Charlotte pick

[Smartacus]

I'll join the folks on Lance Stevenson island. It's far from a sure thing but Lance is just one year removed from being a top 8ish wing. Jordan Crawford and Evan Turner were locker room killing, ball stoppers before CBS turned them into players.

Lance would be his greatest challenge get but I believe in all the little things that Stevens does - like use player initials instead positional numbers when drawing up plays - would have a big effect on turning him around.

Brad Stevens is more adept at coaching and getting players to buy into a system/culture than Stevenson is at killing locker rooms.

[slamtheking]

I believe it's misunderstood and it's lottery first for 9 and Stephenson. So they willing to deal with OKC basically. Very interesting.
Westbrook, Stephenson, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter
First 3 off the bench Waiters, PJ3, Adams.

I don't think that would work that well.  Stephenson needs the ball to be effective but that's not happening with Westbrook and Durant.  They need a good 3 and D guy at SG.  I think Bradley would be a much better fit for them.

Lance isnt as effective but I dont think he would have any issue being a 3 and D guy for OKC. Lots of modern players love to play that role. Bradley would be a better player but it's Stephenson and the 9 for 14. If your OKC you take that deal.

considering he's not much of a 3-pt shooter, I think OKC would have an issue using him that way.

[krumeto]

I believe it's misunderstood and it's lottery first for 9 and Stephenson. So they willing to deal with OKC basically. Very interesting.
Westbrook, Stephenson, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter
First 3 off the bench Waiters, PJ3, Adams.

I don't think that would work that well.  Stephenson needs the ball to be effective but that's not happening with Westbrook and Durant.  They need a good 3 and D guy at SG.  I think Bradley would be a much better fit for them.

Lance isnt as effective but I dont think he would have any issue being a 3 and D guy for OKC. Lots of modern players love to play that role. Bradley would be a better player but it's Stephenson and the 9 for 14. If your OKC you take that deal.

considering he's not much of a 3-pt shooter, I think OKC would have an issue using him that way.

Not much of a 3-pt shooter is an understatement. Lance is an all-time terrible 3-point shooter:
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/15/8421299/lance-stephenson-stats-three-point-shooting-so-bad

On the other hand, he is a very inefficient scorer and turnover prone. Aaand a head case.

What is not to like?

[Csfan1984]

I believe it's misunderstood and it's lottery first for 9 and Stephenson. So they willing to deal with OKC basically. Very interesting.
Westbrook, Stephenson, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter
First 3 off the bench Waiters, PJ3, Adams.

I don't think that would work that well.  Stephenson needs the ball to be effective but that's not happening with Westbrook and Durant.  They need a good 3 and D guy at SG.  I think Bradley would be a much better fit for them.

Lance isnt as effective but I dont think he would have any issue being a 3 and D guy for OKC. Lots of modern players love to play that role. Bradley would be a better player but it's Stephenson and the 9 for 14. If your OKC you take that deal.

considering he's not much of a 3-pt shooter, I think OKC would have an issue using him that way.

Not much of a 3-pt shooter is an understatement. Lance is an all-time terrible 3-point shooter:
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/15/8421299/lance-stephenson-stats-three-point-shooting-so-bad

On the other hand, he is a very inefficient scorer and turnover prone. Aaand a head case.

What is not to like?

His 3pt shooting was trending up till last year. As we know it was all bad last year.

[krumeto]

I believe it's misunderstood and it's lottery first for 9 and Stephenson. So they willing to deal with OKC basically. Very interesting.
Westbrook, Stephenson, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter
First 3 off the bench Waiters, PJ3, Adams.

I don't think that would work that well.  Stephenson needs the ball to be effective but that's not happening with Westbrook and Durant.  They need a good 3 and D guy at SG.  I think Bradley would be a much better fit for them.

Lance isnt as effective but I dont think he would have any issue being a 3 and D guy for OKC. Lots of modern players love to play that role. Bradley would be a better player but it's Stephenson and the 9 for 14. If your OKC you take that deal.

considering he's not much of a 3-pt shooter, I think OKC would have an issue using him that way.

Not much of a 3-pt shooter is an understatement. Lance is an all-time terrible 3-point shooter:
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/15/8421299/lance-stephenson-stats-three-point-shooting-so-bad

On the other hand, he is a very inefficient scorer and turnover prone. Aaand a head case.

What is not to like?

His 3pt shooting was trending up till last year. As we know it was all bad last year.

One has to wonder if last year or the year before are the exception, rather than the rule. His last year in Indiana was really good overall, all other years including college - really bad.

[slamtheking]

I believe it's misunderstood and it's lottery first for 9 and Stephenson. So they willing to deal with OKC basically. Very interesting.
Westbrook, Stephenson, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter
First 3 off the bench Waiters, PJ3, Adams.

I don't think that would work that well.  Stephenson needs the ball to be effective but that's not happening with Westbrook and Durant.  They need a good 3 and D guy at SG.  I think Bradley would be a much better fit for them.

Lance isnt as effective but I dont think he would have any issue being a 3 and D guy for OKC. Lots of modern players love to play that role. Bradley would be a better player but it's Stephenson and the 9 for 14. If your OKC you take that deal.

considering he's not much of a 3-pt shooter, I think OKC would have an issue using him that way.

Not much of a 3-pt shooter is an understatement. Lance is an all-time terrible 3-point shooter:
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/15/8421299/lance-stephenson-stats-three-point-shooting-so-bad

On the other hand, he is a very inefficient scorer and turnover prone. Aaand a head case.

What is not to like?

His 3pt shooting was trending up till last year. As we know it was all bad last year.

One has to wonder if last year or the year before are the exception, rather than the rule. His last year in Indiana was really good overall, all other years including college - really bad.

I'm leaning towards any improvement being the fluke. 

I'm not seeing the need to trade for this guy or why anyone would think that if Danny were compelled to take a flyer on a SG that shoots worse than AB and defends worse than AB and needs the ball in his hands more than AB that giving up AB and anything more than the #28 pick is overpaying.

I don't see the need for it personally.  I have no problem trading AB but since he's a decent asset, I would use him to acquire someone who'd plug a hole elsewhere.  Stephenson doesn't accomplish that (and would arguably not fill the hole left by AB)

[Csfan1984]

I believe it's misunderstood and it's lottery first for 9 and Stephenson. So they willing to deal with OKC basically. Very interesting.
Westbrook, Stephenson, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter
First 3 off the bench Waiters, PJ3, Adams.

I don't think that would work that well.  Stephenson needs the ball to be effective but that's not happening with Westbrook and Durant.  They need a good 3 and D guy at SG.  I think Bradley would be a much better fit for them.

Lance isnt as effective but I dont think he would have any issue being a 3 and D guy for OKC. Lots of modern players love to play that role. Bradley would be a better player but it's Stephenson and the 9 for 14. If your OKC you take that deal.

considering he's not much of a 3-pt shooter, I think OKC would have an issue using him that way.

Not much of a 3-pt shooter is an understatement. Lance is an all-time terrible 3-point shooter:
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/15/8421299/lance-stephenson-stats-three-point-shooting-so-bad

On the other hand, he is a very inefficient scorer and turnover prone. Aaand a head case.

What is not to like?

His 3pt shooting was trending up till last year. As we know it was all bad last year.

One has to wonder if last year or the year before are the exception, rather than the rule. His last year in Indiana was really good overall, all other years including college - really bad.

I'm leaning towards any improvement being the fluke. 

I'm not seeing the need to trade for this guy or why anyone would think that if Danny were compelled to take a flyer on a SG that shoots worse than AB and defends worse than AB and needs the ball in his hands more than AB that giving up AB and anything more than the #28 pick is overpaying.

I don't see the need for it personally.  I have no problem trading AB but since he's a decent asset, I would use him to acquire someone who'd plug a hole elsewhere.  Stephenson doesn't accomplish that (and would arguably not fill the hole left by AB)

It's not just him you are getting it's the 9th pick. Deal is Lance and 9 to OKC for 14 and probably a pair of seconds. OKC is moving up 5 spots. That is a good deal.

If it's C's and it's AB and 28+45 for Lance and 9 you do the deal. If it's 16 probably not but you consider it.

[slamtheking]

I believe it's misunderstood and it's lottery first for 9 and Stephenson. So they willing to deal with OKC basically. Very interesting.
Westbrook, Stephenson, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter
First 3 off the bench Waiters, PJ3, Adams.

I don't think that would work that well.  Stephenson needs the ball to be effective but that's not happening with Westbrook and Durant.  They need a good 3 and D guy at SG.  I think Bradley would be a much better fit for them.

Lance isnt as effective but I dont think he would have any issue being a 3 and D guy for OKC. Lots of modern players love to play that role. Bradley would be a better player but it's Stephenson and the 9 for 14. If your OKC you take that deal.

considering he's not much of a 3-pt shooter, I think OKC would have an issue using him that way.

Not much of a 3-pt shooter is an understatement. Lance is an all-time terrible 3-point shooter:
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/15/8421299/lance-stephenson-stats-three-point-shooting-so-bad

On the other hand, he is a very inefficient scorer and turnover prone. Aaand a head case.

What is not to like?

His 3pt shooting was trending up till last year. As we know it was all bad last year.

One has to wonder if last year or the year before are the exception, rather than the rule. His last year in Indiana was really good overall, all other years including college - really bad.

I'm leaning towards any improvement being the fluke. 

I'm not seeing the need to trade for this guy or why anyone would think that if Danny were compelled to take a flyer on a SG that shoots worse than AB and defends worse than AB and needs the ball in his hands more than AB that giving up AB and anything more than the #28 pick is overpaying.

I don't see the need for it personally.  I have no problem trading AB but since he's a decent asset, I would use him to acquire someone who'd plug a hole elsewhere.  Stephenson doesn't accomplish that (and would arguably not fill the hole left by AB)

It's not just him you are getting it's the 9th pick. Deal is Lance and 9 to OKC for 14 and probably a pair of seconds. OKC is moving up 5 spots. That is a good deal.

If it's C's and it's AB and 28+45 for Lance and 9 you do the deal. If it's 16 probably not but you consider it.

my point was that Lance is a real step back at this point from AB.  is #9 worth it?  Maybe, depending on whether the target for #9 is Stanley or Myles and how highly that player is regarded.  If you grab one of those 2 at 9, is Danny then sort of forced to look at drafting a SG with #16 to replace AB (and likely Stephenson when he ticks off another lockerroom)?

[Csfan1984]

I believe it's misunderstood and it's lottery first for 9 and Stephenson. So they willing to deal with OKC basically. Very interesting.
Westbrook, Stephenson, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter
First 3 off the bench Waiters, PJ3, Adams.

I don't think that would work that well.  Stephenson needs the ball to be effective but that's not happening with Westbrook and Durant.  They need a good 3 and D guy at SG.  I think Bradley would be a much better fit for them.

Lance isnt as effective but I dont think he would have any issue being a 3 and D guy for OKC. Lots of modern players love to play that role. Bradley would be a better player but it's Stephenson and the 9 for 14. If your OKC you take that deal.

considering he's not much of a 3-pt shooter, I think OKC would have an issue using him that way.

Not much of a 3-pt shooter is an understatement. Lance is an all-time terrible 3-point shooter:
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/15/8421299/lance-stephenson-stats-three-point-shooting-so-bad

On the other hand, he is a very inefficient scorer and turnover prone. Aaand a head case.

What is not to like?

His 3pt shooting was trending up till last year. As we know it was all bad last year.

One has to wonder if last year or the year before are the exception, rather than the rule. His last year in Indiana was really good overall, all other years including college - really bad.

I'm leaning towards any improvement being the fluke. 

I'm not seeing the need to trade for this guy or why anyone would think that if Danny were compelled to take a flyer on a SG that shoots worse than AB and defends worse than AB and needs the ball in his hands more than AB that giving up AB and anything more than the #28 pick is overpaying.

I don't see the need for it personally.  I have no problem trading AB but since he's a decent asset, I would use him to acquire someone who'd plug a hole elsewhere.  Stephenson doesn't accomplish that (and would arguably not fill the hole left by AB)

It's not just him you are getting it's the 9th pick. Deal is Lance and 9 to OKC for 14 and probably a pair of seconds. OKC is moving up 5 spots. That is a good deal.

If it's C's and it's AB and 28+45 for Lance and 9 you do the deal. If it's 16 probably not but you consider it.

my point was that Lance is a real step back at this point from AB.  is #9 worth it?  Maybe, depending on whether the target for #9 is Stanley or Myles and how highly that player is regarded.  If you grab one of those 2 at 9, is Danny then sort of forced to look at drafting a SG with #16 to replace AB (and likely Stephenson when he ticks off another lockerroom)?

WCS, Stanley or Turner would be the targets I think. I'd hope Young develops like Middleton and becomes the teams SG. Both are not the most athletic but Middleton has learned to use his length to be a decent enough defender to get by at that spot.

[LarBrd33]

Hornets are one of the most mismanaged franchises in the league.  I take everything that happens on that team with a grain of salt.

[PhoSita]

Hornets are one of the most mismanaged franchises in the league.  I take everything that happens on that team with a grain of salt.

I'm not sure how to judge the management in Charlotte.  They spent 5 years bottoming out, getting multiple high lottery picks.  None of those picks turned into stars.  Was that bad luck, bad drafting, or bad player development?

Signing Big Al and trying to become a playoff caliber team with the young pieces they had made some sense.  You can only draft in the lottery so long before you have to try and see if the young pieces you have can actually win games.

Gambling on Stephenson was risky, but was it a terrible move?  It's not like they signed him to a really long contract.  If Stephenson had continued playing like he did in Indiana, Charlotte might have made it to the second round this year, given how weak the East was.  Was Stephenson's failure bad luck or bad coaching?  Or did management disregard clear warning signs that Lance would be a bad investment?

[Csfan1984]

Hornets are one of the most mismanaged franchises in the league.  I take everything that happens on that team with a grain of salt.

I'm not sure how to judge the management in Charlotte.  They spent 5 years bottoming out, getting multiple high lottery picks.  None of those picks turned into stars.  Was that bad luck, bad drafting, or bad player development?

Signing Big Al and trying to become a playoff caliber team with the young pieces they had made some sense.  You can only draft in the lottery so long before you have to try and see if the young pieces you have can actually win games.

Gambling on Stephenson was risky, but was it a terrible move?  It's not like they signed him to a really long contract.  If Stephenson had continued playing like he did in Indiana, Charlotte might have made it to the second round this year, given how weak the East was.  Was Stephenson's failure bad luck or bad coaching?  Or did management disregard clear warning signs that Lance would be a bad investment?

Tp, good post with open takes on the Cats. Some hard questions for sure. They are in a tough spot.