Knicks · the problem with using pick 8 on a guy like Malik Monk (page 2)
The questions about Monk are legit
So is the fact that he is one of 2 or three players who brings a real electricity to the game (consistency perhaps being an issue)
nyknickzingis wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
Agree with your points there. Hoping we will draft a player who can dish, play D, but who also can take the pressure off of KP on offense when need be. Hard to say if Ntilinka will ever be that player on offense.
GustavBahler wrote:KP was most certainly NOT aggressive offensively in EU. Those guys have more pressure to play mistake free BB. They cant launch 20 shots and work through their mistakes. If they do they are out of the rotation.nyknickzingis wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
Agree with your points there. Hoping we will draft a player who can dish, play D, but who also can take the pressure off of KP on offense when need be. Hard to say if Ntilinka will ever be that player on offense.
Yes Frank has a rep for being unselfish to a fault. But read the quotes from the American players he plays with.
GustavBahler wrote:nyknickzingis wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
Agree with your points there. Hoping we will draft a player who can dish, play D, but who also can take the pressure off of KP on offense when need be. Hard to say if Ntilinka will ever be that player on offense.
If we draft Nti, he can help as an energy defensive guy off the bench, but I don't see him being able to start and develop right away. I think Knick fans deserve to see a young team that is developing together and playing hard on each night. I'm a big fan of Nti's defense, but for entertainment purposes I wouldn't mind a Luke Kennard or Monk instead. Those guys could probably start right away on a rebuilding team and give the the fans some youth and hope with KP/Willy.
Nti will require lots of patience and probably atleast a year before he is able to start games. Selfishly, I'm hoping we can draft a player that can develop and start right away with KP/Willy. This is part of the reason I wouldn't mind Monk or Luke Kennard even. Skills and level of play is there to start right away on a re-building team. We won't make the playoffs or be any good, but we'll be competitive and fun to watch the young 3 guys play together and develop.
fishmike wrote:nix... why does Monk have more untapped talent than Ntilikina?
Ntilikina IMO doesn't have the kind of game where he's going to terrorize a team offensively. He doesn't have that Elite Quickness or Explosion of the other top guards. Monk is a quicker and more explosive player in every way. Even his release on his jumper is quicker. Monk has the Killer instinct whereas Nitty has to be pushed and reminded to stay aggressive. I just think it's more natural to Monk to be THE GUY rather than simply blending in, but at the same time Monk's game isn't Ball Dominant. That's a rare combination. Being able to be highly effective off the ball.
fishmike wrote:GustavBahler wrote:KP was most certainly NOT aggressive offensively in EU. Those guys have more pressure to play mistake free BB. They cant launch 20 shots and work through their mistakes. If they do they are out of the rotation.nyknickzingis wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
Agree with your points there. Hoping we will draft a player who can dish, play D, but who also can take the pressure off of KP on offense when need be. Hard to say if Ntilinka will ever be that player on offense.
Yes Frank has a rep for being unselfish to a fault. But read the quotes from the American players he plays with.
KP wasn't afraid to take 3s. With Porzingis it was more than just his game, it was the skill set for a 7'3 teenager. His mobility, his speed, his stroke for a big man. Frank has some qualities that will get him drafted somewhere, but I dont believe he has enough of them now to be picked at 8. Not in a deep draft like this one.
meloshouldgo wrote:That's a ridiculous bet. The overwhelming majority of players in this draft will be no better than rotation/role players based on draft history including the guys in the top 10. There are folks begging for Jonathan Isaac to drop to us. I can give you a laundry list of similar tall, lanky players who were busts. I could say the same about him: The projected value of drafting Isaac in the hope of him being the next Durant are infinitesimally small.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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.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.
It's not about players fitting a template, it's about evaluating each guy on their own merits. Saying Monks draft profile is similar to Curry's doesn't mean anybody is predicting that he's going to be Curry 2.0. If Monk became a Kemba Walker-like player I'd be elated.
Welpee wrote:although Kemba is a monster in the clutch I would hope we could do a bit better. Walker will never be an all star. He's such a chucker your hope is he's around more talented guys that helps his shot selection and he's more a finisher which he's great at. Kemba is above average.. but when you look at the upside of some of these guys (including Monk) I hope we can do bettermeloshouldgo wrote:That's a ridiculous bet. The overwhelming majority of players in this draft will be no better than rotation/role players based on draft history including the guys in the top 10. There are folks begging for Jonathan Isaac to drop to us. I can give you a laundry list of similar tall, lanky players who were busts. I could say the same about him: The projected value of drafting Isaac in the hope of him being the next Durant are infinitesimally small.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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.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.
It's not about players fitting a template, it's about evaluating each guy on their own merits. Saying Monks draft profile is similar to Curry's doesn't mean anybody is predicting that he's going to be Curry 2.0. If Monk became a Kemba Walker-like player I'd be elated.
BigDaddyG wrote:fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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'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 would be the case regardless of who we draft. We lack talent in multiple areas on the floor and need to plug numerous holes on the roster. If the fronnt office believes he is the best available prospect at 8, you take him. He does fill a need...
GustavBahler wrote:nyknickzingis wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
Agree with your points there. Hoping we will draft a player who can dish, play D, but who also can take the pressure off of KP on offense when need be. Hard to say if Ntilinka will ever be that player on offense.
You are asking for a lot at the 8 spot...Need to pick up another pick in the first round to plug those holes...
Uptown wrote:Because Monk is the type of guy I think our FO covets the least, if we do draft him I would be pretty excited because you figure that means the Knicks really see somethingBigDaddyG wrote:fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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'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 would be the case regardless of who we draft. We lack talent in multiple areas on the floor and need to plug numerous holes on the roster. If the fronnt office believes he is the best available prospect at 8, you take him. He does fill a need...
fishmike wrote:Walker will never be an all-star...in spite of the fact he made the all-star team this year?Welpee wrote:although Kemba is a monster in the clutch I would hope we could do a bit better. Walker will never be an all star. He's such a chucker your hope is he's around more talented guys that helps his shot selection and he's more a finisher which he's great at. Kemba is above average.. but when you look at the upside of some of these guys (including Monk) I hope we can do bettermeloshouldgo wrote:That's a ridiculous bet. The overwhelming majority of players in this draft will be no better than rotation/role players based on draft history including the guys in the top 10. There are folks begging for Jonathan Isaac to drop to us. I can give you a laundry list of similar tall, lanky players who were busts. I could say the same about him: The projected value of drafting Isaac in the hope of him being the next Durant are infinitesimally small.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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.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.
It's not about players fitting a template, it's about evaluating each guy on their own merits. Saying Monks draft profile is similar to Curry's doesn't mean anybody is predicting that he's going to be Curry 2.0. If Monk became a Kemba Walker-like player I'd be elated.
I totally disagree with you on this one. You minimize being "a monster in the clutch" like it's no big deal. If we could trade our 8th pick for Kemba Walker I would do it in a heartbeat. If you guys are looking for perfect players in this draft, good luck with that.
fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote:although Kemba is a monster in the clutch I would hope we could do a bit better. Walker will never be an all star. He's such a chucker your hope is he's around more talented guys that helps his shot selection and he's more a finisher which he's great at. Kemba is above average.. but when you look at the upside of some of these guys (including Monk) I hope we can do bettermeloshouldgo wrote:That's a ridiculous bet. The overwhelming majority of players in this draft will be no better than rotation/role players based on draft history including the guys in the top 10. There are folks begging for Jonathan Isaac to drop to us. I can give you a laundry list of similar tall, lanky players who were busts. I could say the same about him: The projected value of drafting Isaac in the hope of him being the next Durant are infinitesimally small.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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.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.
It's not about players fitting a template, it's about evaluating each guy on their own merits. Saying Monks draft profile is similar to Curry's doesn't mean anybody is predicting that he's going to be Curry 2.0. If Monk became a Kemba Walker-like player I'd be elated.
I see more Been Gordon in Monk the Kemba Walker. Gordon was an electrifying scorer who you couldn't really start due to his size. Maybe Baker develops into a Heinrich type and it could work.
Also like I said many of times if you are going to assume his wingspan and standing reach are wrong then why are we not subtracting from his reported UK vertical?
BigDaddyG wrote:I don't know about Gordon, but Monk was a PG before he arrived at Kentucky, similar to Bledsoe having to play off the ball in college because they had John Wall. I don't remember if Gordon ever played point.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote:although Kemba is a monster in the clutch I would hope we could do a bit better. Walker will never be an all star. He's such a chucker your hope is he's around more talented guys that helps his shot selection and he's more a finisher which he's great at. Kemba is above average.. but when you look at the upside of some of these guys (including Monk) I hope we can do bettermeloshouldgo wrote:That's a ridiculous bet. The overwhelming majority of players in this draft will be no better than rotation/role players based on draft history including the guys in the top 10. There are folks begging for Jonathan Isaac to drop to us. I can give you a laundry list of similar tall, lanky players who were busts. I could say the same about him: The projected value of drafting Isaac in the hope of him being the next Durant are infinitesimally small.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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.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.
It's not about players fitting a template, it's about evaluating each guy on their own merits. Saying Monks draft profile is similar to Curry's doesn't mean anybody is predicting that he's going to be Curry 2.0. If Monk became a Kemba Walker-like player I'd be elated.
I see more Been Gordon in Monk the Kemba Walker. Gordon was an electrifying scorer who you couldn't really start due to his size. Maybe Baker develops into a Heinrich type and it could work.
BigDaddyG wrote:fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote:although Kemba is a monster in the clutch I would hope we could do a bit better. Walker will never be an all star. He's such a chucker your hope is he's around more talented guys that helps his shot selection and he's more a finisher which he's great at. Kemba is above average.. but when you look at the upside of some of these guys (including Monk) I hope we can do bettermeloshouldgo wrote:That's a ridiculous bet. The overwhelming majority of players in this draft will be no better than rotation/role players based on draft history including the guys in the top 10. There are folks begging for Jonathan Isaac to drop to us. I can give you a laundry list of similar tall, lanky players who were busts. I could say the same about him: The projected value of drafting Isaac in the hope of him being the next Durant are infinitesimally small.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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.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.
It's not about players fitting a template, it's about evaluating each guy on their own merits. Saying Monks draft profile is similar to Curry's doesn't mean anybody is predicting that he's going to be Curry 2.0. If Monk became a Kemba Walker-like player I'd be elated.
I see more Been Gordon in Monk the Kemba Walker. Gordon was an electrifying scorer who you couldn't really start due to his size. Maybe Baker develops into a Heinrich type and it could work.
Monk is the EXACT same size and weight as Westbrook! There's literally no physical reason that Monk can't get it done on a high level. Monk has Elite Shot, Quicks and Hops! Like most 19 yr olds he still needs development but he's already pretty high.
yellowboy90 wrote:I don't think Monk has Kenya's ball handling ability.Going back to Steph, he didn't have the handles he has now when he first arrived either. These guy aren't finished products after they get drafted, especially after only one year of college.Also like I said many of times if you are going to assume his wingspan and standing reach are wrong then why are we not subtracting from his reported UK vertical?
yellowboy90 wrote:I don't think Monk has Kenya's ball handling ability.Also like I said many of times if you are going to assume his wingspan and standing reach are wrong then why are we not subtracting from his reported UK vertical?
WTF? One measurement had Monk with a short wingspan every other measurement had him at 6'6" range.
Just look at him right next to Fox.
As for Monk's explosion just look at any highlights and it's clear he's a beast.
Uptown wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nyknickzingis wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
Agree with your points there. Hoping we will draft a player who can dish, play D, but who also can take the pressure off of KP on offense when need be. Hard to say if Ntilinka will ever be that player on offense.
You are asking for a lot at the 8 spot...Need to pick up another pick in the first round to plug those holes...
As I said, its a deep draft. A good PG fills those needs.
Welpee wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:I don't know about Gordon, but Monk was a PG before he arrived at Kentucky, similar to Bledsoe having to play off the ball in college because they had John Wall. I don't remember if Gordon ever played point.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote:although Kemba is a monster in the clutch I would hope we could do a bit better. Walker will never be an all star. He's such a chucker your hope is he's around more talented guys that helps his shot selection and he's more a finisher which he's great at. Kemba is above average.. but when you look at the upside of some of these guys (including Monk) I hope we can do bettermeloshouldgo wrote:That's a ridiculous bet. The overwhelming majority of players in this draft will be no better than rotation/role players based on draft history including the guys in the top 10. There are folks begging for Jonathan Isaac to drop to us. I can give you a laundry list of similar tall, lanky players who were busts. I could say the same about him: The projected value of drafting Isaac in the hope of him being the next Durant are infinitesimally small.fishmike wrote:Welpee wrote: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.meloshouldgo wrote: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?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.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.
It's not about players fitting a template, it's about evaluating each guy on their own merits. Saying Monks draft profile is similar to Curry's doesn't mean anybody is predicting that he's going to be Curry 2.0. If Monk became a Kemba Walker-like player I'd be elated.
I see more Been Gordon in Monk the Kemba Walker. Gordon was an electrifying scorer who you couldn't really start due to his size. Maybe Baker develops into a Heinrich type and it could work.
I think Gordon was the defacto point guard at Mt. Vernon. Anyone who remembers can correct me if I'm wrong.