NBA Draft Lottery: The best and worst #6 picks of all time -- Golden State Warriors are in a better position than we thought?
by dj fuzzylogic on May 19, 2010 12:54 AM PDT
in NBA Draft
Email
Print
(Will the Warriors take Cole Aldrich with the 6th pick and end up with Joe Kleine 2?)
While we lament about the Warriors perennial poor fortune when it comes to the lottery (and everything in general), draft history has shown that the 6th pick has not been as bad as it may seem. In fact, last time Nellie had his hand in the 6th pick, he transformed Robert "Tractor" Traylor into Dirk Nowitzki. Maybe Nellie will transform Cole Aldrich into John Wall? All I'm saying is that the 6th pick maybe be a blessing in disguise.
After sifting through over 50+ years of lottery drafts on NBA.com, the #6 pick has been equally bad as it has been equally good. And there's even a few surprises along the way. In fact, one might say that a decent or average player at #6, as opposed to the top 5, may end up always exceeding expectations given the low expectations for a "star" in the mid-lottery. Click more to see the top 6 #6 picks as well as the worst 6 #6 picks (in my opinion of course) to cheer you up.
The Good News
1. Larry Bird (1978) - We all know how amazing Larry Bird was, but guess who the Warriors picked with the #5? Purvis Short.
2. Adrian Dantley (1976) - Scoring titles, all-star appearances, and several winning seasons for the Pistons. Most notable as being the reason why the Pistons got over the hump to win back-to-back championships. That meaning, he was trade bait for Mark Aguirre.
3. Kenny Smith (1987) - Two championship rings, one of the most inventive dunks in a dunk contest, and, more importantly, a hilarious and insightful member of the TNT Inside the NBA cast.
4. Hersey Hawkins (1988) - A sharp shooter who barely missed a game until he turned 33.
5. Brandon Roy (2006) - Though it's still early in Roy's career to say he's the #5 #6 pick of all-time, he, not Greg Oden, is the face of the franchise.
6. Lionel Hollins (1975) - Up until this season, Lionel Hollins has been quite a bust as a coach. But his ability to revive Zach Randolph's career and make Marc Gasol look like Pau Gasol is definitely up there. Perhaps the Nellie will draft a future coach, a successor, with this pick?
Honorable Mentions: Bryant Reeves (1995), Chris Kaman (2003), Antoine Walker (1996), Calbert Cheaney (1993)
The Bad News (in no particular order):
1. Yi Jianlian (2007) - After all the hype about being more culturally westernized for liking hiphop and driving a shiny SUV, Yi Jianlian was supposed to be the answer for the belief that international players were soft and lacked attitude. In reality Yi has been China's worst import, far exceeding the toys with the chemicals that can make kids sick. Lightening quick flashes of brilliances amidst huge puddles of suck, Yi makes Wang Zhizhi seem like an all-star.
2. Ron Mercer (1997) - I put Mercer on this list not because he was necessarily horrible. In fact, he statistically was pretty productive. But, Mercer was one-dimensional and never seemed all that excited to be playing basketball.
3. Joe Kleine (1985) - Joe Kleine went on to have a long career, contributing to several solid, playoff teams. But I am annoyed and confused by big men like Kleine and his contemporaries like Adonal Foyle and Chris Mihm, big tall guys that manage to collect pension when folks in the d-league (or elsewhere) could be just as good if not better insurance policies when your #1 or #2 center goes down (Chris Hunter comes to mind).
4. Stacey King (1989) - King was an important part of a several Chicago Bulls teams. But I really expected a lot more out of him given that he put up monster stats his senior year in college. Plus, Stacey was a tough guy's name back in the eighties and early nineties. He should have milked that for all that was worth during that era!
5. Martell Webster (2005) - You know, the Pacific Northwest is a surprising hot bed for hoops, to me at least. But as far as pros go, I wouldn't say that they have been that phenomenal. Webster, considered the next Dale Ellis of sorts given the Pacific Northwest connection where Ellis spent his career and because Webster had a great shooting touch, has hardly been what they expected him to be. Although he's a decent 37% 3-point shooter, proving to be quite good this past season on occasion, he's still a a 40% shooter on average. You could also blame the overstocked Blazers and their wacky rotation as part of the reason for Webster's stunted development.
6. Dajuan Wagner (2002) and DerMarr Johnson (2000) - I hate to put unfortunate circumstances as reason for someones "bust" label. They're more disappointments more than anything. Wagner was supposed to be the next Allen Iverson and he had the celebrity mythology to carry him to stardom. Johnson was a tall, long, and versatile point guard who, as we all know, put his career in jeopardy after crashing his car into a tree nearly causing paralysis. After bouncing around the d-league, europe, and the NBA, DerMarr Johnson did not learn his lesson yet in 2008 the problems of driving wrecklessly. He was pulled over for driving 20 miles over the speed limit, which he then failed a breathalyzer test.
I'm sure there are bigger busts and better stars than the ones that I have listed. Hey Fuzzy, what about Orlando Woolridge in your top 6? What about Sharone Wright in your bottom 6?? We could probably argue that Wally Szczerbiak deserved to be on either of the lists - a bust and a decent player. There is no right or wrong answer. BUT, my point is perhaps hope is not all lost. There has been as many notable #6 picks that have gone on to have decently successful careers. Josh Childress anyone? We could even argue that #6 pick might even be pretty great if it wasn't for the freak injuries and diseases that cost the careers of Dajuan Wagner and Bryant Reeves. So, look on the bright side Warrior fans, we didn't get #1 pick, but we didn't get Michael Olowakandi, Kwame Brown, Kenyon Martin, Andrea Bargnani, Pervis Ellison...right?
196 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Its gonna be
Aminu….. we can have an underfed pf competition.
by Michael Stix Johnson on May 19, 2010 1:48 AM PDT reply actions
Poor ball handling skills, poor passing, no shooting range. Doesn’t sound like a SF to me. Though he can guard SFs i suppose.
Reminds me of somewhere between Josh Smith (ideal situation) and Thaddeus Young/Julian Wright.
Poor ball handling skills, poor passing, no shooting range.
True enough, though you could kind of say all the same things about Wes Johnson, less the shooting stroke. And shooting stroke, unlike rebounding and D, is something young kids tend to improve. According to DX, Aminu is already well on the way to improving his.
Remember, when Johnson was Aminu’s age, he was putting up some pretty mediocre numbers for Iowa State. As Freshmen/Sophomores, Aminu was better across the board than Johnson: equally poor passer, but a much better rebounder, more efficient scorer, more prolific scorer, better at getting himself to the line, better at blocking shots and forcing steals. Aminu is also longer and more rugged, with a better base/frame to build on.
Not sure whether this a ringing endorsement of Aminu so much as a red flag on Johnson, but do you really see a big difference between the two? Would it surprise you at all if Johnson were the one who fell to us?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
but I know what Nellie will do with him
Who cares what Nellie does anymore? We are definetly going to a irrelevant team in the west again and Nellie is not long for this job, IF he makes it to the end of the season it will be his last. This is about the future.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on May 19, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
He is supposedly 6'9"
athletic as hell, long as hell, rebounds really well, so him playing PF isn’t the worst thing that could happen.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 19, 2010 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, maybe not, other than our current roster options.
He is supposedly 6’9" athletic as hell, long as hell, rebounds really well
If he’s an athletic SF that can defend wings, great, if he’s that player this quote describes and plays PF…..well, we already have two of those….
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Not sure whether this a ringing endorsement of Aminu
Hey, at this point we’ll grasp at whatever straws we are offered .
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, if we get him, let’s hope that’s not the case, because that sounds way too much like Thaddeus Young to me. At least maybe he can rebound well, unlike Young?
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
evidently he rebounded well in college for what thats worth...
by freerandolph on May 19, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Extremely well: 12.3 rebs per 36 minutes last season.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions
How well is that, exactly? I honestly have no idea. If he played PF all year long, is it that impressive of a number for a big time prospect to put up in college?
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
i'm going to cry myself to sleep
this did not make me feel any better
I think this year will be similar to last year
We had Stephen Curry really high while other teams didn’t have him as high so we were astonished that we got him at the 7th pick.
The same story is with Wesley Johnson. I think we’ll all be pleasantly surprised during the draft.
I wish
i think Johnson’s stock is rising. i bet he goes 4 or 5
I can see him going to Minnesota. Their biggest need is a wing.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 19, 2010 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions
ESPN is saying
1. Wall
2. Johnson
3. Favors
4. Turner
5. Monroe
……….
6.?
Cousins is still free. Would we want him? Does that mean that there’s enough talent in this draft to get a solid pick at #6? Or is ESPN just way off at this point?
by Throw up the Dub on May 19, 2010 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions
i cansee the Kings taking Monroe.
they need someone that can stretch the floor and also be another play maker. Monroe is perfect for them.
Cousins is the pick there
If that unlikely scenario happens. attitude problems are overblown.
by Billy Frijoles on May 20, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Are you willing to take on Brand’s and Dalembert’s contracts? Cos you’d have to be for Philly to even answer your calls. And even then … Philly probably wouldn’t answer your calls.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 4:37 AM PDT up reply actions
according to NBA trade machine
Ellis and Biedrins for Brand and Dalembert works straight up and gives the W’s +9 wins. And that’s without even throwing Turner in. No way this trade happens. But, yeah, I would certainly take on those contracts.
NBA’s trade machine’s +/- on wins isn’t actually based on things that matter to winning basketball games. There’s not much point in looking at it.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions
you guys have lost your minds..
did you see Brand play last year? He moves like he’s 50. Not to mention the fact that he really does have the worst contract in the NBA, although Gilbert is certainly in the discussion. How quickly everyone forgets that we lucked out big time that both those guys spurned the ridiculous offers Rowell gave them.
he really does have the worst contract in the NBA, although Gilbert is certainly in the discussion
I’d throw Rashard Lewis in that discussion as well — 3 years, $66M for roughly what Reggie Williams / Buike / Morrow give you for a few mil.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
That seems like an exaggeration. Lewis is better than those guys, as more is asked of him on a better team.
His contract is horrible no doubt, but Brand, and probably Arenas, are significantly worse in my opinion.
by freerandolph on May 19, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Why do you think he's better than those guys?
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 19, 2010 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions
He really doesn't do much on his team
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 19, 2010 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not willing to take on their contracts...
But Larry Ellison might.
Possibly, but if I’m our new owner I don’t want any part of Brand. He’s completely fallen off a cliff and is due $51M over the next three years. Possibly the worst contract in the NBA. Monta and Biedrins combined will make only slightly more than that, for their playing primes (such as they are). Dalembert’s much more palatable — $12M expiring, and roughly the same caliber of player as Biedrins — but still not very exciting.
In any case, the #2 pick is almost certainly not going to be part of any Philly deal, unless you want to put Curry or Randolph on the table. Teams just don’t give up four cheap years of a potential stud for flawed, highly paid vets.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions
I do think Phili will make a deal of sorts
Most likely moving Iggy. I don’t see how he and Turner are a good fit together. And being as they owe Iggy a lot of money, owe other players a lot of money, aren’t selling out and are losing money. It makes sense.
The most likely scenario are attaching young talent to expiring contract or taking one of there albatross contracts back in a trade.
You never know, someone could be desperate enough for Turner they are willing to take Elton Brand. You think if someone like the Knicks offered them Eddie Curry + Gallinari for #2 and Brand they wouldn’t take it?
Do you understand the cap implications of taking on their contracts, though? Having Elton Brand basically stops you from ever being able to sign any meaningful player. As Sleepy said, he’s probably the worst contract in the NBA.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions
"Having Elton Brand basically stops you from ever being able to sign any meaningful player."
probably not signing anyone “meaningful” in the next 3 seasons anyway. If it was a straight up Brand plus #2 pick for Ellis & #6, i’d do it if i was Riley if i really thought Favors or Cousins were all-star caliber. maybe they’d have to throw in Wright (i know Philly liked CJ last offseason, but i don’t believe he can be moved as a RFA).
main reason for Philly is to save money – Ellis is $18 million less than Brand in the next 3 seasons (though ME has a 4th year for $11 million). plus the #6 pick makes a lot less than the #2.
obviously, Philly would really have to like the talent that would still be available at that point Johnson, Aminu, Monroe, Aldrich, Davis & have them rated as highly as the guys who are likely to go 2-5 (Favors, Cousins, Turner).
by homer simpson on May 19, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
But there is no way Cohan's ownership would make the trade...
He’s trying to cut assets to increase value of team. It’s more likely Biedrins would be traded for an expiring
How, exactly, does cutting assets increase the value of the team? Seriously, this doens’t make all that much sense to me – unless the trade is a good move for your team in a basketball/financial sense, I don’t see how it adds to the value. Talent is valuable, too.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Wrong
Less money on the books=higher value for team. Unless those players on the books are Lebron, Kobe (ei marketable names), having long term committed contracts will only decrease value of a sale
Less money on the books=higher value for team
So basically if that’s the only factor you’re looking at you’re telling me that talent shouldn’t be included in a valuation at all? How does that make sense? How many games your team is set up to win is worthy of valuation, too.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Not necessarily
Being as Warriors are flawed team going nowhere… they are more attractive as a blank slate. A new owenr will bring in his own people to build his own team. A situation like New Jersey is more attactive than one with huge contracts.
I’m not saying Biedrins is that. But there is no way the Warriors will take a bad contract like Brands unless they got John Wall
It really seems to me like the whole talent/financial aspects of a trade has basically the same impact from a basketball sense and a value sense. If it makes sense for your team from a basketball sense, well, it’s also going to make sense for the value of your franchise, and vice versa.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Sort of
You could take back a bad contract though if you are getting talent AND you don’t care about luxury tax (a la someone like MArk Cuban). However if you are trying to sell the team, you have just made it less attractive as the books are a ‘mess’ if you will….
Yeah, sure, I guess I can think of a couple times it would diverge, but in general I see the two as going pretty much hand in hand.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm just saying certain ownerships
would pull a trade for the #2 pick to get Turner (if they valued him as potential star) and take brand’s contract because a) this team isn’t going anywhere in next 2 years and b) long term implications of star player are worth the hit now…..
But Warriors under cohan are not one of those teams
Ha, I wasn’t even disagreeing with your point, just that the assets on your books are the only thing that affect franchise value. How talented a player is is just as important as what his contract is.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
If you wuold rather have Turner than Monta & Biedrins…..why would someone else rather have Monta & Biedrins than Turner?
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Kenny Smith really takes away the credibility away from that list.
But I agree we can get a very good player with this pick.
I mean, hey-
Wright at 22
Randolph at 14
then Curry at 7
now imagine the quality guy we could get with a low pick?
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 19, 2010 7:39 AM PDT reply actions
Wright at 22
Brandan? #8.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Are you really suggesting that Wright is a good player? Are we thinking the same player? Cause I’ve mostly seen the guy in a dress suit most of the time the past couple years.
But the question is, when he’s healthy, is he good?
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
He’s had a freak injury that other players have come back from 100%. In the games he’s played, he’s looked good. Big men take longer to develop, too. You can’t say he’s a bust. I’ll bet money he’ll be solid in a couple years if not very good.
Go Andris's free throw shooting!
Its one thing when its one injury, but he’s had multiple injuries. And for a player to develop, he has to actually be playing and praticing to develop. How can he work on his overall game from sitting on the bench? It doesn’t work.
So is Greg Oden a bust?
Just trying to gauge where the tipping point is in terms of number of injuries.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Both are busts at this point in their careers if that is what your saying, but
Both have plenty of time to come back and redeem themselves. As long as they don’t get injured so much I don’t see why they couldn’t be really good players.
by freerandolph on May 19, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Greg Oden is more of a bust than Wright
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 19, 2010 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions
So is Greg Oden a bust?
Haha, but he din’t cost us an arm and a Jrich
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions
So it’s fair to say Blake Griffin’s a bust?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
A bust? How is he a bust? He’s given us “bust-like” production so far, but he’s still under contract for us, shown flashes of being able to be a good player, and is there any reason to think his injury problems so far will continue in the future? He’s not a “bust” until his career is over or he’s gone from our team. Neither of those has happened yet.
And I’ll go back to my question:
when he’s healthy, is he good?
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Is there any reason not to think his injury problems won’t continue? He was drafted 3 years ago, hasn’t even played more than 39 games a season. Not to mention the fact that the Dubs traded one of their most productive players for him. Answering your question, when he is healthy, is he good: he’s been solid, but I can’t say good. Randoph has shown more potential than he has, and they play the same position.
i think it’s fair to say wright, odem, griffin, etc. are bust players until they prove otherwise and NOT the other way around. That’s just my opinion. This isn’t a court of law where you are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt. In the real world your nobody until you prove otherwise. So far, their nobodies.
Nah, it’s ridiculous to just say “bust” is the default. You don’t declare a guy a bust because he hasn’t yet lived up to the billing. That means John Wall is a bust right now. You declare them a bust after you’ve given them a shot and they didn’t give you anything close to what you expected. Those guys still have a shot – they’re still on their original team, they’re going to come back from injury to play….why the impatience? Why the need to label guys so prematurely?
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess Wall, Turner, Johnson, Cousin are all busts right now too. Same with Harden, Thabeet, Rubio, and whole lot of other players.
I don’t think you guys are using the term “bust” correctly. It can refer to the lumps on a woman’s chest, a statued replica of someone, or an athlete who never reaches the potential that he was thought to possess when drafted. This means that Wright, Oden, and Griffin are not bust’s yet, although they do have the potential to be.
by freerandolph on May 19, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
or an athlete who never reaches the potential that he was thought to possess when drafted.
how long do they get to reach it? A whole career or three years? Is DarkoMiliCheck officially a bust yet?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Is there any reason not to think his injury problems won’t continue?
I mean, I’m no doctor, but it sure seems to me like his injury was a pretty uncommon thing, and I’m not sure it’s something we should expect to get reinjured. I don’t see any reason to label him as an injury waiting to happen or anything.
Not to mention the fact that the Dubs traded one of their most productive players for him
Well, as much as I love JRich, that’s just not true…..
I think solid is a fair assessment of Wright so far, but with the potential to be really good, and he seems like a hard worker, so who knows what’ll happen in the future….
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
“….why the impatience? Why the need to label guys so prematurely?”
- because we/ they are paying them money. Time is money. Their rookie contracts are wasting and from an ivestment stand point they are bust. From a production stand point, they are bust. From a value/ time equation, they are busts. Sure, they can redeem themselves. But until they do, Tyreke Evans, curry, etc. where the better picks and their is more value in what you have then what might be tomorrow. One could also argue that their progression will be retarded from the missed experience.
I know it sounds harsh but this is my perspective. Now, i think all three of these players will rebound but they can’t make up for lost time/ seasons/ losses.
But you’re still making that judgment before the end of the investment time period. I agree, to this point, their expected return has been disappointing, but the investment isn’t over. No need to judge it yet.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I think for a player to be a bust, it has to be impossible for them to redeem themselves.
I think its incorrect to use the word bust on a player who, very possible could avoid injury for the next few seasons and be good. If we label any of those players a bust now, what do you say when Blake Griffin comes in next year and dominates…?
“Well, he was a bust, but then he unbusted himself so now he’s good.”
by freerandolph on May 19, 2010 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I’ll gladly take an all-“bust” starting five of Oden, Griffin, BWright, Gallinari and Rubio…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Are you quoting somebody?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions
then you’d have a good draft pick because they wouldn’t have won many games.
good point, they wouldn’t have even been able to start the games.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed, though I’ll note that if a player is a bust but redeems himself on a different team later in his career….he’s still a bust for the team that drafted him, so I’m comfortable still calling him a bust. What matters is what he produces for the team that drafts him while they control his exclusive rights.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
then here too you are making judgement on a given time period. You can and should evalutate your players regularly. the sixers are calling Brand a bust. The clippers, not so much. they got great production from him on a lesser contract before his injuries. On a rookie contract of 4 years when Wright has really played in less than 82 games is terrible value for number 8 pick. that’s all bust. Bogut is a great player, but he’s a bust. He’s always hurt. in reality he hurts his team by sucking up payroll. you can say the same as missed opporutnity. in the investment world if you aren’t making at least equal return to the us treasury note your investment is losing you money. All we have is time. time and years and games. they are under performing assests who would need to do a whole lot to make up for yesterday, unless you just sweep it under the rug and forget it ever happened. Is odem a bust, you bet. compared to the alternative, durant, absolutely.
Maybe we need to redifine the use of the word bust as it relates to players but as i see it, B Wright is a big bust of a draft pick and needs to do a whole hell of a lot to make up for it next year. then he’ll be a FA and you have to decide if what he’s worth as a new investment and considering his lack of production in 3 of the 4 years he will have played to that date, you should proceed with caution.
there seems to be disconnect to players that do not fil into their potential and players that don’t produce due to injury but both leave you with under performance. they just do so by different means.
Nah, I’m withholding judgment until the original team that drafted him no longer has exclusive rights.
in the investment world if you aren’t making at least equal return to the us treasury note your investment is losing you money
And if there was a secondary market here that operated daily from 9:30-4 it might be comparable. As such, the difference here is you can’t really resell the “investment” on a real time, so you don’t really lose until the investment matures. If you basically have to hold an investment for 5 years, it doesn’t matter what the market does in real time, it just matters how your investment stacked up to the market after 5 years (in opportunity cost). I guess if you want, you can stretch and try to compare trade value to the secondary market, which in a sense it is and we’ve definitely lost value on a guy like Wright at the moment….but trades are pretty rare anyways, it’s unlikely we would have traded him. We’ll see how it stacks up when our investment matures.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions
okay assume he has a great year next year. was it a good investment? probably not. i’ll hope we get more from this years pick and not just because it’s two places higher. my point of alternative was a reference to what we choose to invest in verse the alternative. in a closed investment, one in which you can’t withdraw the funds for a given amount of time (as a comparision to your no trade) we can only conclude that we made the right investment compared to or other choices at the time. But let’s be honest, do you really expect him to make up for everything next year and how would you consider him to have redeemed himself? or dub him a good draft pick?
Those are fair points, and you could very well be right. Looking at the picks right after Wright, the only option that looks like it could be better was Noah, though I think a healthy Biedrins gives us a pretty similar player. The other option is keeping JRich, but I think getting out of his contract and getting a high upside prospect to gamble on in the process was worth it, though I do see a legitimate case against that.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I think solid is a fair assessment of Wright so far
I’d go more with fragile? Solid has connotations of staying in one piece?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Well that’s just not true. You can say all you want about how he’s barely contributed so far – which is true – but saying that he sucks? I just don’t see how you can possibly support that opinion.
by Missing Barry on May 20, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Hassan Whiteside anybody?
I dont think the warriors are gonna draft him, but i think he is the most underrated player that will be taken in the lottery and could be huge in this league. Maybe a future Marcus Camby, sometimes i even see flashes of Tim Duncan. We’ll just have to wait and see until the teams start their workouts this summer.
Hassan Whiteside just isn’t a very good basketball player at this point in his life, at least compared to NBA players. Just keep in mind the competition he was playing against. If you’re 7’0 and athletic and playing against guys not even good enough to get a scholarship to the 6 major conferences, or even the A-10 or Mountain West, well…..it should be a cakewalk for you. Not to say he’ll never be a good player, but there’s a reason he’s not all that highly thought of. He has a long, long, long way to go. Like….Patrick O’Bryant long way to go….
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I dont think any of the guys that we can get a the 6 spot are good compared to NBA players. If you are 7’0 and athletic, then you always have a chance to do big things in the NBA. Just think of how rare that combination is in todays game. His conference was definately weak and he dominated it like he should of, so I think it is too hard to judge him accurately right now, but if you are gonna make it in this league, then you need athletic seven footers. Just look at the lakers, magic, and celtics. They are the only teams with athletic big men, and they are the only teams to make it to the finals as of recent. Like I said, i think it is just gonna depend on the summer workouts
Definitely, and just because I brought out Patrick O’Bryant doesn’t mean I think that’s exactly what Whiteside is going to be. He’s not Patrick O’Bryant, he’s a different individual. Maybe he works hard and develops and becomes good. I see the potential, just want to point out that as far as he has to go to become a useful player, it’s probably not a great bet he’ll develop as much as we’d hope. I think there are plenty of better options, and Whiteside is probably someone that should go somewhere in the teens or something like that. In the top 10 we should still expect to get a guy that should contribute in some way.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I honestly think this was a blessing in disguise...
The basketball gods have something in store for us. They didn’t want us to break up Steph and Monta! They are clearly going to be the most dynamic 1-2 punch in the league for years to come. Hey, maybe Cousins and Favors are going to be a bust?… Did we really need to make our starting line up any younger? We need to give the roster a full year to determine if we really are “The Suck”. Yeah, maybe Biedrins really is our biggest hole in our starting lineup after watching the playoffs but maybe we can pull off a trade? Stay positive guys!
They didn’t want us to break up Steph and Monta!
Meh. Nellie and Riley could still easily “break up” Steph and Monta if they felt so inclined; and I suspect they’d do so in a heartbeat if someone offered them something half-decent for Monta. Riley’s on record saying this offseason, unlike last offseason, the team is totally open to making a major move. Reading between the lines: Curry’s the franchise, and Monta and Biedrins are both fully on the trading block. As well they should be, imo.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Good post…..now, what does this list tell us? Not to get our hopes up for the #6 pick. It just doesn’t produce great, or even good, players that often. When the “puddle of suck” that is Big Country, Antoine Walker, Kaman and Calbert Cheaney is honorable mention for best ever picks, well, you shouldn’t expect that much out of the pick. Which is pretty much what I expect. Nothing great……sigh.
So long as Greg Monroe turns out to be Larry Bird, you've made me feel okay....
But the real drag about not getting lucky this year, however, is that it’s probably our last chance in a long time to got a top-of-the-draft superstar. Pardon the repetition if this has already been said by another commenter, but…the only reason we were in any position to dream about grabbing Wall was because our freakish run of injuries last year put us in a freakishly advantageous draft spot, and that’s the kind of bad-luck-that-is-actually-good-luck that championship teams are built on. Think of the the already-good San Antonio team that lost David Robinson for a year to injury in his prime and got rewarded for it by sucking for one magical year, to the point where they got to draft Duncan. This year was OUR tiny little window of fortuitous suckage, and that window has likely closed already, with the emergence of Curry. Who knows what happens with a new owner and GM, but it seems we’re likely to go back to our standard 35-40-win seasons and #11-14 draft spot for the next several years. And there usually aren’t a lot of rings waiting for you out there when you’re picking at #14.
by BlueInTheFace on May 19, 2010 8:28 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Very good points I had forgotten about. As disappointed as I am in the #6 pick….we really aren’t a team that deserves even that low a pick, we are better than more than 6 other NBA teams…..
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Great points, Blue.
Too bad the rules no longer allow us to pluck a Bird (i.e. next season’s #1) with our pick… :,-(
Optimist that I am, I’m warming up to Aminu. Or at least, I’m failing to see the enormous drop-off from Johnson to Aminu. Johnson’s over three years older; and his main advantage over Aminu — his perimeter stroke — is something he didn’t develop until this season.
Yeah, I was thinking of this a five-player draft, so it’s kinda lame for me to say otherwise now; but really, if we’re talking about the type of high-probability impact stud we’ve been craving since Webber left, it’s a one-player draft. The presumptive #2-5 guys all have either huge question marks (Favors, Cuz) or modest ceilings (Turner, Johnson). I dunno, the drop from one of these dudes to a high-ceiling defensive-minded athletic freak SF in the Gerald Wallace mold doesn’t seem quite as precipitous as I had originally feared.
Plus … I still wouldn’t rule out Johnson or Cousins falling to us at #6. All it takes is one wild card (see, Flynn, Jonny, 2009).
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions
You make good points
I too am warming a bit to Aminu, for similar reasons. And I could see Monroe being a good pro.
Besides, watching Rajon Rondo (a 21st pick) making big contributions in the playoffs for Boston last night, I was reminded that you can actually find very useful guys out there after the top few picks, at least if you’re smart (and lucky). Maybe we’ll dig up another Carlos Boozer.
by BlueInTheFace on May 19, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Aminu is a scary pick.
His profile is a power forward’s game in a small forward’s body. I’m not liking that right now. I think you’re right that there’s pro’s for both Johnson and Aminu. I think Johnson is the much safer pick however. We’ve seen a lot of tweener busts lately, so that really makes me hesitant on him.
And for Cousins to drop we’re going to need two team’s to reach for picks before we select. Right now I see the Nets taking Favors. They really need a good PF. I think Minnesota could end up taking Cousins. He’s the best value. They took the best value at the top of last year’s draft in Rubio. They could take a guy like Aminu as a reach. But they need outside shooting although they do have 3 1st round picks to address that need. Sacramento would probably be the last team that would definitely take Cousins before we would. I just don’t see why they’d opt for Monroe right now.
For me, Aminu would be the clear cut 6th pick if he could prove he could play the SF full time. But from the way he played in college has yet to prove anything. His work ethic is nice to hear. Better attitude than Earl Clark from last year and much, much better athleticism than James Johnson. I’d still go Monroe right now though.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
I don’t like Aminu either. Reminds me too much of a shorter Anthony Randolph. I really don’t want another skin PF trying to play SF.
Monroe has been on my eye for years. As much as I wish he was legit, he’s not. His athleticism and rebounding is really poor and his defense is soft. those are killers for me. He’s intriguing and i’d love a high post big who can pass ON OUR BENCH, i just think at 6 you should try to grab a star or at least a starter.
The other good thing about Aminu...
is that his main weakness – his shot – is very fixable because he has a nice stroke and release. He just needs to practice it more, which he’ll be able to do in the NBA.
I'd say he needs to develop his guard skills.
His handle isn’t NBA level yet.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
So we have guy who isn’t a natural shooter, who can’t dribble very well, who we hope can play the SF and is tall and skinny. MMMmmmmm, another big potential player. I guess one of them has got to hit. Kind of like spreading your money out on the rulette table.
Blue:
good post. We can’t win and we can’t lose (tank properly). Thanks Nellie. That year Robinson sat out to me is a consiracy. I think they tanked properly. Where i think your wrong is that we will be back to an 11-14 spot next year. Even with a healthy squad i don’t think we are that good, and now the teams that were worse than us, and slightly better than us (was & Phi) are getting better draft picks. Remember even when we get better, so does everyone else. It takes a dramatic stroke of luck to break out of the cellar. Luck like Randolph winning most improved player of the year award type of luck bundled with an improving Steph Curry and a suprizinly good draft pick this year.
Based on point differential, we played like a team that deserved the #9 pick this season. With better health alone, you don’t think we could move up 2-5 spots?
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
I’m one of the biggest skeptics who reads this board, con or sin Urquell. But I don’t see any way that a healthy squad (that means you too, Brandan) without our current roster and a decent No. 6 pick doesn’t win 38-40 games at least, even in the west, or pick any higher than 11-12 next year. But I’ll grant you that it’s hard to argue either way about the prospects of our “current roster” since we have zero idea who the owner/GM/coach is going to be, and subsequently, which contracts they might add or dump as they start to make, presumably, big changes to put their stamp on the team.
by BlueInTheFace on May 19, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Lakers, Nuggets, OKC, Rockets, Blazers, Jazz, Suns, Mavs, Spurs, Hornets & Memphis all likely will have better teams (barring unforeseen moves) next season than the W’s.
The W’s may be better than the Clippers, Kings, & Twolves in the west, but that’s about it. and the Clippers may be a lot better if Blake Griffin is as good as the general consensus makes him out to be.
by homer simpson on May 19, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Memphis? I think not. Rockets? Not a certainty. Spurs are getting old. All it takes is a major injury and some of those contenders won’t be as good…..
I don’t think we played as poorly last year as people think, and I think some people are forgetting just how much of an impact the injuries, specifically to our big men, had on the season. Some actual big man defense, some rebounding, and some not Mikki Moore or other DLeaguers who suck can make a huge difference. I don’t think we’re set up to be a playoff team or anything, but we’re not devoid of talent, either.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Rockets had a -0.4 point spread & won 42 games. Considering the type of medical care these guys receive, I think it’s safe to assume Yao will probably recover as well as Big Z did with the same exact injury & surgery. But even w/o Yao, the Rockets are a veteran team (veteran teams tend to play better & more disciplined d) play much better defense. imo, Yao is the difference between them winning in the lower 40s & them winning in the lower 50s.
Memphis’ point spread was -1.5 & they won 40 games. Gasol & Mayo & Conley are in years 1-3 (usually considered upswing years). Gay’s #‘s on 82games seem to suggest he’s slowly improving incrementally on defensive.
Spurs are getting old.
Which is exactly what people said last offseason. Parker just turned 28 on the 17th & DeJuan Blair is a young beast. Duncan & Ginobili aren’t slowing down as much as ppl think check their #’s
injury was meant to be covered in the unforeseen category. the W’s aren’t likely to get add 14+ wins from their last 2 seasons of
i actually think the 26 wins, -3.6 point spread was generous b/c they won a lot of games late when other teams were on vacation or resting & Reggie Williams played like an all-star for a stretch. it’s also unlikely that Maggette will be this efficient next season.
by homer simpson on May 19, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Thats exactly what i was saying. Next year we are facing Griffin and probably Cousins too, assuming either Sac or the Twolves pick him up. We’re going to be abused inside, night in, night out. Our best rebuilding option maybe to continue our tanking through next year and beyond until we land a super star cause it’s doubtfull we’ll trade for one.
Good points; though if we’re talking about draft slot, you have to consider the weakness of the majority of the Eastern teams. Also, if we’re going to assume upward mobility from the Clips, I think it’s reasonable to assume some serious downward mobility from the borderline-decrepit Mavs, Spurs, Rockets, and the Amare-less Suns.
I agree with Blue that it’s really tough to gauge what this team could be with a healthy Biedrins, Randolph, Wright, and Buike added to the rotation; Curry playing all year long the way he did the last third of the season; and 10-15 minutes of solid wing defense a night from Aminu or Wes Johnson.
Yeah, our floor is still low, mostly ‘cos we haven’t shown any real concrete reasons to raise it. But if you believe Berri and the WP crew, regular PT from Biedrins, Wright, Randolph could easily add 10+ wins. Curry playing like an All-Star all year long probably gets us another 5, conservatively. Even at taking most pessimistic (or is it optimistic) view, it’s hard to imagine this team coming as close to the league cellar as it did this year.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
you have to consider the weakness of the majority of the Eastern teams.
sorry. should have been more clear. was replying to this statement
doesn’t win 38-40 games at least, even in the west, or pick any higher than 11-12 next year.that’s 2-3 spots from the playoffs. seeing as how it’s unlikely they’ll place higher than the 11 teams i listed, it’s unlikely they will be picking any higher than 10.
Also, if we’re going to assume upward mobility from the Clips, I think it’s reasonable to assume some serious downward mobility from the borderline-decrepit Mavs, Spurs, Rocketssorry, wasn’t clear. i only meant in terms of seeding. the Mavs may drop to the 45-49 win range (unless Beaubois is really that good & gets more PT) as might the Spurs (though Parker will be 28 & (i assume) healthy & Blair should be more productive in year 2, but barring major injuries, they should still be ahead of the W’s next season. Even w/o Yao (who i expect to recover (a la Big Z so many yrs ago), the Rockets should be able to match what they did this season (assuming Kevin Martin is back to being efficient as he was in his 26 games with Houston & Jordan Hill’s play was not an aberration). obviously, Yao would take that team to the 50+ playoff team realm.
Amare-less Suns.I’d be really surprised if this happens considering the run they just made. Playoff home games are big money (for both the games & how they affect season ticket sales the following season) & Sarver (owner) has to know that the playoffs & deeper runs in the playoffs are much more likely with Amare in tote, max contract or not. though Miami is a warm weather city w/ no state tax that might peak Amare’s interest all things being equal (i expect them to go after Bosh, then Boozer 1st however).
But if you believe Berri and the WP crew, regular PT from Biedrins, Wright, Randolph could easily add 10+ wins.i certainly respect Berri (esp. in terms of explaining why teams won) & it’ll be interesting to see if guys who have either generally had little affect in most adj plus-minus stats like Wright or have had a negative affect like Randolph will aide in the team winning w/o dramatic defensive improvement. i expect Maggette’s WP48 & WP to drop off some from this past season and would expect Morrow & CJ’s WP (if they are still with the team) to be reduced.
anyway, we’ll see if the big WP guy, AB bounces back (i think someone had mentioned that his WP48 has dropped by 30% since Jackson has been “gone” (when Nellie began the rest a vet late in 08-09 season)", it’ll also be interesting to see whose minutes the rookie takes (if he takes any).
by homer simpson on May 19, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
too early to tell
who will be good. wait until draft/trades/FA signings/etc…
by caseycheesecake on May 20, 2010 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
con or sin Urquell.
Haha, I can take Urquell or leave it too, Pliny is an adequate substitute
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Are you worried
That we will win more?
by Billy Frijoles on May 20, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
What you said about Yi
was kind of garbage. Just sayin.
Isn’t it gay we’re all talking about keeping our chins up and stifling tears?
by caseycheesecake on May 19, 2010 10:09 AM PDT reply actions
Isn’t it gay we’re all talking about keeping our chins up and stifling tears?
You say this like it’s a bad thing.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
In the form he was using it...
yes.
Unless he meant happy or homosexual or prostitute or womanizer. But I think he was going for the “bad” meaning, not to be confused with any of those others.
by WheresMyChippy on May 19, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, “gay” implies not very manly. We’re all men here talking about sports. Is being gay manly?
Go Andris's free throw shooting!
Well, "gay" implies not very manly.
It does? News to me. Do this apply to women as well?
We’re all men here talking about sports.
I’m pretty sure there are a few chix on here. And IIRC, we have on a couple of occasions strayed from the topic of sports … not that you’d know anything about that. ;-)
Is being gay manly?
Is gossiping about studly athletes on the internet manly?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I think yes. If you think gay=manly, you must not think that biological fatherhood and a commitment to the mother is manly. That goes back to our classic “gay marriage” debate. I think biological fatherhood and traditional marriage is very manly. Being gay pretty much precludes that behavior.
No, gossiping about studly athletes on the internet isn’t manly. ha ha…
Go Andris's free throw shooting!
Or we can just not stereotype “gay” in offensive ways at all….
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think yes. If you think gay=manly, you must not think that biological fatherhood and a commitment to the mother is manly.
LOL. What if I think both are perfectly “manly”? Or what if I don’t care to define “manliness,” or how anyone else should feel or behave?
I’m not seeing any “debate” here. But I don’t doubt that you can trump some up. Knock yourself out. This is my last post in this thread on this subject.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If one behavior is truly manly, not doing that isn’t manly… or at least minimizes the manliness of it. It’s nice to try to make everyone happy, but because people live in different worlds, you simply can’t. I just try to go with what makes sense.
Go Andris's free throw shooting!
If one behavior is truly manly, not doing that isn’t manly
So every guy who don’t shoot and kill deer is not manly ? How about a guy that don’t kill deer but still has a beard?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 20, 2010 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think killing deer is manly. I have no issues with it, but I don’t think it defines manhood. A beard is manly, so a lack of a beard is less manly. It’s more boyish or youngish.
I’m not going to say that no gay person is manly. There are many manly qualities. But homosexuality is defined by not being interested in women. Being interested in women, having biological children and committing to the mother of those children, to me, is an inherent part of manliness. So homosexuality, by definition, is not manly. A homosexual manly can be manly but not as manly as a straight man.
Go Andris's free throw shooting!
I just try to go with what makes sense.
What makes sense is dropping this ridiculous conversation. Seriously, none of it makes sense or means anything, and the only possible outcome is to offend people.
by Missing Barry on May 20, 2010 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I think biological fatherhood and traditional marriage is very manly. Being gay pretty much precludes that behavior.
no really, all they’d need is a willing woman and a loving partner.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think he got that.
So, like, “homosexuals” are better at keeping their chins up and stifling tears? Would that mean straight people are wussy crybabies?
I mean, you could be right, given all the crap our gay friends and relatives have to take on a daily basis…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 20, 2010 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
This is my last post in this thread on this subject.
Liar!
by Missing Barry on May 20, 2010 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Haha. With our friend Natty, I meant.
I’m still trying to tease out whether our friend caseycheesecake’s a hate-filled homophobe. Shhhh…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 20, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow
went off on a little tangent there, didn’t we?
by caseycheesecake on May 20, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, you are the one who first used “gay” in an inappropriate way…..
by Missing Barry on May 20, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
How is that? I see how you could see it as inappropriate. But could you not see it in the literal definition?
by caseycheesecake on May 21, 2010 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I inferred it was not meant in the “happy” sense. If you want to clearly state it was, you can easily clear up the matter……
by Missing Barry on May 21, 2010 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I think biological fatherhood and traditional marriage is very manly. Being gay pretty much precludes that behavior.
Does anyone else see the joke here? Being happy pretty much precludes marriage and fatherhood. ;)
by Missing Barry on May 20, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Being happy pretty much precludes marriage and fatherhood. ;)
don’t need a fancy stat to know that
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 20, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
No
Yi sucks. Its a pretty easy call on that one.
by Pearlsofwisdom on May 19, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I was on the Yi bandwagon.
Members of GSoM pushed hard for Yi — part joke and part seriousness — when he was on folks draft radars a few years back. But that dude has turned out to be so bad he can’t even put up good stats against the Warriors…and that’s say A LOT. I hope he figures it out because he seems like he has all the skills and possibly physical talents.
By the way, your usage of “gay” is inappropriate by our site’s discussion policy. Please take note and refer to FAQ for more info.
by dj fuzzylogic on May 19, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
By the way, your usage of "gay" is inappropriateby our site’s discussion policy.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Members of GSoM pushed hard for Yi
and who was solidly against picking him?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
haha
do we really need to rehash the past, Skeptic? Let bygones be bygones!
by dj fuzzylogic on May 19, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I heard that wasn't just any ordinary chair
but a full on recliner with cupholders. That’s like equivalent to going against Kendrick Perkins.
by dj fuzzylogic on May 19, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Kendrick Perkins = Couch
I would have draft Yi no. 1 had he posted up a couch. One of those expensive Ethan Allen ones
Hahaha
that’s great
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 19, 2010 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I've heard all about Yi posting up chairs here and from Bill Simmons...
is there any place where I can see the video? I wasn’t a GSOMer at the time.
Although Chairman Yi still has the potential to make a Great Leap Foward. (OK, I’ll shut up now).
Go for the guy with the highest floor,
might mean a lower ceiling, but at least you know what you are getting. Luke Babbitt.
A guy can dream can’t he?
Go Nevada Wolf Pack!
Go for the guy with the highest floor,might mean a lower ceiling,
A high floor and a low ceiling don’t leave very much volume for your money.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 19, 2010 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions
"Go for the guy with the highest floor, might mean a lower ceiling, but at least you know what you are getting."
The philosophy should be the other way around. At least if you draft a bust, you have a good chance at being one of the 6 worst teams and winning the lottery. If you draft one of those players who are just good enough to help get you to 7-14, you’re stuck in purgatory – too good to get an impact player (obviously, there are exceptions), not good enough to get in the playoffs.
by homer simpson on May 19, 2010 11:23 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
at this point i’m particularly interested in Seraphin, Orton, maybe….. Udoh. Height, beef, and athleticism.
Warriors suck at evaluating talent based on this criteria...
O’Bryant, Diogu, Biedrins (maybe), Foyle… they’ve been more successful drafting skilled players… Curry, Ellis, Richardson, Randolph (maybe)..
LUKE BABBITT
??
You’re looking at players drafted by previous managements. Using Biedrins as an example of “bad” talent evaluation? Really? Luke Jackson was picked before him. Robert Swift was picked after him. How is that “bad”? What makes Randolph a “skill” player? It seems like you have a position and are just fishing for any arbitrary criteria to support it…..
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
The Warriors have historically done better in the draft when they’ve drafted good players instead of bad ones.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 19, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Mock drafts
CNNSI: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ian_thomsen/05/19/mock.draft/index.html?eref=sihp
Wash: Wall
Philly: Turner
Nets: Favors
Minn: Cousins
Kings: Aminu
Warriors: Monroe
“Other teams will view him as a complementary frontcourt playmaker, but Don Nelson will imagine the possibilities of playing through the best passing big man in college basketball. The highly skilled Monroe can create a shot for himself as well as for others.”
Yahoo: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Ag6SAnShOJh9tecRiWF.YdS8vLYF?slug=ys-lotterymockdraft051810
Wall
Turner
Favors
Wesley Johnson
Cousins
Ed Davis
“His body of work is limited, since Davis was a role player during the Tar Heels’ title run in 2009 and broke his left wrist last season. He tried to make a go of it, but essentially missed the final 13 games. Davis got off to a quick start as a sophomore with double-doubles in nine of his first 16 games. His father is former NBA forward Terry Davis.”
I like Davis but we already have a twelve tall skinny left handed bean poles and monroe doesn’t rebound or play defense……Nellie will love him.
Brandan Wright!
Personally, I just want one that’s really good. I don’t particularly care how they go about being really good, just that they are.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
If Cousins or Johnson don't fall to us, then take Monroe
Monroe is a guy that most analysts believe will be a solid pro. They say that he doesn’t have a potential bust factor like Favors and Cousins. This is what NBA fanhouse said about him.
Forecast: Monroe will be a real solid pro. While he lacks the upside of other big men, the bust factor of Cousins, Favors, and Davis doesn’t come into play with Monroe. Ideally he’ll get into a system that values his unique skill set and allows him to operate on the block, high post, and even the perimeter, as he did so well in college. Utah has been thrown out there and for good reason. With Carlos Boozer likely gone to free agency and a team that runs as many pick-and-rolls as the Jazz do, they’d be a good fit. Monroe is very useful off the screen because he can shoot with range and understands floor spacing so well. He should eventually be a plus starter in this league who will make everyone around him better, even if he never plays in an All-Star game.
It says that he’ll be a good pick and roll player, which would be perfect for Curry. What Monroe lacks offensively, Curry can make up for it because of his great ability to get bigs the ball in perfect spots on the pick and roll. As long as Monroe is about 6’11", strong, able to defend bigs well enough, and able to convert on Curry dimes, then he should be a solid pick for the team. He and Randolph could be a pretty could duo down low in the future.
Monroe’s got statistical red flags in regards to athleticism. His offensive rebounding rate (7.2%) & block % (4.8%) mirror that of 3-4 tweeners. He does have a good steal rate for a big.
Anyway assuming he’s athletic enough to play defense in the NBA, he’d probably be a good fit on a Princeton offense team like Sacramento.
by homer simpson on May 19, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Epke Udoh
or bust…he’s the pick now…
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on May 20, 2010 1:51 AM PDT reply actions
As a Saint Marys fan...
I would hate to see Epke’s mug all the time. He looks like that idiot vulture from the Warner Bros cartoons…
by Michael Stix Johnson on May 20, 2010 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Dear God, no.
If it’s Udoh, I’ll probably have a heart attack. That guy’s Ike Diogu 2.0. in terms of bust potential.
Nice post!
I expect this pick to be traded, but if there’s a player out there, I expect Nellie to find him.
Can we draft that guy from Butler?
He’s got heart! Heart!!!!!
by Billy Frijoles on May 20, 2010 10:10 AM PDT reply actions
Mock drafts always hav Warriors with a huh guess - Ed Davis from UNC WTF???
UNC, whatever.
GSW either trades pick or selects Monroe or Johnson – whomever Kings don’t take.
Maybe that Wake Forest player or Butler player. Don’t bet against that Butler player!
Al-Farouq Aminu, SF, Wake Forest: According to Wake’s media guide, Aminu’s first name means "the chief has arrived.
by Michael Stix Johnson on May 20, 2010 4:24 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
