2019 NBA Mock Draft Thread

[DirtyDez]

15 hours ago, BoltsFan937 said:

I think as this process moves along, Garland will separate himself as the clear choice at 4.  Granted the Lakers are so dysfunctional there's no telling what they'll do.   But even if they package it in a trade for Beal, then Washington should take him as Beal's replacement.  I think an athletic wing like Hunter makes a lot of sense for Cleveland, Phoenix is obviouslyy going best PG left,  and I think Chicago will (and should) gamble on Reddish's upside at 7.  That would leave Culver for Atlanta at 8 or 10 as I think Washington would be looking for a big at 9.  

Man the Garland hype is crazy.  Cam Reddish and Nassir Little would’ve been so lucky to get injured after a few games in terms of their draft stock lol.

[beekay414]

3 minutes ago, DirtyDez said:

Man the Garland hype is crazy.  Cam Reddish and Nassir Little would’ve been so lucky to get injured after a few games in terms of their draft stock lol.

Yep. The team that takes Garland over White is going to be kicking themselves down the line. Garland is solid but he's frail and a limited athlete. White is sturdy in his build, although he's a below the rim athlete for the most part, he's a dynamic scorer that can score at every level and he fits the modern day mold of an NBA PG/primary ballhandler. He's also going to be able to guard the wing no matter if it's a PG or a 3. There's simply no reason anyone should prefer Garland to White. 

[beekay414]

On 5/17/2019 at 12:09 PM, resilient part 2 said:

I will LOL if LAL takes White. not because WHITE doesn't deserve this pick, but just to see the look on Lonzo or Lavar's face.

Thing is, White can play with Lonzo. He's a combo guard and he's got the ability to play off the ball as well as having a good ISO game. He's actually a really, really good running mate for Lonzo.

[BoltsFan937]

11 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Yep. The team that takes Garland over White is going to be kicking themselves down the line. Garland is solid but he's frail and a limited athlete. White is sturdy in his build, although he's a below the rim athlete for the most part, he's a dynamic scorer that can score at every level and he fits the modern day mold of an NBA PG/primary ballhandler. He's also going to be able to guard the wing no matter if it's a PG or a 3. There's simply no reason anyone should prefer Garland to White. 

That's what concerns me about White (below the rim athlete).  It reminds me of Lonzo Ball and those drives to the basket layups he got at UNC are gonna get swatted in the NBA.  I think Garland has a better handle and I trust his shot more from deep.  The concerns over the five game sample size are legit, I can't argue that.  I'm just projecting what I saw from those limited games

[beekay414]

38 minutes ago, BoltsFan937 said:

That's what concerns me about White (below the rim athlete).  It reminds me of Lonzo Ball and those drives to the basket layups he got at UNC are gonna get swatted in the NBA.  I think Garland has a better handle and I trust his shot more from deep.  The concerns over the five game sample size are legit, I can't argue that.  I'm just projecting what I saw from those limited games

I'm not worried about it. Both are below the rim type athletes but one of them is actually built like an NBA guard. White can really stroke it. Don't be fooled by the 35% 3pt shooting. He was asked to take a ton of pull up 3s in our system. I doubt White has a problem finishing in the NBA. Spacing is much better than in college and it's not like White had problems finishing. I just like White's fit in the modern game a lot more than Garland's. He can score at all 3 levels and defend multiple positions. Garland? He's tiny and you can't be a limited athlete while being tiny. For me, White is pretty clearly the 4th best prospect in this class and that has nothing to do with him being from UNC. I'm typically harder on my team's players. I have nothing but positives to say about White. He's the ultimate team player and can adapt his role to whatever is asked.

I probably wouldn't have Garland in my top 10, being quite honest.

Edited May 18, 2019 by beekay414

[TitanSlim]

1 hour ago, DirtyDez said:

Man the Garland hype is crazy.  Cam Reddish and Nassir Little would’ve been so lucky to get injured after a few games in terms of their draft stock lol.

Ain't this the truth. Cam Reddish gets hurt after game 4 or 5, he's in the discussion for Memphis pick and there may be a small portion discussing him at #1.

 

[NYRaider]

58 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Thing is, White can play with Lonzo. He's a combo guard and he's got the ability to play off the ball as well as having a good ISO game. He's actually a really, really good running mate for Lonzo.

I hope that White ends up in Chicago, would fit very well with the group that they're building. 

[Madridista]

On 5/17/2019 at 4:59 PM, 11sanchez11 said:

Who are both combo guards. 

But trading for a dude who will leave in two years is pretty silly. We trade the pick for a dude who will help us get the 11th seed and leave. Cool. 

The two things I want most this offseason is to draft Culver and sign Brogdan. Booker, Culver, Brodgan is enough passing from the PG/SG positions to make it work. Plus Culver and Brogdan can play good defense.

My friend it hurts to see you spelling Malc's name wrong 

[CWood21]

18 hours ago, BoltsFan937 said:

I think as this process moves along, Garland will separate himself as the clear choice at 4.  Granted the Lakers are so dysfunctional there's no telling what they'll do.   But even if they package it in a trade for Beal, then Washington should take him as Beal's replacement.  I think an athletic wing like Hunter makes a lot of sense for Cleveland, Phoenix is obviouslyy going best PG left,  and I think Chicago will (and should) gamble on Reddish's upside at 7.  That would leave Culver for Atlanta at 8 or 10 as I think Washington would be looking for a big at 9.  

The draft is usually the one thing the Lakers do right.  The decision to take D'Angelo Russell over Jahlil Okafor was received mix feelings, but it turned out to quickly be the right decision despite whatever happened in a Lakers' uniform.  And they've been pretty good with their late FRPs.

[BoltsFan937]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The draft is usually the one thing the Lakers do right.  The decision to take D'Angelo Russell over Jahlil Okafor was received mix feelings, but it turned out to quickly be the right decision despite whatever happened in a Lakers' uniform.  And they've been pretty good with their late FRPs.

I'll preface this by saying no one bats .1000 in the draft, and generally I agree that the Lakers have done a good job.  That being said , Ball over Tatum and Fox has been a blunder so far and the Wagner pick was a head scratcher last year. Just think of how much brighter our future would look if we would have kept Russell and drafted Tatum (Russell/Ingram/Tatum core).  My concern is more the recent decision making that has gone on that just makes me question what the heck we're doing.  Dumping Russell was brutal, not offering Randle is questionable, the signings of Rondo/Stephenson/Beasley/Mcgee, trading Zubac and Mychailuk (sp) for garbage...etc.  I just don't have much confidence in our front office.  Pelinka, the Rambi and Jeanie Buss?  Personally, I'd forget about AD.   I'd trade Lonzo to Chicago for the #7 and then flip the 4 pick with Kuzma and Hart (maybe add a future 1st) for Beal.  I'd draft Garland/Hunter/White at 7 and then go hard for Kemba. That would give us a nice blend of guys to win with now and also have a foundation for the future

Edited May 20, 2019 by BoltsFan937

[CWood21]

10 hours ago, BoltsFan937 said:

I'll preface this by saying no one bats .1000 in the draft, and generally I agree that the Lakers have done a good job.  That being said , Ball over Tatum and Fox has been a blunder so far and the Wagner pick was a head scratcher last year. Just think of how much brighter our future would look if we would have kept Russell and drafted Tatum (Russell/Ingram/Tatum core).  My concern is more the recent decision making that has gone on that just makes me question what the heck we're doing.  Dumping Russell was brutal, not offering Randle is questionable, the signings of Rondo/Stephenson/Beasley/Mcgee, trading Zubac and Mychailuk (sp) for garbage...etc.  I just don't have much confidence in our front office.  Pelinka, the Rambi and Jeanie Buss?  Personally, I'd forget about AD.   I'd trade Lonzo to Chicago for the #7 and then flip the 4 pick with Kuzma and Hart (maybe add a future 1st) for Beal.  I'd draft Garland/Hunter/White at 7 and then go hard for Kemba. That would give us a nice blend of guys to win with now and also have a foundation for the future

We're talking strictly about the draft here first off.  The only "mistake" they might have made was taking Lonzo Ball over Jayson Tatum, but that has more to do with Ball's shooting issues and health concerns than anything Tatum has done.  If Lonzo was shooting at a reasonable level (not great), and was staying healthy, we'd be having a very much different discussion.  He's an elite defensive PG, rebounds at a high rate, and passes the ball well.  Really, the only thing he doesn't do well is shoot and stay healthy.

As for the other parts, the Lakers wouldn't have had max cap space to sign LeBron James if they hadn't dealt him and Timofey Mozgov to Brooklyn for Brook Lopez and the draft pick that turned out to be Kyle Kuzma.  So I'll ask you this, are the Lakers better off with D'Angelo Russell and Timofey Mozgov or LeBron James and Kyle Kuzma?  I'm not sure there's even a D'Angelo homer would take the former.  Not re-signing Randle was disappointing, but there was nowhere for him.  The Lakers tried to do right by him and allow him to get that long-term deal that he wanted.  Unfortunately, FA was dried up at that point.  None of those FA signing minus Beasley really hurt the Lakers.  McGee was a stud until he was hit by pneumonia.  Rondo was solid.  Lance was just annoying.  The Beasley trade was stupid, I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.  But the Bullock trade was okay.  Probably gave up too many long-term assets in that deal, but none of them were deal breakers.

I'm really not sure exactly what you're wanting the Lakers to do in the last few sentences.  Go trade for Beal and sign Kemba Walker and draft another guard?  Who are we going to have as our bigs?

[resilient part 2]

Workout are still ongoing, but with that in mind who helped their stock the most? or who are some sleepers?

[Mox]

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

We're talking strictly about the draft here first off.  The only "mistake" they might have made was taking Lonzo Ball over Jayson Tatum, but that has more to do with Ball's shooting issues and health concerns than anything Tatum has done.  If Lonzo was shooting at a reasonable level (not great), and was staying healthy, we'd be having a very much different discussion.  He's an elite defensive PG, rebounds at a high rate, and passes the ball well.  Really, the only thing he doesn't do well is shoot and stay healthy.

As for the other parts, the Lakers wouldn't have had max cap space to sign LeBron James if they hadn't dealt him and Timofey Mozgov to Brooklyn for Brook Lopez and the draft pick that turned out to be Kyle Kuzma.  So I'll ask you this, are the Lakers better off with D'Angelo Russell and Timofey Mozgov or LeBron James and Kyle Kuzma?  I'm not sure there's even a D'Angelo homer would take the former.  Not re-signing Randle was disappointing, but there was nowhere for him.  The Lakers tried to do right by him and allow him to get that long-term deal that he wanted.  Unfortunately, FA was dried up at that point.  None of those FA signing minus Beasley really hurt the Lakers.  McGee was a stud until he was hit by pneumonia.  Rondo was solid.  Lance was just annoying.  The Beasley trade was stupid, I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.  But the Bullock trade was okay.  Probably gave up too many long-term assets in that deal, but none of them were deal breakers.

I'm really not sure exactly what you're wanting the Lakers to do in the last few sentences.  Go trade for Beal and sign Kemba Walker and draft another guard?  Who are we going to have as our bigs?

Lonzo has been a historically bad shooter though and people had this concern before the draft with his dumb release (not to this extent but still). Tatum even after regression and Fox are significantly better players with much better futures. The jump Fox made from year 1 to year 2 was nothing short of sensational.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Bullet Club

[BoltsFan937]

5 hours ago, CWood21 said:

We're talking strictly about the draft here first off.  The only "mistake" they might have made was taking Lonzo Ball over Jayson Tatum, but that has more to do with Ball's shooting issues and health concerns than anything Tatum has done.  If Lonzo was shooting at a reasonable level (not great), and was staying healthy, we'd be having a very much different discussion.  He's an elite defensive PG, rebounds at a high rate, and passes the ball well.  Really, the only thing he doesn't do well is shoot and stay healthy.

As for the other parts, the Lakers wouldn't have had max cap space to sign LeBron James if they hadn't dealt him and Timofey Mozgov to Brooklyn for Brook Lopez and the draft pick that turned out to be Kyle Kuzma.  So I'll ask you this, are the Lakers better off with D'Angelo Russell and Timofey Mozgov or LeBron James and Kyle Kuzma?  I'm not sure there's even a D'Angelo homer would take the former.  Not re-signing Randle was disappointing, but there was nowhere for him.  The Lakers tried to do right by him and allow him to get that long-term deal that he wanted.  Unfortunately, FA was dried up at that point.  None of those FA signing minus Beasley really hurt the Lakers.  McGee was a stud until he was hit by pneumonia.  Rondo was solid.  Lance was just annoying.  The Beasley trade was stupid, I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.  But the Bullock trade was okay.  Probably gave up too many long-term assets in that deal, but none of them were deal breakers.

I'm really not sure exactly what you're wanting the Lakers to do in the last few sentences.  Go trade for Beal and sign Kemba Walker and draft another guard?  Who are we going to have as our bigs?

Ball over Fox?  Look, I like Lonzo Ball but I thought Fox was clearly the superior player coming out of that draft and so far has been the better pro.  You kinda poo pooed over the "shoot well and stay healthy" part.  Are there any two more important things?  I mean, I can find guys to D up and grab boards in the 2nd round.   And what's disturbing is (if rumors are true) Magic preferred Fox but was vetoed by I'm assuming Jeanie into taking Ball.  That worries me as to who is making the basketball decisions in our organization.  I'll hesitantly give them credit for hitting on Kuzma and possibly Hart, but I didn't think Hart had a particularly good year and Kuzma has been a good player on a terrible team.  And we've seen that before (Jordan Clarkson)  where a guy has come in and filled it up on a 50+loss team but hasn't really panned out. 

As for the 2nd part, we probably could have had Russell/Kuzma (still sadled with Mozgov) but no Hart (Kuzma and Hart taken at 27 & 30).  So the question is, should we have even signed Lebron in the first place?  We have a guy that's 34/35 playing with a bunch of 20 year olds, never did make sense to me.  Doesn't seem like any of the big name guys want to come and pair up with Lebron and its pretty obvious no one is gonna trade with us unless we get murdered in it.  So what do we do?  Maybe everyone is wrong and guys come this year and everything is good, just doesn't look like that's realistic.  So gut our team and future 1sts for AD? Ok, who's playing point? 2? (I know you didn't bring that up, just adding it)

Ideally, I'd like to trade for Beal, preferably if we don't have to include Ingram.  I'd be ok with not signing Kemba and keeping Ball.  Ball/Beal/Ingram/Lebron we'd have Mo and re-sign Javale.  I'm not too worried about the bigs with the way the league is going.  Just watched Toronto win a game last night without scoring a point in the paint after halftime.  Houston has who Capela and PJ?  Portland has Collins/Kanter/Nurkic.  Not exactly Wilt and Elgin down there.  Golden Sate was winning with Bogut and Mo Speights, seems like we could find a guy or two to plug that hole if need be

[CWood21]

38 minutes ago, BoltsFan937 said:

Ball over Fox?  Look, I like Lonzo Ball but I thought Fox was clearly the superior player coming out of that draft and so far has been the better pro.  You kinda poo pooed over the "shoot well and stay healthy" part.  Are there any two more important things?  I mean, I can find guys to D up and grab boards in the 2nd round.   And what's disturbing is (if rumors are true) Magic preferred Fox but was vetoed by I'm assuming Jeanie into taking Ball.  That worries me as to who is making the basketball decisions in our organization.  I'll hesitantly give them credit for hitting on Kuzma and possibly Hart, but I didn't think Hart had a particularly good year and Kuzma has been a good player on a terrible team.  And we've seen that before (Jordan Clarkson)  where a guy has come in and filled it up on a 50+loss team but hasn't really panned out. 

Admittedly, I didn't watch a ton of Kings' basketball for obvious reasons, but I'm VERY skeptical that he's going to continue to shoot as well from beyond the arc.  After shooting 25% from beyond the arc in college and 31% in the NBA, he jumped to over 37% this year.  I don't see that being sustainable.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see that being sustainable.  De'Aaron had a great year don't get me wrong, but I feel like we're looking at Lonzo in a lesser way since he was plagued with injuries this year that clearly hampered his effectiveness where as Fox was relatively healthy.  If Fox can't keep up his shooting clip, he's really not all that impressive.  He's essentially Ty Lawson with better defense.  I didn't hear the Fox over Ball comment from Magic, but everyone is going to have their preference.  I think there were very few people who preferred Fox to Ball even if that meant dealing with LaVar.  And I'm not sure why you won't give credit for Kuzma and Hart.  They've both outproduced their draft slots.

44 minutes ago, BoltsFan937 said:

As for the 2nd part, we probably could have had Russell/Kuzma (still sadled with Mozgov) but no Hart (Kuzma and Hart taken at 27 & 30).  So the question is, should we have even signed Lebron in the first place?  We have a guy that's 34/35 playing with a bunch of 20 year olds, never did make sense to me.  Doesn't seem like any of the big name guys want to come and pair up with Lebron and its pretty obvious no one is gonna trade with us unless we get murdered in it.  So what do we do?  Maybe everyone is wrong and guys come this year and everything is good, just doesn't look like that's realistic.  So gut our team and future 1sts for AD? Ok, who's playing point? 2? (I know you didn't bring that up, just adding it)

That's my point.  If we aren't able to unload Timofey Mozgov, the Lakers aren't able to sign LeBron James.  You can't honestly tell me that the Lakers are better off with D'Angelo Russell than they are with LeBron James.  So we're an early 20's team who at best is right outside the playoff mix with no cap space, since we'd be looking at a D'Angelo Russell extension this offseason and a Brandon Ingram extension next offseason.  Jim Buss screwed the Lakers by signing Mozgov and Deng to those bloated contracts.  At this point, the ball is literally in LeBron's court.  If LeBron can convince Kyrie or Kawhi to sign with the Lakers, we're in a pretty good position even if the Pelicans won't deal Anthony Davis.  Even if we can flip 4/Kuzma to the Wizards for Beal, that's a Irving/Beal/Ingram/LeBron/??? lineup with some good depth.  That's a pretty solid roster.  Not a great one, but one that can certainly create some issues.  I'm not a huge fan of gutting our team for Anthony Davis, and I think the Lakers would only offer up 3 of Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, and #4 in an Anthony Davis trade.  If the Lakers were able to sign Kyrie, they'd field a roster of Kyrie/???/LeBron/Kuzma/AD.  Put some shooters around those three and that's a damn good roster even with depth be damned.

49 minutes ago, BoltsFan937 said:

Ideally, I'd like to trade for Beal, preferably if we don't have to include Ingram.  I'd be ok with not signing Kemba and keeping Ball.  Ball/Beal/Ingram/Lebron we'd have Mo and re-sign Javale.  I'm not too worried about the bigs with the way the league is going.  Just watched Toronto win a game last night without scoring a point in the paint after halftime.  Houston has who Capela and PJ?  Portland has Collins/Kanter/Nurkic.  Not exactly Wilt and Elgin down there.  Golden Sate was winning with Bogut and Mo Speights, seems like we could find a guy or two to plug that hole if need be

Not sure I'd do more than 4/Kuzma for Beal.  Don't have any real reason to sign Kemba.  Quite frankly, given what he's going to likely need to leave Charlotte, I don't want to hand out a max or near max contract to him.