houston we got a problem

[kozlodoev]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

[Beat LA]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

[MBunge]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

Evan Turner was a substantially better college player than Levert and it still took him six years before he finally became a worthwhile player in Boston.

Mike

[saltlover]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

I am probably the biggest Caris Levert supporter on this blog.  (First posted about him in 2013, I think).  That said, he will not outperform Evan Turner this year.  But he could very well outperform him the following three years, when he's making $2-3 million and Turner might be making 5 times that.

Year one, you shouldn't expect much of rookies in that draft range.  But if you have three rookies making $1-2 million, you'd hope that in year 2, when they're making the same , ONE of them would be able to replace the veteran talent.  And that's still cheaper than the free agent replacement.

[Beat LA]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

You'd rather give up 2 roster spots to guys who were *both* projected as 2nd round picks, completely messing up our offseason ability to sign anyone, instead of two euro stashes who were likely underrated because other teams don't have the flexibility to leave them in Europe? Obviously #16 was a bit of a surprise, but your alternative sounds awful. Zizic was almost universally rated higher than both of those guys, anyway, and actually fills a need.

And LaVert at #16? I know he's some people's binkie, but we're going to use a mid-1st rounder on a senior shooting guard with a serious injury history, who just had foot surgery a month ago, and we don't even have playing time for him if he gets healthy? Ugh.

Yes, because at a time when everyone wants 'a sure thing', the only thing that qualifies as such, imo, is having the chance to acquire talent via the draft that can help you now and down the road.  Quite frankly, I don't understand the logic of passing up available talent just to have room for two max contracts when 1). No one is coming here, as we saw last year, and 2). When that doesn't happen, you're left with two guys who can't even contribute to your team because they're overseas . Passing on talent to save money for free agency is monumentally stupid, imo.  Say in a couple years both Levert and Siakam, or someone else who was available at those spots, become players while we're left with no major free agent signees nor said talent - what will you think, then?  That's my point, and I could care less about 3 first round contracts going on the payroll.  Last time I checked, the sum of those deals don't come close to that of a max contract.  Effin' cheap owners .

[Beat LA]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

I am probably the biggest Caris Levert supporter on this blog.  (First posted about him in 2013, I think).  That said, he will not outperform Evan Turner this year.  But he could very well outperform him the following three years, when he's making $2-3 million and Turner might be making 5 times that.

Year one, you shouldn't expect much of rookies in that draft range.  But if you have three rookies making $1-2 million, you'd hope that in year 2, when they're making the same , ONE of them would be able to replace the veteran talent.  And that's still cheaper than the free agent replacement.

The reason why I disagree is that, barring injury, which I know is a risk, Levert is already the far superior defensive player and shooter to Turner, and he can also create his own shot and is an excellent passer.  Maybe I just look at things differently, but if I draft someone, regardless of position, I expect them to contribute, otherwise I never would have selected them in the first place. 

Of course, this would require Stevens to actually play his rookies, so Levert never would have played, anyway.  Sigh.  I do find it interesting, though, that a former member of the Spurs who is now in charge of the Nets, in Sean Marks, took him at 20, when everyone thought he would fall to the second round.  That doesn't bode well for us, imo, lol . Ugh.  Am I making any sense?

[nickagneta]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

You'd rather give up 2 roster spots to guys who were *both* projected as 2nd round picks, completely messing up our offseason ability to sign anyone, instead of two euro stashes who were likely underrated because other teams don't have the flexibility to leave them in Europe? Obviously #16 was a bit of a surprise, but your alternative sounds awful. Zizic was almost universally rated higher than both of those guys, anyway, and actually fills a need.

And LaVert at #16? I know he's some people's binkie, but we're going to use a mid-1st rounder on a senior shooting guard with a serious injury history, who just had foot surgery a month ago, and we don't even have playing time for him if he gets healthy? Ugh.

Yes, because at a time when everyone wants 'a sure thing', the only thing that qualifies as such, imo, is having the chance to acquire talent via the draft that can help you now and down the road.  Quite frankly, I don't understand the logic of passing up available talent just to have room for two max contracts when 1). No one is coming here, as we saw last year, and 2). When that doesn't happen, you're left with two guys who can't even contribute to your team because they're overseas . Passing on talent to save money for free agency is monumentally stupid, imo.  Say in a couple years both Levert and Siakam, or someone else who was available at those spots, become players while we're left with no major free agent signees nor said talent - what will you think, then?  That's my point, and I could care less about 3 first round contracts going on the payroll.  Last time I checked, the sum of those deals don't come close to that of a max contract.  Effin' cheap owners .

This has nothing to do with the owners being cheap. Boston ownership has proven time and again they are willing to go over the cap and pay penalties for winning. But winning is the priority here and adding tons of young, unproven talent and getting rid of good, veteran, proven talent doesnt equate to a winning formula. Minnesota added two ROYs in a row and still finished with the 5th worst record in the league.

Stashing Yabusele and Zizic, and trading away picks 31 and 35 was about roster space, not money. Ainge felt Yabusele and Zizic were excellent talent value for where they were selected and they also happen to be players that can develop overseas for a year or more. Therefore, they dont take up valuable roster spots for a team that is trying to win and is doing so by courting Kevin Durant. Durant wont want a team filled with rookies. He will want tough veteran players to play with. Just about any top free agent will want the same thing.

Adding 5-6 rookies to a team with 5 players with two or less years of NBA experience equates to losing and telling every free agent out there that you are okay with losing.

[Beat LA]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

Evan Turner was a substantially better college player than Levert and it still took him six years before he finally became a worthwhile player in Boston.

Mike

Maybe so, but Levert is the better shooter, defender, and definitely a decision maker, imo, who, like Turner, can create his own shot.  He's also shot better from 3 on significantly more attempts than Turner did in college, which would seem to suggest that he'll be able to do that in the NBA, but we'll see.  I just like the guy, lol .

[Beat LA]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

You'd rather give up 2 roster spots to guys who were *both* projected as 2nd round picks, completely messing up our offseason ability to sign anyone, instead of two euro stashes who were likely underrated because other teams don't have the flexibility to leave them in Europe? Obviously #16 was a bit of a surprise, but your alternative sounds awful. Zizic was almost universally rated higher than both of those guys, anyway, and actually fills a need.

And LaVert at #16? I know he's some people's binkie, but we're going to use a mid-1st rounder on a senior shooting guard with a serious injury history, who just had foot surgery a month ago, and we don't even have playing time for him if he gets healthy? Ugh.

Yes, because at a time when everyone wants 'a sure thing', the only thing that qualifies as such, imo, is having the chance to acquire talent via the draft that can help you now and down the road.  Quite frankly, I don't understand the logic of passing up available talent just to have room for two max contracts when 1). No one is coming here, as we saw last year, and 2). When that doesn't happen, you're left with two guys who can't even contribute to your team because they're overseas . Passing on talent to save money for free agency is monumentally stupid, imo.  Say in a couple years both Levert and Siakam, or someone else who was available at those spots, become players while we're left with no major free agent signees nor said talent - what will you think, then?  That's my point, and I could care less about 3 first round contracts going on the payroll.  Last time I checked, the sum of those deals don't come close to that of a max contract.  Effin' cheap owners .

This has nothing to do with the owners being cheap. Boston ownership has proven time and again they are willing to go over the cap and pay penalties for winning. But winning is the priority here and adding tons of young, unproven talent and getting rid of good, veteran, proven talent doesnt equate to a winning formula. Minnesota added two ROYs in a row and still finished with the 5th worst record in the league.

Stashing Yabusele and Zizic, and trading away picks 31 and 35 was about roster space, not money. Ainge felt Yabusele and Zizic were excellent talent value for where they were selected and they also happen to be players that can develop overseas for a year or more. Therefore, they dont take up valuable roster spots cor a team that is trying to win and is doing so by courting Kevin Durant. Durant wont want a team filled with rookies. He will want tough veteran players to play with. Just about any top free agent will wabt the same thing.

Adding 5-6 rookies to a team with 5 players with two or less years of NBA experience equates to losing and telling every free agent out there that you are okay with losing.

Yeah, like the time that they re-signed James Posey.  Wait... .

I just think that hoping for Durant is setting ourselves up for failure, and when that happens and we passed on guys who could have helped us, with or without Durant, we've effectively killed two birds with one stone and only set us back further, imo.  What we should be doing, imo, is gathering as many young two way players as possible, like Dunn, Levert, Siakam, Brogdon, Jackson, GP II, Daniel Ochefu, Sheldon McClellan, Taurean Prince, etc. and build our team through the draft.  At that point, if a free agent decides to come here, great, but if not, we're not left at the altar and will continue to build on our success.  What's wrong with that approach?  Is that not how Red built his teams - mainly through the draft?  Of course, he actually knew talent, so... . Lol, we're doomed .

Btw, the guys who they'd be replacing in Zeller, Turner, and Sully, for example, aren't better than the guys I've mentioned, in my view, anyway, especially on defense, so it's not like we'd be throwing 5 James Young's out there, haha .  A starting lineup of Dunn, Brogdon, Levert, Siakam, and Ochefu, for example, is far better defensively than anything we have right now because we would have two guys who can shoot, in Levert and Brogdon, two guys who can create their own shot in Dunn and Levert, everyone can pass, Siakam and Ochefu are superior rebounders and shot blockers to anyone we had last season, and their ability to play on the block, along with Brogdon and Dunn, gives us better options coming down the stretch in terms of taking high percentage shots, as opposed to IT or AB chucking some dumb 3, lol . Additionally, Siakam beats everyone down the floor, giving us an added dimension to our transition game.  What's not to like?  Obviously, I'd rather have Poeltl as our starting center, who can also outrun his matchup, but I'm just going by who we could have gotten with our own picks.

[Ilikesports17]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

You'd rather give up 2 roster spots to guys who were *both* projected as 2nd round picks, completely messing up our offseason ability to sign anyone, instead of two euro stashes who were likely underrated because other teams don't have the flexibility to leave them in Europe? Obviously #16 was a bit of a surprise, but your alternative sounds awful. Zizic was almost universally rated higher than both of those guys, anyway, and actually fills a need.

And LaVert at #16? I know he's some people's binkie, but we're going to use a mid-1st rounder on a senior shooting guard with a serious injury history, who just had foot surgery a month ago, and we don't even have playing time for him if he gets healthy? Ugh.

Yes, because at a time when everyone wants 'a sure thing', the only thing that qualifies as such, imo, is having the chance to acquire talent via the draft that can help you now and down the road.  Quite frankly, I don't understand the logic of passing up available talent just to have room for two max contracts when 1). No one is coming here, as we saw last year, and 2). When that doesn't happen, you're left with two guys who can't even contribute to your team because they're overseas . Passing on talent to save money for free agency is monumentally stupid, imo.  Say in a couple years both Levert and Siakam, or someone else who was available at those spots, become players while we're left with no major free agent signees nor said talent - what will you think, then?  That's my point, and I could care less about 3 first round contracts going on the payroll.  Last time I checked, the sum of those deals don't come close to that of a max contract.  Effin' cheap owners .

This has nothing to do with the owners being cheap. Boston ownership has proven time and again they are willing to go over the cap and pay penalties for winning. But winning is the priority here and adding tons of young, unproven talent and getting rid of good, veteran, proven talent doesnt equate to a winning formula. Minnesota added two ROYs in a row and still finished with the 5th worst record in the league.

Stashing Yabusele and Zizic, and trading away picks 31 and 35 was about roster space, not money. Ainge felt Yabusele and Zizic were excellent talent value for where they were selected and they also happen to be players that can develop overseas for a year or more. Therefore, they dont take up valuable roster spots cor a team that is trying to win and is doing so by courting Kevin Durant. Durant wont want a team filled with rookies. He will want tough veteran players to play with. Just about any top free agent will wabt the same thing.

Adding 5-6 rookies to a team with 5 players with two or less years of NBA experience equates to losing and telling every free agent out there that you are okay with losing.

Yeah, like the time that they re-signed James Posey.  Wait... .

I just think that hoping for Durant is setting ourselves up for failure, and when that happens and we passed on guys who could have helped us, with or without Durant, we've effectively killed two birds with one stone and only set us back further, imo.  What we should be doing, imo, is gathering as many young two way players as possible, like Dunn, Levert, Siakam, Brogdon, Jackson, GP II, Daniel Ochefu, Sheldon McClellan, Taurean Prince, etc. and build our team through the draft.  At that point, if a free agent decides to come here, great, but if not, we're not left at the altar and will continue to build on our success.  What's wrong with that approach?  Is that not how Red built his teams - mainly through the draft?  Of course, he actually knew talent, so... . Lol, we're doomed .

Btw, the guys who they'd be replacing in Zeller, Turner, and Sully, for example, aren't better than the guys I've mentioned, in my view, anyway, especially on defense, so it's not like we'd be throwing 5 James Young's out there, haha .  A starting lineup of Dunn, Brogdon, Levert, Siakam, and Ochefu, for example, is far better defensively than anything we have right now because we would have two guys who can shoot, in Levert and Brogdon, two guys who can create their own shot in Dunn and Levert, everyone can pass, Siakam and Ochefu are superior rebounders and shot blockers to anyone we had last season, and their ability to play on the block, along with Brogdon and Dunn, gives us better options coming down the stretch in terms of taking high percentage shots, as opposed to IT or AB chucking some dumb 3, lol . Additionally, Siakam beats everyone down the floor, giving us an added dimension to our transition game.  What's not to like?  Obviously, I'd rather have Poeltl as our starting center, who can also outrun his matchup, but I'm just going by who we could have gotten with our own picks.

sigh.

[Eddie20]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

You'd rather give up 2 roster spots to guys who were *both* projected as 2nd round picks, completely messing up our offseason ability to sign anyone, instead of two euro stashes who were likely underrated because other teams don't have the flexibility to leave them in Europe? Obviously #16 was a bit of a surprise, but your alternative sounds awful. Zizic was almost universally rated higher than both of those guys, anyway, and actually fills a need.

And LaVert at #16? I know he's some people's binkie, but we're going to use a mid-1st rounder on a senior shooting guard with a serious injury history, who just had foot surgery a month ago, and we don't even have playing time for him if he gets healthy? Ugh.

Yes, because at a time when everyone wants 'a sure thing', the only thing that qualifies as such, imo, is having the chance to acquire talent via the draft that can help you now and down the road.  Quite frankly, I don't understand the logic of passing up available talent just to have room for two max contracts when 1). No one is coming here, as we saw last year, and 2). When that doesn't happen, you're left with two guys who can't even contribute to your team because they're overseas . Passing on talent to save money for free agency is monumentally stupid, imo.  Say in a couple years both Levert and Siakam, or someone else who was available at those spots, become players while we're left with no major free agent signees nor said talent - what will you think, then?  That's my point, and I could care less about 3 first round contracts going on the payroll.  Last time I checked, the sum of those deals don't come close to that of a max contract.  Effin' cheap owners .

This has nothing to do with the owners being cheap. Boston ownership has proven time and again they are willing to go over the cap and pay penalties for winning. But winning is the priority here and adding tons of young, unproven talent and getting rid of good, veteran, proven talent doesnt equate to a winning formula. Minnesota added two ROYs in a row and still finished with the 5th worst record in the league.

Stashing Yabusele and Zizic, and trading away picks 31 and 35 was about roster space, not money. Ainge felt Yabusele and Zizic were excellent talent value for where they were selected and they also happen to be players that can develop overseas for a year or more. Therefore, they dont take up valuable roster spots cor a team that is trying to win and is doing so by courting Kevin Durant. Durant wont want a team filled with rookies. He will want tough veteran players to play with. Just about any top free agent will wabt the same thing.

Adding 5-6 rookies to a team with 5 players with two or less years of NBA experience equates to losing and telling every free agent out there that you are okay with losing.

Yeah, like the time that they re-signed James Posey.  Wait... .

I just think that hoping for Durant is setting ourselves up for failure, and when that happens and we passed on guys who could have helped us, with or without Durant, we've effectively killed two birds with one stone and only set us back further, imo.  What we should be doing, imo, is gathering as many young two way players as possible, like Dunn, Levert, Siakam, Brogdon, Jackson, GP II, Daniel Ochefu, Sheldon McClellan, Taurean Prince, etc. and build our team through the draft.  At that point, if a free agent decides to come here, great, but if not, we're not left at the altar and will continue to build on our success.  What's wrong with that approach?  Is that not how Red built his teams - mainly through the draft?  Of course, he actually knew talent, so... . Lol, we're doomed .

Btw, the guys who they'd be replacing in Zeller, Turner, and Sully, for example, aren't better than the guys I've mentioned, in my view, anyway, especially on defense, so it's not like we'd be throwing 5 James Young's out there, haha .  A starting lineup of Dunn, Brogdon, Levert, Siakam, and Ochefu, for example, is far better defensively than anything we have right now because we would have two guys who can shoot, in Levert and Brogdon, two guys who can create their own shot in Dunn and Levert, everyone can pass, Siakam and Ochefu are superior rebounders and shot blockers to anyone we had last season, and their ability to play on the block, along with Brogdon and Dunn, gives us better options coming down the stretch in terms of taking high percentage shots, as opposed to IT or AB chucking some dumb 3, lol . Additionally, Siakam beats everyone down the floor, giving us an added dimension to our transition game.  What's not to like?  Obviously, I'd rather have Poeltl as our starting center, who can also outrun his matchup, but I'm just going by who we could have gotten with our own picks.

sigh.

Seriously. It's probably easier to bold the things the emoji king writes that aren't complete nonsense. Does this guy only watch college ball?

[kozlodoev]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

I don't think that you can draft a rookie in the middle of the draft, plug him into the lineup, and expect him to replicate the production of a seasoned rotation veteran. I also think it's a particularly bad idea to draft players you can easily sign, and this approach to drafting should be reserved for cases when nothing better is available.

Turner, in particular, was our fourth best player last season and the idea that you can seamlessly replace him with a rookie (let alone someone who missed 30% of his college career with foot injuries) is wishful thinking.

[saltlover]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

I am probably the biggest Caris Levert supporter on this blog.  (First posted about him in 2013, I think).  That said, he will not outperform Evan Turner this year.  But he could very well outperform him the following three years, when he's making $2-3 million and Turner might be making 5 times that.

Year one, you shouldn't expect much of rookies in that draft range.  But if you have three rookies making $1-2 million, you'd hope that in year 2, when they're making the same , ONE of them would be able to replace the veteran talent.  And that's still cheaper than the free agent replacement.

The reason why I disagree is that, barring injury, which I know is a risk, Levert is already the far superior defensive player and shooter to Turner, and he can also create his own shot and is an excellent passer.  Maybe I just look at things differently, but if I draft someone, regardless of position, I expect them to contribute, otherwise I never would have selected them in the first place. 

Of course, this would require Stevens to actually play his rookies, so Levert never would have played, anyway.  Sigh.  I do find it interesting, though, that a former member of the Spurs who is now in charge of the Nets, in Sean Marks, took him at 20, when everyone thought he would fall to the second round.  That doesn't bode well for us, imo, lol . Ugh.  Am I making any sense?

I watched almost every game of Levert's career (huge Michigan fan).  He's got the potential to be better than Turner, but he is not the better passer, has a weaker handle, and cannot create for himself the way Turner can.  He's got better defensive potential, because he's faster, but he's a string bean still and will find himself outmuscled if he tries to guard anyone but PG and jump shooters.  He also plays with good defensive intensity, but needs more discipline.  He's a better shooter, absolutely.

I think he'll be a very solid NBA player for years, but health aside, he will need time to transition.  And the same is true of most draft picks in the 15-45 range every year.  Sure, there are a couple who step up in any given year, but they're much more likely to bust than be a year 1 contributor of any quality.

[Beat LA]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

I don't think that you can draft a rookie in the middle of the draft, plug him into the lineup, and expect him to replicate the production of a seasoned rotation veteran. I also think it's a particularly bad idea to draft players you can easily sign, and this approach to drafting should be reserved for cases when nothing better is available.

Turner, in particular, was our fourth best player last season and the idea that you can seamlessly replace him with a rookie (let alone someone who missed 30% of his college career with foot injuries) is wishful thinking.

Why should it matter where someone is drafted?  If Levert hadn't gotten hurt he would have been a lottery pick, and whether we already had Turner or not is irrelevant bc Caris was the bpa at 16, imo, it just so happens that the two of them share similarities.  You don't think that Levert would be a better shooter, decision maker, and in particular, defender, than Turner?

[hpantazo]

No, I'm familiar with the situation, but I just think that passing up talent like Caris Levert and Pascal Siakam at 16 and 23, respectively, is a mistake and should not have been done so just because of guys like Turner, Sully, Amir, Zeller, and Jerebko being free agents, who Levert and Siakam could have more than adequately replaced, imo, and for significantly less money, even though I don't really care about that last part.

I don't know why people keep insisting with the idea that you can draft rookies to replace decent, cheap(ish) mid-level veterans. It doesn't work that way, and it's a waste of draft picks.

Yes it can, and no it isn't, imo.  You don't think that Caris Levert could be better, on both ends, than Evan Turner, for example, because I do.

I don't think that you can draft a rookie in the middle of the draft, plug him into the lineup, and expect him to replicate the production of a seasoned rotation veteran. I also think it's a particularly bad idea to draft players you can easily sign, and this approach to drafting should be reserved for cases when nothing better is available.

Turner, in particular, was our fourth best player last season and the idea that you can seamlessly replace him with a rookie (let alone someone who missed 30% of his college career with foot injuries) is wishful thinking.

Why should it matter where someone is drafted?  If Levert hadn't gotten hurt he would have been a lottery pick, and whether we already had Turner or not is irrelevant bc Caris was the bpa at 16, imo, it just so happens that the two of them share similarities.  You don't think that Levert would be a better shooter, decision maker, and in particular, defender, than Turner?

99% of rookies, regardless of draft position, are not ready to come in and help a playoff team right away. That's just how it is. There is a real, legitimate, NBA learning curve. It takes some fewer years than others, but it is on a scale of years, not weeks or months. If you plan to replace key rotation players with rookies, then you are basically planning to miss the playoffs.