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

[gurpilo]

hace 6 horas, thecampster dijo:

It's a nightmare because of the following:

1) Atlanta acquired too many assets and it hurt their position in trading assets because teams knew we needed to unload some. We had too many picks for the positions we had with the cap. We needed to add more salary and couldn't with that many picks.

2) It was not a good draft class this year. Although Hunter and Cam are probably 2 of the best 6 or 7 prospects in the class, the class as a whole was devoid of superstar talent. The top 3 prospects all upside at all-star, not superstar..even Zion. There are questions with pretty much every player in the class.  Zion's weight/health, Morant's size/competition step up, Barrett's consistency/motor, Hunter (was it system or talent) and so on.  Last year pretty much every analyst had the 1st 5 picks pegged for stardom with the only question being ceiling.

3) The original target for the Hawks was Barrett. The draft was a "nightmare" because they wanted Barrett at 3 overall and the Knicks needed a star more than they needed picks. 

4) The Hawks were hoping to parlay their picks into other talent....that didn't happen. They ended up making 3 picks and acquiring no one of consequence for the other picks.

 

When the writer speaks of disaster, he isn't talking about the absolute freaking steal Bruno was at 34 or luck o,f getting Cam at 10 (instead of 6-8 where he should have gone). He's talking about going into the draft with a future pick from Cleveland, 8, 10, 17, 35, 41, 44 and a multitude of expiring deals.  They entered the draft with 7 total picks in play (6 this year and 1 future) and came out with 3 picks and a player they honestly could have received (Parsons) by trading a 2nd round pick.  So ya...disaster is right.  They acquired too much and it put them at a disadvantageous position for negotiating. I wrote a quick blurb about it back in April/May...not sure which thread.

It wasn't a criticism of the players received. They're thrilled with that. The issue was value and missing out on the best fit next to Trae, Huerter, Collins which was Barrett.  Barrett here would have been great for his development but stunted his immediate star power. But make no mistake, he was a better fit day one than either Bazemore, Bembry or Prince.  They swung and missed by acquiring too many picks in a very average draft year.

Agreed, let's think this way, is it better our draft that a potential draft of Hayes, Reddish, Clarke, Gafford, Bruno, Bradzeikis and Bol and keeping Clev pick? I don't think so and I like Hunter a lot.

[NBASupes]

Thecampster and I much differ on the draft class quality and especially depth. We couldn't be much further apart. 

 

I loved this class. Especially for the depth of it. I felt this class had high end talent, more so system based but still had it none the less. 

The tier 4 of this class was insane. It spanded to the 2nd round. Most years, tier 4 is like 6-8 prospects at most. Last year had like 7 tier 4 guys. Then went straight to tier 5. That's how guys like Mo Wagner become 1st rounders. Guys who clearly been late 2nd rounders in this draft and even undrafted. 

 

The gap between this class and last year to me was at the top. 

Both had a tier 1 guy, Bagley and Zion. 

 

After that. Last year we had three tier 1.5 guys. Bamba, Ayton and Luka

We also had three tier 3 guys. Trae and JJJ and Mikal.

This year, we had no 1.5 but two tier 2s, Ja and R.J. who sadly got his work cut out for him in NY.

The drop is tier 3.5 where this year, we had 4 guys Cam, Clarke, Garland and White. Missing Bol but injuries and off court killed him. 

Last year we had WCJ, Sexton, Miles, SGA and the high risk/upside Knox. 

We just had a much stronger top end last year. 

But tier 4 was small last year while tier 4 this year was massive. This is one of the deepest classes maybe ever if not ever. 

Edited July 29, 2019 by NBASupes

[Gray Mule]

Campster Says, "This draft was probably without a super star" or something like this.  Probably true.  Not many super stars in the NBA at any given time.

There were many future all star players, however, we believe.  Time will tell.  I believe that, as NBASupes says, many better than average players were in this draft.  And, Hawks got their three.

Was it a bad deal when Atlanta condensed their picks down to three?  No.  Because they got the three that they wanted, didn't they!  Maybe there were other players that they would have liked to have.  I'll bet every NBA team in the draft could agree to this for their team. 

Personally, I believe the part about super stars.  I also believe that Atlanta got the player that they wanted every time they drafted a player and all three fit what our team and our GM wanted for the Hawks.

[AHF]

14 hours ago, thecampster said:

It's a nightmare because of the following:

1) Atlanta acquired too many assets and it hurt their position in trading assets because teams knew we needed to unload some. We had too many picks for the positions we had with the cap. We needed to add more salary and couldn't with that many picks.

2) It was not a good draft class this year. Although Hunter and Cam are probably 2 of the best 6 or 7 prospects in the class, the class as a whole was devoid of superstar talent. The top 3 prospects all upside at all-star, not superstar..even Zion. There are questions with pretty much every player in the class.  Zion's weight/health, Morant's size/competition step up, Barrett's consistency/motor, Hunter (was it system or talent) and so on.  Last year pretty much every analyst had the 1st 5 picks pegged for stardom with the only question being ceiling.

3) The original target for the Hawks was Barrett. The draft was a "nightmare" because they wanted Barrett at 3 overall and the Knicks needed a star more than they needed picks. 

4) The Hawks were hoping to parlay their picks into other talent....that didn't happen. They ended up making 3 picks and acquiring no one of consequence for the other picks.

 

When the writer speaks of disaster, he isn't talking about the absolute freaking steal Bruno was at 34 or luck o,f getting Cam at 10 (instead of 6-8 where he should have gone). He's talking about going into the draft with a future pick from Cleveland, 8, 10, 17, 35, 41, 44 and a multitude of expiring deals.  They entered the draft with 7 total picks in play (6 this year and 1 future) and came out with 3 picks and a player they honestly could have received (Parsons) by trading a 2nd round pick.  So ya...disaster is right.  They acquired too much and it put them at a disadvantageous position for negotiating. I wrote a quick blurb about it back in April/May...not sure which thread.

It wasn't a criticism of the players received. They're thrilled with that. The issue was value and missing out on the best fit next to Trae, Huerter, Collins which was Barrett.  Barrett here would have been great for his development but stunted his immediate star power. But make no mistake, he was a better fit day one than either Bazemore, Bembry or Prince.  They swung and missed by acquiring too many picks in a very average draft year.

Do not buy this at all.  Not even remotely.  

A nightmare of a draft?

1. You acknowledge that we got steals with both Cam and Bruno.  Even if we flubbed the trade these two would make it something less than a "nightmare."
2. Why are you talking about Parsons?  That trade was almost 3 weeks after the draft and we dumped two toxic contracts to get him.  You act like holding onto Plumlee was something we wanted to do.  This trade was entirely about both teams unloading problems and, for us, creating an extra roster spot.  (The trade was good for us.  Nothing connected to the draft or nightmareish).  
3. That leaves the Hunter deal.  Argue that whichever way you want but I think getting a defensive, high floor forward (who at a minimum showed the ability to hit open 3's quite well) means that we aren't getting a total bust.  To the contrary, he fits a need for depth at our forward spot and for our team's defense.  

When you look at the assets that were available to us and what we ended up with, I think this was a very strong result for our draft.

[AHF]

7 hours ago, gurpilo said:

Agreed, let's think this way, is it better our draft that a potential draft of Hayes, Reddish, Clarke, Gafford, Bruno, Bradzeikis and Bol and keeping Clev pick? I don't think so and I like Hunter a lot.

It would have been a disaster to add 7 rookies this year.  Think of the logic here.  This was a subpar draft* but let's commit to 7 rookies from that draft?  And with 5 of them all competing with eachother for minutes?  Jeez.

 

No I prefer to add a manageable number of rookies and to get guys who have the upside and fit we want.  I think we did exactly that.

 

 

* Note that I am echoing this from posts above that are critical of what we did in this draft.

[hazer]

13 hours ago, thecampster said:

It's a nightmare because of the following:

1) Atlanta acquired too many assets and it hurt their position in trading assets because teams knew we needed to unload some. We had too many picks for the positions we had with the cap. We needed to add more salary and couldn't with that many picks.

2) It was not a good draft class this year. Although Hunter and Cam are probably 2 of the best 6 or 7 prospects in the class, the class as a whole was devoid of superstar talent. The top 3 prospects all upside at all-star, not superstar..even Zion. There are questions with pretty much every player in the class.  Zion's weight/health, Morant's size/competition step up, Barrett's consistency/motor, Hunter (was it system or talent) and so on.  Last year pretty much every analyst had the 1st 5 picks pegged for stardom with the only question being ceiling.

3) The original target for the Hawks was Barrett. The draft was a "nightmare" because they wanted Barrett at 3 overall and the Knicks needed a star more than they needed picks. 

4) The Hawks were hoping to parlay their picks into other talent....that didn't happen. They ended up making 3 picks and acquiring no one of consequence for the other picks.

 

When the writer speaks of disaster, he isn't talking about the absolute freaking steal Bruno was at 34 or luck o,f getting Cam at 10 (instead of 6-8 where he should have gone). He's talking about going into the draft with a future pick from Cleveland, 8, 10, 17, 35, 41, 44 and a multitude of expiring deals.  They entered the draft with 7 total picks in play (6 this year and 1 future) and came out with 3 picks and a player they honestly could have received (Parsons) by trading a 2nd round pick.  So ya...disaster is right.  They acquired too much and it put them at a disadvantageous position for negotiating. I wrote a quick blurb about it back in April/May...not sure which thread.

It wasn't a criticism of the players received. They're thrilled with that. The issue was value and missing out on the best fit next to Trae, Huerter, Collins which was Barrett.  Barrett here would have been great for his development but stunted his immediate star power. But make no mistake, he was a better fit day one than either Bazemore, Bembry or Prince.  They swung and missed by acquiring too many picks in a very average draft year.

[NBASupes]

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

It would have been a disaster to add 7 rookies this year.  Think of the logic here.  This was a subpar draft but let's commit to 7 rookies from that draft?  And with 5 of them all competing with eachother for minutes?  Jeez.

 

No I prefer to add a manageable number of rookies and to get guys who have the upside and fit we want.  I think we did exactly that.

While I disagree about the quality overall, I agree, we can't have 7 rookies. It would hurt our player development. Hunter and Reddish were needs and they fit. We got a center of the future who fit. We did what we were suppose to do.

[NBASupes]

At the end of the day, we needed wings. 

Hunter can defend 1-5 and is an efficient player. Even though he will have to transition to the 3 like most college players, he has the BBIQ, instincts and feel for the game to do it.

Reddish obviously solved a need. 

Bruno had a 1st round grade.

We did extremely well 

[NBASupes]

I personally think the Hunter deal was the best trade we made. 

Why? You will need a player like Hunter to win a title. Those guys don't fall from trees. Denver traded Iggy to GS, that changed GS trajectory to NBA Title. He is a critical piece to team building. Which is why teams valued the hell outta him as did I. 

Cam was the player we had to draft as he solved 4 major questions but Hunter a player we had to land as well. 

 

Hunter will be critical if we were to win a title.

 

[Spud2nique]

4 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

I personally think the Hunter deal was the best trade we made. 

Why? You will need a player like Hunter to win a title. Those guys don't fall from trees. Denver traded Iggy to GS, that changed GS trajectory to NBA Title. He is a critical piece to team building. Which is why teams valued the hell outta him as did I. 

Cam was the player we had to draft as he solved 4 major questions but Hunter a player we had to land as well. 

 

Hunter will be critical if we were to win a title.

 

We don’t have enough time in the season for you to hype him over Cam. You went too far with Ca. Hunter has no chance to catch up. 

But Hunter defends the wings of the league. HUGE.

[Buzzard]

19 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

We don’t have enough time in the season for you to hype him over Cam. You went too far with Ca. Hunter has no chance to catch up. 

But Hunter defends the wings of the league. HUGE.

We were near or at the bottom in just about every defensive metric you can look at. We were near or in the bottom 3rd in just about every offensive efficiency stat you can look at, Hunter fills a need and he fills it with talent. If Huerter can bulk up and at least stay in front of his man, that will help. Then Cam is the wild card on D.

With these three players we have a chance to take big strides with our perimeter D. Time will tell if Bruno turns into a 2nd round steal. I think we reached for the defensive stars with Hunter and Cam; which is what we needed to do.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Buzzard

[NBASupes]

I been sky high on both players for us since the middle of the process

[High5]

The draft only becomes a nightmare if our picks don't pan out. On paper we got pretty much exactly what we needed. Value boards will say we overpaid, but Schlenk had a surplus of picks and he got his guy. If Hunter becomes a top 3&D player then the trade was worth it. Anything more and it was a bargain.

[Atlantaholic]

We needed wings and we got two wings. After Ded left we needed a Center and we got a Center. All the players picked were mocked to go at or before we picked them.

Not sure how this draft is a nightmare.

[AHF]

52 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

Not sure how this draft is a nightmare.

It isn't.  Just that simple.

[Atlantaholic]

2 hours ago, High5 said:

The draft only becomes a nightmare if our picks don't pan out. On paper we got pretty much exactly what we needed. Value boards will say we overpaid, but Schlenk had a surplus of picks and he got his guy. If Hunter becomes a top 3&D player then the trade was worth it. Anything more and it was a bargain.

If you are rich, overpaying isn't a problem. We had more picks than we could use. You're not going to get exact value when you need to convince other teams who have no reason to deal with you, to deal with you. 

[thecampster]

6 hours ago, AHF said:

Do not buy this at all.  Not even remotely.  

A nightmare of a draft?

1. You acknowledge that we got steals with both Cam and Bruno.  Even if we flubbed the trade these two would make it something less than a "nightmare."
2. Why are you talking about Parsons?  That trade was almost 3 weeks after the draft and we dumped two toxic contracts to get him.  You act like holding onto Plumlee was something we wanted to do.  This trade was entirely about both teams unloading problems and, for us, creating an extra roster spot.  (The trade was good for us.  Nothing connected to the draft or nightmareish).  
3. That leaves the Hunter deal.  Argue that whichever way you want but I think getting a defensive, high floor forward (who at a minimum showed the ability to hit open 3's quite well) means that we aren't getting a total bust.  To the contrary, he fits a need for depth at our forward spot and for our team's defense.  

When you look at the assets that were available to us and what we ended up with, I think this was a very strong result for our draft.

I clarified the angle the writer was taking. I wasn't taking that angle myself and I think you know that.  I do subscribe that we set ourselves up poorly for an average draft. We realized that and tried to defer assets (well documented) but had no trade partners.  We got good players...we handled the administrative aspect poorly.

[thecampster]

I do however stand by my comment. We got good players....we had tons of assets we got poor "value" for. Not criticizing our players....criticizing the administration of the draft and I believe the writer meant that as well. If not, well I'd like him to explain his angle.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I do however stand by my comment. We got good players....we had tons of assets we got poor "value" for. Not criticizing our players....criticizing the administration of the draft and I believe the writer meant that as well. If not, well I'd like him to explain his angle.

Sub-optimal Administration Nightmare

Those are very, very different terms.  

Poor work by the writer if that is what he meant.

[hazer]

14 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I clarified the angle the writer was taking. I wasn't taking that angle myself and I think you know that.  I do subscribe that we set ourselves up poorly for an average draft. We realized that and tried to defer assets (well documented) but had no trade partners.  We got good players...we handled the administrative aspect poorly.

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...

Edited July 29, 2019 by hazer