2016 NBA Draft

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
Of all the guys about whom people said "he could be another DJ", how many actually turned out to be another DJ?
Who were those guys?

The DJ-Smart comp has several dimensions:
  • poor shooter, but better in the clutch
  • decent post moves when defended by a guard
  • excellent lateral quickness and balance for containment, rather than big steal numbers
  • strength on a solidly built 6'4" (although DJ's early-career hops are probably higher than Smart will ever get)
Smart's judgment could improve substantially over the next two years -- right now he still reaches, hacks and flops more than a mature NBA player would.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
Who were those guys?

The DJ-Smart comp has several dimensions:
  • poor shooter, but better in the clutch
  • decent post moves when defended by a guard
  • excellent lateral quickness and balance for containment, rather than big steal numbers
  • strength on a solidly built 6'4" (although DJ's early-career hops are probably higher than Smart will ever get)
Smart's judgment could improve substantially over the next two years -- right now he still reaches, hacks and flops more than a mature NBA player would.

I don't know who the other guys are that compared to DJ early on. But the fact that we're going back 40 years to find a guy who started out like Smart and turned into an all-star is telling. Very few guys actually reach their rosiest projection.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
They aren't "going back 40 years to find a guy that started out like Smart and turned into an all-star". They're looking for guys that resemble him physically/athletically/game wise.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
And we're back to square one. Why is having a high ceiling limited only to long, athletic players? Are you saying that, for instance, the term "ceiling" isn't allowed to be applied to a player like Paul Milsap because he he's neither particularly long nor particularly athletic? Isn't a player's "ceiling" just shorthand for how good they can ultimately be?
Because every NBA scout dreams of the kid that can jump over everyone and drive past everyone and turn that kid into the next, say, Shawn Kemp. Too bad these kids usually turn into the next Jerome Moiso.

Marcus certainly has hops (as we can tell from some of his putbacks) but he doesn't get off the floor quickly and he doesn't have the handle to blow past anyone. But in addition to his strength, which you mention, he has to be an elite athlete to play defense like he does and his hand speed is a wonder to behold - which is why he ends up with so many loose balls and strips).

I think Marcus has a ton of upside - not in a traditional scorer's sense but in someone who can have major impact on every other aspect of the game. If he can improve his shooting, that will give every other facet of his game a big lift, so we'll see just how good he can become.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
And we're back to square one. Why is having a high ceiling limited only to long, athletic players?
Because these are the two traits that a ceiling is based on......it has zero to do with improved shooting. The larger the gap between length/athleticism and the amount of physical development a player can achieve along with the how that physical growth can improve the players performance defines how much upside/ceiling a player has. An already physically developed player by definition doesn't have a high upside/ceiling. That isn't saying he can't improve individual basketball skills likely every player can......however the improvement that they can make in their body is limited as it is already for the most part developed.

Are you saying that, for instance, the term "ceiling" isn't allowed to be applied to a player like Paul Milsap because he he's neither particularly long nor particularly athletic? Isn't a player's "ceiling" just shorthand for how good they can ultimately be?
It is based on how much they can physically grow into their existing frame which theoretically gives them more room to grow as a player assuming there is no difference between the ball skills improvement of a raw player and say a Millsap.

Think of a practical example, At the 2013 Draft a player like Olynyk with an already developed body and skillset with limited athleticism and length was considered a "Safe" pick (low ceiling) as a guy you are pretty sure can play a role in the NBA and fairly quickly. While a player like Antetokounmpo was a "High Upside/Risky/High Ceiling" pick who had the potential to be the far better player once his body was developed physically to utilize his crazy athleticism and length while carrying the risk that he may never be an NBA player if he doesn't put forth the work to build his body or that his improved body doesn't translate into actual NBA production.

Ceiling and Upside is all about projecting what a player will look like down the road once they are physically developed. A player who has less physical growth like a Smart by definition has a lower ceiling......someone like Vonleh (from that class) who can benefit from 15-20 lbs of muscle over the next 4-5 years by definition has a higher upside. That's not to say Smart can't be a much better player with an improved perimeter shot.......but that isn't really how scouts are projecting upside in their analysis as Vonleh will also be a better player with an improved perimeter shot as well.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,271
Because these are the two traits that a ceiling is based on......it has zero to do with improved shooting. The larger the gap between length/athleticism and the amount of physical development a player can achieve along with the how that physical growth can improve the players performance defines how much upside/ceiling a player has. An already physically developed player by definition doesn't have a high upside/ceiling. That isn't saying he can't improve individual basketball skills likely every player can......however the improvement that they can make in their body is limited as it is already for the most part developed.


It is based on how much they can physically grow into their existing frame which theoretically gives them more room to grow as a player assuming there is no difference between the ball skills improvement of a raw player and say a Millsap.

Think of a practical example, At the 2013 Draft a player like Olynyk with an already developed body and skillset with limited athleticism and length was considered a "Safe" pick (low ceiling) as a guy you are pretty sure can play a role in the NBA and fairly quickly. While a player like Antetokounmpo was a "High Upside/Risky/High Ceiling" pick who had the potential to be the far better player once his body was developed physically to utilize his crazy athleticism and length while carrying the risk that he may never be an NBA player if he doesn't put forth the work to build his body or that his improved body doesn't translate into actual NBA production.

Ceiling and Upside is all about projecting what a player will look like down the road once they are physically developed. A player who has less physical growth like a Smart by definition has a lower ceiling......someone like Vonleh (from that class) who can benefit from 15-20 lbs of muscle over the next 4-5 years by definition has a higher upside. That's not to say Smart can't be a much better player with an improved perimeter shot.......but that isn't really how scouts are projecting upside in their analysis as Vonleh will also be a better player with an improved perimeter shot as well.
I think you guys are both right. Players like Vonleh have a higher projected ceiling because the athleticism and size they possess is innate and can't be taught. Players can always get bigger, add weight, or train more but they can't grow an inch or two no matter how hard they try.
However, I do agree with Grin because "ceiling" and "upside" are all about how good a player can become. Now, most of the time that is tied heavily into athleticism, but Smart is so good on defense and has really good intangibles that if he improves his shot and handles a bit (both of which are very possible with his work ethic) his ceiling is still very high.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Because these are the two traits that a ceiling is based on......it has zero to do with improved shooting. The larger the gap between length/athleticism and the amount of physical development a player can achieve along with the how that physical growth can improve the players performance defines how much upside/ceiling a player has. An already physically developed player by definition doesn't have a high upside/ceiling. That isn't saying he can't improve individual basketball skills likely every player can......however the improvement that they can make in their body is limited as it is already for the most part developed.

It is based on how much they can physically grow into their existing frame which theoretically gives them more room to grow as a player assuming there is no difference between the ball skills improvement of a raw player and say a Millsap.

Think of a practical example, At the 2013 Draft a player like Olynyk with an already developed body and skillset with limited athleticism and length was considered a "Safe" pick (low ceiling) as a guy you are pretty sure can play a role in the NBA and fairly quickly. While a player like Antetokounmpo was a "High Upside/Risky/High Ceiling" pick who had the potential to be the far better player once his body was developed physically to utilize his crazy athleticism and length while carrying the risk that he may never be an NBA player if he doesn't put forth the work to build his body or that his improved body doesn't translate into actual NBA production.

Ceiling and Upside is all about projecting what a player will look like down the road once they are physically developed. A player who has less physical growth like a Smart by definition has a lower ceiling......someone like Vonleh (from that class) who can benefit from 15-20 lbs of muscle over the next 4-5 years by definition has a higher upside. That's not to say Smart can't be a much better player with an improved perimeter shot.......but that isn't really how scouts are projecting upside in their analysis as Vonleh will also be a better player with an improved perimeter shot as well.
We're talking past each other, as usual. You keep insisting that there is a universal definition of "ceiling" that's based entirely on length and athleticism, which has "zero to do with improved shooting." I disagree with that. Ben Simmons is athletic, reasonably long, and extremely physically developed for his age. He also has one of the highest ceilings of any player to enter the league in a decade, and that has nothing to do with his ability to grow into his body. It has everything to do with his ability to develop a more refined offensive game and improve his shooting.

Fundamentally, we just disagree on how the term ceiling is used.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
We're talking past each other, as usual. You keep insisting that there is a universal definition of "ceiling" that's based entirely on length and athleticism, which has "zero to do with improved shooting." I disagree with that. Ben Simmons is athletic, reasonably long, and extremely physically developed for his age. He also has one of the highest ceilings of any player to enter the league in a decade, and that has nothing to do with his ability to grow into his body. It has everything to do with his ability to develop a more refined offensive game and improve his shooting.

Fundamentally, we just disagree on how the term ceiling is used.
It isn't me defining the term.....it is how it is universally used in the scouting game. How others interpret it varies but when you hear the words "high upside" and "high ceiling" tied in to a prospect it is in reference to their physical traits. The poster above describes skills that Smart could improve upon to give him a higher upside which from a pure scouting perspective isn't accurate as he is still not going to have a first step to beat quicks off the dribble or the explosive quick leaping ability to finish in the paint......these are Smart's physical limitations that do not make him what scouts view as a high ceiling player.

Not every player has to have an extreme high/low ceiling. Simmons has some traits of both however I'd rate him as having a lower ceiling than Ingram since Simmons is more physically developed so his growth is going to be tied more on developing ball skills, in his case shooting (as most other players are), and not in developing his body.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
It isn't me defining the term.....it is how it is universally used in the scouting game. How others interpret it varies but when you hear the words "high upside" and "high ceiling" tied in to a prospect it is in reference to their physical traits. The poster above describes skills that Smart could improve upon to give him a higher upside which from a pure scouting perspective isn't accurate as he is still not going to have a first step to beat quicks off the dribble or the explosive quick leaping ability to finish in the paint......these are Smart's physical limitations that do not make him what scouts view as a high ceiling player.

Not every player has to have an extreme high/low ceiling. Simmons has some traits of both however I'd rate him as having a lower ceiling than Ingram since Simmons is more physically developed so his growth is going to be tied more on developing ball skills, in his case shooting (as most other players are), and not in developing his body.
I see that term used in other ways by scouts constantly. Just yesterday I read an NBA scout say that Buddy Hield's ceiling "will be dictated by whether or not he learns to run an NBA offense." Which has nothing to do with length/athleticism. Here's another article where an NBA scout talks about the floor/ceiling of all of last year's top 10 prospects. And his analysis, in many cases, has nothing to do with length and athleticism. Your insistence that NBA scouts universally use the phrase just doesn't jibe with what I've seen/read/heard.

Edit: link: http://www.nbadraft.net/players/buddy-hield
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,932
It isn't me defining the term.....it is how it is universally used in the scouting game. How others interpret it varies but when you hear the words "high upside" and "high ceiling" tied in to a prospect it is in reference to their physical traits. The poster above describes skills that Smart could improve upon to give him a higher upside which from a pure scouting perspective isn't accurate as he is still not going to have a first step to beat quicks off the dribble or the explosive quick leaping ability to finish in the paint......these are Smart's physical limitations that do not make him what scouts view as a high ceiling player.

Not every player has to have an extreme high/low ceiling. Simmons has some traits of both however I'd rate him as having a lower ceiling than Ingram since Simmons is more physically developed so his growth is going to be tied more on developing ball skills, in his case shooting (as most other players are), and not in developing his body.
Yes. Yes it is.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Any chance we can table this back and forth and focus on the 2016 draft?
The intriguing question for me is what happens if Boston is drafting Simmons? I'm not sure that the Bulls would be as interested in Simmons as Ingram, and the price for Butler might get high enough to cause Ainge doubts.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,873
Believe what you wish. I'm only trying to be informative as to what the scouts are referring to when you hear them use those words to describe a prospect.
And as GMB has just pointed out, they also use the term to mean other things. Either back up your assertion with actual sources, not "this is what they say", or knock it off with the I-know-better-than-you shit. It's incredibly annoying to read, and you do it constantly in this forum.

If the Celtics end up with a top 2 pick, I think Ainge likely holds onto it until after FA. That leaves him more cap space to operate with, and I'm not sure a marquee free agent would consider one of those pieces any less appealing than another star already on the roster (because Ainge can sell them on "we still have room to sign other players, and we have [Simmons/Ingram] and other pieces we can move for even more established talent"). Remember, Kevin Love wasn't traded until late August.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Ben Simmons making a big deal out of his sneaker deal summit makes me hope they trade him for someone good should he be the BPA when they're drafting.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
The intriguing question for me is what happens if Boston is drafting Simmons? I'm not sure that the Bulls would be as interested in Simmons as Ingram, and the price for Butler might get high enough to cause Ainge doubts.
I think the Simmons criticism's gotten a bit out of control. Simmons wasn't a willing shooter at LSU, nor a good one, but his shot is far from broken. And beyond that, he's got an incredibly rare, intriguing skill-set for a 6'10 player. He's the perfect player for today's "positionless" NBA, and I think if teams are talking themselves into Brandon Ingram because of shooting it's going to be a mistake.

The funny thing, to me, is that while all of the "Simmons is can't shoot, he's going to be a bust" talks been reaching it's apex, Giannis was running the point in Milwaukee, basically providing the perfect blueprint for how a 6'10 athlete with excellent ball handling and court vision can be used. If teams honestly talk themselves out of Simmons, I'll be really, really surprised.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
If the Celtics pick up #1 or #2, would they still trade the pick for Butler? I can't see them giving up Ingram or Simmons, both of whom look like potential difference-makers, in a package for a good but not great two-way wing, even if keeping the pick pushes the time frame for the Celtics back by two years.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
If the Celtics pick up #1 or #2, would they still trade the pick for Butler? I can't see them giving up Ingram or Simmons, both of whom look like potential difference-makers, in a package for a good but not great two-way wing, even if keeping the pick pushes the time frame for the Celtics back by two years.
I think it really depends on what Ainge thinks of Simmons and Ingram, and on what other teams think of them. Maybe Ainge will actually prefer the guy who goes #2 (as we like to believe he did in 2007).
 

godownswinging

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
34
Ugh yes it actually does as ceiling from a scouting viewpoint is based on how much a player can grow into their existing length and athleticism. Of course Smart can improve certain areas of his game however unlike high ceiling players he doesn't have the length and athleticism to grow into.
Smart has a 6'9" wingspan and a 36.5" vertical. The idea that he isn't long and athletic is wrong. How you feel about his potential as a shooter probably colors your opinion of his future.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
If the Celtics pick up #1 or #2, would they still trade the pick for Butler? I can't see them giving up Ingram or Simmons, both of whom look like potential difference-makers, in a package for a good but not great two-way wing, even if keeping the pick pushes the time frame for the Celtics back by two years.
I think it depends on if there's a guy available that would make Durant come here. If so the pick is gone. If not you either get two guys with the pick getting the second or keep it.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
If the Celtics pick up #1 or #2, would they still trade the pick for Butler? I can't see them giving up Ingram or Simmons, both of whom look like potential difference-makers, in a package for a good but not great two-way wing, even if keeping the pick pushes the time frame for the Celtics back by two years.
Butler is a great wing.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I think Butler is a lot like Paul Pierce in the sense that he's clearly a top ten player in the league that fans just continuously discount for whatever reasons. Yes, last year he was a below average three point shooter for the Dysfunction Junction Bulls, but he's shown the ability to be an average one. Which is really all that's needed of his game.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,617
I think Butler is a lot like Paul Pierce in the sense that he's clearly a top ten player in the league that fans just continuously discount for whatever reasons. Yes, last year he was a below average three point shooter for the Dysfunction Junction Bulls, but he's shown the ability to be an average one. Which is really all that's needed of his game.

I recall one game against the Cs where Butler was unstoppable in the 4th quarter. I did not know he was that good until that game.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
Smart has a 6'9" wingspan and a 36.5" vertical. The idea that he isn't long and athletic is wrong. How you feel about his potential as a shooter probably colors your opinion of his future.
For comparison the long and athletic Dwyane Wade measured 1.75" taller without shoes, with a 6'11" wingspan and 35" vertical. In lane agility, Wade was a fraction of a second better than Smart but both were outstanding (Wade was #2 out of 70 at the combine and Smart was #8 out of 53). Smart had 11% body fat to Wade at 7%.

Butler was ranked #17 best player in the NBA on ESPN pre-season which seems about right. I don't think he did anything this year to hurt that ranking with his stats understandably down slightly on a dysfunctional team. Also, SG seems like an especially thin position as Butler was #2 ranked SG in the league behind Harden (he's roughly on par with Klay or Derozan). I haven't watched enough tape or seen stats on it, but Butler has a reputation as a very good defensive player so don't need him to be lights out offensively. If he's taking 36 minutes per game from Bradley & Turner pretty easy to see the Celtics as 5 wins better and easily in 2nd round, possibly in the ECF.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Smart has a 6'9" wingspan and a 36.5" vertical. The idea that he isn't long and athletic is wrong. How you feel about his potential as a shooter probably colors your opinion of his future.
I was actually optimistic of Smart's shooting midway through last season when he had improved his lower body balance and began squaring his shoulders consistently.......until he regressed mightily this season as his shot selection reverted back to his OKSt days. His wingspan serves him well defensively however the vertical number is meaningless as it doesn't translate to his game just as Nik Stauskas' 35.5" vertical doesn't translate to his skillset. Smart's physical limitations are his lack of quick first step and explosive quick leaping in the paint that we've seen for two years which is what causes him to have such a high percentage of his interior shots blocked or altered......in college he simply overpowered smaller athletes with his strength without having to finish against much longer defenders. These are the physical limitations I'm referring to with this particular player not wingspan and vertical.

I don't dislike Smart, he can be a good player and provide a key asset on a contender....he's a legit high level wing defender at the traditional 2/3 (not of the pure 1) and if he does add a consistent shot can provide a Bruce Bowen-like player. That's a decent upside imo for his game I just don't see him being a core 1 or 2 player on your team and he's not a starting PG at this level......which is what I feel he'd need to project to have a high ceiling or upside.


And as GMB has just pointed out, they also use the term to mean other things. Either back up your assertion with actual sources, not "this is what they say", or knock it off with the I-know-better-than-you shit. It's incredibly annoying to read, and you do it constantly in this forum.
What type of sources are you looking for? I'm not going to use specific names except when I hint strongly as as I do in the Providence Friars thread in College Sports and used to when one was at Clemson (now with Spurs) a decade ago. I grew up playing in the game and many of my friends/contacts growing up are coaches or scouts at the college and two at the professional level. I'm informing of what these coaches and scouts are referring to when they use this terminology as these conversations have taken place several times......if you disagree that is your prerogative and feel free to ignore. If I come across as holier than thou I apologize that isn't the intent......sometimes that's how it may come across posting in between living life.

We're on to the draft (I hope).
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Ben Simmons, Sabonis, and Dejounte Murray turn down invite to Combine. (Bender still under contract to Maccabi)

To me this signals that Sabonis and Murray may have a guarantee fairly high in the 1st round. If they don't schedule individual workouts (using a fake minor injury as an excuse) this is likely what is occurring. I love Murray's game, very active and versatile, and how it can translate in 3-4 years once he gains some size/strength. He plays a Brad Stevens style of game.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
NBA combine official (66, *has option to go back to school, ^ declined invite):

Ron Baker, SG, Wichita State
Wade Baldwin, PG, Vanderbilt
Anthony "Cat" Barber, PG, North Carolina State
Malik Beasley, SG, Florida State
DeAndre Bembry, SF, Saint Joseph's
*Ben Bentil, PF, Providence
*Jaron Blossomgame, Clemson
Joel Bolomboy, PF, Weber State
Malcolm Brogdon, Maryland
Jaylen Brown, SF, California
Robert Carter Jr., PF, Maryland
Marquese Chriss, PF, Washington
Elgin Cook, SF, Oregon
Isaiah Cousins, SF, Oklahoma
Deyonta Davis, PF/C, Michigan State
*Cheick Diallo, PF/C, Kansas
Kris Dunn, PG, Providence
Henry Ellenson, PF, Marquette
Perry Ellis, SF, Kansas
A.J. English, SG, Iona
Kay Felder, PG, Oakland
Dorian Finney-Smith, SF, Florida
Michael Gbinije, SG, Syracuse
Daniel Hamilton, SG/SF, Connecticut
A.J. Hammonds, C, Purdue
*Josh Hart, SG, Villanova
*Nigel Hayes, SF, Wisconsin
Buddy Hield, SG, Oklahoma
Brandon Ingram, SF, Duke
Demetrius Jackson, PG, Notre Dame
*Justin Jackson, SF, North Carolina
Bryce Johnson, PF, North Carolina
Damian Jones, C, Vanderbilt
Skal Labissière, PF/C, Kentucky
*Dedric Lawson, F, Memphis
Jake Layman, SF, Maryland
*Marcus Lee, PF, Kentucky
Caris LeVert, SG, Michigan
Thon Maker, PF/C, Int'l
Pat McCaw, SG, UNLV
Isaiah Miles, SF, Saint Joseph's
^Dejounte Murray, PG/SG, Washington
Jamal Murray, PG/SG, Kentucky
*Malik Newman, SG, Mississippi State
Georges Niang, SF, Iowa State
*Chinanu Onuaku, C, Louisville
Marcus Paige, PG, North Carolina
Gary Payton II, PG, Oregon State
Jakob Poeltl, C, Utah
Taurean Prince, SF, Baylor
*Malachi Richardson, SG, Syracuse
^Domantas Sabonis, PF, Gonzaga
Wayne Selden, SG, Kansas
*Pascal Siakam, F, New Mexico State
^Ben Simmons, F, LSU
Diamond Stone, C, Maryland
*Caleb Swanigan, PF/C, Purdue
*Melo Trimble, PG, Maryland
Tyler Ulis, PG, Kentucky
Jarrod Uthoff, SF, Iowa
Denzel Valentine, SG, Michigan State
*Isaiah Whitehead, SG, Seton Hall
*Troy Williams, PF, Indiana
Kyle Wiltjer, PF, Gonzaga
Zhou Qi, C, Int'l
Stephen Zimmerman, PF/C, UNLV
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
dante, parker and embiid were gone by the time the Cs were on the board. Who should we have taken instead of Smart? Vonleh was a high upside guy still available. anyone else would have been a major reach. All of Smart's combine measurables were very similar to Dwyane Wade's btw, another shooting-challenged guard.

Smart was a fine pick for where he was selected and who was left. That wasn't the argument.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Hearing the two teams having the most contact with Kris Dunn's agent are in order, Philadelphia and Phoenix. He's been working out in LA with Tyler Ulis, another CAA client, for the past few weeks leading up to the NBA Combine beginning on Wednesday prior to returning to Providence for his graduation ceremony next Sunday. As has been the trend over the past couple years with the top draft prospects, Dunn will not fully participate in the Combine activities. He will be there for measurements and interviews for certain, likely (but not yet certain) to go through the agility portion, and will not participate in the shooting drills. The reasoning I heard is that the 3-4 teams he will work out for will have their own version of drills in place when he visits them which is what their training is focusing on in LA.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
I always thought the shooting portion of the combine was the most pointless b/c of SSS.

Ainge said he was going to work out 80-100 players for this draft - seems like overkill. Though, I like what he said about forcing guards to defend bigs and bigs to defend guards in his workouts to test defensive versatility, esp under Stevens' system.

Lakers or Celts - whichever lands a top-2 pick has to be seen as front-runner to be able to trade for Butler.

I saw Suns are sending a kid with Downs as their rep for the lottery. 0% chance they don't land a top-2 pick (if you believe it's at all rigged).
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I always thought the shooting portion of the combine was the most pointless b/c of SSS.

Ainge said he was going to work out 80-100 players for this draft - seems like overkill. Though, I like what he said about forcing guards to defend bigs and bigs to defend guards in his workouts to test defensive versatility, esp under Stevens' system.
It really is a recruiting process with the agents to get kids to workout for you as each player has a limited number of days to workout for teams and an agent is going to select the teams where his client has the best chance of being selected. This is one advantage of stockpiling so many second round picks which most won't be used but it will lure more prospects to workout for Boston than ever before. I don't doubt that Ainge will try and have that many overall players involved during this process however the majority of these players are simply filler from low level D-1 programs and some D-3's as bodies to complete the six-man group workouts which is what Ainge ran most days during last summers team workout.

I remember the story of one kid last year who played at a local Boston college a few years back who was rushed in for a last minute cancellation for RJ Hunter (who never made it to Boston last summer for his workout) leading Ainge to comment afterward, "He was the first player we've ever had workout who sported a Boston Bruins tattoo."
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Hearing the two teams having the most contact with Kris Dunn's agent are in order, Philadelphia and Phoenix. He's been working out in LA with Tyler Ulis, another CAA client, for the past few weeks leading up to the NBA Combine beginning on Wednesday prior to returning to Providence for his graduation ceremony next Sunday. As has been the trend over the past couple years with the top draft prospects, Dunn will not fully participate in the Combine activities. He will be there for measurements and interviews for certain, likely (but not yet certain) to go through the agility portion, and will not participate in the shooting drills. The reasoning I heard is that the 3-4 teams he will work out for will have their own version of drills in place when he visits them which is what their training is focusing on in LA.
I'm guessing that we're talking the bottom four, because he'd be on Boston's radar too. But this leads to an interesting dilemma if Philly and LA draft one and two. Because in that case Boston might actually have a bidding war for Dunn if they're picking 3/4 and he's on the board.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I'm guessing that we're talking the bottom four, because he'd be on Boston's radar too. But this leads to an interesting dilemma if Philly and LA draft one and two. Because in that case Boston might actually have a bidding war for Dunn if they're picking 3/4 and he's on the board.
Getting a read on Ainge could be more difficult than most GM's. Last summer when RJ Hunter cancelled his flight from one workout to Boston due to being exhausted from traveling city to city his agent told him not to worry about apartment hunting in Boston.......then he heard his name called on draft night. I wouldn't discount Ainge's lack of extra interest in Dunn as he's been to several of his games both at Providence and on the road this season while certainly having plenty of information from his contacts to know about Dunn's high character and maturity. Otoh, Ainge also knows how much Colangelo loves Dunn, wants to run with two PG's and needs a first one off the bat to maximize value in a deal.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Looking through the official measurements Ben Bentl turns out to be six eight with a decent wingspan and an acceptable standing reach. I'd put him on the board with their own pick.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Looking through the official measurements Ben Bentl turns out to be six eight with a decent wingspan and an acceptable standing reach. I'd put him on the board with their own pick.
Bentil's huge hole is his Kanter-like ability to create a layup line for opposing bigs. Offensively he's a prototypical stretch-4 who is only improving his perimeter shooting. His individual workouts are going to be HUGE for him to show that he can defend his position at an acceptable level to see minutes.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Defense is one of those areas that is relatively easy for a player to improve (unless they're Gerald Green stupid). He definitely needs to demonstrate a capacity to learn quickly, but he has a lot of upside.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Defense is one of those areas that is relatively easy for a player to improve (unless they're Gerald Green stupid). He definitely needs to demonstrate a capacity to learn quickly, but he has a lot of upside.
This is true when a player has the physical skills/quickly/lateral movement, etc to form a foundation. Rondo is a great example of a player without that lateral quickness who has always struggled defending a high screen forcing him to always go beneath it or have to contort his body to get above it which places his body out of position to recover quickly. I'm concerned that Bentil doesn't have that natural instinct in a similar was that Love and Kanter struggle defending the post. Or it could be nothing as you say as he is still a very inexperienced basketball player. He sure didn't show those instincts last year when defending without help in the post so these workouts will be interesting.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
Jonathan Givony ‏@DraftExpress 1h1 hour ago
Standouts from Game 3 of the NBA Combine: Michael Gbinije, Kay Felder, Cheick Diallo, Chinanu Onuaku, Isaiah Miles. Last game underway now.

Jonathan Givony ‏@DraftExpress 3h3 hours ago
Bottom 5 in PER at yesterday's #NBACombine (starting with lowest): Daniel Hamilton, Isaiah Cousins, Marcus Lee, Malik Newman, Melo Trimble

Jonathan Givony ‏@DraftExpress 4h4 hours ago
Top 5 at yesterday's #NBACombine in PER: Ben Bentil, Malcolm Brogdon, A.J. English, Cheick Diallo, DeAndre Bembry. Second day tipping now.
 

ishmael

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 3, 2006
640
I don't have a player in mind. Here's a list of every player 6'8" or under, with a DBPM, and assist rate as good as Smart's, but who shot at least 35% on threes for instance. And yes, that's a pretty dramatic improvement in his shooting, but if we're talking about upside, that doesn't seem unrealistic either. It's a reasonably impressive list. The size is off, but maybe Nic Batum is the closest comp I see there. I'm not a student of the history of the game, so maybe there's someone closer there however.

I agree he's never going to have the handle to be a primary scorer, but top-level perimeter defense paired with good shooting is a powerful combination, especially in today's NBA.
Mookie Blaylock is actually a pretty good comp. Small-ish guard, with strong defensive instincts and athleticism. Mookie was a better distributor than Marcus will ever be, but I think Smart has a chance to shoot a lot more free throws and defend more positions on the wing. Smart definitely needs to improve shot selection and accuracy to make the same type of impact, but worth noting that Mookie was the third best player on multiple 50+ win Hawks teams in a tough Eastern Conference...
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/news/nba-draft-combine-scouting-cheick-diallo-celtics-kris-dunn-furkan-korkmaz/48jorb4mjgxl1wm3737but16p

The Celtics were said to have interest in Diallo, possibly with the No. 23 pick, but there’s a chance he won’t be on the board at that point. Diallo stressed that rim protection is his strength, and after interviewing with them this week, he said the Celtics told him that’s what they were looking for.

“They was asking me, (they would) like some player who can protect the rim,” Diallo said. “I said, ‘Yeah, that’s a job I like to do.’ Because I’m the best, I can block shots, I can rebound the ball, I can run the floor. They said they need this type of player. I said, ‘I can do it.’ That’s the thing Cheick can do best. I am not going to try and do 3-point shots, no, I am not like that. Just show what I can do.”
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
There hasn't been anything announced yet but Providence's Ben Bentil is adamant that he is fully committed to staying in the draft following the feedback he received at the Chicago Combine.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
There was something I read yesterday (forget where since I discounted it with a chuckle) about Bender possibly being in play with the #2 pick which was only hours after I had heard talk from Dunn's camp that they have been told #2 is possible......which I also discounted and didn't post as it didn't appear to be more than somebody spreading a dumb rumor that had zero validity. Now we're hearing talk that the ONLY team Ben Simmons will visit is the Los Angeles Lakers so "if" the Lakers end up outside of the top two tonight I suppose that does put Bender and/or Dunn in play at #2.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,084
How so? Ben Simmons isn't going to hold out. I'm sure LA is his preference but he has very little leverage. And his agents surely know that there is a decent chance that LA loses their pick.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Chad FordVerified account ‏@chadfordinsider 3h3 hours ago
Both Malachi Richardson & Cheick Diallo told teams in interviews today that they've decided to stay in the draft.
What the hell is Richardson thinking? He's a really good and interesting pro prospect, but what is it with these Syracuse guys leaving when they're basically second round (or late first round) picks, especially when one more year of time in college could earn them a LOT more money?

Ennis
Grant
McCullough

And now Richardson.

I get Wes Johnson and Carter-Williams and Waiters - those guys were all lottery picks and have no problem with that. But these other guys? Drives me crazy.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
How so? Ben Simmons isn't going to hold out. I'm sure LA is his preference but he has very little leverage. And his agents surely know that there is a decent chance that LA loses their pick.
Simmons can hold out from working out for other teams and we have seen top picks in the past make public where they didn't want to play making it uncomfortable for that team to select them. Elway, Eli, etc

Not saying this is going to happen only what the rumblings are and that it's something to view as interesting as the workouts approach.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
What the hell is Richardson thinking? He's a really good and interesting pro prospect, but what is it with these Syracuse guys leaving when they're basically second round (or late first round) picks, especially when one more year of time in college could earn them a LOT more money?

Ennis
Grant
McCullough

And now Richardson.

I get Wes Johnson and Carter-Williams and Waiters - those guys were all lottery picks and have no problem with that. But these other guys? Drives me crazy.
I don't dislike the moves you mention above as it didn't seem the other players had the upside to greatly improve their draft stock. the upside is they get several million guaranteed a year sooner, hit FA a year sooner, and without being a guaranteed lottery pick or even first rounder the school could have had a difficult time acquiring insurance to protect them against injury. Rabb out of Cal choose to turn down guaranteed mid-1st money this year which kinda makes me uncomfortable for him. That's a ton of risk without much upside for a player like this.

Without the insurance that Providence was allowed to acquire we would have seen Dunn enter last summers draft and gone mid-1st rather than high lottery. Without the insurance Richardson would be risking guaranteed millions. I am not familiar with his or those other Syracuse players backgrounds but it's easy for us to say "No" to millions of dollars while the kids mother could be living in Section 8 housing.