Author Topic: Who Do You Take At #5?  (Read 9136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2017, 03:40:39 PM »

Offline clevelandceltic

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 583
  • Tommy Points: 30
The Nets need to win at least 5 of the next 9 to even tie the Lakers. It also assumes the Lakers wont win another game this year. I would bet that the Lakers win at least 1 game he rest of the way making this almost a non existent possibility.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2017, 04:55:56 PM »

Offline GreenShooter

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1177
  • Tommy Points: 87
The Lakers have about 2, at best, winnable games, vs. Sacramento and vs. Minny. Maybe vs. N'Orleans but not GS (unless they just not show up and forfeit), even if they play their 3rd stringers. Brooklyn has about 5 or 6 winnable games. Every team they play is currently out of the playoffs, except Boston. This may get interesting. Ten days ago I would've thought anyone an idiot for even discussing something that preposterous.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2017, 05:03:44 PM »

Offline MJohnnyboy

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2438
  • Tommy Points: 269
If the pick falls that low, which I would be surprised if it would, then I think Danny might call the Pelicans about the availability of Demarcus Cousins.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2017, 05:10:39 PM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
The Lakers have about 2, at best, winnable games, vs. Sacramento and vs. Minny. Maybe vs. N'Orleans but not GS (unless they just not show up and forfeit), even if they play their 3rd stringers. Brooklyn has about 5 or 6 winnable games. Every team they play is currently out of the playoffs, except Boston. This may get interesting. Ten days ago I would've thought anyone an idiot for even discussing something that preposterous.

They play the Celtics (as you mentioned) and Hawks for current playoff teams, plus the Pistons (1 GB) once and the Bulls (0.5 GB) twice.  I also wouldn't count out the 76ers for either game, especially the one in Philly. I think Brooklyn closes out 4-5 and the Lakers manage to eek out another win (during their TWolves/Kings/Pelicans home stand)
I'm bitter.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2017, 05:22:40 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
The Lakers have about 2, at best, winnable games, vs. Sacramento and vs. Minny. Maybe vs. N'Orleans but not GS (unless they just not show up and forfeit), even if they play their 3rd stringers. Brooklyn has about 5 or 6 winnable games. Every team they play is currently out of the playoffs, except Boston. This may get interesting. Ten days ago I would've thought anyone an idiot for even discussing something that preposterous.

Their Gms are measuring this .    Nets are playing wel, and have zero to gain .  But they could get Lopez injuied for nothing. .....which would be dumb.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2017, 05:23:17 PM »

Offline GreenShooter

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1177
  • Tommy Points: 87
The Lakers have about 2, at best, winnable games, vs. Sacramento and vs. Minny. Maybe vs. N'Orleans but not GS (unless they just not show up and forfeit), even if they play their 3rd stringers. Brooklyn has about 5 or 6 winnable games. Every team they play is currently out of the playoffs, except Boston. This may get interesting. Ten days ago I would've thought anyone an idiot for even discussing something that preposterous.

They play the Celtics (as you mentioned) and Hawks for current playoff teams, plus the Pistons (1 GB) once and the Bulls (0.5 GB) twice.  I also wouldn't count out the 76ers for either game, especially the one in Philly. I think Brooklyn closes out 4-5 and the Lakers manage to eek out another win (during their TWolves/Kings/Pelicans home stand)
Oh yeah, the Hawks. Forgot about them. We may not be having this conversation if not for the Hawks horrible shooting performance yesterday. Ugh!

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2017, 05:26:04 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17835
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
i am rather surprised at the lack of love for monk. he seems to be good player.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2017, 05:29:55 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Zizic

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2017, 05:33:38 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
i am rather surprised at the lack of love for monk. he seems to be good player.

I like him -- I just think he's a bit small for the 2-guard, and so is not in my top 5 (but is right outside).  He's Avery Bradley size, but without the wingspan. 

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2017, 05:51:20 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17835
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
i am rather surprised at the lack of love for monk. he seems to be good player.

I like him -- I just think he's a bit small for the 2-guard, and so is not in my top 5 (but is right outside).  He's Avery Bradley size, but without the wingspan.
draftexpress says he is the same height as fox. and i think monk is a better shooter.

but it doesnt matter since the celtics will pick #1 and pick fultz...or jackson.  ;D
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2017, 06:05:03 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
i am rather surprised at the lack of love for monk. he seems to be good player.

I like him -- I just think he's a bit small for the 2-guard, and so is not in my top 5 (but is right outside).  He's Avery Bradley size, but without the wingspan.
draftexpress says he is the same height as fox. and i think monk is a better shooter.

but it doesnt matter since the celtics will pick #1 and pick fultz...or jackson.  ;D

Yes, same height, maybe half an inch difference thanks to hairstyles, but Fox has wingspan measurements 3-4 inches longer, and wingspan is definitely an important physical trait, at least as much as height.  Furthermore, Fox projects as a PG, where he would be appropriately sized, whereas Monk looks to be a wing, where he's a little small, especially in wingspan.  It's nitpicking, but I think it keeps him out of the top 5 in a loaded top of the draft class.  But I'd be surprised if he lasted beyond #8.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2017, 06:05:06 PM »

Offline Darío SpanishFan

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 981
  • Tommy Points: 141
If the pick falls that low, which I would be surprised if it would, then I think Danny might call the Pelicans about the availability of Demarcus Cousins.

I was going to say this (TP), but I think it is a kind of desperate move/admitting a mistake for not getting him before. It is not what our management use to do.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2017, 06:16:21 PM »

Offline MJohnnyboy

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2438
  • Tommy Points: 269
If the pick falls that low, which I would be surprised if it would, then I think Danny might call the Pelicans about the availability of Demarcus Cousins.

I was going to say this (TP), but I think it is a kind of desperate move/admitting a mistake for not getting him before. It is not what our management use to do.

TP right back at you for giving me #200!

I wouldn't necessarily say it's admitting a mistake. I think Sacto was set on acquiring Hield, who has been terrific for them don't mind me mentioning, so they were probably asking for a lot more from Danny.

Plus, since DMC will be expiring next season, part of me wonders if the Celtics could potentially get more than just him.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2017, 06:18:05 PM »

Offline Atzar

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9122
  • Tommy Points: 1649
About 40 Percocet.

That would be a disaster.

This, lol.

Picking 5th in a 4-man draft would be horrendous.

Re: Who Do You Take At #5?
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2017, 06:20:58 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
About 40 Percocet.

That would be a disaster.

This, lol.

Picking 5th in a 4-man draft would be horrendous.

Good thing it's not a 4-man draft.