Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Kevin Huerter Article - Don't write off the Huert!


marco102

Recommended Posts

Is easy to understand  that most probably Hunter in the future will not be worth Hayes, Clarke or NAW or Little and Gafford or Bradzeikis plus losing another 2nds.

If we have stayed pat no trades, we could have drafted Hayes, Reddish, Clarke, Bruno, Bradzeikis, Bol.

Young/ Turner/?

Huerter/Crabbe/Bembry

Reddish/Clarke/Bradzeikis

Collins/Parker/Clarke/Bol

Len/Hayes/Bruno

I don't see the problem drafting six rookies. We commit to development on Reddish, Clarke and Hayes and Bruno, Bradzeikis and Bol need to earn it, that would happen with Bruno anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
17 minutes ago, hazer said:

It’s simply not a “nightmare draft” in any shape/form/fashion anyone tries to slice it. In fact it has a chance of going down as a stellar draft. “Too many picks” or “average talent” or whatever else all being moot points. You get your guy (the best defender in the draft and leader of the college champs), another guy with a very high ceiling at the next level who you had targeted as well (with the Dallas pick, still available a couple of picks after  he should’ve been drafted), and a grown-a$$ man C projected late lottery who could end up being the steal of the 2nd round. That’s a coup, highway robbery, savvy, not no damn nightmare. I don’t even know what the rest of the article covers, as I said I stopped reading right there...✋🏽

The rest of the article is worth reading.  The video links didn't work for me but there is some nice content.

Just a sloppy, misguided and ultimately unnecessary (because the article has nothing to do with our draft and taking that swipe adds nothing to the article) description for the Hawks' 2019 draft.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gurpilo said:

Is easy to understand  that most probably Hunter in the future will not be worth Hayes, Clarke or NAW or Little and Gafford or Bradzeikis plus losing another 2nds.

If we have stayed pat no trades, we could have drafted Hayes, Reddish, Clarke, Bruno, Bradzeikis, Bol.

Young/ Turner/?

Huerter/Crabbe/Bembry

Reddish/Clarke/Bradzeikis

Collins/Parker/Clarke/Bol

Len/Hayes/Bruno

I don't see the problem drafting six rookies. We commit to development on Reddish, Clarke and Hayes and Bruno, Bradzeikis and Bol need to earn it, that would happen with Bruno anyway.

That’s WAY too many rookie bodies, The Colonel and El-P already clearly stated before the draft they didn’t want to take on more than 3. It’s simple, and no nightmare. Nightmare is 6 rookies instead of the 3 you were targeting 🎯 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 5 minutos, hazer dijo:

That’s WAY too many rookie bodies, The Colonel and El-P already clearly stated before the draft they didn’t want to take on more than 3. It’s simple, and no nightmare. Nightmare is 6 rookies instead of the 3 you were targeting 🎯 

3 rookies are a nightmare if you are trying to win, are not a nightmare if you are rebuilding as we are. I don't think we had a nightmare draft, I understand why we traded for Hunter but at the same time I see that we clearly overpay for him.

As I said we could have commited to develop Hayes, Reddish and Clarke and let Bruno, Bradzeikis and Bol to earn their minutes. Instead of that we have comitted to develop Hunter and Reddish, Hayes minutes would go to Damian Jones, Bruno still has to earn his minutes and the minutes that Bradzeikis and Bol were going to earn will go to Parsons, Parker or Bembry... I prefer the other alternative, I also think Clarke could eventually play SF. At the end I like Hunter but probably a trade of 8 & 17 and Hill's contract would have been more fair. I wanted my guy Clarke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end is

Do you prefer Hayes over Jones?

Do you prefer Bol over Spalding?

Do you prefer Bradziekis over Parsons?

My answer for all these questions ia YES. This was an incredibly deep draft and we selled cheap some picks, it was clear there was going to be some bargains at 35-41--44 picks.

And for next season is this a bad team you would consider as FA?

Young

Huerter

Reddish/Clarke/Bradzeikis

Collins/Clarke/Bol

Hayes/Fernando

Edited by gurpilo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gurpilo said:

Is easy to understand  that most probably Hunter in the future will not be worth Hayes, Clarke or NAW or Little and Gafford or Bradzeikis plus losing another 2nds.

If we have stayed pat no trades, we could have drafted Hayes, Reddish, Clarke, Bruno, Bradzeikis, Bol.

Young/ Turner/?

Huerter/Crabbe/Bembry

Reddish/Clarke/Bradzeikis

Collins/Parker/Clarke/Bol

Len/Hayes/Bruno

I don't see the problem drafting six rookies. We commit to development on Reddish, Clarke and Hayes and Bruno, Bradzeikis and Bol need to earn it, that would happen with Bruno anyway.

It was a salary thing where you should spend 90% of the cap or pay the penalty. 6 more rookies would have made it pretty much impossible to get there. The biggest issue with that is if you are seen as a cheap franchise that keeps vets from getting money, it sours you with star players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 12 minutos, thecampster dijo:

It was a salary thing where you should spend 90% of the cap or pay the penalty. 6 more rookies would have made it pretty much impossible to get there. The biggest issue with that is if you are seen as a cheap franchise that keeps vets from getting money, it sours you with star players.

I don't see how a FA would see aa a good thing to pay Parsons instead of investing in youth.

We could always have trade fof a bad contract and get a first.

Edited by gurpilo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gurpilo said:

3 rookies are a nightmare if you are trying to win, are not a nightmare if you are rebuilding as we are. I don't think we had a nightmare draft, I understand why we traded for Hunter but at the same time I see that we clearly overpay for him.

As I said we could have commited to develop Hayes, Reddish and Clarke and let Bruno, Bradzeikis and Bol to earn their minutes. Instead of that we have comitted to develop Hunter and Reddish, Hayes minutes would go to Damian Jones, Bruno still has to earn his minutes and the minutes that Bradzeikis and Bol were going to earn will go to Parsons, Parker or Bembry... I prefer the other alternative, I also think Clarke could eventually play SF. At the end I like Hunter but probably a trade of 8 & 17 and Hill's contract would have been more fair. I wanted my guy Clarke.

I think the key statement was your last one there. You wanted your guy Clarke.

You're completely taking the "draft website guy" view of things. The only thing draft websites focus on, as much as I love to read them, is value. They don't actually have the scouting acumen or track record to bank on, so they focus on how much perceived value a team got in a draft pick and especially in a trade.

However, teams, at least the ones with credible scouting departments, follow their draft chart and act accordingly, not worrying about players that they don't like as much. Atlanta, under Schlenk, has a more than credible scouting history and deserve the benefit of the doubt. If they determine a skinny center from Texas who can't rebound, or a tweener from Gonzaga who doesn't have length and can't shoot or pass, are not worth their time then so be it, I say.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 16 horas, hazer dijo:

That’s WAY too many rookie bodies, The Colonel and El-P already clearly stated before the draft they didn’t want to take on more than 3. It’s simple, and no nightmare. Nightmare is 6 rookies instead of the 3 you were targeting 🎯 

6 rookies are not too much if 2-3 of them do not play at all and are on G-league.

Value on this year 2nd round was much much higher than any year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 11 horas, parfait dijo:

I think the key statement was your last one there. You wanted your guy Clarke.

You're completely taking the "draft website guy" view of things. The only thing draft websites focus on, as much as I love to read them, is value. They don't actually have the scouting acumen or track record to bank on, so they focus on how much perceived value a team got in a draft pick and especially in a trade.

However, teams, at least the ones with credible scouting departments, follow their draft chart and act accordingly, not worrying about players that they don't like as much. Atlanta, under Schlenk, has a more than credible scouting history and deserve the benefit of the doubt. If they determine a skinny center from Texas who can't rebound, or a tweener from Gonzaga who doesn't have length and can't shoot or pass, are not worth their time then so be it, I say.

I agree, I wanted Clarke... And I was right, few rookies are named summer league MVP, he is going to be a stud.

Anyway I am not taking the view of the article, I like what we did, I don't think it was a nightmare but is also true that xobsidering value we gave too much for Hunter whose ceiling might be Trevor Ariza, which is fine, we needed that but not at the cost we pay, Hayes, Clarke, Gafford, 2 2nds and eating Hill's contract.... Only eating Hill's contract should be worth a first, that's my point. Having said that I really like Hunter, I hope he becomes something more than Ariza and hope that he does not get pressed by the cost of the trade. Do I like him more than Clarke? Yes. Do I like him more than Hayes, Clarke, Bruno.....? No. I think he fits well but so did other players.

Edited by gurpilo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 minutes ago, gurpilo said:

6 rookies are not too much if 2-3 of them do not play at all and are on G-league.

Value on this year 2nd round was much much higher than any year

6 rookies and 2 second year players are way too much to run the offensive and defensive action that Pierce will want them running and leaves little room for veterans who can mentor these youngsters.  It is a disaster waiting to happen and Travis Schlenk was very wise to deliberately avoid this scenario.  

You can't use 3 of your roster spots on G-League players, especially if you've got Clarke, Hayes, Bruno, and Bol all competing for the same minutes (with Collins) both short and long-term.  (And, no, I don't think for a second that Clarke will be a SF).  

A team is smart not to get more than a handful of rookies in a given season if only for developmental reasons.  It would stunt the development of Trae, Kevin, Collins, etc. to not have enough vets to be able to push them for complexity of action we can run.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gurpilo said:

I agree, I wanted Clarke... And I was right, few rookies are named summer league MVP, he is going to be a stud.

Anyway I am not taking the view of the article, I like what we did, I don't think it was a nightmare but is also true that xobsidering value we gave too much for Hunter whose ceiling might be Trevor Ariza, which is fine, we needed that but not at the cost we pay, H

Hunter game is completely different than Ariza. 

Hunter is already 230. Ariza was 191 out of UCLA. Hunter best position is the 4 but he has the potential to be a 8 across the board at 4 different positions which is unheard of. Hunter has elite instincts. That's extremely rare and the best teams have players with the best instincts. 

Hunter is an extremely efficient player. Plays team basketball, has elite BBIQ and isn't lacking in any area to the point it's an exploitable flaw considering his role will likely always be 4th or 5th option on offense. 

He is a rare prospect. Generational role player. 

Of course I love Clarke but his best position is the 3. Cam is a 3. He would never get a shot at the 3. At the 4. He is severely limited at this level just due to being the same size and measurements as Klay Thompson was as a prospect. No matter what, he is food v. NBA level athletes in the modern NBA at the 4. His BBIQ, movement skills for a big, athleticism and his effort should get him mins but he won't be an effective 4. His best position is the 3 which he maybe two years away with NBA development. 

For us, he made sense if Cam was off the board but not if he wasn't. Clarke is in my tier 3.5 so you know I was high af on him but I said he will fall as he is still a developmental prospect at the 3 and is severely limited at the 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Of course I love Clarke but his best position is the 3. 

Nope. He’s a 4/5, 5/4. My main man.

30 minutes ago, gurpilo said:

I agree, I wanted Clarke... And I was right, few rookies are named summer league MVP, he is going to be a stud.

Yup, he was one of my guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spud2nique said:

Nope. He’s a 4/5, 5/4. My main man.

Not at all. He is a 4/5 right now but that's not his best NBA position long term which is what I mean each time I say it. He will have to make the same transition at DMC made out of Missouri 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NBASupes said:

Not at all. He is a 4/5 right now but that's not his best NBA position long term which is what I mean each time I say it. He will have to make the same transition at DMC made out of Missouri 

He’s always going to be a 4/5. Clarke is not the guy that will be stroking 3’s like a Paul Pierce (hate myself for using him as an example) or even smooth looking outside jumpers. He’s the guy that works his a$$ off to give you multiple possessions on offense with key 🔑 offensive boards, he’s the guy that will give you a key 🔑 block on defense late in the game.

 

He will never be a “traditional” 3 in the league and that’s ok, his frame and strength will allow him to play the 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

He’s always going to be a 4/5. Clarke is not the guy that will be stroking 3’s like a Paul Pierce (hate myself for using him as an example) or even smooth looking outside jumpers. He’s the guy that works his a$$ off to give you multiple possessions on offense with key 🔑 offensive boards, he’s the guy that will give you a key 🔑 block on defense late in the game.

 

He will never be a “traditional” 3 in the league and that’s ok, his frame and strength will allow him to play the 4.

He will have to turn into a 3. Like DMC who became a rare movement guy who can run wing and big man actions. Right now like DMC, Clarke can only run big man actions out of college. 

The wing position is an extremely versatile position than it is in college. You get all type of players at the 3 in the NBA that you don't see at the 1 or 5. That's what makes it so special of a position in the NBA. 

You keep looking at what he is today and going with that. I am projecting what he has to do to grow or he will be severely limited for his entire career. 

Considering his coach was DMC coach in Atlanta, Jenkins probably has the same idea as me for Clarke's development path.

His game is extremely similar to Carroll's out of Missouri. His athleticism is similar to Shawn Marion. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NBASupes said:

He will have to turn into a 3. Like DMC who became a rare movement guy who can run wing and big man actions. Right now like DMC, Clarke can only run big man actions out of college. 

The wing position is an extremely versatile position than it is in college. You get all type of players at the 3 in the NBA that you don't see at the 1 or 5. That's what makes it so special of a position in the NBA. 

You keep looking at what he is today and going with that. I am projecting what he has to do to grow or he will be severely limited for his entire career. 

Considering his coach was DMC coach in Atlanta, Jenkins probably has the same idea as me for Clarke's development path.

His game is extremely similar to Carroll's out of Missouri. His athleticism is similar to Shawn Marion. 

Well it’ll be interesting to see if you are right. Personally, I think he has the rare skill, strength and agility for a 4 that makes him special at the power forward position for the most part. 

I suppose they could try to develop his outside game but he has a long way to go to be a traditional wing. 

I think he’s gonna be a guy that is who is he (a scrappy 4 and at times a 5) and make it work for himself and niche out a nice lil career of 10-12 years playing physically grueling hard nosed ball 🏀.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...