DeAndre Kane

[blink]

He'd be fine to take a flyer on if we got a pick in the 50s, and would presumably replace Pressey.  If he pans out, he's a cost controlled reserve for a few years, but I doubt if even NBA starter is his ceiling.  That's useful, and a good thing to have at the league minimum for 3-4 years so you can spend your money elsewhere, but he's not someone to mourn if he winds up elsewhere.  Think of him as the PG version of Colten Iverson.

I think the Kane / Iverson analogy is way off.  Kane is way more NBA ready than Colt is right now.  Kane is a great rebounder for a guard.  Kane is the first player in the last 15 years to record 2,000 points, 700 rebounds and 600 assists in his career.  I know NCAA stats don't always mean a good NBA player, but he is a unique talent.  I can't really say that about Colt.  I mean, Colt is tall, and plays hard.

[saltlover]

He'd be fine to take a flyer on if we got a pick in the 50s, and would presumably replace Pressey.  If he pans out, he's a cost controlled reserve for a few years, but I doubt if even NBA starter is his ceiling.  That's useful, and a good thing to have at the league minimum for 3-4 years so you can spend your money elsewhere, but he's not someone to mourn if he winds up elsewhere.  Think of him as the PG version of Colten Iverson.

I think the Kane / Iverson analogy is way off.  Kane is way more NBA ready than Colt is right now.  Kane is a great rebounder for a guard.  Kane is the first player in the last 15 years to record 2,000 points, 700 rebounds and 600 assists in his career.  I know NCAA stats don't always mean a good NBA player, but he is a unique talent.  I can't really say that about Colt.  I mean, Colt is tall, and plays hard.

Kane isn't a unique talent.  Those are nice stats, but a) he's really old for a college player, and b) a lot of players who could have put up those stats went pro before they finished doing so.  The old part is because a 23-25 year old should dominate when going up against 19-21 year olds.

The comparison with Iverson was for three reasons:

1) Iverson was also old for a collegian.
2) Iverson is also someone who would provide value if he were to become a capable NBA backup for 3-4 years of his rookie deal, because even backup centers are expensive.
3) The reason for drafting either is to not have to convince them to come play for you as an undrafted free agent. 

I know Kane has more ability than Iverson, but that wasn't my point.  But point guards most always have more skill than centers.  If Iverson had Kane's skill, he'd have been drafted in the late first like Mason Plumlee.  It pays to be big.  Just ask Ryan Hollins.

[blink]

He'd be fine to take a flyer on if we got a pick in the 50s, and would presumably replace Pressey.  If he pans out, he's a cost controlled reserve for a few years, but I doubt if even NBA starter is his ceiling.  That's useful, and a good thing to have at the league minimum for 3-4 years so you can spend your money elsewhere, but he's not someone to mourn if he winds up elsewhere.  Think of him as the PG version of Colten Iverson.

I think the Kane / Iverson analogy is way off.  Kane is way more NBA ready than Colt is right now.  Kane is a great rebounder for a guard.  Kane is the first player in the last 15 years to record 2,000 points, 700 rebounds and 600 assists in his career.  I know NCAA stats don't always mean a good NBA player, but he is a unique talent.  I can't really say that about Colt.  I mean, Colt is tall, and plays hard.

Kane isn't a unique talent.  Those are nice stats, but a) he's really old for a college player, and b) a lot of players who could have put up those stats went pro before they finished doing so.  The old part is because a 23-25 year old should dominate when going up against 19-21 year olds.

The comparison with Iverson was for three reasons:

1) Iverson was also old for a collegian.
2) Iverson is also someone who would provide value if he were to become a capable NBA backup for 3-4 years of his rookie deal, because even backup centers are expensive.
3) The reason for drafting either is to not have to convince them to come play for you as an undrafted free agent. 

I know Kane has more ability than Iverson, but that wasn't my point.  But point guards most always have more skill than centers.  If Iverson had Kane's skill, he'd have been drafted in the late first like Mason Plumlee.  It pays to be big.  Just ask Ryan Hollins.

I just disagree about Kane.  You can say whatever you want about what players 'could have done if they hadn't left early for college' but that is pie in the sky.  Even if 5 other players could have done that in the last 15 years it would still make him a unique talent. 

We can sign any non-drafted big man to do what Colt did last year (not play) or do what Vitor did this year (be a big body) for a low cost.  I have no idea if Kane will even get drafted, but I certainly think he gives the C's more than what Colt gives them unless Colt improves a LOT.  Colt wouldn't have seen the floor at all this year, I think Deandre would have.  If we have the opportunity to draft a big that has a higher ceiling than Kane, obviously go for it.  That's one of the two biggest holes in the roster.  The other hole is someone that can score and get their own shot and make something happen.  Kane has that ability.


I get the fact that Kane is older, and I agree over a low cost contract he would be a really good value.  It just kind of boggles the mind that Kane is probably a better player than Smart, and yet Smart is being seen as a top 5-7 pick.