Official Discuss your CB Draft team

[Fafnir]

Now, I don't mean to pick on IP's team but I have already my opinion clear about Lebron's surrounding cast. But what if this is one of those years where the rookie class just lays an egg? It happens 20-25% of the time. What if IP's three rookies are bad and Eric Maynor struggles? This is not completely out of the realm of possibilities. This is not something that has only a minuscule chance of happening. In his case he then basically has no backup for Noah or LeBron. Pretty tough to be considered a contender if your depth is 7 players and only one of them is a star.

LOL, you obviously do.

[StartOrien]

Nick, I'll ask you the question I had before but I'll change the players around:

If you were constructing a team for one year, and one year only would you rather have a player like Ed Davis or a player a little lesser than Antonio McDeyss?

[Fafnir]

I don't think the argument is that rookies can't, under any circumstances, play big roles on contenders.  At least, that shouldn't be the argument, in my opinion.

Rather, in a draft like this, I'd say it's almost impossible to predict what players could play a role.  Tons of rookies -- even lottery picks -- look lost their first year, and often hurt their teams more than they help.  They're essentially getting on the job training, that doesn't necessarily fit in with being a contender. 

When I'm assessing a "win now" team, it's hard to peg a rookie's value.  Usually with rookies, the downside is as realistic -- or moreso -- than the upside. 

Since they're the subject of today's debate, I like both Greg Monroe and Ed Davis, especially Monroe.  I think both will turn out to be good players in the NBA.  However, if I had to assess their chances of both being championship team rotation caliber players right now, I'd say the chances for each individually was below 50%, and the chances of both being of that caliber in their rookies season would be below 25%.

I think your percentages are about right, but I don't think the unknowns are all that much greater than a lot of what we ask fake GMs to evaluate. We're constanttly making calls on injuries and new systems for these players.

I'm not sure how is the best way to approach it, from a game perspective or an evaluation stand point.

[Roy H.]

Nick, I'll ask you the question I had before but I'll change the players around:

If you were constructing a team for one year, and one year only would you rather have a player like Ed Davis or a player a little lesser than Antonio McDeyss?

I'm not nick, but to me, it would probably depend upon how much depth I had at the position.  If I was pretty comfortable with my PFs, I'd take Davis, because there's a chance that he's going to be very good as a rookie.  If I didn't have much depth at the position past my starter (or if I needed the player to be my starter) I'd take McDyess, because he's a known quantity, and has a lower downside than Davis.

[nickagneta]

Nick, I'll ask you the question I had before but I'll change the players around:

If you were constructing a team for one year, and one year only would you rather have a player like Ed Davis or a player a little lesser than Antonio McDeyss?

McDyess, without question.

Edit: Let me also add that I am not as enamored with Ed Davis as some. Could he be a Brook Lopez like in 2008? Maybe. I think he could just as easily be a Jordan Hill, Hilton Armstrong, Sheldon Williams or Patrick O'Bryant, players with great numbers and upside that showed nothing that first year.

[Rondo2287]

Nick, I'll ask you the question I had before but I'll change the players around:

If you were constructing a team for one year, and one year only would you rather have a player like Ed Davis or a player a little lesser than Antonio McDeyss?

McDyess, without question.

Cosign

[Fafnir]

Nick, I'll ask you the question I had before but I'll change the players around:

If you were constructing a team for one year, and one year only would you rather have a player like Ed Davis or a player a little lesser than Antonio McDeyss?

I'm not nick, but to me, it would probably depend upon how much depth I had at the position.  If I was pretty comfortable with my PFs, I'd take Davis, because there's a chance that he's going to be very good as a rookie.  If I didn't have much depth at the position past my starter (or if I needed the player to be my starter) I'd take McDyess, because he's a known quantity, and has a lower downside than Davis.

So if they're your third big man McDyess, if they are your fourth Davis?

That'd be my call as well. The other consideration I'd have is that is McDyess a PF anymore? He looked creaky enough for me to think he's more valuable at the 5 now.

[Who]

No no, Courtney Lee is a hit. You sunk my battleship.

But it does feed my theory. The best rookies on win now teams are role players that spent 3-4 years in college.

Whereas I'd argue talent wins out. The Magic were never in a position to draft Eric Gordon or O.J. Mayo.

Exactly

[Who]

My expectations for Ed Davis are slightly above average defense (mainly via help defense) + very good rebounding + good complementary offense. Not a guy who'll create his own shot but who finishes plays well around the rim and has a nice short to midrange jump shot. Someone who will generally stay away from the ball on offense.

Numbers wise, 12/10 per 36 with a TS% above 55% seems about right. On the Raptors I only expect Ed Davis to play 15-18 minutes a game because they'll be giving most of their minutes to a similar player in Amir Johnson (Amir is a good benchmark for Davis as a rookie). The Raps also have to give Kleiza and Barbosa minutes along with DeRozan and Weems, so Kleiza will likely see some minutes as the backup four also. David Andersen likely getting the backup five minutes behind Bargnani. So 15-18mpg, about 5-6pts and 4-5rbs per game with a good FG% will likely be his end of season numbers.

[StartOrien]

I think your percentages are about right, but I don't think the unknowns are all that much greater than a lot of what we ask fake GMs to evaluate. We're constanttly making calls on injuries and new systems for these players.

I'm not sure how is the best way to approach it, from a game perspective or an evaluation stand point.

To me, when I'm looking at rookies I ignore 'upside' and project what I think they'll actually do and evaluate if I think they could play a role. IE: I don't think Ed Davis is going to make 'the leap' this season, he's too unpolished. But I personally think what he will be able to bring to the Raptors this season, athleticism, above average rebounding and defense would be enough to crack the rotation of a contender.

I guess it's similar to Thabeet (even though he's somewhat of an extreme example). He had the season that most expected. Would that have been enough to be a rotation player for a contender? I thought so, though I know others have disagreed.
 
 

[Fafnir]

I think your percentages are about right, but I don't think the unknowns are all that much greater than a lot of what we ask fake GMs to evaluate. We're constanttly making calls on injuries and new systems for these players.

I'm not sure how is the best way to approach it, from a game perspective or an evaluation stand point.

To me, when I'm looking at rookies I ignore 'upside' and project what I think they'll actually do and evaluate if I think they could play a role. IE: I don't think Ed Davis is going to make 'the leap' this season, he's too unpolished. But I personally think what he will be able to bring to the Raptors this season, athleticism, above average rebounding and defense would be enough to crack the rotation of a contender.

I guess it's similar to Thabeet (even though he's somewhat of an extreme example). He had the season that most expected. Would that have been enough to be a rotation player for a contender? I thought so, though I know others have disagreed.
 
 

But what they'll do is precisely hard to quantify, especially if they are on a team that won't force feed them minutes when they're playing poorly.

[StartOrien]

Nick, I'll ask you the question I had before but I'll change the players around:

If you were constructing a team for one year, and one year only would you rather have a player like Ed Davis or a player a little lesser than Antonio McDeyss?

McDyess, without question.

Edit: Let me also add that I am not as enamored with Ed Davis as some. Could he be a Brook Lopez like in 2008? Maybe. I think he could just as easily be a Jordan Hill, Hilton Armstrong, Sheldon Williams or Patrick O'Bryant, players with great numbers and upside that showed nothing that first year.

He's a much different player than Brook, no where near that offense.

I actually thought by the end of last season Jordan Hill looked pretty good. I think based off the type of player he is, Davis could is a little more ready for the role, but if at the end of the season he compared to Jordan Hill I wouldn't call that a failure.

[StartOrien]

I think your percentages are about right, but I don't think the unknowns are all that much greater than a lot of what we ask fake GMs to evaluate. We're constanttly making calls on injuries and new systems for these players.

I'm not sure how is the best way to approach it, from a game perspective or an evaluation stand point.

To me, when I'm looking at rookies I ignore 'upside' and project what I think they'll actually do and evaluate if I think they could play a role. IE: I don't think Ed Davis is going to make 'the leap' this season, he's too unpolished. But I personally think what he will be able to bring to the Raptors this season, athleticism, above average rebounding and defense would be enough to crack the rotation of a contender.

I guess it's similar to Thabeet (even though he's somewhat of an extreme example). He had the season that most expected. Would that have been enough to be a rotation player for a contender? I thought so, though I know others have disagreed.
 
 

But what they'll do is precisely hard to quantify, especially if they are on a team that won't force feed them minutes when they're playing poorly.

I think it can be somewhat of a challenge, but as you pointed out, not that much more difficult than speculating on how ertain players would work in a certain system. Maybe say, worst case scenario I know this player will be able to do...

[Who]

Nick, I'll ask you the question I had before but I'll change the players around:

If you were constructing a team for one year, and one year only would you rather have a player like Ed Davis or a player a little lesser than Antonio McDeyss?

McDyess, without question.

Edit: Let me also add that I am not as enamored with Ed Davis as some. Could he be a Brook Lopez like in 2008? Maybe. I think he could just as easily be a Jordan Hill, Hilton Armstrong, Sheldon Williams or Patrick O'Bryant, players with great numbers and upside that showed nothing that first year.

He's a much different player than Brook, no where near that offense.

I actually thought by the end of last season Jordan Hill looked pretty good. I think based off the type of player he is, Davis could is a little more ready for the role, but if at the end of the season he compared to Jordan Hill I wouldn't call that a failure.

Yeah, I think the end of season Jordan Hill is a good benchmark for Ed Davis too ... and I would be perfectly happy with that level of play from my fourth big man in the rotation.

Ed Davis is further ahead of J.Hill to start the season though. He has far superior defensive instincts to Hill ... Davis reads the game better and has quicker reactions + a better understanding of defensive rotations ... unlike Hill who got lost off the ball with shocking regularity at the beginning of his NBA career.

Actually, it was pretty amazing + very impressive to see Jordan Hill make as much progress as he did throughout his rookie year. He has turned himself into a real solid NBA player. I thought he'd take another year to reach this level. He was an excellent pickup in this CB Draft, I think it was the Knicks who got him in the end. 

[Edgar]

torontos Angrycrotorpickels preview is ready on
Atlantic division roster reviews
Get ready to ble blown away by our charm.