Minnesota Sports Forum

BloopOracle wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:Jayson Tatum might be there at 7, guys. Prepare yourselves.

That would be a crazy steal. I'll give you all the credit if it happens.

What a nightmare scenario if we take him I hope not

I think Tatum might end up being a great player (his great FT% suggests his 3 point shot could definitely develop), but how much would an iso-heavy mid-range scorer help a team that already has Towns, Wiggins, and LaVine as three 20 PPG scorers? We need somebody who makes us a better defending team, a better passing team, and who generally makes the team as a whole better. Adding Tatum takes away scoring from those guys, and then other than Towns, what do they add? Part of our problem is we have Wiggins and LaVine whose contributions are already very heavy on scoring but don't bring much else. Adding a third doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'd be tempted to take him just on value, but I think other guys like Jackson, Isaac, or Anunoby would be better fits (though yes, I know Jackson and Isaac may be gone, and Anunoby will never be the offensive player Tatum already is). If we took him though, logic suggests it'd be tough not to see one of those three (LaVine, Wiggins, Tatum) being moved in the future though.

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

BloopOracle wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:Jayson Tatum might be there at 7, guys. Prepare yourselves.

That would be a crazy steal. I'll give you all the credit if it happens.

What a nightmare scenario if we take him I hope not

I think Tatum might end up being a great player (his great FT% suggests his 3 point shot could definitely develop), but how much would an iso-heavy mid-range scorer help a team that already has Towns, Wiggins, and LaVine as three 20 PPG scorers? We need somebody who makes us a better defending team, a better passing team, and who generally makes the team as a whole better. Adding Tatum takes away scoring from those guys, and then other than Towns, what do they add? Part of our problem is we have Wiggins and LaVine whose contributions are already very heavy on scoring but don't bring much else. Adding a third doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'd be tempted to take him just on value, but I think other guys like Jackson, Isaac, or Anunoby would be better fits (though yes, I know Jackson and Isaac may be gone, and Anunoby will never be the offensive player Tatum already is). If we took him though, logic suggests it'd be tough not to see one of those three (LaVine, Wiggins, Tatum) being moved in the future though.

Some good points, Drew, but I still think we have to jump all over Tatum if he drops to 7. It's unlikely, but I see why Brightside is making this call...there seems to be a lot less steam around Tatum than guys ranked below him (Isaac, Monk, Smith, etc.) as we get closer to draft day. I don't see Tatum as taking away shots from the Big 3, because he won't be out there with them (I would be concerned about adding a shoot-first PG though)...Tatum would either be a high-scoring wing odd the bench, or the SF that allows Wig to move to SG and Zach to provide firepower off the bench. I love Isaac, but I think Tatum is an even better option if he happens to drop.

Tatum isn't my favorite guy for all the reasons mentioned but to me the most obvious needs on this team is either a mobile PF or a true combo forward that can play basketball. Tatum is that combo forward. He has flaws especially in fit for this team but I think it's easier to project him being an all around game than a guy like say Monk or Markkanen. The stats he put up in college support that. He also from what I have read heard he certainly wasn't a bad defender as a college player.

Another thing that's not talked about was that he sprained his foot in early October and didn't play till the beginning of December. He didn't start the season hitting on all cylinders and likely not conditioned because of the injury. I know one podcast I listened to that was posted on this forum weeks ago said that down the stretch they thought he really was figuring out the whole game. He seems fairly skilled it seems to me he can diversify his game to me more than a better version of a guy like Bazz who gives you basically ISO scoring with some hustle plus some rebounding. To some extent Bazz is a low bar to overcome but we are talking more about fit here and I think it's possible Tatum has his place on this roster if he ends up being the most talented player at 7.

Draft picks should all be about talent. If Tatum falls he is that guy. Otherwise we take Monk or DSJ. Positional fit and intanglibles pale in comparison to talent in my mind when drafting a player. You sign hustle/glue guys. You draft the guy who has the most talent who can be a star. The great thing about this draft is there may be multiple players who could end up having a big impact.

We need more than 3 guys who can score the ball. That's only 60-80 points a game. We still need the other 20+ and Tatum could give us that similar to Bazz, except Tatum has the proper size and athleticism to do it at a high level. If your closing lineup has Lavine, Wiggins, Tatum and Towns, how do you stop that? That's 4 guys you have to guard. He's not the perfect fit, but he does help pose a matchup problem which still helps a lot.

Breaking News

https://twitter.com/DraftExpress/status/875824105743896578

khans2k5 wrote:We need more than 3 guys who can score the ball. That's only 60-80 points a game. We still need the other 20+ and Tatum could give us that similar to Bazz, except Tatum has the proper size and athleticism to do it at a high level. If your closing lineup has Lavine, Wiggins, Tatum and Towns, how do you stop that? That's 4 guys you have to guard. He's not the perfect fit, but he does help pose a matchup problem which still helps a lot.

I would rather have Markkanen spacing the floor in that scenario

thedoper wrote:Draft picks should all be about talent. If Tatum falls he is that guy. Otherwise we take Monk or DSJ. Positional fit and intanglibles pale in comparison to talent in my mind when drafting a player. You sign hustle/glue guys. You draft the guy who has the most talent who can be a star. The great thing about this draft is there may be multiple players who could end up having a big impact.

I totally agree draft picks should all be about talent. But there are key talents other than iso scoring that every team needs. For my money, getting the best, most versatile defender, the best 3 point shooter, and the best shot intimidator are equally valuable to the best scorer. This is why I'd put Monk or possibly even Markkanen into the conversation for the 7 pick as the best 3 point shooters, that's why I'd consider trading down for Anunoby as the best, most versatile defender, and that's why I was kind of interested in Jeanne as a shot-blocker before the unfortunate diagnosis, and why Anigbogu and Zach Collins interest me a bit for the same reason. All three of those are crucial skills in the NBA, and they've become even more important in recent years, even as isolation and mid-range play has shrunk in importance.

Guys like Markkanen, Anunoby, Anigbogu, and Collins are definitely less likely to get voted to an All-Star game than Tatum (I do think Monk could potentially become an All Star), but I feel like the impact they could have could be as valuable as Tatum's, or even more valuable on a team like ours (with the exception of Makkanen though, who I think is going to get destroyed defensively, so he needs to end up on a great defensive team, which isn't us). Given our roster's makeup with LaVine, Wiggins and Towns already, I feel like we need versatile defense, 3 point shooting, and shot intimidation more than iso scoring, so I can see seriously considering getting the guy who can do one of those the best over the best scorer. I'm not saying draft for fit over talent. I'm saying defense, 3 point shooting, and shot-blocking are ALSO talents. And if somebody is as good at defense, as good at 3 point shooting, or as good at shot-blocking as Tatum is at iso scoring, then I'd consider them even.

It's kind of my hope, assuming Jackson is gone at 7 and Anunoby keeps dropping far enough on big boards, that we could trade down and get Anunoby plus a first rounder next year to make up for the loss of next year's pick!

In terms of drafting scorers and signing free agents to do the rest, I'm not sure it's that easy to sign guys who are very good in those three areas, especially these days. Likewise, scorers like Carmelo and Rudy Gay earned reputations over the years for not helping their teams despite their scoring, and the league is starting to recognize this. Today, very good scorers like Okafor and Kanter are almost definitely available because they don't help in other ways, and guys who used to be dismissed as role players are being recognized for the importance of their contributions.

Now that I've laid out the case for not automatically taking him if he's there at 7, watch Tatum become the next Paul Pierce or Paul George!

SameOldDrew wrote:

thedoper wrote:Draft picks should all be about talent. If Tatum falls he is that guy. Otherwise we take Monk or DSJ. Positional fit and intanglibles pale in comparison to talent in my mind when drafting a player. You sign hustle/glue guys. You draft the guy who has the most talent who can be a star. The great thing about this draft is there may be multiple players who could end up having a big impact.

I totally agree draft picks should all be about talent. But there are key talents other than iso scoring that every team needs. For my money, getting the best, most versatile defender, the best 3 point shooter, and the best shot intimidator are equally valuable to the best scorer. This is why I'd put Monk or possibly even Markkanen into the conversation for the 7 pick as the best 3 point shooters, that's why I'd consider trading down for Anunoby as the best, most versatile defender, and that's why I was kind of interested in Jeanne as a shot-blocker before the unfortunate diagnosis, and why Anigbogu and Zach Collins interest me a bit for the same reason. All three of those are crucial skills in the NBA, and they've become even more important in recent years, even as isolation and mid-range play has shrunk in importance.

Guys like Markkanen, Anunoby, Anigbogu, and Collins are definitely less likely to get voted to an All-Star game than Tatum (I do think Monk could potentially become an All Star), but I feel like the impact they could have could be as valuable as Tatum's, or even more valuable on a team like ours (with the exception of Makkanen though, who I think is going to get destroyed defensively, so he needs to end up on a great defensive team, which isn't us). Given our roster's makeup with LaVine, Wiggins and Towns already, I feel like we need versatile defense, 3 point shooting, and shot intimidation more than iso scoring, so I can see seriously considering getting the guy who can do one of those the best over the best scorer. I'm not saying draft for fit over talent. I'm saying defense, 3 point shooting, and shot-blocking are ALSO talents. And if somebody is as good at defense, as good at 3 point shooting, or as good at shot-blocking as Tatum is at iso scoring, then I'd consider them even.

It's kind of my hope, assuming Jackson is gone at 7 and Anunoby keeps dropping far enough on big boards, that we could trade down and get Anunoby plus a first rounder next year to make up for the loss of next year's pick!

In terms of drafting scorers and signing free agents to do the rest, I'm not sure it's that easy to sign guys who are very good in those three areas, especially these days. Likewise, scorers like Carmelo and Rudy Gay earned reputations over the years for not helping their teams despite their scoring, and the league is starting to recognize this. Today, very good scorers like Okafor and Kanter are almost definitely available because they don't help in other ways, and guys who used to be dismissed as role players are being recognized for the importance of their contributions.

Now that I've laid out the case for not automatically taking him if he's there at 7, watch Tatum become the next Paul Pierce or Paul George!

The problem with that argument is it doesn't always translate. Look at a guy like Stauskas or Jimmer. Elite shooters at the college level and it just didn't translate to the pros. Drafting a guy who is only "elite" at shooting like Markkanen is an extremely dangerous proposition if it just doesn't click out to the NBA 3 point line. Tatum can score and rebound. He's a very good rebounder for his size and he has the potential to be a good defender as well. Heck, Tatum grabbed more boards per game than Markkanen and Lauri has a big height advantage on him. He's not just an iso scorer. He's a good rebounder and dished out 2 assists a game as well. You say it's not a fit argument, but it just is when you consider Monk and Markkanen's shooting and OG's defense and whoever's shot blocking as equalizer's to a guy of Tatum's talent level because he's just a scorer. If those were true equalizer's those guys would be in the conversation in the top 5 like he is. Tatum does fit our team in the modern NBA after he adds some weight and plays small ball 4 for us. Meanwhile Lauri gets torched in that look, Monk may not even be on the court to end games and OG might be Aminu and can't give you almost any offense and makes you play 4 on 5 which becomes 3 on 5 with Ricky. To me that's focusing too much on fit trying to make them equalizer's to talent when talent usually wins out in this league. Tatum may not be a great fit now, but add a corner 3pt shot and play tough hard nosed defense under Thibs and he becomes a great fit with what we have and makes us a very difficult team to defend.

thedoper wrote:Draft picks should all be about talent. If Tatum falls he is that guy. Otherwise we take Monk or DSJ. Positional fit and intanglibles pale in comparison to talent in my mind when drafting a player. You sign hustle/glue guys. You draft the guy who has the most talent who can be a star. The great thing about this draft is there may be multiple players who could end up having a big impact.

I agree, Doper. You draft for talent. That means you take Tatum if he's available at #7. I also agree with Kahns that it's problematic to draft a guy whose only success in college was 3-point shooting. Kahns provided some good examples of those types of prospects who turned out to be NBA busts.

I like isolation scoring ability as a nice building block for NBA success. It usually indicates a combination of impressive ball-handling, awareness, tenacity and shooting skill. A 19-year old with only one year of college under his belt can often extend his shooting range and improve his passing in the NBA. Note that Tatum's college stats include decent steal and block numbers unlike a guy like Markkenan who averaged 0.4 blocks per game as a seven footer. I suspect that Tatum's college stats substantially understate his potential, expecially when you consider that he got a late start because of an early season injury. I'd still take Jonathan Isaac over Tatum, but I think Tatum is more likely than Isaac to fall to #7. Unfortunately, I don't think either one will be available at #7.

A few thoughts on Tatum:

- Being a good isolation scorer is not a bad thing. If you have multiple guys that can do that, it allows you to target the weakest defender on the court since most teams don't have multiple defensive stoppers.

- The key is whether he can do other stuff well besides iso scoring. My nightmare scenario is that he's the next Derrick Williams (shivers), who ended up not being able to do anything particularly well.....unless he plays the T-Wolves.

- His measurements are very solid for a SF and he has the size and length to play some PF in today's league too.

- Potential range of comparisons: Derrick Williams, Jeff Green, Rudy Gay, Tobias Harris, Carmelo Anthony, Paul George