<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The New Jersey Nets have denied that they have given young Italian forward Danilo Gallinari a guarantee they'll draft him at pick 10 if he is available, the New York Post is reporting. That said, if he is available and Brook Lopez is off the board, the selection may very well happen. As far as trading the pick, the Nets have received numerous calls, but the volume and seriousness of the calls - so far - have been "normal," Thorn said. New Jersey also hold pick 21 in the first round.</div> Via New York Post I don't like constantly seeing Brook Lopez's name in correlation with the Nets - makes me extremely nervous if he were to fall to #10. Right now, that's what I'm crossing my fingers on the most.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (User01 @ Jun 22 2008, 12:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>well, who's the last team to admit guaranteeing a player before the draft</div> Well, a guarantee usually requires both parties to make commitments: the team must agree that if the player is available, they will take him and the player must agree to stop working out for other teams. Gallinari has worked out for the Clippers, Grizzlie and Timberwolves in the past several days, so there is no guarantee, as usually defined. I believe the truth is closest to what D'Alessandro reported: the Nets can't guarantee a deal because they are talking to other teams about trading it (another reason to believe the rumors re the Suns)...but if they don't make a deal and he's there, they'll likely take him. I dont buy this chatter that the Knicks will take him at #6. And virtually every important mock draft, the ones that actually have a decent track record and some sources, still have him at #10. On the other hand, Robin Lopez has not worked out for a team since the Nets. He has a "sprained ankle".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dark Defender @ Jun 22 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I will throw myself under a bus if the Nets take Brooke or Robin with the 10th pick.</div> omg i willl join you... why do we suck at drafts so much... this will just add to the track record of our dissapointing draft picks if we pick brook or ESPECIALLY robin.
It'd be disappointing if we get Brook or Robin. This draft night has the potential to be our biggest one in recent memory. It could really make things better...or worse.
Love will not drop. Gordon very well might, and there will be a reason: he is too small for a shooting guard and doesn't have anywhere near the ball handling skills needed for PG. Gallinari can fill in at PG, at least on offense. I can't see the Nets taking Gordon, particularly if Lopez or Gallinari are on the board.
based on our position and availabitiy, I wouldn't mind taking brook lopez. He is a role player but I can see his effectiveness within frank's offense. I haven't seen his mid-range game but Lopez can also be used as kristic's replacement, his hook shots can be effective within our offense especially with Boone and sean Williams being easy buckets and put back type of guys. Best bet is to package the pick but I'm not a GM
Robin Lopez scenario makes no sense. We have Boone who is a better, more polished version of him. Whether or not Gallinari has a guarantee, chances are either him, Brook Lopez, Joe Alexander or Westbrook will be the choice. The deciding factor will probably be on the trades the team has planned. If RJ goes, chances are we'll pick up Alexander or Gallinari. If Lopez is available, I see Kiki and Thorn taking him regardless of who else is available. The same way Marcus Williams dropped a few years ago and NJ took him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 22 2008, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Robin Lopez scenario makes no sense. We have Boone who is a better, more polished version of him. Whether or not Gallinari has a guarantee, chances are either him, Brook Lopez, Joe Alexander or Westbrook will be the choice. The deciding factor will probably be on the trades the team has planned. If RJ goes, chances are we'll pick up Alexander or Gallinari. If Lopez is available, I see Kiki and Thorn taking him regardless of who else is available. The same way Marcus Williams dropped a few years ago and NJ took him.</div> Since the Nets have two picks in the first round, it is important somewhat to draft backwards. By that I mean try to guess who will be around at #21 who would be able to contribute. This is especially important because I don't think a team should ever draft two players in the same year (or in adjacent years) who will be competing with each other for minutes--and that the nets have never done so since Thorn has taken over. We know that this is a deep draft for centers, and that there should be a number of decent role-filling centers available at #21, players like Hibbert, Hickson, Ajinca, McGee, Koufos, Speights, Jason Thompson, even Darrell Arthur and Robin Lopez. If all or most of those players are gone, it means that someone like Rush or Donte Greene will unexpectedly be available and be a ridiculous bargain. Second, the evidence shows that big men taken in the second half of the lottery have no better chance of succeeding than big men taken in the second half of the first round. For the most part, the most they aspire to is a steady rotation player who has a decent career but is not an integral part of any team's offense. The exceptions to that are all high-school kids, where the team drafting them were willing to wait a few years for them to develop. Guess what? There are no more high school kids. Is Brook Lopez an exception? Is it a bet that you're comfortable making? The concluding point is that that Nets should plan on taking Hibbert or Hickson or whichever center they like at #21. As a result, they should NOT take one of the Lopezes at #10. They should grab Westbrook or DG--hopefully one of them will be available--and when the night is done, they'll have had a great draft.
That Marcus thing worked out well, didn't it? Lopez screams BUST, and pretty loudly might I add. The pick should be Gallinari or Westbrook if he drops, which I doubt. No one else, not even Eric "I am a undersized SG who can't even dribble the ball" Gordon.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We know that this is a deep draft for centers, and that there should be a number of decent role-filling centers available at #21, players like Hibbert, Hickson, Ajinca, McGee, Koufos, Speights, Jason Thompson, even Darrell Arthur and Robin Lopez. If all or most of those players are gone, it means that someone like Rush or Donte Greene will unexpectedly be available and be a ridiculous bargain.</div> Hickson and Arthur aren't centers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 22 2008, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Love will not drop. Gordon very well might, and there will be a reason: he is too small for a shooting guard and doesn't have anywhere near the ball handling skills needed for PG. Gallinari can fill in at PG, at least on offense. I can't see the Nets taking Gordon, particularly if Lopez or Gallinari are on the board.</div> if the Nets take Gordon, I'll interpret it as a sign that Thorn has retired and Kiki has carte blanche to do whatever he wants.
Dumpy, I agree with most of the things you said. I also saw the article on DX that showed the success rates of drafted players. My problem with that article is that the data is not broken down into Why the players were taken. Before last year, you could draft high schoolers, and as you know, many teams did take younger players. The other item is that even if the prospect is not a high schooler, sometimes he is taken simply based on potential (ex. Patrick O'Bryant). There were a lot of raw big men who were taken early in the lottery because they were such "awesome raw speciments". This is absolutely not the case with Brook Lopez. This prospect already shows a polished post game as well as is mature and intelligent. Despite this he still JUST turned 20. There are not many offensively polished big men who still have potential. When people speak of potential, they usually hope that a physically gifted person develops a certain degree of basketball skill. Sometimes, these players develop well, other times they don't. Brook Lopez is a completely different sort of player. He is average athletically, and he never will be a great athlete. However, he can become a much more skilled player. He already shows maturity and work ethic to have a polished offensive game. He can learn to hold good defensive post position, he can learn to box out and rebound well, he can learn to shoot the mid-range J, or the sky hook (I know, I wish). I'm as big a fan of statistical analysis as anyone, but sometimes it just doesn't fit. Using something like "big men taken at the end of the lottery have the same chance to become productive players as big men taken in the late 1st round" is just too general to apply to a scenario when you only have one pick in the lottery.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Jun 22 2008, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We know that this is a deep draft for centers, and that there should be a number of decent role-filling centers available at #21, players like Hibbert, Hickson, Ajinca, McGee, Koufos, Speights, Jason Thompson, even Darrell Arthur and Robin Lopez. If all or most of those players are gone, it means that someone like Rush or Donte Greene will unexpectedly be available and be a ridiculous bargain.</div> Hickson and Arthur aren't centers. </div> oh, whatever. Neither is Boone, but that hasn't stopped him from lining up there.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 22 2008, 06:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dumpy, I agree with most of the things you said. I also saw the article on DX that showed the success rates of drafted players. My problem with that article is that the data is not broken down into Why the players were taken. Before last year, you could draft high schoolers, and as you know, many teams did take younger players. The other item is that even if the prospect is not a high schooler, sometimes he is taken simply based on potential (ex. Patrick O'Bryant). There were a lot of raw big men who were taken early in the lottery because they were such "awesome raw speciments". This is absolutely not the case with Brook Lopez. This prospect already shows a polished post game as well as is mature and intelligent. Despite this he still JUST turned 20. There are not many offensively polished big men who still have potential. When people speak of potential, they usually hope that a physically gifted person develops a certain degree of basketball skill. Sometimes, these players develop well, other times they don't. Brook Lopez is a completely different sort of player. He is average athletically, and he never will be a great athlete. However, he can become a much more skilled player. He already shows maturity and work ethic to have a polished offensive game. He can learn to hold good defensive post position, he can learn to box out and rebound well, he can learn to shoot the mid-range J, or the sky hook (I know, I wish). I'm as big a fan of statistical analysis as anyone, but sometimes it just doesn't fit. Using something like "big men taken at the end of the lottery have the same chance to become productive players as big men taken in the late 1st round" is just too general to apply to a scenario when you only have one pick in the lottery.</div> I can't deny that something is lost when you stop treating players as individuals. However, it is tellilng that big men appear to be consistently overpicked, at least as far as their eventual impact in the league goes, especially compared to wings. And again, how much better will Brook Lopez be than Roy Hibbert? To me, that is a fundamental question that must be considered BY THE NETS, given the fact that they have two picks.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 08:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Jun 22 2008, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We know that this is a deep draft for centers, and that there should be a number of decent role-filling centers available at #21, players like Hibbert, Hickson, Ajinca, McGee, Koufos, Speights, Jason Thompson, even Darrell Arthur and Robin Lopez. If all or most of those players are gone, it means that someone like Rush or Donte Greene will unexpectedly be available and be a ridiculous bargain.</div> Hickson and Arthur aren't centers. </div> oh, whatever. Neither is Boone, but that hasn't stopped him from lining up there. </div> That's not how I meant it. Arthur is strictly a forward, and Hickson is strictly a PF, whereas Boone is a FC.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 22 2008, 06:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dumpy, I agree with most of the things you said. I also saw the article on DX that showed the success rates of drafted players. My problem with that article is that the data is not broken down into Why the players were taken. Before last year, you could draft high schoolers, and as you know, many teams did take younger players. The other item is that even if the prospect is not a high schooler, sometimes he is taken simply based on potential (ex. Patrick O'Bryant). There were a lot of raw big men who were taken early in the lottery because they were such "awesome raw speciments". This is absolutely not the case with Brook Lopez. This prospect already shows a polished post game as well as is mature and intelligent. Despite this he still JUST turned 20. There are not many offensively polished big men who still have potential. When people speak of potential, they usually hope that a physically gifted person develops a certain degree of basketball skill. Sometimes, these players develop well, other times they don't. Brook Lopez is a completely different sort of player. He is average athletically, and he never will be a great athlete. However, he can become a much more skilled player. He already shows maturity and work ethic to have a polished offensive game. He can learn to hold good defensive post position, he can learn to box out and rebound well, he can learn to shoot the mid-range J, or the sky hook (I know, I wish). I'm as big a fan of statistical analysis as anyone, but sometimes it just doesn't fit. Using something like "big men taken at the end of the lottery have the same chance to become productive players as big men taken in the late 1st round" is just too general to apply to a scenario when you only have one pick in the lottery.</div> I can't deny that something is lost when you stop treating players as individuals. However, it is tellilng that big men appear to be consistently overpicked, at least as far as their eventual impact in the league goes, especially compared to wings. And again, how much better will Brook Lopez be than Roy Hibbert? To me, that is a fundamental question that must be considered BY THE NETS, given the fact that they have two picks. </div> That's the thing with guards though. There are absolutely no guards who are picked based on their "raw athletic potential". When guards are picked, they are skillful. When it comes to big men, a lot of hype is generated about Player X because he's so awesome physically. Teams basically out think one another about what the player CAN turn into. This leads into an earlier team drafting that raw prospect. A lot of the physically raw big men go in the middle of the lottery. Basically, a team that is picking in its 20s says "look, we're not going to get an impact player immediately, and we're already pretty good. Let's take someone with potential". They go scout this player. Another GM finds out about this and goes to look at this raw prospect themselves. It starts a chain reaction. Teams start treating this person as someone who's going in the 20s. When they get an idea of the player's potential they all exclaim "WOW! This is the next franchise big man! Look at him!". He becomes a consensus Top 15 pick. Then during the measurements camp the man jumps out of the gym and does excellent on the agility drills. Guess what? Another team looks at him and decides that he's worth a shot at the #8 (for ex) spot. It's almost as if there is no middle ground for raw prospects. Either a prospect is so awesome that he goes in the Top 10, or he goes in the middle of the second round. Raw big men don't get drafted in the 20s. Actually it's the same with the international big men prospects. When there's an international sensation, he gets all the hype and gets squished into the lottery, despite the fact that most of the teams didn't see him. When they bring him in for a workout (if they do), they usually fall in love with their length, height and "skill". This myth of "skilled" European big men usually means that at least one gets drafted in the Top 15 year after year. Most of them don't pan out. Even those who pan out turn into mediocre players. Outliers such as Nowitzki are very rare. Probably one every 10 years. This is how the data gets skewered. Because a player who was SUPPOSED to go somewhere in the 20s got picked at #8 or #9. If they re-did the analysis after taking out every PURELY "raw" project and "skilled" international prospect, the playing field would be equalized, and I guarantee you'd see that a much larger percentage of the late lottery big men perform much better than late first round ones.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 22 2008, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 22 2008, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 22 2008, 06:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dumpy, I agree with most of the things you said. I also saw the article on DX that showed the success rates of drafted players. My problem with that article is that the data is not broken down into Why the players were taken. Before last year, you could draft high schoolers, and as you know, many teams did take younger players. The other item is that even if the prospect is not a high schooler, sometimes he is taken simply based on potential (ex. Patrick O'Bryant). There were a lot of raw big men who were taken early in the lottery because they were such "awesome raw speciments". This is absolutely not the case with Brook Lopez. This prospect already shows a polished post game as well as is mature and intelligent. Despite this he still JUST turned 20. There are not many offensively polished big men who still have potential. When people speak of potential, they usually hope that a physically gifted person develops a certain degree of basketball skill. Sometimes, these players develop well, other times they don't. Brook Lopez is a completely different sort of player. He is average athletically, and he never will be a great athlete. However, he can become a much more skilled player. He already shows maturity and work ethic to have a polished offensive game. He can learn to hold good defensive post position, he can learn to box out and rebound well, he can learn to shoot the mid-range J, or the sky hook (I know, I wish). I'm as big a fan of statistical analysis as anyone, but sometimes it just doesn't fit. Using something like "big men taken at the end of the lottery have the same chance to become productive players as big men taken in the late 1st round" is just too general to apply to a scenario when you only have one pick in the lottery.</div> I can't deny that something is lost when you stop treating players as individuals. However, it is tellilng that big men appear to be consistently overpicked, at least as far as their eventual impact in the league goes, especially compared to wings. And again, how much better will Brook Lopez be than Roy Hibbert? To me, that is a fundamental question that must be considered BY THE NETS, given the fact that they have two picks. </div> That's the thing with guards though. There are absolutely no guards who are picked based on their "raw athletic potential". When guards are picked, they are skillful. When it comes to big men, a lot of hype is generated about Player X because he's so awesome physically. Teams basically out think one another about what the player CAN turn into. This leads into an earlier team drafting that raw prospect. A lot of the physically raw big men go in the middle of the lottery. Basically, a team that is picking in its 20s says "look, we're not going to get an impact player immediately, and we're already pretty good. Let's take someone with potential". They go scout this player. Another GM finds out about this and goes to look at this raw prospect themselves. It starts a chain reaction. Teams start treating this person as someone who's going in the 20s. When they get an idea of the player's potential they all exclaim "WOW! This is the next franchise big man! Look at him!". He becomes a consensus Top 15 pick. Then during the measurements camp the man jumps out of the gym and does excellent on the agility drills. Guess what? Another team looks at him and decides that he's worth a shot at the #8 (for ex) spot. It's almost as if there is no middle ground for raw prospects. Either a prospect is so awesome that he goes in the Top 10, or he goes in the middle of the second round. Raw big men don't get drafted in the 20s. Actually it's the same with the international big men prospects. When there's an international sensation, he gets all the hype and gets squished into the lottery, despite the fact that most of the teams didn't see him. When they bring him in for a workout (if they do), they usually fall in love with their length, height and "skill". This myth of "skilled" European big men usually means that at least one gets drafted in the Top 15 year after year. Most of them don't pan out. Even those who pan out turn into mediocre players. Outliers such as Nowitzki are very rare. Probably one every 10 years. This is how the data gets skewered. Because a player who was SUPPOSED to go somewhere in the 20s got picked at #8 or #9. If they re-did the analysis after taking out every PURELY "raw" project and "skilled" international prospect, the playing field would be equalized, and I guarantee you'd see that a much larger percentage of the late lottery big men perform much better than late first round ones. </div> This happens every year in every draft and is factored into the D/X analysis.
