With the 7th pick of the 2009 NBA Draft...

[Twinkie defense]

That's horrible.

[Mylie10]

I'm really hoping that Washington hold onto the second pick. They're our only real chance at trading into the second pick.

with Arenas they don't need Rubio.

[old rem]

That's horrible.

very horrible.

Blair is the one guy who'd have some use here and Nellie probably botches that for now.

Lawson, Curry +Flynn are the % bets at PG and we --however-have a desperate need to BREAK EVEN rebounding. We need Monta to succeed at PG. We can't assume any "project" works out as long as Nellie's here


How can a raw wing project be the best we can do with a mid lotto pick?

[old rem]

Rubio might be nice if he falls into our laps. as a trade up...he's not so sure thing. There's a real risk he is not even as good as an NBA PG as what is here. There's too much gap between Rubio's "highlight clips" and what the numbers say is typical. If we pay for "Star" and get "not better than Belli", I don't want to blow a rather good outlook on a gamble, that's not good. I'd hope that the W's really take a detailed look. Rubio MIGHT...MIGHT..be worth the high cost. My instincts is the price will be so high we can't get a "value" and will be fortunate to do okay. We may find that in the NBA context...he's not as good as any of 3-4 PG's we'd have available at #7, and that's assuming PG is the move to do.

When GSW is above avg rebounding, then I'd look at other concerns.

[azwfan]

My May BIG BOARD for the warriors 7th pick

1. Holdiay
2. DeRozan
3. Evans
4. Blair

How tall is Blair anyways? Has he measured in over 6'8"?

[old rem]

For PG, I'd want the W's to get a late 1st and draft Calathes.

Calathes has limits in terms of being super athlete but is a big SG who has rare size/skill stuff and if he's a low #1...wow...real nice chance we get value. He can be more use to us that most guys who get listed as the guy at #7.

Calathes, Lawson, Flynn have virtually equal scorer/asst numbers and Calathes is the late pick and the bigger G.

Bargains.....Hansborough, Calathes, Ahmad Nivins, Aaron Jackson, John Bryant,Taj Gibson...pretty solid. There are a few others who MIGHT be value but are also a risk to not even be a keeper.

Give me Hansborough/Calathes AND Gibson rather than DeRozean and I'd be THRILLED. It's the Trade-Down draft. This is a draft with major booby traps. We can waste #7 position and get...nuthin'.
We also can get a rotation talent late. Do the research.

[Dark Star]

Lawson at #7...Treat it like a bandaid - RIGHT OFF!!!

[RussellandFlow]

From what I can recall, Blair is about 6"6/6"7 at most. He would make for a nice rotation player off the bench to add some toughness and rebounding, but he is not a player that should be taken in the lottery, more like late first rd IMO. With all of the PG's in this draft most "experts" have Calathes going in round 2. Still not sold on Rubio, but if the Warriors "luck out" and get one of the top 3 picks then they should take him, or use that pick as bait, and unload one of the unwanted: Maggette, jackson or Crawford along with the pick for a late lotto pick.

[old rem]

My May BIG BOARD for the warriors 7th pick

1. Holdiay
2. DeRozan
3. Evans
4. Blair

How tall is Blair anyways? Has he measured in over 6'8"?

no

he has listed at 6-7 with muscle and wingspan. The real key things,,,he was #1 in offensive rebounds, he was a VERY big part of a winning team. He is WAY strong yet unusually quick and agile-nice instincts.

If you are looking at the best ball not in the NBA, the ACC and Big East are where it's at. The pattern is..that's the top venues for prime players. Blair may not be the "prototype " but he did dominate and he did it playing quality teams and players. That really does pay. Makes his team win...is good.
1"...give or take...is not that major. Would Larry Bird suck if he was 1" shorter?

Nellie dumped Ike and Hendrix without really trying to make it work. odds are that IF we traded down---Nellie avoids Blair even if he's the No-Brainer choice. that is part of why I persist it pushing Hansborough. TH has the broad skillset,fundamentals,Nellie can deal with. Blair's Brute power game is exceptional-but not what Nellie tends to value. I'd LIKE to be able to force Nellie to take and use Blair. I'd settle for TH. We need help and need it in the context of being stuck with Nellie.

Us getting a raw wing or combo G.....that's absurd. that at best is a minor upgrade that only pays off 2-3 years later.Even then...we maybe get a very minor lift. If we move forward getting abused in the paint, conceding a 10 reb edge,having minimal depth at C/PF...we are toast. Worse...we also prove (further) a chronic failure to see the obvious. That is disturbing. If we proceed blindly, we have slim chances. Our low W/L % says we have to be above avg, to be effective/efficient. GSW can't grope about. We need to get solid results. We DO have the foundation of a major winner if we can just do the sensible thing. If we sidetrack and waste what we have and can have-we cut the odds down,we go back into the same patterns of settling for a longshot or of giving up keepers for a Feel Good patch.

[azwfan]

My May BIG BOARD for the warriors 7th pick

1. Holdiay
2. DeRozan
3. Evans
4. Blair

How tall is Blair anyways? Has he measured in over 6'8"?

no

he has listed at 6-7 with muscle and wingspan. The real key things,,,he was #1 in offensive rebounds, he was a VERY big part of a winning team. He is WAY strong yet unusually quick and agile-nice instincts.

If you are looking at the best ball not in the NBA, the ACC and Big East are where it's at. The pattern is..that's the top venues for prime players. Blair may not be the "prototype " but he did dominate and he did it playing quality teams and players. That really does pay. Makes his team win...is good.
1"...give or take...is not that major. Would Larry Bird suck if he was 1" shorter?

Nellie dumped Ike and Hendrix without really trying to make it work. odds are that IF we traded down---Nellie avoids Blair even if he's the No-Brainer choice. that is part of why I persist it pushing Hansborough. TH has the broad skillset,fundamentals,Nellie can deal with. Blair's Brute power game is exceptional-but not what Nellie tends to value. I'd LIKE to be able to force Nellie to take and use Blair. I'd settle for TH. We need help and need it in the context of being stuck with Nellie.

Us getting a raw wing or combo G.....that's absurd. that at best is a minor upgrade that only pays off 2-3 years later.Even then...we maybe get a very minor lift. If we move forward getting abused in the paint, conceding a 10 reb edge,having minimal depth at C/PF...we are toast. Worse...we also prove (further) a chronic failure to see the obvious. That is disturbing. If we proceed blindly, we have slim chances. Our low W/L % says we have to be above avg, to be effective/efficient. GSW can't grope about. We need to get solid results. We DO have the foundation of a major winner if we can just do the sensible thing. If we sidetrack and waste what we have and can have-we cut the odds down,we go back into the same patterns of settling for a longshot or of giving up keepers for a Feel Good patch.

Take a look at who i quoted (the anti-ike, mr. no midget) and reread my comment.

[old rem]

Lawson at #7...Treat it like a bandaid - RIGHT OFF!!!

My feeling about Lawson a year ago was---no way. He flopped in a key playoff game.

I think he learned. He was an overall effective PG this year...and a WINNER. He is a plus if you do speed.

[Left*My*Heart]

If Nelson is making the pick, he will pick the best potential available, regardless of position. Jennings is a legit lotto pick and who I rate over Lawson. You could trade down and stilll get Lawson who can be found later in the first round.

[old rem]

Jennings is a flashy playground player who blew his shot at a year or two in college and then had a very unimpressive year in Europe.

All Lawson did was be the MVP of the team that won the NCAA title. A year ago, I probably favored Jennings but they went opposite directions. Jennings is not the best potential. Ellis is. Next is a close call between Lawson and Curry...IF...a PG is the real need here.

It isn't.

With Nellie here...starting over at PG is not gonna be swift and smooth. Then..what about Monta? Give him away in some sucky trade? Move him to SG alongside a small PG who's green and not too focused on D? Disturbing. At SG we split SG minutes among Monta, Jack, Morrow, Belli?
Meanwhile we STILL get outrebounded and can't survive an injury to a PF or C.

[FNQ]

I'd take James Johnson over Blair @ 7... he's Earl Clark w/o the hype... from a lot of accounts, JJ doesnt lose his fire like Clark does, but he's prone to some bad decisions... sounds familiar...

[old rem]

At #7 James Johnson strikes me as a decent tweener but not a guy with that main skill that gets him game time. Picked later to be a depth player he's okay. Blair would directly address GSW's core weakness-that there's not enough rebounding and no option to bang in the paint. Selling Nellie on the concept might be harder than getting Dennis Rodman elected Pope.

[turk3d]

That's horrible.

very horrible.

Blair is the one guy who'd have some use here and Nellie probably botches that for now.

Lawson, Curry +Flynn are the % bets at PG and we --however-have a desperate need to BREAK EVEN rebounding. We need Monta to succeed at PG. We can't assume any "project" works out as long as Nellie's here


How can a raw wing project be the best we can do with a mid lotto pick?

Hey rem, you seem to forget that when Nellie was willing to play two bigs (2 of Biedrins, Wright, Randolph and Turiaf) we did break even most of the time (and in some cases out rebounded the opposition). Drafting a "big" doesn't change the fact that the real problem is Nellie. What makes you think drafting another big is going to make a difference? It's still all about Nellie playing the guys we that we already have and who are quite talented. What big (outside of Griffin) do you think is > Biedrins, Randolph, Wright or Turiaf and who Nellie would give major minutes to as a rookie?

A difference maker for us would be if we were able to obtain a guard who was capable of passing the ball to our "bigs" which which help them improve to be most concerned about) and perhaps then he would play them more. Rebounding is not enough to force Nellie to play guys. They have to put points on the boards and if we had a get who knew how to pass the ball without turning it over 5-6 times a game that might "inspire" him to use our 4 bigs more often. I like what I saw from Jamison.

I'm tired of "bigs" being drafted and sent to D-League. Hansbororough is one guy who might have a shot with Nellie but how much of an improvement would he really be over Kurz? And he certainly wouldn't merit the #7 pick imo.

[TB]

We need passers.

Rubio or Jennings.

Successful Draft.

[old rem]

That's horrible.

very horrible.

Blair is the one guy who'd have some use here and Nellie probably botches that for now.

Lawson, Curry +Flynn are the % bets at PG and we --however-have a desperate need to BREAK EVEN rebounding. We need Monta to succeed at PG. We can't assume any "project" works out as long as Nellie's here


How can a raw wing project be the best we can do with a mid lotto pick?

Hey rem, you seem to forget that when Nellie was willing to play two bigs (2 of Biedrins, Wright, Randolph and Turiaf) we did break even most of the time (and in some cases out rebounded the opposition). Drafting a "big" doesn't change the fact that the real problem is Nellie. What makes you think drafting another big is going to make a difference? It's still all about Nellie playing the guys we that we already have and who are quite talented. What big (outside of Griffin) do you think is > Biedrins, Randolph, Wright or Turiaf and who Nellie would give major minutes to as a rookie?

A difference maker for us would be if we were able to obtain a guard who was capable of passing the ball to our "bigs" which which help them improve to be most concerned about) and perhaps then he would play them more. Rebounding is not enough to force Nellie to play guys. They have to put points on the boards and if we had a get who knew how to pass the ball without turning it over 5-6 times a game that might "inspire" him to use our 4 bigs more often. I like what I saw from Jamison.

I'm tired of "bigs" being drafted and sent to D-League. Hansbororough is one guy who might have a shot with Nellie but how much of an improvement would he really be over Kurz? And he certainly wouldn't merit the #7 pick imo.

TH is a better scorer/rebounder/defender than Kurz which is maybe why when they voted on NCAA player of the year, Kurz got no votes...or why UNC just won it all...or...

Okay...I know I'm preaching to the birds.....enough.

We have ONE injury or a guy in foul trouble and we're too thin. (Deja Vu-again) We are also...too THIN. AR is probably a SF eventually. Wright may do well in a platoon but will need SOME strength/bulk to handle all matchups.

Of we were to draft Lawson or Curry or even Clark...I could see that working. I always come back to TH as a trade down ( cheap) prize who can be a rotation plus here and upgrade some of our most vulnerable areas. Of Calathes stays in...there's your PASSING PG..your Big Pg...your shooting touch PG all on one. #7 could get us TH + Calathes + maybe a future pick or player ir someone to give something that DOES NOT suck, for Craw. 2 solid, smart,players each with several proven skills-ain't bad.

[St.Nick]

Rem, why do you always put so much stock in how players perform in college? Out of the top-20 scorers or rebounders in the NCAA every year, how many become good NBA players?

I know its good to play the percentages...get the guy you've seen perform well on a regular basis in an established league...and I think that love for flashy, unproven guys like Brandan Jennings can go too far...but you can't put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. College success absolutely does not equal NBA success.

If you look at the top players in the league (arguably) how many of them were NCAA upperclassmen with established track records when they entered the draft?

LeBron
Kobe
Dwight Howard
Nowitzki
Gasol
Chris Paul
Yao
Amare
Bosh
Dwayne Wade
Garnett
Tony Parker
Duncan

Really, its only a small handful. Most of these guys were picked based on their freakish athleticism/size, rather than their proven ability to be consistently productive at a high level when they were picked.

You gotta get with the times, my man. Its a new ballgame now. International scouting, projected improvement, all trying to find the next superstar rather than just the next role player.

[Star-Lord]

Rem, why do you always put so much stock in how players perform in college? Out of the top-20 scorers or rebounders in the NCAA every year, how many become good NBA players?

I know its good to play the percentages...get the guy you've seen perform well on a regular basis in an established league...and I think that love for flashy, unproven guys like Brandan Jennings can go too far...but you can't put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. College success absolutely does not equal NBA success.

If you look at the top players in the league (arguably) how many of them were NCAA upperclassmen with established track records when they entered the draft?

LeBron
Kobe
Dwight Howard
Nowitzki
Gasol
Chris Paul
Yao
Amare
Bosh
Dwayne Wade
Garnett
Tony Parker
Duncan

Really, its only a small handful. Most of these guys were picked based on their freakish athleticism/size, rather than their proven ability to be consistently productive at a high level when they were picked.

You gotta get with the times, my man. Its a new ballgame now. International scouting, projected improvement, all trying to find the next superstar rather than just the next role player.

Almost half the guys on that list didn't even go to college...