Q12543 wrote:I think you take Wiseman because he's probably the asset that you could get the most in return for in the event someone else really wanted him. And if a worthwhile deal doesn't come along, then fine, let's see how we can best use him.
I view it the other way.
I look at Wiseman as the safer pick in the event that this Towns /Russell tandem doesn't work and you gotta start moving either KAT, Russell or both in 2 years. At least you have your big man in place.
BizarroJerry wrote:Move down if you can and take the more versatile defender in Okongwu. Why do we want two 7 footers on the floor? Does any other contending team do that? I just see more defensive holes with Towns defending forwards.
Did any other contending team run Twin Towers when the Spurs did it? Did any team run a "seven seconds" offense when the Suns did it? What about when the Magic implemented the "stretch-four" lineups? Remember several years ago when the Suns routinely ran three guard lineups with Bledsoe, Dragic, and Thomas? Remember when the Warriors put together the original "Death Lineup?" Has any team gone all in on small-ball like the Rockets?
Innovation is key. Being a step ahead is key. Zigging when your opposition zags is key. Copying someone else's model is basic and usually less successful in the end. Why would you as a fan root for that?
I figured this would get you all excited as you need to comment on everything. So your answer is San Antonio from 20 years ago?
Weird, this is a message board where people comment whenever they feel like it. And my answer is that following the current trend leaves you behind. Find the new trend. Find a way to create your own mismatches for opposing teams. Just because a current team isn't doing something doesn't mean it's not a strategy worth employing.
After giving it more thought, though, the Lakers actually run a Twins Towers approach with Anthony Davis refusing to play center. The Pelicans at one time had success with DeMarcus Cousins and Davis several years ago.
Does that answer your question, BizarroJerry? Or do you still not quite comprehend what the discussion is?
Yeah I'm still really confused. You haven't shown me a title contending team in the last twenty years that features two seven footers. McGee is a role player and he shouldn't be starting. How far did Cousins and Davis get in the playoffs? Or are you confused by my argument?
2014 Spurs (Duncan/Splitter), 2011 Mavs (Dirk/Chandler), 2009-2010 Lakers (Gasol/Bynum), 2008 Celtics (KG/Perk). That's 5 titles in the last 12 years so that counts as in the last 20 years right? The main lesson from small ball? Have Lebron, Kawhi, KD or just 4 Hall of Famers in your main lineup (Steph, Klay, Iggy, Draymond) and then you are set so that's all we have to do. Should be easy to do.
I'll give you Bynum/Gasol. My point was as a 1st overall pick we expect big production and I don't like a twin tower approach for the next 5 years eating up a big part of our cap.
Q12543 wrote:I think you take Wiseman because he's probably the asset that you could get the most in return for in the event someone else really wanted him. And if a worthwhile deal doesn't come along, then fine, let's see how we can best use him.
I view it the other way.
I look at Wiseman as the safer pick in the event that this Towns /Russell tandem doesn't work and you gotta start moving either KAT, Russell or both in 2 years. At least you have your big man in place.
That thought crossed my mind also. I still want to see Wiseman's measurements. If they really blow me away (9'3'5" standing reach isn't not that special) then I might lean more towards taking him. I still don't feel convinced about anyone at the top of this draft. It sounds like GS is open for business which could be good for the Wolves because that means at 1 you may need to jump over whoever might be interested in GS's pick too. The Wolves could actually be in a good position with this #1 pick if there are teams that are willing to pay a price to move up. Everyone locally and nationally is saying Rosas is exploring every option. That's what I would be doing and at this point I'd be trying to add as many assets as I could. It's possible the player selected in a trade down scenario will have more or similar value to a guy selected earlier plus there would be at least another asset.
BizarroJerry wrote:Move down if you can and take the more versatile defender in Okongwu. Why do we want two 7 footers on the floor? Does any other contending team do that? I just see more defensive holes with Towns defending forwards.
Did any other contending team run Twin Towers when the Spurs did it? Did any team run a "seven seconds" offense when the Suns did it? What about when the Magic implemented the "stretch-four" lineups? Remember several years ago when the Suns routinely ran three guard lineups with Bledsoe, Dragic, and Thomas? Remember when the Warriors put together the original "Death Lineup?" Has any team gone all in on small-ball like the Rockets?
Innovation is key. Being a step ahead is key. Zigging when your opposition zags is key. Copying someone else's model is basic and usually less successful in the end. Why would you as a fan root for that?
I figured this would get you all excited as you need to comment on everything. So your answer is San Antonio from 20 years ago?
Weird, this is a message board where people comment whenever they feel like it. And my answer is that following the current trend leaves you behind. Find the new trend. Find a way to create your own mismatches for opposing teams. Just because a current team isn't doing something doesn't mean it's not a strategy worth employing.
After giving it more thought, though, the Lakers actually run a Twins Towers approach with Anthony Davis refusing to play center. The Pelicans at one time had success with DeMarcus Cousins and Davis several years ago.
Does that answer your question, BizarroJerry? Or do you still not quite comprehend what the discussion is?
Yeah I'm still really confused. You haven't shown me a title contending team in the last twenty years that features two seven footers. McGee is a role player and he shouldn't be starting. How far did Cousins and Davis get in the playoffs? Or are you confused by my argument?
2014 Spurs (Duncan/Splitter), 2011 Mavs (Dirk/Chandler), 2009-2010 Lakers (Gasol/Bynum), 2008 Celtics (KG/Perk). That's 5 titles in the last 12 years so that counts as in the last 20 years right? The main lesson from small ball? Have Lebron, Kawhi, KD or just 4 Hall of Famers in your main lineup (Steph, Klay, Iggy, Draymond) and then you are set so that's all we have to do. Should be easy to do.
Good list of comparables right here. Dirk/Chandler is actually a very interesting comp here too. Dirk wasn't a good defender but was an offensive stud with consistent range from 3. Wiseman would have to come a long ways to become what Chandler was defensively, however that wouldn't be surprising for such a young player. Wiseman has more offensive ability than Chandler had. We really need a Chandler type up the middle to back up KAT. Chandler was the piece that put that team over the top and should be in all our thoughts going forward.
Unless Wiseman proves in workouts to shows good range and a good handle I don't see Rosas going with him. I don't think he is anti-big man, however that big man has to be pretty special.
Traits I think he is looking for any player in order of importance-
-Ability to drive and finish well around the rim, including drawing fouls
-Playmaking/assists
-3 point shooting
-defensive ability to switch and guard multiple positions
-Rebounding
-RIm protector
Q12543 wrote:I think you take Wiseman because he's probably the asset that you could get the most in return for in the event someone else really wanted him. And if a worthwhile deal doesn't come along, then fine, let's see how we can best use him.
Q - I don't think I'd take that approach. You take Wiseman only if you intend to keep him or already have a deal in place to swap him for someone another team has promised to pick lower in the draft. I don't like the idea of drafting someone based on perceived general trade value without knowing what you'd get in return. I also think that Edwards and Ball have more trade value than Wiseman. The overwhelming majority of mocks have Ball or Edwards listed as the top two players taken. Wiseman appears at #2 in some mocks primarily because he's viewed as the better fit for the Warriors who already have all-stars Curry and Thompson in their two guard positions. So if you decide to select a player at #1 on the assumption that you will eventually get a great offer, then Ball or Edwards should be your pick.
Q12543 wrote:I think you take Wiseman because he's probably the asset that you could get the most in return for in the event someone else really wanted him. And if a worthwhile deal doesn't come along, then fine, let's see how we can best use him.
Q - I don't think I'd take that approach. You take Wiseman only if you intend to keep him or already have a deal in place to swap him for someone another team has promised to pick lower in the draft. I don't like the idea of drafting someone based on perceived general trade value without knowing what you'd get in return. I also think that Edwards and Ball have more trade value than Wiseman. The overwhelming majority of mocks have Ball or Edwards listed as the top two players taken. Wiseman appears at #2 in some mocks primarily because he's viewed as the better fit for the Warriors who already have all-stars Curry and Thompson in their two guard positions. So if you decide to select a player at #1 on the assumption that you will eventually get a great offer, then Ball or Edwards should be your pick.
My theory on this is somewhat counter-intuitive. While there may be fewer teams that would mock Wiseman as #1 or #2, those teams that would mock him that way based on their own philosophy and needs may be willing to give up more than those teams that mock Edwards and Ball as #1 and #2.
I just think an athletic Center of his size and agility has a really high floor and they simply don't come along very often.
Q12543 wrote:I think you take Wiseman because he's probably the asset that you could get the most in return for in the event someone else really wanted him. And if a worthwhile deal doesn't come along, then fine, let's see how we can best use him.
I view it the other way.
I look at Wiseman as the safer pick in the event that this Towns /Russell tandem doesn't work and you gotta start moving either KAT, Russell or both in 2 years. At least you have your big man in place.
Well, yeah, that is a factor too. If we think he truly has the most value, then we need to take him for all of the reasons above.
Q12543 wrote:I think you take Wiseman because he's probably the asset that you could get the most in return for in the event someone else really wanted him. And if a worthwhile deal doesn't come along, then fine, let's see how we can best use him.
Q - I don't think I'd take that approach. You take Wiseman only if you intend to keep him or already have a deal in place to swap him for someone another team has promised to pick lower in the draft. I don't like the idea of drafting someone based on perceived general trade value without knowing what you'd get in return. I also think that Edwards and Ball have more trade value than Wiseman. The overwhelming majority of mocks have Ball or Edwards listed as the top two players taken. Wiseman appears at #2 in some mocks primarily because he's viewed as the better fit for the Warriors who already have all-stars Curry and Thompson in their two guard positions. So if you decide to select a player at #1 on the assumption that you will eventually get a great offer, then Ball or Edwards should be your pick.
My theory on this is somewhat counter-intuitive. While there may be fewer teams that would mock Wiseman as #1 or #2, those teams that would mock him that way based on their own philosophy and needs may be willing to give up more than those teams that mock Edwards and Ball as #1 and #2.
I just think an athletic Center of his size and agility has a really high floor and they simply don't come along very often.
Interesting theory. I hadn't thought of it that way. But I'd still opt for one of the top tier prospects who will have the wider appeal than Wiseman if I were going to draft for the purpose of marketing him. I'd want the biggest possible market for the guy I take. Some of it depends on things we don't know. What is his actually overhead reach? Is it 9'3 as indicated on Draft.net or is it 9'6 which I saw suggested on some blog? Does he lack a passion for the game as at least one review I read suggested? A key to your suggested strategy would be knowing how Wiseman is perceived around the League and that will turn on nailing down some of these concerns.
If Wiseman has a 9'6 reach and has a high motor who is likely to develop into a more healthy Joel Embiid or a more offensively Rudy Gobert, then I'd draft him but I wouldn't trade him. :)
Measurements matter, but they're not the be-all and end-all. James Wiseman could have a 9'3" standing reach -- instead of a 9'6" reach -- and still be a fantastic rim protector. Anthony Davis had a ho-hum 9'0" standing reach at his combine. Chris Bosh came in at 9'1" and Tyson Chandler was measured at 9'2.5". Obviously, the added length on his reach would add to his impressive physical profile, but if it turns out he's measured at 9'3" that won't deter me from selecting him.
