S I article on top four, and video of Michael Gilchrist workout:

[bajaden]

Here's an article with Observations on Davis, Gilchrist, Robinson, and Beal. But its the video of a Gilchrist workout as he prepares for the draft that shows why, I and all the scouts just love this kid.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20....prospects/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t13_a0

 

[upinsmoke]

We really need that top 3/2 spot this year, If we luck out and land him i bet he elevates everyone's work ethic #Leader.

 

[Arkitect]

If we land MKG or Davis and don't do anything else we would be in the playoffs next season. Both fill positions our big positions of need.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Part 2 is up, on the high-risk, high-reward guys:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/05/17/draft.risk.reward/index.html

 

[Bricklayer]

Part 2 is up, on the high-risk, high-reward guys:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/05/17/draft.risk.reward/index.html

And as always I say you have to bring in Drummond for one workout, then bring him back for another one, before you write him off. Make sure he doesn't have a weed problem like certain former UConn shotblocking centers, or a brain problem like others. But damn if he wouldn't be nearly perfect if he is focused. Huge athletic shotblocker who can run the floor, has passing instincts, but doesn't want/need the ball on offense?

 

[Anthony1]

I agree with the top 4 thing. I think if we got stuck in the 4th spot, with Davis, Robinson and MKG all gone, we gotta go Beal despite the fact that it makes the least sense in regards to our current roster. An argument could be made with going with Drummond, in the hope that he pans out and we would have a dominating front court for the next 10 years, but it's not worth the risk when Baby Wade is staring you in the face, lol.

Of course, if we end up in the 5th spot, and Beal is off the board, then I hope Geoff trades the pick to Portland or Houston or somebody that has two picks in the top 17. One thing that seems obvious, after those top 4 guys, and then the gamble with Drummond at 5, it seems that from 6 to about 17 is a crap shoot. The guy you take at 6 might end up no better than somebody snagged at 17. Of course, that's always the case when you just don't know how these guys are going to pan out, but it just seems like the draft is really deep from about 6 to 13 or 14, and you can even extend it down to about 17 depending on how many mistakes are made by other GM's along the way...

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I agree with the top 4 thing. I think if we got stuck in the 4th spot, with Davis, Robinson and MKG all gone, we gotta go Beal despite the fact that it makes the least sense in regards to our current roster.

We cannot get the #4 slot due to the lotto process. If we hit, we go 1, 2, or 3. If we miss, we go 5, 6, 7, or disastrously, 8.

Right now if I were drafting our draft board would be pretty simple for the most part. I'd guess that no matter who is drafting, the top-5 are likely to be Davis/MKG/Robinson/Drummond/Beal in some order. I'd go like this:
1: Anthony Davis
2: MKG
3: MKG/Robinson
5: Here it's tricky. MKG/Robinson if available, but if it's Drummond/Beal left I might lean Barnes. And this is just based on team needs, with Beal cluttering the backcourt and Drummond risky. I'd be open to trade down one slot (for Barnes) if we were sure the other team wanted Drummond/Beal and we actually made out ahead in the other half of the deal.
6: Barnes
7: Barnes/Henson
8: Barnes/Henson/Sullinger

I'm sure there'll be some disagreement, but that's my list right now. (I reserve the right to change my mind completely! )

 

[bajaden]

I agree with the top 4 thing. I think if we got stuck in the 4th spot, with Davis, Robinson and MKG all gone, we gotta go Beal despite the fact that it makes the least sense in regards to our current roster. An argument could be made with going with Drummond, in the hope that he pans out and we would have a dominating front court for the next 10 years, but it's not worth the risk when Baby Wade is staring you in the face, lol.

Of course, if we end up in the 5th spot, and Beal is off the board, then I hope Geoff trades the pick to Portland or Houston or somebody that has two picks in the top 17. One thing that seems obvious, after those top 4 guys, and then the gamble with Drummond at 5, it seems that from 6 to about 17 is a crap shoot. The guy you take at 6 might end up no better than somebody snagged at 17. Of course, that's always the case when you just don't know how these guys are going to pan out, but it just seems like the draft is really deep from about 6 to 13 or 14, and you can even extend it down to about 17 depending on how many mistakes are made by other GM's along the way...

I'd say the draft is deep all the way to around 25. It all depends on what your looking for. No doubt that when you get past the top 8 or so, your looking at players that either have more flaws, or their simply limited by their physical abilities. But if the fit is right, then you take that player. Like Kendall Marshall. From a PG point of view on the offensive side of the ball, he has no equal in the draft, except for maybe Scott Machado. But he played at Iona, in a much weaker conference. So Marshall is pure quality from a true PG prospective. But is he athletic enough to be a factor on the defensive side of the ball, and if not, does what he brings on the offensive side, outweigh the defensive side?

Even down at the bottom of the first round your going to have guys like Andrew Nicholson, who is a hell of a basketball player that I guarantee will make someone's roster. However, I wouldn't be opposed to trading out of the 5th spot, depending on whose there for a couple of first round picks. Simply because of the depth of this draft.

 

[bajaden]

And as always I say you have to bring in Drummond for one workout, then bring him back for another one, before you write him off. Make sure he doesn't have a weed problem like certain former UConn shotblocking centers, or a brain problem like others. But damn if he wouldn't be nearly perfect if he is focused. Huge athletic shotblocker who can run the floor, has passing instincts, but doesn't want/need the ball on offense?

I would definitely have a long hard look at Drummond. As much as he scares me, he's no Thabeet. He's ten times the athlete that Thabeet is, and despite the fact that he appears lost on offense at times, along with not showing enough aggression, he's far ahead of Thabeet in that catagory as well. I was telling a friend that I went back and rewatched a couple of UCONN's games, and in particular I watched Drummond. Defensively, he played somewhere between just OK, to terrific. But there was no doubt that he was far better on the defensive side of the ball, and he rebounded well.

I would think that the interview process will be one of the main factors, when it comes to deciding. Personally, I do think he'll be there when our turn comes if we remain at 5. I have no doubt that Barnes will be there as well. Barnes will be a solid player in the league, but I doubt he'll be a star. He won't be the last player that dominated in highschool, and was shocked that he couldn't do the same in college. After Davis, Drummond is the only player that would have the ability to one day match what Davis does. So we have to consider him!

 

[Uncia03]

We cannot get the #4 slot due to the lotto process. If we hit, we go 1, 2, or 3. If we miss, we go 5, 6, 7, or disastrously, 8.

Right now if I were drafting our draft board would be pretty simple for the most part. I'd guess that no matter who is drafting, the top-5 are likely to be Davis/MKG/Robinson/Drummond/Beal in some order. I'd go like this:
1: Anthony Davis
2: MKG
3: MKG/Robinson
5: Here it's tricky. MKG/Robinson if available, but if it's Drummond/Beal left I might lean Barnes. And this is just based on team needs, with Beal cluttering the backcourt and Drummond risky. I'd be open to trade down one slot (for Barnes) if we were sure the other team wanted Drummond/Beal and we actually made out ahead in the other half of the deal.
6: Barnes
7: Barnes/Henson
8: Barnes/Henson/Sullinger

I'm sure there'll be some disagreement, but that's my list right now. (I reserve the right to change my mind completely! )

If I have the 5th pick and I have to take it, I'll take Barnes if he's available and if he's not, then take the Drummond risk if he's available.

With that said, I'd have no problems trading the pick to Philly for Iggy and their late 1st rounder, or if I could trade the 5th pick for two 1st rounders and walk away with Jeffrey Taylor and Meyers Leonard I'd do that as well.

I was really impressed with Royce White in the tournament but as an organization you have to know that he can battle through his issues if you're going to take him in the 1st round.

I'm not a big fan of either Henson (Not physical enough) or Sullinger (should be solid but don't expect much more than that).

 

[bajaden]

We cannot get the #4 slot due to the lotto process. If we hit, we go 1, 2, or 3. If we miss, we go 5, 6, 7, or disastrously, 8.

Right now if I were drafting our draft board would be pretty simple for the most part. I'd guess that no matter who is drafting, the top-5 are likely to be Davis/MKG/Robinson/Drummond/Beal in some order. I'd go like this:
1: Anthony Davis
2: MKG
3: MKG/Robinson
5: Here it's tricky. MKG/Robinson if available, but if it's Drummond/Beal left I might lean Barnes. And this is just based on team needs, with Beal cluttering the backcourt and Drummond risky. I'd be open to trade down one slot (for Barnes) if we were sure the other team wanted Drummond/Beal and we actually made out ahead in the other half of the deal.
6: Barnes
7: Barnes/Henson
8: Barnes/Henson/Sullinger

I'm sure there'll be some disagreement, but that's my list right now. (I reserve the right to change my mind completely! )

I'd take Beal over Barnes, just because I think he'll be an overall better player. Of course that would throw us into a quandry with too many SG type players. You'd almost have to have a trade on the table in advance before making that pick. I'm not opposed to trading down for an extra pick, but if we end up 5th, I doubt that Portland would give up their second first round pick just to move up one spot. However, the Rockets have two picks at 14 and 16. At those spots you could probably grab one of Jeffery Taylor or Moe Harkless, and then Meyers Leonard or Arnett Moultrie. Hell, if your really ambitious, you could trade one of those picks to the Celtics, who would to draft Doc's son, Austin Rivers, for both their picks the 21st and 22nd picks in the draft.

I'm getting a little extreme here, but the point is, there are a lot of possibilities. My first order of business would be, if we end up staying in the 5th spot, would be to call who ever ends number one, and find out what it would take to pry that pick away from them. Because personally, I firmly believe, that if we can land Davis, its the beginning of a long run at the top of the food chain.

 

[Glenn]

I would definitely have a long hard look at Drummond. As much as he scares me, he's no Thabeet. He's ten times the athlete that Thabeet is, and despite the fact that he appears lost on offense at times, along with not showing enough aggression, he's far ahead of Thabeet in that catagory as well. I was telling a friend that I went back and rewatched a couple of UCONN's games, and in particular I watched Drummond. Defensively, he played somewhere between just OK, to terrific. But there was no doubt that he was far better on the defensive side of the ball, and he rebounded well.

I would think that the interview process will be one of the main factors, when it comes to deciding. Personally, I do think he'll be there when our turn comes if we remain at 5. I have no doubt that Barnes will be there as well. Barnes will be a solid player in the league, but I doubt he'll be a star. He won't be the last player that dominated in highschool, and was shocked that he couldn't do the same in college. After Davis, Drummond is the only player that would have the ability to one day match what Davis does. So we have to consider him!

It has been my impression starting back with the Webber trade that Petrie understands that this area has no clout in getting good players through free agency. That cuts out one of the three major ways of acquiring players. He is good at drafting and trades; meh! The impression I am getting is that he is will to take big chances in the hope of striking it rich because of our franchise's limitations. It worked with Webber. He tried Artest and a few others. It's been hit and miss. As to a conclusion, I'm beginnning to think he might swallow hard and draft Drummond. Big risk and big reward. Heck, at the worst how bad could it be except we missed out on the chance of getting someone better. And then there is the Cuz factor. Maybe Cuz will wake him up.

 

[Glenn]

Although I think the FO will anticipate most contingincies come draft day, I think the final deicion willl be made then and no sooner. There ARE lots of options and the trade wires better be burning brterrn Sacto and a few other cities. We need to shed some numbers and we have enough average skill to make a two for one trade reasonable. I don't know who with but we almost need to make such a trade.

 

[Kingster]

I would definitely have a long hard look at Drummond. As much as he scares me, he's no Thabeet. He's ten times the athlete that Thabeet is, and despite the fact that he appears lost on offense at times, along with not showing enough aggression, he's far ahead of Thabeet in that catagory as well. I was telling a friend that I went back and rewatched a couple of UCONN's games, and in particular I watched Drummond. Defensively, he played somewhere between just OK, to terrific. But there was no doubt that he was far better on the defensive side of the ball, and he rebounded well.

I would think that the interview process will be one of the main factors, when it comes to deciding. Personally, I do think he'll be there when our turn comes if we remain at 5. I have no doubt that Barnes will be there as well. Barnes will be a solid player in the league, but I doubt he'll be a star. He won't be the last player that dominated in highschool, and was shocked that he couldn't do the same in college. After Davis, Drummond is the only player that would have the ability to one day match what Davis does. So we have to consider him!

I don't think the interview process should tell you anything on Drummond, other than he gives a good interview, or not. It's not like his interview should convince you he's a great competitor on the court. If Drummond doesn't have fire in college, then why should we expect anything different in the NBA? When was the last time you saw a player in college that had "motor" issues in college who ended up as a good player in the NBA? Everything I've heard from you and others leads me to believe that we should run for the hills when it comes to Drummond. (And you can throw in Perry Jones in that group also).

 

[Uncia03]

I don't think the interview process should tell you anything on Drummond, other than he gives a good interview, or not. It's not like his interview should convince you he's a great competitor on the court. If Drummond doesn't have fire in college, then why should we expect anything different in the NBA? When was the last time you saw a player in college that had "motor" issues in college who ended up as a good player in the NBA? Everything I've heard from you and others leads me to believe that we should run for the hills when it comes to Drummond. (And you can throw in Perry Jones in that group also).

I'm one of Drummond's biggest critics...mostly because I saw him play a lot.
With that said, he's so very tantalizing a player who could just be absolutely perfect for us.

I think the interview process would be very important here. He's going to be asked to defend himself, he's going to have to try to explain why he had such a miserable year. If he says something like, "It just wasn't my year, but I'm sure I'll dominate at the next level." then I probably back off of him.
If he man's up and admits that he had a bad year, that he wasn't as prepared as he should have been, that he disappointed himself and that he's not going to let that happen in the future, then he gets a closer look. GMs are going to want to see some genuine passion and motivation and probably some contrition regarding his bad season, if they see it, then they will be more likely to take a chance on him.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing the combine interview with him. He's not on the media's 'bad side' so there shouldn't be a confrontational edge to the interview, but as a fan I'd like to know from him perspective why he was unable to perform at the level expected of him.

I'm also want to see Perry Jones III for the same reason. PJ3 could be an absolute super-star at the SF position if he could get the mentality, drive, passion, heart all to click with his athleticism and skill-set.
If he had declared last year, I would have taken him around the 5th pick, due solely on potential. After another bad season with all the same issues, he drops way down the list, because he wasn't able to address any of the issues/criticisms, and he just had more games that exposed the same problems. But I'd like to hear an interview with him having to explain himself.

 

[bajaden]

Having started, and run my own business, I know a little bit about the interview process. And I guarantee you, I can tell a lot about a person in that process. If it wasn't a valuable tool, it wouldn't be used by every successful business in the US. And to be honest, in most cases, it validates what you already presume. But it also lets you probe the mind of a person whose either trying to blow smoke, or be honest with his answers. I think Uncia03 summed it up perfectly.

Drummond coasted in highschool, because he could. He was just bigger, faster, and could jump higher than anyone he came up against. And I'm not excusing that. The burning question with Drummond, is does he have the desire to be a good player? Maybe a great player? Did he learn anything from his one year in college? Does he truely understand the effort required, despite his outstanding abilities, to be just a good player in the NBA? His past matters only as a measuring stick of his desire. If he can explain himself adequately, then he might be worth the gamble.

By the way, here is part three of Sam Amicks three part series on the draft.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/05/18/draft.safe.bets/index.html

 

[Kingster]

I'm one of Drummond's biggest critics...mostly because I saw him play a lot.
With that said, he's so very tantalizing a player who could just be absolutely perfect for us.

I think the interview process would be very important here. He's going to be asked to defend himself, he's going to have to try to explain why he had such a miserable year. If he says something like, "It just wasn't my year, but I'm sure I'll dominate at the next level." then I probably back off of him.
If he man's up and admits that he had a bad year, that he wasn't as prepared as he should have been, that he disappointed himself and that he's not going to let that happen in the future, then he gets a closer look. GMs are going to want to see some genuine passion and motivation and probably some contrition regarding his bad season, if they see it, then they will be more likely to take a chance on him.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing the combine interview with him. He's not on the media's 'bad side' so there shouldn't be a confrontational edge to the interview, but as a fan I'd like to know from him perspective why he was unable to perform at the level expected of him.

I'm also want to see Perry Jones III for the same reason. PJ3 could be an absolute super-star at the SF position if he could get the mentality, drive, passion, heart all to click with his athleticism and skill-set.
If he had declared last year, I would have taken him around the 5th pick, due solely on potential. After another bad season with all the same issues, he drops way down the list, because he wasn't able to address any of the issues/criticisms, and he just had more games that exposed the same problems. But I'd like to hear an interview with him having to explain himself.

If I'm a GM I let his actions on the court do the talking. All the contrition in the world doesn't do it. Maybe the guy is a good actor. It's not like he wouldn't be motivated to talk a good game. Maybe he's sincerely contrite as hell in the interview, and he reverts to his old self in the NBA. Talking just shouldn't make any difference in this situation. It's not like there is a shortage of talkers who don't back up their talk.

 

[bajaden]

If I'm a GM I let his actions on the court do the talking. All the contrition in the world doesn't do it. Maybe the guy is a good actor. It's not like he wouldn't be motivated to talk a good game. Maybe he's sincerely contrite as hell in the interview, and he reverts to his old self in the NBA. Talking just shouldn't make any difference in this situation. It's not like there is a shortage of talkers who don't back up their talk.

I don't disagree with anything you say. No one deny's that he's a risky pick. But also bear in mind, that he was only 18 yr's old, and one's life is hardly written in stone at that age. If we were talking about a player that with the right incentive, and hard work, he might become a good starter or rotational player, that would different. But were talking about a player that with the right incentive and hard work, could be a superstar. Your right, you surely don't want to make the mistake of drafting him and have him turn out to be a bust. But at the same time, you don't want to pass on him and have him turn out to be a star, or even a superstar in the league.

So I think you have to do your due dilligence and convince yourself one way or the other, your making the right decision. I can almost guarantee you that if we stay at five, and we pass on Drummond, that Portland will snatch him up. The last thing I want to see is Drummond handing us our heads for the next 10 years. I was very honest about Thabeet. I didn't think he could play in the NBA. At least not for a few years, if ever. But Drummond is a different story. He's quite capable of playing in the NBA. The question is, does he really want it.

The interview process is part of that. And its not about contrition. There's no one to apologize to. The only person he's hurting is himself. What your trying to find out is why he had the problems he had, and how well he can articulate that. Was he simply overconfident and cocky, and then found out that it was more difficult than he thought. Was he somewhat a victim of the system he played in, similar to Derrick Favors. There's no doubt he played with a selfish PG in Shabazz Napier. Even Jemery Lamb had a down year playing along side Napier. Its not just cut and dry, or black and white.

Bear in mind, I'm not advocating that we draft him. But I don't think we can just ignore his abilities. Which is the bigger mistake? Drafting him and having him not necessarily be a bust, but no better than a rotational player, or, not drafting him and having him turn out to be a star, or superstar?

 

[Bricklayer]

The other part with Drummond is that we don't NEED to draft a star or superstar here to come out winners if we draft the right sort of player. If we can come out with an athletic shotblocing starting quality big, we win. We've plugged a huge hole. So with a guy like Drummond, you draft him for potential stardom sure. But if he turns out NOT to be a star, he could still be good enough to be a major piece for you. Unless he flat scrubs out of the league, he's useful. There is';t that same sort of fallback position on some of the other guys, where they conflict with our current personnel or play positions we don't need. With guys like that you NEED them to become stars worthy of changing your whole team and scheme around to make room for them. If they fall short and are just good or solid players, then they aren't terribly useful.

 

[bajaden]

The other part with Drummond is that we don't NEED to draft a star or superstar here to come out winners if we draft the right sort of player. If we can come out with an athletic shotblocing starting quality big, we win. We've plugged a huge hole. So with a guy like Drummond, you draft him for potential stardom sure. But if he turns out NOT to be a star, he could still be good enough to be a major piece for you. Unless he flat scrubs out of the league, he's useful. There is';t that same sort of fallback position on some of the other guys, where they conflict with our current personnel or play positions we don't need. With guys like that you NEED them to become stars worthy of changing your whole team and scheme around to make room for them. If they fall short and are just good or solid players, then they aren't terribly useful.

I think thats a reasonable point of view. And, I think thats the point. Drummond can, and probably as worse, be useful to the team. I know thats not what everyone would want to hear, but if I had to choose between Henson and Drummond, I'm taking Drummond, because he can be as good as Henson without trying. I would use Derrick Coleman as a rough example. He could have been maybe the best PF of all time. He was one of the most talented PF's to ever come out of college. Unfortunately, he just didn't have the drive or desire to be great, but he was so talented, he still became an all star, and one of the better PF's in the league. Billy Owens is another example, but to a lesser degree.

 

[Kingster]

I don't disagree with anything you say. No one deny's that he's a risky pick. But also bear in mind, that he was only 18 yr's old, and one's life is hardly written in stone at that age. If we were talking about a player that with the right incentive, and hard work, he might become a good starter or rotational player, that would different. But were talking about a player that with the right incentive and hard work, could be a superstar. Your right, you surely don't want to make the mistake of drafting him and have him turn out to be a bust. But at the same time, you don't want to pass on him and have him turn out to be a star, or even a superstar in the league.

So I think you have to do your due dilligence and convince yourself one way or the other, your making the right decision. I can almost guarantee you that if we stay at five, and we pass on Drummond, that Portland will snatch him up. The last thing I want to see is Drummond handing us our heads for the next 10 years. I was very honest about Thabeet. I didn't think he could play in the NBA. At least not for a few years, if ever. But Drummond is a different story. He's quite capable of playing in the NBA. The question is, does he really want it.

The interview process is part of that. And its not about contrition. There's no one to apologize to. The only person he's hurting is himself. What your trying to find out is why he had the problems he had, and how well he can articulate that. Was he simply overconfident and cocky, and then found out that it was more difficult than he thought. Was he somewhat a victim of the system he played in, similar to Derrick Favors. There's no doubt he played with a selfish PG in Shabazz Napier. Even Jemery Lamb had a down year playing along side Napier. Its not just cut and dry, or black and white.

Bear in mind, I'm not advocating that we draft him. But I don't think we can just ignore his abilities. Which is the bigger mistake? Drafting him and having him not necessarily be a bust, but no better than a rotational player, or, not drafting him and having him turn out to be a star, or superstar?

I'll be happy not to draft him and have him be some other teams' problem. I don't disagree about anything you say other than the value of the interview process for Drummond. I place zero weight on the interview when it comes to "motor" issues. If the guy has made "mistakes", yes, I'll listen to what he has to say. But with Drummond, it's about fire in the belly, which isn't about a failure of judgement due to immaturity; it's due to an absence of passion for the game. You can't talk your way out of that one. To me, the interview process for this guy is a waste of time, or worse, it's the opening for a desperate team to convince themselves that this guy is ok, that they can turn him around. The last thing I want on this team is an immature guy who doesn't have the fire in the belly to improve his game. If anything, because of the immaturity of our current team we should weight things like brains, maturity, and fire in the belly more heavily in the evaluation process.

 

[Kingster]

What we NEED on this is a WINNER. A guy who is willing to do what it takes to win. A guy who can't stand losing so much he's willing to sacrifice his stats and do all the non-staff stuff in order to win. We don't need immaturity, stupidity, laziness, and selfishness. We've seen way to much of that.