I'm with you on the size aspect. I don't think size is anything that's going to give him an advantage which saying fantastic would lead one to believe. It's not gonna hold him back either. The athleticism is the special thing for both. Also.... I see Wade listed at 220 and McLemore at 189. That's a pretty huge gap that should stop comparisons in the size of the two if McLemores weight is accurate.
2013 NBA Draft thread.
- Thread starter HereWeBoogie
- Start date
- Status
I'm with you on the size aspect. I don't think size is anything that's going to give him an advantage which saying fantastic would lead one to believe. It's not gonna hold him back either. The athleticism is the special thing for both. Also.... I see Wade listed at 220 and McLemore at 189. That's a pretty huge gap that should stop comparisons in the size of the two if McLemores weight is accurate.
That's wonderful. And, if that was the question that I was answering, it would actually be relevant. But it isn't. Uncia03 said that McLemore had "fantastic" size. I said, no he doesn't. Then you chimed in and said, "he's the same size as Wade." I said, Wade's doesn't have fantastic size, either. How good McLemore is or isn't is irrelevant to this particular sidebar.
But, when you get ready to discuss whether or not McLemore's size is prohibitive to him being a championship-level player, it's nice to know that you have that answer already sorted out. But, you'll be having that particular conversation with someone else.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
I'm sure that this is along the same lines as Kevin Durant's infamous "ball don't weigh that much" retort, and I suppose that it's true, as far as it goes, but it's still kind of fatuous. If you have to put shoes on to be 6'5", then you're not really 6'5".
Section 101
All-Star
All what money? He got a MLE contract from the Kings in 2006 (He got the big contract from the Bucks). Salmons also backed out of a deal with Toronto to come here. So to answer your question, it would probably be Brad Miller. But anything after 2006 was full maloof mode.
Uncia03
Starter
I want to mention something that really hit me this evening.
We are so used to having the draft...hoping for some sort of trades to round out the roster, and then ending up with all those players on the team at the start of the year.
We have NO IDEA how this FO is going to handle things over the off-season. We all expect nothing to be done...because that is what we are used to seeing.
Now I'm in no way guaranteeing that the FO is going to make a ton of excellent moves and completely balance the roster by the start of the season. But I am going to with-hold judgement to see what they do. I'm not terribly happy with the 'fit' of the 2nd round pick...but I can't criticize it until I know what other moves they plan to make.
If they don't make the necessary moves then we have that to point too going forward when we want to be critical...but they do deserve the chance to succeed or fail this off-season before we can say what is likely or not to happen.
The only thing I know for sure is that if we are looking at Free-Agency to bring in a quality player we are going to have to over-pay...beyond that I have no idea how things will play out. I can hope...but it's not a wait-and-see game.
We are so used to having the draft...hoping for some sort of trades to round out the roster, and then ending up with all those players on the team at the start of the year.
We have NO IDEA how this FO is going to handle things over the off-season. We all expect nothing to be done...because that is what we are used to seeing.
Now I'm in no way guaranteeing that the FO is going to make a ton of excellent moves and completely balance the roster by the start of the season. But I am going to with-hold judgement to see what they do. I'm not terribly happy with the 'fit' of the 2nd round pick...but I can't criticize it until I know what other moves they plan to make.
If they don't make the necessary moves then we have that to point too going forward when we want to be critical...but they do deserve the chance to succeed or fail this off-season before we can say what is likely or not to happen.
The only thing I know for sure is that if we are looking at Free-Agency to bring in a quality player we are going to have to over-pay...beyond that I have no idea how things will play out. I can hope...but it's not a wait-and-see game.
The funny thing is, nobody actually asked me whether I thought that his height was a problem; they just assumed that. I'm saying that 6'4" isn't big for a SG, and what they've decided to hear is something along the lines of "Slim doesn't think that McLemore can play SG." I find the whole exchange very fascinating.
Didn't we trade Barry and Turkoglu to get Miller? Or Barry and Pollard, or something like that?
Uncia03
Starter
Just curious. If we retain Tyreke and pair them up as the starting guards...do you actually have a problem with the McLemore pick?
I am estatic at the thought of that line-up...and if we play a SF who the other team's PG can't switch on to...it should give us an instant mis-match every night.
RussoTuristo
G-League
Alex Len also needs 'shoes' to be 7'1" .. Kobe needs 'shoes' to be 6'6" ... etc ... or Ben is special and we will measure him without shoes???!!!
No. We're having this back-and-forth because 1) I trend towards pedantry, and 2) I took exception to the use of "fantastic size." That's it.
Section 101
All-Star
Miller was a sign and trade free agent.
Hallama
Starter
Tyreke is the closest player to Tony Parker currently in the NBA the way he attacks the rim, crafty drives, not a great shooter. He doesn't have the bball smarts as Parker, or as clutch (hopefully yet) but if you compare SA backcourt, Evans and McLemore are comparable, imo. I actually like them as a combo going forward. Does Malone/PDA think so? That's what we will find out soon enough.
I got into one of these exchanges earlier. People taking something I said and pulling out something else. The draft seemed to skew the reality of people's words and thoughts tonight.
Uncia03
Starter
Well to be fair I actually said 'size/athleticism' and that was just being lazy. I could have said fantastic athleticism along with not being undersized...but that seemed like too much work...and I wasn't really expecting that portion to be taken out and talked about for a page. (And to me 'size/athleticism' rolls off the tongue a lot more than athleticism/size'
)The bottom line is...he's got a great skill in shooting...he's got fantastic athleticism...he isn't undersized (THANK GOODNESS)...he's a good defender...and he doesn't appear to have a personality which will clash with Tyreke or Cousins.
If we can keep Tyreke and pair them both together...it's going to be very very good for us going forward.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
I still have zero idea what happens with Reke after watching that. All I can tell is PDA recognizes the talent. Whether he thinks that talent fits or not or he's a priority to re-sign, I can't tell. If he wanted a Reke/MLM backcourt he had an opportunity to say so and chose not to. Can also tell Vivek appears very hands on.
Refresh my memory: weren't we pretty capped out, then? Wasn't S&T pretty much Indiana's way of doing us a favor, because we wouldn't have been able to sign him outright? Let's suppose that it was the other way around, and we negotiated the S&T to do the Pacers a solid: does that prove that we beat out another team to get him? We're talking eight, nine years ago? How do we verify that?
Agreed. Also thought it was odd how they stumbled over the question regarding getting an additional pick later in the draft.
If you had said that, this thread would be at least two dozen posts shorter. Still think it was too much work?Well to be fair I actually said 'size/athleticism' and that was just being lazy. I could have said fantastic athleticism along with not being undersized...but that seemed like too much work...and I wasn't really expecting that portion to be taken out and talked about for a page. (And to me 'size/athleticism' rolls off the tongue a lot more than athleticism/size'
Uncia03
Starter
Yeah..I read the post and then watched the video...and didn't come away feeling that the FO HAD to have Tyreke and McLemore paired up AT ALL COSTS.
However, once again until they do something horribly bad (such as letting Tyreke walk or not matching a reasonable offer) I'm not going to be critical. This could all be negotiation stuff and trying not to let Tyreke's agent have too much leverage. I mean...if they said "A back court of Tyreke and McLemore working with Cousins could see us in the playoffs sooner than people think. Tyreke is a special talent and there isn't anyone better to pair along side McLemore." then of course they have to pay him more money in the negotiations.
We'll see. I'm really hoping that we have Tyreke under contract before Summer League starts.
Telemachus
Starter
If you are talking about comparing height to the person next to you, then you are right. But the NBA uses the height of players wearing shoes, so saying McLemore is 6'3.5 when comparing him to the rest of league (who are measured wearing shoes) is unrealistic. Now if you want to say that a SG who is 6'5 is about average in height, then you might have a case.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
I'm curious at to why MLM was their clear #1 target no matter what, the top player in the draft for us, when we need defense and there's a guy like Noel out there. Got the impression we would have chosen MLM even if Noel was still there. Actually, I got the impression if we had the 1st pick overall we would have taken MLM.
Last edited:
Uncia03
Starter
I apologize to everyone who's had to read the side-tracked discussion...I'll try to not be so lazy next time.
Did I nod off and wake up in some alternate dimension, where that isn't average? It isn't "fantastic," either way, which is my case.
jcwkings
All-Star
anyone not happy with McLemore falling to us is delusional. He is an ELITE athlete at SG, prototypical size, good length, textbook jumpshot, NBA range already and will only get better, could become a great defender and already a good defender. All this means is that we need to trade 2 of Thornton, Jimmer, Isaiah, assuming we re-sign Tyreke.
Uncia03
Starter
That is the crazy thing here. We know that Petrie wanted Noah instead of Hawes...and because we lost that stupid 3-way tie-breaker we lost out on Noah. (But we probably wouldn't have been in a position to get Tyreke/Cousins...but still...)
But I really was hoping that Noel would fall to us. If both Noel and McLemore had been on the board at 7...and if the FO had actually taken McLemore....
This board would have just self-destructed and we'd probably be talking about that pick for the next 10 years. It might be just as well that the scenario didn't come up. If we pair Tyreke and McLemore together...then you just need to find that blue collar hard worker (role player) next to Cousins...so it can still turn out OK.
Yeah, its funny that the first impression from Malone was about D and making that a focus but almost every statement from the front office since then has been about being fast paced, versatile, good shooters, exciting. And they drafted the same way.
I like the McLemore pick as I think he was the best guy available and don't really know that anyone else at that pick would have been a big difference. But overall, Petrie, Smart and the Maloofs could have been running this draft and I don't know that it would have looked any different. Only one part of the process but combined with the whispers about Evans and the overall vibe and I'm less hopeful than I was.
Telemachus
Starter
The player being signed and traded still has to be willing to go play for the team he is being traded to. If miller didn't want to come to Sacramento, he could have forced Indiana to look for a different suitor.
I'm pretty sure that "Did Miller want to come to Sacramento" wasn't my question.
- Status
Similar threads
