Isaac AND Jackson both still yet to be placed in that scenario, of course it hurts that we dropped down a spot even more but what is the Suns or Magic fall in love with Tatum or Dennis Smith Jr? I think the suns likely take Jackson or Isaac but the Magic are the wildcard
I think Jackson goes to the Suns and Isaac to the Magic in that scenario leaving us Tatum. Personally I would look to trade Tatum because he doesn't really fit here short or long-term. If we can't find a trade partner keep him and let him be the sixth man who carries the bench scoring until the right deal comes in place. Maybe Tatum and Dunn are enough of a starter to land Butler without giving up one of the big 3.
The good thing about Tatum is he projects as a combo forward. What does this roster need? A combo forward and shooting. He might even be able to provide some of both. He biggest strength as an ISO scorer isn't ideal but I've heard he is a good kid willing to do other stuff and he has some decent do shit stats. Like you said he could be a nice 6th man scorer off the bench highly likely to a better version of Bazz because he is more skilled. He isn't the guy I want but he makes a lot of sense in some ways too and the guy does have talent.
If you had to pick ONLY between Monk and Markkanen 2 guys who's biggest assets are shooting and why they make some sense for this team that needs shooting which guy would you pick?
Personally I may like Monk a bit better as a prospect although I haven't researched him a lot yet. I'd probably lean Markkanen tho at this point just because he makes sense adding shooting (possibly elite shooting even if that's all he does) to the big man situation. I'm not in love with either option.
Don't like either option, and like others, I'd probably opt for Collins or pick BPA (Monk?) and trade down for OG and Bell or some other combination like that.
But if I had to take one and shoehorn him onto our roster, it would be Markkanen. You can't teach height.
I don't like Monk. He's a short SG and that would scare me. Shooting is one of those things that is very iffy in terms of translating from college to the NBA. Monk is going to have taller, quicker defenders on him and his shot is going to be more easily bothered than at the college level.
By the way, Redick has like 2 inches on him. Jamal Murray is taller too. Perhaps he becomes a Louis Williams type gunslinger? That's rolling the dice in my opinion.
Q12543 wrote:I don't like Monk. He's a short SG and that would scare me. Shooting is one of those things that is very iffy in terms of translating from college to the NBA. Monk is going to have taller, quicker defenders on him and his shot is going to be more easily bothered than at the college level.
By the way, Redick has like 2 inches on him. Jamal Murray is taller too. Perhaps he becomes a Louis Williams type gunslinger? That's rolling the dice in my opinion.
Yet Monk has the better overhead reach, and better vertical than either of those two. Monk is explosive, and I think his game will translate very well. I am not married to Monk like I was to Dunn, but I have no problem with Monk being our pick.
We might want to trade up to 5 if Isaac is still on the board to get ahead of Orlando. Sac can still get a point guard at 7 if that is what they are targetting. If all it took was signing and trading Bazz, cash, rights to Dubs or Aldrich or a combination of them, I'd do it. Even if it took, Tyus, I'd probably do it to secure Isaac.
TeamRicky wrote:We might want to trade up to 5 if Isaac is still on the board to get ahead of Orlando. Sac can still get a point guard at 7 if that is what they are targetting. If all it took was signing and trading Bazz, cash, rights to Dubs or Aldrich or a combination of them, I'd do it. Even if it took, Tyus, I'd probably do it to secure Isaac.
I have no desire to trade up in this draft. Sit and draft BPA or trade down to gain an asset while drafting our BPA/need combo. We are in no position to trade up.
TeamRicky wrote:We might want to trade up to 5 if Isaac is still on the board to get ahead of Orlando. Sac can still get a point guard at 7 if that is what they are targetting. If all it took was signing and trading Bazz, cash, rights to Dubs or Aldrich or a combination of them, I'd do it. Even if it took, Tyus, I'd probably do it to secure Isaac.
I have no desire to trade up in this draft. Sit and draft BPA or trade down to gain an asset while drafting our BPA/need combo. We are in no position to trade up.
We also can't sign and trade Bazz during the draft. Free agency comes after the draft.
Isaac AND Jackson both still yet to be placed in that scenario, of course it hurts that we dropped down a spot even more but what is the Suns or Magic fall in love with Tatum or Dennis Smith Jr? I think the suns likely take Jackson or Isaac but the Magic are the wildcard
I think Jackson goes to the Suns and Isaac to the Magic in that scenario leaving us Tatum. Personally I would look to trade Tatum because he doesn't really fit here short or long-term. If we can't find a trade partner keep him and let him be the sixth man who carries the bench scoring until the right deal comes in place. Maybe Tatum and Dunn are enough of a starter to land Butler without giving up one of the big 3.
The good thing about Tatum is he projects as a combo forward. What does this roster need? A combo forward and shooting. He might even be able to provide some of both. He biggest strength as an ISO scorer isn't ideal but I've heard he is a good kid willing to do other stuff and he has some decent do shit stats. Like you said he could be a nice 6th man scorer off the bench highly likely to a better version of Bazz because he is more skilled. He isn't the guy I want but he makes a lot of sense in some ways too and the guy does have talent.
I'm not big on Tatum's prospects as a combo forward. He's too small to guard the Aldridge, Blake and AD's of the world and most small ball lineups that work have a KD or Kawhi at the 4 who he can't guard either. Maybe I'm too hung up on an inch or two and 20-30 lbs. I could see it being fine offensively. I just don't know if it would work defensively against a large chunk of our conference. With his biggest value add being scoring, I'm not sure if the fit is here long-term. There's only 1 ball to go around.
Q12543 wrote:I don't like Monk. He's a short SG and that would scare me. Shooting is one of those things that is very iffy in terms of translating from college to the NBA. Monk is going to have taller, quicker defenders on him and his shot is going to be more easily bothered than at the college level.
By the way, Redick has like 2 inches on him. Jamal Murray is taller too. Perhaps he becomes a Louis Williams type gunslinger? That's rolling the dice in my opinion.
Yet Monk has the better overhead reach, and better vertical than either of those two. Monk is explosive, and I think his game will translate very well. I am not married to Monk like I was to Dunn, but I have no problem with Monk being our pick.
Athleticism is what athleticism does. He's purely a catch and shoot gunslinger without doing much else. It's like Wiggins and LaVine. It would be nice if those guys could apply their athleticism in ways that actually translate to more rebounds, more deflections, more blocks, more steals, etc., etc....Jumping ability/straight line speed is highly overrated in my opinion. Golden State might be the best team in history. Is anyone on their starting 5 an above average athlete by NBA standards? I don't think so.
One other thing. The traditional height-only measurement still matters. The taller one is, the better the site lines are to the hoop when shooting. Most contests that bother the shooter are ones that get a hand in the face and not necessarily a pure block. I just think Monk is going to find it a lot harder to get clean looks at the next level.
Q12543 wrote:I don't like Monk. He's a short SG and that would scare me. Shooting is one of those things that is very iffy in terms of translating from college to the NBA. Monk is going to have taller, quicker defenders on him and his shot is going to be more easily bothered than at the college level.
