Ron Harper Jr continues to play well in Maine. He?s averaging 27pts/5rebs/4ast. Shooting 47% from the field and 38% from 3pt.

He?s also bigger than I thought. G-league page on NBA.com has him listed at 6?5/233lbs.

well if we're going to play the woulda/coulda/shoulda draft let's look at 2016
#3 - JB - arguably would go #1 in a redraft
#16 - Yabu --> Should have grabbed Siakam who went 27
#23 - Zizic --> Should have grabbed Dejounte Murray who went 29
#31 - Devonte Davis who was traded but should have taken and kept Zubac who went at 32
#35 - Rade Zagorac who never played for us but should have taken Malcolm Brogdon who went at 36
#45 - Demetrius Jackson - Should have taken Georges Niang who went at 50
#51 - Ben Bentil -- of all the picks we could have traded or stashed someone, this was the one.
#58 - Abdel Nader actually played for us

I liked Danny because he played for us during the Bird years.   I do not think that his son was a great scout.

The 2019 draft was a big miss taking Grant Williams  at 22 over Nic Claxton, Jordan Poole, Keldon Johnson or Daniel Gafford all who were picked later and have head better careers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_NBA_draft

Question, is the expectation that Rivers is also going to play next year as well for the Colts?

Seems weird if he just came back for like 3-4 games, but also in that case what exactly are IND doing with Richardson and Leonard on the roster?

I don't think they expect Rivers to come back. The biggest asset of his is that since he hasn't been playing, he is actually healthy. I can't see the amount of stress there would be on a person having to go through mini camp, training camp, and games on a regular basis.

I thought Richardson was hurt and that was the reason he couldn't play. Didn't David Jones also sign a 1 year deal? I think they should do everything possible to sign Mac Jones. He is the ultimate game manager and on a team with a strong defense and Jonathan Taylor, that is really all they need out of their QB.

None of them, really, we are playing on the house's money this year.

Quote from: slamtheking on December 23, 2025, 01:07:54 PM

Quote from: Moranis on December 23, 2025, 12:33:32 PM

Quote from: slamtheking on December 23, 2025, 12:05:32 PM

Quote from: BitterJim on December 23, 2025, 11:19:41 AM

Quote from: Moranis on December 23, 2025, 10:30:29 AM

Drafts are not equal so I'm not a fan of any proposal which eliminates a team from winning multiple years.  And you often need multiple high level picks to truly complete.  Now I can see the merit of eliminating some protection tiers, but otherwise this is mostly just the haves trying to keep the have nots from becoming the haves. 

Also, 10 years ago or so I actually analyzed the top pick in the lottery era to illustrate the shear difference in draft quality. I looked at the #1 pick only and broke then down by near consensus #1 to more open and then rated the picks on how good they were. It might be worth doing again, but a good illustration is the 2000 draft.  Kenyon Martin was a near consensus #1 pick that year. He also ended up being the best player in that draft.  So a homerun for the Nets i e  their choice was basically made and it hit, yet Kenyon Martin wasn't a franchise player and was never going to be the best player on a title team.  Now imagine the Nets are restricted from high picks for several years because they got Martin.  Or worse, you get the 1st pick in 2001 where there isn't  a consensus #1 and Kwame Brown is the 1st pick and the best player is a guy from Spain that went 3rd (Pau) and the 2nd best player is a Frenchman that went 28th (Parker).  Not all drafts are 2003 with Lebron or even 2004 with Dwight i.e. where there is a consensus #1 that ends up as the best player in the draft and is a franchise player.  Or like 2003 after LeBron with Anthony, Bosh, and Wade all being top 5 picks (and all better than Kenyon Martin). 

Because of the shear difference in draft quality I don't think they should restrict teams from drafting high in multiple drafts.  Just too much variance and that will put an even greater focus on tanking in the presumed right seasons i.e. a draft like 2003.

It would be interesting to introduce the consecutive lottery limits while adding the option for teams that won the lottery to refuse their spot (i.e. if you win the lottery in a weak draft, you have the option to keep your previous spot, but remain eligible for next year's lottery). That would prevent some instances of a bad team losing out on a strong draft just because they won in a weak draft, but also would really encourage that team to tank the next year to make it worth it.

Ultimately, the answer is probably going back to the previous lottery odds, plus limits on protections (and maybe make some limits around how you finished the year before, like teams that made the playoffs in 2025 couldn't put top 5 protections on their 2026/2027 picks, but could do lottery protection, and could do top 5 protection on later picks). Or the wheel, but that has always felt a bit like a solution in search of a problem.

the weakness or strength of a particular draft class shouldn't matter.  Team that gets the top pick is still in a better position than every other team and there's no telling how that player will turn out. 

one way to address the protections teams put on their picks is to eliminate that as an option for all teams so that picks convey regardless (which will likely put a kibosh on those second rounders protected 1-55 that are included in a number of deals just to send something out in a trade) or make it so that if protections are retained, they cannot continue protected for a number of years to where they hit a point where they don't convey or convert to second rounders.  If a team protects a pick 1-14 for a future year, they cannot put further protections on it for following years.

of course the strength of the draft matters.

The simple reality is most teams in the lottery are simply bad teams.  No amount of changes is going to change that fact. They need more talent and restricting them from getting more talent is going to destroy any semblance of parity because those teams are never going to get better.

and who's to say whether a particular draft is good or bad?  there's always sure-fire players that end up busts and players that teams take a flyer on that turn out to be great. 

teams should get periodic cracks at the top pick, not a constant, yearly attempt to cash-in.  Philly's unashamed 'process' is a prime example of a team being a league disgrace for years trying to cash in and it still not paying off because the players they pick all had/have flaws even though a number of them were considered great, if not generational, talents.

No one says anything about the draft quality but putting your head in the sand and pretending all drafts are the same doesn't make sense either.  Year to year the players at the top are of significantly different quality.  Any system that doesn't account for that is inherently flawed.

I've heard the Sixers stuff before it is mostly garbage.  The Thunder have tanked worse than the Sixers twice in the last 20 seasons and no one seems to care about that.  But the Sixers are also a good example that not all drafts are created equal.  All those high picks and they ended up no further than the 2nd round (they also only had the 1st pick once and then traded up for a second one). Though that was mostly from terrible moves after the tank job as much as anything.

the quality of the players in each draft is different.  my point is I don't care that it is and that it shouldn't matter for teams that are trying to tank to get a top pick.  you can get one of those top picks in a certain timeframe before you have to sit it out for a short period.  even though they're sitting out getting a top 3-4 pick, they're still getting a high lotto pick.  I don't feel badly for them