Who should Wolves draft at 19?

[Lipoli390]

Lip, Ja Morant and CP3 both took two years of college, Chandler is one and done. Morant played at Murray State where his competition level was much lower while Tennessee was tied for third most difficult schedule in country, including 3 games against Kentucky where Chandler performed very well. CP and Morant were drafted near the top, with Chandler we are talking about pick 19, so I'd expect them to have shown a bit more. Is Chandler a sure thing to be at that level? Not at all, but he shouldn't be written off either. But he does have elite speed, good agility (2nd at Combine), highest vertical at Combine, a decent wingspan (over 6'5), very fast first step, good hesitation moves, good finishing skills, a nice outside shot, good court vision, tight handle, good passer, tenacious on ball defender, had 2.2 steals, aggressive on both sides, and he's a hard worker, studies the greats, high basketball IQ, is always seeking to improve. At pick 19, I don't see a lot of guys with his upside. Lastly, I think he'd fit in well with the Wolves.

PS: I do admit his free throw shooting last year was not good, but he shot 72% in combined high school, college and AAU ball and according to his college coach, Rick Barnes, shoots about 95% in practice. And his three point shooting in high school, college and AAU was above 40% and during combined SEC and tournament time, he shot 50% from threes. His shot looks smooth and what's more he is often shooting from NBA distance on his threes.

I can certainly see why you like Chandler. We'll just have to agree to disagree about his as a good choice for the Wolves at #19. Regarding freshman numbers, Chandler still falls pretty far short of Chris Paul. As a freshman, Chris Paul had more points, rebounds, and assists than Chandler. He also had better shooting percentages for the field, behind the arc and at the free-throw line. And again, most telling is the fact that Chris Paul averaged 5.7 free throws compared to Chandler's 2.9. I understand that we're not talking about Chandler as a lottery pick, but small PGs who don't have eye-popping stats and a no-go for me as first-round picks unless there's something that really impresses me watching them play. I'd definitely consider Chandler at #40, but he likely won't last that long.

Actually, my favorite PG prospect in this year's draft is Jean Montero. He's a guy who should be available at #40 - maybe even #48. I'd definitely consider him at #40 and I'd grab him in a nano-second if still available at #48. There's nothing about Montero's stats that I find eye-popping, but as a second round pick I like him a lot. And for me, Montero beats all the other PG prospects in the eye test. I think he's a special talent that just needs development.

I think every college point guard pales when compared to Chris Paul--he's a generational talent. Isn't 2.2 steals on a very tough schedule eye popping? You seem to love Dalen Terry and his stats seem rather weak for a potential first rounder. Chandler is also a very good outside shooter and finisher. But watching Chandler play is what drew me to him, he passes the eye test with me and he has as good of intangibles as anyone in the draft. High IQ, Love of the game, Competitive, Wants to Improve, Studies game film religiously, Picks brains of elite NBA point guards, Humble, works very hard at his game, works hard on his strength and conditioning and speed. You can't measure the last items in stats. I think he has the best upside at 19 the Wolves could realistically hope for. I know we have differing views and that is ok, but the more research that I've done, the more I feel confident he's going to be a very good NBA player.

As far as Montero, I like him Ok, but don't love him. Maybe a stash once TyTy, Chandler and Nembhard are off the board. I actually like Montero's teammate Dom Barlow better as an NBA prospect--7"3 wingspan and has guard tools and athleticism and shot very well at NBA Combine games- 9 for 13.

Great discussion, KG! I love your deep knowledge of these prospects.

[Lipoli390]

A draft pick that could start next to KAT as a rookie? The answer to that question is a definitive HELL NO! One of the reasons we finally won some games last year is that we weren't force feeding rookies minutes, a long Minnesota tradition that usually contributes to the chronic losing. If anyone supplants Vando from the starting lineup next season, it's going to have to be a vet we trade for or sign via free agency.

I view this year's draft as a pipeline of talent. If we're lucky, our #19 pick cracks the top 10 rotation this year and comes off the bench. And that's almost best-case scenario. But our biggest short-term problems need to be solved by getting the right vets on the squad.

I see it the same way, Q. Our biggest need right now is a better big next to KAT who provides good size and rebounding. No way we can expect the draft to fill that need next season. So yes, that need will need to be filled in the short run through free agency or a trade. Fortunately, there are lots of gettable options in the free agent market for that particular need.

If we draft a big as part of our pipeline of talent, then Liddell isn't a bad option. But for upside, I'd prefer Mark Williams or Koloko. In any event, most of the best talent in this draft seems to be at the wing position, with some wing options who also have high-end point guard skills to go with their SF or PF length. Those are the guys the Wolves front office should be gravitating towards if they're focusing on talent - Jalen Williams, Dalen Terry, Wendell Moore, Caleb Houstan, MaJon Beauchamp, Blake Wesley, Max Christie, Jordan Hall, Tari Eason (I see him as more of a SF than PF), etc. Other than wings, there are a few interesting PG options in Ty Ty, Chandler, Nembhard and Jean Montero.

[Monster]

I talked this morning to a friend of mine who lives in California. He's a financial advisor and has a lot of high-end clients, including some professional athletes. After lots of depressing talk about the economy, we talked Timberwolves. He's originally from MN and is a big Wolves fan. But then the conversation got interesting. He lives in California and has a pretty impressive list of clients, including some professional athletes. One client, a current NBA player whose name I won't mention has been working out with Jalen Williams this summer. That NBA player said the Williams is going to be a star. Those were his exact words according to my friend. Take that for what it's worth. It certainly isn't contradicted by his video or his stats, both of which are really impressive.

Thanks for sharing Lip.

[Monster]

I really appreciate how much work you guys have put into understanding the strengths and weaknesses of potential draftees this year, and that you've shared your insights and opinions with us. There are about 5 guys I like at #19 - Eason, Liddell, Williams, Terry, Chandler.

But maybe for the first time in forever, I'm way more confident in the Wolves front office making these selections than in my own preferences. So instead of angst about them not choosing one of those guys (if they don't), I'll be happy to be surprised that they know things that we don't. It'll be fun!

Good points. I felt that same way feeling confident but I just couldn't help doing some "scouting" I just wanted to join in on the conversation. I haven't found a guy I'm just dying to get.

[Monster]

I feel like PG especially true PGs cab he a bit hard to evaluate how good they are or aren't especially as freshman. Why? Let's say they are a true PG. we're they asked to score or were they running a team? If they were supposed to run a team then they aren't going to put up those scoring numbers that pop. Also assist numbers aren't exactly a perfect want to say whether a guy was making plays for other. College is much less generous with that stat.

Let's looks at Tennessee last year as a teamand see what kind of context we are working with for Chandler. They were around the 100th best offensive team. That's not particularly good but it's not terrible. It also means they weren't exactly a high scoring team and they probably didn't play with a ton of pace. That's not good for PG numbers. Despite being a meh offe rice team they were 12th in assists. That's kinda impressive. Part of that was likely because they were always playing with at least 2 ball handlers and at times guys that are basically PGs. Chandler was 2nd on the Volunteers in MPG and was pretty highly decorated in the SEC including 2nd team all SEC and SEC tournament MVP.

Let's look at the other side of the ball where Chandler's teammate Zakai Zeigler was all-SEC as a freshman who started 1 game and averages just over 20mpg. Tennessee was a top 10 defensive team and held their opponents with under 63 points a game. That number maybe looks even more impressive considering that UK dropped 107 earlier on in the season (watched that game a few days ago). So regardless Chandler played on one of the best defensive teams in college basketball.

Just for fun let's look back at Chris Paul's freshman season at Wake Forest. They were #3 in scoring at 83.5 ppg. They also allowed a lot of points. Part of the reason for that difference was that wake Forrest averaged over 27FTA a game. That seems like quite a bit. Regardless it seems like they played at a higher pace than Tennessee and I think that's reasonably obvious usually team that have good defensive numbers tend to play at a slower pace.

One thing I can't just ignore even if it wasn't a problem before his freshman year At Tennessee is Chandler took 99 FTs and he missed 39 of them. The couple games I watched he missed short and a couple times he missed way long. He was quite efficient otherwise but something was wrong there. I don't really care if he is making FTs in practice or whatever (obviously that's better than him missing them) but I think it's a fair concern whether there is some sort of mental issue there or something. I'm not saying don't draft the guy or something but I'm not dismissing it as a fluke.

To me if Chandler ends up being a legit Pg that runs a team well and also can score he doesn't have to have eye popping stats college stats. What if he is the next Mike Conely? Hopefully he doesn't take as long to get there and also is more healthy but that would be a damn nice player.

I personally don't see a guy right now that I'm like yes I'll take a swing at that high upside player. At this point there are a bucket of guys I think could be good players maybe really good player but IDK if I'm picking them to be star players. Sometimes you pick a player that you think is going to be a good player and you get a guy that's really damn good. Desmond Bane comes to mind.

[KG4Ever]

I agree that the draft should bring in an infusion of talent at wing and point guard.

I feel like PG especially true PGs cab he a bit hard to evaluate how good they are or aren't especially as freshman. Why? Let's say they are a true PG. we're they asked to score or were they running a team? If they were supposed to run a team then they aren't going to put up those scoring numbers that pop. Also assist numbers aren't exactly a perfect want to say whether a guy was making plays for other. College is much less generous with that stat.

Let's looks at Tennessee last year as a teamand see what kind of context we are working with for Chandler. They were around the 100th best offensive team. That's not particularly good but it's not terrible. It also means they weren't exactly a high scoring team and they probably didn't play with a ton of pace. That's not good for PG numbers. Despite being a meh offe rice team they were 12th in assists. That's kinda impressive. Part of that was likely because they were always playing with at least 2 ball handlers and at times guys that are basically PGs. Chandler was 2nd on the Volunteers in MPG and was pretty highly decorated in the SEC including 2nd team all SEC and SEC tournament MVP.

Let's look at the other side of the ball where Chandler's teammate Zakai Zeigler was all-SEC as a freshman who started 1 game and averages just over 20mpg. Tennessee was a top 10 defensive team and held their opponents with under 63 points a game. That number maybe looks even more impressive considering that UK dropped 107 earlier on in the season (watched that game a few days ago). So regardless Chandler played on one of the best defensive teams in college basketball.

Just for fun let's look back at Chris Paul's freshman season at Wake Forest. They were #3 in scoring at 83.5 ppg. They also allowed a lot of points. Part of the reason for that difference was that wake Forrest averaged over 27FTA a game. That seems like quite a bit. Regardless it seems like they played at a higher pace than Tennessee and I think that's reasonably obvious usually team that have good defensive numbers tend to play at a slower pace.

One thing I can't just ignore even if it wasn't a problem before his freshman year At Tennessee is Chandler took 99 FTs and he missed 39 of them. The couple games I watched he missed short and a couple times he missed way long. He was quite efficient otherwise but something was wrong there. I don't really care if he is making FTs in practice or whatever (obviously that's better than him missing them) but I think it's a fair concern whether there is some sort of mental issue there or something. I'm not saying don't draft the guy or something but I'm not dismissing it as a fluke.

To me if Chandler ends up being a legit Pg that runs a team well and also can score he doesn't have to have eye popping stats college stats. What if he is the next Mike Conely? Hopefully he doesn't take as long to get there and also is more healthy but that would be a damn nice player.

I personally don't see a guy right now that I'm like yes I'll take a swing at that high upside player. At this point there are a bucket of guys I think could be good players maybe really good player but IDK if I'm picking them to be star players. Sometimes you pick a player that you think is going to be a good player and you get a guy that's really damn good. Desmond Bane comes to mind.

Good points, Monster. I will say that his last year of high school, during 13 games of NIBC play, his free throw shooting percentage was very good-north of 90%* Maybe, he got the yips in college, but free throw percentage for guards is something that often improves with more attempts in the NBA particular when they have good range, which he absolutely does. I am less concerned about his free throw shooting than how his size will translate-though I still think he's the type of guy (high IQ, decent wingspan, elite first step, quick hands, top vertical in his class, and high motor) that has a decent shot of overcoming his size limitations and becoming a good NBA player.

From Bio: In 13 games of NIBC play as a senior, he averaged 14.8 points, 6.4 assists, 4.2 rebounds and 3.3 steals per game while shooting 57 percent from the field, 50 percent from beyond the arc and 94 percent from the free-throw line. (NIBC is a league of 8 powerhouse high schools including Oak Hill and Montverde, Chandler transferred to Sunrise Christian Academy in Kansas for his senior year from Briarcrest in Memphis).

[SameOldNudityDrew]

I'm still going through these prospects, and I see Mark Williams is projected to go before 19, but the more I see of that guy, the more I like. That's the Robert Williams-type of guy that I think we probably need to anchor the defense at times.

We've talked about getting a guy like that for a couple years now, and while KAT made steps defensively, I just don't think he'll ever get to be the post defender we need him to be. And Naz is nice, but a mostly offensive presence. So while I like the idea of drafting for upside, and we could probably try to get a guy like Whiteside as a free agent or something, I also think there are reasons to try to pick a guy like Williams in the draft.

Q's warning about how rookies rarely contribute is well put, but I think given his role and his solid play in college, he actually could be a guy who could contribute early. He wouldn't have to do much at all but defend, rebound, and occasionally catch lobs. And he doesn't foul much which is such a problem for young guys like McDaniels and even slightly older young guys like JJJ.

We'd probably have to trade up somehow to get him, but that's something I think I might be willing to do if there was a decent deal. Probably something like Bolmaro, 19, and maybe a second or something to move up? Thoughts on Williams?

[Lipoli390]

I'm still going through these prospects, and I see Mark Williams is projected to go before 19, but the more I see of that guy, the more I like. That's the Robert Williams-type of guy that I think we probably need to anchor the defense at times.

We've talked about getting a guy like that for a couple years now, and while KAT made steps defensively, I just don't think he'll ever get to be the post defender we need him to be. And Naz is nice, but a mostly offensive presence. So while I like the idea of drafting for upside, and we could probably try to get a guy like Whiteside as a free agent or something, I also think there are reasons to try to pick a guy like Williams in the draft.

Q's warning about how rookies rarely contribute is well put, but I think given his role and his solid play in college, he actually could be a guy who could contribute early. He wouldn't have to do much at all but defend, rebound, and occasionally catch lobs. And he doesn't foul much which is such a problem for young guys like McDaniels and even slightly older young guys like JJJ.

We'd probably have to trade up somehow to get him, but that's something I think I might be willing to do if there was a decent deal. Probably something like Bolmaro, 19, and maybe a second or something to move up? Thoughts on Williams?

I'm in Q's camp when it comes to relying on rookies to significantly help the team. And I'm generally against drafting for need or fit. But I can see where Mark Williams could be a really good pick for the Wolves as a talent who could potentially help the Wolves next season. You make a good point about the limited role Williams would need to play to actually provide value. He's an accomplished shot-blocker and rebounder with a 9'9" standing reach. He has great hands and is an elite finisher at the rim. In other words, his baseline physical attributes and skills could allow him to contribute significantly in a limited role. I don't think it would take too much to move up to get him - probably somewhere in the 13-17 range. I'd include Naz instead of Bolmaro in the deal, but that's quibbling.

[FNG]

Always interesting to hear Chris Finch talk, and he was on KFAN this morning. One interesting comment he made...he said draft picks after #17 historically have only a 17% chance of being a rotation player after 3 years. About 1 in 6.

[KG4Ever]

Always interesting to hear Chris Finch talk, and he was on KFAN this morning. One interesting comment he made...he said draft picks after #17 historically have only a 17% chance of being a rotation player after 3 years. About 1 in 6.

I take that as Chris Finch trying to lower expectations and take pressure off the pick, but if the Wolves keep the pick they are seeking and expecting to get a quality starter or rotational piece. That stat is meaningless as most second round picks flame out, so its a deceptive stat when you hold the 19th pick. I did a thread and there were a lot of quality picks made at 19 since 2000 and 75% were rotational players three years later and most of the remaining 25% were still in the league three years later getting 9-12 minutes a game. I bumped the thread so you can take a look at some of the players taken at 19.

My only worry is that Finchy is spouting a meaningless and deceptive stat, to rationalize trading away the first round pick and selling a potential trade to the Wolves fan base. I certainly hope not.