shooting guard size. LaVine has 4 inches on Harris when measured, as it should be, based on reach rather than height.

[mrhockey89]

LST, depending on the report you read, LaVine was either a steal and could have gone top 7 or a gamble who could have fallen to the late first round. Either way, there's no safe picks in a NBA Draft. Our safest pick in the last decade was Derrick Williams, and we all saw how that turned out. Coincidentally, Rubio and Love were probably our two biggest gamble picks (trading the sure thing OJ Mayo for the gamble Kevin Love).

I'm not so sure a combo of Lee+Klay isn't better than a combo of Love+Martin, specifically because of the defense factor, and the fact that Klay would instantly upgrade our exterior defense...which in turn will upgrade our interior defense. Wishful thinking? Maybe, but one team made the playoffs and was a threat with 2 of those guys, and 1 team didn't with the other two. But wait...they have Steph Curry.... Well the big reason they have to be concerned about moving Klay is because he masks Curry's weaknesses on the defensive end, and he could do the same for Rubio.

In listening to ESPN Radio on my way home from the gym this evening, they were talking about Love and Klay for a bit. One of the basketball analysts says he sees Klay becoming a potential top 3 scorer in the NBA while being the best defending shooting guard in the league, and that is what makes Klay so tough to trade.

I still say the trade I prefer is the Wiggins one, but with Wade and Bosh opting out, that's a likely sign they're all planning on taking pay cuts to stay with Miami, so that would take Cleveland off the market for Love. That leaves Golden State as our top trade partners and I don't think it's close, as long as they'll do Lee+Klay+something else for Love+Martin.

[Monster]

LST you make some great points but why are you killing the draft buzz so early? Lol The draft reality is when you go into the draft where we were picking the odds aren't in your favor for getting guys that will help you right away and realistically ever. Its draft time so we can be excited and positive and hope for the best.

One of the weirdest things in the draft was how nobody (experts and most fans) really brought up Gary Harris being so short. I mean guys can overcome a couple inches but serious the dude is comboguard sized at best. I'd have been happy with him at #13 but he had some drawbacks that's for sure.

The reality is its a crapshoot. Hopefully Flip pulled out something with LaVine I'm warming up to the pick and he might be able to contribute he shot the ball from 3 at a good rate last year. I don't expect it but Flip will probably give him some chances this year which may be fun we will see.

Yeah, Gary's measurement without shoes really killed him in the draft. You gotta wonder if he got a bad measurement, because he only measures 1 1/4 inches shorter than LaVine in shoes. Harris was funny in his interviews talking about this and said "It's a good thing most NBA players play in shoes!"

It's not his height. Harris has an 8'0 overhead reach. That's PG size, not NBA shooting guard size. LaVine has 4 inches on Harris when measured, as it should be, based on reach rather than height.

Yeah that overhead reach has to be incorrect. It doesn't make sense to me. Its gotta be longer than that and he was measured like 8'2" before according to DX. Of course even if its 8'2" or whatever that's still not long at all. I just had to say something about that 8' reach its bizarre.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

If you consider 8 PPG and 5 RPG's a significant contribution, then we have two very different definitions of what a significant contributor is. He had to drop 20 multiple times to win the playoff MVP, so I would say he wasn't much of a factor in year 1. Hummel can give us 8 and 5.

Wow are you even being serious? Did you not watch any of those games? So you don't think the starting SF for the team that lost the WCF in 7 games wasn't a significant contributor as a rookie?

He averaged 9 and 6 those playoffs. Are you honestly saying that is a significant contribution to a WCF appearance? Don't count the fact that he was on a team with 3 all-stars. His 9 and 6 really put them over the top to make it that far. He put up 14 and 9 in year 2 and was finals MVP in year 3. That is what a significant contribution looks like from a starter. The Spurs could have plugged anyone else in the exact same role his rookie year and got the exact same contribution. When that is the case, I don't view anything about it as significant. You haven't named one other player and the one guy you do mention didn't make that big of an impact and he was playing for the best organization in basketball. There are plenty of starters who aren't significant contributors so just saying he was one because he was starting isn't enough for me when the stats behind your argument are wildly mediocre. I just think we have two very different definitions of what I consider to be a significant impact from a player. Just being on a good team and doing what almost any other player could do in your spot on that team doesn't make me think it was significant. His team was 5 points better combined offensively and defensively with him off the floor. That tells me that he wasn't the impact guy you make him out to be.

[TheGrey08]

If you consider 8 PPG and 5 RPG's a significant contribution, then we have two very different definitions of what a significant contributor is. He had to drop 20 multiple times to win the playoff MVP, so I would say he wasn't much of a factor in year 1. Hummel can give us 8 and 5.

Wow are you even being serious? Did you not watch any of those games? So you don't think the starting SF for the team that lost the WCF in 7 games wasn't a significant contributor as a rookie?

He averaged 9 and 6 those playoffs. Are you honestly saying that is a significant contribution to a WCF appearance? Don't count the fact that he was on a team with 3 all-stars. His 9 and 6 really put them over the top to make it that far. He put up 14 and 9 in year 2 and was finals MVP in year 3. That is what a significant contribution looks like from a starter. The Spurs could have plugged anyone else in the exact same role his rookie year and got the exact same contribution. When that is the case, I don't view anything about it as significant. You haven't named one other player and the one guy you do mention didn't make that big of an impact and he was playing for the best organization in basketball. There are plenty of starters who aren't significant contributors so just saying he was one because he was starting isn't enough for me when the stats behind your argument are wildly mediocre. I just think we have two very different definitions of what I consider to be a significant impact from a player. Just being on a good team and doing what almost any other player could do in your spot on that team doesn't make me think it was significant. His team was 5 points better combined offensively and defensively with him off the floor. That tells me that he wasn't the impact guy you make him out to be.

Yes because points & rebounds are all that matters AMIRITE? He was asked to play a very very specific roll (defensive stopper) and managed to average 9 & 6.

[TeamRicky [enjin:6648771]]

I'm trying to remain positive about this year's draft....

Robinson: Unlike LaVine, Robinson does have two years of meaningful data that we can analyze, and his numbers are pretty good. But they are the kind of numbers you would expect from a second rounder. I'm not saying Glenn was a bad pick, in fact I think it was a very good selection. I'm just suggesting that we tone down our expectations for what he will contribute this year. We have a glut of guys at SF, and everyone of them was more productive in college by any measure. Look at the stats in each of their final college season:

Robinson: 13.9 PPG 4.4 rebounds 1.2 assists
Budinger 18/ 6.2/ 3.4
Hummel 16.4/ 6.8/ 1.9
Bazz 17.9/ 5.2/ .8
Brewer 13.2/ 4.7/ 2.9

There's no question that Glenn ranks last in this group in terms of production, since he was last in all three categories except for beating Brewer by .7 points and Shabazz by .4 assists (that one kind of surprised me!).

Wait a second. GR3's college stats are arguably better than Shabazz. Other than scoring, GR3 has equal or better stats in more categories than Shabazz. GR3's shot at a much healthier rate than Shabazz, so I don't necesarilly think Shabazz is a better scorer--at least not a more efficient scorer. GR3 has more steals, blocks, assists and slightly less rebounds.

I didn't bother checking the college stats of the other guys and I prefer to analyze all the stats not just points, rebounds and assists. I do agree with you that we shouldn't expect any immediate contributions of either rookie.

I do like GR3's attitude and potential much more than that of Shabazz. I think he's going to be a good glue guy on the roster with a chance to eventually be a key cog. I am starting to warm up a bit to LaVine who I think is a boom or bust candidate. I like that we have a chance to develop some talented guys and I am not concerned at all if they don't contribute right away.

[WildWolf2813]

As difficult as it is for a lot of fans to stomach another rebuild, what choice do we have? It wouldn't have to be a complete rebuild. We can build around Ricky, Pek, and Dieng.

Walking away, because rebuilding under a one man regime who can't regime doesn't sound promising.

I don't think trade Love signals rebuilding though. Losing Ricky would.

[WildWolf2813]

I'm trying to remain positive about this year's draft....

Robinson: Unlike LaVine, Robinson does have two years of meaningful data that we can analyze, and his numbers are pretty good. But they are the kind of numbers you would expect from a second rounder. I'm not saying Glenn was a bad pick, in fact I think it was a very good selection. I'm just suggesting that we tone down our expectations for what he will contribute this year. We have a glut of guys at SF, and everyone of them was more productive in college by any measure. Look at the stats in each of their final college season:

Robinson: 13.9 PPG 4.4 rebounds 1.2 assists
Budinger 18/ 6.2/ 3.4
Hummel 16.4/ 6.8/ 1.9
Bazz 17.9/ 5.2/ .8
Brewer 13.2/ 4.7/ 2.9

There's no question that Glenn ranks last in this group in terms of production, since he was last in all three categories except for beating Brewer by .7 points and Shabazz by .4 assists (that one kind of surprised me!).

Wait a second. GR3's college stats are arguably better than Shabazz. Other than scoring, GR3 has equal or better stats in more categories than Shabazz. GR3's shot at a much healthier rate than Shabazz, so I don't necesarilly think Shabazz is a better scorer--at least not a more efficient scorer. GR3 has more steals, blocks, assists and slightly less rebounds.

I didn't bother checking the college stats of the other guys and I prefer to analyze all the stats not just points, rebounds and assists. I do agree with you that we shouldn't expect any immediate contributions of either rookie.

I do like GR3's attitude and potential much more than that of Shabazz. I think he's going to be a good glue guy on the roster with a chance to eventually be a key cog. I am starting to warm up a bit to LaVine who I think is a boom or bust candidate. I like that we have a chance to develop some talented guys and I am not concerned at all if they don't contribute right away.

Glenn's biggest problem is that anything a big game came along, he disappeared.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I'm trying to remain positive about this year's draft....

Robinson: Unlike LaVine, Robinson does have two years of meaningful data that we can analyze, and his numbers are pretty good. But they are the kind of numbers you would expect from a second rounder. I'm not saying Glenn was a bad pick, in fact I think it was a very good selection. I'm just suggesting that we tone down our expectations for what he will contribute this year. We have a glut of guys at SF, and everyone of them was more productive in college by any measure. Look at the stats in each of their final college season:

Robinson: 13.9 PPG 4.4 rebounds 1.2 assists
Budinger 18/ 6.2/ 3.4
Hummel 16.4/ 6.8/ 1.9
Bazz 17.9/ 5.2/ .8
Brewer 13.2/ 4.7/ 2.9

There's no question that Glenn ranks last in this group in terms of production, since he was last in all three categories except for beating Brewer by .7 points and Shabazz by .4 assists (that one kind of surprised me!).

Wait a second. GR3's college stats are arguably better than Shabazz. Other than scoring, GR3 has equal or better stats in more categories than Shabazz. GR3's shot at a much healthier rate than Shabazz, so I don't necesarilly think Shabazz is a better scorer--at least not a more efficient scorer. GR3 has more steals, blocks, assists and slightly less rebounds.

I didn't bother checking the college stats of the other guys and I prefer to analyze all the stats not just points, rebounds and assists. I do agree with you that we shouldn't expect any immediate contributions of either rookie.

I do like GR3's attitude and potential much more than that of Shabazz. I think he's going to be a good glue guy on the roster with a chance to eventually be a key cog. I am starting to warm up a bit to LaVine who I think is a boom or bust candidate. I like that we have a chance to develop some talented guys and I am not concerned at all if they don't contribute right away.

Glenn's biggest problem is that anything a big game came along, he disappeared.

He was good during the four biggest games of the season.