Following 2018 draftees

Status
Not open for further replies.

bajaden

Hall of Famer
One might say that Brunson is a better player than all of them - right now. But we know that any intelligent team doesn't draft on what a player is "right now." I'm fully aware of Spellman's prior weight issue. If anything, he can get even leaner and better in the NBA. I'm not impressed with Bridges' athleticism, especially his ability to drive, finish, and make plays off the bounce. He does remind me of Lionel Simmons in his ungainliness going toward the basket.

Saying Bridges is athletic reminds me of Darren Collison. Sure, you could come up with certain objective standards to say Collison is athletic. He's got the speed and quickness. He's athletic in those terms. But he's not fluid. He's robotic, and therefore he's not really athletic in terms of an NBA point guard. Same thing holds for Bridges as an NBA forward in my view. He'll be a good 3 point shooter, a good defender, a good 3 and D guy, a good "other," but I think that's about it. Is Bridges a "safe" pick? Sure, at #7 or #8 he's probably a safe pick. I just don't think the Kings should be bunting for a single in this draft, and if they swing for the fences Bridges is not the guy, imo. If you get Bridges you aren't even sure he can win out over Jackson in the competition for minutes.
At this point your starting to insult my intelligence. I'm done discussing this with you because nothing I can say is going to change you mind, which is closed. I don't care for an exercise in futility...
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
woah, not sure I see the Klay comp, but if NBA scout see it, I don't expect him to drop outside of the top 10. I don't think he'll remain in the draft, but if he does, I think he'll go late lotto-mid1st. He's a TRUE sophomore(finally a player true to his age!). He's slightly younger than Ayton, Porter Jr, and Bamba. I hope he doesn't make the mistake of other Maryland players. Melo Trimble, and now Justin Jackson(not ours). Jackson actually signed with an agent already. He would've been a 1st rounder last year, not sure about this year..especially since his shooting looked flukey.
Well, the comp wasn't mine. I was just repeating what some of the scouts have said. However, I did see Thompson play in college, and Hueter is more impressive at the same point in time. Not sure that means he'll be as good as Thompson, but the comp isn't that far fetched when comparing college players. I agree that it would be wise for him not to sign with an agent. Huge mistake by Jackson in my opinion, especially since he missed most of the year with an injury. I doubt Jackson will go in the first round. Not sure Hueter will either, but if Hueter stays in the draft and he sitting there when we pick in the 2nd round, I'd grab him.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
At this point your starting to insult my intelligence. I'm done discussing this with you because nothing I can say is going to change you mind, which is closed. I don't care for an exercise in futility...
That's funny. I didn't even know you were trying to change my mind. If you can't come to a decision about who is better between Bridges, Spellman and DiVincenzo, I wouldn't expect that I would change your mind to my position that Bridges is 3rd on the list.

Maybe it's Bridges you're so miffed about, in which case we'll have to just agree to disagree. Just like we didn't agree on other players of the past. Look, bajaden, if one person "sees" something differently than another person when it comes to a possible draftee, you aren't going to argue that person into seeing what you seem to see. All one can do at that point is share the different perspective.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
That's funny. I didn't even know you were trying to change my mind. If you can't come to a decision about who is better between Bridges, Spellman and DiVincenzo, I wouldn't expect that I would change your mind to my position that Bridges is 3rd on the list.

Maybe it's Bridges you're so miffed about, in which case we'll have to just agree to disagree. Just like we didn't agree on other players of the past. Look, bajaden, if one person "sees" something differently than another person when it comes to a possible draftee, you aren't going to argue that person into seeing what you seem to see. All one can do at that point is share the different perspective.
I don't have a problem with someone liking a different player than I do, but I do have a problem if the reason is built on something that's not factual. I have watched Bridges since his freshman year, and if if you want to say his handles need to improve, I'll agree. If you want to say the you don't see him as anything more than a 3 and D player, I can understand that. There are NBA scouts that would agree with you. I'll even agree that right now, DiVincenzo appears to have more upside than Bridges.

But when you say that he's not a good athlete, then you lose me. Bridges is always one of the first players down the floor on a break, and he's always one of the first players back on defense. I've seen him dunk the ball, and in the slow mo, his head was above the rim. On defense, he's able to keep players from PG's to PF's in front of him because of his excellent lateral quickness, to go along with great instincts. I've heard many criticize his game at times, but none of them have doubted his athleticism.

I think you mistake his being so fundamentally sound as being mechanical. He is without a doubt the most fundamentally sound player on the Villanova team. He was this year, the most consistent player on the team. I don't think he had one bad game the entire year. On the other hand, Spellman had some stinkers, as did DiVincenzo. The bottom line is, I'm betting on what is, and your betting on what could be. Nothing wrong with either approach, but one has more risk.

Answer me this. What is Spellman? Is he a center or a PF? He's a 6'9" 265/270 lb player in college who plays center. Will he be able to play center in the NBA? I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't think most NBA scouts do either. Does he have the quickness to guard NBA PF's? How big is his wingspan? How will he fare in the NBA against 7 footers with a big wingspan in the post? My point is, I have a lot of unanswered questions about Spellman. That doesn't mean I don't like him. It means I would like to see more of him in a featured role with another year of college.

I have a much better idea of what DiVincenzo is going to be in the NBA, and would be much more willing to take a gamble on him, but not at number 7 in the draft. I've seen DiVincenzo guard PG's and SG's very effectively. I know he can shoot the ball, and his handles are good enough to play the SG position if not the PG position. He's a very good athlete with good basketball IQ. I'm not sure what he is quite yet, but at worse he's a combo guard. Don't think in his case it matters much because of his size.

As you said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
I don't have a problem with someone liking a different player than I do, but I do have a problem if the reason is built on something that's not factual. I have watched Bridges since his freshman year, and if if you want to say his handles need to improve, I'll agree. If you want to say the you don't see him as anything more than a 3 and D player, I can understand that. There are NBA scouts that would agree with you. I'll even agree that right now, DiVincenzo appears to have more upside than Bridges.

But when you say that he's not a good athlete, then you lose me. Bridges is always one of the first players down the floor on a break, and he's always one of the first players back on defense. I've seen him dunk the ball, and in the slow mo, his head was above the rim. On defense, he's able to keep players from PG's to PF's in front of him because of his excellent lateral quickness, to go along with great instincts. I've heard many criticize his game at times, but none of them have doubted his athleticism.

I think you mistake his being so fundamentally sound as being mechanical. He is without a doubt the most fundamentally sound player on the Villanova team. He was this year, the most consistent player on the team. I don't think he had one bad game the entire year. On the other hand, Spellman had some stinkers, as did DiVincenzo. The bottom line is, I'm betting on what is, and your betting on what could be. Nothing wrong with either approach, but one has more risk.

Answer me this. What is Spellman? Is he a center or a PF? He's a 6'9" 265/270 lb player in college who plays center. Will he be able to play center in the NBA? I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't think most NBA scouts do either. Does he have the quickness to guard NBA PF's? How big is his wingspan? How will he fare in the NBA against 7 footers with a big wingspan in the post? My point is, I have a lot of unanswered questions about Spellman. That doesn't mean I don't like him. It means I would like to see more of him in a featured role with another year of college.

I have a much better idea of what DiVincenzo is going to be in the NBA, and would be much more willing to take a gamble on him, but not at number 7 in the draft. I've seen DiVincenzo guard PG's and SG's very effectively. I know he can shoot the ball, and his handles are good enough to play the SG position if not the PG position. He's a very good athlete with good basketball IQ. I'm not sure what he is quite yet, but at worse he's a combo guard. Don't think in his case it matters much because of his size.

As you said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I'll leave Bridges out of the discussion because I don't want to get you upset.

Regarding Spellman, I just don't care what position he is. (The same could be said for Bagley by the way - I don't care about that issue with him either). It's not important to me in today's NBA to identify a certain defined position. What I do care about is his ability to score both inside and outside, his passing ability on the move, and his ability to rebound and play D. He has a high BBIQ. He has good coordination and balance, good feet. He's highly versatile, and I value that for a big man in today's NBA. If he plays against a smaller wing he can abuse him inside. If he plays against a longer player like a Gobert he can pull him out to the 3 point line and spread the floor for Fox and Co. He has the girth to be a very good screener. The guy really has a "soft touch" for a big man and he's not afraid of the pressure in big games. I see him being a scoring threat and a force multiplier for the Kings should they be so fortunate to nab him.

DiVencenzo is an outstanding athlete. And like you say, he has a very high BBIQ. If you could pair a guy like him with Fox in the back court, holy moly, that's going to be some special back court, imo. Then you bring your "Ginobli" off the bench and trade Hield for a good big man. Now you've really got something for the future.
 
I'll leave Bridges out of the discussion because I don't want to get you upset.

Regarding Spellman, I just don't care what position he is. (The same could be said for Bagley by the way - I don't care about that issue with him either). It's not important to me in today's NBA to identify a certain defined position. What I do care about is his ability to score both inside and outside, his passing ability on the move, and his ability to rebound and play D. He has a high BBIQ. He has good coordination and balance, good feet. He's highly versatile, and I value that for a big man in today's NBA. If he plays against a smaller wing he can abuse him inside. If he plays against a longer player like a Gobert he can pull him out to the 3 point line and spread the floor for Fox and Co. He has the girth to be a very good screener. The guy really has a "soft touch" for a big man and he's not afraid of the pressure in big games. I see him being a scoring threat and a force multiplier for the Kings should they be so fortunate to nab him.

DiVencenzo is an outstanding athlete. And like you say, he has a very high BBIQ. If you could pair a guy like him with Fox in the back court, holy moly, that's going to be some special back court, imo. Then you bring your "Ginobli" off the bench and trade Hield for a good big man. Now you've really got something for the future.
The problem Spellman will have positionally is on defense. I question if he is big enough to guard many centers around the league, and if he is quick enough to guard PFs. Those are the questions he will have to answer for many NBA teams.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
The problem Spellman will have positionally is on defense. I question if he is big enough to guard many centers around the league, and if he is quick enough to guard PFs. Those are the questions he will have to answer for many NBA teams.
I put less weight on length in guarding centers, more on strength. Therefore, I don't think Spellman is going to have a problem guarding centers and his mobility should also allow him to guard most stretch 4s. If you watched Spellman against the 7'0", 280 lb Azubuike (Kansas) he totally held his own and was not outmatched physically. I'm not saying Azubuike is an offensive powerhouse, but just in terms of physicallity Spellman did quite nicely against him a guy who definitely has the physicallity, if not skill, to play in the NBA.
 
I put less weight on length in guarding centers, more on strength. Therefore, I don't think Spellman is going to have a problem guarding centers and his mobility should also allow him to guard most stretch 4s. If you watched Spellman against the 7'0", 280 lb Azubuike (Kansas) he totally held his own and was not outmatched physically. I'm not saying Azubuike is an offensive powerhouse, but just in terms of physicallity Spellman did quite nicely against him a guy who definitely has the physicallity, if not skill, to play in the NBA.
Personally, I thought that Spellman was outmatched by Azubuike in that game. Theyhad to change up their defense because Azubuike was getting to wherever he wanted.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
Personally, I thought that Spellman was outmatched by Azubuike in that game. Theyhad to change up their defense because Azubuike was getting to wherever he wanted.
I guess you didn't see the same game I did. When Spellman went out, Azubuike had his way; when Spellman went in Azubuike basically disappeared.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I guess you didn't see the same game I did. When Spellman went out, Azubuike had his way; when Spellman went in Azubuike basically disappeared.
Amigo, it's immaterial. I certainly wouldn't use Azubuike as any kind of measuring stick. Based on what I've seen out of him so far, he'll be lucky to ever play in the NBA. There's Azubuike, and then there's Embiid, Cousins, AD, Jokic, and on and on. It's one thing to go up against a slow bully ball center and quite another to go up against a very skilled, equally big athletic center. My personal opinion is that Spellman has to be able to play the PF position at least some of the time, which means he will need to lose some more weight, which is probably a good thing anyway.

Don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I really, really like Spellman. But I also have to be realistic about who he is, or might be in the future. At the moment, there is no way on god's earth I would take him with the 7th pick. Mainly because I have too many unanswered questions. I think the best thing he can do is go to the combine, get feedback from the GM's, and then go back to Villanova and win another championship. He'll either show scouts that he's gotten even better, and will be a lottery pick. Or, like many others, show no significant growth and get picked near the bottom of the first round.

I think it's more likely that DiVicenzo stays in the draft, but right now, most draft forums have him in the 2nd round. Personally, I have him much higher than that, but if that's the feedback he gets at the combine, I doubt he'll stay in the draft. He's almost guaranteed to be a lottery pick next year after he becomes the featured player at Villanova. Especially if they win another national championship, which is very possible with both Spellman and DiVincenzo return.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
Lest people have forgotten why Giles was considered the best highschool player in the country, here's a little video:

That handle is just flat out sick in the open court. Those double crossovers are unstoppable. Keep in mind that for much of that video he's wearing a knee brace, so it's following one of his injuries (his first?) and his athleticism looks just fine. And he plays with a passion and fire that convinces me he's got that "it" factor.

We've been looking for that piece to build around ever since the glory days and we didn't manage to make it happen with Cousins, but Giles could seriously be a second chance at turning it around. I know he's coming off injury, but if he falls to us at #7 I think we can't pass on him. Wait...what's that you say?
 
I think the best representative tape of Harry Giles is from the fiba U19 in 2015. It's after his 1st ACL, and 4 months before his 2nd ACL injury. This is why Harry Giles was being ranked a top 5 recruit. This is literally the last time Harry Giles played basketball at a high level. He tore his ACL 4 months later in the 1st game of his Senior year. In these 7 games, he puts up:
  • 14pts 10.6rebs 1.1blks 0.7asts 2.5tos
    • 47.1% FG, 64.3% FT

There's 2 full games on youtube:
vs. Greece (Papgiannis warning. They don't matchup though). 13pts 11rebs 1blk 1asts 2tos on 5-12 FG. 3-6FT

vs. Croatia (Finals). 13pts 16rebs 5tos on 4-20 FG, 5-6FT. (just pointing out, everyone had a bad shooting game on team USA)

Can't find any individual game highlights though. I didn't watch the 2nd game, and I don't want to...seeing how he went 4-20. However, I watched the first one recently and he basically flashes a lot of athleticism and potential. His agility and lateral quickness is amazing. He moves his feet like like a wing and has no problem on switches. On offense, he's very physical around the rim. He'll get after O-rebs for big putbacks. He sets solid screens, and does a great job slipping out of them. A couple guys on this team(won't be named) struggle with just reading the simple PnR. That's not what I saw from Giles. When his man went in, he went out. When the defenders froze, he went in. Saw lots of things I liked.

However, I don't necessarily see any high level skills. He has ok footwork, but his touch around the rim was seriously lacking. Ball handling looks promising, but he's not able to consistently face up and attack. His passing wasn't advertised during these games.

So you factor in everything together....and you have no clue who you get in Harry Giles. I've alluded to this in the past, but his NBA draft stock was not just based on what we saw in his Junior year of HS and his FIBA U19 tournament but also came with the assumption that he would continuously improve on his skills throughout his senior year of HS, and then go onto polish some of them in 1 year of college. However, we all know the story. Missed his entire year of HS basketball. 11 months after recovery and rehab, then he has a major setback. From Dana O'Neil's ESPN article:
The scope revealed the actual particle impeding Giles' progress -- Krzyzewski likened it to something clogging a drain -- and once it was removed the relief was almost instantaneous. Giles now is climbing back up the rehab ladder, using resistance bands to continue to strengthen his legs.
So who do you get in Harry Giles? The main reason why he was touted as much as he was is because of his athleticism. 2 ACL tears later, and it's been nearly 3 years removed from the last time he played basketball at a high level. How much has that hampered his skill development? basketball development?

I think it's best to be cautious with the hype around Giles. Remember now, this is the same FO, broadcaster, radio host, team writers, and Kings employees that hyped up Skal at the end of last season.
 
I think the best representative tape of Harry Giles is from the fiba U19 in 2015. It's after his 1st ACL, and 4 months before his 2nd ACL injury. This is why Harry Giles was being ranked a top 5 recruit. This is literally the last time Harry Giles played basketball at a high level. He tore his ACL 4 months later in the 1st game of his Senior year. In these 7 games, he puts up:
  • 14pts 10.6rebs 1.1blks 0.7asts 2.5tos
    • 47.1% FG, 64.3% FT

There's 2 full games on youtube:
vs. Greece (Papgiannis warning. They don't matchup though). 13pts 11rebs 1blk 1asts 2tos on 5-12 FG. 3-6FT

vs. Croatia (Finals). 13pts 16rebs 5tos on 4-20 FG, 5-6FT. (just pointing out, everyone had a bad shooting game on team USA)

Can't find any individual game highlights though. I didn't watch the 2nd game, and I don't want to...seeing how he went 4-20. However, I watched the first one recently and he basically flashes a lot of athleticism and potential. His agility and lateral quickness is amazing. He moves his feet like like a wing and has no problem on switches. On offense, he's very physical around the rim. He'll get after O-rebs for big putbacks. He sets solid screens, and does a great job slipping out of them. A couple guys on this team(won't be named) struggle with just reading the simple PnR. That's not what I saw from Giles. When his man went in, he went out. When the defenders froze, he went in. Saw lots of things I liked.

However, I don't necessarily see any high level skills. He has ok footwork, but his touch around the rim was seriously lacking. Ball handling looks promising, but he's not able to consistently face up and attack. His passing wasn't advertised during these games.

So you factor in everything together....and you have no clue who you get in Harry Giles. I've alluded to this in the past, but his NBA draft stock was not just based on what we saw in his Junior year of HS and his FIBA U19 tournament but also came with the assumption that he would continuously improve on his skills throughout his senior year of HS, and then go onto polish some of them in 1 year of college. However, we all know the story. Missed his entire year of HS basketball. 11 months after recovery and rehab, then he has a major setback. From Dana O'Neil's ESPN article:

So who do you get in Harry Giles? The main reason why he was touted as much as he was is because of his athleticism. 2 ACL tears later, and it's been nearly 3 years removed from the last time he played basketball at a high level. How much has that hampered his skill development? basketball development?

I think it's best to be cautious with the hype around Giles. Remember now, this is the same FO, broadcaster, radio host, team writers, and Kings employees that hyped up Skal at the end of last season.
Well you just said in the game you watched he showed he was a great screener and defender. That’s basically what his hype has been we here about his athleticism, screening and passing. That’s stuff he showed it’s not like we hear owe this kid will be a great scorer and playmaker we here about stuff he was doing prior to Duke.

I’m expecting a 6’10 center that will set elite screens which is extremely valuable with Bogdan/Fox which will lead to a lot of easy baskets for him. Also expecting him to be a great rebounder and defender
 
Well you just said in the game you watched he showed he was a great screener and defender. That’s basically what his hype has been we here about his athleticism, screening and passing. That’s stuff he showed it’s not like we hear owe this kid will be a great scorer and playmaker we here about stuff he was doing prior to Duke.

I’m expecting a 6’10 center that will set elite screens which is extremely valuable with Bogdan/Fox which will lead to a lot of easy baskets for him. Also expecting him to be a great rebounder and defender
We don't know if his athleticism is where it used to be. Just from what I've seen, he's been getting raves about his passing, but I haven't really seen anyone say his athleticism is 100%. Maybe I just missed it on my own, but there's a good chance he's not the same type of athlete. This affects his defensive ability. Does he move the same? Can he get down and lateral?

Pre-injury, I'm not sure how good of a scorer he was. How will he score in the NBA? What type of scorer do you expect him to be? Where will he be scoring from? I think these are the real questions that no one has been asking... what does he have in his offensive arsenal?

Setting a screen isn't that impressive. We're just used to Willie's half-assed screens.
 
We don't know if his athleticism is where it used to be. Just from what I've seen, he's been getting raves about his passing, but I haven't really seen anyone say his athleticism is 100%. Maybe I just missed it on my own, but there's a good chance he's not the same type of athlete. This affects his defensive ability. Does he move the same? Can he get down and lateral?

Pre-injury, I'm not sure how good of a scorer he was. How will he score in the NBA? What type of scorer do you expect him to be? Where will he be scoring from? I think these are the real questions that no one has been asking... what does he have in his offensive arsenal?

Setting a screen isn't that impressive. We're just used to Willie's half-assed screens.
It’s been all over the place about his athleticism being back and than he went to P3 I think it’s called where he measured out elitely in athleticism.

He doesn’t need to be a scorer he’ll get his points the same way WCS does off pick and roll, put backs, and running the floor. What he should bring is energy, defense, and rebounding. You center doesn’t need to be a scorer just have he be like Capela on offense expect he has shown a hook shot he could use if he gets a small on him.

10-15ppg, 8-10rpg, 1-3 app with good defense is a very good center and what I hope he becomes
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
It’s been all over the place about his athleticism being back and than he went to P3 I think it’s called where he measured out elitely in athleticism.

He doesn’t need to be a scorer he’ll get his points the same way WCS does off pick and roll, put backs, and running the floor. What he should bring is energy, defense, and rebounding. You center doesn’t need to be a scorer just have he be like Capela on offense expect he has shown a hook shot he could use if he gets a small on him.

10-15ppg, 8-10rpg, 1-3 app with good defense is a very good center and what I hope he becomes
the only thing standing in Willie's way is his own ego...if he can learn to accept where & how he will be successful in this league for the long term and help his team win, the better off. It would be nice if he realizes this on the Kings but I won't hold my breath.
 
I think the best representative tape of Harry Giles is from the fiba U19 in 2015. It's after his 1st ACL, and 4 months before his 2nd ACL injury. This is why Harry Giles was being ranked a top 5 recruit. This is literally the last time Harry Giles played basketball at a high level. He tore his ACL 4 months later in the 1st game of his Senior year. In these 7 games, he puts up:
  • 14pts 10.6rebs 1.1blks 0.7asts 2.5tos
    • 47.1% FG, 64.3% FT

There's 2 full games on youtube:
vs. Greece (Papgiannis warning. They don't matchup though). 13pts 11rebs 1blk 1asts 2tos on 5-12 FG. 3-6FT

vs. Croatia (Finals). 13pts 16rebs 5tos on 4-20 FG, 5-6FT. (just pointing out, everyone had a bad shooting game on team USA)

Can't find any individual game highlights though. I didn't watch the 2nd game, and I don't want to...seeing how he went 4-20. However, I watched the first one recently and he basically flashes a lot of athleticism and potential. His agility and lateral quickness is amazing. He moves his feet like like a wing and has no problem on switches. On offense, he's very physical around the rim. He'll get after O-rebs for big putbacks. He sets solid screens, and does a great job slipping out of them. A couple guys on this team(won't be named) struggle with just reading the simple PnR. That's not what I saw from Giles. When his man went in, he went out. When the defenders froze, he went in. Saw lots of things I liked.

However, I don't necessarily see any high level skills. He has ok footwork, but his touch around the rim was seriously lacking. Ball handling looks promising, but he's not able to consistently face up and attack. His passing wasn't advertised during these games.

So you factor in everything together....and you have no clue who you get in Harry Giles. I've alluded to this in the past, but his NBA draft stock was not just based on what we saw in his Junior year of HS and his FIBA U19 tournament but also came with the assumption that he would continuously improve on his skills throughout his senior year of HS, and then go onto polish some of them in 1 year of college. However, we all know the story. Missed his entire year of HS basketball. 11 months after recovery and rehab, then he has a major setback. From Dana O'Neil's ESPN article:

So who do you get in Harry Giles? The main reason why he was touted as much as he was is because of his athleticism. 2 ACL tears later, and it's been nearly 3 years removed from the last time he played basketball at a high level. How much has that hampered his skill development? basketball development?

I think it's best to be cautious with the hype around Giles. Remember now, this is the same FO, broadcaster, radio host, team writers, and Kings employees that hyped up Skal at the end of last season.
Good post. Thanks for all the info.

If his health isn't in question, I expect him to be a solid rebounder, decent shot blocker and active defender. I think he's going to foul a lot for the first couple years though. It seemed as if almost everyone that raved about him, raved about his passing. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he's actually a pretty damn good passer.
 
I really like Wendell Carter for this team. He doesnt scream superstar but he is going to make everyone better. He would stretch the floor for Fox and give him driving lanes or a deadly pick and pop partner. He would set good screens facilitating Bogdans pick and roll game. He is going to find Buddy out of the post. And he also knows how to play high-low with another big like Gikes or even Wcs. Just a very well-rounded player. He is not going to carry your offense but if he can develop into a Horford/Gasol type of bigman, that is incredibly valuable.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I think the best representative tape of Harry Giles is from the fiba U19 in 2015. It's after his 1st ACL, and 4 months before his 2nd ACL injury. This is why Harry Giles was being ranked a top 5 recruit. This is literally the last time Harry Giles played basketball at a high level. He tore his ACL 4 months later in the 1st game of his Senior year. In these 7 games, he puts up:
  • 14pts 10.6rebs 1.1blks 0.7asts 2.5tos
    • 47.1% FG, 64.3% FT

There's 2 full games on youtube:
vs. Greece (Papgiannis warning. They don't matchup though). 13pts 11rebs 1blk 1asts 2tos on 5-12 FG. 3-6FT

vs. Croatia (Finals). 13pts 16rebs 5tos on 4-20 FG, 5-6FT. (just pointing out, everyone had a bad shooting game on team USA)

Can't find any individual game highlights though. I didn't watch the 2nd game, and I don't want to...seeing how he went 4-20. However, I watched the first one recently and he basically flashes a lot of athleticism and potential. His agility and lateral quickness is amazing. He moves his feet like like a wing and has no problem on switches. On offense, he's very physical around the rim. He'll get after O-rebs for big putbacks. He sets solid screens, and does a great job slipping out of them. A couple guys on this team(won't be named) struggle with just reading the simple PnR. That's not what I saw from Giles. When his man went in, he went out. When the defenders froze, he went in. Saw lots of things I liked.

However, I don't necessarily see any high level skills. He has ok footwork, but his touch around the rim was seriously lacking. Ball handling looks promising, but he's not able to consistently face up and attack. His passing wasn't advertised during these games.

So you factor in everything together....and you have no clue who you get in Harry Giles. I've alluded to this in the past, but his NBA draft stock was not just based on what we saw in his Junior year of HS and his FIBA U19 tournament but also came with the assumption that he would continuously improve on his skills throughout his senior year of HS, and then go onto polish some of them in 1 year of college. However, we all know the story. Missed his entire year of HS basketball. 11 months after recovery and rehab, then he has a major setback. From Dana O'Neil's ESPN article:

So who do you get in Harry Giles? The main reason why he was touted as much as he was is because of his athleticism. 2 ACL tears later, and it's been nearly 3 years removed from the last time he played basketball at a high level. How much has that hampered his skill development? basketball development?

I think it's best to be cautious with the hype around Giles. Remember now, this is the same FO, broadcaster, radio host, team writers, and Kings employees that hyped up Skal at the end of last season.
I just amazed that you would say that you don't see any high level skills. His ball handling, for a 6'10"player is off the charts when you consider his age at that time. How many 6'10" players in high school can come down the floor and change directions while attacking the basket. Blake Griffin still can't do it. He's still basically a straight line driver. Sometimes I think you just want to find something to criticize. Go look at some tape of Bamba, and then come and tell me that Bamba can do anything other than block shots that Giles can do. Bamba can't even dribble the ball without looking at it. Giles dribbles with his head up which lets him see the floor. And yet, some on this forum are predicting stardom for Bamba. Absolutely amazing!

There's only one question I have about Giles, and that's if he's totally back to where he was prior to the injuries. I think it's fair to take a wait and see approach, but If he's cleared to play, I'm going to assume that he is. By the way, almost all the hype last season about Skal was coming from management, and from Grant and Jerry. Most of the positive opinions this year about Giles are coming from the players he's practicing against. He's gotten rave reviews from Randolph, Temple, Bog's, Willie, and Carter. Those are his peer's. I'll throw in Christie and James Hamm as well. I personally haven't heard a peep from Vlade or Joerger. I love the way you bolded employees. A general term that would include everyone from the players to the janitors. Well done!
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I really like Wendell Carter for this team. He doesnt scream superstar but he is going to make everyone better. He would stretch the floor for Fox and give him driving lanes or a deadly pick and pop partner. He would set good screens facilitating Bogdans pick and roll game. He is going to find Buddy out of the post. And he also knows how to play high-low with another big like Gikes or even Wcs. Just a very well-rounded player. He is not going to carry your offense but if he can develop into a Horford/Gasol type of bigman, that is incredibly valuable.
I'm curious, would you take Carter over Mikal Bridges, considering that Bridges fills a position of need, is a top defender, and is considered an elite 3 pt shooter. That's not a knock on Carter who shot the three well, 41.3% from the three, but only took 46 attempts. His freethrow percentage was fine at 73.8%. But when you consider that Bridges shot 43.5% from the three, and took 239 attempts, and considering that Bridges shot 39% from the three the year before, I think it's a safer bet to believe that Bridges will be a good three point shooter in the NBA. By the way, Bridges shot 85.1% from the freethrow line.

I like Carter, but I'm not quite sure what he is, which doesn't seem to matter as much today. People keep referring to him as a center, but he is only 6'9". I've always looked at him as a PF. The first time I saw him play he reminded me of a young David West, and there's nothing wrong with that. Anyway, I'm curious why you might take Carter over say, Bridges or Porter, considering we have a need at SF?
 
Another interesting article from the Stepien by Mike Gribbanov. He comes at the draft from a few different angles. Worth the read...

https://www.thestepien.com/2018/04/28/mike-gribanovs-post-early-entry-2018-big-board/
Did you by any chance read the article they wrote about big boards and decision trees? Extremely long, but I think it's worth the read. https://www.thestepien.com/2018/04/26/big-boards-and-decision-trees/

I agree with his point
Some of these guys may be older by draft standards, but they are still at worst in the very start of their prime on the developmental age curve. Age is the best single indicator of future improvement, but the best answer to “which prospects in this draft will improve the most?” is still “I don’t know”.
I just can't agree with Ayton being in tier 3 and that low.
Still, I just couldn’t bring myself to rank Ayton any lower as I found his physical talent too imposing and intriguing to pass up
...his physical talents shouldn't be the main thing preventing the writer from dropping Ayton any lower than 7. Is defense why he has him that low? If you're talking about horrible defense, then KAT and Jokic take the icing. That's 2 of the world's best centers..who aslo happen to be horrible on defense(lots of Denver fans complain about Jokic on this end). I also haven't seen any of the attitude or motor concerns people have said about Ayton. Not necesarilly aimed towards this writer, but he just can't win with some of these draft pundits. If he demands the ball, then he's being a ball-hog. If he's not demanding the ball, then he's floating. In what ways do they want him to contribute off-ball? If he weren't rebounding and boxing out, then I'd understand, but the guy was statistically the 5th best rebounder in the country... probably the best in college ball.

If you put him in the NBA right now, I don't think he'd be a decent defender. With his physical tools, he could be an elite defender. But so can a lot of guys who never reach that level.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Did you by any chance read the article they wrote about big boards and decision trees? Extremely long, but I think it's worth the read. https://www.thestepien.com/2018/04/26/big-boards-and-decision-trees/

I agree with his point

I just can't agree with Ayton being in tier 3 and that low. ...his physical talents shouldn't be the main thing preventing the writer from dropping Ayton any lower than 7. Is defense why he has him that low? If you're talking about horrible defense, then KAT and Jokic take the icing. That's 2 of the world's best centers..who aslo happen to be horrible on defense(lots of Denver fans complain about Jokic on this end). I also haven't seen any of the attitude or motor concerns people have said about Ayton. Not necesarilly aimed towards this writer, but he just can't win with some of these draft pundits. If he demands the ball, then he's being a ball-hog. If he's not demanding the ball, then he's floating. In what ways do they want him to contribute off-ball? If he weren't rebounding and boxing out, then I'd understand, but the guy was statistically the 5th best rebounder in the country... probably the best in college ball.

If you put him in the NBA right now, I don't think he'd be a decent defender. With his physical tools, he could be an elite defender. But so can a lot of guys who never reach that level.
Yeah, I read that article. I read most of the articles on the Stepien. Actually I read a lot of stuff by a lot of people. Some of which confirms what I already know, and some of which makes me look at things in a different light. We tend to get locked into looking at things a certain way, and a different perspective can be refreshing. Or sometimes humiliating! :eek: Yeah, I don't totally agree on Ayton either, but I do share some of his fears about him. He's so talented that I don't think he can be a bad player, but my worry is that he'll never be as good as he can be.

I had the same fears about Wiggins, who is not a bad player, but isn't as good as I think he can be. I call it the Derrick Coleman syndrome. Coleman was so freaking talented he didn't have to try. So he didn't. He was still an all star, but there was always something lacking. But hey, maybe it's our expectations that are wrong. Then there's the other side of the coin. Think about this. Oladipo was the 146th ranked highschool player in the nation, and after three years at the University of Indiana, he was the 2nd pick in the NBA draft. And now, in his fifth year in the league, he's a star on the verge of doing something to Lebron that no one has done. So you never know. And that's why I never pass judgement on a player after one year. Papagiannis excepted..

That's also why I always say it's an individual thing. Of course you have to have the physical abilities. But 50% of it is what's between the ears. And that's the hardest part to judge. Frankly, it's easier to judge when a player stays in college two to three years because you can see if there's any growth. Much harder with a one and done. But it is what it is. Just as easy to be wrong as it is to be right. I'll say this! Over the years I've changed my way of looking at things. I've become prone to value what is, more than what might be. I've been burn't too many times on what might be. Talking about potential of course.
 
I'm curious, would you take Carter over Mikal Bridges, considering that Bridges fills a position of need, is a top defender, and is considered an elite 3 pt shooter. That's not a knock on Carter who shot the three well, 41.3% from the three, but only took 46 attempts. His freethrow percentage was fine at 73.8%. But when you consider that Bridges shot 43.5% from the three, and took 239 attempts, and considering that Bridges shot 39% from the three the year before, I think it's a safer bet to believe that Bridges will be a good three point shooter in the NBA. By the way, Bridges shot 85.1% from the freethrow line.

I like Carter, but I'm not quite sure what he is, which doesn't seem to matter as much today. People keep referring to him as a center, but he is only 6'9". I've always looked at him as a PF. The first time I saw him play he reminded me of a young David West, and there's nothing wrong with that. Anyway, I'm curious why you might take Carter over say, Bridges or Porter, considering we have a need at SF?
Thats such a tough question. I have both Bridges and Carter (and even Miles Bridges) rated quite similarly. I like all three of them! They are the reason I dont worry about picking in the 7-9 range. It wouldnt shock me to see Bridges being more impactful on winning than MPJ or Carter being more valuable than any other big in this draft.
I think in a vacuum I would still put Carter over Bridges. But if youre drafting for the Kings you can make the argument for Bridges, both for Mikal and Miles. The Kings lack good wing talent and good two-way wings are probably the most difficult to acquire in the NBA right now. And you can pick up an average center for cheap and be fine with it.
You bring up a good point about Carter. If he ends up being more of a PF than a C then I would move him down because he is not going to provide the same value. But if he can hold down the 5-spot and check other big centers I think he can be incredibly valuable on offense by dragging them out to the 3 point line.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Thats such a tough question. I have both Bridges and Carter (and even Miles Bridges) rated quite similarly. I like all three of them! They are the reason I dont worry about picking in the 7-9 range. It wouldnt shock me to see Bridges being more impactful on winning than MPJ or Carter being more valuable than any other big in this draft.
I think in a vacuum I would still put Carter over Bridges. But if youre drafting for the Kings you can make the argument for Bridges, both for Mikal and Miles. The Kings lack good wing talent and good two-way wings are probably the most difficult to acquire in the NBA right now. And you can pick up an average center for cheap and be fine with it.
You bring up a good point about Carter. If he ends up being more of a PF than a C then I would move him down because he is not going to provide the same value. But if he can hold down the 5-spot and check other big centers I think he can be incredibly valuable on offense by dragging them out to the 3 point line.
Don't disagree about Carter and the five position. Thing is, what if Giles can do the same thing, and do it better. And if so, then drafting Carter when we have a great need at SF would be somewhat redundant. I love the athleticism that Miles brings, but he's more of a, attack the basket player than a spread the floor player. At least right now. He's a decent defender, but not the defender that Mikal is. And Mikal is a far better 3 pt shooter. That's not to say that Miles won't be a better player five years from now, but I'm more willing to go with what is, over what might be.

Another reason I like Mikal is that he comes from a system that's very similar to what the Kings are trying to build. Drive and kick and move the ball until you get the open shot. He's unselfish, a pretty good passer, and he'll help spread the floor.
 
I would NOT draft Carter. Not that i dont like him, but just look at the playoffs. Every team goes small. We have plenty of bigs alreafy. 1 more just isnt that valuable. Wings wings wings
 
Shooting is the most important thing in today's NBA. I don't think that's even debatable anymore. Fox is a below average shooter right now, so we need as much shooting as we can get.

Carter JR can shoot the 3, so I'd have no problem with him. However, if we're talking future playoff run, there's no way we can play 2 traditional bigs at the same time. If we pick Carter Jr, then I don't see any future plans for WCS or Giles except off the bench. PFs have become extremely athletic and long, and then you also have to deal with small ball 4s. WCS struggles just guarding stretch 4s, and he's more agile that any big on our roster.

So if we pick Carter Jr, I'd expect us to unload WCS. They can't coexist, unless you're looking for a 30w team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.