Borges: Calhoun at Practice, Drummond to Return?

[HuskyBballFan]

It's the old argument of upside versus known production. If you're a GM, would you take Drummond or Jared Sullinger, who's also in the mix for a top 5 pick?

Sullinger is who he is. He's a very crafty 6'8'' PF who scores and rebounds extremely well for his size at the college level. He's also a guy who plays mostly below the rim and will be far from a game changing defender in the NBA. What can he really improve on over the next 5 years that will significantly change his game? I suppose he can extend his range out to the 3 point line and try and become a mini Kevin Love. But it's not like he's going to wake up in 3 years with Blake Griffin's athleticism.

Drummond of course is a completely different story. He's more likely to be a bust than Sullinger is, but he's also more likely to be a game changer. He may never become Dwight Howard, but teams are tripping over themselves to acquire centers as good as DeAndre Jordan and Tyson Chandler - guys who do two things well: 1) dunk and 2) defend the basket. Andre's not too shabby at those two things already and he's only 19.

GM's are willing to take that gamble. If you run the Bobcats or Wizards, you can take a lower upside guy like Sullinger and maybe win 3-4 more games next year since he's an upgrade over what you have, but where does that leave you - you're still in the lottery. Or you can draft Drummond and hope he develops into a monster over the next 3-4 years that can help make you a playoff team. If he doesn't work out, guess what, you're still in the lottery.

 

[Reno]

Drummond's upside is Dwight Howard. Whether or not he gets there and how far away he is from that are other stories, but the upside is you'll get a perennial All-Star and one of the top players in the game. That's why he'll go top 3 overall.

 

[Reno]

He's the type of pick you almost need to make if you're a lottery picking GM, but he's either going to turn your franchise around or cost you your job.

 

[upstater]

And never was going to be ready.

I think the biggest deciding factor for Drummond though will be the 2013 postseason ban. If it is upheld then there is no way he's coming back.

Drummond will have to decide before that decision on the 2013 postseason.

 

[Cheddie]

As much as I agree he needs another year.. it'd be irresponsible for him to stay if he was going to be a top 3 pick.

This kid did also say he was going to prep school up until 3 days before college classes started, so I wouldn't take his word as gospel.

Who knows what a young man his age will decide? And if he goes, absolutely no one should hold that decision against him. But it wouldn't be irresponsible to stay another year. He is simply so gifted that the money is always going to be there. And he's not ready for the NBA offensively. More work on his offense will help him to come into the NBA with a bang, and that's worth a lot. Not to compare AD to LeBron, but James earns well less than half his money from the Heat. You don't earn big endorsement $ sitting on the bench.

 

[Tommyboy]

Drummond will have to decide before that decision on the 2013 postseason.

and this is why we want to take a flamethrower to the NCAA.

("just a little touch up!")

 

[HuskyHawk]

It's the old argument of upside versus known production. If you're a GM, would you take Drummond or Jared Sullinger, who's also in the mix for a top 5 pick?

Sullinger is who he is. He's a very crafty 6'8'' PF who scores and rebounds extremely well for his size at the college level. He's also a guy who plays mostly below the rim and will be far from a game changing defender in the NBA. What can he really improve on over the next 5 years that will significantly change his game? I suppose he can extend his range out to the 3 point line and try and become a mini Kevin Love. But it's not like he's going to wake up in 3 years with Blake Griffin's athleticism.

Drummond of course is a completely different story. He's more likely to be a bust than Sullinger is, but he's also more likely to be a game changer. He may never become Dwight Howard, but teams are tripping over themselves to acquire centers as good as DeAndre Jordan and Tyson Chandler - guys who do two things well: 1) dunk and 2) defend the basket. Andre's not too shabby at those two things already and he's only 19.

GM's are willing to take that gamble. If you run the Bobcats or Wizards, you can take a lower upside guy like Sullinger and maybe win 3-4 more games next year since he's an upgrade over what you have, but where does that leave you - you're still in the lottery. Or you can draft Drummond and hope he develops into a monster over the next 3-4 years that can help make you a playoff team. If he doesn't work out, guess what, you're still in the lottery.

Exactly. The NBA is full of good players. But the only way to move into the group that gets to the conference finals or league finals is to have at least 2 "star" players. Drummond is a potential dominant player. Anthony Davis is the consensus #1, as the best combination of potential and current impact.

But the NBA scouts have consistently missed over the years in predicting who will become a star. Plus some drafts are very strong at the top (2003 for example). Look at 2005.

#1 Bogut (bust)
#2 Marvin Williams (solid - not a star)
#3 Deron Williams (very solid)
#4 Chris Paul (star)
#5 Ray Felton

Charlie V went #7 and Bynum #10. Drafting for potential worked. The drop off from Paul at #4 to Felton at #5 is massive. If I'm a GM, the one thing you never do is take a player who has proven he's mediocre. Hilton Armstrong at #12 in 2006? Terrible. Always draft the kids. Look at 2008. Very strong draft, and the ones that have stuck around were all Fr. and Sophomores. The Seniors and Juniors were busts. Take productive seniors in round #2. They may become solid bench players.

 

[msgordon]

There is no way he should be a number 2 pick right now. I know NBA GMs are brain dead when it comes to looking at anything other than potential, but he's an Andrew Bynum

.........

 

[Reno]

#1 Bogut (bust)
#2 Marvin Williams (solid - not a star)

Both guys are solid and both guys didn't meet expectations.

 

[aceboon]

Exactly. The NBA is full of good players. But the only way to move into the group that gets to the conference finals or league finals is to have at least 2 "star" players. Drummond is a potential dominant player. Anthony Davis is the consensus #1, as the best combination of potential and current impact.

But the NBA scouts have consistently missed over the years in predicting who will become a star. Plus some drafts are very strong at the top (2003 for example). Look at 2005.

#1 Bogut (bust)
#2 Marvin Williams (solid - not a star)
#3 Deron Williams (very solid)
#4 Chris Paul (star)
#5 Ray Felton

Charlie V went #7 and Bynum #10. Drafting for potential worked. The drop off from Paul at #4 to Felton at #5 is massive. If I'm a GM, the one thing you never do is take a player who has proven he's mediocre. Hilton Armstrong at #12 in 2006? Terrible. Always draft the kids. Look at 2008. Very strong draft, and the ones that have stuck around were all Fr. and Sophomores. The Seniors and Juniors were busts. Take productive seniors in round #2. They may become solid bench players.

Eh not to nitpick but Deron Williams is way beyond "very solid" and Marvin Williams doesn't belong in the solid category, he's a bum and the fact that ATL needed a PG and two All Stars went directly after him just makes his pick even more of a bust.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Eh not to nitpick but Deron Williams is way beyond "very solid" and Marvin Williams doesn't belong in the solid category, he's a bum and the fact that ATL needed a PG and two All Stars went directly after him just makes his pick even more of a bust.

Williams was a bad pick, but he's not a terrible player. I listed Deron Williams as "very solid" only to distinguish him from Paul. Both are guys most teams would like to have.