2019 NBA Draft Lottery

[The Oi]

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.

How bout if I take a swing at both of your spots?

 

[sailfish]

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.

In defense of Hunter, perhaps he was playing the role that Tony Bennett wanted him to play? UVA had a couple of strong, smart guards, in Ty Jerome & Kyle Guy, who handled the majority of the ball handling responsibilities. You have to figure out & understand if Hunter is truly limited in that area or if he just wasn’t asked to do that on the college level, where perhaps he fit in the role he was asked to play in the UVA offense?

On the other hand, Texas Tech required Culver to handle the ball quite a bit, along with Matt Mooney, and help initiate the offense.

Both guys are excellent defensively. Hunter’s game is probably a little more refined, at this point. Culver seems like more of a SG whereas Hunter is more of a SF in the NBA. I think both guys can be good, but probably not great NBA players.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

In defense of Hunter, perhaps he was playing the role that Tony Bennett wanted him to play? UVA has a couple strong, smart guards, in Ty Jerome & Kyle Guy, who handled the majority of the ball handling responsibilities. You have to figure out & understand if Hunter is truly limited in that area or if he just wasn’t asked to do that on the college level, where perhaps he played the role he was asked to play in the UVA offense?

It's possible, but then it's worth asking why he didn't play that role, and a possible answer is that maybe he just isn't that good at doing the things he didn't do.

 

[sailfish]

It's possible, but then it's worth asking why he didn't play that role, and a possible answer is that maybe he just isn't that good at doing the things he didn't do.

That’s true and it’s why it sucks that Hunter isn’t working out for any teams unless, of course, the Cavs have some inside information, via a John Beilein college connection...

 

[Funkmastabuck]

With Sexton already on the roster, I can't imagine us going with a point guard unless he's super elite (ex: Ja Morant, who won't be available).

At #5, I have no interest in Garland or White. How far down would the Cavs need to be drafting for you to say Garland is a smart pick?

I guess I'd have him around #8 on my Cavs big board, so if a trade back for #8 and #10 happened, I'd be good with Garland. Of course, he wouldn't last that long, as other teams would value him more than Cleveland.

 

[Funkmastabuck]

My Cavs big board.

#1 - Zion
#2 - Barrett
#3 - Morant (sure, he's #2 for most other teams, but maybe #3 for the Cavs)
#4 - Hunter
#5 - Culver
#6 - Reddish (still believe in his potential)
#7 - White (has the size to start at 2-guard, more of combo than true point)
#8 - Garland

I don't think we will see a trade back any lower than 8. So, I do hope we're taking one of these guys next Thursday night.

So, who could crash this party? Jaxson Hayes? Doumbouya? Bol Bol?

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

My Cavs big board.

#1 - Zion
#2 - Barrett
#3 - Morant (sure, he's #2 for most other teams, but maybe #3 for the Cavs)
#4 - Hunter
#5 - Culver
#6 - Reddish (still believe in his potential)
#7 - White (has the size to start at 2-guard, more of combo than true point)
#8 - Garland

I don't think we will see a trade back any lower than 8. So, I do hope we're taking one of these guys next Thursday night.

So, who could crash this party? Jaxson Hayes? Doumbouya? Bol Bol?

Switch Langford and Garland then Reddish with Goga and I think you're pretty close. I think Hunter vs Culver is preference at this point.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I question the whole "ceiling" argument as a disqualifier for Hunter/Culver at 5. I think what the Warriors did 2015-2018 has distorted team-building strategy too far in the direction of "you must have multiple superstars to win a title." I don't believe that is the only way to build a championship contender, and it probably is the most difficult way for a franchise like the Cavs to do it. It leads to the "all-in" mentality for drafts where the only thing that really matters is potential upside, and drafting anything less than a future superstar is conceding defeat. I don't buy that. I also think following that mentality is the most likely strategy for ending up a perennial low lottery team.

A #2/#3 offensive option who also plays very good defense is a huge asset if you're trying to build a title contender, and if you walk away from a draft with a player who turns into one of those guys, you should count yourself fortunate. That's something that's within reasonable projection for both Culver and Hunter.

Just because you need a superstar doesn't mean that there's one on the board when you're drafting. Biggest mistake you can make in the draft is repeatedly swinging for the fences on talent that doesn't warrant that risk.

 

[Funkmastabuck]

I question the whole "ceiling" argument as a disqualifier for Hunter/Culver at 5. I think what the Warriors did 2015-2018 has distorted team-building strategy too far in the direction of "you must have multiple superstars to win a title." I don't believe that is the only way to build a championship contender, and it probably is the most difficult way for a franchise like the Cavs to do it. It leads to the "all-in" mentality for drafts where the only thing that really matters is potential upside, and drafting anything less than a future superstar is conceding defeat. I don't buy that. I also think following that mentality is the most likely strategy for ending up a perennial low lottery team.

A #2/#3 offensive option who also plays very good defense is a huge asset if you're trying to build a title contender, and if you walk away from a draft with a player who turns into one of those guys, you should count yourself fortunate. That's something that's within reasonable projection for both Culver and Hunter.

Just because you need superstar doesn't mean that there's one on the board when you're drafting. Biggest mistake you can make in the draft is repeatedly swinging for the fences on talent that doesn't warrant that risk.

Interesting that you bring up the Warriors earlier in this post. Because this point about finding decent scoring options who can play very good D... well that's exactly what I found myself craving as a Cavs fan watching us battle the Warriors over the last few years. We ended up in a position of landing specialists to help round out our roster. And it was maddening watching how well the Warriors played together as a team full of 2-way players.

The more guys you can find who aren't a liability on one end of the floor, the better. I'm thrilled that both Hunter and Culver are plus defenders.

 

[dark2332]

With Sexton already on the roster, I can't imagine us going with a point guard unless he's super elite (ex: Ja Morant, who won't be available).

At #5, I have no interest in Garland or White. How far down would the Cavs need to be drafting for you to say Garland is a smart pick?

I guess I'd have him around #8 on my Cavs big board, so if a trade back for #8 and #10 happened, I'd be good with Garland. Of course, he wouldn't last that long, as other teams would value him more than Cleveland.

White may be big enough to play on the floor with Sexton and guard a few positions.

If the Cavs acquired a 2nd lottery pick in that 10-13 range, I wouldn't hesitate on him based on Sexton, who plays more as a two offensively anyway.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

White may be big enough to play on the floor with Sexton and guard a few positions.

If the Cavs acquired a 2nd lottery pick in that 10-13 range, I wouldn't hesitate on him based on Sexton, who plays more as a two offensively anyway.

If they believe White can play the 2 in the NBA, I'm all about taking him at 5.

White and Sexton would be a nightmare to guard for other teams.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Interesting that you bring up the Warriors earlier in this post. Because this point about finding decent scoring options who can play very good D... well that's exactly what I found myself craving as a Cavs fan watching us battle the Warriors over the last few years. We ended up in a position of landing specialists to help round out our roster. And it was maddening watching how well the Warriors played together as a team full of 2-way players.

The more guys you can find who aren't a liability on one end of the floor, the better. I'm thrilled that both Hunter and Culver are plus defenders.

It's really kind of odd that GSW have had that affect on so many fans. None of their key players from that 2015 championship squad projected as superstars when drafted. In a sense, both Thompson and Green are role players, but just really good role players. Neither has highlight reel type of athleticism. Nor does Curry, for that matter. But they're all smart players, and Thompson and Green and outstanding defenders. And as good as they are offensively, it was that defense that they could clamp down on you that ignited so many of their big playoff runs that blew other teams out of their building.

Look at what the Raptors are doing. They've got one superstar, acquired through a trade, and surrounded him with smart two-way players. Having guys who play well on both ends of the court is exhausting, both physically and mentally, for opponents. You just can't get a break on either end of the floor.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

White may be big enough to play on the floor with Sexton and guard a few positions.

 

[dark2332]

Oh, I know his wingspan is only 6'5. That's why I went with "may" instead of "definitely will."

 

[Nathan S]

Regardless of who's officially playing PG and who's playing SG, who in a Sexton/White backcourt is going to step up to the task of guarding the NBA's most dangerous backcourt players? It's hard to imagine either of them doing that competently, now or ever. And because they're both too small to guard SFs, you can't get out of jail by playing a defensive specialist at SF in hopes that he'll take care of dangerous backcourt assignments. Seems like we'd have to trade or bench one of them in the long run.