Knicks · the problem with using pick 8 on a guy like Malik Monk (page 1)

Is you can get what he brings from other places...

player / height / wingspan / no step / max vert
Monk 6'3 / 6'3.5 / 36.5 / 42
Randle 6'1.5 / 6'7 / 33.5 / 39.5

Randle shot 44% from 3 his freshman season.

There is no doubt that Monk is a more explosive and talented player than Randle, but by enough? I mean he can jump 2 inches higher and Randle's longer wingspan has them about the same size.

I am not saying Randle is going to be as good as Monk, although anything is possible. I am saying is Monk's scoring and shooting so elite that its Curry like game changing? I mean if you are going to leave high ceiling 2-way guys on the board to take Monk I think you have to feel that way. I just dont see how you take him as a talented guy to add to the mix, not when you have Randle there and our perimeter defense was sieve like

Frank Mason shot 47% from 3 last year and has a 41 inch vert.

We just dont need to use pick 8 for this kind of player. Take Frank Mason Jr. with Portland's #26 and take some salary from them. Use pick 8 for building block on both sides of the ball

fishmike wrote:Frank Mason shot 47% from 3 last year and has a 41 inch vert.

We just dont need to use pick 8 for this kind of player. Take Frank Mason Jr. with Portland's #26 and take some salary from them. Use pick 8 for building block on both sides of the ball

Mason is a 23 year old 5th year senior. Monk is a 19 year old freshman. You can't really compare them. Monk has major upside.

Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:Frank Mason shot 47% from 3 last year and has a 41 inch vert.

We just dont need to use pick 8 for this kind of player. Take Frank Mason Jr. with Portland's #26 and take some salary from them. Use pick 8 for building block on both sides of the ball

Mason is a 23 year old 5th year senior. Monk is a 19 year old freshman. You can't really compare them. Monk has major upside.

What is "major upside" - how major and how far up?
I posted on another thread that the key ingredient to being Steph Curry after having started with somewhat pedestrian skills other than shooting is hard work and a commitment to play team ball. Unless Malik Monk had demonstrated he is super saturated on both of those, his chances of being Steph Curry are less than remote.

Greater minds have him listed at 8. Yet there's a reason Chaisson's be in the D league and why even Baker started over him. Monk is a potential all star with a quick release and doesn't need the ball to succeed. If Monk Is a bust he will still be in NBA rotation.

Paris907 wrote:Greater minds have him listed at 8. Yet there's a reason Chaisson's be in the D league and why even Baker started over him. Monk is a potential all star with a quick release and doesn't need the ball to succeed. If Monk Is a bust he will still be in NBA rotation.

Chances of him being a bust are high when we are projecting for superstar. So do we want a borderline rotation player that's too small to guard his position at the 8th pick? That's what you need to answer.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Paris907 wrote:Greater minds have him listed at 8. Yet there's a reason Chaisson's be in the D league and why even Baker started over him. Monk is a potential all star with a quick release and doesn't need the ball to succeed. If Monk Is a bust he will still be in NBA rotation.

Chances of him being a bust are high when we are projecting for superstar. So do we want a borderline rotation player that's too small to guard his position at the 8th pick? That's what you need to answer.

Your issue seems less with Monk than it is picking just picking 8th.

Nobody is getting a high probability superstar at 8.

I think you're relying too much on the basic measurements and the 3 ball range and not how the points are achieved as well as other skills.
Monk's a much better scorer and at 19 has more years to develop into his body and his skills.

I don't know if Monk is the best pick for us at 8, but for sure I know Monk is a much better get than Randle. It's not even close. If Randle declared in this draft, he would struggle to be drafted. Monk is going top 10 for sure, maybe even higher.

You won't ever see a team where Randle is a top 3 scorer on it. Monk, you have a real chance at that. Not a finished product, but say you trade Melo, your big 3 is KP/Willy/Monk. Monk will help the team right away to carry the scoring load and a huge hole will be left on offense with Melo dealt. He's capable to do all the things you saw CLee do and with better speed and range.

A better comparison would be CLee vs Monk if you were thinking in the now. CLee can do much of what Monk would bring to the table. Drafting Monk would mean you need to try and move CLee for help in other areas.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Paris907 wrote:Greater minds have him listed at 8. Yet there's a reason Chaisson's be in the D league and why even Baker started over him. Monk is a potential all star with a quick release and doesn't need the ball to succeed. If Monk Is a bust he will still be in NBA rotation.

Chances of him being a bust are high when we are projecting for superstar. So do we want a borderline rotation player that's too small to guard his position at the 8th pick? That's what you need to answer.

I mean I guess thats it.

Sure.. Monk is 19, so you cant compare them. OK fine. Who do you compare Monk too? I am not even hating on Monk. He's a prospect with some undeniable and tantalizing skills. Now tell me the # of all stars and high end rotation guys with Monk's size.

There are a lot of good players that are never given a chance. For some reason if you are selected high in the draft the chance for the to enable the players talents are high. The word opportunity is key. Randle is asked to be different than what Monk will asked to be in the NBA. Monk will be asked to run screens and get shots off. He won't be asked to keep team mates happy like Randle has to. Randle has the tougher job at hand play maker/score/ keep teammates engaged. Monk will have it easy shoot and get back on defense. What people don't understand is the NBA is predicated on being given an opportunity to play and the team basically enabling the players to be aggressive and given a green light to success.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:Frank Mason shot 47% from 3 last year and has a 41 inch vert.

We just dont need to use pick 8 for this kind of player. Take Frank Mason Jr. with Portland's #26 and take some salary from them. Use pick 8 for building block on both sides of the ball

Mason is a 23 year old 5th year senior. Monk is a 19 year old freshman. You can't really compare them. Monk has major upside.

What is "major upside" - how major and how far up?
I posted on another thread that the key ingredient to being Steph Curry after having started with somewhat pedestrian skills other than shooting is hard work and a commitment to play team ball. Unless Malik Monk had demonstrated he is super saturated on both of those, his chances of being Steph Curry are less than remote.

I don't understand why you keep insisting that Steph had this off the charts work ethic and commitment to team ball that can't be duplicated by anyone else. Monk didn't become a lottery pick rolling out of bed eating doughnuts every morning. With all of the talent on Kentucky's roster is anybody going to be allowed to not play team ball?

nyknickzingis wrote:I think you're relying too much on the basic measurements and the 3 ball range and not how the points are achieved as well as other skills.
Monk's a much better scorer and at 19 has more years to develop into his body and his skills.

I don't know if Monk is the best pick for us at 8, but for sure I know Monk is a much better get than Randle. It's not even close. If Randle declared in this draft, he would struggle to be drafted. Monk is going top 10 for sure, maybe even higher.

You won't ever see a team where Randle is a top 3 scorer on it. Monk, you have a real chance at that. Not a finished product, but say you trade Melo, your big 3 is KP/Willy/Monk. Monk will help the team right away to carry the scoring load and a huge hole will be left on offense with Melo dealt. He's capable to do all the things you saw CLee do and with better speed and range.

A better comparison would be CLee vs Monk if you were thinking in the now. CLee can do much of what Monk would bring to the table. Drafting Monk would mean you need to try and move CLee for help in other areas.

totally missed the point. What are you drafting Monk for? What are you getting? This is not about Monk vs. Randle. This is about Monk vs. the rest of the NBA and cheaper available talent. This is about find that talent in other areas in guys like Randle and using the #8 pick for a skill set that is harder to find.

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:Frank Mason shot 47% from 3 last year and has a 41 inch vert.

We just dont need to use pick 8 for this kind of player. Take Frank Mason Jr. with Portland's #26 and take some salary from them. Use pick 8 for building block on both sides of the ball

Mason is a 23 year old 5th year senior. Monk is a 19 year old freshman. You can't really compare them. Monk has major upside.

What is "major upside" - how major and how far up?
I posted on another thread that the key ingredient to being Steph Curry after having started with somewhat pedestrian skills other than shooting is hard work and a commitment to play team ball. Unless Malik Monk had demonstrated he is super saturated on both of those, his chances of being Steph Curry are less than remote.

I don't understand why you keep insisting that Steph had this off the charts work ethic and commitment to team ball that can't be duplicated by anyone else. Monk didn't become a lottery pick rolling out of bed eating doughnuts every morning. With all of the talent on Kentucky's roster is anybody going to be allowed to not play team ball?

Let me rephrase the point.... how many guys are great athletes that can shoot? Now how many guys are like Steph Curry? Its just really dangerous when your investing in a type of player that does not have a ton of success in the league, Curry aside.

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Paris907 wrote:Greater minds have him listed at 8. Yet there's a reason Chaisson's be in the D league and why even Baker started over him. Monk is a potential all star with a quick release and doesn't need the ball to succeed. If Monk Is a bust he will still be in NBA rotation.

Chances of him being a bust are high when we are projecting for superstar. So do we want a borderline rotation player that's too small to guard his position at the 8th pick? That's what you need to answer.

I mean I guess thats it.

Sure.. Monk is 19, so you cant compare them. OK fine. Who do you compare Monk too? I am not even hating on Monk. He's a prospect with some undeniable and tantalizing skills. Now tell me the # of all stars and high end rotation guys with Monk's size.

McCollum is a good comparison of his upside. Downside is current Eric Gordon (who was headed towards stardom before injuries.)

fishmike wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:Frank Mason shot 47% from 3 last year and has a 41 inch vert.

We just dont need to use pick 8 for this kind of player. Take Frank Mason Jr. with Portland's #26 and take some salary from them. Use pick 8 for building block on both sides of the ball

Mason is a 23 year old 5th year senior. Monk is a 19 year old freshman. You can't really compare them. Monk has major upside.

What is "major upside" - how major and how far up?
I posted on another thread that the key ingredient to being Steph Curry after having started with somewhat pedestrian skills other than shooting is hard work and a commitment to play team ball. Unless Malik Monk had demonstrated he is super saturated on both of those, his chances of being Steph Curry are less than remote.

I don't understand why you keep insisting that Steph had this off the charts work ethic and commitment to team ball that can't be duplicated by anyone else. Monk didn't become a lottery pick rolling out of bed eating doughnuts every morning. With all of the talent on Kentucky's roster is anybody going to be allowed to not play team ball?

Let me rephrase the point.... how many guys are great athletes that can shoot? Now how many guys are like Steph Curry? Its just really dangerous when your investing in a type of player that does not have a ton of success in the league, Curry aside.

Agreed. Looking at the one example that worked from the same starting point and ignoring the the 100s or 1000s that didn't is betting on really bad odds with the only asset you have. Sure it would be great if it worked out, but the data says it won't. The projected value of drafting Monk in the hope of him being the next Steph are infinitesimally small. If you are betting he will be a borderline rotation player you definitely have much better odds, but convincing yourselves that the second set of odds makes the first gamble worth it is where this type of reasoning breaks down.

fishmike wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:Frank Mason shot 47% from 3 last year and has a 41 inch vert.

We just dont need to use pick 8 for this kind of player. Take Frank Mason Jr. with Portland's #26 and take some salary from them. Use pick 8 for building block on both sides of the ball

Mason is a 23 year old 5th year senior. Monk is a 19 year old freshman. You can't really compare them. Monk has major upside.

What is "major upside" - how major and how far up?
I posted on another thread that the key ingredient to being Steph Curry after having started with somewhat pedestrian skills other than shooting is hard work and a commitment to play team ball. Unless Malik Monk had demonstrated he is super saturated on both of those, his chances of being Steph Curry are less than remote.

I don't understand why you keep insisting that Steph had this off the charts work ethic and commitment to team ball that can't be duplicated by anyone else. Monk didn't become a lottery pick rolling out of bed eating doughnuts every morning. With all of the talent on Kentucky's roster is anybody going to be allowed to not play team ball?

Let me rephrase the point.... how many guys are great athletes that can shoot? Now how many guys are like Steph Curry? Its just really dangerous when your investing in a type of player that does not have a ton of success in the league, Curry aside.

I'll go a step further. Steph proved he could be an adequate playmaker during his last year at Davidson. He's proven to be even better now, but I always had the sense you could plug him in as a lead guard and he'd be able to handle those responsibilities. The biggest questions centered around Curry's athleticism and he was able to answer some of those questions during workouts. I don't get that sense from Monk. Fair or not, he hasn't shown those skills. Maybe he will. But if he doesn't, you're stuck with an undersized two-guard. There are guys like Gilbert Arenas and Nick Van Exel that had those same concerns, but at least they displayed the ball handling in college to think they could make the transition. If we draft Monk, we still might have to go out and find someone with the size to pick up the slack on defense and the ability to help run the offense. We're still stuck with an imbalance in the backcourt. Scoring is a skill and Monk appears to have it. He'd fit in the sixers because they have capable playmakers at other positions. That's not really the case here.

That is my concern with Monk. We know he can score, but what other skills are going to translate to the NBA. If nothing else translates then he is going to need to be a 20+pts level scorer on 60% TS to be able to make up for it. And he could end up being a role player instant offense 6th man.

CJ McCollum and Steph Curry both had elite handle coming to the NBA, and that is a huge component to why they are successful and players can't just body them up. But they both also played 3 and 4 years of college. Maybe Monk could develop that by the same age that CJ and Steph did.

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:Frank Mason shot 47% from 3 last year and has a 41 inch vert.

We just dont need to use pick 8 for this kind of player. Take Frank Mason Jr. with Portland's #26 and take some salary from them. Use pick 8 for building block on both sides of the ball

Mason is a 23 year old 5th year senior. Monk is a 19 year old freshman. You can't really compare them. Monk has major upside.

What is "major upside" - how major and how far up?
I posted on another thread that the key ingredient to being Steph Curry after having started with somewhat pedestrian skills other than shooting is hard work and a commitment to play team ball. Unless Malik Monk had demonstrated he is super saturated on both of those, his chances of being Steph Curry are less than remote.

I don't understand why you keep insisting that Steph had this off the charts work ethic and commitment to team ball that can't be duplicated by anyone else. Monk didn't become a lottery pick rolling out of bed eating doughnuts every morning. With all of the talent on Kentucky's roster is anybody going to be allowed to not play team ball?

Let me rephrase the point.... how many guys are great athletes that can shoot? Now how many guys are like Steph Curry? Its just really dangerous when your investing in a type of player that does not have a ton of success in the league, Curry aside.

I'll go a step further. Steph proved he could be an adequate playmaker during his last year at Davidson. He's proven to be even better now, but I always had the sense you could plug him in as a lead guard and he'd be able to handle those responsibilities. The biggest questions centered around Curry's athleticism and he was able to answer some of those questions during workouts. I don't get that sense from Monk. Fair or not, he hasn't shown those skills. Maybe he will. But if he doesn't, you're stuck with an undersized two-guard. There are guys like Gilbert Arenas and Nick Van Exel that had those same concerns, but at least they displayed the ball handling in college to think they could make the transition. If we draft Monk, we still might have to go out and find someone with the size to pick up the slack on defense and the ability to help run the offense. We're still stuck with an imbalance in the backcourt. Scoring is a skill and Monk appears to have it. He'd fit in the sixers because they have capable playmakers at other positions. That's not really the case here.

I think you touched on most of what prompted me to start the thread. What is Monk's role here? What does the team look like with him? Is he in a position to succeed and grow here?

Now are arent in the workouts, so who knows what he was asked to do to and how he looked doing it.

fishmike wrote:Is you can get what he brings from other places...

player / height / wingspan / no step / max vert
Monk 6'3 / 6'3.5 / 36.5 / 42
Randle 6'1.5 / 6'7 / 33.5 / 39.5

Randle shot 44% from 3 his freshman season.

There is no doubt that Monk is a more explosive and talented player than Randle, but by enough? I mean he can jump 2 inches higher and Randle's longer wingspan has them about the same size.

I am not saying Randle is going to be as good as Monk, although anything is possible. I am saying is Monk's scoring and shooting so elite that its Curry like game changing? I mean if you are going to leave high ceiling 2-way guys on the board to take Monk I think you have to feel that way. I just dont see how you take him as a talented guy to add to the mix, not when you have Randle there and our perimeter defense was sieve like

Monk's wingspan has been misstated on the Draft Express site. He's pretty much the exact same wingspan as Fox. 6'6 range!

Monk is a guy that has so much untapped talent. It's a mistake to ignore this simply based on his role with Kentucky. He's a better passer than some think. He's got a Primary Scorer's ability but isn't ball dominant. He cuts like a champ!

He's a better defender than some think. He's got excellent lateral quickness and recovery. He does understand defensive concepts but just needs more consistency.

fishmike wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:I think you're relying too much on the basic measurements and the 3 ball range and not how the points are achieved as well as other skills.
Monk's a much better scorer and at 19 has more years to develop into his body and his skills.

I don't know if Monk is the best pick for us at 8, but for sure I know Monk is a much better get than Randle. It's not even close. If Randle declared in this draft, he would struggle to be drafted. Monk is going top 10 for sure, maybe even higher.

You won't ever see a team where Randle is a top 3 scorer on it. Monk, you have a real chance at that. Not a finished product, but say you trade Melo, your big 3 is KP/Willy/Monk. Monk will help the team right away to carry the scoring load and a huge hole will be left on offense with Melo dealt. He's capable to do all the things you saw CLee do and with better speed and range.

A better comparison would be CLee vs Monk if you were thinking in the now. CLee can do much of what Monk would bring to the table. Drafting Monk would mean you need to try and move CLee for help in other areas.

totally missed the point. What are you drafting Monk for? What are you getting? This is not about Monk vs. Randle. This is about Monk vs. the rest of the NBA and cheaper available talent. This is about find that talent in other areas in guys like Randle and using the #8 pick for a skill set that is harder to find.

Ok got ya. You're saying Monk's skills are easier replaced in the NBA.
Well what aren't easily replaced?
A smart good pass first point guard?
A defensive guard that can shoot?

I agree Ntilikina's skills (defensive guard that can shoot and pass a little) are much harder to find in the NBA than Monk's. I think Phil will likely draft Nti over Monk. I think Luke Kennard is in play because he has more skills than Monk that fit in the Triangle.

Overall I agree with what you're saying but I won't be upset if we drafted Monk. He's got the talent to be a 20 points a night scorer in the league and a stand out shooter. Those don't grow on trees, and certainly we won't be signing a free agent like that anytime soon. I like the balance of a Willy/KP/Monk/Baker unit that has a post up big in Willy, a stretch big that can put the ball on the floor in KP, a high IQ pass first defensive guard in Baker and a great shooter with some guard skills in Monk. That's a good core during a rebuild year with aims to draft in the top 8 again next year. Players complement one another.

What I worry about Ntilikina is his lack of impact on offense. He doesn't seem like he does enough or much. KP always has had that "gunner" mentality. He loved to shoot the ball. Nti already in a weaker league without NBA level competition tends to vanish in games. That is my worry about him. I think he's got a great chance to be just a role player on offense. On the flip on defense he could be lethal. He could check guards full court. Eventually switch from 3, 2 and 1. Lots of things he has on defense.

Tough to say, but I won't be upset if we draft Monk, Nti or even Kennard. We need talent, period. It's coming cheap with a draft pick. Low cost. I'm hoping whomever we draft can fit in the system and help right away. We need to develop players and re-build.

nix... why does Monk have more untapped talent than Ntilikina?