2024 NBA Draft Thread

[SpursBills]

Just draft Cam Spencer in the seconf round if you want a shooter.

Burning a top pick on Dillingham/Sheppard when you can get a player who's primary asset is the same (shooting) in Spencer in the second round is the better play.

I see your point, don't necessarily agree. Just think it's pretty interesting that if Sheppard (19) literally did not improve at anything as a player for the next 4 years, he'd basically be Cam Spencer (23).

No Ceilings has us taking Sheppard and Castle this draft, so that's something you should be able to live with.

[Mr. Body]

I look like an all star on YT too...

- Topic has a long neck but length is really not what stands out watching him.
- He has no real athleticism, but looks on the contrary like your random under the rim, unathletic euro PG. Forget about Manu here. Most of his drives are actually without contact, (which tells you about the level of defense over there). Combine measurements should be brutal to him.
- His handlings are not that great.
- Can't shoot, 29% on 3 (behind the closer euro line).
- Bad defense, just a body out there.
He's confident, yeah, like Teodosic, Micic or Nando were...

Just for perspective, his stats in 2 Euroleague games this year (16min/game): 3.5pt, 3.5 ass, 1to, 1.5rbd, 0.5stl.

Biggest risk in this draft, massive bust potential. I don't see all star ceiling at all. He won't get all these easy driving lines in the NBA. how many, unathletic, bad shooting euro, white guards have succeeded in the NBA the last 10 years? If ever? He's no Ricky rubio, much mess Luka.

No way spurs can waste a pick on a guy I can see seriously dropping in mock drafts after scouts start to look more closely at College BB... He was your start of the season hype when you have to make mock drafts but can still really picture College players. Could be back in Europe before the end of his rookie contract.

IMHO ofc.

Yeah, all of this, really, although the two Euroleague games should probably be discounted. Moving into a new team and higher level of compe ion isn't easy.

Speed and control are forms of athleticism, but all we have are clip packages that show him spamming drives against clunky defenses. His finishing numbers are great, but only in that environment. Otherwise it's impossible to get any feel on him.

For me, he'd need to be a basketball genius, closer to Doncic, to be excited about. The overall height is great, even if he's a giraffe, but if I'm uncertain about how a player's shooting projects, I need something else. I need superior playmaking or I need great defense and frankly the Spurs don't need superior playmaking, just someone who can make the reads within the system and get Wembanyama and open guys the ball.

[baseline bum]

I see this argument all the time but I think it’s a bit of a crock. There was no expectation earlier in the season when playing for the ABA that he would eventually play in Euro and he was near the top of the mocks. Suddenly he goes up there, plays like one and half games and suddenly everything is in question. That’s a crock. He can’t be expected to adjust in that amount of time. There is plenty of film to make a determination on him on the same league that Jokic played on. No excuses. Either you like him as a prospect or you don’t. Don’t blame him for injury and then doing what every other prospect would do in his shoes.

And I thought it was ridiculous then that he was #1 or #2 in every mock when he made his living attacking the rim in a league without much shotblocking and when he can't shoot.

[couchman]

I understand the concern about level of play but the Euroleague sample size is tiny and I feel very comfortable with what I saw from ABA. He’s a natural on the ball, has a ton of pace changes and acceleration to constantly get into the lane, and he’s crafty with his finishes, including the suddenly slow step at the rim that we see guys like Luka and SGA using so well. The 7ft wingspan is real and you can see it in how he plays. He is long, not just in the neck lol. The long neck isn’t useful on defense but offensively he sees the floor well. The jumper is a real concern but the traits he already shows are things that are tough to teach.Yes he could bust, but who in this draft is a sure thing besides maybe Sheppard?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sup, Dulcinea.

So just like in the political forum where @winehole is and if you question their authority you get the troll swarm.

you only see people

So this is your precious of this forum. The lily white unimpeachable authority unstained by the reality of the bag you are.

I''m from Buenos Aires, Argentina and I've never conceiled or changed (in a purposeful way, that is) my IP since I registered 18 years ago. Your argument that I'm a troll and any proof to the contrary is invalid is unfalsifiable, which speaks more of your paranoid mind than it does about me. You might be shocked to hear this, but you're not as important as you think you are, and honestly I don't find interacting with you either interesting or enjoyable. So carry on with your life and I'll carry on with mine.

[baseline bum]

- Can't shoot, 29% on 3 (behind the closer euro line).

It's even worse, 25.8% from the three in his games played this season counting ABA and Euroleague.

[baseline bum]

I understand the concern about level of play but the Euroleague sample size is tiny and I feel very comfortable with what I saw from ABA. He’s a natural on the ball, has a ton of pace changes and acceleration to constantly get into the lane, and he’s crafty with his finishes, including the suddenly slow step at the rim that we see guys like Luka and SGA using so well. The 7ft wingspan is real and you can see it in how he plays. He is long, not just in the neck lol. The long neck isn’t useful on defense but offensively he sees the floor well. The jumper is a real concern but the traits he already shows are things that are tough to teach.Yes he could bust, but who in this draft is a sure thing besides maybe Sheppard?

He can't shoot. Spurs already have two PGs who can't shoot and you have the seen the results.

[pad300]

I'm worried about him not producing in Euroleague and just putting numbers up in the ABA. I know it's only a game and a half he played there but it didn't inspire much faith in him against high level compe ion. And even worse if he pulls a James Wiseman and decides to sit out the rest of the season to preserve draft stock. Topic seems like the biggest boom or bust prospect in this draft given lack of production against high level compe ion and inability to shoot.

I see this argument all the time but I think it’s a bit of a crock. There was no expectation earlier in the season when playing for the ABA that he would eventually play in Euro and he was near the top of the mocks. Suddenly he goes up there, plays like one and half games and suddenly everything is in question. That’s a crock. He can’t be expected to adjust in that amount of time. There is plenty of film to make a determination on him on the same league that Jokic played on. No excuses. Either you like him as a prospect or you don’t. Don’t blame him for injury and then doing what every other prospect would do in his shoes.

Also, hidden in this is the assumption that somehow, the NCAA is "high level compe ion" and the ABA is not. That is bull ; the ABA is a tougher league to play in than the NCAA.

[Mr. Body]

And I thought it was ridiculous then that he was #1 or #2 in every mock when he made his living attacking the rim in a league without much shotblocking and when he can't shoot.

I'm a bit fascinated by how the draft is prone to leaps of movement but also inertia. I don't think Sarr-Risacher-Topic are the top three picks. At least not necessarily. But the beginning of the year was pretty volatile. We had early mocked players start off very poorly - Buzelis and Holland looked poor on a bad Ignite team, guys like Collier didn't look good, Castle was injured, the big name Kentucky players were bad (Edwards, Wagner) and so on -- and so someone had to occupy those spots. The international players rose.

Then, because we have to assume the process makes sense and everyone knows what they're doing, people started getting angry at the suggestion that those players may not be the top players after all, or have flaws.

[Mr. Body]

Also, hidden in this is the assumption that somehow, the NCAA is "high level compe ion" and the ABA is not. That is bull ; the ABA is a tougher league to play in than the NCAA.

Nah, man. Once again, nah. The "grown man!" argument misses the point. You may have more developed bodies, but the top NCAA teams can be far more organized and better coached to play against than even a second tier Euro league.

This is about development, where college so far is much better for a young player's development. Other than some exceptions, of course. You have much better facilities to your disposal, much more meaningful game environments, important possessions, and, yes, individual players might be better in ABA (maybe), they are not coached in the same way where a player has to learn how to counter them.

Frankly the "grown men!" argument is pretty silly. The utter failure of Ignite this year should put to bed the "grown men!" argument for development.

[baseline bum]

Also, hidden in this is the assumption that somehow, the NCAA is "high level compe ion" and the ABA is not. That is bull ; the ABA is a tougher league to play in than the NCAA.

On what do you base that assertion? Does ABA have NBA players like say the French league does? Off the top of my head Mike James and Donatas Motiejunas were on Monaco's team last year for example. Whereas in a decent Division 1 conference you'll be playing guys who will be in the NBA pretty regularly.

[spurraider21]

On what do you base that assertion? Does ABA have NBA players like say the French league does? Off the top of my head Mike James and Donatas Motiejunas were on Monaco's team last year for example. Whereas in a decent Division 1 conference you'll be playing guys who will be in the NBA pretty regularly.

the answer is probably "something something something something jokic played in ABA and now he's good something something something"

[LeBowen]

We need an elite playmaker at the point.
Or an elite point forward, which is even harder to find.
Someone to run an offense and get the best out of everyone.

None of the point guards in this class are a sure thing, every single one of them has a lot of serious and valid concerns about his game.

Meanwhile, our perimeter rotation (SG-SF-PF) where we need at least 5 useful players is easily the weakest in the league.
Devin is the only sure thing and even he's got some obvious flaws and will need to live up to his extension.
Jermey has some great attributes and some glaring flaws that need to be fixed or he'll never be anything more than a glue guy.
Others are useless, with very little hope for improvement.
Including Keldon who's a finished product, not good enough and needs to go.

So even if Spurs draft two wings and Sidy is a part of the rotation the next season, it won't be a problem.

Good wings are way more difficult to find and even more difficult to trade for without getting ripped off.
Point guards are everywhere and getting a solid one is easy.

If Spurs don't want Trae, just get Tyus Jones with second rounders until a better opportunity presents itself.

But getting two-way wings that can shoot is the most important thing in the modern NBA.

[sfernald]

We need an elite playmaker at the point.
Or an elite point forward, which is even harder to find.
Someone to run an offense and get the best out of everyone.

None of the point guards in this class are a sure thing, every single one of them has a lot of serious and valid concerns about his game.

Meanwhile, our perimeter rotation (SG-SF-PF) where we need at least 5 useful players is easily the weakest in the league.
Devin is the only sure thing and even he's got some obvious flaws and will need to live up to his extension.
Jermey has some great attributes and some glaring flaws that need to be fixed or he'll never be anything more than a glue guy.
Others are useless, with very little hope for improvement.
Including Keldon who's a finished product, not good enough and needs to go.

So even if Spurs draft two wings and Sidy is a part of the rotation the next season, it won't be a problem.

Good wings are way more difficult to find and even more difficult to trade for without getting ripped off.
Point guards are everywhere and getting a solid one is easy.

If Spurs don't want Trae, just get Tyus Jones with second rounders until a better opportunity presents itself.

But getting two-way wings that can shoot is the most important thing in the modern NBA.

Can you name one sure thing 2 way wing in this draft?

[spurraider21]

saw a mock that had us picking 3 and 7 and took Sheppard and Castle. i dont... hate that combo

[rascal]

I see your point, don't necessarily agree. Just think it's pretty interesting that if Sheppard (19) literally did not improve at anything as a player for the next 4 years, he'd basically be Cam Spencer (23).

No Ceilings has us taking Sheppard and Castle this draft, so that's something you should be able to live with.

What do you really expect Sheppard to improve on?

You really think he's going to be much better defensively than Cam Spencer and if so is the difference worth a top ten pick over a second rounder?

[rascal]

Also, hidden in this is the assumption that somehow, the NCAA is "high level compe ion" and the ABA is not. That is bull ; the ABA is a tougher league to play in than the NCAA.

Is it really better? How many players in the NCAA will make it to the NBA as compared to how many players in the ABA will make it to the NBA?

[pad300]

Nah, man. Once again, nah. The "grown man!" argument misses the point. You may have more developed bodies, but the top NCAA teams can be far more organized and better coached to play against than even a second tier Euro league.

This is about development, where college so far is much better for a young player's development. Other than some exceptions, of course. You have much better facilities to your disposal, much more meaningful game environments, important possessions, and, yes, individual players might be better in ABA (maybe), they are not coached in the same way where a player has to learn how to counter them.

Frankly the "grown men!" argument is pretty silly. The utter failure of Ignite this year should put to bed the "grown men!" argument for development.

On what do you base that assertion? Does ABA have NBA players like say the French league does? Off the top of my head Mike James and Donatas Motiejunas were on Monaco's team last year for example. Whereas in a decent Division 1 conference you'll be playing guys who will be in the NBA pretty regularly.

the answer is probably "something something something something jokic played in ABA and now he's good something something something"

What is this based on...

Mr. Body is dismissive of “grown man!”, but, grown men are not just more developed bodies, it’s more developed games; experience matters. A guy who’s 28 has 6 more years b-ball experience at the highest levels of play than a college senior.

In basketball, like in so many things, the weak link is what breaks. The weaker defenders on the floor, are the ones who get picked on to break the defence. So when, for example, when Reed Sheppard is going off for 32 on the Mississippi State Bulldogs, who is he scoring on? Some guy who's got enough talent that he could be a pro someday? Is it some guy who's good enough to be a pro today (never mind several years from now when said defender will be at the peak of his game)?
Here's the Bulldog's roster:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...oster/_/id/344
I don't see anyone I recognize as an NBA prospect.

But never mind being good enough in their college days. I figure 90-95% of NCAA players do not have enough natural talent to collect a pro dollar, anywhere, ever... Never mind them having their games developed enough when they are 20 years old.

So let’s share a little experiment – you guys have to do your part, just like I will do mine...

Mr Body figures the SEC is better than the ABA (and I can’t pull the post up to link it, because search is broken... Slovenian servers up the ass forever).

Here’s a link to the SEC page for 2013/14.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb.../men/2015.html

14 teams, 15 or so players per team (~210 total). I picked 13/14 as that gives the players 10 years to develop their game and get onto a pro team somewhere.

Your part of this is to look through those rosters, looking the players up and figure out who:
1) Had enough talent to ever get money to play in a real pro league (ie. where management can just buy a replacement player...)?

Be generous about it; I don’t care if it’s China, Puerto Rica, the G-league, wherever. Just somewhere where you get paid to play and don’t need a day job to put food on the table.

2)Was good enough to get into a such a league in the 14/15 season (ie, in theory, was good enough to play in a pro league in 13/14 as well...)

Figure out the percentage of those 200 or so players who meet 1 and then 2. I’m guessing you will hit less than 30/210 for 1) and 15/210 for 2)

I will do the ABA side of things. In the ABA, the answer for both 1) and 2) is 100%...

Does that experiment make it clear why I think the ABA is a harder league than the NCAA? College ballers could compete with foreign pro’s back in the 1970’s (and earlier), but the US started sending professional teams to the olympics in 1992, and there was good reason for that...

[exstatic]

Nah, man. Once again, nah. The "grown man!" argument misses the point. You may have more developed bodies, but the top NCAA teams can be far more organized and better coached to play against than even a second tier Euro league.

This is about development, where college so far is much better for a young player's development. Other than some exceptions, of course. You have much better facilities to your disposal, much more meaningful game environments, important possessions, and, yes, individual players might be better in ABA (maybe), they are not coached in the same way where a player has to learn how to counter them.

Frankly the "grown men!" argument is pretty silly. The utter failure of Ignite this year should put to bed the "grown men!" argument for development.

That’s not even remotely true. Europeans play maybe two games a week, and have no classes to attend. They get way more coaching and development time, making them better players, and explaining their takeover of the NBA. There hasn’t been a US born NBA MVP since 2018. Topic is going to be one of those guys.

[Mr. Body]

That’s not even remotely true. Europeans play maybe two games a week, and have no classes to attend. They get way more coaching and development time, making them better players, and explaining their takeover of the NBA. There hasn’t been a US born NBA MVP since 2018. Topic is going to be one of those guys.

Are you not understanding what I'm saying either?

Like... basketball is not a dude shooting in a gym, right? It's a game where five players play against five players. On a court.

The reason why Ignite guys are so trash and AAU guys who never get better are so trash is because of your mentality, just not really understanding what is going on. Spamming your crossover or whatever is fine, but it's not developing basketball skills in the sense of reading the game in individual plays, a sequence of plays, a full game.

Like, we see this all the time with the current young Spurs. They don't know how to react to runs, to a team raising their gears, how to end quarters and their game. They're getting better at it, and at least they have some basis to work from, but this is the sort of thing where... a couple nights ago, Toronto was up on Denver but it was highly likely that Denver would smack them down in the end. Raise their levels when they have to.

Young players don't know how to do this.

They don't know how to react when trouble comes, a lid goes over the basket, how to get their players involved. This is why Barkley, Stockton, Malone, David Robinson, Duncan, Chris Paul, etc., etc., were prepped for the NBA from college because they learned how to raise up their teams and understand team play.

Not a single one of those guys would have had the same experience if they played in Serbia. NCAA is a better development situation. Current players come out too early. It takes too long to develop them. But running around in Bratislava or Melbourne isn't going to help the same way actual structure helps. Sitting in a corner waiting for some 28 year-old to maybe kick out to you isn't going to help. Barely passable pro-level sets aren't going to help.

And, yes, Kentucky and Duke have far better facilities and more money spent on them than Bourg or whatever. And better coaching.

I mean, you don't have to believe it, but this is all 100% true. What you're doing is looking at the wrong thing. And, again, the reason why Ignite almni are so poor at basketball. Only now is Kuminga finally putting it together. Because running around G-League scrimmages might help players who have the fundamentals, but it does jack for guys fresh out of high school and AAU.

[Mr. Body]

And, we know Silver recognizes the problem, which is why the league is reconsidering everything they're doing with Ignite.

Unless you're a basketball genius like Doncic, it's better to come up through better structure designed for you than subpar Euro or Australian leagues.

[LeBowen]

Can you name one sure thing 2 way wing in this draft?

No, if I was qualified enough I'd find myself a job as a scout for an NBA team.
But it's way easier to draft someone who's going to become the next Danny Green or Bowen than to find an elite playmaker in a really weak draft.

Drafting someone who's going to need at least two seasons to become good, even in best case scenario means that we'll be stuck in the lottery for at least another season.
Point guards are the most difficult position to develop.
It slows down the entire timeline considerably.

Yes, I know we're not in a rush and we need to be focused on long-term, but that's why I made that list for people mentioning Topic.
Foreign point guards just aren't worth it unless they're a guaranteed success like Rubio or Doncic were.
If the player you're trying to draft isn't a wonderkid hyped up everywhere as the next big thing, chances are that he'll never be a good NBA point guard.

[LeBowen]

Unless you're a basketball genius like Doncic, it's better to come up through better structure designed for you than subpar Euro or Australian leagues.

This just contradicts itself, I have no clue what you're trying to say.

It's absolutely not true that European leagues are bad for prospects because European leagues are developing players to be useful for the team, instead trying of trying to develop everyone with NBA potential into the next MVP candidate.
Just practicing with pros will always beat US system of talented kids ting on everyone.

US is still way ahead of Europe if we talk talent, but the development system is bad. That's why Ignite needs a complete rework.
I honestly don't know how to fix it because you can't assign talent that's not yet drafted to practice with NBA teams and nothing beats practicing against actual pros.

*Sorry for double-post, you can thank Spurstalk doing it's thing.

[exstatic]

Are you not understanding what I'm saying either?

Like... basketball is not a dude shooting in a gym, right? It's a game where five players play against five players. On a court.

The reason why Ignite guys are so trash and AAU guys who never get better are so trash is because of your mentality, just not really understanding what is going on. Spamming your crossover or whatever is fine, but it's not developing basketball skills in the sense of reading the game in individual plays, a sequence of plays, a full game.

Like, we see this all the time with the current young Spurs. They don't know how to react to runs, to a team raising their gears, how to end quarters and their game. They're getting better at it, and at least they have some basis to work from, but this is the sort of thing where... a couple nights ago, Toronto was up on Denver but it was highly likely that Denver would smack them down in the end. Raise their levels when they have to.

Young players don't know how to do this.

They don't know how to react when trouble comes, a lid goes over the basket, how to get their players involved. This is why Barkley, Stockton, Malone, David Robinson, Duncan, Chris Paul, etc., etc., were prepped for the NBA from college because they learned how to raise up their teams and understand team play.

Not a single one of those guys would have had the same experience if they played in Serbia. NCAA is a better development situation. Current players come out too early. It takes too long to develop them. But running around in Bratislava or Melbourne isn't going to help the same way actual structure helps. Sitting in a corner waiting for some 28 year-old to maybe kick out to you isn't going to help. Barely passable pro-level sets aren't going to help.

And, yes, Kentucky and Duke have far better facilities and more money spent on them than Bourg or whatever. And better coaching.

I mean, you don't have to believe it, but this is all 100% true. What you're doing is looking at the wrong thing. And, again, the reason why Ignite almni are so poor at basketball. Only now is Kuminga finally putting it together. Because running around G-League scrimmages might help players who have the fundamentals, but it does jack for guys fresh out of high school and AAU.

No one is saying that the Ignite are good, and in fact, they’re not. They’re not good, because they just do what you say develops players: play games. There is virtually no practice, and certainly no individual attention.

Kawhi didn’t become Kawhi by playing more games. The Spurs PD staff fed him what they called a vitamin, a basketball skill. As an example, a rocker step. He’d work on it one on one with the coach. When the coach felt it was ready, he was allowed to use it in practice. Yeah, I’m talking about practice. When he was sufficiently skilled with it in practice, THEN he was allowed to use it in a game. The games didn’t produce his skill set.

[scott]

Will be interesting to see if Topic becomes the next Scola/Sengun in ST lore, or the next Milutinov/Jean-Charles

I'm not sold on him, like at all, but I do appreciate the variety of opinions on him. Definitely don't like the Sharpe/Wiseman route he appears to be going (though at least Topic had a legit injury)