# croco's Mock v1 2009



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

About time I get one up. This first version is about where I think they should go and what makes sense in my opinion, not what is going to happen. 

Let me start off by stating that the longer I tried to come up with a choice for every team, I realized that I would try to trade down at least 10 spots and pick up more tools in the process. Nobody excites as much that he is worth being taken second overall and the talent discepancy from the third or fourth player to the sixteenth or seventeenth isn't overly large. There are about a dozen players who could become All-Star caliber players down the road if everything falls into place, however why would you spend the fifth pick on someone if you are a bad team when you could have similar success with a prospect you drafted 16th overall ? Again, I'm not excited about this year's group overall:


*1. Los Angeles Clippers -* Blake Griffin
This is the ideal situation to overhaul the entire team and coaching staff, obviously it's not going to happen since they are the Clippers and Donald Sterling is in charge. Still, just by adding Griffin they will have a legit shot at 40 wins and maybe even the playoffs next year. Gordon and Griffin are a nice building block and you would have to screw up royally to not build a playoff team. 

*2. Memphis Grizzlies -* Hasheem Thabeet
I'm not sold on Rubio, I'm just not. Is he going to be a dynamic scorer and playmaker at the same time or is he a smart ballhandler and distributor who will struggle to put points on the board ? Thabeet's worst case scenario is one of the best defensive stalwarts in the league who will be challenged offensively. No matter who the Grizzlies take, they will continue to be one of the worst teams in the West and get another Top 10 pick in next year's draft when they should be able to grab another prospect, maybe even someone who will have more impact.

*3. Oklahoma City Thunder -* Jrue Holiday
While you might think this doesn't make sense, who would you rather have at this point ? Is Rubio really a better prospect or anyone else for that matter ? OKC has a similar player in Westbrook, but someone like Jordan Hill won't be more than solid. That cuts the list down to guards and Holiday is the most talented of the remaining. 

*4. Sacramento Kings -* Ricky Rubio
Rubio's "slide" ends in Sacramento. The Kings have needs across the board and whoever they feel is the best player available, should be their choice. I might look stupid in a few years for not believing in him, yet he is far from a finished product. I guess it goes both ways.

*5. Washington Wizards -* Earl Clark
I don't expect the Wizards to keep their pick, if they do Clark has as much upside as anyone in this draft, but also a lot of question marks. I think he has the necessary character and skill set to eventually put it all together, thus making him one of the Top 5 prospects in this year's class.

*6. Minnesota Timberwolves - * Jonny Flynn
Foye is solid, Telfair is not. Now I'm not buying that Tyreke Evans would be a better fit alongside Foye, screw fits and take the better prospect. The reasoning is flawed because you are not thinking about who to take and only that, you ponder about making Randy Foye fit alongisde whoever you pick. That is exactly one of the reasons why bottom feeders continue to be bottom feeders, you don't build playoff teams, let alone great teams by making the pieces around your fourth best player fit. Take the best player unless he would be stuck on the bench which is most likely not the case in any of those scenarios because bad teams usually lack talent.

*7. Golden State Warriors -* Brandon Jennings
Monta Ellis is not a point guard and while adding Jennings would make the backcourt a super sized target on defense, they have a chance to be a dynamic duo on the other end. Jennings isn't going to fix the Warriors' issues, the truth is noone player remaining can. They need a new direction because Nellie isn't going to be the long term solution. While they are fun to watch, it's also tough to overcome the lack of defensive commitment.

*8. New York Knicks -* Stephen Curry
Whoops!
The Knicks are in a tough spot because their 2010 first rounder belongs to Utah, a pick they could desperately need to finally add more talent again. Unless Lebron really jumps to New York City, things will continue to look dark. 

*9. Toronto Raptors -* Demar Derozan
Toronto has been in a need of an athletic small forward with more skills than dunking the basketball for a while, right now Derozan would continue to the former trend. The good thing is that he is a lot more talented than Joey Graham and Jamario Moon and the Raptors don't have much of a choice at this point. One of the teams that is not really bad, but mediocrity isn't getting you anywhere. This goes for a lot of other teams, veteran help needed is needed and probably gladly taken.

*10. Milwaukee Bucks -* Tyreke Evans
Evans had a strong finish to the college season and has some nice upside on the defensive side. Scott Skiles might be able to get the best out of him - or it could be a complete disaster, both seems possible.

*11. New Jersey Nets -* James Johnson
Not sure what the Nets are going to do. Rod Thorn said he wanted a moose and Johnson fits the bell. While he doesn't project to be more than a solid rotation player, he will have some value as a defender and could be a physical presence.

*12. Charlotte Bobcats -* Jordan Hill
The Bobcats could use another big body, Hill will add some athleticism and fresh legs to the frontcourt. DeJuan Blair is also a possibility depending on his knees, the injury problems are definitely a troubling sign however. 

*13. Indiana Pacers -* Gerald Henderson
Indy has a decent squad and that's the problem. The Pacers aren't particularly young and since they aren't going to attract any big free agents they need to build through the draft. You aren't going to build more than a borderline playoff team picking in the teens and it doesn't appear that they will get enough internal improvement to be more than first round fodder at best.

*14. Phoenix Suns -* Jeff Teague
There was a time when Teague was in the discussion for a Top 5 pick, then the Demon Deacons fell apart and collapsed in the NCAA tournament. Teague's stock plummeted and his playmaking abilities were questioned, it almost seemed like the first part of the season was forgotten and undone. Teague could be one of the sleepers and turn out to be a diamond in the rough.

*15. Detroit Pistons -* James Harden
Detroit would probably love if he fell into their laps, I'm not. Harden looked slow against similarly talented players and that's not going to get better in a stacked professional league. While crafty and showing off excellent athleticism at the combine, that type of athleticism has not translated onto the court. 

*16. Chicago Bulls -* Jermaine Taylor
The Bulls have a boatload of players on the roster who are solid, good roleplayers, but not enough star power. That is not going to change with taking Taylor and quite frankly, I don't see why the Bulls would draft anyone in the first round unless they can't get work out a trade to save their lifes. 

*17. Philadelphia 76ers -* Eric Maynor
Add the Sixers to the Toronto and Indiana group, they are already playing hard and if Elton Brand doesn't come back and adds a significant low post presence I actually think they could disappoint a lot of people next year. That, however, might not necessarily be a bad thing because it would give them an opportunity to add a potential star through the draft.

*18. Minnesota Timberwolves -* DeJuan Blair
You already have Jefferson and Love feasting on the boards, add Blair and they will tire out teams rebounding the basketball with intensity for 48 minutes.

*19. Atlanta Hawks -* Ty Lawson
This might actually be a little low for Lawson, on the other hand going to Atlanta would be a blessing in disguise. He will be a welcomed change of pace and a nice complement to Mike Bibby, plus a potential long-term replacement. 

*20. Utah Jazz -* Gani Lawal
Utah doesn't really need Lawal, what they need is a legit second star should Boozer leave or not get healthy and an outstanding defensive big. They will have an opportunity to fill that hole with the Knicks pick next year. It's not impossible that the Jazz will be calling a Top 5 pick their own in June 2010.

*21. New Orleans Hornets -* Jerel McNeal
The Hornets have a fairly easy decision to make - if you have no bench production you just take the best player available, preferably someone who can contribute right away. While McNeal's ceiling isn't high, there also isn't much downside and guards who can play defense and knock shots down are a valued commodity.

*22. Dallas Mavericks -* Patrick Mills
If that jumpshot ever comes around, he will be a good point guard for a long time. Otherwise, the lack of size coupled with below average playmaking ability could be too much to overcome, raw speed can only get you so far.

*23. Sacramento Kings -* Terrence Williams
There is a lot to like about Williams, unfortunately there is also a whole lot not to like, most importantly his jumpshot. If he can improve in that area, the Kings will get a steal - if not, he might be out of the league pretty soon.

*24. Portland Trail Blazers -* Tyler Hansbrough
Preparing for free agency will be looming over the decision whether to keep this pick or sell it for a future selection or bundle it in order to acquire a veteran player. Hansbrough might bring some more intensity to a team filled with laid back characters. 

*25. Oklahoma City Thunder -* Derrick Brown
The ability to get a rotation player should be a priority at this point and Brown might be just that.

*26. Chicago Bulls -* Chase Budinger
Budinger might never become the type of player he was supposed to develop into a couple of years ago, that doesn't mean he can't have a solid and relatively long career. He will be able to do a little bit of everything and offer good value at the end of the first round.

*27. Memphis Grizzlies -* Jodie Meeks
Meeks has limited ballhandling abilities, but he will fill a role if he is willing to play defense - his shooting ability is going to help space the floor.

*28. Minnesota Timberwolves -* Damion James
Tough to evaluate as he doesn't stand out in one area, but finds ways to contribute when he is on the floor.

*29. Los Angeles Lakers -* Rodrigue Beaubois
It's unlikely that a rookie will crack the Lakers rotation and they will just be able to park Beaubois in France for another year. That strategy worked out quite nicely with Marc Gasol.

*30. Cleveland Cavaliers -* Nick Calathes
Calathes is a capable ballhander, but it looks like he will be headed to Greece. Not sure what the Cavs are going to do with this pick since they would prefer to get a big man and a mostly guards being left.


*On the bubble* (in no particular order): Wayne Ellington, Darren Collison, BJ Mullens, Dionte Christmas, Toney Douglas, Marcus Thornton, Sam Young

Conluding, there might be some excellent value in the second round and teams should be able to grab rotation players. While Griffin appears to be the only surefire All-Star initially, this draft is stacked in the second round. It's almost like the talent is spread all around the 60 picks as opposed to declining quickly from the top all the way down to the last pick.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Thank you for not putting B.J. Mullens in your mock. The dude sucks. He sucks soooo much.

I do think that Sam Young will be picked up by Chicago, Memphis or Cleveland at the end of the first round, though.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Holliday, Rubio, Clark, Hill, Johnson isn't going to work like that. Nets will take Hill over Johnson. The Thunder picking Holliday with Westbrook on the team doesnt make sense. Clark's way too high, and he's a forward, which isn't a position the Wiz are lacking. 

Henderson to the Pacers? What happened to Rush? Harden's not falling that far either. Lawson is going to the Sixers, thats pretty much guaranteed. Hansbrough has moved into the lottery. Sorry if it sounds like I am tearing apart your mock, just saying...


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

In contention for the #2 pick...Rubio, Tyreke, Harden and Curry.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

No way in hell Hill gets past the bucks at 10, with us losing CV


----------



## Rikki G (Feb 15, 2009)

Ummm ya, this isn't how the draft is going down. Unless, is this how you think it should? Or are you truly predicting that this is what will happen?


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> In contention for the #2 pick...Rubio, Tyreke, Harden and Curry.


I know you're in Memphis, but is this reliable information? No Thabeet?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Quite possibly since Boston is said to be smitten with Tyreke Evans and there have been rumours of a Boston/Memphis deal for #2 (presumably for Rondo & OJ Mayo's BFF, Billy Walker).


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Quite possibly since Boston is said to be smitten with Tyreke Evans and there have been rumours of a Boston/Memphis deal for #2 (presumably for Rondo & OJ Mayo's BFF, Billy Walker).


That's a really interesting trade. Does Boston really think Tyreke Evans is worth trading away Rajon Rondo, who's clearly capable of playing point for a title contender?


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Nimreitz said:


> That's a really interesting trade. Does Boston really think Tyreke Evans is worth trading away Rajon Rondo, who's clearly capable of playing point for a title contender?


I wouldnt trade Rondo if i was them.. but their stars are aging and maybe they feel like they need a youth movement, but i would figure Rondo would be a major part of their future plans


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Rikki G said:


> Ummm ya, this isn't how the draft is going down. Unless, is this how you think it should? Or are you truly predicting that this is what will happen?


Read the first two sentences.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

HB said:


> Holliday, Rubio, Clark, Hill, Johnson isn't going to work like that. Nets will take Hill over Johnson. The Thunder picking Holliday with Westbrook on the team doesnt make sense. Clark's way too high, and he's a forward, which isn't a position the Wiz are lacking.
> 
> Henderson to the Pacers? What happened to Rush? Harden's not falling that far either. Lawson is going to the Sixers, thats pretty much guaranteed. Hansbrough has moved into the lottery. Sorry if it sounds like I am tearing apart your mock, just saying...


Clark is also at #5 because the Wizards will trade their pick, doesn't make much sense for them to keep it with the group they have and the players that are likely available.

Rush happened to Rush ... he had a bad rookie season and was supposed to be ready to contribute right away. 

How did Hansbrough move up in the lottery ? The first 14 picks in the second round aren't considered lottery picks.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Quite possibly since Boston is said to be smitten with Tyreke Evans and there have been rumours of a Boston/Memphis deal for #2 (presumably for Rondo & OJ Mayo's BFF, Billy Walker).


I'm not sure how that will improve Boston now or in the future.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Nimreitz said:


> That's a really interesting trade. Does Boston really think Tyreke Evans is worth trading away Rajon Rondo, who's clearly capable of playing point for a title contender?


I expect that what they're thinking is that it's a whole lot easier to find guys like Randy Foye, Mario Chalmers, Eddie House, et al than it is to find guys like Ray Allen.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

croco said:


> I'm not sure how that will improve Boston now or in the future.


Evans is a lot like Rondo, except that he's bigger and stronger and can defend the two spot. Making it easier for them to find a scoring guard to replace the soon to depart Ray Allen (since the new player wouldn't need to play the 2, and could just as easily line up at the 1).


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Evans is a lot like Rondo, except that he's bigger and stronger and can defend the two spot. Making it easier for them to find a scoring guard to replace the soon to depart Ray Allen (since the new player wouldn't need to play the 2, and could just as easily line up at the 1).


It makes sense if they're looking towards the future, but the only guy who's got a shot to still be playing at an All Star level in 2010 is Pierce. Ray is clearly over the hill already, and injuries might end KG a lot sooner than expected. Boston need to win next year, and trading away their starting point guard seems like a terrible move to me.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Nimreitz said:


> It makes sense if they're looking towards the future, but the only guy who's got a shot to still be playing at an All Star level in 2010 is Pierce. Ray is clearly over the hill already, and injuries might end KG a lot sooner than expected. Boston need to win next year, and trading away their starting point guard seems like a terrible move to me.


Given that they're starting point guard just shot them out of the playoffs I really don't think it's that big a deal. Everyone wanks over the first five games of the Bulls series, when the Chicago coaching staff was asleep on the sidelines. But once they tightened the screws on the fast break Rondo vanished. As an offensive player his best asset is that he's a one man fast break. The problem is that that's a skill that hasn't translated in the playoffs for 15 years. 

Please make no Steve Nash comparisons. For all that Nash was a great transition player, unlike Rondo he had a complete offensive arsenal and flourished in the half court game just as well (Nash's only major hole was on the defensive end, where attempts to hide him reduced the Suns into some bizarre defensive convolutions).

Boston won a title with a largely clueless second year player starting at the one. They can always sign a vet point looking for a title to mentor Evans for a year. Rondo is essentially Fat Lever without the advantage of man defense rules. Maybe a poor man's Andre Miller with better defense works as a comparison as well. 'Dre Miller hasn't had a lot of playoff success as a main cog, but if he were an offensive afterthought, a la Rondo, he'd probably look better. 

Anyway, I think that on a long-term basis Evans is going to be a much better player, and I have no issues with Boston swapping Rondo for him. Honestly, if they made the deal with Memphis for #2 they could always work out a Rubio/Evans swap with Sacramento and pick off someone like Jason Thompson for depth at the 4/5 and vastly improve their chances for 2009 in the process.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

croco said:


> Clark is also at #5 because the Wizards will trade their pick, doesn't make much sense for them to keep it with the group they have and the players that are likely available.
> 
> Rush happened to Rush ... he had a bad rookie season and was supposed to be ready to contribute right away.
> 
> How did Hansbrough move up in the lottery ? The first 14 picks in the second round aren't considered lottery picks.


I havent seen nor read anything remotely close to any team trading with the Wiz to pick Clark at the 5.

Rush is a better player than Henderson. No point in picking GH at that spot.

Hansbrough maybe going to the Nets or Bobcats. Have you been following draft talk? There's basically no interest in James Johnson by the Nets. On the other hand, they loved Budinger.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

HB said:


> I havent seen nor read anything remotely close to any team trading with the Wiz to pick Clark at the 5.
> 
> Rush is a better player than Henderson. No point in picking GH at that spot.
> 
> Hansbrough maybe going to the Nets or Bobcats. Have you been following draft talk? There's basically no interest in James Johnson by the Nets. On the other hand, they loved Budinger.


"May be going" isn't convincing me, HB.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

'Duh', nothing is etched in stone until draft night, with that said, its a lot more likely than drafting James Johnson.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

This is a pretty weak mock overall IMO.

Evans won't fall to 10. Somebody would be more likely to trade up for him than Earl freakin Clark.

If Hill falls out of the top 5, his fall will end no later than pick 10 to the Bucks.

Flynn is not going higher than Brandon Jennings.

If Gerald Henderson is there at 12 the Bobcats will pick him.

Jerel McNeal at 21? Are you high? Seriously?

Terrence Williams will not drop that far, and I don't see Teague rising that high.

BJ Mullens will be a first round pick, I can all but promise you this.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

GregOden said:


> This is a pretty weak mock overall IMO.
> 
> Evans won't fall to 10. Somebody would be more likely to trade up for him than Earl freakin Clark.
> 
> ...


Did you even read the opening sentences or just fly over the names and the team that picked each player ? It sure seems like a lot of people don't bother with the additional information.

Before you start calling me "high", maybe you should take a look at the draft history and realize that each year some projected and actual 2nd round picks, even undrafted players have had more success than a lot of 1st rounders.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I think one thing thats definitely guaranteed or two things for that matter, will be Mullens to Chicago at 16 and Curry to the Knicks at 8.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

croco said:


> Rush happened to Rush ... he had a bad rookie season and was supposed to be ready to contribute right away.


Rush had a very solid rookie season. I'd be perfectly fine with him and Granger as starting swingmen for the next 10 years.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

HB said:


> I think one thing thats definitely guaranteed or two things for that matter, will be Mullens to Chicago at 16 and Curry to the Knicks at 8.


Yeah the cat is definitely out of the bag on Mullens at 16. I'm not sure if Curry will necessarily last to pick 8, but he probably should. I really just can't imagine why the Warriors would take him because he's clearly not going to help out Monta Ellis. I'm surprised they aren't looking at Jordan Hill to be totally honest.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> Yeah the cat is definitely out of the bag on Mullens at 16. I'm not sure if Curry will necessarily last to pick 8, but he probably should. I really just can't imagine why the Warriors would take him because he's clearly not going to help out Monta Ellis. I'm surprised they aren't looking at Jordan Hill to be totally honest.


why the warriors aren't looking at jordan hill? probably because they already have biedris, turiaf, brandon wright, and anthony randolph.

if you're talking about the knicks, i agree that i think hill is definitely a possible pick for them(or at least should be). if they're really interested in giving away david lee, i think hill could step in at the center spot in that system and be fairly effective.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Pacers Fan said:


> Rush had a very solid rookie season. I'd be perfectly fine with him and Granger as starting swingmen for the next 10 years.


He had a PER of below which is pretty lousy and it took him months to contribute. There were a lot of jokes before the draft that he was going to be just like his brother and so far this would have to be true.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

As we have worn on here, I really see the lottery unfolding like this...

1. Los Angeles Clippers - Blake Griffin
2. Memphis Grizzlies - Hasheem Thabeet
3. Oklahoma City Thunder - James Harden
4. Sacramento Kings - Ricky Rubio
5. Washington Wizards - Stephen Curry
6. Minnesota Timberwolves - Tyreke Evans
7. Golden State Warriors - Brandon Jennings
8. New York Knicks - Jrue Holiday
9. Toronto Raptors - Demar Derozan
10. Milwaukee Bucks - Jordan Hill
11. New Jersey Nets - Tyler Hansbrough
12. Charlotte Bobcats - Gerald Henderson
13. Indiana Pacers - Jonny Flynn
14. Phoenix Suns - Earl Clark


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

croco said:


> He had a PER of below which is pretty lousy and it took him months to contribute. There were a lot of jokes before the draft that he was going to be just like his brother and so far this would have to be true.


Dude, Brandon Rush finished his rookie year very very strong. He averaged 17ppg and 5rpg over the last 13 games.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Dude, Brandon Rush finished his rookie year very very strong. He averaged 17ppg and 5rpg over the last 13 games.


Overall he was pretty bad.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

croco said:


> He had a PER of below which is pretty lousy and it took him months to contribute. There were a lot of jokes before the draft that he was going to be just like his brother and so far this would have to be true.


This is where watching his games helps. He's nothing like his brother.

In the preseason he completely kicked ***. Sure, he took some time to get off the bench because Dunleavy and Daniels were ahead of him on the rotation, but when those two went down, he developed very fast. Throughout the entire year he's been a solid rebounder and pretty good defender. His jump shot's been on and off, but you know that will come with time. What's surprised me is that even though he's not a very quick player, he can still attack the basket very well and has a ton of confidence for a rookie. Seriously, with th eexception of a few plays that make you know he's a rookie, he plays with the knowledge and confidence of a 5-year veteran. He's better/smarter/more confident than Granger was as a rookie and is probably the smartest one I've seen here, and I've been watching this team for 10 years.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Pacers Fan said:


> This is where watching his games helps. He's nothing like his brother.
> 
> In the preseason he completely kicked ***. Sure, he took some time to get off the bench because Dunleavy and Daniels were ahead of him on the rotation, but when those two went down, he developed very fast. Throughout the entire year he's been a solid rebounder and pretty good defender. His jump shot's been on and off, but you know that will come with time. What's surprised me is that even though he's not a very quick player, he can still attack the basket very well and has a ton of confidence for a rookie. Seriously, with th eexception of a few plays that make you know he's a rookie, he plays with the knowledge and confidence of a 5-year veteran. He's better/smarter/more confident than Granger was as a rookie and is probably the smartest one I've seen here, and I've been watching this team for 10 years.


He was among the worst rookies as far as efficiency, on the other hand he is also one of the oldest players from that class. Despite him being smart, and I'm not sure if this really supports your argument, that is a pretty bad combination. He has gotten better throughout the year, yet despite that late surge he wasn't able to crack a double digit PER. If he is already playing like a 5 year veteran and this is his production, why should I be confident that he will turn out to be a solid player for the next decade ?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

But you are arguing with a guy who watches Pacers' game that the guy had a terrible season when in fact he has shown promise. The few times I saw him, he didnt look he was struggling.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Everyone can look promising at a certain point, few will do it over a longer period of time and many rookies from his class have shown more promise, not just the big names like Rose, Mayo, Beasley. The list goes on and on and Rush is two (three) years older than most of those guys. It was expected that he would show smarts and an advanced basketball IQ because he has more experience, thus he should have been able to contribute more right away and be a bigger factor. If you take a look at the entire picture, his ceiling is an average role player.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> why the warriors aren't looking at jordan hill? probably because they already have biedris, turiaf, brandon wright, and anthony randolph.




News today that Hill is probably the pick in Golden State. Randolph is more of a power wing, and frankly aside from Biedrins none of those guys has proven to be more than a role player. On the other hand, they had tons of depth on the wings, and Monta Ellis (and possibly Baron Davis if they move some wings) at PG.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Whilst you might be right on the ceiling croco, it still doesnt justify picking GH whose ceiling is probably the same.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> News today that Hill is probably the pick in Golden State. Randolph is more of a power wing, and frankly aside from Biedrins none of those guys has proven to be more than a role player. On the other hand, they had tons of depth on the wings, and Monta Ellis (and possibly Baron Davis if they move some wings) at PG.


yeah i read that last night on draft express after i posted that. it still doesn't make any sense to me. golden state does have wing depth(that they'd probably love to trade for nothing to get rid of a few salaries). what they really need to be doing is taking the best pg available(i don't think ellis has anyone convinced he can play there).

they just resigned biedrins to a new huge deal, "overpaid" to sign turiaf away from the lakers, and used consecutive lottery picks on pf prospects who both have played pretty well in the time they've received. from the stuff i've heard now, i wouldn't be surprised if he's the pick i guess but i'll believe it when i see it. it just doesn't make sense(unless maybe they're moving one of the bigs in a deal for someone like baron davis).


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> yeah i read that last night on draft express after i posted that. it still doesn't make any sense to me. golden state does have wing depth(that they'd probably love to trade for nothing to get rid of a few salaries). what they really need to be doing is taking the best pg available(i don't think ellis has anyone convinced he can play there).
> 
> they just resigned biedrins to a new huge deal, "overpaid" to sign turiaf away from the lakers, and used consecutive lottery picks on pf prospects who both have played pretty well in the time they've received. from the stuff i've heard now, i wouldn't be surprised if he's the pick i guess but i'll believe it when i see it. it just doesn't make sense(unless maybe they're moving one of the bigs in a deal for someone like baron davis).


It doesn't make sense, but neither did some of the moves they made recently. They would just continue that trend and it's starting to feel like Nellie just wants to get those 25 wins in order to become the winningiest coach of all-time, without actually trying to develop a team that will compete for the playoffs. The Warriors have a lot of pieces, but they don't really fit because you can't put five forwards on the floor. I'm not sure if they want to cash in and move some of those pieces to acquire other parts and balance out the roster or continue to play that style and win 30 games like last year. 

The situation could be worse because there is talent on the team unlike some other franchises that lack in that department and are stuck in the lottery.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

They pick Hill its definitely a trade lined up. It'd be even weirder if Hill ends up with the Clippers.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

croco said:


> He was among the worst rookies as far as efficiency


Man, seriously. **** stats and watch some games.



> on the other hand he is also one of the oldest players from that class.


So was Danny Granger and look how much he's developed. Being a year or two older than other people doesn't mean Rush has no ability to improve. If he works hard enough, age doesn't mean anything.



> He has gotten better throughout the year, yet despite that late surge he wasn't able to crack a double digit PER.


Again, **** statistics. It's a poor justification for not watching enough games. I wasn't even talking about that late surge when I mentioned Rush being a solid player. He was a solid player until the end of the year when he became our 2nd scoring option. For most of this year he was the type that doesn't benefit from statistical analysis. Rush is the kind of guy every team wants because he plays within the offense. Most of the time this year instead of making the key pass or shot, or making a highlight play, he'd be the guy to get a hockey assist, space the floor well so someone could drive inside, and then contain his opponent on defense. What I found most interesting about the end of the year is how easily he transitioned from role player to scoring option when he was given the chance. Througout the entire year we've been going to Granger, Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, and Jack over Rush, but when we called on Rush to step up, he did.



> If he is already playing like a 5 year veteran and this is his production, why should I be confident that he will turn out to be a solid player for the next decade ?


Because you don't measure production by how well a player plays the game, just by how well he shows up on the stat sheet. I'm sure Rush will be on the stat sheet much more for you next year because we might not keep Daniels and Dunleavy's out until at least January. I fully expect him to average 12-13 points/game next year just like Granger did his second season. However, I don't think he'll have as massive 3rd and 4th year improvements as Granger, and I'm expecting 15 and then 17-ish ppg those two years. I think Rush will top out as an 18 ppg 2nd option type, which works just fine for me. I mean, put him on a team like the Lakers and he'd probably be a career 8-10 ppg role player like Shane Battier, but on the Pacers, he can do much more.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

The difference is that Granger was much, much, MUCH better in his rookie year while getting about the same minutes. People (including me) thought highly of Granger before the draft and he was slipping for no good reason. Plus, Rush is nowhere near as talented and the development of Granger is extremely rare. 

"**** stats" is a great way to end a discussion. Since you are obviously not interested in comparing a player to the rest of his fellow rookies, continue to watch the games and be happy about Brandon Rush putting up seemingly decent numbers when in fact taking a look at those damned stats allows you to get another perspective and will help to analyze the entire package. 



Pacers Fan said:


> Because you don't measure production by how well a player plays the game, just by how well he shows up on the stat sheet. I'm sure Rush will be on the stat sheet much more for you next year because we might not keep Daniels and Dunleavy's out until at least January.


I'm impressed by your ability to draw conclusions based on one post and things you can't know a damn about unless you know me personally which is clearly not the case. Stop acting like Rush is Shane Battier or Bruce Bowen in his prime or ever going to become a legit second option.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I really dont know where Clark is going anymore.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

croco said:


> The difference is that Granger was much, much, MUCH better in his rookie year while getting about the same minutes.


No, he wasn't.

Things Rush is better at now than Granger was:

Shooting
Ball handling
Defense (and Granger was a pretty talented defender as a rookie)
Confidence
Mid-range game
Slashing game
Passing

Things Granger was better at than Rush is now:

Rebounding
Free Throw Shooting
Shot Blocking



> People (including me) thought highly of Granger before the draft and he was slipping for no good reason.


...and Brandon Rush used to be a very highly-touted prospect whose value was lowered because he played on a stacked team and he had an ACL injury.



> Plus, Rush is nowhere near as talented


As Granger was? See the above. Granger took 4 years to learn how to drive to the basket and finish. Rush is already better at that than Granger was last year.



> and the development of Granger is extremely rare.


Which is why I'm not expecting Brandon Rush to exceed 18 ppg. Then again, I never expected Granger to, either.



> Since you are obviously not interested in comparing a player to the rest of his fellow rookies


Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said that. Rush is probably somewhere around the 9th to 11th best rookie, at least judging on this year.



> when in fact taking a look at those damned stats allows you to get another perspective and will help to analyze the entire package.


Another perspective? Statistics, especially giant, conglomerate statistics, are an excuse to not watch games by cramming numbers together. Basketball is so much more than just statistics.



> I'm impressed by your ability to draw conclusions based on one post and things you can't know a damn about unless you know me personally which is clearly not the case.


What the **** are you talking about? I'm assuming I've seen Rush much, much more than you have, and so, since you haven't been able or have neglected to watch more than a few (if that many) of his games, all you can use are numbers. Is this not true?



> Stop acting like Rush is Shane Battier or Bruce Bowen in his prime or ever going to become a legit second option.


To the former: I'm not.
To the latter: Why am I not allowed to? Towards the end of the year Rush showed more than I've ever seen from a Pacers rookie. He even outplayed Granger some games. Sure, 10-15 games is not a good amount to judge a player on, but the other 60-65 show that he has the intellect, skill, and fundamentals to be a very helpful player. The last bit of the year showed that he has the ability to take over games. I don't know why I would be anything but ecstatic about that.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

You are making things up if you truly believe that Rush was close to being as far advanced as Granger was at the same point. Granger had a PER of 15 in his rookie season, Rush below 10 which is a huge difference. Just because you don't like the stat or stats in general doesn't mean that they are not a good measure of a player's production. Obviously it's not everything, but it gives you a pretty good idea about a player and more often than not, actually most of the time it will help to compare players, now and back then.

Following a team all year long and watching players like Rush a lot helps you define an opinion and you will notice details you otherwise wouldn't. That, however, can also lead to overrating certain aspects of someone's game because of the little work and intangibles when in fact almost every team has guys like that. Fans appreciate certain players a lot more if they are on the team even though they aren't producing much statistically because of "little" things like hustling, boxing out, going after loose balls, setting screens, making the extra pass, spacing the floor, commmunicating and the list goes on. 

Rush can ultimately turn out be a solid role player, but I wouldn't hold my breath for more than that.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

croco said:


> You are making things up if you truly believe that Rush was close to being as far advanced as Granger was at the same point. Granger had a PER of 15 in his rookie season, Rush below 10 which is a huge difference.


Woohoo. So far the only evidence you give as to why Rush didn't have a good year is because his PER is low and he was one of the most developed players coming out of school. Sorry, but conglomerate statistics, and most of the time even normal statistics, don't do anything for me. You haven't shown me yet that you know one bit about Rush's game, pro or college.



> Just because you don't like the stat or stats in general doesn't mean that they are not a good measure of a player's production.


No, I like stats. I just don't think they measure a player even close to as well as watching the guy play. 



> but it gives you a pretty good idea about a player


See, my point is that I don't need a "pretty good idea" about Rush. I know his game. 



> however, can also lead to overrating certain aspects of someone's game because of the little work and intangibles when in fact almost every team has guys like that.


You're not showing any justification as to how watching a player will make me overrate him. I've watched probably 50-60 of Rush's pro games and he plays more like a veteran than any rookie Pacer I've seen in 10 years. He makes dumb plays sometimes like everyone else does, but he's better at spacing the floor than most of our guards. It's other unmeasurable aspects like this when, in comparison to some veterans on the team, Rush appears almost equal or even better. The guy has a very high basketball IQ and knows how to score.



> Fans appreciate certain players a lot more if they are on the team even though they aren't producing much statistically because of "little" things like hustling, boxing out, going after loose balls, setting screens, making the extra pass, spacing the floor, commmunicating and the list goes on.


Rush isn't much of a hustler. Really, he doesn't do things during games that make fans cheer except when he scores. But yes, communication, spacing, and passing (even though he's not that great a passer) will make me appreciate players much more. Why shouldn't they? They're very important aspects of the game.



> Rush can ultimately turn out be a solid role player, but I wouldn't hold my breath for more than that.


How do you explain the end of the year for him, then? He was given a chance and he ran with it. He was a scorer in college and showed that when called upon, he can be a scorer in the NBA. At least reserve judgment until you see more. Don't blindly dismiss him as a role player because that's how scouts thought he would turn out.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

It doesn't matter how he stacks up against other Pacer rookies in the last 10 years, completely irrelevant. You are telling me you like stats, then look at them and don't pretend like I revert some facts and use stats to support my case without adding anything else. 



Pacers Fan said:


> Sorry, but conglomerate statistics, and most of the time even normal statistics, don't do anything for me.





Pacers Fan said:


> No, I like stats. I just don't think they measure a player even close to as well as watching the guy play.


Make up your mind what your standpoint is.

Those examples I gave weren't a detailed scouting report on Rush, it is a general list of intangibles that don't show up on the boxscore and add value to role players. You have seen plenty of Rush, much more than I have which is why you appreciate all the details. What you disregard is that there 29 other teams in the NBA and you will find two or three players in a similar situation everywhere. Again, watching a player a lot can also lead to the opposite sometimes, you overrate the little things and underrate the underwhelming production underwhelming. 

The last 10 games of the year were flukish scoring wise because he shot the ball as well as he possibly can, without getting to the line at all, didn't rebound a whole lot and is extremely limited as a passer. It was a hot streak that occured at the end of the year, unlikely that he will have a eFG% of 62.7 over that period of time again. Speaking of his inability to get to free throw line coupled with the low number of assists, that is a worrisome sign and a big red flag.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

croco said:


> You are telling me you like stats, then look at them and don't pretend like I revert some facts and use stats to support my case without adding anything else.


You haven't said ANYTHING about Rush besides his PER so far.



> Make up your mind what your standpoint is.


You misinterpreted my posts. I like measuring and following statistics, and they're the best indicator if you don't watch players (which I can't for some who aren't on national TV very often), but for guys I see all the time, no, I don't think they're worth it.



> What you disregard is that there 29 other teams in the NBA and you will find two or three players in a similar situation everywhere.


Not rookies. Rush has a long way to go in terms of his production, which is very promising. 



> Again, watching a player a lot can also lead to the opposite sometimes, you overrate the little things and underrate the underwhelming production underwhelming.


Rush wasn't an underwhelming producer. He simply didn't have to produce, so he did what he had to for the team until his name was called as an offensive option. 



> The last 10 games of the year were flukish scoring wise because he shot the ball as well as he possibly can, without getting to the line at all, didn't rebound a whole lot and is extremely limited as a passer.


How can you measure that his performance in the final 10-15 games of the year was him shooting as well as he possibly can?

Rush is a perimeter player who occasionally drives to the basket. As a rookie, he's not going to get to the line. You'll see that happening more often when referees respect him.

He's not a good rebounder. He's a 6'6" SG. He doesn't have to be.

He's not "extremely limited" as a passer. He's a smart passer and generally doesn't take too many risks. He's not the type that's going to get 4-5 assists/game, but if someone is cutting from the corner and Rush needs to make a bounce pass from the top, I'd trust him. Limited, sure, in the sense that he's not much of a playmaker, but he's not "extremely limited." He's a shooter and a scorer who knows how to make a smart play when it presents itself.



> It was a hot streak that occured at the end of the year, unlikely that he will have a eFG% of 62.7 over that period of time again. Speaking of his inability to get to free throw line coupled with the low number of assists, that is a worrisome sign and a big red flag.


Danny Granger's first three years in the league he couldn't get to the line at all and couldn't pass at all, either. He still can't pass now. Point is Rush is a smart rookie who knows how to score and, given time, refs will give him more calls, and more experience, he'll likely become a better passer. 

What exactly are we arguing about now? I mean, we can compare differing opinions of Rush all day long, but you said he had a bad rookie season. He's between the 9th and 11th best rookie and is the best rookie I've seen in a Pacers uniform for the 10 years I've watched them. Not bad for a 13th pick.

I really can't believe you're using rebounding for a SG and free throw attempts for a rookie as supporting evidence, though.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

I guess we will have to find out over the next years.


----------

