The (way too early) 2024 Draft thread. Woo! Tanking!

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Dat, like you, I’m a fan of Holland’s athleticism and high end potential as a scorer, as well as the energy with which he plays. (I’ve heard comparisons to Westbrook in that regard.)

As you point out, Castle is a guy who plays the right way. The kind of player who will make his teammates, and therefore his team, better. A glue guy who will find a way to contribute—on both ends of the court—regardless of who he is sharing the court with.

Oftentimes, it’s easier to find a scorer than a guy like that.

True, I like Castle a lot. He’s just the kind of team first player that I like. But I gotta admit, a lot of the intangibles that I like about Castle are the same types of things that made me very high on Okoro, and he hasnt panned out that great. I like both guys, they’re both high motor, so I can go along with either one if they like them. I think part of my Castle preference is that I value him playing for UConn for a really good coach and winning a National Championship over playing for the Ignite, and that may be my own bias.

I think Sarr has the higher upside so I’d go that route personally. Beyond that I’d be in favor of a trade down. I mean if Cody Williams ends up being better than either of them long term I wouldn’t be stunned by that. But I think I prefer Castle or Holland over Clingan, Topic, or Risacher.

[nate33]

I was looking at Holland's game log and noticed a pretty substantial jump in production toward the tail end of the season so I decided to put it in a spreadsheet and see what was up.

During the 18 games in 2023, Hollard average on a per 36 basis:
20.9 points
7.5 rebounds
3.1 assists
2.6 steals
1.1 blocks
4.0 turnovers
4.1 fouls
3.5 FTA's
.698 FT%
3.7 3PA's
.214 3P%
.542 TS%

During the 11 games in 2024, Holland average on a per 36 basis:
23.6 points
7.6 rebounds
3.5 assists
2.6 steals
0.8 blocks
3.1 turnovers
2.9 fouls
5.8 FTA's
.754 FT%
3.8 3PA's
.275 3P%
.597 TS%

He improved dramatically at nearly everything! His points are way up, his TS% up thanks to better 3P shooting but also a much higher FTA rate and FT%. His turnovers and foul rate dropped dramatically while his assists climbed incrementally. And he did all of that under a heavier workload with his actual minutes per game rising from 30.4 to 34.2.

11 games is a pretty small sample size, but those numbers are eye-popping: 24 points per game on a .600 TS%, stuffing the box score, a better than 1:1 A/TO ratio, elite defensive potential, and a FT% and 3P% that suggest he'll evolve into at least a serviceable shooter.

I'm with Dat2U. If the goal here is to find an actual star-caliber player rather than just a role player, I like Holland over just about everyone else in this draft. He gives me Jaylen Brown vibes. I think I'd still take Sarr #1, but Holland is now my #2.

[NatP4]

Holland was also 18 years old playing in a pro league, shooting from the NBA 3 point line.

[80sballboy]

The Ringer's latest has Clingan to the Wiz at #2
https://nbadraft.theringer.com/mock-draft

Donovan Clingan
HEIGHT 7'2"
WEIGHT 280
AGE 20.3
WINGSPAN 7'7"

The Wizards can’t afford to miss, and Clingan is the safest pick on the board; he could provide the type of rim protection they’ve been needing for years.

PLUSES
Intimidating rim protector with a 7-foot-7 wingspan. He can block shots without even leaving his feet. Opponents avoid him when he’s lurking near the paint, not just because he’s imposing but also because he tends to be in the right position.

Has the potential to be an excellent drop defender in the pick-and-roll. He’s mobile and does a solid job of flipping his hips to contain penetrating players.

Excellent drop defender in the pick-and-roll. He’s good at using his size to protect the rim, but he’s also gotten mobile enough to hedge on the perimeter. He can flip his hips to contain penetrating players and recover to the roller if necessary.

Stout rebounder who boxes out and swallows up boards.

Dunks everything around the basket. UConn calls designed plays to get him lob dunks, something that will immediately translate to the NBA.

Dramatically improved as a post presence as a sophomore, adding soft hook shots that he can hit with either his right or left hand. And with the much cleaner footwork he's developed, he can also mix in an occasional drop step. With his blend of size, strength, and agility, he could eventually develop into more of a go-to presence.

He has great awareness in the paint. When point guards probe inside, he relocates to open space to make himself free for a pass.

Whether he’s in the dunker spot, rolling after a ball screen, or sprinting up the floor, he has soft hands for catching tough passes and good coordination for finishing. Bigs his size are often clumsy, but he has no issue with high or low passes.

Good passer out of post-ups. He delivers the ball with precision, whether it’s from the elbow in handoff situations or from the post, and he always looks comfortable when handling pressure and double-teams.

MINUSES
Borderline hackable free throw shooter who made 51.7 percent as a freshman and then just 57.4 percent as a sophomore.

His per-minute impact waned when he took on a greater role as a sophomore, but he was also recovering from a preseason foot injury. As soon as he was healthy he began dominating, but his health is worth monitoring because of his size.

Lacks the advanced post moves that would separate him from being just a catch-and-finish specialist.

He’s a slow-footed perimeter defender who will need to prove he can defend in space to have scheme flexibility. NBA teams will pull him out of the paint and test him.

He shot 3s in high school but hasn’t been an effective shooter in college. Non-shooters can still provide immense value in the NBA, but it’d be an added bonus if he ever figures that out since he's certainly willing to shoot.

[Dat2U]

As much as I love Isaiah Hartenstein, I'm not trying to draft the next version of him with the 2nd pick.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I'd argue McGee did maximize his potential.

I think McGee and Kwame Brown both did well with what they had. Everyone isn't motivated with the same idea of success. What others see as their potential might not be what they aspire to. I don't think McGee aspired to be great. Another factor is aptitude. Some people are bad at math. Others can't dance. Just because a player has standout measurables and athleticism, it doesn't mean they have the aptitude to successfully apply skill on the court.

McGee was briefly out of the league between Philadelphia and Denver. He came back and played on championship teams. Kwame played 14 years. Neither guy was sharp. IMO. Both knew enough to show up over time.

doclinkin, sorry for hijacking your thread. I totally agree with you. McGee didn't achieve

Lol not my thread. (Now I know I need to stop posting for a day or two).

McGee was so disappointing because he was deficient in the things his mom (and aunt) were so damned good at. Tough under the basket, fierce in the paint, gritty play. Championship mindset whether at USC or the Olympics. Focus. BBIQ. Determination.

He was raised to be a basketball god. But decided he'd rather not. Didn't really care as much as all that, just was in it for a good time. The original Shaqtin' a Fool all-star.

doclinkin, one of my sons weighed 197 lbs in middle school. He is strong. He is quick. He played goalie on his youth soccer team. People said he would be a D-1 football player. A former NFL player who I know well raved about my son's build.

I totally committed my time and resources to putting my son on the path for future success. But during practice time, it was as if my son's mind was a thousand miles away. Others ran. He walked. Some have a mean streak. He has a passive streak. He rebelled in a snarky way, starting at around 12. My efforts were for naught.

About a dozen (EDITED: It was 2014) years have passed since I last saw my son. The court system took him away. He went with his mother to Georgia. Now he's somewhere homeless.

What does this have to do with McGee? Ironically, when Javale came to Hawaii, KENDALL got his autograph. (Both my sons did.) That was his favorite player. I don't know about Javale, but I'm pretty sure my son has a cognitive issue. Everyone doesn't process reality the same way.

I hope I haven't said too much.

Sent from my SM-A146U using RealGM mobile app

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I'd argue McGee did maximize his potential.

I think McGee and Kwame Brown both did well with what they had. Everyone isn't motivated with the same idea of success. What others see as their potential might not be what they aspire to. I don't think McGee aspired to be great. Another factor is aptitude. Some people are bad at math. Others can't dance. Just because a player has standout measurables and athleticism, it doesn't mean they have the aptitude to successfully apply skill on the court.

McGee was briefly out of the league between Philadelphia and Denver. He came back and played on championship teams. Kwame played 14 years. Neither guy was sharp. IMO. Both knew enough to show up over time.

doclinkin, sorry for hijacking your thread. I totally agree with you. McGee didn't achieve

Lol not my thread. (Now I know I need to stop posting for a day or two).

McGee was so disappointing because he was deficient in the things his mom (and aunt) were so damned good at. Tough under the basket, fierce in the paint, gritty play. Championship mindset whether at USC or the Olympics. Focus. BBIQ. Determination.

He was raised to be a basketball god. But decided he'd rather not. Didn't really care as much as all that, just was in it for a good time. The original Shaqtin' a Fool all-star.

But one thing he did do was stand up to a bully. Shaq went hard at that young man's livelihood and, in a way, his family.

McGee is in the league still.

He has as many rings as Shaq.

Shaq-tin a Fool was no longer funny about Javale. Even Charles Barkley told Shaq to pump the breaks.

Sent from my SM-A146U using RealGM mobile app

[80sballboy]

As much as I love Isaiah Hartenstein, I'm not trying to draft the next version of him with the 2nd pick.

Agree, though I think his defensive ceiling is much higher than Hartenstein. I wouldn't draft any 7-footer who is 280-+ pounds and not Joel Embiid or Nikola Jokic at that spot.

[Rafael122]

Clingan is the only one in the top 10 of that mock draft that has a chance to play day one in the NBA. He's already there defensively, and Dat, as much as I respect your NBA draft knowledge, he's got a higher upside than Hartenstein. I liked the fact that from his first to second year, his FT% jumped from 51% to 58%. That to me shows he was working on his game, and he can only improve from there. Do we need him to be a 3 point shooter? Gobert is a walking 14 and 12. That's his ceiling IMO.

Everyone else in that top 10 either can't shoot or has a athleticism issues.

[pcbothwel]

I was looking at Holland's game log and noticed a pretty substantial jump in production toward the tail end of the season so I decided to put it in a spreadsheet and see what was up.

During the 18 games in 2023, Hollard average on a per 36 basis:
20.9 points
7.5 rebounds
3.1 assists
2.6 steals
1.1 blocks
4.0 turnovers
4.1 fouls
3.5 FTA's
.698 FT%
3.7 3PA's
.214 3P%
.542 TS%

During the 11 games in 2024, Holland average on a per 36 basis:
23.6 points
7.6 rebounds
3.5 assists
2.6 steals
0.8 blocks
3.1 turnovers
2.9 fouls
5.8 FTA's
.754 FT%
3.8 3PA's
.275 3P%
.597 TS%

He improved dramatically at nearly everything! His points are way up, his TS% up thanks to better 3P shooting but also a much higher FTA rate and FT%. His turnovers and foul rate dropped dramatically while his assists climbed incrementally. And he did all of that under a heavier workload with his actual minutes per game rising from 30.4 to 34.2.

11 games is a pretty small sample size, but those numbers are eye-popping: 24 points per game on a .600 TS%, stuffing the box score, a better than 1:1 A/TO ratio, elite defensive potential, and a FT% and 3P% that suggest he'll evolve into at least a serviceable shooter.

I'm with Dat2U. If the goal here is to find an actual star-caliber player rather than just a role player, I like Holland over just about everyone else in this draft. He gives me Jaylen Brown vibes. I think I'd still take Sarr #1, but Holland is now my #2.

Agreed. I was not a fan of Holland AT ALL when I first watched. Highly touted guy that I thought beat up on lesser talent with sheer will and plus athleticism. I saw poor decision making/passing accuracy, below average team defense, and poor shooting.

However... a few things have changed my opinion.
1) Change in role: The guy went from a 17 y/o energy POA defender who dunked a lot in HS... to a 18 y/o high usage, lead ball handler in a pro league. No wonder the beginning of the year was such trash for him.
2) Team: The ignite was such a mess on both ends of the court, that his high usage/poor decision making/team defense is so much a product of what he was asked to do... and not what he wanted to do.
3) Draft Class: This draft class is so bad in the top 10, that taking a guy like Holland is worth the swing. Also, with no elite prospects it requires more projection and assessing personality...which leads to the next par:
4) Work Ethic/personality: His energy is obvious and consistent, but his interview with the Ringer from the fall caught my eye. He said some things that is unusual for a player his age and in his role. He talked about the massive change in role in just 1 year. He talked about "communication being not just important thing in basketball, but in life".
I don't want guys that want to win. I want guys that can't stand losing.
Athleticism + Energy + Youth + Dog = Worthy Bet

Watch on YouTube

[nate33]

Clingan is the only one in the top 10 of that mock draft that has a chance to play day one in the NBA. He's already there defensively, and Dat, as much as I respect your NBA draft knowledge, he's got a higher upside than Hartenstein. I liked the fact that from his first to second year, his FT% jumped from 51% to 58%. That to me shows he was working on his game, and he can only improve from there. Do we need him to be a 3 point shooter? Gobert is a walking 14 and 12. That's his ceiling IMO.

Everyone else in that top 10 either can't shoot or has a athleticism issues.

I don't care if our draft pick is NBA-ready on Day One. In fact, I actually prefer that he NOT be NBA-ready on Day One to ensure tanking next year. What matters to me is long term upside and Clingan's long term upside is one of the lowest among all the guys discussed in the top 10.

I disagree that his upside is Gobert. Gobert is on the short list for greatest defenders of all time. Gobert is much more mobile than Clingan with an even longer wingspan. Clingan looks more like Zubak to me. Zubac is good in a specific scheme with the right defensive guards around him, but a drop coverage center has limited versatility. They can put up good overall regular season defensive production, but they lack the versatility to defend good teams with the elite on-ball scorers in the playoffs.

Then throw in the fact that Clingan is such a limited offensive player it is easy to see how he can get run off the floor against the right matchup. If you have a sturdy PF who can shoot, you can go small and play him off the floor, like what often happens to even Rudy Gobert.

Basically, I think Clingan pans out to be an average starting center, but nothing more than that. You can get a guy like that every offseason in free agency. Hartenstein and Claxton are available this year for instance. Capela and Zubac will be available next year. Mitchell Robinson the year after. In most cases (except perhaps with Hartenstein) their existing teams will not match an offer significantly more than the MLE.

[Dat2U]

As much as I love Isaiah Hartenstein, I'm not trying to draft the next version of him with the 2nd pick.

Agree, though I think his defensive ceiling is much higher than Hartenstein. I wouldn't draft any 7-footer who is 280-+ pounds and not Joel Embiid or Nikola Jokic at that spot.

I like Hartenstein alot and thought he was a great signing at the mid-level last year for the Knicks. This season he was 3rd in EPM among Cs only behind Embiid & Jokic so he was very impactful in his role.

But that's the thing. He was available for anyone to sign last year. Drop coverage bigs are viewed as a dime a dozen. Unless the guy is an offensive juggernaut, going old school C seems like a poor use of assets.

Clingan also feels like a need pick but the 2025 draft is likely far more important to our rebuild than the 2024 draft so filling needs right now is not a priority, in fact I'd rather not fill them.

[Dat2U]

Clingan is the only one in the top 10 of that mock draft that has a chance to play day one in the NBA. He's already there defensively, and Dat, as much as I respect your NBA draft knowledge, he's got a higher upside than Hartenstein. I liked the fact that from his first to second year, his FT% jumped from 51% to 58%. That to me shows he was working on his game, and he can only improve from there. Do we need him to be a 3 point shooter? Gobert is a walking 14 and 12. That's his ceiling IMO.

Everyone else in that top 10 either can't shoot or has a athleticism issues.

I don't care if our draft pick is NBA-ready on Day One. In fact, I actually prefer that he NOT be NBA-ready on Day One to ensure tanking next year. What matters to me is long term upside and Clingan's long term upside is one of the lowest among all the guys discussed in the top 10.

I disagree that his upside is Gobert. Gobert is on the short list for greatest defenders of all time. Gobert is much more mobile than Clingan with an even longer wingspan. Clingan looks more like Zubak to me. Zubac is good in a specific scheme with the right defensive guards around him, but a drop coverage center has limited versatility. They can put up good overall regular season defensive production, but they lack the versatility to defend good teams with the elite on-ball scorers in the playoffs.

Then throw in the fact that Clingan is such a limited offensive player it is easy to see how he can get run off the floor against the right matchup. If you have a sturdy PF who can shoot, you can go small and play him off the floor, like what often happens to even Rudy Gobert.

Basically, I think Clingan pans out to be an average starting center, but nothing more than that. You can get a guy like that every offseason in free agency. Hartenstein and Claxton are available this year for instance. Capela and Zubac will be available next year. Mitchell Robinson the year after. In most cases (except perhaps with Hartenstein) their existing teams will not match an offer significantly more than the MLE.

Yep look at Walker Kessler. Heck of a rookie season. Arguably the most impactful rookie on a per minute basis. Year 2 wasn't nearly as good from a defensive perspective and he's still limited offensively. He was a good pick at 20 but alot of guys in his class have passed him in year 2.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

I was looking at Holland's game log and noticed a pretty substantial jump in production toward the tail end of the season so I decided to put it in a spreadsheet and see what was up.

During the 18 games in 2023, Hollard average on a per 36 basis:
20.9 points
7.5 rebounds
3.1 assists
2.6 steals
1.1 blocks
4.0 turnovers
4.1 fouls
3.5 FTA's
.698 FT%
3.7 3PA's
.214 3P%
.542 TS%

During the 11 games in 2024, Holland average on a per 36 basis:
23.6 points
7.6 rebounds
3.5 assists
2.6 steals
0.8 blocks
3.1 turnovers
2.9 fouls
5.8 FTA's
.754 FT%
3.8 3PA's
.275 3P%
.597 TS%

He improved dramatically at nearly everything! His points are way up, his TS% up thanks to better 3P shooting but also a much higher FTA rate and FT%. His turnovers and foul rate dropped dramatically while his assists climbed incrementally. And he did all of that under a heavier workload with his actual minutes per game rising from 30.4 to 34.2.

11 games is a pretty small sample size, but those numbers are eye-popping: 24 points per game on a .600 TS%, stuffing the box score, a better than 1:1 A/TO ratio, elite defensive potential, and a FT% and 3P% that suggest he'll evolve into at least a serviceable shooter.

I'm with Dat2U. If the goal here is to find an actual star-caliber player rather than just a role player, I like Holland over just about everyone else in this draft. He gives me Jaylen Brown vibes. I think I'd still take Sarr #1, but Holland is now my #2.

Agreed. I was not a fan of Holland AT ALL when I first watched. Highly touted guy that I thought beat up on lesser talent with sheer will and plus athleticism. I saw poor decision making/passing accuracy, below average team defense, and poor shooting.

However... a few things have changed my opinion.
1) Change in role: The guy went from a 17 y/o energy POA defender who dunked a lot in HS... to a 18 y/o high usage, lead ball handler in a pro league. No wonder the beginning of the year was such trash for him.
2) Team: The ignite was such a mess on both ends of the court, that his high usage/poor decision making/team defense is so much a product of what he was asked to do... and not what he wanted to do.
3) Draft Class: This draft class is so bad in the top 10, that taking a guy like Holland is worth the swing. Also, with no elite prospects it requires more projection and assessing personality...which leads to the next par:
4) Work Ethic/personality: His energy is obvious and consistent, but his interview with the Ringer from the fall caught my eye. He said some things that is unusual for a player his age and in his role. He talked about the massive change in role in just 1 year. He talked about "communication being not just important thing in basketball, but in life".
I don't want guys that want to win. I want guys that can't stand losing.
Athleticism + Energy + Youth + Dog = Worthy Bet

Watch on YouTube

FWIW listening to No Ceilings latest big board , they have Castle at 3 and Holland at 11.

https://player.fm/series/no-ceilings/ep-2024-nba-draft-big-board-v7-review

Watch on YouTube

[The Consiglieri]

I'd argue McGee did maximize his potential.

I think McGee and Kwame Brown both did well with what they had. Everyone isn't motivated with the same idea of success. What others see as their potential might not be what they aspire to. I don't think McGee aspired to be great. Another factor is aptitude. Some people are bad at math. Others can't dance. Just because a player has standout measurables and athleticism, it doesn't mean they have the aptitude to successfully apply skill on the court.

McGee was briefly out of the league between Philadelphia and Denver. He came back and played on championship teams. Kwame played 14 years. Neither guy was sharp. IMO. Both knew enough to show up over time.

doclinkin, sorry for hijacking your thread. I totally agree with you. McGee didn't achieve

Lol not my thread. (Now I know I need to stop posting for a day or two).

McGee was so disappointing because he was deficient in the things his mom (and aunt) were so damned good at. Tough under the basket, fierce in the paint, gritty play. Championship mindset whether at USC or the Olympics. Focus. BBIQ. Determination.

He was raised to be a basketball god. But decided he'd rather not. Didn't really care as much as all that, just was in it for a good time. The original Shaqtin' a Fool all-star.

A little bit of the nepo baby thing. People assume because the parents were hard ---es, that the kids will be. That from Cesare Maldini you can get a Paolo Maldini, but you can also go from Walter Payton to Jarrett Payton. You can have RGIII raised by a military dad so you expect him to get it, but he doesn't, now Weston McKennie, one of the best USMNT's players of the last 20 years is also the child of a serviceman, but he's much more of a fun loving, irascible guy, not nearly so disciplined, great player, not a super disciplined one. The reality is, you just don't know what you're getting, period, and sometimes these guys do turn out nepo babies, with the entitlements but w/o the work rate, or like Jarrett, you just don't have the talent, even if you have the drive, wheras with Paolo, you got someone who was everything his dad was but more more and more. You just don't know, and should never assume things simply on heritage etc.

[AFM]

I'd argue McGee did maximize his potential.

I think McGee and Kwame Brown both did well with what they had. Everyone isn't motivated with the same idea of success. What others see as their potential might not be what they aspire to. I don't think McGee aspired to be great. Another factor is aptitude. Some people are bad at math. Others can't dance. Just because a player has standout measurables and athleticism, it doesn't mean they have the aptitude to successfully apply skill on the court.

McGee was briefly out of the league between Philadelphia and Denver. He came back and played on championship teams. Kwame played 14 years. Neither guy was sharp. IMO. Both knew enough to show up over time.

doclinkin, sorry for hijacking your thread. I totally agree with you. McGee didn't achieve

Lol not my thread. (Now I know I need to stop posting for a day or two).

McGee was so disappointing because he was deficient in the things his mom (and aunt) were so damned good at. Tough under the basket, fierce in the paint, gritty play. Championship mindset whether at USC or the Olympics. Focus. BBIQ. Determination.

He was raised to be a basketball god. But decided he'd rather not. Didn't really care as much as all that, just was in it for a good time. The original Shaqtin' a Fool all-star.

doclinkin, one of my sons weighed 197 lbs in middle school. He is strong. He is quick. He played goalie on his youth soccer team. People said he would be a D-1 football player. A former NFL player who I know well raved about my son's build.

I totally committed my time and resources to putting my son on the path for future success. But during practice time, it was if my son's mind was a thousand miles away. Others ran. He walked. Some have a mean streak. He has a passive streak. He rebelled in a sparky way, starting at around 12. My efforts were for naught.

About a dozen years have passed since I last saw my son. The court system took him away. He went with his mother to Georgia. Now he's somewhere homeless.

What does this have to do with McGee? Ironically, when Javale came to Hawaii, KENDALL got his autograph. (Both my sons did.) That was his favorite player. I don't know about Javale, but I'm pretty sure my son has a cognitive issue. Everyone doesn't process reality the same way.

I hope I haven't said too much.

Sent from my SM-A146U using RealGM mobile app

You've said too little...always love reading your posts

[The Consiglieri]

Clingan is the only one in the top 10 of that mock draft that has a chance to play day one in the NBA. He's already there defensively, and Dat, as much as I respect your NBA draft knowledge, he's got a higher upside than Hartenstein. I liked the fact that from his first to second year, his FT% jumped from 51% to 58%. That to me shows he was working on his game, and he can only improve from there. Do we need him to be a 3 point shooter? Gobert is a walking 14 and 12. That's his ceiling IMO.

Everyone else in that top 10 either can't shoot or has a athleticism issues.

I don't care if our draft pick is NBA-ready on Day One. In fact, I actually prefer that he NOT be NBA-ready on Day One to ensure tanking next year. What matters to me is long term upside and Clingan's long term upside is one of the lowest among all the guys discussed in the top 10.

I disagree that his upside is Gobert. Gobert is on the short list for greatest defenders of all time. Gobert is much more mobile than Clingan with an even longer wingspan. Clingan looks more like Zubak to me. Zubac is good in a specific scheme with the right defensive guards around him, but a drop coverage center has limited versatility. They can put up good overall regular season defensive production, but they lack the versatility to defend good teams with the elite on-ball scorers in the playoffs.

Then throw in the fact that Clingan is such a limited offensive player it is easy to see how he can get run off the floor against the right matchup. If you have a sturdy PF who can shoot, you can go small and play him off the floor, like what often happens to even Rudy Gobert.

Basically, I think Clingan pans out to be an average starting center, but nothing more than that. You can get a guy like that every offseason in free agency. Hartenstein and Claxton are available this year for instance. Capela and Zubac will be available next year. Mitchell Robinson the year after. In most cases (except perhaps with Hartenstein) their existing teams will not match an offer significantly more than the MLE.

If we took Clingan, I can't even express how colossally disappointed I'd be. I don't like anything about this draft and I'd trade out if I could with both picks, but Clingan is worse than trading out, he's taking a guy with little ceiling, and a subterranean risk at floor. Hell no to taking him.

The good news is I can't see us taking him, I simply can't see this FO looking at this 15ish win roster, and thinking Clingan is a long term answer to anything.


Additionally man, the rate at which I draw slot 5 or 6 for us in the lottery sim is ridiculous. I cannot believe we are using these rules, who, anywhere, thought it was a good idea to make it harder for bad teams to get better?!?! and easier for good teams to get better even faster?!?! Just insanity.

[AFM]

I'd argue McGee did maximize his potential.

I think McGee and Kwame Brown both did well with what they had. Everyone isn't motivated with the same idea of success. What others see as their potential might not be what they aspire to. I don't think McGee aspired to be great. Another factor is aptitude. Some people are bad at math. Others can't dance. Just because a player has standout measurables and athleticism, it doesn't mean they have the aptitude to successfully apply skill on the court.

McGee was briefly out of the league between Philadelphia and Denver. He came back and played on championship teams. Kwame played 14 years. Neither guy was sharp. IMO. Both knew enough to show up over time.

doclinkin, sorry for hijacking your thread. I totally agree with you. McGee didn't achieve

Lol not my thread. (Now I know I need to stop posting for a day or two).

McGee was so disappointing because he was deficient in the things his mom (and aunt) were so damned good at. Tough under the basket, fierce in the paint, gritty play. Championship mindset whether at USC or the Olympics. Focus. BBIQ. Determination.

He was raised to be a basketball god. But decided he'd rather not. Didn't really care as much as all that, just was in it for a good time. The original Shaqtin' a Fool all-star.

A little bit of the nepo baby thing. People assume because the parents were hard ---es, that the kids will be. That from Cesare Maldini you can get a Paolo Maldini, but you can also go from Walter Payton to Jarrett Payton. You can have RGIII raised by a military dad so you expect him to get it, but he doesn't, now Weston McKennie, one of the best USMNT's players of the last 20 years is also the child of a serviceman, but he's much more of a fun loving, irascible guy, not nearly so disciplined, great player, not a super disciplined one. The reality is, you just don't know what you're getting, period, and sometimes these guys do turn out nepo babies, with the entitlements but w/o the work rate, or like Jarrett, you just don't have the talent, even if you have the drive, wheras with Paolo, you got someone who was everything his dad was but more more and more. You just don't know, and should never assume things simply on heritage etc.

Don't forget Glen Rice Jr....

[payitforward]

Josh Giddey, a #6 overall pick, has developed very slowly and has stagnated this year.
Ousmane Dieng, a 11 overall picked, hasn't developed at all....

I don't agree about Giddey, who has become a terrific player. OTOH, you are certainly correct about Dieng.

But, this cuts both ways, nate -- e.g., OKC's other '21 pick -- Wiggins, who has already played almost 4000 minutes & who posted a .61 TS% last year & .66 TS% this year, is looking like an extremely solid player.

&, so far at least, the other OKC rookies from '22-23 (Holmgren, Jalen Williams, & Jaylin Williams) have done very well. & '23 draft pick Cason Wallace had a terrific rookie year.

Sometimes, it's hard to develop too many youngsters at once....

Everything is "hard" sometimes -- in fact... most things that produce above average results are hard all the time!

In any case, it's fair to say that either of us can find examples to support our point. I really doubt this issue can be resolved at an abstract level.

In the case of the Wizards, it's hard for me to see much choice, tbh. If we only add 2 rookies this year, that would be a sloooowww rate of change for a team that is, essentially, devoid of meaningful talent.

We have 7 veterans who seem unlikely to have significant productivity jumps in their future (Poole, Kuz, Jones, Bagley, Holmes, Shamet, Gill). Of those guys, only Kuz has much possibility to bring much talent in return.

We have 4 guys (Davis, Baldwin, Butler & Omoruyi) who are, at best, long shots even to become role-players -- at best! & it's awfully unlikely that even 2 of the 4 reach at that level.

Essentially, that leaves Coulibaly, Avdija, Kispert & Vukcevic as our entire talent base for the future. Better than nothing, but... not much all the same!

[nate33]

PIF, you broke RealGm.

After you posted, my interface looks like this: