Ballhandling is an improvable skill. So is shooting, for that matter (not for all guys, but a lot of them). You can't teach his all-quadrants athleticism, nor his elite court vision and passing ability.
This is why I'm so high on them. If they were just really athletic but had character concerns of any kind, I would be a lot more concerned about some of the issues people bring up--flaws in their games, level of competition. When I'm looking at prospects, I value intangibles, character, and work ethic very highly. The Thompson twins appear to really want to be great and appear to be very willing to put in the work to get there. That's what you need to turn raw tools into productive basketball.
Very wary of players that can't shoot. The Rockets already have **** tons of them. At some point, maybe you draft a guy that doesn't have a 5-year development profile.
When you're bad, you take the best player available IMO. Until you find your #1A superstar at least. A team like OKC can get away with being like "we can't wait a few years" because they already have a borderline top 10 player with SGA. We don't.
Kawhi Leonard has the length, tenacity, and energy of a top ten pick, to go along with being one of the top rebounders in the nation despite being a mere 6'7" freshman. Leonard has an inconsistent two-point jump shot and a very poor three-point jump shot, however, that are the only reasons he won't be drafted that high. If he projects to improve like most players do, he'll get drafted somewhere from 17-25, but if he is able to improve his jump shot a decent amount without sacrificing any other of his abilities, he could go late lottery with ease. It can be done.
It can be, but what is the chance of blindly assume a skill will just improve. Was chatting folks about software companies and what it takes to make it. They often bring up a successful company for comparison. Look at company X; (Spotify, or Slack, <insert a well known company> ...etc). "It wasn't profitable until year Y when they turned it around." But, I'm like "that's out of how many start-ups, that failed during incubation. And the nameless venture capitalists couldn't cut it in Silicon Valley and moved back home." Players can improve (or not improve) in all sorts of ways. The draft profile weakness don't disqualify them, what it does tell me is they're behind. Shooting is kind of important in basketball. NBA is a level competition higher of wherever they're coming from (college, g-league, OTE, Europe). In addition to whatever other things they have to learn after getting drafted, they have to overcome that said weakness. In today's league, defensive specialists are expected to add a '3' to their D. Bigs are expected to have a little bit of range. There are role players, but is that what you want to spend your top 6 pick on. In draft talks (and even talks about our young guys). The upside comps are bought up far more often than comparison to average players and floors. If we get 3 or lower, I'd seriously consider other options. Get someone tangible. The top 10 can have diamonds; some might end up better than Vic/Scoot. Problem is, it's really random and a crapshoot. Even Ainge and Presti are guessing. While we're getting new coaches, we currently don't have the infrastructure to properly develop them. What might end up happening is we still use the pick, but it could be just from lack of good offers. What I learned last two years from own drafts and other teams. Is that most rookies/sophmores don't live up to their draft profiles. The profiles (even from the respectable writers/scouts), is too much on their ceilings. Not actual realistic production on a NBA team in the next 3-4 years. Even when you curb it for young age + being on a bad team; they're still way too optimistic. Players can have goals of an archetype of a player they want to be, it's the writer/scout's job project what they actually do on the damn NBA court against other players. When I read; he's only 18 or 19, to me that's somewhat of a negative. Because now the responsibility is on the Team to develop these lack of experience and teaching of fundamentals. Depending on the team, it's a con than a pro. Flexibility to mold a player is far less important a priority list of things. I'd rather have a player more developed and bring more to the table.
Rokman and Invocux great posts! I’ve said all along that if the scouts are doing their jobs this guy won’t be picked anywhere near the top 3.
Ben would never be a phenomenal player he cannot shoot it's a league where you have to make shots he could have been decent.
