Probably due to his lower ceiling and lack of value at pick #3. Historically you're expecting the player drafted at #3 to have the ceiling of multiple time all-stars or franchise players. Eason's realistic ceiling is a borderline all-star OG Anunoby type or maybe slightly better. I'm not sure if many teams would trade the 3rd pick for OG, but plenty of teams will trade a 7-10th pick for OG type players. Haha I promise I wrote this myself. Thank you. IMO his ceiling is a slightly better OG Anunoby/Mikal Bridges, and maybe a level below Kawhi. Kawhi is a crazy case similar to Jokic and Draymond - just not realistic at all. When Kawhi came into the league his ceiling wasn't even Kawhi. It's crazy to me Kawhi developed into this current vision - elite shooting and dribbling/attacking, above average passer, and elite offensive/defensive IQ - didn't think it was possible. You're right that these 2 may develop into good 3&D players. They're both super raw and we don't have much tape of Leonard Miller against quality competition. Brown's advance stats (STL/BLK%, DBPM, etc) are way worse than Eason's and I'm not sure if they are on the same level as prospects. However, the draft is such a crap shoot that either one may be better than Eason. I just feel like Eason is a top 7 talent that fits perfectly with our team and right now many teams devalue things as positional versatility.
There’s no question that we should trade up in the draft but can we actually do it is another question
I think they'd probably take a Benedict Mathurin (or something like that)? Someone with a bit more "star power" potential
Last years draft has me disillusioned Green was good, the other three meh… I could do without all three of them… I don’t see any of them on a championship team (starting) I think there are only a few players every draft that will be in the league making a difference for years and you need to get them, I think MW and TE will be them, below 15/16 looks like a total crap shoot with 95% chance of being a bench player or cut from the league.
I don't know anything about Eason, but why focus on trading up? Trading up is hard. If people think he's a great prospect why not trade down for him? My guess is Portland would not hesitate to swap 3 for 7 plus picks and whatever else we want (or want to get rid of).
No argument there. Just don't want to draft a player who is going to be blocked by the player chosen ahead of him
The amount of value you'd be losing by moving from 3 to 7 would be pretty monumental, especially given that this draft is seen as a pretty clear top 3-4. If you move down, you better get a hell of a lot in return and feel like you're getting a guy who's going to have a huge impact on your franchise moving forward. I like Eason, but not "trade down from 3 to 7" like him. Houston has the assets to move up for a defensive guy in the late lottery. It's just a matter of finding the right seller and moving enough assets to get it done.
I like Miller too and would advocate drafting him if Rockets stayed at #17 and both Eason and MW were off the board. But Eason is head and shoulders the better defensive player.
Comparable to 6'8 Jae'Sean Tate with a much better 3ball. And much better rim protector. Comparing prospects to future HOFers tends to skew the discussion to extremist takes so I'd rather not pollute thread with that.
Mathurin got exposed in the combine (in my eyes anyway) he is only 6'4 without shoes lolz. Dude's projected as an SF but he is only 6'4 barely tall enough to be an SG.
At this point I have to believe @Medicine N Music works in the rockets FO and runs some of the FO ideas by us to see how much we like the move .
If Chet and Jabari do go #1 and #2, I would take Banchero at #3 and trade him to whoever takes Eason, plus future picks. This of course, assuming we can't trade up from 17 or he doesn't slide to us.
Funnily enough I think a realistic partner to trade up is our bff OKC. They will get Chet at 2, still habe 12th pick and prob have no use for Eason since they have Giddey, SGA and Dort at the wings.
I've always seen him projected more as a SG with fringe potential at SF, not as a full-fledged SF. For example, the player comparisons on Tankathon.com place him in the SG category. CBS Sports mock has him as SG, as do Sports Illustrated, NBA.com, SBNation. Some sites like NBADraft.net, TheRinger, TheAtlantic, and NBC Sports have him as a combo SG/SF or simply "Wing". But I've never seen an example of him being projected solely as a SF. Maybe some examples exist, but they would seemingly have to be few and far between. As for "barely tall enough to be a SG", well that's just a silly thing to say. He measured 6'4.5" barefoot and 6'6" in shoes. That is very much prototypical SG size, if not slightly on the high side. Harden: 6'4" (6'5.5" in shoes) Booker: 6'4" (6'5.5") Lavine: 6'4.5" (6'5.75") Beal: 6'3.25" (6'4.75") McCollum: 6'2.25" (6'3.25") Even Kobe, according to this own wife, was "only" 6'4.75" barefoot and 6'6" in shoes.
