Knicks · the problem with using pick 8 on a guy like Malik Monk (page 3)
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.
Welpee wrote: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.
I feel CJ McCollum is the best comparison. Walker is more of lightning quick speed demon scoring guard. Just to fast for his opponent.
But at the end of the day all these guys we are comparing him to other then Beal(Who was more rock solid in build and more physical) were 3-4 yr college players with elite ball handling ability while Monk is only a freshman. So its hard to guage. They all rebounded a lot better the Monk did though. Monk has the skills to be a very crafty scorer like CJ and has a similar build. CJ's ball handling ability though makes a huge difference. Monk again is only a freshman though which mean we can only hope his is able to develop it to CJ's level. And CJ after 4yrs of college still didn't come on until his 3rd year in the NBA.
nixluva wrote: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.
I know that I'm probably the 1st one to bring this up about Fox and Monk and I'm not a fan of either but the point is if his standing reach is off it is safe to assume his listed vertical is off too.
newyorknewyork wrote:What also makes things challenging is the fact he played at Kentucky. Kentucky has so many top flight players they all have to sacrifice their game to make it work on the court. Carolina players under Dean Smith were notorious being better pro than they showed in college because their system didn't showcase individual talent.Welpee wrote: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.
I feel CJ McCollum is the best comparison. Walker is more of lightning quick speed demon scoring guard. Just to fast for his opponent.But at the end of the day all these guys we are comparing him to other then Beal(Who was more rock solid in build and more physical) were 3-4 yr college players with elite ball handling ability while Monk is only a freshman. So its hard to guage. They all rebounded a lot better the Monk did though. Monk has the skills to be a very crafty scorer like CJ and has a similar build. CJ's ball handling ability though makes a huge difference. Monk again is only a freshman though which mean we can only hope his is able to develop it to CJ's level. And CJ after 4yrs of college still didn't come on until his 3rd year in the NBA.
yellowboy90 wrote:nixluva wrote: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.
I know that I'm probably the 1st one to bring this up about Fox and Monk and I'm not a fan of either but the point is if his standing reach is off it is safe to assume his listed vertical is off too.
You aren't the only one. I think the John Wall comparisons are waaaaaay off for Fox and I don't see him living up to his billing. But hopefully i'm wrong about the kid(except when he plays the Knicks).
Welpee wrote: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.
Yes it's a ridiculous best. I agree majority players will be no better than role players that's why when picking top 10, where you are going to get a base level of talent no matter what, it's smarter to focus on players with good work ethics, high IQ and team first mindset that can contribute on both sides of the ball. I think they make much more useful role players than people who can only shoot. I don't see Monk being very good and Kemba Walker is exactly the type of player I am not crazy about. If Ntilikina can turn into a Billups or a Fisher that's a much better get from the TEAM POV.
Basically I would prefer a solid two way player with high floor even if that means a low ceiling, than a shooter with a lower floor and a moonshot at becoming an "allstar".
meloshouldgo wrote:Well, keep in mind you're one of the few people who consider him a "moonshot" at becoming an all-star level player. If we use the #8 pick on a Derek Fisher-like player, somebody you should be able to get at the bottom of the first round or the second round, this draft should be considered a failure. A Billups clone is fine with me.Welpee wrote: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.
Yes it's a ridiculous best. I agree majority players will be no better than role players that's why when picking top 10, where you are going to get a base level of talent no matter what, it's smarter to focus on players with good work ethics, high IQ and team first mindset that can contribute on both sides of the ball. I think they make much more useful role players than people who can only shoot. I don't see Monk being very good and Kemba Walker is exactly the type of player I am not crazy about. If Ntilikina can turn into a Billups or a Fisher that's a much better get from the TEAM POV.
Basically I would prefer a solid two way player with high floor even if that means a low ceiling, than a shooter with a lower floor and a moonshot at becoming an "allstar".
The x-factor for me is that Frank N. he is such a mystery (not for scouts but fans). He's intriguing on paper with his measurables and reported defensive abilities. I will just have to trust the Knicks talent scouts. I just want no part of Dennis Smith.
In that other mock draft thread I randomly thinking up a trade with Denver exploring swapping Smith Jr if he was available to Denver for Jamal Murray & #13. And I noticed that Murray and Monk seem like the same player coming out of Kentucky. With Murry being a bit bigger.
Knickoftime 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.
Your issue seems less with Monk than it is picking just picking 8th.
Nobody is getting a high probability superstar at 8.
Yep best case we get the 3rd best guy on the team, I will take that right now
nyknickzingis 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.
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: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.
Jmpasq wrote:Really? I would sign up for Kemba Walker right now no problem. 40% from 3 , 23 pg from the 8th pickYeah, sounds like he would rather draft Derek Fisher than Kemba Walker. Make no sense to me.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.
Welpee wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Well, keep in mind you're one of the few people who consider him a "moonshot" at becoming an all-star level player. If we use the #8 pick on a Derek Fisher-like player, somebody you should be able to get at the bottom of the first round or the second round, this draft should be considered a failure. A Billups clone is fine with me.Welpee wrote: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.
Yes it's a ridiculous best. I agree majority players will be no better than role players that's why when picking top 10, where you are going to get a base level of talent no matter what, it's smarter to focus on players with good work ethics, high IQ and team first mindset that can contribute on both sides of the ball. I think they make much more useful role players than people who can only shoot. I don't see Monk being very good and Kemba Walker is exactly the type of player I am not crazy about. If Ntilikina can turn into a Billups or a Fisher that's a much better get from the TEAM POV.
Basically I would prefer a solid two way player with high floor even if that means a low ceiling, than a shooter with a lower floor and a moonshot at becoming an "allstar".
The x-factor for me is that Frank N. he is such a mystery (not for scouts but fans). He's intriguing on paper with his measurables and reported defensive abilities. I will just have to trust the Knicks talent scouts. I just want no part of Dennis Smith.
Ok so Billups was probably a bad comparison and Ntilikina will be better than them. And yes I am definitely in the minority about Monk's projections. I do stick to my position that him being an all star is a moonshot. And his size absolutely worries me.
We are fully aligned on Dennis Smith. I also don't want that Marakkanen kid.
Welpee wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:What also makes things challenging is the fact he played at Kentucky. Kentucky has so many top flight players they all have to sacrifice their game to make it work on the court. Carolina players under Dean Smith were notorious being better pro than they showed in college because their system didn't showcase individual talent.Welpee wrote: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.
I feel CJ McCollum is the best comparison. Walker is more of lightning quick speed demon scoring guard. Just to fast for his opponent.But at the end of the day all these guys we are comparing him to other then Beal(Who was more rock solid in build and more physical) were 3-4 yr college players with elite ball handling ability while Monk is only a freshman. So its hard to guage. They all rebounded a lot better the Monk did though. Monk has the skills to be a very crafty scorer like CJ and has a similar build. CJ's ball handling ability though makes a huge difference. Monk again is only a freshman though which mean we can only hope his is able to develop it to CJ's level. And CJ after 4yrs of college still didn't come on until his 3rd year in the NBA.
This! Said same thing about KAT. Kentucky is a selfless program. It shares the ball and gives specific roles. Disciplined systems can sometimes hide a players full range of individual ability.
Monk, Tatum and Smith are the only guys I'm hoping somehow fall through the cracks. Although, think it will come down to who Phil thinks is a classic Phil/Triangle guy. To me, the notion that Frank should be picked solely due to his height and wingspan at 8 is a mistake. Think teams/GM's who overthink things or try to be the ones who pick the needle in the haystack, is what leads to a bust pick. Think about it, how many athletic players can be had later in Round 1 or even Round 2. Would say many. If that's the goal, trade down and pick Justin Jackson, John Collins or D. Mitchell. The 8th pick should not be for teams to try to hit the Lotto. It's to pick a guy that can contribute from day 1. Unless you don't really need good rookies but rather gamble on the next Curry. Tough odds though. Think Frank and Fox are going to be the 2 biggest busts in the top 10. Fox because of his jump shot and Frank because all his weaknesses are being excused by his "Possible Potential" Don't want to see another guy who is quick, hustles but can't hit an open 3. (Grant)
However, whoever they pick, I will root for.
meloshouldgo wrote:Welpee wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Well, keep in mind you're one of the few people who consider him a "moonshot" at becoming an all-star level player. If we use the #8 pick on a Derek Fisher-like player, somebody you should be able to get at the bottom of the first round or the second round, this draft should be considered a failure. A Billups clone is fine with me.Welpee wrote: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.
Yes it's a ridiculous best. I agree majority players will be no better than role players that's why when picking top 10, where you are going to get a base level of talent no matter what, it's smarter to focus on players with good work ethics, high IQ and team first mindset that can contribute on both sides of the ball. I think they make much more useful role players than people who can only shoot. I don't see Monk being very good and Kemba Walker is exactly the type of player I am not crazy about. If Ntilikina can turn into a Billups or a Fisher that's a much better get from the TEAM POV.
Basically I would prefer a solid two way player with high floor even if that means a low ceiling, than a shooter with a lower floor and a moonshot at becoming an "allstar".
The x-factor for me is that Frank N. he is such a mystery (not for scouts but fans). He's intriguing on paper with his measurables and reported defensive abilities. I will just have to trust the Knicks talent scouts. I just want no part of Dennis Smith.
Ok so Billups was probably a bad comparison and Ntilikina will be better than them. And yes I am definitely in the minority about Monk's projections. I do stick to my position that him being an all star is a moonshot. And his size absolutely worries me.
We are fully aligned on Dennis Smith. I also don't want that Marakkanen kid.
At 6'3" 200lbs Monk is the same size and weight as Curry or Westbrook. Monk is not small for a Combo guard. Sure as a Pure SG Monk would be small but that's likely not how he's gonna be used. Except in 2 PG type lineups which can be fine in stretches.
Paris907 wrote:Do you think JR was a bust? He's been a spot starter and rotation player for years .. I don't like him but last I checked he's got a ring. And he played well in game 4 of the Finals. Crawford too. Not a superstar but solid over a long NBA career. Ndour hit the shotJR was not a bust because the only players picked after him worth talking about in the first round were Jameer Nelson and Kevin Martin.
HofstraBBall wrote:Welpee wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:What also makes things challenging is the fact he played at Kentucky. Kentucky has so many top flight players they all have to sacrifice their game to make it work on the court. Carolina players under Dean Smith were notorious being better pro than they showed in college because their system didn't showcase individual talent.Welpee wrote: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.
I feel CJ McCollum is the best comparison. Walker is more of lightning quick speed demon scoring guard. Just to fast for his opponent.But at the end of the day all these guys we are comparing him to other then Beal(Who was more rock solid in build and more physical) were 3-4 yr college players with elite ball handling ability while Monk is only a freshman. So its hard to guage. They all rebounded a lot better the Monk did though. Monk has the skills to be a very crafty scorer like CJ and has a similar build. CJ's ball handling ability though makes a huge difference. Monk again is only a freshman though which mean we can only hope his is able to develop it to CJ's level. And CJ after 4yrs of college still didn't come on until his 3rd year in the NBA.
This! Said same thing about KAT. Kentucky is a selfless program. It shares the ball and can hide the full individual ability of some players.
Monk, Tatum and Smith are the only guys I'm hoping somehow fall through the cracks. Although, think it will come down to who Phil thinks is a classic Phil/Triangle guy. To me, the notion that Frank should be picked solely due to his height and wingspan at 8 is a mistake. Think teams who overthink things or try to be the ones who pick the needle in the haystack is what creates bust picks. Think about it, how many athletic players can be had later in Round 1 or even Round 2. Would say many. If that's the goal, trade down and pick Justin Jackson, John Collins or D. Mitchell. The 8th pick should not be for teams to try to hit the Lotto. It's to pick a guy that can contribute from day 1. Unless you don't really need good rookies but rather gamble on the next Curry. Tough odds though. Think Frank and Fox are going to be the 2 biggest busts in the top 10. Fox because of his jump shot and Frank because all his weaknesses are being excused by his "Possible Potential" Don't want to see another guy who is quick, hustles but can't hit an open 3. (Grant)
However, whoever they pick, I will root for.
Most people felt Towns was the #1 pick as he brought to much variety of skills to the table. You knew he was going to come in and be a big time rebounder/shot blocker. But also had potential passing, shooting out to 3 point land, and developing post game. He had potential skills in too many categories.
There is Brandon Knight, Eric Blesoe, Bradley Beal, CJ Mccollum, Dion Waiters, Deangelo Russell, Jamal Murray, Marcus Smart, Zach Lavine, Gary Harris, Oladipo, Lillard, Irving, Jackson, Curry, Holiday, Westbrook, Gordon, Hill, Rose, Mayo. And I only named the hits and didn't even get into 2nd rd picks like Williams, Ellis, Dragic, Isiah Thomas. Scoring combo guards like Monk is probably the easiest type of player to find in the NBA.
While I agree with you on Fox not living up to his billing. Frank N brings a multitude of potential skills with him. And I like what he represents. Him being able to guard 3 positions and offer lock down ability, him being able to knock down 3s off the dribble or spot up, him having playmaking skills from the G/F position from the PNR. The versatility and lineups you could get away with him on the floor. High character consummate team player. That is what we should be trying to build piece by piece.
I like Isaac more than Frank N for the same reasons but players with his potential skills at his position are so hard to find so he would get favored and I am hoping he falls but most GMs are on that same mindset nowadays. And if it came down to it I probably would draft Smith over Frank N also if the character checks out and he isn't a cancer risk.
But what Frank brings to the table. That's the vision the Knicks should be going into these drafts with and free agents and trades collecting as many of these type of players as possible. Give me Frank N and try to find a way to get a 2nd first rounder for Mitchell &/or Bolden who offers unique skills from the Forward position. Guys that can guard multiple positions, shoot, put the ball on the floor, offer unselfishness with the passing. The fact that they aren't viewed as go to scorers is why teams that have started winning have been able to land them and start winning.
See what Miluakee built with Brogden, Freak, Middleton, Parker, Maker. If Maker reaches half of his potential they could be close to Warriors level.
newyorknewyork wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Welpee wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:What also makes things challenging is the fact he played at Kentucky. Kentucky has so many top flight players they all have to sacrifice their game to make it work on the court. Carolina players under Dean Smith were notorious being better pro than they showed in college because their system didn't showcase individual talent.Welpee wrote: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.
I feel CJ McCollum is the best comparison. Walker is more of lightning quick speed demon scoring guard. Just to fast for his opponent.But at the end of the day all these guys we are comparing him to other then Beal(Who was more rock solid in build and more physical) were 3-4 yr college players with elite ball handling ability while Monk is only a freshman. So its hard to guage. They all rebounded a lot better the Monk did though. Monk has the skills to be a very crafty scorer like CJ and has a similar build. CJ's ball handling ability though makes a huge difference. Monk again is only a freshman though which mean we can only hope his is able to develop it to CJ's level. And CJ after 4yrs of college still didn't come on until his 3rd year in the NBA.
This! Said same thing about KAT. Kentucky is a selfless program. It shares the ball and can hide the full individual ability of some players.
Monk, Tatum and Smith are the only guys I'm hoping somehow fall through the cracks. Although, think it will come down to who Phil thinks is a classic Phil/Triangle guy. To me, the notion that Frank should be picked solely due to his height and wingspan at 8 is a mistake. Think teams who overthink things or try to be the ones who pick the needle in the haystack is what creates bust picks. Think about it, how many athletic players can be had later in Round 1 or even Round 2. Would say many. If that's the goal, trade down and pick Justin Jackson, John Collins or D. Mitchell. The 8th pick should not be for teams to try to hit the Lotto. It's to pick a guy that can contribute from day 1. Unless you don't really need good rookies but rather gamble on the next Curry. Tough odds though. Think Frank and Fox are going to be the 2 biggest busts in the top 10. Fox because of his jump shot and Frank because all his weaknesses are being excused by his "Possible Potential" Don't want to see another guy who is quick, hustles but can't hit an open 3. (Grant)
However, whoever they pick, I will root for.
Most people felt Towns was the #1 pick as he brought to much variety of skills to the table. You knew he was going to come in and be a big time rebounder/shot blocker. But also had potential passing, shooting out to 3 point land, and developing post game. He had potential skills in too many categories.
There is Brandon Knight, Eric Blesoe, Bradley Beal, CJ Mccollum, Dion Waiters, Deangelo Russell, Jamal Murray, Marcus Smart, Zach Lavine, Gary Harris, Oladipo, Lillard, Irving, Jackson, Curry, Holiday, Westbrook, Gordon, Hill, Rose, Mayo. And I only named the hits and didn't even get into 2nd rd picks like Williams, Ellis, Dragic, Isiah Thomas. Scoring combo guards like Monk is probably the easiest type of player to find in the NBA.
While I agree with you on Fox not living up to his billing. Frank N brings a multitude of potential skills with him. And I like what he represents. Him being able to guard 3 positions and offer lock down ability, him being able to knock down 3s off the dribble or spot up, him having playmaking skills from the G/F position from the PNR. The versatility and lineups you could get away with him on the floor. High character consummate team player. That is what we should be trying to build piece by piece.
I like Isaac more than Frank N for the same reasons but players with his potential skills at his position are so hard to find so he would get favored and I am hoping he falls but most GMs are on that same mindset nowadays. And if it came down to it I probably would draft Smith over Frank N also if the character checks out and he isn't a cancer risk.
But what Frank brings to the table. That's the vision the Knicks should be going into these drafts with and free agents and trades collecting as many of these type of players as possible. Give me Frank N and try to find a way to get a 2nd first rounder for Mitchell &/or Bolden who offers unique skills from the Forward position. Guys that can guard multiple positions, shoot, put the ball on the floor, offer unselfishness with the passing. The fact that they aren't viewed as go to scorers is why teams that have started winning have been able to land them and start winning.
See what Miluakee built with Brogden, Freak, Middleton, Parker, Maker. If Maker reaches half of his potential they could be close to Warriors level.
Sometimes I think that we're better off trading #8 to Portland for their 3 #1s. We could draft 3 of Mitchell, OG, Giles, Kennard, Bolden, Hart, Bell, Allen or Swanigan.
reub wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Welpee wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:What also makes things challenging is the fact he played at Kentucky. Kentucky has so many top flight players they all have to sacrifice their game to make it work on the court. Carolina players under Dean Smith were notorious being better pro than they showed in college because their system didn't showcase individual talent.Welpee wrote: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.
I feel CJ McCollum is the best comparison. Walker is more of lightning quick speed demon scoring guard. Just to fast for his opponent.But at the end of the day all these guys we are comparing him to other then Beal(Who was more rock solid in build and more physical) were 3-4 yr college players with elite ball handling ability while Monk is only a freshman. So its hard to guage. They all rebounded a lot better the Monk did though. Monk has the skills to be a very crafty scorer like CJ and has a similar build. CJ's ball handling ability though makes a huge difference. Monk again is only a freshman though which mean we can only hope his is able to develop it to CJ's level. And CJ after 4yrs of college still didn't come on until his 3rd year in the NBA.
This! Said same thing about KAT. Kentucky is a selfless program. It shares the ball and can hide the full individual ability of some players.
Monk, Tatum and Smith are the only guys I'm hoping somehow fall through the cracks. Although, think it will come down to who Phil thinks is a classic Phil/Triangle guy. To me, the notion that Frank should be picked solely due to his height and wingspan at 8 is a mistake. Think teams who overthink things or try to be the ones who pick the needle in the haystack is what creates bust picks. Think about it, how many athletic players can be had later in Round 1 or even Round 2. Would say many. If that's the goal, trade down and pick Justin Jackson, John Collins or D. Mitchell. The 8th pick should not be for teams to try to hit the Lotto. It's to pick a guy that can contribute from day 1. Unless you don't really need good rookies but rather gamble on the next Curry. Tough odds though. Think Frank and Fox are going to be the 2 biggest busts in the top 10. Fox because of his jump shot and Frank because all his weaknesses are being excused by his "Possible Potential" Don't want to see another guy who is quick, hustles but can't hit an open 3. (Grant)
However, whoever they pick, I will root for.
Most people felt Towns was the #1 pick as he brought to much variety of skills to the table. You knew he was going to come in and be a big time rebounder/shot blocker. But also had potential passing, shooting out to 3 point land, and developing post game. He had potential skills in too many categories.
There is Brandon Knight, Eric Blesoe, Bradley Beal, CJ Mccollum, Dion Waiters, Deangelo Russell, Jamal Murray, Marcus Smart, Zach Lavine, Gary Harris, Oladipo, Lillard, Irving, Jackson, Curry, Holiday, Westbrook, Gordon, Hill, Rose, Mayo. And I only named the hits and didn't even get into 2nd rd picks like Williams, Ellis, Dragic, Isiah Thomas. Scoring combo guards like Monk is probably the easiest type of player to find in the NBA.
While I agree with you on Fox not living up to his billing. Frank N brings a multitude of potential skills with him. And I like what he represents. Him being able to guard 3 positions and offer lock down ability, him being able to knock down 3s off the dribble or spot up, him having playmaking skills from the G/F position from the PNR. The versatility and lineups you could get away with him on the floor. High character consummate team player. That is what we should be trying to build piece by piece.
I like Isaac more than Frank N for the same reasons but players with his potential skills at his position are so hard to find so he would get favored and I am hoping he falls but most GMs are on that same mindset nowadays. And if it came down to it I probably would draft Smith over Frank N also if the character checks out and he isn't a cancer risk.
But what Frank brings to the table. That's the vision the Knicks should be going into these drafts with and free agents and trades collecting as many of these type of players as possible. Give me Frank N and try to find a way to get a 2nd first rounder for Mitchell &/or Bolden who offers unique skills from the Forward position. Guys that can guard multiple positions, shoot, put the ball on the floor, offer unselfishness with the passing. The fact that they aren't viewed as go to scorers is why teams that have started winning have been able to land them and start winning.
See what Miluakee built with Brogden, Freak, Middleton, Parker, Maker. If Maker reaches half of his potential they could be close to Warriors level.
Sometimes I think that we're better off trading #8 to Portland for their 3 #1s. We could draft 3 of Mitchell, OG, Giles, Kennard, Bolden, Hart, Bell, Allen or Swanigan.
Agree 100%
My bet is those 3 picks have a much stronger cumulative effect