• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2019 NBA Draft Lottery

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Ozone said:
Well Bol is an elite offensive player from the perimeter combined with that size/length defensively and can be used at the 3 with his dribble drive,& the 4 easy in a Beilein offense. The 5 is another story with that super thin frame where he would struggle to establish position, but taking him to be a center seems unlikely for most teams given it would take away from his offensive skillset so the only questions regarding him are his health and desire and if those things are considered non issues by teams in the lottery, he still could go as high as 3 to New Orleans in a AD trade with NY. Granted it was a small window but in his short stint of playing in college the only 1 and done player with better PER was Zion.
The only reason Bol is not considered a top 5 pick is the medias expectation he will have injury issues, due to lack of info updates.I highly doubt teams with medical access feel the same and certainly would not be sharing positive info about him.
Click to expand...


Bol is not going in the top 5 no matter what his medicals say. He still is a 7footer with the navicular fracture and not a lot of actual game time.
 
Last edited:
sailfish said:
ESPN’s Jonathan Givony thinks the Cavaliers could take two UVA players, DeAndre Hunter at #5 and Ty Jerome at #26:

2019 NBA Draft: Ty Jerome, De'Andre Hunter could stay together

www.247sports.com

With regards to Jerome, Givony states “No player in this draft fits the style of play of new head coach John Beilein more than Jerome.”
Click to expand...

I like both Virginia guys... I just don't love them for where the Cavaliers currently sit in their rebuild.

If the Cavs already had a star player, adding a couple of battle tested, tough kids who can shoot and defend would be great.

But without that star player already in place? The appeal of two guys with lower overall upside isn't as intriguing for me. I would rather take a bigger swing at both spots.
 
CBBI said:
I like both Virginia guys... I just don't love them for where the Cavaliers currently sit in their rebuild.

If the Cavs already had a star player, adding a couple of battle tested, tough kids who can shoot and defend would be great.

But without that star player already in place? The appeal of two guys with lower overall upside isn't as intriguing for me. I would rather take a bigger swing at both spots.
Click to expand...

What's the bigger gamble and how much bigger?

I think, with the draft that this is looking like, a starter (which Hunter almost certainly will be in the NBA) is pretty damn good for a lotto pick. OTOH, I do think Culver is a better bet for what we need.

I don't really care, if 26 becomes a valuable player then it's awesome. If not, nothing lost really.
 
Amherstcavsfan said:
What's the bigger gamble and how much bigger?

I think, with the draft that this is looking like, a starter (which Hunter almost certainly will be in the NBA) is pretty damn good for a lotto pick. OTOH, I do think Culver is a better bet for what we need.

I don't really care, if 26 becomes a valuable player then it's awesome. If not, nothing lost really.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Hunter. I can definitely see the appeal in him if that's the route the Cavs decide to go. I think he's a top 10 talent in this draft, but I just happen to like a few guys quite a bit more than him.

I agree with you about 26. That's basically a dart throw. Since it's such a low percentage chance of it hitting anyway, I'd lean towards someone with high upside and try and develop them, but ultimately that pick doesn't matter much either way.
 
CBBI said:
Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Hunter. I can definitely see the appeal in him if that's the route the Cavs decide to go. I think he's a top 10 talent in this draft, but I just happen to like a few guys quite a bit more than him.

I agree with you about 26. That's basically a dart throw. Since it's such a low percentage chance of it hitting anyway, I'd lean towards someone with high upside and try and develop them, but ultimately that pick doesn't matter much either way.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. If we aren't taking big swing especially with our lotto picks, I think it's how teams just get stuck being middle of the road either barely making or missing the playoffs. Small market teams just end up overpaying mediocre talent to keep them.

Someone brought up ball handling and Hunter. It's something that's going to limit his overall ceiling. The vast majority of stars in the NBA especially non-centers are good ball handlers. Even Culver has to make a significant leap in his ball handling to reach his ceiling. Players usually don't make that leap just from hard work and practice. Usually the organization or circumstances put the player into a hard situation of handling the ball for a long stretch of a season or two to force them to become a better ball handler.

It kind of why I've gravitated towards Reddish if they want a wing. He already has very good handles and I think it's easier to put in the hard work in shooting, film/shot selection, and mechanics to mold his game to where it needs to be.
 
inliner311 said:
I feel the same way. If we aren't taking big swing especially with our lotto picks, I think it's how teams just get stuck being middle of the road either barely making or missing the playoffs. Small market teams just end up overpaying mediocre talent to keep them.

Someone brought up ball handling and Hunter. It's something that's going to limit his overall ceiling. The vast majority of stars in the NBA especially non-centers are good ball handlers. Even Culver has to make a significant leap in his ball handling to reach his ceiling. Players usually don't make that leap just from hard work and practice. Usually the organization or circumstances put the player into a hard situation of handling the ball for a long stretch of a season or two to force them to become a better ball handler.

It kind of why I've gravitated towards Reddish if they want a wing. He already has very good handles and I think it's easier to put in the hard work in shooting, film/shot selection, and mechanics to mold his game to where it needs to be.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. For me, I'm praying we can trade up to 3. If not, I want Garland at 5 if he's there. If it goes as most seem to expect: 1. Zion, 2. Morant, 3. Barrett, 4. Garland then I'm hoping to trade back with Atlanta for 8 and 10. If not I'd take Reddish or Bol based on the upside (I would be eyeing them or Sekou at 8/10). I feel like we could hit on a Hunter/Culver level talent at 26. Those two will obviously be long gone, but I think its totally possible that players with similar career paths get picked that late. These guys don't have elite qualities.
 
CBBI said:
I like both Virginia guys... I just don't love them for where the Cavaliers currently sit in their rebuild.

If the Cavs already had a star player, adding a couple of battle tested, tough kids who can shoot and defend would be great.

But without that star player already in place? The appeal of two guys with lower overall upside isn't as intriguing for me. I would rather take a bigger swing at both spots.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with this.
Also not in love with the thought of hiring a developer/teacher such as Beilein and then drafting 2 pretty polished products without elite upside.
 
inliner311 said:
I feel the same way. If we aren't taking big swing especially with our lotto picks, I think it's how teams just get stuck being middle of the road either barely making or missing the playoffs. Small market teams just end up overpaying mediocre talent to keep them.

Someone brought up ball handling and Hunter. It's something that's going to limit his overall ceiling. The vast majority of stars in the NBA especially non-centers are good ball handlers. Even Culver has to make a significant leap in his ball handling to reach his ceiling. Players usually don't make that leap just from hard work and practice. Usually the organization or circumstances put the player into a hard situation of handling the ball for a long stretch of a season or two to force them to become a better ball handler.

It kind of why I've gravitated towards Reddish if they want a wing. He already has very good handles and I think it's easier to put in the hard work in shooting, film/shot selection, and mechanics to mold his game to where it needs to be.
Click to expand...

You had me until the Reddish part.

I do agree that shooting is easier to develop for a lot of players than ball handling and vision, but Reddish just has too much “looks like Tarzan and plays like Jane” vibes for my tastes.

I just couldn’t pick a guy who was that poor from a production standpoint.
 
Ozone said:
Well Bol is an elite offensive player from the perimeter combined with that size/length defensively and can be used at the 3 with his dribble drive,& the 4 easy in a Beilein offense. The 5 is another story with that super thin frame where he would struggle to establish position, but taking him to be a center seems unlikely for most teams given it would take away from his offensive skillset so the only questions regarding him are his health and desire and if those things are considered non issues by teams in the lottery, he still could go as high as 3 to New Orleans in a AD trade with NY. Granted it was a small window but in his short stint of playing in college the only 1 and done player with better PER was Zion.
The only reason Bol is not considered a top 5 pick is the medias expectation he will have injury issues, due to lack of info updates.I highly doubt teams with medical access feel the same and certainly would not be sharing positive info about him.
Click to expand...

You really have to be careful calling him an Elite offensive player lol.
 
I saw the argument in a different thread but I'm going to put this here instead, since it's more thread appropriate. I cannot take full credit for this idea because I heard the initial arguments for this on a podcast, although I cannot remember which one (I think it was a Locked On Cavs episode).

De'Andre Hunter plays a really smart game. He doesn't push himself to do anything that he cannot do. While that makes him likely to not push the boundaries of his talent, it also makes him very likable during the draft process because what you see is what you get. He's a guy who will put up 3 & D numbers all the time, provide you with a really solid starter and a great defender.

Jarrett Culver plays the game the way a really good NBA player plays. He understand that he needs to shoot threes, whether he is great at it or not. He understands that he needs to be a shot creator, so he pushes himself to do those things. He understands that he needs to be a play maker, so he tries to use his good vision and play making skills to make himself into a better player.

Hunter plays like a great role player, while Culver pushes himself to play like a great player. It's interesting and while I like both guys, Culver clearly understands what makes guys great at the next level. I think that's why if he's there at 5, I really want the Cavs to pick him. Not throwing any shade at Hunter and I would be perfectly happy with him as the pick, but Culver clearly has the higher upside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top