What's new

Following potential 2013 draftees

Here's Karasev shooting 3s. I wouldn't mind him spacing the floor. He's mostly a catch-and-shoot player, so he'd basically play the role that Randy Foye and Kyle Korver did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wX8pNcC1eU#!
 
The reason I don't want Adetokunbo is he will take 2 years in Europe and at least a year on NBA to be productive. With Karasev though he comes to NBA and spends a year to get used.

The Jazz need a (super) star, point blank. Kunbo has a better chance to be that (I'm not proclaiming that he will be), and having one less good player next year increases the chance that the Jazz are in place to add a superstar talent in '14. Win-Win.

But I like Karasev, too. But the evidence that you need (super) stars to win a title and can continuously put yourself in that position is overwhelming.
 
Last edited:
having one less good player next year increases the chance that the Jazz are in place to add a superstar talent in '14. Win-Win.

Unless our young talent with a weak supporting cast proves to be good enough by themselves for a 7 or 8 playoff-seed (as has crossed the mind of many people, I'm sure). Then everyone will be grumbling about how we missed the opportunity to build around them with good role players. Risks all the way around.
 
Unless our young talent with a weak supporting cast proves to be good enough by themselves for a 7 or 8 playoff-seed (as has crossed the mind of many people, I'm sure). Then everyone will be grumbling about how we missed the opportunity to build around them with good role players. Risks all the way around.

I don't see a star talent in Karasev or a great defender and role players aren't nearly as hard to acquire.
 
Then again, I didn't think Klay Thompson or Stephen Curry would be as good as they are either (and on the outset, I don't see an ocean of difference as prospects between them and Karasev). But I think they are vast exceptions to the rule.
 
The Jazz need a (super) star, point blank. Kunbo has a better chance to be that (I'm not proclaiming that he will be), and having one less good player next year increases the chance that the Jazz are in place to add a superstar talent in '14. Win-Win.

But I like Karasev, too. But the evidence that you need (super) stars to win a title and can continuously put yourself in that position is overwhelming.

There are at least 5 years before Adetokunbo becomes a superstar if he ever becomes one. It will be hard to keep any of the Core 4 till that moment. I think we have a chance at lottery next year if we don't sign Al and Paul and Kanter has a chance to be that star.
 
Then again, I didn't think Klay Thompson or Stephen Curry would be as good as they are either (and on the outset, I don't see an ocean of difference as prospects between them and Karasev). But I think they are vast exceptions to the rule.

With Curry I think people saw that he had star potential and the pedigree. He was also willing to play the PG position and take that task seriously in his final year of college. That showed his determination to succeed in the NBA. Minny would have taken him if he hadn't refused to work out with them.

Klay had his shooting for starters. Nobody thought he could become the all round player that he is today, but you could say he at least had the "physical attributes" to succeed.

Karasev has the stroke. There's no doubt about that. But can he become more than just a shooter and reach Gallinari type status? That remains to be seen. Can he defend NBA caliber players? That's my biggest question mark on him.

These playoffs clearly showed though that you need 2-way players in your team, or else you'd just get exposed. You can't defend, they'll just put LeBron on you 10 times out of 10. Unless of course you have a Thibodeau type coach.
 
I haven't said much in regards to Shane Larkin, but I don't really see it. I'm one of the louder of the size-isn't-everything crowd but it IS a factor and Larkin is flat-out tiny when measuring against anything not in the Muggsy Bogues to Nate Robinson spectrum (which is to say, exceptional exceptions to the rule). I might take him in the second round but the dude is completely off the radar for me in the first round.
 
I know I'm in the minority, but from the little I've seen, I like Larkin. Sure he's small, but with his strength, quickness and leaping ability, he plays bigger than Burke. Plays with great energy; seems to be a leader/winner. Gets to his spots, creates separation, can knock down jumpers (off the dribble). Should be an 80% free throw shooter. Great pedigree, should understand what it takes to be a good pro (how to take care of his body, listen to coaches, have productive off seasons). Even if he ends up being more JJ Barea than Ty Lawson, he'd be a player the Jazz can use.
 
I know I'm in the minority, but from the little I've seen, I like Larkin. Sure he's small, but with his strength, quickness and leaping ability, he plays bigger than Burke. Plays with great energy; seems to be a leader/winner. Great pedigree, should understand what it takes to be a good pro (how to take care of his body, listen to coaches, have productive off seasons). Even if he ends up being more JJ Barea than Ty Lawson, he'd be a player the Jazz can use.

Why does pedigree matter? I've seen this come up a few times and I don't understand why pedigree is a strong point.
 
Back
Top