Wolves are attempting to add another lotto pick

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Getting another pick around the same value as last year for culver would be a huge plus for me. Culver didnt look like he belonged in the league last year and on any decent team had no business cracking the lineup. Any improvement and he is at best a 7th or 8th man on a good team. Yes please on this deal.

Also, does two lotto picks get us Booker?

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Jarrett Culver's numbers don't look bad at all -- outside of free throw percentage -- from January 1st to the end of the season.

25.6 MPG, 10.5 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 0.6 BPG
43.8 FG%, 34.7 3P% (3.7 3PA), 50.8 FT% (1.8 FTA)

That's essentially the second half of his rookie season and we saw considerable growth from month to month. The numbers also don't incorporate his solid defensive prowess. The free throw percentage is eye-opening and not in a good way, but there's no real reason for the misses considering he was okay at the line in college. I'd expect him to be at least in the 60's next year, if not in the 70's.

Just for fun, his numbers above converted to per-36 look like:

14.7 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.8 BPG

Not earth-shattering, but that's a solid starting wing in today's NBA. Certainly he belonged in the league and in an NBA rotation.

[Monster]

https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/1326533752193945600?s=21

I legit wonder with the news about Harden not sure about the Rockets future. Something like this will happen.

Rockets get #1, #6, #17 and a future 1st

Hawks get Culver and Cov

Wolves get Simmons

76ers get Harden

That would be a monumental shift for Houston... wasn't it just a year or so ago when it was rumored that the Rockets were willing to ditch all of its draft picks?

Now, they'd be getting rid of superstar talent for a complete rebuild from the ground up?

Even if the new guy is the antithesis of Morey, I'm not sure if the owner or fans would be up for that.

Let's see the Rockets couldn't agree to a deal with a vet head coach in D'Antoni...there were reports it was about money as one part of it. I like Stephen Silas he might be a good hire but I'm guessing he will cost a lot less than D'Antoni. Hell its POSSIBLE D'Antoni makes more as just an assistant for the Nets. The Rockets longtime GM considered very good left and was unemployed for 2 weeks before the Sixers hired him. Since the new owner was hired Morey has been making cost savings moves every year. I think he even saved money For last year in the Covington deal and likely for this year. After Morey left they hired from within a guy that apparently wasn't higher on the Kings list of possible GMs it seems. We shouldn't trust the Kings decisions but that's interesting. I'm not saying the Rockets will trade Harden and go another direction but... based on what I have been seeing it wouldn't shock me THAT much and some team would likely give them a pretty nice package to rebuild with. They could move Covington next for some worthwhile assets. They would suck but the owner would save money I bet and at least one asset they would get back from the Harden deal would sell hope.

As I also said... might be a tough sell for the fans.

Imagine telling them... "We know we've had success for (xx) years playing to win... and even though we have one of the top 5 players of the decade right now still playing at an MVP level... we're going to try to emulate the Timberwolves, Magic and Kings model and hope to find really good players another way."

Yeah it might be a tough sell since the Rockets have had at least one top player nearly every season (even if they were injured) for what like 25 Years? It just sorta seems like from the far off distance that someone thinks they are smart and can do what others couldn't...which brings me to your comment about the Kings Wolves Magic comment...thanks for the chuckle. :)

[Monster]

Getting another pick around the same value as last year for culver would be a huge plus for me. Culver didnt look like he belonged in the league last year and on any decent team had no business cracking the lineup. Any improvement and he is at best a 7th or 8th man on a good team. Yes please on this deal.

Also, does two lotto picks get us Booker?

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Jarrett Culver's numbers don't look bad at all -- outside of free throw percentage -- from January 1st to the end of the season.

25.6 MPG, 10.5 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 0.6 BPG
43.8 FG%, 34.7 3P% (3.7 3PA), 50.8 FT% (1.8 FTA)

That's essentially the second half of his rookie season and we saw considerable growth from month to month. The numbers also don't incorporate his solid defensive prowess. The free throw percentage is eye-opening and not in a good way, but there's no real reason for the misses considering he was okay at the line in college. I'd expect him to be at least in the 60's next year, if not in the 70's.

Just for fun, his numbers above converted to per-36 look like:

14.7 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.8 BPG

Not earth-shattering, but that's a solid starting wing in today's NBA. Certainly he belonged in the league and in an NBA rotation.

The FT shooting is a big concern but as someone pointed out a few days ago (it was either Q or Abe) and compared Ingram's rookie year to Culver. Culver had a 2nd year of college and the FT percentage obviously is lower but he was actually was a little better in some areas than Ingram. Culver came out of nowhere to be a top prospect and Ingram was always at least a certain 1st rounder with his size skill.

It wouldn't be enough of a sample size but it would be nice to see Culver shooting in the gym for a couple hours before I made a decision on whether or not I dealt him. Fortunately the Wolves have that kind of access and I don't.

[thedoper]

Getting another pick around the same value as last year for culver would be a huge plus for me. Culver didnt look like he belonged in the league last year and on any decent team had no business cracking the lineup. Any improvement and he is at best a 7th or 8th man on a good team. Yes please on this deal.

Also, does two lotto picks get us Booker?

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Jarrett Culver's numbers don't look bad at all -- outside of free throw percentage -- from January 1st to the end of the season.

25.6 MPG, 10.5 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 0.6 BPG
43.8 FG%, 34.7 3P% (3.7 3PA), 50.8 FT% (1.8 FTA)

That's essentially the second half of his rookie season and we saw considerable growth from month to month. The numbers also don't incorporate his solid defensive prowess. The free throw percentage is eye-opening and not in a good way, but there's no real reason for the misses considering he was okay at the line in college. I'd expect him to be at least in the 60's next year, if not in the 70's.

Just for fun, his numbers above converted to per-36 look like:

14.7 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.8 BPG

Not earth-shattering, but that's a solid starting wing in today's NBA. Certainly he belonged in the league and in an NBA rotation.

Its totally harsh, someone has to be. I hated the pick at the time and it definitely colors my take.

Just to bite, is below 70% FT in college ok for a wing? Id say that percentage coupled with his awful form is a giant red flag for someone you want scoring from in the NBA. His shot looks like trash. How many Wolves are we going to build a case for on 20 game sample sizes with? Extrapolating his slight improvement playing against 2nd units with per-36 numbers and then calling him a solid starter is a hugely optimistic jump. "Not earth shattering" means 7th or 8th man to me, Id be very surprised if he peaks much higher than that. Put him on LA even with their need for wings and he plays behind KCP, Green, and Caruso if he sees the floor at all. If we can turn his mistake into Haliburton we do it.

[Monster]

Getting another pick around the same value as last year for culver would be a huge plus for me. Culver didnt look like he belonged in the league last year and on any decent team had no business cracking the lineup. Any improvement and he is at best a 7th or 8th man on a good team. Yes please on this deal.

Also, does two lotto picks get us Booker?

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Jarrett Culver's numbers don't look bad at all -- outside of free throw percentage -- from January 1st to the end of the season.

25.6 MPG, 10.5 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 0.6 BPG
43.8 FG%, 34.7 3P% (3.7 3PA), 50.8 FT% (1.8 FTA)

That's essentially the second half of his rookie season and we saw considerable growth from month to month. The numbers also don't incorporate his solid defensive prowess. The free throw percentage is eye-opening and not in a good way, but there's no real reason for the misses considering he was okay at the line in college. I'd expect him to be at least in the 60's next year, if not in the 70's.

Just for fun, his numbers above converted to per-36 look like:

14.7 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.8 BPG

Not earth-shattering, but that's a solid starting wing in today's NBA. Certainly he belonged in the league and in an NBA rotation.

Its totally harsh, someone has to be. I hated the pick at the time and it definitely colors my take.

Just to bite, is below 70% FT in college ok for a wing? Id say that percentage coupled with his awful form is a giant red flag for someone you want scoring from in the NBA. His shot looks like trash. How many Wolves are we going to build a case for on 20 game sample sizes with? Extrapolating his slight improvement playing against 2nd units with per-36 numbers and then calling him a solid starter is a hugely optimistic jump. "Not earth shattering" means 7th or 8th man to me, Id be very surprised if he peaks much higher than that. Put him on LA even with their need for wings and he plays behind KCP, Green, and Caruso if he sees the floor at all. If we can turn his mistake into Haliburton we do it.

FWIW there have been a lot of top 10 draft picks the last few years that were perimeter players that also shot under 70% from the FT line in college.

Whether Culver was good enough to be a legit player in an NBA rotation can certainly be debated. Its hard for me to say especially when Okogie and Culver ended up leading the team in minutes last year. To me the question is...how valuable is #6 compared to #17? Idk I may still do the Rhetorical deal but I may want some additional small asset back from Atlanta.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Getting another pick around the same value as last year for culver would be a huge plus for me. Culver didnt look like he belonged in the league last year and on any decent team had no business cracking the lineup. Any improvement and he is at best a 7th or 8th man on a good team. Yes please on this deal.

Also, does two lotto picks get us Booker?

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Jarrett Culver's numbers don't look bad at all -- outside of free throw percentage -- from January 1st to the end of the season.

25.6 MPG, 10.5 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 0.6 BPG
43.8 FG%, 34.7 3P% (3.7 3PA), 50.8 FT% (1.8 FTA)

That's essentially the second half of his rookie season and we saw considerable growth from month to month. The numbers also don't incorporate his solid defensive prowess. The free throw percentage is eye-opening and not in a good way, but there's no real reason for the misses considering he was okay at the line in college. I'd expect him to be at least in the 60's next year, if not in the 70's.

Just for fun, his numbers above converted to per-36 look like:

14.7 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.8 BPG

Not earth-shattering, but that's a solid starting wing in today's NBA. Certainly he belonged in the league and in an NBA rotation.

Its totally harsh, someone has to be. I hated the pick at the time and it definitely colors my take.

Just to bite, is below 70% FT in college ok for a wing? Id say that percentage coupled with his awful form is a giant red flag for someone you want scoring from in the NBA. His shot looks like trash. How many Wolves are we going to build a case for on 20 game sample sizes with? Extrapolating his slight improvement playing against 2nd units with per-36 numbers and then calling him a solid starter is a hugely optimistic jump. "Not earth shattering" means 7th or 8th man to me, Id be very surprised if he peaks much higher than that. Put him on LA even with their need for wings and he plays behind KCP, Green, and Caruso if he sees the floor at all. If we can turn his mistake into Haliburton we do it.

Firstly, there have been a number of perimeter players that struggled or didn't excel at the line in college who wound up improving to an acceptable level. I think monster brought up Brandon Ingram (68.2%). Jaylen Brown (65.4%) is another. Add OG Anunoby (56.3%) to the list. Josh Hart (67.0% sophomore season) deserves to be mentioned here as well. Those are a few off the top of my head that I remember improving their free throw percentage from college to the NBA.

And we're completely ignoring that Jarrett Culver shot 70.7% his sophomore season. While not great, it is certainly much, much better than the embarrassing 46.2% he posted his rookie season. Perhaps he made too many adjustments and tried to compensate for his lack of grown man strength resulting in a different release. I don't have the answer to that, but I do think he's a much better shooter than that 46.2% mark would indicate.

Also, those numbers I posted from his second half were not all against reserves. He started 17 of the 32 games that came after the new year and was quite good in a lot of them.

I don't think Culver's a "solid starter" quite yet, but rather his numbers after January 1st were indicative of a solid starter. I think we'd all take 14/5/2 with good defense and acceptable three-point shooting at the wing right now.

Main point: he's definitely worth a rotation spot and to suggest he's not an NBA-caliber player is far off, as I see it.

[SameOldNudityDrew]

I like Culver's defense, he has decent size, and I like that he can handle and pass a bit, but his shooting is just so bad, especially from the line, it's tough to see anything more than a limited future for him unless he can turn that around.

Is moving from 17 to 6 worth giving up on that chance? For me, it depends on what we could do with 6. If we're doing it to grab Patrick Williams, I'm not on board with that. There should be guys on the board at 17 that are at least in the ballpark with Williams, right? He seems kind of like this week's fad. Wouldn't Vassell be a much better option at 6? Maybe even one of those top guys falls.

Think about it this way. Would you rather have Patrick Williams, or Culver and Bey or Culver and RJ or Culver and Nesmith? I also like Tyrell Terry and Cole Anthony might even be worth taking a chance on his potential there. The equation might change for me if it were Haliburton or Vassell we'd get at 6, but if it's for Patrick Williams, I'm not sure that's worth it.

Now, if it were to get us an asset needed to package with #1 to swing a trade for a star like Simmons or Beal, then let's talk!

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

1. Minnesota
2. Golden State
3. Charlotte
4. Chicago
5. Cleveland
6. Atlanta
7. Detroit
8. New York
9. Washington
10. Phoenix

[TheFuture]

I like Culver's defense, he has decent size, and I like that he can handle and pass a bit, but his shooting is just so bad, especially from the line, it's tough to see anything more than a limited future for him unless he can turn that around.

Is moving from 17 to 6 worth giving up on that chance? For me, it depends on what we could do with 6. If we're doing it to grab Patrick Williams, I'm not on board with that. There should be guys on the board at 17 that are at least in the ballpark with Williams, right? He seems kind of like this week's fad. Wouldn't Vassell be a much better option at 6? Maybe even one of those top guys falls.

Think about it this way. Would you rather have Patrick Williams, or Culver and Bey or Culver and RJ or Culver and Nesmith? I also like Tyrell Terry and Cole Anthony might even be worth taking a chance on his potential there. The equation might change for me if it were Haliburton or Vassell we'd get at 6, but if it's for Patrick Williams, I'm not sure that's worth it.

Now, if it were to get us an asset needed to package with #1 to swing a trade for a star like Simmons or Beal, then let's talk!

I'm boarding this train. Well said. I like Culver a lot, likewise many prospects at 17.

If Rosas makes this trade before the draft, he better have a second trade set. Pulling the trigger not knowing who is on the board at 6 would be a fireable offense IMO. Much like the trade up last year when he supposedly was doing it to get Garland.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

If you can get Haliburton I say go for it. Haliburton is a more well rounded player than Culver. I'm still not sure why ATL does the deal though. They need quality more than quantity at this point.