ZoomSlowik

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) No. You weed out more guys who might be drafted because POTENTIAL, but with another year you can better identify that potential is never going to become ability. Another year in college probably sorts out more of those kind of guys. Except that's not what happens. They move onto the next young guy with potential because they need to find studs to win. It's also far from a guarantee that the old guy is going to be better. There's plenty of busts that were 22 year olds that were more developed and skilled and flopped when they lost that edge in the pros.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) That is the point exactly. In the NBA's eyes, it is good their stock dropped, because that is one less not ready player at the top of the draft, rotting on the end of a bench somewhere. That assumes that they're "ready" after another year, which is BS. 95% of college players are never going to be "ready" for the NBA. You never know which ones are or aren't until they hit the league either. Around draft time, you would have said Derrick Williams and Evan Turner were ready and Andre Drummond and Michael Carter-Williams weren't. Yet the last two were way more productive as rookies.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) Couldn't you argue that those players stock dropped because there was a better evaluation on them? I'm also fairly certain that Noah wouldn't have been drafted above 9th overall after his freshman season. Their stock dropped because the NBA expects guys to make major strides when they come back, and most guys don't. They just move on to the next sexy young guy they can project for stardom. I wouldn't say their evaluations were better, they just have less hype. Sullinger has been better than a bunch of guys that went ahead of him and you can't say they were justified in taking Yi Jianlian or Brandan Wright over Noah. Noah barely played his freshmen year, so he wasn't a one-and-done candidate. He stayed a year longer than he had to though based on his stock. He probably would have gone #2 or #3 in the previous draft. You should go pro when it makes sense based on your draft stock. For a lot of guys, that's after their freshman year.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) A few of those players had their draft stock drop but it didn't make them less productive in the NBa, it just made them less "hot." I get what happened. The point is it cost them money, and I doubt things would have changed significantly if they came out a year earlier. Even going to the extreme case with guys coming straight out of high school and raw as hell, guys like Jermaine O'Neal and Tyson Chandler eventually turned into productive players. I'm not endorsing going back to that, but I don't think staying another year is a magic elixir for guys to develop into studs. Two more examples: Perry Jones III and Isaac Austin. Both of those guys missed a chance to be lottery picks, and they're not averaging 20-10 their first year because they stayed.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 02:01 PM) It looks like Adam Silver wants to raise the age limit to 20. Smart call. The NBA product is pretty awful right now. Meh. It's not going to make a major difference for most of the guys the rule will affect. I don't see Julius Randle or Jabari Parker gaining much against guys they outclass and facing a ton of zones and junk defenses for teams to try to close the talent gap. Plus it seems like nearly every top prospect that comes back stagnates and has their stock drop (Smart, Sullinger, Noah, Barnes, sorta Zeller before Charlotte reached for him off the top of my head), and if you get hurt like Noel or McGary you're in trouble. We've seen plenty of young guys come in and be productive, and even a lot of the ones that didn't still had productive careers. I think getting the high schoolers out of the draft was good, but I don't see the pressing need to up it another year.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 12:49 PM) Mike Brey has gotten 14 years. When is his time up??? Notre Dame isn't a school that expects Elite 8 appearances every year. That's the kind of program where you can stick around with a .650 WPT and occasional Sweet 16 appearances. Hell, Bill Carmody got 13 years with a lot less.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 12:51 PM) He is pretty much set up to fail at a handful of programs. UCLA is one of them. He can make a lifetime out of a place like Marquette, if he wants. 10 years at UCLA is going to make him more money than 20 years at most other schools. Besides, there were extenuating circumstances with Howland given that very unflattering Sports Illustrated article that came out during his last season. It's not just Howland either, Steve Lavin got 7 years despite his only Elite 8 appearance coming in his first year. He kind of forced their hand with a 10-19 year too. Jim Harrick probably would have cracked double-digits if not for NCAA violations. This isn't like Kentucky where Gillispie only gets 2 years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) So a final four run bought him five years. Exactly. I think you're missing the point. 5 years is longer than most coaches at power programs get to screw up, much less the other 5 years he was there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 11:07 AM) And how quickly was he ran out of there? He was at UCLA for 10 years, 5 of which were after his last Final Four run. How many coaches beat that?

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 24, 2014 -> 06:19 AM) I could argue that Wiggins hasn't done much all season to improve his stock. I personally think the team that drafts #1 would be stupid to pass up Jabari. I think he's a match up nightmare in the NBA. I think it's possible, but I could also see him struggling to score against athletic 6'7" guys on the wing, and he's going to get obliterated if he has to defend 4's right now.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 24, 2014 -> 05:40 AM) Dante Exum's the real wild-card in that class right now. Wiggins + Parker obviously didn't do much to improve their stock during March Madness. For me, if I'm Orlando, and I had a choice b/w Parker and Exum, I'd actually go with Exum. Parker reminds me too much of a Melo / Derrick Williams 3/4 Tweener, who's not athletic enough at the 3 spot. Exum could cause real match-up problems at the 1 with his size. I think the Lakers would love to pair Exum with Kobe as well potentially...... Yeah, I don't really know about Exum. He looks great in the few Youtube clips I've watched, but that can be misleading. I definitely think he benefits from people seeing him less so they don't see his warts (if I remember right his shot stinks and he plays out of control a lot). I think he'd make more sense for Orlando since they already have a somewhat similar guy to Parker in Harris and really need another ball-handler. Parker does look like sort of a tweener, but I'd put him closer to Melo than the Williams/Bennett/Beasley flops. He's a better shooter than the first two with better scoring moves. I think he has similar talent to Beasley but isn't as big a slacker/headcase/pick your derrogatory term.

Since nearly every top prospect is done for the year now, I'm going to go on a draft rant. This class is really starting to remind me of 2008. There's plenty of potential, but nearly everyone has been a little disappointing this year. I guess the problem is we're expecting Durant-like performances given the pre-season hype, which is just way too high a bar to clear. Anyways, here's how I would break it down. I'm going to leave out the foreigners because I can't really comment on them intelligently. Top Tier- Wiggins, Parker and Embiid These guys are all pretty close IMO, and I could see any of them being the best player in the draft or being a disappointment. I think I'd still take Wiggins #1, but I wouldn't feel good about it. He has the tools and has shown flashes, but he's far from a finished product. He needs to build up his repertoire of moves so he doesn't have to use that spin move every time. Admittedly the plan to get him involved at Kansas seems to be "throw it to him on the wing and hope for the best." A heavy diet of pick and rolls and basket cuts would make it easier for him, and playing at a facer pace without the kind of junk defenses he faced today will also help. I go back and forth on Jabari. Clearly he's going to score, but I'm worried about his efficiency and whether he'll do anything else. He leans on his jumper quite a bit, and a lot of his inside offense comes from post ups/rebounds where be bullies people. I'd like to see more rim attacks off the dribble if he's going to be a stud wing. His defense also seems like it's going to be an issue. All that said, I could easily see him cleaning up his shot selection on offense and being a difference maker. Embiid would be right there at #1, but the back issues worry me a bit. Not a good sign that he's already dealing with that. That's not my only concern, but it's enough for me to lean towards the guys that can more easily step into a starting lineup. He has a ton of defensive potential, but his defensive awareness needs a lot of work. I'd also like to see him be a bit more physical and play through contact on offense. I don't think he can play 30 high quality minutes at the NBA level right now. Tier 2- Randle, Smart and Gordon Randle is my clear #4 (at least among Americans, no idea on Exum), but a slight step behind the other guys. He might actually be safer, but I think he'll be more solid than stellar. He's a great rebounder, but his scoring average has been dropping since early in the year. I think he's only averaging about 13 PPG since conference play started. I do like that he's driving more in recent games, but will he be able to consistently score in the post against guys on his athletic tier? I haven't seen him do that recently. Admittedly there are worse things than a 15-10 big, but he's not exactly an impact defender either. I still worry about Smart's decision making and struggles with his shot, but I'll still take my chances on a point guard that has the potential to attack the rim and defend. If he's not going to improve his shot, he should at least stop taking five 3's a game. Gordon is basically an upside pick. He's good for Youtube highlights and to a lesser extent defense, but his offense need a ton of work. I am worried that he seems to think he's a perimeter player though. He's a decent ball-handler, but if he's not dunking or rebounding, he's not useful on offense. Tier 3- ? I honestly don't know after that. There's a ton of guys I kinda like, but no one that blows me away. I think I'd probably take a shot on Vonleh, Harris, Hood and Harrell after that, with need determing which one. I don't think they'll be All-Stars, but I think they'll at least be useful. I kind of like Cauley-Stein as an energy/defense guy off the bench, though I'm not sure how much upside he has. I also strangely like Stauskas. Worst case he's a knockdown-shooter that can't defend, but he's shown some ability to make plays in the pick-and-roll. I'm a little surprised I don't like more guys. Rock said a while ago that 2015 might be better, and while I didn't buy it at the time, I might now. Obviously the freshmen need to perform since they generally drive the class. There are several interesting bigs in that group (Okafor, Turner, Alexander, Lyles and Town to a slightly lesser extent), and it seems like Mudiay and Oubre have potential. Plus you never know if one or two guys from this group stay.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Mar 23, 2014 -> 06:51 PM) He is solid, but any pg is going to torch UNC for 30+ points. Time for Ol Roy to hang it up. It's not just this game, he's done it most of the year. UNC would be decent if they had any shooting beyond Paige. The next recruiting class should help there (well, at least Jackson).

I know his stock gets dinged because he's ancient, but I would LOVE to use a late pick on Kane.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 23, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) Are you trying to say they were all better as freshman? Yeah, most of Duke's players weren't stellar as freshmen. The best besides Parker are probably Jay Williams (14.5-4-6.5 but middling percentages and 4+ turnovers), Brand (about 14-8, might have been better if he hadn't broken his foot), Deng (15-7, 48% shooting) and Irving (17-3-4 on 53% shooting, but missed a good chunk of the year).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2014 -> 04:50 PM) So what does it say for next years NBA draft when the consensus top two picks for next year, who both have huge talent around them, lost before the sweet 16? Both teams were flawed. Neither team was particularly great inside considering Embiid was out and Kansas has terrible guards. Hood had a similarly terrible game for Duke as well. Much like when Durant lost in the 2nd round, it means nothing.

On a somewhat related topic, I don't get why Ennis is considered a lottery pick by some people. He looks a lot like a dozen other guys that are fringe NBA starters.

Got a golden opportunity and they waste it on a mid-range jumper with like 9 seconds left.

Kansas has some pretty bad guards.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) You can elect not to pay, but then you lost your account and would need to start over. You sure about this? I thought you could opt to not purchase playoff tickets. I thought the only time that happened is if you asked for your money back instead of keeping it in your Sox account. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think we paid for 2012 postseason tickets (lol) and still improved our seats.

Northside outline it pretty well. It's just SOOOO many games. When they're good, it's easier to sell excess tickets and you're more willing to go if you can't sell them. That said, we found that we couldn't really handle more than 25 games or so in a year, which leaves a ton to deal with. Luckily we had someone that took half the tickets, but both parties wanted to scale back after a depressing 2013. We're going to try to use Stubhub this year and get better seats for the games we do attend. We didn't have any complaints when we did have tickets. Obviously the postseason tickets were the main reason we did it, which is a huge benefit. Another fun benefit was the box of giveaways we got every year. Yeah, we didn't need all of the stuff, but some of it was pretty cool, especially in 2006 when they were giving out championship related stuff. If you have the disposable income and really like baseball, it can be fun. You have to be prepared to deal with any games you don't plan on attending, otherwise the costs can get steep. One other thing to keep in mind is that you will get an invoice for playoff tickets if they're remotely close to contention. That's a pretty sizeable bill that you have to factor in around September (think it was like 33% of our full-season costs). The one plus with that is that any money from unused tickets can be put towards the next season, which should take care of your first installment (if you want the money refunded, you lose your seat priority).

QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 18, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) You're looking at a problem with Melo where the most optimistic timing for you to have a great roster is right when you would expect Melo to fall off. How many years of good Melo and good cast will you get? This is without even taking into consideration how difficult it will be to acquire new players through means other than draft with Melo pushing $30M annually by the end North of $20 million in cap space after next season will help.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 16, 2014 -> 05:55 PM) I've been mulling this one over. I just don't think I can pick a Bo Ryan team to go past the Sweet Sixteen. I really hate that bracket, not in love with any of them. If Arizona still had Ashley, I'd just go chalk.

Still a bunch of research to do, but my gut reaction is Louisville, MSU, Florida and Wisconsin. My brain might talk me out of that last one, and I may end up with Virginia over MSU.

I'm going to be spending a lot of time figuring out the Virginia/MSU matchup. I'd have rather seen Sparty as the 3 with Nova in the S16.