I don't have insider, can anyone give the jist of what the article says?
Pick Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 QO
1 $4,286,900 $4,479,800 $4,672,700 26.10% 30.00%
2 $3,835,600 $4,008,200 $4,180,800 26.20% 30.50%
3 $3,444,400 $3,599,400 $3,754,400 26.40% 31.20%
4 $3,105,500 $3,245,200 $3,385,000 26.50% 31.90%
5 $2,812,200 $2,938,700 $3,065,300 26.70% 32.60%
6 $2,554,200 $2,669,100 $2,784,100 26.80% 33.40%
7 $2,331,700 $2,436,600 $2,541,600 27.00% 34.10%
8 $2,136,100 $2,232,200 $2,328,300 27.20% 34.80%
9 $1,963,600 $2,052,000 $2,140,300 27.40% 35.50%
What a scam that is. Insider, inside on what?
The same crap on non-insider except slightly more detailed.
About two million dollars cheaper and two years younger. I still think that JB is the better player and would prefer him over a rookie playing at the toughest position in the league. I think that JB deserves his QO but, just in case he want to play hard ball for more.
If we cannot draft any of the clear favorites we must think about trading down. Drafting someone like Lilliard makes no sense right now. We have the cap space to bring in a big time player. Package a 8-12 range pick + player to get a starter from a team loaded with talent and lacking cap space.
Why not look for talent in the second rounders if we cannot draft top 6? antonio davis, rondo, steph jackson, Gortat, Ginobili, Gasol, Monta , Mo, Scola, Varejao, Boozer, Okur, rashard lewis, arenas, therodman were all second rounders.
The Toronto Raptors, believe it or not, had about as perfect a season as they could have hoped for, outside of becoming a serious contender, that is.
First and foremost, first-year coach Dwayne Casey proved to be a keeper, convincing his players to defend with better purpose and passion. Perhaps only the New York Knicks improved as much on defense from last season, and this improvement in Toronto will be a strong foundation moving forward.
Then they watched as their top pick from last June's draft, Jonas Valanciunas, proved to be the exciting prospect they had hoped for, as he played well last summer and through his current season in Europe. And all this happened while the Raptors kept losing games, assuring them of a very high draft pick in the 2012 draft. Indeed, this team obviously still has a lot of needs. But it looks like the Raptors should be able to fill an important spot no matter where they pick in the lottery come May 30. This is a team that is rapidly acquiring and developing talent.
Needs: Athleticism on the front line, perimeter shooters on the wings, guard depth
The obvious pick: Anthony Davis
Certainly this will happen if the Raptors somehow get the No. 1 pick. And yes, even though Davis would battle both Andrea Bargnani and Valanciunas for playing time, he would make a huge impact in Toronto, which fields a number of below-the-rim players inside. Coming off the bench, Davis would still get as much playing time as he'd need, and he fits well next to either of those two guys.
Kind of fits: Andre Drummond
The Raptors wisely chose Valanciunas last year knowing they would let him develop for a season overseas first. They could do the same thing with Drummond, perhaps using the D-League properly and letting Drummond build his skill set, confidence and overall basketball IQ there. It's possible he could develop into a good partner with Valanciunas, perhaps letting the Raps move off Bargnani. But developing two bigs at the same time is challenging. If not Drummond, Kansas' Thomas Robinson would add immediate help to their biggest need, with his great quickness for a guy that strong.
Bad fit: Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
Kidd-Gilchrist would give them much-needed athleticism and energy, but his poor perimeter shooting will not likely allow him to stretch defenses for some time, if ever. However, let's be clear: Kidd-Gilchrist would not be a disastrous pick. It's just that picking so high, the Raptors will have better choices available.
Perfect fit: Bradley Beal, Thomas Robinson
DeMar DeRozan is a good NBA scorer, but his lack of perimeter shooting and suspect defense warrants looking into a replacement, if it makes sense. It makes sense with Beal, who projects as an outstanding shooter and a very good scorer. He should become a better player than DeRozan in almost every other facet of the game. In fact, adding Beal would allow the Raptors to bring DeRozan off the bench, where he could end up being an excellent sixth man while still being a primary scorer. Both guys could even finish games together since Beal will be able to defend many small forwards thanks to his length and strength. Toronto can't go wrong with Robinson, either, as he would fill a huge need for athleticism on the front line with the perfect game for Casey -- tough and energetic and willing to fight and defend. Robinson would play major minutes as a rookie and improve the Raptors in his first season.
rondo was not a second rounder
A lot of decisions. If we end up picking 1-3, we draft BPA. Between 3-7 or so, we draft/trade down or up. And so on and so on. I think once we know where we are picking, and analyze the different mocks and other team needs, all we can hope for is Anthony Davis.
I'm starting to like the idea of drafting Beal. Only because Colangelo and Casey mentioned something about moving Derozan to the small forward. Added strength and his very good athleticism won't be as much as a liability there as I thought. He is 6'7, 220 pounds, so having a starting line of:
That would be a keeper moving forward. Plus the money we have in terms of cap space to sign/trade for talent, we'd be a good team in the future imo.
we already saw this article bro. Go to the draft thread, y'all need to pay more attention
“Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”
― John Wooden
"Lillard still hasn't shown a great deal in terms of pure playmaking ability, but he looks to have nice passing instincts on dribble penetration, and his role at Weber State calls for him to be their primary scorer, so it's tough to get a gauge of just how much of a distributor he might be in a different situation."
So, unlike Bayless, we don't know for sure that Lillard can't be a good playmaker.
Also, not sure why having cap space means we shouldn't draft a given player. I mean , I can see trading down for the right trade, for sure, but until I know what is being offered, how do I know if it's better than Lillard?
Lillard has just as much of a chance of becoming a franchise player as MKG, Beal, or Barnes at this stage, who all have questions too.
If we did trade down, I would go for Tony Mitchell. If trading down meant we could get him and Jae Crowder, that would be awesome. We would definitely have a glut of combo forwards then.
I really hate trade speculation we should keep those in the trade forum
I don't usually bother going on NBADraft.net but, I couldn't sleep and I was bored. When I was on there found this semi interesting article. Highlighted the parts I found most interesting.
http://www.nbadraft.net/nba-draft-po...ct-competitorsThere's a lot of parity in this year's first round draft pool. Outside of Anthony Davis, every prospect has a positional nemesis that can offer a similar package of services. Here's a look at who each prospect will be directly competing against when scouts and GMs conduct their evaluations.
Harrison Barnes vs. Michael Kidd Gilchrist
Theme: Small Forwards with Contrast
Harrison Barnes vs. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
The top two small forwards have very contrasting styles.
Barnes plays strictly on the perimeter, using his three-point shooting touch to spread the floor and midrange game to score off the dribble. A team looking to compliment its big guys or point guard with a spot-up threat and floor-spacer would likely look at Barnes. However he's not the answer for a team looking to add a top one or two scoring option. If Barnes' jumper is off that day, he's liable to be a non-factor.
On the other hand, Kidd-Gilchrist is an impact player whether his shot is on or off, and is the much better defender and leader. There's more risk associated with eating from the bowl of nuts on the bar than there is with MKG. And when selecting in the top five, it's always wiser going with what you know over what you don't.
These players matched up in the early part of the season, and the freshman MKG got the desided advantage. He also benefits from UK winning the National title. Gilchrist is probably the first one off the board, particularly after Brnes tourney performance, but Barnes could certainly be the one that ends up with the better NBA career because he's the better offensive talent.
Andre Drummond vs. Thomas Robinson
Theme: Power Athletes
Guys like Drummond and Robinson are why basketball hoop manufacturers had to create breakaway rims.
This is your heavyweight matchup. Both possess the athleticism and mobility that allow big men who lack seasoning to prosper down low. You won't find this combination of power, explosiveness and feel for the game anywhere else on the board. But Drummond and Robinson are both very different as prospects.
Drummond has the size and higher ceiling, while T-Rob is more polished and less vulnerable to underachieving. However the value of a top five pick is too high, and the thought of "wasting" one could be a little too unsettling. Though Drummond has the potential to be dominant at the next level, he also comes with considerable risk when you think about past big men with raw offensive packages.
That should be enough to make Robinson the choice, although allowing Drummond to slip too far could be a painful error in judgement.
Jeremy Lamb vs. Bradley Beal
Theme: Off-guards with Upside
If a team is looking for scoring at the off-guard slot, it's likely that Lamb and Beal will be their top two options.
Two very different builds, Lamb is long and thin while Beal is strong and compact. Lamb has the upside edge as a prolific perimeter scorer who can create moving East/West or North/South. He does have question marks about his attitude and lack of urgency, failing to fulfill go-to duties as a sophomore.
Bradley Beal has a picturesque catch and release jumper, with a frame that aces the NBA eye test. And where Lamb's inconsistency and questionable shot selection could hurt his team, Beal's strengths play to his ability to fit in and compliment his counterparts.
Beal remains the safer option with Lamb owning the higher ceiling. Just a matter of a GM's willingness to roll the dice.
Austin Rivers vs. Damian Lillard vs. Dion Waiters
The common theme between the three revolves around their scoring mentalities off the dribble. All three can handle the ball. And all three definitely think shoot before pass- not necessarily a negative assuming that's the role they're auditioning for.
Rivers has the most upside of the group with a polished overall offensive repertoire and the confidence to execute in the clutch. Some question his ability to play off the ball, but I thought he did a pretty nice job considering the adjustment from one year to the next. Still, at 6'4 with a skinny frame, there's risk associated with Rivers as a one on one scorer playing the 2.
Waiters has the most NBA ready body, with broad shoulders, upper body strength and upward explosiveness. He averaged 12.6 points in 24 minutes a game, illustrating his ability to score in bunches in dynamic fashion. He doesn't have the ceiling of Rivers or the range and consistency of Lillard, but he'll have valuable experience playing the same role in college as he's destined to play in the pros.
Lillard has just become too good of a scorer. He's only 6'2 but can throw the orange through the basket from practically any spot on the floor. Sometimes GMs fall in love with that quality, like the Kings did with Jimmer Fredette.
If you're taking Lillard it's because you think he's too good of a ball-player to pass on, regardless of physical limitations. If you're taking Rivers it's because you see him becoming your second scoring option or a punch off the bench. And if you're taking Waiters it's probably because the other two are gone, but generally because of his ability to revive a flat-lining offense.
Arnett Moultrie vs. Perry Jones
Theme: Athletic, Size that Moves
Both hover around 6'11 yet have the mobility of small forwards.
We're still trying to figure out Jones' strengths. We know about his physical tools, ball-handling skills and all around level of talent- but what is his true identity? What is he going to do to help a team at the next level? These are questions execs and coaches will be asking when they consider Perry Jones.
Arnett Moultrie's identity is a little more clear. He's a fantastic athlete who gets up and down the floor, makes plays off the ball and rebounds at a high rate. He's not someone you're going to give the ball to and say get me a bucket down 1 with time running out. But his role is defined, and that's what separates him from Jones.
Jones has the upside advantage in this one. If things do finally click for him, someone will have pulled off a robbery. Remember, it wasn't too long ago Jones was considered a candidate for 1st pick overall. But questions do remain, which can trigger hesitation from active GMs.
Myers Leonard vs. Tyler Zeller
Theme: Traditional 5s
Your true centers, ladies and gentlemen.
Leonard is the better athlete and reaches that ever-so satisfying 7-foot mark. He's shown a nice touch in the midrange as well, and maintains substantial upside considering his size and skill-set.
Zeller is different in a lot of ways, playing considerably more minutes while receiving a much higher volume of touches. Zeller has to fight for a number of his points, and has a tremendous feel for the rim regardless of his positioning. He's got some post moves that have worked for him in the past, and there's no reason to believe that can't translate to the next level.
Teams selecting between the two will have to decide which they value more: The guy who's done it on a consistent basis or the guy whose potential is higher if his ceiling is reached. Risk vs. reward, a common pickle GMs find themselves in when selecting one prospect over another.
Jared Sullinger vs. John Henson
Both men love that painted box that extended 15 feet from the baseline and 12 feet elbow to elbow. Except both excel at opposite ends of the floor.
Sullinger's strengths revolve around his offensive post game, where he's capable of using angles playing back to the basket. While his outside stroke is a work in progress, a team looking for some points in the paint is likely to go with Sullinger.
Henson's length and defensive timing is what makes him such an appealing front-line addition. Occasionally he hits a 15 footer or converts on a hook, but a team interested in Henson will be looking for rim protection.
Two post players with completely opposite selling points. Just depends what a team is looking to buy.
Doron Lamb vs. Terrence Ross
Theme: Knockdown Shooters
If there's one thing I learned as a business major, it's the idea of recognizing your core competency- "A unique ability that a company (or prospect in this case) develops that cannot be easily imitated".
Terrence Ross and Doron Lamb share the same core competency- the ability to shoot the ball. That's what they'll be selling scouts on.
When comparing the two, GMs will weigh ball-handling, poise and efficiency against size, athleticism and upside, with Ross of course possessing the latter. Lamb shot lights out at 45% from downtown compared to Ross' 37%, but remains a bigger liability defensively.
Is it worth sacrificing defense for a few three-point percentage points? A decision that will keep GMs up at night.
Moe Harkless vs. Terrence Jones
These guys have the size, athleticism and mobility to play both the 3 and the 4. Put em' on the perimeter or let em' work the post.
Harkless is smooth, and can generally operate from any spot on the floor. He's an excellent, fluid athlete that scores off tip-ins, awkward angles or in transition. Jones plays a similar game, with a more accomplished outside stroke but a motor that sparks widespread debate. Playing two years of collegiate ball is like an eternity these days, and Jones' impact has been flushed out at times thanks to a deep rotation of pro prospects.
Both guys have very similar outlooks, but Harkless' ceiling appears higher. Though it could be a few years before he becomes a consistent contributor, I'm going with Harkless over Jones. Although if you feel otherwise, I ain't mad at'cha.
Royce White vs. Jeffery Taylor
It's a luxury for a coach to be able to say, "Guard Jrue Holiday in the first quarter and Andre Iguadala in the 2nd", or " Raymond Felton you're out, Royce White, you're in".
Two versatile players that can handle multiple positions, both fit the role as serviceable rotational cogs. You can run the offense through White, who led the Cyclones in assists standing 6'8. He's also effective on the glass, pulling in 9 a game despite being not filling the position his size suggests he would.
Taylor can guard 4 positions and pose as a stretch perimeter forward after shooting 42% from downtown. He's known more for finishing plays, while White makes them happen. Same labels, different products.
Kendall Marshall vs. Marquis Teague
These are really the only true points guards worthy of first round consideration.
We know of Marshall's vision and extraordinary passing skills. Ironically his impact became magnified when he wasn't playing, as UNC struggled to run their offense with Marshall sitting in a suit.
Teague ran the point of the National Champion Wildcats, but clearly lacks the quarterback instincts and tools of Marshall. I don't even think this one is close. Marshall should be the first legitimate facilitator off the board, followed by Teague.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)