What's new
By:

Tre Johnson Will Likely be The 5th Pick

Elizah Huge said:
No, you said you wouldn’t trade 21 because whoever we pick at 21 could be as good as who we pick at 5.

While that is true, the % is super small, and with that logic no team should trade any picks ever.
Click to expand...
Most here would agree Isiah Collier and Flilpowski have both been better than Cody…

So the % of that happening is actually not that small.
 
Elizah Huge said:
No, you said you wouldn’t trade 21 because whoever we pick at 21 could be as good as who we pick at 5.

While that is true, the % is super small, and with that logic no team should trade any picks ever.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you didn't read my entire post.
I ALSO said I prefer more bites at the apple (literally the exact same phrase just used) and that there isn't enough separation between VJ, Tre, and Bailey to use a pick to move up and that the player wanted at #3 has a decent chance of being there at #5. See if there was a total stud at #3 who was way better than anyone available at #5 who we knew wouldn't be there at #5 then I would totally be down with trading 21. You have to look at the entire context of the post instead of just a little part of it.
Anywho, I disagreed with your take without insulting you. Not sure I deserved an insult for my take. Shrug.
 
Last edited:
underdog said:
I'd rather hold onto our #21 pick because with this year's prospects in the #3-5 range, it's tough to predict what they will be after 4-5 years. Not enough separation there for me.
Click to expand...
Yep. This is my thought as well.
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
Ah, so you didn't read my entire post.
I ALSO said I prefer more bites at the apple (literally the exact same phrase just used) and that there isn't enough separation between VJ, Tre, and Bailey to use a pick to move up and that the player wanted at #3 has a decent chance of being there at #5. See if there was a total stud at #3 who was way better than anyone available at #5 who we knew wouldn't be there at #5 then I would totally be down with trading 21. You have to look at the entire context of the post instead of just a little part of it.
Anywho, I disagreed with your take without insulting you. Not sure I deserved an insult for my take. Shrug.
Click to expand...
Where did I insult you?

I know you might think there isn’t separation but that doesn’t mean the FO doesn’t think so. That was the whole premise of the post.
 
Elizah Huge said:
Where did I insult you?

I know you might think there isn’t separation but that doesn’t mean the FO doesn’t think so. That was the whole premise of the post.
Click to expand...
The post I quoted was you saying what you would do not the front office. ("I’d move up to 3 to get VJ. 5 + 21 for 3")

My response was simply what I would do. We would just do different things based on the context of this draft and the draft positioning and the players likely to be available. That seems ok to me.
I felt insulted by being told my take was horrible and I don't feel like it was deserved. I didn't call your take horrible and many people seem to share my take yet they weren't told their takes were horrible.

To be honest you are usually a pretty nice poster on this site and someone I have always liked. For you to call my take horrible, and not others with extremely similar takes, made it feel a little personal.
If Cy was the one I was dealing with then it would feel less insulting since he calls dudes retarded and dumb and tells everyone they have horrible takes about everything on the regular. I guess I hold you to a higher standard. Fair or not. Maybe this ones on me and its my bad.
 
Last edited:
HadAnEffectHere said:
The issue is just that we are going to have too many guys very soon.

Already 7 guys on rookie contracts, most of them were one and done, 6 are still in need of a lot of development. One has barely played in the NBA due to injury.
Click to expand...
Way ahead of you.

If the org isn’t very good at evaluating prospects then having an extra dice roll is probably more valuable than losing that to move up in a spot of the draft that most people think is pretty flat.
 
Last edited:
idiot said:
Game Theory podcast's Bryce Simon as guest on Athletic NBA Daily's podcast discussing why he likes Tre so much with the Jazz:

Time markers:
8:00-8:50
28:35-29:15
32:07-34:07

Click to expand...

Interesting takes. I wonder, could Tre be the Jazz’s version of Jaylen Brown?
 
underdog said:
I'd rather hold onto our #21 pick because with this year's prospects in the #3-5 range, it's tough to predict what they will be after 4-5 years. Not enough separation there for me.
Click to expand...
"it's tough to predict what they will be after 4-5 years" is true for almost all players drafted every year, because they are so young. But, interestingly it is very rare when teams with high picks trade them for a collection of much smaller picks "to have more bites at the apple". Usually it is quite opposite: teams with low picks are desperately trying to trade up (by combining multiple low picks and adding assets) but they are rarely successful. I wonder why.
 
I'm probably feeling too confident about this, but I feel relatively certain on Tre at this point. I think he is going to be an elite shooter in the NBA, have a very difficult shot distribution, and also be a bad defender. We have a pretty good idea of what that lands you at, it's that borderline all star level. Think Murray, McCollum, Herro ect. This is probably the third highest median expectation I have of any player. I think it will be hard for him to elevate beyond that because the development required (attacking the rim) is not something that happens often. OTOH, I'm fairly certain he's going to be a great shooter so there isn't much downside risk. He's going to be a contributor of some kind just based on his volume shooting alone.

I feel good about how I view him, just a matter of placing prospects above or behind him now. The other prospects have more things I'm uncertain about.
 
fishonjazz said:
Get rid of the vets. Then there is plenty of minutes and development for everyone. Get more bites of the apple and find out which bites taste good. There will almost certainly be injuries. There will be dudes going back and forth to the g-league and jazz roster too.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that the best way to develop young players is to send them out to be slaughtered game after game without a core of solid vets to provide mentoring and stability. Plus, assuming you do hit on a core of youngsters capable of forming a competitive nucleus, without a strong supporting cast, they'll only just keep losing, prolonging the rebuild yet longer. I suppose that the supporting cast could be assembled in good order by trading other assets for solid vets and role players around the new core. However, there has to be a plan in place to allow the team to pivot reasonably quickly once the new, young core is identified. Denuding the team of vet talent makes it that much more challenging, or at least it seems to me.
 
KqWIN said:
I'm probably feeling too confident about this, but I feel relatively certain on Tre at this point. I think he is going to be an elite shooter in the NBA, have a very difficult shot distribution, and also be a bad defender. We have a pretty good idea of what that lands you at, it's that borderline all star level. Think Murray, McCollum, Herro ect. This is probably the third highest median expectation I have of any player. I think it will be hard for him to elevate beyond that because the development required (attacking the rim) is not something that happens often. OTOH, I'm fairly certain he's going to be a great shooter so there isn't much downside risk. He's going to be a contributor of some kind just based on his volume shooting alone.

I feel good about how I view him, just a matter of placing prospects above or behind him now. The other prospects have more things I'm uncertain about.
Click to expand...
Im pretty much in the same place with him. Watching more VJ and Ace lately has made me sweat as I see the upside and start imagining the best case scenarios.

I think Tre is taking money to bank, VJ is putting it all on black and Ace is putting it all on 7.
 
Schrödinger's Gerbil said:
I am not convinced that the best way to develop young players is to send them out to be slaughtered game after game without a core of solid vets to provide mentoring and stability. Plus, assuming you do hit on a core of youngsters capable of forming a competitive nucleus, without a strong supporting cast, they'll only just keep losing, prolonging the rebuild yet longer. I suppose that the supporting cast could be assembled in good order by trading other assets for solid vets and role players around the new core. However, there has to be a plan in place to allow the team to pivot reasonably quickly once the new, young core is identified. Denuding the team of vet talent makes it that much more challenging, or at least it seems to me.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't do this for their entire careers. Just next season

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top