Donovan Clingan or Alexander Sarr: Battle of 1st overall pick

[bird_dirt]

45 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Again, I posted the extended cut of Sarr film. Same highlights, but also tons of bad picks, fumbled passes, travels and missed open shots.

People see a made open 3 and say, "man can he shoot", then look at his % of 28% and shoukd say, "oh, that's why he's being left open from 3.  He is missing almost 3/4 of the 3's he takes and most of those are no hands in his face.  Those possessions of 6'7" 235lb PFs bullying him on the post for an easy 2 were all I needed to see. Basically, guys like DeAndre Hunter's size were working him on post ups.  WTF is he going to do when Stephen Adams and Joel Embiid start throwing him around?

His percentage was 29.8%. You could just as easily say he made nearly 1/3 of his threes instead of he missed nearly 3/4 of his threes and you’d be closer to the truth. 
Combined with a FT% over 70 and an improved 3pt % would not be an unexpected outcome. 
And I would expect CC, OO or some other muscle to be the primary center guarding the Adams and Embiids of the league with Sarr providing help defense from the 3 or 4. 
 

Com’on man. You know it’s all situational. You can just as easily ask how will Edey guard the smaller, quicker players that shoot from outside like when Cs played Tatum at center. 
 

No one is perfect or fully developed. 
I like Edey and Clingan for what they can do, but I prefer what Sarr can do more, particularly his defense guarding in space, at POA, and weakside in the paint. Give his body some time to develop and he could get even better in the paint. Edey or Clingan won’t ever develop an ability to guard POA. 

[givemesome1ce1]

Sam Vecenie of the Athletic has us taking Clingan at 1. Mentions the buzz around Clingan. Either it’s a smokescreen or real momentum.

[deester11]

14 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

His percentage was 29.8%. You could just as easily say he made nearly 1/3 of his threes instead of he missed nearly 3/4 of his threes and you’d be closer to the truth. 
Combined with a FT% over 70 and an improved 3pt % would not be an unexpected outcome. 
And I would expect CC, OO or some other muscle to be the primary center guarding the Adams and Embiids of the league with Sarr providing help defense from the 3 or 4. 
 

Com’on man. You know it’s all situational. You can just as easily ask how will Edey guard the smaller, quicker players that shoot from outside like when Cs played Tatum at center. 
 

No one is perfect or fully developed. 
I like Edey and Clingan for what they can do, but I prefer what Sarr can do more, particularly his defense guarding in space, at POA, and weakside in the paint. Give his body some time to develop and he could get even better in the paint. Edey or Clingan won’t ever develop an ability to guard POA. 

Good post 

[Spud2nique]

6 hours ago, Sothron said:

I was yelled at

Wasn’t me was it?  
 

Gimme their names!!!! Nobody puts Saffie ina corner. (Till after the draft then it’s open season).

[KB21]

It's going to be fun watching those who are bagging on Alex Sarr today try to squirm out of it in 3 years when he's the player everyone talks about as the prize of the 2024 draft.

[Spud2nique]

4 hours ago, theheroatl said:

yelled at? What kind of abuse you taking 

 

Wink twice if Landry has you locked in a closet

I thought I posted this .. wow it’s early. Let’s get the culprits @theheroatl!!!

[Spud2nique]

4 hours ago, theheroatl said:

What kind of abuse you taking 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

I can’t seem to get a good answer to these questions either.  

Not sure people realize that the G league exhibition games are about the only time Sarr put up stat lines like that.  Also, he’s mostly dunking in the highlight reels of that game, or hitting a wide open three. There’s no tape of a game where he shows a skilled offensive bag.

Everyone is looking at an exhibition highlight reel and ignoring what he does or doesn’t do in actual games.

 

Or looking at his per minute production and what he has done that many players will never do in their careers (granting that highlights are very different from skills that are regularly available but that is expected for an 18 year old and even moreso one who had a late growth spurt that changed their role).

[Spud2nique]

58 minutes ago, Mikey said:

He was in the building.

He got the zones? 
 

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

His flight to Washington was from ATL.

 

[KB21]

 

[KB21]

Interesting comment from that article:

Quote

The most intriguing aspect of the Rockets' predraft planning isn't so much what other teams are offering or expecting them to do.  Houston's internal debate - especially this year in a wide-open draft - is compelling.  Historically, the braintrust goes to great lengths to ensure a thorough process, a period that typically involves debates about individual player rankings before one composite big board is formed.  Now, with Udoka's presence a significant factor in decision-making, various league sources believe Houston's big board planning involves three branches in addition to the other respected voices in the war room:

1.  The upside and position versatility angle, spearheaded by Stong

2.  The analytical angle, courtesy of assistant general manager Eli Witus.

3.  The win-now, defensive oriented angle, from Udoka.

There are a few prospects who theoretically fit in at least two of the three categories but in recent days, Clingan and Sheppard have separated themselves from the likes of Stephon Castle, Sarr, and Risacher on Houston's big board, league and team sources said.  Clingan, the 20-year old big man, is believed to be the current leader, seen as the only player who fits all three categories.  

[sturt]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

Trading for better fitting players to me is the single biggest thing that can be done to improve this team.  If we simply never played Trae and DJM together and only paired them with Bogi and Bufkin we would be a significantly improved team.  Trading DJM for talent that fits could be a big move to improve this team and this roster year over year.

Sounds good in theory... nah, make that great... but of course you and I both know the devil in those details is that there is some team out there with

(1a) exactly the right alternative player(s) that they're going to be willing to deal... and

(1b) whose contracts APR is going to be happy to take on... in exchange for

(2) exactly the players (and/or draft picks, of course) you want to deal to them. And that assumes

(3) that your GM and his support staff are lucid and astute to discern the existence of such an opportunity, and that the freedom to make the basketball decisions by basketball intelligentsia isn't complicated by those minds and voices who only presume themselves to be part of the intelligentsia (... whose input is tainted b/c their highest priority is to win on the spreadsheet, and viewing winning on the court as a means to that end, not the end unto itself).

Not to mention, on top of that, that even if that much is achieved, that indeed

(4) what you'd perceived to be the "exact right alternative player(s)" turns out to actually be that by virtue of individual production... and

(5) furthermore still, on top of that, that the evidence that the new roster recipe's effectiveness asserts itself early enough (ie, the "chemistry" element appears sooner, not later) that people don't throw up their hands too early and decide that the transaction failed prematurely--recognizing how many times in NBA history we've seen something that didn't appear to be working for a team, seemingly out of the blue suddenly start working after all.

Exhibit A for this cautionary tale? What you just cited. Almost universally on this site, we endorsed the idea that what Trae needed was a DJM. That was our collective wisdom.

So, yeah... great in theory.

Reality is, it's really difficult... if it wasn't difficult everyone would do it, right?

It might help a lot if you could even get one of those empirically-controllable factors to tilt your way... say, like if "1b" was, instead of a disadvantage, an advantage--a different attitude having prevailed. Or, closely allied with that, but different... what if there were an end to the GM having to march into the owner's office to for a "challenge" session... making "3" a non-consideration after all.

Seems you need some combination of Jerry West genius and Lady Luck in order for it all to come together.

You think you have that? Then again, what choice do you have but to hope, I suppose. This is the journey you signed up for, the horse you've chosen to ride. You've been a good soldier, and if the basketball gods are righteous, you deserve for it to work out so it will work out.

No sarcasm in any of that, btw... you've been a good soldier, as have so many of us.

But there's a big "if"... are the basketball gods righteous?... hmmmm... *sigh*...

[kg01]

6 hours ago, Sothron said:

I was yelled at for confirming Mikey's post by that source. I still stand by what I posted. I cannot say anything else about workouts. Take that FWIW.

#freeSoth!! 

  You'll never see him again, kg.

5 hours ago, theheroatl said:

yelled at? What kind of abuse you taking 

 

Wink twice if Landry has you locked in a closet

Sounds like the Outsiders gonna have to plan a rescue mission.

Quick, half of us start watching the Oceans 11 movies.  The others watch Mission Impossible 2 or 3.

Meet up at 11.  @Spud2nique, you bring the cupcakes this time.  I don't trust them brownies @warcore brought.  I'm pretty sure they had enough cannabis to float the titanic. 

[BangHolman]

15 hours ago, sturt said:

That's asking a lot, though... me, for all my bitchin and whinin and moanin, I didn't even require that much, Marco...

I only asked that they not do something that makes the team worse.

Well, nah, that's not even precisely accurate... I would have been fine with making the team worse if it was a new episode of fire sale and tanking, with a new eye toward a rebuild.

 

To the main topic here, though, I'm intrigued to see that the poll so far shows Sarr in a landslide... trading for a vet gets a little support, and then Cling a little less... and then, there's that other option, trading down, for which there is but one single vote. And in a draft where there is so much agreement that this is not a year that a features a no-doubter talent like would be getting picked ordinarily... @thecampster I'd love to read your thoughts on why you come to the conclusion you do. My sense is that most reject the idea out of hand simply because it feels... feels... wrong to wait all this time, finally get that #1 slot, only to give it up. But my sense is that maybe that foreclosure could be misguided... maybe there's all the more reason given the draft stock inventory, to consider a trade down.

To be fair, I think this poll would look more balanced today. Everyone was excited after winning the lottery when they voted. I know my vote would change.

[kg01]

5 hours ago, deester11 said:

Ouch. 

Interesting comment you replied to.  Had anyone said something like that to that poster, he would've gone to the mods and tried to have the poster banned.... 

[deester11]

9 minutes ago, BangHolman said:

To be fair, I think this poll would look for balanced today. Everyone was excited after winning the lottery. I know my vote would change.

Flipping and trying to deter my thought on Sarr ain't changing.  I just acknowledge the Hawks are looking at it differently.  I still think Sarr should be the pick.  So there. I would dance if he were the pick.

Edited June 20 by deester11

[deester11]

5 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Interesting comment you replied to.  Had anyone said something like that to that poster, he would've gone to the mods and tried to have the poster banned.... 

I try to not say anything . But...yeah...

[kg01]

6 minutes ago, deester11 said:

I try to not say anything . But...yeah...

He must've deleted it.... 

[sturt]

2 hours ago, deester11 said:

You’re saying that it is unimaginable that the Hawks are going to trade for more talent?

Here's what I'm saying, just objectively from 30,000 feet.

Teams make trades according to their own self-interest... and teams do not make trades that they perceive are not in their own self-interest. No trading partner, then, is interested in that trade where your team gets the better booty and they get something less.

So, if that's all accepted as valid... and why wouldn't it be... humor me as I start at just a very simplistic level, and assuming there is no other consideration of contracts or draft picks involved... Team X is only willing to deal Player 1 to the degree that they perceive Team Y's Player 2 to be advantageous, to be a stronger talent... and the converse is also true for Team Y, then, in respect to their interest in Player 1.

Right? None of that is controversial or particularly debatable just taking it at face value... self-interest is the principle that frames our side of a trade and what frames the potential trading partner's side of a trade... and so without consideration of those other factors--we're getting there, just let me walk through this first part--a trade represents a zero sum game, for as long as we assume both GMs are essentially just as intelligent/competent/insightful as the other.

So, how do you get a trade to tilt your way then? How can you ever acquire more coming in versus going out?

This is where draft pick considerations matter. If you have some attractive draft pick inventory to put on the table to sweeten a deal, it may allow you to acquire talent in the short-term, in exchange for that down-the-road talent you're willing to forfeit. We all get that, I'm sure.

Okay, so begs the question... what do we have? Unless something happened when I wasn't paying attention, not anything to get excited about.

How about attractive contracts... low salaries in comparison to perceived talent, and/or contract lengths that are appealing. Yes, that's another way to tilt a trade. Maybe you have some relatively cheap up-and-comers that another GM would relish, projecting those players' down-the-road outcomes to be more valuable to him than some proven player's substantial-but-plateaued current talent level.

Again. Begs the question... what do we have? That's a more honest question, because I really am not at all the right person to answer that one this year.

And oh yeah, mind you... as you know... that also can work against you... you can have the unfortunate circumstance where you are upside-down, and you're having to give up more talent in a deal... overpay, in terms of talent... because your contracts are so crappy.

Summing up, the best you can hope for if you don't have an impressive selection of draft picks or don't have attractive contracts to deal (... short of having Jerry West as your GM and an owner whose priority is, for real, no pretense, a title, as opposed to a title for the purposes of adding to his pile of gold...) is to see an outcome like what @AHF envisions (see above)... the reality is that both sides are parting with approximately the same talent inventory as the other is, and you're just hoping that the new mix of players after the trade is, in itself, proven to be an improvement.