quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

Sadly this feels like the Derrick Johnson or Shabazz Mohammed drafts where I just know we're going to take the one guy I really don't like at all.

Edwards.

Could Wiseman and KAT coexist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

Sadly this feels like the Derrick Johnson or Shabazz Mohammed drafts where I just know we're going to take the one guy I really don't like at all.

Edwards.

Could Wiseman and KAT coexist?

In the NBA in general? Most likely. Wiseman would cover for a lot of the things the Wolves don't do well - rebound, protect the paint/rim, etc. And he would allow KAT to not have to spend so much times defending guys bigger or stronger than he is.

In Rosas' vision for the team? Probably not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

Sadly this feels like the Derrick Johnson or Shabazz Mohammed drafts where I just know we're going to take the one guy I really don't like at all.

Edwards.

Could Wiseman and KAT coexist?

In the NBA in general? Most likely. Wiseman would cover for a lot of the things the Wolves don't do well - rebound, protect the paint/rim, etc. And he would allow KAT to not have to spend so much times defending guys bigger or stronger than he is.

In Rosas' vision for the team? Probably not.

The fact that Wiseman can actually shoot the ball means KAT could still operate in the paint on the offensive end and vise versa when on defense. Both can run the court. I think it could work. But I don't know squat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

Sadly this feels like the Derrick Johnson or Shabazz Mohammed drafts where I just know we're going to take the one guy I really don't like at all.

Edwards.

Could Wiseman and KAT coexist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

Sadly this feels like the Derrick Johnson or Shabazz Mohammed drafts where I just know we're going to take the one guy I really don't like at all.

Edwards.

Could Wiseman and KAT coexist?

I think Wiseman would get in the way of KAT offensively. When Anthony Davis plays the 5 w/o McGee/Howard clogging things up, he is far more effective even though he doesn't like it. The benefit, as mentioned, with KAT/Wiseman is KAT wouldn't have to take the pounding.

All in all though, #1 overall would be a lot to give up for a potential part timer in Wiseman. You could go sign a veteran big man to do the same and still have the #1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

Sadly this feels like the Derrick Johnson or Shabazz Mohammed drafts where I just know we're going to take the one guy I really don't like at all.

Edwards.

Could Wiseman and KAT coexist?

In the NBA in general? Most likely. Wiseman would cover for a lot of the things the Wolves don't do well - rebound, protect the paint/rim, etc. And he would allow KAT to not have to spend so much times defending guys bigger or stronger than he is.

In Rosas' vision for the team? Probably not.

The fact that Wiseman can actually shoot the ball means KAT could still operate in the paint on the offensive end and vise versa when on defense. Both can run the court. I think it could work. But I don't know squat.

It totally could, but Rosas is 100% against playing 2 bigs at the same time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Like I say IDK much. But this kid could really be special. He's what 7'1" and like a 9' wing span and actually has a nice soft touch on a jumper. let's face it KAT doesn't like to play defense and this kid is like a fly swatter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Like I say IDK much. But this kid could really be special. He's what 7'1" and like a 9' wing span and actually has a nice soft touch on a jumper. let's face it KAT doesn't like to play defense and this kid is like a fly swatter.

7'6. Which is only 3" less than Rudy Gobert.

There are still a ton of questions about Wiseman, as he only played 3 college games against really bad competition.

PLUSES

Elite measurables with long arms and a strong frame. He runs the floor like a gazelle, and he explodes vertically when he has space to launch.

Active rebounder. He displays a high motor and great instincts tracking the trajectory of missed shots on the offensive glass.

His best offensive role is as a screener who rolls hard to the rim since he can finish lobs or with touch. But he can also mix in pops to generate shots from the perimeter and keep defenses honest.

Strong post-up potential. Displays a rare blend of power and finesse and does a nice job of sealing off his man. But he currently lacks advanced power moves, instead defaulting to fadeaways.

Shooting upside: He has good mechanics and soft touch. But he lacks range and doesn’t have a track record of success shooting from midrange and 3.

Athletic rim protector whose mere presence can deter opponents. He’s good at assessing what’s in front of him. If his positioning and court awareness improves, he has elite potential.

High-character person who works hard on and off the court. He’s intelligent, too; These are positive personality traits that could aid his development.

MINUSES

Poor shot selection in high school; he played like he thought he was the second coming of Dirk Nowitzki. In college, he played more to his strengths, which needs to continue at the NBA level; the context of his situation will be key to his success.

He’s an all-world athlete in an open gym, but he slows down in games when he has to read the floor. Simplifying his role will be vital early on.

He has a weak handle, which limits him off the dribble. And as a playmaker, he misses open cutters and delivers inaccurate passes. He’s best suited to finish rather than create.

Chases too many blocks and ends up falling for pump fakes.

Sluggish lateral movement on the perimeter due to a lack of quickness and shoddy footwork. Defenders blow by him too often. At this stage, he’s not switchable.

Shaky team defender who tends to find himself in the wrong position or a beat late when rotating. He reads the floor slowly, so his pick-and-roll defense is particularly underwhelming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

IDK DL I see a lot of pluses vs minuses compared to both Ball and Edwards.

This kid looks to have the most "star" potential to me. But like I say I'm far from an expert on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

I don’t like any of the 3.

Ball probably us the highest upside, but he needs a ton of work and good coaching.

Edwards has a pretty high chance to bust. But I could see him having a lengthy career as an inefficient scorer that does nothing to help teams win.

Wiseman is the biggest unknown. Maybe he’s a future star, maybe he’s Hassan Whiteside, or maybe he’s a guy that you have to pull against a lot of more modern teams.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

I think someone will be enamored with one of the so-called top three, so you can get decent return. Might not be a brinks job, but perhaps you end up with a pair of top tier prospects.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

I think someone will be enamored with one of the so-called top three, so you can get decent return. Might not be a brinks job, but perhaps you end up with a pair of top tier prospects.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

If we stay at #1, I definitely would take Ball.

I think he's potentially too unique. He has off the chart basketball instincts without ever having good coaching (his Australian team was a joke).

Absolutely love his size, and he may still be growing.

Assists, rebounds, steals and a solid assist:turnover ratio. There are all really positive BBIQ signs, so he could be coached into a solid defender.

Not a good shooter, but his shot is far from broken. Over 70% from the line, feathery touch on floaters out to about 15 feet and really good around the rim with a variety of shots.

The 3 is a problem, but its more about inconsistencies. When he goes straight up and down, his shot is quite nice - although he does have a low release. His problem is far too often he jackknifes or flays his legs when shooting and then things fall apart. Its definitely a coachable shot.

Now, if the shot and defense don't come around, he's definitely not worth the #1 pick. He'd basically be Ben Simmons without the defense *and a propensity to launch bad shots...).

I'd have Vanterpool spend a lot of time talking to him before the draft to try to get a feel of how coachable he thinks he is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

If we stay at #1, I definitely would take Ball.

I think he's potentially too unique. He has off the chart basketball instincts without ever having good coaching (his Australian team was a joke).

Absolutely love his size, and he may still be growing.

Assists, rebounds, steals and a solid assist:turnover ratio. There are all really positive BBIQ signs, so he could be coached into a solid defender.

Not a good shooter, but his shot is far from broken. Over 70% from the line, feathery touch on floaters out to about 15 feet and really good around the rim with a variety of shots.

The 3 is a problem, but its more about inconsistencies. When he goes straight up and down, his shot is quite nice - although he does have a low release. His problem is far too often he jackknifes or flays his legs when shooting and then things fall apart. Its definitely a coachable shot.

Now, if the shot and defense don't come around, he's definitely not worth the #1 pick. He'd basically be Ben Simmons without the defense *and a propensity to launch bad shots...).

I'd have Vanterpool spend a lot of time talking to him before the draft to try to get a feel of how coachable he thinks he is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hats4Bats

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

If we stay at #1, I definitely would take Ball.

I think he's potentially too unique. He has off the chart basketball instincts without ever having good coaching (his Australian team was a joke).

Absolutely love his size, and he may still be growing.

Assists, rebounds, steals and a solid assist:turnover ratio. There are all really positive BBIQ signs, so he could be coached into a solid defender.

Not a good shooter, but his shot is far from broken. Over 70% from the line, feathery touch on floaters out to about 15 feet and really good around the rim with a variety of shots.

The 3 is a problem, but its more about inconsistencies. When he goes straight up and down, his shot is quite nice - although he does have a low release. His problem is far too often he jackknifes or flays his legs when shooting and then things fall apart. Its definitely a coachable shot.

Now, if the shot and defense don't come around, he's definitely not worth the #1 pick. He'd basically be Ben Simmons without the defense *and a propensity to launch bad shots...).

I'd have Vanterpool spend a lot of time talking to him before the draft to try to get a feel of how coachable he thinks he is.

Based on your analysis, DL, other teams HAVE to believe he is the # 1 pick. We should be able to leverage a trade to our liking OR go ahead and pick him. If he becomes an all-star we have a huge chip. I say take him!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ruffenach

One trade proposal with Chicago is Zach Levine and Laure Markinen for the First, Jones and Culver.. Thoughts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: ruffenach

One trade proposal with Chicago is Zach Levine and Laure Markinen for the First, Jones and Culver.. Thoughts.

Do you mean Johnson?