2015 NBA Draft/Off-season Thread

[Captain Clark Terrell]

With the season over, I thought it was time to start the official NBA Draft/off-season thread; in other news, the Lakers are trying to pry Cousins from the Kings, and Portland looks like its replacing the current LaMarcus Aldridge with a newer version (if he pans out) in Noah Vonleh.

--Sran

 

[Starbreaker]

http://www.sbnation.com/2015/6/24/8...uniforms-nba-new-lime-green-colors-logos-2015
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^Those are hideous. I thought the Dominique Wilkins-era uniforms were fine. What they've done since 1995 has ranged from stupid to silly to downright awful.

--Sran

 

[Borgminister]

The Clippers uniforms are arguably even more hideous. Yikes.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Obviously, we're in the middle of the NBA Draft, but I just saw this announcement and I don't want it lost:

Sixers stat man Harvey Pollack dies at 93

Given the nickname “Super Stat” in 1966 by then-Bulletin sports writer George Kiseda, Pollack brought such terms as triple-double, blocked shots, assists and steals into the everyday basketball vernacular.

Through Gottlieb’s uninformed yet proper hire, Pollack unknowingly began a streak that lasted until yesterday, as being the only person associated with the NBA since Day 1. He previously shared the lead with Red Auerbach, who died in 2006.

The impact he had on basketball statistics was similar to the impact his favorite player, Wilt Chamberlain, had on the record books.

The 76ers began publishing “Harvey Pollack’s NBA Statistical Yearbook” in 1966. It has grown from 24 pages to almost 400 pages in its latest edition. It has become the bible for all stat freaks.

Everything you ever wanted to know — or didn’t want to know — about NBA stats is in there. He broke down dunk leaders’ shots by alley-oop, driving, putback, reverse, running, slam, fastbreak and plain. Want a 48-minute projection? In there. Rebounding opponents’ missed free throws? Got it. Jump ball situations. Number of offensive fouls. Four-point plays. League leaders in tattoos. All there.

But Pollack’s greatest night as a stat man, sports writer and PR director was March 2, 1962, in Hershey, Pa. Chamberlain, playing for the Warriors, scored 100 points against the New York Knicks and Pollack was the only media representative there. Besides being the Warriors’ public relations director, he was also writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Bulletin, Associated Press and United Press International. And then he had the wherewithal to grab Paul Vathis, an Associated Press photographer who just happened to be at the game but not shooting it, to take a photo of Chamberlain in the locker room after the game. Needing something to commemorate the historic event, Pollack scribbled “100” on a piece of paper. Wilt held it up and Vathis shot what became one of the most iconic photos in sports history.

RIP to a great NBA legend.

 

[gblews]

I don't think there is anything about the Laker's draft that I didn't like.I was very happy they took D'Angelo over OK4. One of the hallmarks of the franchise has been it's willingness to make the bold unexpected move. Russell tore it up in his second work out and that sealed the deal. But beyond his prodigious ball skills, his maturity may be his greatest asset. Don't know much about Larry Nance Jr. who was our second first round pick, but he sounds like a Carl Landry type but athletic.

Before the draft I read an article by some writer who claimed the Laker's were in such a state of disarray that there was no telling what they might do with No. 2 pick, so we could "mess Philly up", presumably by taking D'Angelo instead of OK4. This same article cast Philly's front office (well this most recent version of it, anyway) in the role of completely stable by comparison. I thought about this article and laughed as Philly took it's 3rd big in as many drafts. Still though, something to be said for draftiing the best player available.

After all that tanking, the Celts still don't have a marquee player. Heh, heh.

BTW, you're welcome, Miami.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

There were reports that the Lakers were bluffing about drafting Russell so the Sixers would give them back their pick next year. Those reports said the Sixers counter-bluffed by exaggerating Embiid's injuries to make it seem like maybe they would take another big man. In the end, it's possible neither team was bluffing.

The Sixers don't view the regular season as anything more than an extended training camp so they have no problems with three big men. Two will start, one will come from the bench (assuming Embiid is healthy). There's no question they have holes in their lineup, but they're going to suck anyway. I think there's potential for Noel and Okafor and Noel and Embiid (Okafor and Embiid would be great offensively, but not as great defensively). Whoever fits the worst would presumably be traded whenever the Sixers presumably decide they have enough assets.

Ultimately, if Russell was on the table, I suspect he would have been taken. Since he wasn't, I can't fault them for taking the best player. That's been their strategy and it didn't make sense to take a player not ranked as highly just to plug a hole when their team consists of nothing but holes.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^I was impressed by what I saw of Noel this past season, particularly in the second half. His offensive game needs work, but he's already a plus-defender and showed surprising versatility, playing both the "four" and the "five." Had he been able to play at his second-half level over the course of the entire season, he may have stolen the ROY award from Wiggins.

I don't have a problem with the Sixers drafting three big men. If they don't work out, they're valuable assets in trades. This draft had several good players in it, but nobody who's going to change a franchise's fortunes by himself.

--Sran

 

[gblews]

There were reports that the Lakers were bluffing about drafting Russell so the Sixers would give them back their pick next year. Those reports said the Sixers counter-bluffed by exaggerating Embiid's injuries to make it seem like maybe they would take another big man. In the end, it's possible neither team was bluffing.

I don't know about the Sixers, but the Lakers sure weren't bluffing. If the Sixers pinned their hopes of getting Russell on the Lakers' bluffing then shame on them. My first thought when I heard OK4 called for the Sixers was that maybe Embiid's re-injury was more significant than we knew.

Ultimately, if Russell was on the table, I suspect he would have been taken. Since he wasn't, I can't fault them for taking the best player. That's been their strategy and it didn't make sense to take a player not ranked as highly just to plug a hole when their team consists of nothing but holes.

Taking the best player available works well in the NFL but not so much in the NBA. There are fewer starters and chemistry is a much bigger issue. The Sixers apparently aren't planning on fielding a competitive team for an even longer period. If you're building a team to win, you don't just take the best player available because that player though good, may not the right fit.

Now, maybe they just didn't like Mudiay, understandable, but I wonder what the contingency plan was if their guy (Russell) wasn't there. Did they explore trading down for a lower profile PG, any thought to trading the pick for a workable vet? Taking yet another big at this point seems like they are going with whatever falls into their laps. If the Lakers were doing this, the fans would be screaming curse words. Some already are, because of Russell's selection, but that's another story.

I bring all this up only because I keep seeing the Sixer's front office being lauded, but for the life of me I cannot see why.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, there was at least one offer on the table (I think the Celtics). Ultimately, the offer wasn't good enough given the massive drop in talent that far down in the draft. The consensus was the talent drop between three and four was pretty big too.

Besides, you don't necessarily have to trade on draft day. You can always trade six months later - and you don't have to limit yourself to the new player selected. I suspect one of three big men will be traded at some point since I doubt they'll use him as a sixth man. But their players are versatile enough to play either the four or the five (especially Embiid, who has three point range), so I can't fault them if they didn't have the guard they wanted available.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^The Celtics apparently wanted Noel, as well as the third pick, in exchange for Marcus Smart and a bunch of picks.

--Sran

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Oh, that's even worse than I thought. Yeah, that was never going to happen.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^Yeah, I was shocked when I read about it. What's funny is that Ainge talked about it like it was no big deal; did he really expect the 'Sixers to trade their best player and the pick that became Okafor for an undersized two-guard and a bunch of mid-level selections?

Maybe I'm nuts, but I wouldn't trade Nerlens Noel. He doesn't have Okafor's low-post game or Embiid's upside, but he may be the most versatile of the three big men (especially if he learns to shoot the jumper consistently) and is already an above-average interior defender, with the potential to be a great defender.

--Sran

 

[gblews]

^The Celtics apparently wanted Noel, as well as the third pick, in exchange for Marcus Smart and a bunch of picks.

--Sran

Hard to believe the Celts were serious about this offer. And speaking of trouble, the C's appear to be in a bit of it. All those picks and so far, not one real marquee player. Maybe they'll get Pierce back in free agency this year.

Besides, you don't necessarily have to trade on draft day. You can always trade six months later - and you don't have to limit yourself to the new player selected. I suspect one of three big men will be traded at some point since I doubt they'll use him as a sixth man. But their players are versatile enough to play either the four or the five (especially Embiid, who has three point range), so I can't fault them if they didn't have the guard they wanted available.

True enough. Even though to me it looks like they screwed the pooch initially, it is possible they could still come out of it looking good.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, they're going to be terrible this year, if that counts as screwing the pooch

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Being terrible gives them time to evaluate their big men (give or take Embiid) and figure out what they're needs are elsewhere on the roster. I worry about Okafor defensively, but at least he has Noel playing next to him.

--Sran

 

[Borgminister]

God help Vlade handle that cap space.
And Aldridge make the right decision.

 

[gblews]

The media and some fans, particularly Laker and Kobe haters, are having a field day on the Lakers' failed presentation to LMA. But my feeling about it is this, they tried to emphasize their strengths which are the Lakers' brand, business opportunities, money, and deemphasize their weaknesses, the roster. Same thing any business would do in trying to make a deal.

Now, there really would be something to laugh about if the Lakers had gone into the meeting extolling players like Robert Sacre, Jordan Hill, along with some very promising rookies, and Kobe, as a potential playoff team with LMA at 4.

And what would be the alternative to not going after the top free agents, we tank every year until we can draft enough stars or accumulate enough to make a big trade (trades can be a 2 edged sword). Other teams are doing just that. I like that the Lakers going after the top free agents and I hope they continue.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^I think LMA's concern was that the Lakers won't be able to compete for a championship within the next 2-3 years. With Kobe on his way out, the only players on their roster with any value are Russell (rookie), Randle (coming off injury) and Clarkson (a nice role-player but not a cornerstone).

I don't see why people are laughing at the Lakers. What do they expect them to do? Nothing?

--Sran

 

[gblews]

^I think LMA's concern was that the Lakers won't be able to compete for a championship within the next 2-3 years. With Kobe on his way out, the only players on their roster with any value are Russell (rookie), Randle (coming off injury) and Clarkson (a nice role-player but not a cornerstone).

I don't see why people are laughing at the Lakers. What do they expect them to do? Nothing?

--Sran

EXACTLY!