Locke interviews draftexpress's Jonathon Givony

[BENTLEY]

https://www.bullspodcasters.com/dx/draftexpress_37.mp3

For those that don't want to listen he's a nuts and bolts summary:

Henry - Givony says he's the best wing player in the draft (or maybe second to Wesley Johnson).

Minnesota broadcasting they're going to take Johnson at 4. Could be smokescreen but Givony doesn't think so.

Talent dropoff after 4. (Wall, Turner, FAvors, and Cousins are Givony's top 4 although he thinks Cousins won't be picked until after 4 sometime).

From pick 5 to 11 the talent blends in. Then dropoff. Picks 11 - 20 the talent is comparable.

Sac - Monroe or Cousins. Probably Monroe.

Locke loves Monroe. Givony says he's high character, articulate. Not the most motivated. Not in love with basketball. A little like "Channing Frye." His talent is there, just maybe not a love of the game. He'll be very good in the right system.

Udoh - Givony says he's not explosive. 23 years old. Not likely to improve. But versatile. Very good.

Givony likes Patterson a lot. Excellent offensive rebounder. CAn shoot 3s. etc. People are sleeping on him.

Wings:

Heyward's gonna struggle in NBA. Worth drafting in 20 - 30 range, not lottery.

Henry is everything you're looking for in a SF. (I thought he was a SG)

Babbitt - Givony not high on him for most the season. But his stock is rising. Givony is questioning himself now. If he'd played at Ohio State we'd have a better evaluation of him.

 

[honz]

This guy sounds like a hack.

 

[BENTLEY]

He has a lisp. But he's a basketball geek. I thought it was worth a listen. Especially because I'm so unsure of some of these guys. Most of these guys. After hearing him I'm kind of cooling on Babbitt.

 

[David Stern]

This guy helps to confirm my feeling: we have absolutely no idea who the Jazz want at 9. The past two years, it was obvious who they wanted but those guys were off the board. I'm 100% sure that we won't be set on someone until we actually get to our pick this year.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

He has a lisp. But he's a basketball geek. I thought it was worth a listen. Especially because I'm so unsure of some of these guys. Most of these guys. After hearing him I'm kind of cooling on Babbitt.

I'm cooling on him too. Despite his size, general athleticism and shooting touch, I'm questioning his quickness and ability to make plays in the pros.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

This guy helps to confirm my feeling: we have absolutely no idea who the Jazz want at 9. The past two years, it was obvious who they wanted but those guys were off the board. I'm 100% sure that we won't be set on someone until we actually get to our pick this year.

If I had to bet, I would guess that Henry is in the picture, Aldrich is probably in the picture, Monroe and Davis are in the picture, Paul George will get tossed around, and one person in the organization will lobby for Whiteside and get voted down. The Jazz ultimately have to make a decision on Millsap. Is he really a starter and finisher, is he a 6th man, or is he trade bait? That decision will likely affect this draft.

 

[David Stern]

If I had to bet, I would guess that Henry is in the picture, Aldrich is probably in the picture, Monroe and Davis are in the picture, Paul George will get tossed around, and one person in the organization will lobby for Whiteside and get voted down. The Jazz ultimately have to make a decision on Millsap. Is he really a starter and finisher, is he a 6th man, or is he trade bait? That decision will likely affect this draft.

Our organization needs to rank who they think the best players will be over time 1-9. Whoever is highest on that board when we pick is who we draft. I think/hope they do this every year.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

His mock draft from last year.
https://www1.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2009/

Got about 7 out of 30 right. Why is he an expert?

 

[calijazz]

His mock draft from last year.
https://www1.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2009/

Got about 7 out of 30 right. Why is he an expert?

The draft is almost impossible to predict after the first 3-5 picks. So many scenarios can play out. I don't think that's a fair criticism.

 

[NUMBERICA]

His mock draft from last year.
https://www1.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2009/

Got about 7 out of 30 right. Why is he an expert?

Somehow, I get the feeling that nbadarft.net, Chad Ford, or anyone else actually did worse. One pick affects another, if one guy jumps (a la Jason Thompson) and one guy falls precipitously (a la Dejuan Blair), that's enough to **** up a mock draft.

 

[sirkickyass]

His mock draft from last year.
https://www1.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2009/

Got about 7 out of 30 right. Why is he an expert?

For 2009

Draftexpress: 12 of the top 30 correct.

NBADarft: 9 of the top 30 correct.

Chad Ford: 13 of the top 30 correct.

Given the inherent unpredictability of the enterprise, if Givony isn't an expert then no one's an expert. I don't think you can really peg Chad Ford's additional one correct as being a big deal.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

For 2009

Draftexpress: 12 of the top 30 correct.

NBADarft: 9 of the top 30 correct.

Chad Ford: 13 of the top 30 correct.

Given the inherent unpredictability of the enterprise, if Givony isn't an expert then no one's an expert. I don't think you can really peg Chad Ford's additional one correct as being a big deal.

I think a better indicator would be how far off each guy was with each pick.

Is a guy who got Rubio in the right slot but Flynn 5 picks off a better predictor than a guy who had Flynn and Rubio flip flopped?

 

[Scat]

Patterson is starting to really intrigue me.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

For 2009

Draftexpress: 12 of the top 30 correct.

NBADarft: 9 of the top 30 correct.

Chad Ford: 13 of the top 30 correct.

Given the inherent unpredictability of the enterprise, if Givony isn't an expert then no one's an expert. I don't think you can really peg Chad Ford's additional one correct as being a big deal.

eh. even still. 40% is hardly that impressive. Mock drafts are pretty much guaranteed to be mostly wrong. I don't know why people pay so much attention to them.

 

[Harcher]

eh. even still. 40% is hardly that impressive. Mock drafts are pretty much guaranteed to be mostly wrong. I don't know why people pay so much attention to them.

Same reason we pay attention to what others think on a fan forum site... speculation is entertainment.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

Same reason we pay attention to what others think on a fan forum site... speculation is entertainment.

well i should say how many people consider the mocks as gospel truth.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Patterson is starting to really intrigue me.

For me, he's not in my cross-hairs because he is only average size at PF at best, he's not a good defender, and he's been an atrocious defensive rebounder. He might be a low-risk player, but he also looks low-reward to me.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If we didnt already have Milsap I would want Patterson, but they just seem redundant. We need a big who can play minutes at center.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

NBA GMs could do mocks and they wouldn't get more than 12 or 13 right. That would probably high end. Some would be down around 7 or 8. The point being, making correct picks in terms of where guys are darfted has nothing to do with whether or not a guy is an expert.

 

[sirkickyass]

eh. even still. 40% is hardly that impressive. Mock drafts are pretty much guaranteed to be mostly wrong. I don't know why people pay so much attention to them.

I like to crowd-source my mocks among those who do it professionally. It gives you an idea who will be available in a particular range. I guess ultimately your question boils down to "why read articles that look forward at all, why not just wait until the draft happens."