RealGM

DuckIII wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:

DuckIII wrote:I like them both a lot. Castle’s defense is downright spectacular and he is a relentless competitor. I love him, but he’ll be gone before we pick.

Clingan was projected around our range which sounds about right, 10-16ish. He may be rising draft boards in light of his recent dominance over two powerhouse offenses, but by the time the process is over he’ll fall back to where he should be. I like him though. Don’t love him.

He will be long gone. They know who he is going to be. Draft process isn't going to change that. People have said he looks good shooting the 3 in warmups so if anything some team is going to see that in a work out and fall in love.

Read on Twitter

If he’s gone, he’s gone. I like him but I’m not even sold on him at 12 (even though I do think he’s a good value pick in that range).

His draft stock today at the height of his fame and impact means very little to me. Of course it’s gone up. I don’t think he’s agile or offensively skilled enough to go top 5 in the modern NBA and I sure wouldn’t take him that high. Some teams might, but I think it’s more likely they start focusing on his limitations and he slides back down to where he belongs.

Right now Roy Hibbert is the best comp I can come up with for him. Great verticality on defense that will translate real well, but his mobility and offensive arsenal looks really unimpressive to me. I think he's a back half of the lotto guy most other drafts. Not sure he's a better prospect than Lively.

rosenthall wrote:

DuckIII wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:
He will be long gone. They know who he is going to be. Draft process isn't going to change that. People have said he looks good shooting the 3 in warmups so if anything some team is going to see that in a work out and fall in love.

Read on Twitter

If he’s gone, he’s gone. I like him but I’m not even sold on him at 12 (even though I do think he’s a good value pick in that range).

His draft stock today at the height of his fame and impact means very little to me. Of course it’s gone up. I don’t think he’s agile or offensively skilled enough to go top 5 in the modern NBA and I sure wouldn’t take him that high. Some teams might, but I think it’s more likely they start focusing on his limitations and he slides back down to where he belongs.

Right now Roy Hibbert is the best comp I can come up with for him. Great verticality on defense that will translate real well, but his mobility and offensive arsenal looks really unimpressive to me. I think he's a back half of the lotto guy most other drafts. Not sure he's a better prospect than Lively.

He has good mobility for a guy 7'2". But he is limited on offense which is why I thought he would be amazing here with a healthy Ball as his PG. With Coby running things he would never get proper touches. I would rather take Matas Buzelis with this current team.

Repeat 3-peat wrote:This draft may be worse than the class of 2000.

'Marcus Fizer agrees.

With what I've seen, the top of the draft is pretty weak. I feel like mid-draft is usually full of question marks, so there are probably 1 or 2 guys who we could nab who top out at 3rd quartile starters. That said, it will be interesting to see what AK does.

Putting the pick in a trade package, we have Coby, Ayo, Zach, S&T Demar, Caruso, S&T Pat, Por pick that we could cobble some subset into a young player just below an allstar level, while keeping enough to still be field a decent team.

This is a good draft class, but the fools gold is projected to be near the top.

I can't think of a worse pick than Clingan for what we want to do.

Guru wrote:I can't think of a worse pick than Clingan for what we want to do.

Ron Holland?

Guru wrote:I can't think of a worse pick than Clingan for what we want to do.

What do we want to do? Hard to imagine a better pick for us than Clingan that's realistic.

Rose2Boozer wrote:

Guru wrote:I can't think of a worse pick than Clingan for what we want to do.

Ron Holland?

Based on what? Bulls dont do anything.

2weekswithpay wrote:

Guru wrote:I can't think of a worse pick than Clingan for what we want to do.

What do we want to do? Hard to imagine a better pick for us than Clingan that's realistic.

Bulls have no one who could get him the ball in a spot he could actually score. He really doesn't have any moves.

Jcool0 wrote:

Rose2Boozer wrote:

Guru wrote:I can't think of a worse pick than Clingan for what we want to do.

Ron Holland?

Based on what? Bulls dont do anything.

New talent brings about new wrinkles to the game plan. There's no need to throw Clingan the ball in the post. Let him anchor our defense, rim run, and allow Williams to get a bump in touches.

Ron Holland is a high usage small forward who can't shoot the three. We don't need those type of problems.

Rose2Boozer wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:

Rose2Boozer wrote:
Ron Holland?

Based on what? Bulls dont do anything.

New talent brings about new wrinkles to the game plan. There's no need to throw Clingan the ball in the post. Let him anchor our defense, rim run, and allow Williams to get a bump in touches.

Ron Holland is a high usage small forward who can't shoot the three. We don't need those type of problems.

Yes, your right. Bulls have no need for an athletic wing who plays defense. NBA has moved passe that. Bulls dont shoot threes so how is him not being good at them a problem?

Jcool0 wrote:

2weekswithpay wrote:

Guru wrote:I can't think of a worse pick than Clingan for what we want to do.

What do we want to do? Hard to imagine a better pick for us than Clingan that's realistic.

Bulls have no one who could get him the ball in a spot he could actually score. He really doesn't have any moves.

He's 7'3, his size alone will create scoring opportunities. Drummond has similar success every game and he doesn't have great skills or BBIQ. The players can't take advantage of his size don't have a future on this team.

2weekswithpay wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:

2weekswithpay wrote:
What do we want to do? Hard to imagine a better pick for us than Clingan that's realistic.

Bulls have no one who could get him the ball in a spot he could actually score. He really doesn't have any moves.

He's 7'3, his size alone will create scoring opportunities. Drummond has similar success every game and he doesn't have great skills or BBIQ. The players can't take advantage of his size don't have a future on this team.

He is 7'2" and in the NBA that isn't enough.

2weekswithpay wrote:

Guru wrote:I can't think of a worse pick than Clingan for what we want to do.

What do we want to do? Hard to imagine a better pick for us than Clingan that's realistic.

Any big that can actually run the floor and shoot....

Rose2Boozer wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:

Rose2Boozer wrote:
Ron Holland?

Based on what? Bulls dont do anything.

New talent brings about new wrinkles to the game plan. There's no need to throw Clingan the ball in the post. Let him anchor our defense, rim run, and allow Williams to get a bump in touches.

Ron Holland is a high usage small forward who can't shoot the three. We don't need those type of problems.

Rimrun? he is slow as molasses

Clingan's bigger than Poeltl, more active running the floor and passing. I think the main issue is he'll be a low-minute (20-25 MPG) guy, which is the norm for most 1-way centers who can't space (Capela, Gafford, Drummond, Kessler)... Exceptions for Gobert and Allen, both who have extremely high TS% with their put-backs/dunks/etc. Clingan's FT% stinks, and he has much less athleticism than those two, so if he needs to lay up or scoop shots around the rim, that percentage is sink. The above-rim pogo sticks dunk everything within 3 ft. of the rim (inc. Gafford actually). Clingan's not getting any more hops, so I'm not seeing him hammer buckets.

He's worth a shot at #12... but he'll definitely be gone before then. Unless Bulls win top-4, in which case I'd task my scouts to find a better offensive prospect, being paid that million-dollar GM money.

Call me nuts, but I'd consider Edey at #12. You worry about the idea of getting a high-usage low-post player with slow Vuc feet- but size don't lie. The guy is huge, and he has good hands. I'd downplay the obvious defensive issues he'll have (3P rotations and switching to guards), and focus on whether his offense can develop 3P, pick-n-pop jumper. If that's in the cards, then what's stopping his NBA development? The FT stroke is good (not to mention he drew a ton of attempts) and his ball security and IQ/passing-reads seem high. My money is he'd do well in the Euroleague as a high-usage superstar, but he could just as well as be the "overthought" prospect of this draft. The Luka Garza comparisons are kind of bogus if you look at the two more closely.

This said, I don't think AK drafts a replacement for his "20-10 machine." We're adding another hyper-low-FG% athlete to this mix: Collier, Salaun. Petey Patton is our new MVP as we set our sites on hitting league average 3P% in 2027 with our farm.

If Bulls get top-4, I’m not overthinking this too much: Matas seems like the ideal pick for Chicago. Prepare to teach the boy how to play basketball after wasting a year with the Ignite.

Clingan seems like a starting caliber center prospect. And given our current situation, those are attractive to us.

But to build around Clingan you need your elite offense to come from elsewhere as he's likely a negative on that end against serious teams. That's where I struggle with drafting him highly as the #1 team building goal of pretty much any NBA team should be to build an elite offense.

Clingan kind of fits best with teams who already have that offensive core built out. I think he'd excel for Grizz or OKC.

I do like Edey for us though.

We currently have no coherent organizing concept, so might as well snag that intriguing talent who will likely fall in the draft because you have to organize around him. That seems like a good match to me.