Re: The (way too early) 2024 Draft thread. Woo! Tanking!
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2024 11:33 pm
Risachers measurements will define whether he ends up going number 1. If he measures big enough to play the 4 then he’s probably the best pick.
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=2302131
jangles86 wrote:Risachers measurements will define whether he ends up going number 1. If he measures big enough to play the 4 then he’s probably the best pick.
nate33 wrote:The Consiglieri wrote:
I'd say Brooklyn is also in worse position. Claxton's value just disappeared because he is now an unrestricted free agent. They don't own their own picks until 2028 so tanking doesn't help them at all. All they have are a bunch of late first round picks coming in from Phoenix, which may start becoming valuable later in this decade, but not for the next few years. They have one good player under contract with high trade value in Mikal Bridges, but they can't trade him and tank because tanking doesn't help them.
Silvie Lysandra wrote:nate33 wrote:The Consiglieri wrote:
I'd say Brooklyn is also in worse position. Claxton's value just disappeared because he is now an unrestricted free agent. They don't own their own picks until 2028 so tanking doesn't help them at all. All they have are a bunch of late first round picks coming in from Phoenix, which may start becoming valuable later in this decade, but not for the next few years. They have one good player under contract with high trade value in Mikal Bridges, but they can't trade him and tank because tanking doesn't help them.
so my thing here is that the Suns finished 3 games out of the 10th seed and 8 games out of missing the playoffs entirely, in a season where Kevin Durant played 76 games (something he hadn't done in half a decade), Josef Nurkic played 76 games (something he's only done once in his career) and Grayson Allen led the league in 3PT%. Bradley Beal is only getting worse from here. Booker has sometimes struggled with injury too. Durant is a top 25 player of all time, but you never know when and how fast the wheels could come off - look at Klay; in theory his game SHOULD age really well (Reggie Miller did similar stuff in a far more physical league well into his late 30s), but he's very obviously cooked at this point. And while the Lakers and Warriors are declining (but its the Lakers, they'll find a way, and they still have AD even after LeBron goes), and the Clips are imo living on borrowed time, the Spurs are a ticking time bomb with Wemby and Houston looks ready to become at least relevant.
This obviously has implications for our pick swaps down the road, especially in 2028 and later.
nate33 wrote:Silvie Lysandra wrote:nate33 wrote:
so my thing here is that the Suns finished 3 games out of the 10th seed and 8 games out of missing the playoffs entirely, in a season where Kevin Durant played 76 games (something he hadn't done in half a decade), Josef Nurkic played 76 games (something he's only done once in his career) and Grayson Allen led the league in 3PT%. Bradley Beal is only getting worse from here. Booker has sometimes struggled with injury too. Durant is a top 25 player of all time, but you never know when and how fast the wheels could come off - look at Klay; in theory his game SHOULD age really well (Reggie Miller did similar stuff in a far more physical league well into his late 30s), but he's very obviously cooked at this point. And while the Lakers and Warriors are declining (but its the Lakers, they'll find a way, and they still have AD even after LeBron goes), and the Clips are imo living on borrowed time, the Spurs are a ticking time bomb with Wemby and Houston looks ready to become at least relevant.
This obviously has implications for our pick swaps down the road, especially in 2028 and later.
All that is true, but the Suns do have Booker, who, by himself, could get them a massive pick package that would immediately put them in better position than us if they chose to rebuild.
NatP4 wrote:I keep trying to watch more Sarr footage and talk myself into the potential, but he’s just not good at all.
Topic is apparently back on Monday for the ABA playoffs
Dat2U wrote:NatP4 wrote:I keep trying to watch more Sarr footage and talk myself into the potential, but he’s just not good at all.
Topic is apparently back on Monday for the ABA playoffs
If your looking for a guy worthy of a #1 or even a top 3 pick your going to be disappointed.
You compare Sarr (and others) to guys in the mid-lottery the last few years and suddenly he doesn't look so bad.
The only reason I would want a top 2-3 pick in this draft is too trade it away and even then the value might be diminshed based on this draft class.
Ideally i want to pick in the 4-6 range. That way the guy you draft doesn't feel pressure to live up to being something he's not and you don't get caught up in the group think of only looking at the very top of the draft and missing out on guys ranked a little lower.
doclinkin wrote:Thoughts after the Winger/Dawkins presser. Seems to me they have a formula of the sort of player they like. Dawkins said "We're going to draft people first, not players" then skips over the core characteristics that he might be looking for, except to suggest that they will have to fit with the sort of people they have in the building. However, throughout the conference they emphasized accountability and working closely with players about checking off personal goals during the season. Hitting and exceeding benchmarks then building on that.
I got irked with Tommy Sheppard's mindset emphasizing drafting character over actual basketball skill, but I understand the idea. If you are going to be working with a guy you'd rather have a team full of hard working players who will not poison a locker room with complaints. No prima donnas or low character guys who have been treated as stars their whole lives. Winger/Dawkins take it another step further, hiring hard workers then not abandoning them to develop on their own but challenging them to live up to their own high standards. Coupled with a greater focus on talent (size for the position, athleticism, BBIQ) this seems like an actual plan for long term improvement. Hire hard workers with untapped potential and significant upside, then shape them towards maximizing that talent. Trust their own internal processes to encourage growth.
nate33 wrote:doclinkin wrote:Thoughts after the Winger/Dawkins presser. Seems to me they have a formula of the sort of player they like. Dawkins said "We're going to draft people first, not players" then skips over the core characteristics that he might be looking for, except to suggest that they will have to fit with the sort of people they have in the building. However, throughout the conference they emphasized accountability and working closely with players about checking off personal goals during the season. Hitting and exceeding benchmarks then building on that.
I got irked with Tommy Sheppard's mindset emphasizing drafting character over actual basketball skill, but I understand the idea. If you are going to be working with a guy you'd rather have a team full of hard working players who will not poison a locker room with complaints. No prima donnas or low character guys who have been treated as stars their whole lives. Winger/Dawkins take it another step further, hiring hard workers then not abandoning them to develop on their own but challenging them to live up to their own high standards. Coupled with a greater focus on talent (size for the position, athleticism, BBIQ) this seems like an actual plan for long term improvement. Hire hard workers with untapped potential and significant upside, then shape them towards maximizing that talent. Trust their own internal processes to encourage growth.
To be fair, Sheppard's emphasis on character over innate ability arguably paid off. Most of his guys seemed like lousy picks at first, but they were all grinders who continued to improve well into their 3rd and 4th (and perhaps more?) seasons rather than plateauing early. Rui and Kispert ended up being relatively solid picks for their draft position, and Deni was a very good pick. (Davis is looking bad, but the fat lady hasn't sung just yet.)
But yeah, I agree that it seems like the number 1 criteria for Winger/Dawkins is work ethic. I'm not sure if they're as worried as Sheppard was about drafting boy scouts, but they better be workers.
Ultimately, I think their selection in this draft is going to depend on the background research they do on these prospects. We can talk until we're blue in the face about which guy we like more based on on-the-court demeanor, or which guy is a better fit, but the reality is, we don't really know that much about what makes them tick. I have high hopes that the Winger/Dawkins scouting department is digging deep to answer those questions. At a surface level, I'd say Castle probably has the character makeup that fits their criteria the most. But there's only so much one can discern from our vantage point.
I'd also include Ron Holland on your list of potential selections.
J-Ves wrote:nate33 wrote:doclinkin wrote:Thoughts after the Winger/Dawkins presser. Seems to me they have a formula of the sort of player they like. Dawkins said "We're going to draft people first, not players" then skips over the core characteristics that he might be looking for, except to suggest that they will have to fit with the sort of people they have in the building. However, throughout the conference they emphasized accountability and working closely with players about checking off personal goals during the season. Hitting and exceeding benchmarks then building on that.
I got irked with Tommy Sheppard's mindset emphasizing drafting character over actual basketball skill, but I understand the idea. If you are going to be working with a guy you'd rather have a team full of hard working players who will not poison a locker room with complaints. No prima donnas or low character guys who have been treated as stars their whole lives. Winger/Dawkins take it another step further, hiring hard workers then not abandoning them to develop on their own but challenging them to live up to their own high standards. Coupled with a greater focus on talent (size for the position, athleticism, BBIQ) this seems like an actual plan for long term improvement. Hire hard workers with untapped potential and significant upside, then shape them towards maximizing that talent. Trust their own internal processes to encourage growth.
To be fair, Sheppard's emphasis on character over innate ability arguably paid off. Most of his guys seemed like lousy picks at first, but they were all grinders who continued to improve well into their 3rd and 4th (and perhaps more?) seasons rather than plateauing early. Rui and Kispert ended up being relatively solid picks for their draft position, and Deni was a very good pick. (Davis is looking bad, but the fat lady hasn't sung just yet.)
But yeah, I agree that it seems like the number 1 criteria for Winger/Dawkins is work ethic. I'm not sure if they're as worried as Sheppard was about drafting boy scouts, but they better be workers.
Ultimately, I think their selection in this draft is going to depend on the background research they do on these prospects. We can talk until we're blue in the face about which guy we like more based on on-the-court demeanor, or which guy is a better fit, but the reality is, we don't really know that much about what makes them tick. I have high hopes that the Winger/Dawkins scouting department is digging deep to answer those questions. At a surface level, I'd say Castle probably has the character makeup that fits their criteria the most. But there's only so much one can discern from our vantage point.
I'd also include Ron Holland on your list of potential selections.
Winger/Dawkins will draft the most physically impressive player who isn’t deemed lazy with their top pick. Sarr might get hit with the lazy tag. Castle and Holland are both great guesses, nate
doclinkin wrote:J-Ves wrote:nate33 wrote:To be fair, Sheppard's emphasis on character over innate ability arguably paid off. Most of his guys seemed like lousy picks at first, but they were all grinders who continued to improve well into their 3rd and 4th (and perhaps more?) seasons rather than plateauing early. Rui and Kispert ended up being relatively solid picks for their draft position, and Deni was a very good pick. (Davis is looking bad, but the fat lady hasn't sung just yet.)
But yeah, I agree that it seems like the number 1 criteria for Winger/Dawkins is work ethic. I'm not sure if they're as worried as Sheppard was about drafting boy scouts, but they better be workers.
Ultimately, I think their selection in this draft is going to depend on the background research they do on these prospects. We can talk until we're blue in the face about which guy we like more based on on-the-court demeanor, or which guy is a better fit, but the reality is, we don't really know that much about what makes them tick. I have high hopes that the Winger/Dawkins scouting department is digging deep to answer those questions. At a surface level, I'd say Castle probably has the character makeup that fits their criteria the most. But there's only so much one can discern from our vantage point.
I'd also include Ron Holland on your list of potential selections.
Winger/Dawkins will draft the most physically impressive player who isn’t deemed lazy with their top pick. Sarr might get hit with the lazy tag. Castle and Holland are both great guesses, nate
I agree with both these takes. I can see Holland in the mix at 4-5-6 depending on workouts and measurements. In this run I was working my way down the top 6 or so of the Tankathon list, but I can see Buzelis being in the mix as well.
My sense is they will look for athletic outliers or positionally long players who work hard at both ends of the court. I know I am biased towards Castle and would lean that way in my pick, but players like Sarr and Buzelis are standouts in either length or athleticism and guys like Holland may pop in workouts and hustle metrics.
My instinct though is that if we are in that #2-4 range I think they take Risacher if he's on the board. Long, two way player, work ethic, skills that fit the position and role, areas of improvement are more about being consistent and getting stronger than about entirely re-working his game or adding totally new skillsets. He's got a jumpstart on reaching that top end potential. from what I can tell from players who know his game say he can come off as having a shy personality but is focussed to the point of singleminded in setting his own goals and achieving them.
At #1 I get the sense that nobody passes up Sarr since he is simply an unmatchable anomaly as a physical specimen. Info from players like Rayan Rupert say he is a good guy and hard worker and nice character off the court.
SUPERBALLMAN wrote:If I had to take a guess on their pick right now, it would be Castle. Hard not to be swayed by his performance in the tournament.
If he shoots the ball well in workouts it’ll go a long ways towards boosting his draft stock and putting him squarely in the no.1 overall conversation.
doclinkin wrote:SUPERBALLMAN wrote:If I had to take a guess on their pick right now, it would be Castle. Hard not to be swayed by his performance in the tournament.
And all year really. I think he's exactly the player they are looking for as far as competitive fire and rising to the occasion. Highest upside when it comes to the mesh of defense/work ethic/frame to build strength/BBIQ and competitiveness. It comes down to this.If he shoots the ball well in workouts it’ll go a long ways towards boosting his draft stock and putting him squarely in the no.1 overall conversation.
I leaned slightly towards ZR on the idea that he would actually get playing time to develop. As a shooter who defends there are ready minutes for him to get on court and succeed. He can start to work on checking boxes on his list. Early production can lead to future upside. And a 6'9" shooting guard has more length at the spot than the 6'6" Castle. Though Castle plays big. And if he's at PG he's huge.
It's always harder to find minutes for a shooter with limited range. Castle is a good enough glue guy that a coach will find a role for him, but he reminds me of the guard version of Deni coming in to the league. A plus defender at 3 positions but without a defined role except for "Team Player". That said, he makes it easier to play a non-defender next to him since he can defend well both man and in a team scheme. So that opens minutes for Poole or Vuk.