Minnesota Sports Forum

KG4Ever wrote:The Wolves are really working out a lot of the guys we are discussing. Here is my updated list:

Tari Eason, Jalen Williams, Kennedy Chandler, EJ Liddell, Nikola Jovic, Wendell Moore, Christian Koloko, Jaden Hardy, Patrick Baldwin, Christian Braun, Andrew Nembhard, Ismael Kamagate, Jean Montero, Gabriele Procida, Julian Champagnie, David Roddy, Bryce McGowans, Max Christie, Keon Ellis, JD Davidson, John Butler, Iverson Molnar, Johnny Zugang and a bunch of lesser known names.

That's a pretty telling list. Lots of hybrid forward types here as well as shot creators. Almost all of those non-bigs have a perimeter shot in their bag. I'd be surprised if Minnesota doesn't also get a look at Justin Lewis, another player I really like.

Camden wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:The Wolves are really working out a lot of the guys we are discussing. Here is my updated list:

Tari Eason, Jalen Williams, Kennedy Chandler, EJ Liddell, Nikola Jovic, Wendell Moore, Christian Koloko, Jaden Hardy, Patrick Baldwin, Christian Braun, Andrew Nembhard, Ismael Kamagate, Jean Montero, Gabriele Procida, Julian Champagnie, David Roddy, Bryce McGowans, Max Christie, Keon Ellis, JD Davidson, John Butler, Iverson Molnar, Johnny Zugang and a bunch of lesser known names.

That's a pretty telling list. Lots of hybrid forward types here as well as shot creators. Almost all of those non-bigs have a perimeter shot in their bag. I'd be surprised if Minnesota doesn't also get a look at Justin Lewis, another player I really like.

I haven't looked at Justin Lewis yet. I'll have to check out his stats and videos. I like the list, which includes candidates for the 19th pick as well as the Wolves' three pics in the second round.

I notice that Dalen Terry doesn't show up on the list yet. Hope they're considering him.

Here are the guys on that list who I consider to be first-round talents in my order of preference:

1. Tari Eason - Probably have to trade up to get him.
2. Jalen Williams
3. Wendell Moore
4. Nikola Jovic
5. Jaden Hardy
6. EJ Liddell
7. Kennedy Chandler

Here are my second-round guys in order of preference:

1. Julian Champagnie
2. Max Christie
3. Christian Braun
4. Christian Koloko
5. Gabriele Procida
6. Andrew Nembhard
7. Jean Montero
8. Bryce McGowen
9. Ismael Kamagate
10. David Roddy
11. Keon Ellis

Guys I like who could be available when the Wolves pick but the Wolves haven't worked out yet:

1. Dalen Terry
2. Jake LaRavia
3. Ron Harper Jr.

KG4Ever wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:We have votes for five different players and I think each of them has merits. I think its also possible that someone slides down to 19 that we aren't considering now. Among those who may have some chance of sliding to 19, the likelihood of a slider based on mocks and scuttlebutt are probably TyTy; Eason; Mark Williams, Agbaji and Dieng from most likely to least likely to slide and I find it unlikely, barring a last minute injury or failed drug test, that anyone else could slide to 19.

I think this is a very flat draft outside of the lottery and into the early second round, meaning you can make legit cases for many candidates to be the BPA at 19. We don't have access to the workouts and interviews and non-public info that the Wolves organization has, so hopefully, the Wolves with this additional info are able to ascertain the BPA. The Wolves very well could feel like this board in that several players could be the BPA and if so, fit will probably be critical.

I tend to agree with your idea that there is a range where there may not be a significant separation between prospects unless someone slides. Obviously the Wolves or other teams may identify players that are simply valued higher but I wonder if there will be an opportunity to do a deal where the Timberwolves do something like they did in 2020 where they traded down a few slots and moved up to get a 2nd first round pick. There are a lot of teams with multiple firsts and 2nds in this draft so idk if those opportunities will be there or not.

The teams with multiple picks between 19 and 40 are San Antonio, Memphis and OKC. Unless the Wolves are dead set on a guy available at 19, I'd consider moving 19 and 40 for 22 and 29.

I'd do that and I would throw in another 2nd from this year but Memphis is already picking at #47. Looking more at the draft this goes against what we are saying about the draft in general but if the Wolves wanted to move up just a few picks there might be opportunities to do that. For example Houston has their pick but they are at #17 and don't have a 2nd round pick. Maybe they would be interested in dropping down a couple spots and pick up a shot at guy in the 2nd round.

I keep my expectations somewhat low on how much value the Wolves can get from all three 2nd round picks but they have a lot of assets to add to the Wolves roster in this draft. Maybe even an established vet gets added to the roster at some point like in the Rubio trade in 2020.

Camden wrote:Lip, how can you be "convinced" E.J. Liddell's perimeter shot won't translate while in the same post ignore Dalen Terry's weakness as a shooter? Liddell shot nearly twice as many threes as Terry last year and still converted with higher efficiency. Terry also struggles in the mid-range and lacks any semblance of an in-between game as he does not possess a consistent runner at this time-- both of which Liddell is comfortable doing. I don't necessarily expect you to flip how you feel about either prospect this close to the draft, but you can see how there's an inconsistent approach in your process there, no?

I'd also disagree with your claim that Liddell's calling card at Ohio State was shot-blocking. I think that waters down or minimizes the all-around impact he had at the NCAA level and what he was asked to do there. Liddell was the best overall player on a very solid Buckeyes team last year and he did so making plays in every facet of the game. He led the team in scoring at 19.4 PPG on .598 true shooting taking on the role of the first option offensively -- often having to create his own offense -- which won't be expected of him at the next level. He was second on the team in assists per game (2.5). He was first in rebounds (7.9) and blocked shots (2.6). Liddell was an all-around contributor and stood out significantly in terms of box plus-minus metrics while playing the most minutes on the team.

He essentially carried that team on his back to a 20-12 record in the Big Ten and into the second round of the NCAA tournament. That was no fluke either. Liddell plays a winning brand of basketball that stems from a high IQ and a never-ending motor. He is exactly the kind of player that translates regardless of his measurables-- 6'7", 243-pounds with a 7'0" wingspan and an 8'7.5" standing reach. And even those have been overstated given his above average vertical leap and agility marks, both of which indicate that he's an impressive athlete. He's essentially comparable to Draymond Green in physical profile while sacrificing a couple inches of length for superior athleticism. And if you don't like that comparison, Liddell has a bigger and longer physical profile than Brandon Clarke, Grant Williams, Jae Crowder, and P.J. Tucker.

I'm not sold Liddell gets past Chicago at 18, but if he does I think he would be an awesome pick for Minnesota.

Cam - I didn't ignore Terry's weakness as as shooter. I simply pointed out that shooting can improve, which of course is true for Liddell as well. But more importantly, I pointed out that Terry's shooting percentages tell us his so-called weakness isn't all that weak.

My main issue with Liddell is that he's an undersized big who can't put the ball on the floor. Green is a bad comparison because Green came out of college as a decent ball-handler. I like Liddell's athleticism, IQ and motor. But he's limited offensively in my view. Liddell's mid-range scoring comes on post-ups. His face-up game is terrible. Defenders even at the college level force him to turn the ball over. His lack of length without the ability to face up and handle the ball is a troubling combination. His perimeter shot is flat and some analysts have questioned whether he can extend his range to the NBA three-point line. I don't see the same issue with Terry. And Terry also has a high IQ and great motor.

Don't get me wrong. I still like Liddell. But I'd much prefer Terry or Williams at 19. I like long wings who can handle the ball and play-make, which both of those guys do well. I like drafting a player who starts with a physical advantage at his position. That would true of Terry and Williams, but would not be true of Liddell. If we trade down for the two Memphis pick, then my ideal would be Terry or Williams and Liddell.

monsterpile wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:We have votes for five different players and I think each of them has merits. I think its also possible that someone slides down to 19 that we aren't considering now. Among those who may have some chance of sliding to 19, the likelihood of a slider based on mocks and scuttlebutt are probably TyTy; Eason; Mark Williams, Agbaji and Dieng from most likely to least likely to slide and I find it unlikely, barring a last minute injury or failed drug test, that anyone else could slide to 19.

I think this is a very flat draft outside of the lottery and into the early second round, meaning you can make legit cases for many candidates to be the BPA at 19. We don't have access to the workouts and interviews and non-public info that the Wolves organization has, so hopefully, the Wolves with this additional info are able to ascertain the BPA. The Wolves very well could feel like this board in that several players could be the BPA and if so, fit will probably be critical.

I tend to agree with your idea that there is a range where there may not be a significant separation between prospects unless someone slides. Obviously the Wolves or other teams may identify players that are simply valued higher but I wonder if there will be an opportunity to do a deal where the Timberwolves do something like they did in 2020 where they traded down a few slots and moved up to get a 2nd first round pick. There are a lot of teams with multiple firsts and 2nds in this draft so idk if those opportunities will be there or not.

The teams with multiple picks between 19 and 40 are San Antonio, Memphis and OKC. Unless the Wolves are dead set on a guy available at 19, I'd consider moving 19 and 40 for 22 and 29.

I'd do that and I would throw in another 2nd from this year but Memphis is already picking at #47. Looking more at the draft this goes against what we are saying about the draft in general but if the Wolves wanted to move up just a few picks there might be opportunities to do that. For example Houston has their pick but they are at #17 and don't have a 2nd round pick. Maybe they would be interested in dropping down a couple spots and pick up a shot at guy in the 2nd round.

I keep my expectations somewhat low on how much value the Wolves can get from all three 2nd round picks but they have a lot of assets to add to the Wolves roster in this draft. Maybe even an established vet gets added to the roster at some point like in the Rubio trade in 2020.

I would also do that deal with Memphis. But I also like Monster's idea about swapping picks with Houston to move up a couple spots, but only if there's a guy the Wolves covet and are pretty sure the Bulls would take or trade at 18. For me, I'd consider giving up our #40 pick as part of swapping 1st-round picks with Houston to get Dalen Terry unless I knew that Tari Eason or Jalen Williams would be available at #19.

My bottom line is that I want the Wolves, at minimum, to come out of this draft with one of the following in the following order of preference :

1. Dyson Daniels;
2. Tari Eason;
3. Dalen Terry; or
4. Jalen Williams

I don't see any realistic change of trading up for Dyson Daniels. We'd probably have to trade up for Eason and I think that might be realistic. If we can't trade up for either one, I'm hoping Dalen Terry or Jalen Williams falls to #19.

I'd probably get excited if we drafted Jovic. His upside is really intriguing. And I'd be OK if we ended up with Moore or Liddell. I think they're both solid, NBA-ready players.

I'm not sure why we would want to give up pick 40 (which I think has value in this deep draft) to move up to pick Dalen Terry from 19 as I don't see much evidence he'll be off the board by 19 and during the last consensus mock draft his average pick was 37 with 23 being the highest. He was mocked second round for quite a while before talk of him being a likely late first rounder. I think Terry is an upside play, but I also see Eason, TyTy, Jalen Williams, Chandler, Jovic as upside plays and Lidell, Moore and Koloko as safer picks with some upside. Perhaps, if I felt as excited about Terry as you are, I'd feel differently, but I see about 8 picks I could be happy with so I'd rather use 19 to move back and get two of them.

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden wrote:Lip, how can you be "convinced" E.J. Liddell's perimeter shot won't translate while in the same post ignore Dalen Terry's weakness as a shooter? Liddell shot nearly twice as many threes as Terry last year and still converted with higher efficiency. Terry also struggles in the mid-range and lacks any semblance of an in-between game as he does not possess a consistent runner at this time-- both of which Liddell is comfortable doing. I don't necessarily expect you to flip how you feel about either prospect this close to the draft, but you can see how there's an inconsistent approach in your process there, no?

I'd also disagree with your claim that Liddell's calling card at Ohio State was shot-blocking. I think that waters down or minimizes the all-around impact he had at the NCAA level and what he was asked to do there. Liddell was the best overall player on a very solid Buckeyes team last year and he did so making plays in every facet of the game. He led the team in scoring at 19.4 PPG on .598 true shooting taking on the role of the first option offensively -- often having to create his own offense -- which won't be expected of him at the next level. He was second on the team in assists per game (2.5). He was first in rebounds (7.9) and blocked shots (2.6). Liddell was an all-around contributor and stood out significantly in terms of box plus-minus metrics while playing the most minutes on the team.

He essentially carried that team on his back to a 20-12 record in the Big Ten and into the second round of the NCAA tournament. That was no fluke either. Liddell plays a winning brand of basketball that stems from a high IQ and a never-ending motor. He is exactly the kind of player that translates regardless of his measurables-- 6'7", 243-pounds with a 7'0" wingspan and an 8'7.5" standing reach. And even those have been overstated given his above average vertical leap and agility marks, both of which indicate that he's an impressive athlete. He's essentially comparable to Draymond Green in physical profile while sacrificing a couple inches of length for superior athleticism. And if you don't like that comparison, Liddell has a bigger and longer physical profile than Brandon Clarke, Grant Williams, Jae Crowder, and P.J. Tucker.

I'm not sold Liddell gets past Chicago at 18, but if he does I think he would be an awesome pick for Minnesota.

Cam - I didn't ignore Terry's weakness as as shooter. I simply pointed out that shooting can improve, which of course is true for Liddell as well. But more importantly, I pointed out that Terry's shooting percentages tell us his so-called weakness isn't all that weak.

My main issue with Liddell is that he's an undersized big who can't put the ball on the floor. Green is a bad comparison because Green came out of college as a decent ball-handler. I like Liddell's athleticism, IQ and motor. But he's limited offensively in my view. Liddell's mid-range scoring comes on post-ups. His face-up game is terrible. Defenders even at the college level force him to turn the ball over. His lack of length without the ability to face up and handle the ball is a troubling combination. His perimeter shot is flat and some analysts have questioned whether he can extend his range to the NBA three-point line. I don't see the same issue with Terry. And Terry also has a high IQ and great motor.

Don't get me wrong. I still like Liddell. But I'd much prefer Terry or Williams at 19. I like long wings who can handle the ball and play-make, which both of those guys do well. I like drafting a player who starts with a physical advantage at his position. That would true of Terry and Williams, but would not be true of Liddell. If we trade down for the two Memphis pick, then my ideal would be Terry or Williams and Liddell.

Lip, forgive me, but that's not exactly the point I was trying to get across. Dalen Terry is an intriguing prospect for a lot of the reasons you've described, however, I don't understand how you can dismiss, or rather overlook, his minuscule sample size from three, but then question if E.J. Liddell's perimeter shot would even translate. This despite Liddell having shot nearly twice as many attempts from three than Terry and on even higher efficiency. I'm just not understanding why there's skepticism on the more proven shooter in this regard, but not the other. I could perhaps understand if Terry had perfect shot mechanics, but that's just not the case at all.

Also, I think there's some confusion here. I was not comparing Liddell's game or skill set to any of the other bigs I mentioned. I was simply comparing their physical profiles because you noted that you were concerned with Liddell's size, or lack thereof. I mentioned that Draymond Green had a slight advantage over Liddell in terms of length, but Liddell is a superior athlete vertically and laterally. I also compared Liddell's physical profile to other proven NBA forwards Brandon Clarke, Grant Williams, P.J. Tucker, and Jae Crowder -- all of whom are more undersized than Liddell.

There are flaws in Liddell's game, no doubt, but that's to be expected when picking in the later half of the first round. He could stand to improve his face-up game and his handle in the half-court could tighten up a bit, but I fail to see how big of an issue that is considering his likely role. Furthermore, the positives or things he can contribute immediately are vast and tangible. He's as NBA-ready as any player in this class and that has value. It's certainly a matter of preference, but I like Liddell's high floor and overall well-rounded game at a position of need more than another project at the wing with what I'd consider to be an unreliable perimeter shot.

Camden wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden wrote:Lip, how can you be "convinced" E.J. Liddell's perimeter shot won't translate while in the same post ignore Dalen Terry's weakness as a shooter? Liddell shot nearly twice as many threes as Terry last year and still converted with higher efficiency. Terry also struggles in the mid-range and lacks any semblance of an in-between game as he does not possess a consistent runner at this time-- both of which Liddell is comfortable doing. I don't necessarily expect you to flip how you feel about either prospect this close to the draft, but you can see how there's an inconsistent approach in your process there, no?

I'd also disagree with your claim that Liddell's calling card at Ohio State was shot-blocking. I think that waters down or minimizes the all-around impact he had at the NCAA level and what he was asked to do there. Liddell was the best overall player on a very solid Buckeyes team last year and he did so making plays in every facet of the game. He led the team in scoring at 19.4 PPG on .598 true shooting taking on the role of the first option offensively -- often having to create his own offense -- which won't be expected of him at the next level. He was second on the team in assists per game (2.5). He was first in rebounds (7.9) and blocked shots (2.6). Liddell was an all-around contributor and stood out significantly in terms of box plus-minus metrics while playing the most minutes on the team.

He essentially carried that team on his back to a 20-12 record in the Big Ten and into the second round of the NCAA tournament. That was no fluke either. Liddell plays a winning brand of basketball that stems from a high IQ and a never-ending motor. He is exactly the kind of player that translates regardless of his measurables-- 6'7", 243-pounds with a 7'0" wingspan and an 8'7.5" standing reach. And even those have been overstated given his above average vertical leap and agility marks, both of which indicate that he's an impressive athlete. He's essentially comparable to Draymond Green in physical profile while sacrificing a couple inches of length for superior athleticism. And if you don't like that comparison, Liddell has a bigger and longer physical profile than Brandon Clarke, Grant Williams, Jae Crowder, and P.J. Tucker.

I'm not sold Liddell gets past Chicago at 18, but if he does I think he would be an awesome pick for Minnesota.

My main issue with Liddell is that he's an undersized big who can't put the ball on the floor. Green is a bad comparison because Green came out of college as a decent ball-handler. I like Liddell's athleticism, IQ and motor. But he's limited offensively in my view. Liddell's mid-range scoring comes on post-ups. His face-up game is terrible. Defenders even at the college level force him to turn the ball over. His lack of length without the ability to face up and handle the ball is a troubling combination. His perimeter shot is flat and some analysts have questioned whether he can extend his range to the NBA three-point line. I don't see the same issue with Terry. And Terry also has a high IQ and great motor.

Don't get me wrong. I still like Liddell. But I'd much prefer Terry or Williams at 19. I like long wings who can handle the ball and play-make, which both of those guys do well. I like drafting a player who starts with a physical advantage at his position. That would true of Terry and Williams, but would not be true of Liddell. If we trade down for the two Memphis pick, then my ideal would be Terry or Williams and Liddell.

Lip, forgive me, but that's not exactly the point I was trying to get across. Dalen Terry is an intriguing prospect for a lot of the reasons you've described, however, I don't understand how you can dismiss, or rather overlook, his minuscule sample size from three, but then question if E.J. Liddell's perimeter shot would even translate. This despite Liddell having shot nearly twice as many attempts from three than Terry and on even higher efficiency. I'm just not understanding why there's skepticism on the more proven shooter in this regard, but not the other. I could perhaps understand if Terry had perfect shot mechanics, but that's just not the case at all.

Also, I think there's some confusion here. I was not comparing Liddell's game or skill set to any of the other bigs I mentioned. I was simply comparing their physical profiles because you noted that you were concerned with Liddell's size, or lack thereof. I mentioned that Draymond Green had a slight advantage over Liddell in terms of length, but Liddell is a superior athlete vertically and laterally. I also compared Liddell's physical profile to other proven NBA forwards Brandon Clarke, Grant Williams, P.J. Tucker, and Jae Crowder -- all of whom are more undersized than Liddell.

There are flaws in Liddell's game, no doubt, but that's to be expected when picking in the later half of the first round. He could stand to improve his face-up game and his handle in the half-court could tighten up a bit, but I fail to see how big of an issue that is considering his likely role. Furthermore, the positives or things he can contribute immediately are vast and tangible. He's as NBA-ready as any player in this class and that has value. It's certainly a matter of preference, but I like Liddell's high floor and overall well-rounded game at a position of need more than another project at the wing with what I'd consider to be an unreliable perimeter shot.

Cam -

Again, I'm not ignoring Terry's flaws. I mentioned those flaws. I certainly agree that his small sample size on threes means we can't rely on his 36% 3-point stat when evaluating his potential as a 3-point shooter in the NBA. But I've watched a lot of videos of his three-point shooting. I love his form, high release and his arc, although his release is a bit slow. My concern about Liddell's 3-point shooting stems from (1) his poor 3-point shooting in his first two seasons at Ohio State; and (2) what looks like a very flat shot and seems to come in just over the front of the rim from the college arc. Terry's 3-point shot looks much better to me. But all of that is beside the point because I didn't identify 3-point shooing as one of Terry's strengths; I identified it as a weakness. In contrast, 3-point shooting is a strength often highlighted in support of Liddell as a potential pick. That's why his 3-point shooting is of particular concern. I think three-point shooting will have to be good for him to be the player I'd want him to be if the Wolves drafted him. I'm not saying he won't turn out to be a good three-point shooter in the NBA; since I see him as a 1st round talent, I obviously haven't concluded that he won't. I'm just saying there are reasons for doubt.

I understood your point that there have been successful NBA bigs with length similar to Liddell's. If I didn't understand that I wouldn't give Liddell and first round grade. I like Liddell's physical strength and athleticism. But my point is that Liddell's length (or lack thereof - 6'7.5" standing reach) is a negative. Yes, it's a negative he can overcome based on other attributes, but it's still a negative. When I think about draft prospects, I prefer players who start with a combination of physical attributes and skills that give them an advantage at their position. Terry's combination of PF length and PG skills gives him an advantage at the starting line. Liddell's SG/SF length and poor ball skills saddle him with a disadvantage at the start that he'll have to overcome. I actually think Liddell will over come those negative attributes with his athleticism, savvy and motor. But I'd prefer Terry, who also has terrific athleticism, savvy and motor, because of his combo of physical attributes and skills.

I also put more value on long wings with ball skills than I do bigs without ball skills. Finally, I think the Wolves should focus on free agency to fill their need for another big. We can sign a free agent big with more size than Liddell and with a proven NBA track record.

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden wrote:Lip, how can you be "convinced" E.J. Liddell's perimeter shot won't translate while in the same post ignore Dalen Terry's weakness as a shooter? Liddell shot nearly twice as many threes as Terry last year and still converted with higher efficiency. Terry also struggles in the mid-range and lacks any semblance of an in-between game as he does not possess a consistent runner at this time-- both of which Liddell is comfortable doing. I don't necessarily expect you to flip how you feel about either prospect this close to the draft, but you can see how there's an inconsistent approach in your process there, no?

I'd also disagree with your claim that Liddell's calling card at Ohio State was shot-blocking. I think that waters down or minimizes the all-around impact he had at the NCAA level and what he was asked to do there. Liddell was the best overall player on a very solid Buckeyes team last year and he did so making plays in every facet of the game. He led the team in scoring at 19.4 PPG on .598 true shooting taking on the role of the first option offensively -- often having to create his own offense -- which won't be expected of him at the next level. He was second on the team in assists per game (2.5). He was first in rebounds (7.9) and blocked shots (2.6). Liddell was an all-around contributor and stood out significantly in terms of box plus-minus metrics while playing the most minutes on the team.

He essentially carried that team on his back to a 20-12 record in the Big Ten and into the second round of the NCAA tournament. That was no fluke either. Liddell plays a winning brand of basketball that stems from a high IQ and a never-ending motor. He is exactly the kind of player that translates regardless of his measurables-- 6'7", 243-pounds with a 7'0" wingspan and an 8'7.5" standing reach. And even those have been overstated given his above average vertical leap and agility marks, both of which indicate that he's an impressive athlete. He's essentially comparable to Draymond Green in physical profile while sacrificing a couple inches of length for superior athleticism. And if you don't like that comparison, Liddell has a bigger and longer physical profile than Brandon Clarke, Grant Williams, Jae Crowder, and P.J. Tucker.

I'm not sold Liddell gets past Chicago at 18, but if he does I think he would be an awesome pick for Minnesota.

My main issue with Liddell is that he's an undersized big who can't put the ball on the floor. Green is a bad comparison because Green came out of college as a decent ball-handler. I like Liddell's athleticism, IQ and motor. But he's limited offensively in my view. Liddell's mid-range scoring comes on post-ups. His face-up game is terrible. Defenders even at the college level force him to turn the ball over. His lack of length without the ability to face up and handle the ball is a troubling combination. His perimeter shot is flat and some analysts have questioned whether he can extend his range to the NBA three-point line. I don't see the same issue with Terry. And Terry also has a high IQ and great motor.

Don't get me wrong. I still like Liddell. But I'd much prefer Terry or Williams at 19. I like long wings who can handle the ball and play-make, which both of those guys do well. I like drafting a player who starts with a physical advantage at his position. That would true of Terry and Williams, but would not be true of Liddell. If we trade down for the two Memphis pick, then my ideal would be Terry or Williams and Liddell.

Lip, forgive me, but that's not exactly the point I was trying to get across. Dalen Terry is an intriguing prospect for a lot of the reasons you've described, however, I don't understand how you can dismiss, or rather overlook, his minuscule sample size from three, but then question if E.J. Liddell's perimeter shot would even translate. This despite Liddell having shot nearly twice as many attempts from three than Terry and on even higher efficiency. I'm just not understanding why there's skepticism on the more proven shooter in this regard, but not the other. I could perhaps understand if Terry had perfect shot mechanics, but that's just not the case at all.

Also, I think there's some confusion here. I was not comparing Liddell's game or skill set to any of the other bigs I mentioned. I was simply comparing their physical profiles because you noted that you were concerned with Liddell's size, or lack thereof. I mentioned that Draymond Green had a slight advantage over Liddell in terms of length, but Liddell is a superior athlete vertically and laterally. I also compared Liddell's physical profile to other proven NBA forwards Brandon Clarke, Grant Williams, P.J. Tucker, and Jae Crowder -- all of whom are more undersized than Liddell.

There are flaws in Liddell's game, no doubt, but that's to be expected when picking in the later half of the first round. He could stand to improve his face-up game and his handle in the half-court could tighten up a bit, but I fail to see how big of an issue that is considering his likely role. Furthermore, the positives or things he can contribute immediately are vast and tangible. He's as NBA-ready as any player in this class and that has value. It's certainly a matter of preference, but I like Liddell's high floor and overall well-rounded game at a position of need more than another project at the wing with what I'd consider to be an unreliable perimeter shot.

Cam -

Again, I'm not ignoring Terry's flaws. I mentioned those flaws. I certainly agree that his small sample size on threes means we can't rely on his 36% 3-point stat when evaluating his potential as a 3-point shooter in the NBA. But I've watched a lot of videos of his three-point shooting. I love his form, high release and his arc, although his release is a bit slow. My concern about Liddell's 3-point shooting stems from (1) his poor 3-point shooting in his first two seasons at Ohio State; and (2) what looks like a very flat shot and seems to come in just over the front of the rim from the college arc. Terry's 3-point shot looks much better to me. But all of that is beside the point because I didn't identify 3-point shooing as one of Terry's strengths; I identified it as a weakness. In contrast, 3-point shooting is a strength often highlighted in support of Liddell as a potential pick. That's why his 3-point shooting is of particular concern. I think three-point shooting will have to be good for him to be the player I'd want him to be if the Wolves drafted him. I'm not saying he won't turn out to be a good three-point shooter in the NBA; since I see him as a 1st round talent, I obviously haven't concluded that he won't. I'm just saying there are reasons for doubt.

I understood your point that there have been successful NBA bigs with length similar to Liddell's. If I didn't understand that I wouldn't give Liddell and first round grade. I like Liddell's physical strength and athleticism. But my point is that Liddell's length (or lack thereof - 6'7.5" standing reach) is a negative. Yes, it's a negative he can overcome based on other attributes, but it's still a negative. When I think about draft prospects, I prefer players who start with a combination of physical attributes and skills that give them an advantage at their position. Terry's combination of PF length and PG skills gives him an advantage at the starting line. Liddell's SG/SF length and poor ball skills saddle him with a disadvantage at the start that he'll have to overcome. I actually think Liddell will over come those negative attributes with his athleticism, savvy and motor. But I'd prefer Terry, who also has terrific athleticism, savvy and motor, because of his combo of physical attributes and skills.

I also put more value on long wings with ball skills than I do bigs without ball skills. Finally, I think the Wolves should focus on free agency to fill their need for another big. We can sign a free agent big with more size than Liddell and with a proven NBA track record.

Often what really makes or breaks the undersized PFs is something that is often pretty difficult to assess coming out of college. Defense. Draymond is a maestro on that end. PJ Tucker plays bigger and does so many things on that end of the floor. If Liddell has that ability to defend at the NBA level I think there is enough other things no s he does well I think it's likely he is effective as an NBA player. I can't say whether he has that part of his game and to be clear I'm not questioning his defense it's that I find it harder to identify that skill especially at that position. It seems easier to see if a guy can defend on the wing. Guys like Liddel have to be able to do things on team defense that not everyone can do.

I just finished watching Ohio state come up with the win against Duke. Here are a few thoughts.

Mark Williams got into foul trouble and maybe that was part of how he was playing post defense but Zak Key was getting deep position or just crab dribbling Williams back and getting easy looks at the bucket. This was partly why Liddell wasn't getting touches. Later in the game. If you want a guy with a gin of length and some potential Williams is nice but if you want him to match up with the big center in the league he is gonna get owned by those guys that are physically bigger at least for a while.

Moore continues to look like a solid player. I'm trying to decide why it is that I line him so much. Jay Bills said during the game that they actually had him work on his gait because he walked/ran with his toes out and now he doesn't and it's made a difference. Idk about that but it's interesting. I just see him as a possible one of those guys a lot of championship level teams have like Smart Iggy Jrue. Yeah he might not be a big time scorer but if he does all the other stuff great. It's not a guarantee that he becomes what I envision. I do agree with Lip if there is an upside guy then yeah take him.

Liddell I think he guarded Banchero well. I also think at times Banchero wasn't smart in how he played but I'll give Liddell credit. Liddell had a good rebounding game and he made some plays but idk watching this game Inwent back to my previous take that he is a nice player and I would like to have him but Inthink there will be guys I would rather take at #19. I still like him but some of the negatives that have been pointed out in scouting reports were there. Having said that he made plays and shots down the stretch in this game and it was against Moore who was guarding him (Duke went small because of foul trouble) so props to him.