Minnesota Sports Forum

monsterpile wrote:

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.

That's a great take, Monster.

monsterpile wrote: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.

Interesting observations, Monster. Williams should be a great interior defender with his incredible length. But I know he fouled a lot during the season. So he has a lot to learn.

I have the same view as you on Liddell. I think he'll be a good NBA player and he's definitely a 1st-round talent in my view, but I agree that there will be alternatives I'd prefer at that 19, including Dalen Terry, Jalen Williams and Wendell Moore. One thing those three have in common is that they all have good to great size for the NBA wing position and they're all very good ball-handlers and passers. I like the idea of drafting a talented playmaking wing with upside to pair with more ball-dominant scorers like Ant and KAT. I think Williams is the best overall offensive player of the three.

Who are some of the guys you like right now as possible picks at #19? Any thoughts on trading up or down?

lipoli390 wrote:

monsterpile wrote: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.

Interesting observations, Monster. Williams should be a great interior defender with his incredible length. But I know he fouled a lot during the season. So he has a lot to learn.

I have the same view as you on Liddell. I think he'll be a good NBA player and he's definitely a 1st-round talent in my view, but I agree that there will be alternatives I'd prefer at that 19, including Dalen Terry, Jalen Williams and Wendell Moore. One thing those three have in common is that they all have good to great size for the NBA wing position and they're all very good ball-handlers and passers. I like the idea of drafting a talented playmaking wing with upside to pair with more ball-dominant scorers like Ant and KAT. I think Williams is the best overall offensive player of the three.

Who are some of the guys you like right now as possible picks at #19? Any thoughts on trading up or down?

Just to be clear if Mark Williams lasts to 19 I wouldn't be against picking him. The length is a real factor and I think he could have an impact right away in minutes here and there. One reason he didn't play as many minutes likely was Banchero playing at C made sense and Theo Jon was a heck of a backup and he only averaged 11mpg. I'd probably lean toward picking someone else and trying to find a big elsewhere. If I'm going with a true big I would prefer it be someone that plays with a strong base because none of the Wolves bigs really do that and Williams to be honest may never be that guy either.

Lip honestly I am losing a little steam on my draft research. I'll probably check out few more of the higher upside guys that might be available at 19 and then let everyone else here on this board plus Connelly and his crew do the rest. :) I doubt I will find a guy worth trading up for in my research but as we have seen in the last few years sometimes that's a good play. Donovan Mitchell is the first one that is going to come to mind but imagine if the Suns didn't end up making the deal for Bridges...or if the Sixers had kept him. Right now I'd probably be more interested in making a deal where I was assured to get a higher 2nd pick than go up and get someone higher than 19 but again that's because I don't have a sense of who I would go after.

I'm just going to admit I think I like Moore too much. Was his Jr season a flash in the pan? Is his shooting real? Can he be the guy that's good at a lot of things...I start to think maybe that's asking a lot. When I read your post above about wings that could handle the ball make some plays (which fits my vision for Moore) etc it made me think of Culver and if he was even a decent 3 point shooter he may have been a nice player to play in that role. Unfortunately that's a pretty big problem and it also seems like he lost confidence or maybe the league isn't for him. I wouldn't be surprised if he figures it out to be a solid rotation player even at the level what Wes Johnson achieved would be a solid career (and a nice payday) even if both guys disappointed for how highly they were drafted. It really sucks when a team basically completely whiffs on a guy. I always say that at least Marvin Willams was a good starter although he was a disappointment at #2. Imagine if the Wolves had gotten that level of player when they picked Derrick Williams?

Anyway, I hope the Wolves draft someone good at basketball. If nothing else it could be another piece to make a move for that player we need to take the next step. I was thinking about it today how some championship level teams made aggressive moves to add that player that was key. GS gave up a decent amount to add Iggy in the first place in FA and he won a Finals MVP. Bucks gave up a big price for Jrue and it was the right move. Not all those type of moves work but someday the Wolves may be in a position to make a more aggressive move than I would typically want to make that pays off. It would be nice to be able to draft and develop that piece instead of having to trade for it.

We have 4 picks, but unlikely 4 roster spots. I'm less inclined to add a big because I think we can add if nobody else, Petr Cornelie. He checks off so much that I'm way more inclined to add a D'Lo successor rather than another big man, though if a center is available, we should pursue one in round 2.

WildWolf2813 wrote:We have 4 picks, but unlikely 4 roster spots. I'm less inclined to add a big because I think we can add if nobody else, Petr Cornelie. He checks off so much that I'm way more inclined to add a D'Lo successor rather than another big man, though if a center is available, we should pursue one in round 2.

I agree that a big man shouldn't be the priority with pick 19. Mark Williams is the only one I'd consider here, but honestly, I'd rather focus on either a point guard or three and D player. I wouldn't focus on using our picks on a big man unless we can get a guy like Koloko if either he falls to 40 or we trade up to get him. If not, I think we might consider stashing a foreign big at 50 (Kamagate, Nzosa), but I'd rather focus on other positions as I think there are plenty of decent centers available in free agency that won't break the bank. I think there are some upside point guards and some upside three and D prospects that I'd like to prioritize with pick 19. For point guards, we might be able to get either TyTy Washington or Kennedy Chandler at 19 and I like them both. I think Chandler has the higher upside but TyTy has the higher floor. In round 2, we might be able to get Andrew Nembhard or Jean Montero. Nembhard seems to be in the Tyus Jones/Monte Morris mold-very good ball handler and passer. Montero is a more athtletic scoring type of point guard. As far as three and D prospects, there are quite a few I like either at 19 like Eason, Jalen Williams, Dalen Terry, Moore, Liddell, Beauchamp or in round 2 (Justin Lewis, Braun, Vince Williams, Champagnie). I also like Tevin Brown as a sharpshooter in round 2 and Dom Barlow and Leonard Miller as swing for the fence developmental types in round 2, both are former guards who had growth spurts and have nice wing spans(7'3 and 7"2 respectively) and are athletic.

I'll just throw this out there what kind of future draft compensation would you have to have to deal away #19 and out of the first round of this draft? This would open up a roster spot for a FA another 2nd round pick to make a roster or for a possible trade. I'm not saying I'm dying to do this but a future lottery protected first round pick plus maybe something else minor like a future 2nd might have value. I like a lot of the guys that are likely available at 19 but I'm not sure there is anyone I would have to have. If the right offer came along to deal that pick for a future asset I might consider that I could keep or sign another player possibly a younger guy. it I don't think this is likely for the Wolves especially with so many teams with multiple first round picks but it's an interesting angle to me anyways and a different way of trying to value the players at #19 and maybe even to some extent guys we might pick later in the 2nd round

monsterpile wrote:I'll just throw this out there what kind of future draft compensation would you have to have to deal away #19 and out of the first round of this draft? This would open up a roster spot for a FA another 2nd round pick to make a roster or for a possible trade. I'm not saying I'm dying to do this but a future lottery protected first round pick plus maybe something else minor like a future 2nd might have value. I like a lot of the guys that are likely available at 19 but I'm not sure there is anyone I would have to have. If the right offer came along to deal that pick for a future asset I might consider that I could keep or sign another player possibly a younger guy. it I don't think this is likely for the Wolves especially with so many teams with multiple first round picks but it's an interesting angle to me anyways and a different way of trying to value the players at #19 and maybe even to some extent guys we might pick later in the 2nd round

I think the goal would be to get a chance at a pick higher than 19 in the future. I'm guessing a lottery protected first would be the best offer out there if the right player fell to 19. It really depends on the team. Would we want that from a team that is likely to be in the lottery for the next few years? It could be beneficial since the team will get very expensive in the near future. I would personally try to push for top 8 or 10 protection on a future pick but that seems unlikely.

Phenom's_Revenge wrote:

monsterpile wrote:I'll just throw this out there what kind of future draft compensation would you have to have to deal away #19 and out of the first round of this draft? This would open up a roster spot for a FA another 2nd round pick to make a roster or for a possible trade. I'm not saying I'm dying to do this but a future lottery protected first round pick plus maybe something else minor like a future 2nd might have value. I like a lot of the guys that are likely available at 19 but I'm not sure there is anyone I would have to have. If the right offer came along to deal that pick for a future asset I might consider that I could keep or sign another player possibly a younger guy. it I don't think this is likely for the Wolves especially with so many teams with multiple first round picks but it's an interesting angle to me anyways and a different way of trying to value the players at #19 and maybe even to some extent guys we might pick later in the 2nd round

I think the goal would be to get a chance at a pick higher than 19 in the future. I'm guessing a lottery protected first would be the best offer out there if the right player fell to 19. It really depends on the team. Would we want that from a team that is likely to be in the lottery for the next few years? It could be beneficial since the team will get very expensive in the near future. I would personally try to push for top 8 or 10 protection on a future pick but that seems unlikely.

This is a good draft for picking 19. Trading for a future lottery pick with lottery protection makes no sense to me. I wouldn't even consider a pick with top ten protection. We know there will be good prospects available at 21 this year. In 2021 for example the draft was nowhere near as deep as this one and why gamble a good pick away this year only to wait for a pick that may not yield as good an opportunity. I think the Wolves roster needs a serious overhaul except at the top and we should use the picks we have to try to add young talent which we can start developing right away.

I don't see much of a talent disparity, if any, in the prospects I have ranked 10-20 in this class, which means there's arguably great value in having the 19th overall pick. There's no guarantee that you'd be getting a better prospect in next year's class unless we're talking top-seven or something like that.

I agree with KG and Cam that this is a good draft for picking at #19 or even lower.