Baja Den's first, complete nonsense, too early, 1st round mock draft:

#61
Offensively, I think Kispert would fit like a glove, as someone who would do most his work off-ball and coming off screens. Which remains important with the on-ball usage expected from Fox and Hali moving forward. He'd have to be properly utilized, but it's never bad adding one a guy I think profiles as one of the best shooting prospects in the last few drafts. There's enough with the handle and passing that I think he'll be able to contribute there too, just not at a totally high level. Was also excellent finishing at the rim, which is rare in prospects that get pigeon-holed as "shooters" only.

The upside is an obvious concern as a senior without great physical attributes. Still, if we're picking in the 14-16 range, I'd be totally fine adding a cost-controlled Joe Harris clone.
 
#62
You could very well be right in the end but wasn’t this what a lot of people were saying about Haliburton?

Although he’s a sophomore, he’s younger than Mobley, Suggs, and Barnes. And he’s only 1 month older than Cunningham. He’s a young kid, may still be growing, has a good shooting stroke, has a similar AST to TO ratio as Halliburton’s sophomore year, and he’s a good defender.

What some may see as a role player, I see...
  • A player with a good foundation of skills (not many weaknesses, someone who won’t hurt the team)
  • A player who has shown significant improvements year over year (good trajectory for future development)
  • A player who has great size for the forward position (and still may be growing)
  • A player with good vision and IQ (the best players in the league tend to need both of these)
  • An underrated defender (will show up in wins but maybe not stats and accolades)

I said it earlier but a more athletic, better defending Gallinari sounds like an obtainable ceiling. If he has that drive and puts in a lot of time on his handle and go-to moves, he can potentially ascend beyond that.
Franz has become one of my favorite prospects since the top 5 is basically no longer attainable. I think you nailed a lot of his attributes and that one of his best factors is going to be things that don't show up in the stat sheet. Watching him play, he reminds me a lot of Joe Ingles where he just makes winning play after winning play with no real weakness on the offensive end.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
#63
I think UCLA should go small against Gonzaga. Bring in Kyman or Singleton and take out Riley (the 5). Play Jacquez at the 5. Timmey is like 6'8. Jacquez is around 6'7, but sturdy. Then would have 5 decent ball handlers on the floor to beat the Zags press. And play a 2-3 zone all game and dare the Zags to beat the Bruins on the perimeter. As a Bruin, who has watched the team all year, this was totally unexpected. Crazy turnaround.
As a Bruin *fan* (it's genetic, dad was a Bruin, I'm an Aggie) I don't see a good reason to bench Riley. I'm not sure that 5 ball handlers as opposed to 4 will make a big difference against the press, and Riley is a post threat who can score against anybody in the paint - he did fine against teh bigger Dickinson in the few opportunities he was afforded. If it works out that Timmeh! abuses Riley in the post with his quickness, then sure, adjust with (my preference) Clark and ask Jaquez/Clark (accounting for switches) to check Timmeh!. But the problem if you do that is that you have zero threat in the post and make your team into a pure perimeter team that the defense *knows* is a pure perimeter team, and can adjust accordingly. Not only can Riley score in the post, but he'll also open up a bit of space for perimeter shooters because they'll need to at least threaten to double on the catch.

Any way you look at it, UCLA will have to play a perfect game AND probably ask for a bit of help to get past the Zags. The crazy thing is that all things considered, Cronin is likely to have a better team the next two or three years running than this team, but somehow this team willed its way to the Final Four.

Obligatory call-back to Baja's mock: Wagner had a lousy game, and I think he showed why he's a mid-first round prospect rather than a top-10 guy. His all-around game is actually quite solid - he can defend, he can shoot, he can drive, he can handle, he can pass - and he has very good size for that skillset, but he seems to be very much a second-option player. He's not the kind of guy who you give the ball to and ask him to get you a bucket in crunch time. He has the ability to disappear on the court (offensive end) for five-ten minutes at a time, at least the way that Michigan used him. (Defensively he's always on, and that's exactly why I DON'T bump him down into the second round.) Juzang is a crunch-time bucket maker, but he's a defensive sieve and with his size he's at best a 2-3 tweener. His ability to get to the basket is only OK, which means he's a mid-range or three jump shooter for the most part. In a lot of ways, although the body type is quite different, he seems to be Buddy Hield all over again - that's at a ceiling, if he can hit the NBA 3 at a high rate. I actually feel like Juzang's best skill is creating a mid-range jumper - not normally the best shot, but if you can regularly create the space to get open for a 15'-17' jumper and elevate for a clean look that the defense isn't focused on contesting, there's some value there. We'll have to see if he actually declares for the draft - I don't think any mocks have him in (but seriously, what do they know?) but if he does I think he's a 20s value prospect. With another year under his belt to become a better defender under Cronin, maybe he could push himself up the board towards the lottery, but probably not into the top-ten range. As a Bruin fan, I selfishly hope he sticks around to hopefully help UCLA to make next year magical, but with this run in the tournament...I think he could get a promise in the first round and be gone.
 
#64
You could very well be right in the end but wasn’t this what a lot of people were saying about Haliburton?

Although he’s a sophomore, he’s younger than Mobley, Suggs, and Barnes. And he’s only 1 month older than Cunningham. He’s a young kid, may still be growing, has a good shooting stroke, has a similar AST to TO ratio as Halliburton’s sophomore year, and he’s a good defender.

What some may see as a role player, I see...
  • A player with a good foundation of skills (not many weaknesses, someone who won’t hurt the team)
  • A player who has shown significant improvements year over year (good trajectory for future development)
  • A player who has great size for the forward position (and still may be growing)
  • A player with good vision and IQ (the best players in the league tend to need both of these)
  • An underrated defender (will show up in wins but maybe not stats and accolades)

I said it earlier but a more athletic, better defending Gallinari sounds like an obtainable ceiling. If he has that drive and puts in a lot of time on his handle and go-to moves, he can potentially ascend beyond that.
I love Tyrese, but he's not entirely out of that range yet after his rookie year. His ceiling will be determined by his shot creating. Right now, it's being hampered by his lack of FTs. He's at a little under 1FTA/game which might be the lowest among active players, even lower than Duncan Robinson who sits at 1.2 FTA whose shots come almost all exclusively from 3pt (8.5/9.9).

What limits Wagner's ceiling comes exclusively from his lack of shot creating. As an on-ball scorer, he doesn't create space nor separation well. He relies on straight line drives to the rim. He doesn't show much of a scoring instinct. I think these are real weaknesses to his game. However, as you said, it ultimately comes down to his handles and go-to moves. Nothing to say he won't improve, but there's nothing wrong with ending up as a high level role player. I don't think that's a diss to Wagner, but it does put a cap on his ceiling.

At the end of the day, I just see a player who's good at multiple things, but isn't great at any single one. Makes him a high level role player for me. At his best, I can see 15-5-5. That's pretty good, but there are some teams in the top 10 who are looking for a franchise players or a 2nd option to compliment their franchise players.
 
#65
I've got Kispert as a bust. I just don't see what you guys are seeing.
I don’t know if I’d call him a bust I’m just not sure if he’s worth a lottery pick. We had guys like Windler and Bane with similar bodies of work go way later in their drafts. Just trying to make sense of what makes Kispert so much more special than them to warrant being taken so early.
Kispert's size has a lot to do with it. He's a 6'7 220lb wing who can shoot lights out. I don't see him busting in the NBA at all. I think he's one of the safest picks because of his 3pt shooting. High IQ player with average athleticism and isn't a complete defensive liability? That'll attract teams.

With regards to Windler and Bane, I think size continues to play a role. He's bigger than either of those guys. Windler at 6'7 196lbs. Bane at 6'5 215lbs with a 6'4 wingspan.

Should mention, Kispert's wingspan isn't great, it's only 6'8.

I think a 6'7 elite shooter with size and athleticism goes lotto in any class. Especially in today's game when 3pt shooting is extremely coveted.
 
#66
As a Bruin *fan* (it's genetic, dad was a Bruin, I'm an Aggie) I don't see a good reason to bench Riley. I'm not sure that 5 ball handlers as opposed to 4 will make a big difference against the press, and Riley is a post threat who can score against anybody in the paint - he did fine against teh bigger Dickinson in the few opportunities he was afforded. If it works out that Timmeh! abuses Riley in the post with his quickness, then sure, adjust with (my preference) Clark and ask Jaquez/Clark (accounting for switches) to check Timmeh!. But the problem if you do that is that you have zero threat in the post and make your team into a pure perimeter team that the defense *knows* is a pure perimeter team, and can adjust accordingly. Not only can Riley score in the post, but he'll also open up a bit of space for perimeter shooters because they'll need to at least threaten to double on the catch.

Any way you look at it, UCLA will have to play a perfect game AND probably ask for a bit of help to get past the Zags. The crazy thing is that all things considered, Cronin is likely to have a better team the next two or three years running than this team, but somehow this team willed its way to the Final Four.

Obligatory call-back to Baja's mock: Wagner had a lousy game, and I think he showed why he's a mid-first round prospect rather than a top-10 guy. His all-around game is actually quite solid - he can defend, he can shoot, he can drive, he can handle, he can pass - and he has very good size for that skillset, but he seems to be very much a second-option player. He's not the kind of guy who you give the ball to and ask him to get you a bucket in crunch time. He has the ability to disappear on the court (offensive end) for five-ten minutes at a time, at least the way that Michigan used him. (Defensively he's always on, and that's exactly why I DON'T bump him down into the second round.) Juzang is a crunch-time bucket maker, but he's a defensive sieve and with his size he's at best a 2-3 tweener. His ability to get to the basket is only OK, which means he's a mid-range or three jump shooter for the most part. In a lot of ways, although the body type is quite different, he seems to be Buddy Hield all over again - that's at a ceiling, if he can hit the NBA 3 at a high rate. I actually feel like Juzang's best skill is creating a mid-range jumper - not normally the best shot, but if you can regularly create the space to get open for a 15'-17' jumper and elevate for a clean look that the defense isn't focused on contesting, there's some value there. We'll have to see if he actually declares for the draft - I don't think any mocks have him in (but seriously, what do they know?) but if he does I think he's a 20s value prospect. With another year under his belt to become a better defender under Cronin, maybe he could push himself up the board towards the lottery, but probably not into the top-ten range. As a Bruin fan, I selfishly hope he sticks around to hopefully help UCLA to make next year magical, but with this run in the tournament...I think he could get a promise in the first round and be gone.
I think Jacquez can guard Timmeh. Timmeh looks like he's 6'8 and has been able to do well against college bigs, because he has guard skills. Jacquez is sturdy, about 6'6 to 6'7 and is tough enough to score inside--especially against someone like Timmeh. Cody Riley has the size, but on offense, he's extremely limited. A poor passer and can't hit the mid range to save his life. Would rather have a 5 for the Gonzaga game, who can be a triple threat.

As for Wagner, I just see a really limited player, who's ceiling is a role player. I don't see Buddy for Juzang. Buddy has the shot and nothing else. Juzang doesn't have Buddy's shooting, but he already is a much better ball handler and is a better finisher than Buddy. I see a lot of Andres Nocioni in Juzang's game (and Jacquez's as well).

I'm a Bruin first and a Bronco second. So this unexpected run has me and my Bruin guys (one of my boys is a HS head basketball coach in so cal) going nutz.
 
#67
Kispert's size has a lot to do with it. He's a 6'7 220lb wing who can shoot lights out. I don't see him busting in the NBA at all. I think he's one of the safest picks because of his 3pt shooting. High IQ player with average athleticism and isn't a complete defensive liability? That'll attract teams.

With regards to Windler and Bane, I think size continues to play a role. He's bigger than either of those guys. Windler at 6'7 196lbs. Bane at 6'5 215lbs with a 6'4 wingspan.

Should mention, Kispert's wingspan isn't great, it's only 6'8.

I think a 6'7 elite shooter with size and athleticism goes lotto in any class. Especially in today's game when 3pt shooting is extremely coveted.
I think he's going to measure 6'5 to 6'6. He's shorter than Timmeh and Timmeh looked short compared to the two Mobley bros, who are going to measure 6'10ish.
 
#68
I don’t know if I’d call him a bust I’m just not sure if he’s worth a lottery pick. We had guys like Windler and Bane with similar bodies of work go way later in their drafts. Just trying to make sense of what makes Kispert so much more special than them to warrant being taken so early.
I don't think he's special at all. Nearly everyone can shoot these days or they show signs of being able to shoot well in a couple years so I don't covet lights out shooting like most. Especially since the Kings don't have any elite play makers. I know Vivek covets it highly, which scares me. He's always looking for that next Curry/Klay.

He has a good body but he looks slow laterally and doesn't seem to bring much of anything to the table other than shooting and a little bit of finishing inside. But a lot of those finishes I look at and think that they would probably wouldn't be as successful against NBA size.

I think he has Doug McDermott written all over him.
 
#69
I think he's going to measure 6'5 to 6'6. He's shorter than Timmeh and Timmeh looked short compared to the two Mobley bros, who are going to measure 6'10ish.
At the Nike camp in June 2017, Timme measured at 6'8 w/o shoes with a 7'0.5 wingspan. I find it hard to believe he hasn't grown in the last 3+ years.
 
#72
Of course, you base this on the assumption that all the players around him are 2 inches shorter than they are listed.
No. I base it on measurements changing over time and not everyone growing at the same rate. You can't assume people will grow beyond 18 and there are cases of player's shrinking as well--where they measure an inch or so taller during under 18 USA hoops combines than during pre-draft combines.
 
#73
No. I base it on measurements changing over time and not everyone growing at the same rate. You can't assume people will grow beyond 18 and there are cases of player's shrinking as well--where they measure an inch or so taller during under 18 USA hoops combines than during pre-draft combines.
While true, you have assumed that Kispert & both Mobley brothers are all 2 inches shorter than they are listed. You are also assuming that Timme hasn't grown since his last measurement (which I could find) which was taken when he was still 16 years old. That is a lot of assumptions.
 
#76
You could very well be right in the end but wasn’t this what a lot of people were saying about Haliburton?

Although he’s a sophomore, he’s younger than Mobley, Suggs, and Barnes. And he’s only 1 month older than Cunningham. He’s a young kid, may still be growing, has a good shooting stroke, has a similar AST to TO ratio as Halliburton’s sophomore year, and he’s a good defender.

What some may see as a role player, I see...
  • A player with a good foundation of skills (not many weaknesses, someone who won’t hurt the team)
  • A player who has shown significant improvements year over year (good trajectory for future development)
  • A player who has great size for the forward position (and still may be growing)
  • A player with good vision and IQ (the best players in the league tend to need both of these)
  • An underrated defender (will show up in wins but maybe not stats and accolades)

I said it earlier but a more athletic, better defending Gallinari sounds like an obtainable ceiling. If he has that drive and puts in a lot of time on his handle and go-to moves, he can potentially ascend beyond that.
Isn't that kind of what he's looking like? Haliburton runs pick and roll so that had distinct advantages in relation to productivity but high level role players aren't a bad thing. They can be the difference between being a 1st round and out team and a contender if they fit well and impact the game without messing up your system.
 
#77
While true, you have assumed that Kispert & both Mobley brothers are all 2 inches shorter than they are listed. You are also assuming that Timme hasn't grown since his last measurement (which I could find) which was taken when he was still 16 years old. That is a lot of assumptions.
Guess we’ll find out when they’re measured at the combine.
 
#80
Not a bust, but def not a star. A role player like Jason Kapono.
I tend to agree. And someone like Jason Kapono would be raking in 20 million a year today, lol. Whether or not that's smart, eh, we'll see if the game switches back once they start pushing Zion as the face of the NBA.
 
#81
What's a bust though? I think he can be a solid rotation player. I don't think anyone expects him to be a superstar or anything.
Depends on where a player is drafted. Corey Joseph drafted at 1 would be a bust in my mind but draft him at 20 and you have solid value.

I don't think Kispert is going to impact the game even as a solid rotation player. I'll take a guy who is just ok at everything over a sharp shooter that lacks defense and the ability to get his own shot.
 
#82
I don't think he is. He's got great length and solid wing skills. He still reminds me of Joe Ingles stretch/playmaking 4/3 and that's a valuable piece to any team.
Ingles is literally the most valuable role player in the league and his advanced metrics basically have him at star level impact. Franz will need to up the shooting to get there, but you see a lot of the same skills as a big wing creator with good, not great athleticism.
 
#83
Wagner just screams high level role player. He can't really create his own shots consistently, and his 3 ball is widely inconsistent. I think you saw it there with his final 2 attempts to win the game. Air balled then clunked another.

During the tournament he went 2-16 from 3pt land through 4 games.
I think you are better off looking at free throw shooting than college 3 point shooting to project how a 19 year old will shoot the pro 3.

That point is especially true for kids like Wagner who developed late and who release point is all messed up by changes in height and strength. I hope Wagner is there for the Kings but again I suspect he is the Patrick Williams of this class and is long gone by the time we draft.