Phx-Suns.Net

Wormwood wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:22 am

Split T wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:17 am

jonh wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:41 am

I’d be just fine taking Hunter with the 6th pick, and focus on getting a solid PG in free agency.

It’s not exciting, but could be a smart move.

I'm not that high on Hunter as a defensive specialist tweener forward who isn't a great shooter (67 threes in 71 games) or rebounder (5.1 RPG, yech) (the two skills that best translate from college to the NBA statistically).

I HATE the idea of Coby White. Out of control chucker who doesn't play defense. But, from what I'm hearing, the Suns are zeroing in on him as their choice at #6 if they can't trade out of the pick. Not hearing any rumblings the Suns are interested in Hunter, who looks to be gone at #6 anyway.

He doubled his number of attempts this year and shot 44%. He needs his feet set and needs space, but he’s a guy you can’t leave open. His FT% bumped up to 78% as well. He may not be a great shooter, but he looks like he’ll be pretty good.

Duane Rankin from Arizona republic is the only one I’ve heard say we are interested in him.

I can't figure what will happen at 6 now that the Davis trade has gone through. The top 3 seems locked in as:

1. Zion
2. Morant
3. Barrett

Okay, then you have the Pelicans at #4. New Orleans is set at PF (Zion) and SG (Holiday). Are they set at PG with Lonzo Ball? Do they want to flip Lonzo? If they like Lonzo, they probably don't take a PG like Garland or White. If they flip him, they might go for a PG.

Then you have the Cavs at #5. They have almost no NBA talent; they should probably just take BPA. But who is that? Culver? Hunter? Do they like Reddish at all? Any word out of Cleveland's camp?

It looks like one of Hunter, Culver, or Garland is going to fall to us. Shouldn't we take one of those guys if we stick at #6? There are rumors linking us to Coby White. But why take White over Garland, who seems to be the more well-regarded PG prospect? Is it literally just because Garland signed with Klutch Sports? Are we blacklisting them entirely and any player represented by them?

Lots of reports were linking us to Brandon Clarke. But when I look at various mock drafts, if they don't have us taking him, they have him falling way down in the list, even out of the lottery. If we like him as much as is being discussed, why not trade down and get more assets and pick him later?

Of the names floated about for us, I think I'm least excited about Culver. If we take Culver, I just don't see the basketball fit with Booker. I don't think those two form a coherent backcourt together and so I don't see how Culver develops well in that setting.

I think I'm most excited about drafting somebody who can play PF for us, either Clarke or Hunter. If Hunter is available, nab him, else trade down and get Clarke, would be my choice.

If we have to take a PG, I think I'm more interested in Garland and less in White. If they know something about White that I don't, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but he doesn't strike me as my kind of PG.

Reports are we haven’t really scouted Garland and are pretty set on White if we go pg.

Pelicans probably don’t take Garland at 4 if they keep the pick(Klutch reasons). I’ve heard Culver and White to them. I’m surprised no talk of Hunter. I’d guess they end up moving the pick though.

Cavs feel like they’d take Culver or Hunter, but I’ve heard Garland mentioned there as well. Seems like a bad fit with Sexton though.

I’ve heard just about everyone for us, but I’d guess it’s one of White/Culver/Hunter.

Atlanta could easily trade up as they have 8/10/17 if they like someone. I’ve heard Hunter for them.

We definitely need to trade down if we’re after Clarke.

Danimal wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:01 am

INFORMER wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:22 pm

That would be a horrible allocation of resources.

And that’s why I can see it happening

This is exactly where I am too.

I think we are getting a role player in this draft, so I'm not too concerned with low ceilings on guys like White and Clarke. What concerns me is mentality and bball IQ. We need competitors who can play the game.

O_Gardino wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:49 am

I think we are getting a role player in this draft, so I'm not too concerned with low ceilings on guys like White and Clarke. What concerns me is mentality and bball IQ. We need competitors who can play the game.

This.

O_Gardino wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:49 am

I think we are getting a role player in this draft, so I'm not too concerned with low ceilings on guys like White and Clarke. What concerns me is mentality and bball IQ. We need competitors who can play the game.

Not as sure on White...but Culver, Hunter, Clarke all seem to check the mentality and bball iq boxes.

Split T wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:32 am

O_Gardino wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:49 am

I think we are getting a role player in this draft, so I'm not too concerned with low ceilings on guys like White and Clarke. What concerns me is mentality and bball IQ. We need competitors who can play the game.

Not as sure on White...but Culver, Hunter, Clarke all seem to check the mentality and bball iq boxes.

It wouldn't be a waste of a draft if one of those guys comes in and takes Josh Jackson's minutes as long as he plays solid ball.

O_Gardino wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:38 am

Split T wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:32 am

O_Gardino wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:49 am

I think we are getting a role player in this draft, so I'm not too concerned with low ceilings on guys like White and Clarke. What concerns me is mentality and bball IQ. We need competitors who can play the game.

Not as sure on White...but Culver, Hunter, Clarke all seem to check the mentality and bball iq boxes.

It wouldn't be a waste of a draft if one of those guys comes in and takes Josh Jackson's minutes as long as he plays solid ball.

I think there are about 395 guys in the league that would do more with Josh's minutes. Probably another 25-30 in the draft. It is crazy how bad he has been. And that is 'crazy' with like 4 syllables.

We already have two SFs to take Josh Jackson's minutes. That isn't our biggest need at all. I still do agree with the sentiment that Josh Jackson shouldn't be in the rotation, or perhaps on the roster at all.

We will see who we draft and sign but I expect Oubre to play a lot of stretch 4 minutes.

carey wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:33 pm

We will see who we draft and sign but I expect Oubre to play a lot of stretch 4 minutes.

Not saying you're wrong, but I hope we don't do that. He is 6'7", 205 lbs. That's not a power forward, at least, not for long stretches. We'll get killed on D and on the boards if he's playing 4.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:16 pm

carey wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:33 pm

We will see who we draft and sign but I expect Oubre to play a lot of stretch 4 minutes.

Not saying you're wrong, but I hope we don't do that. He is 6'7", 205 lbs. That's not a power forward, at least, not for long stretches. We'll get killed on D and on the boards if he's playing 4.

Every team plays guys like Oubre at the 4 in stretches. It’s when we don’t have another option where it hurts. Oubre is only 6’7 but he’s a very good athlete and has a 7’2 wingspan. He showed some pretty decent rim protection skills as well.

If he’s out there and the other team goes big and starts crushing us on the boards, we just need to be able to adjust and have someone else who can play the 4. That was our problem last year, all our options at the 4 were small ball 4’s.

Split T wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:27 pm

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:16 pm

carey wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:33 pm

We will see who we draft and sign but I expect Oubre to play a lot of stretch 4 minutes.

Not saying you're wrong, but I hope we don't do that. He is 6'7", 205 lbs. That's not a power forward, at least, not for long stretches. We'll get killed on D and on the boards if he's playing 4.

Every team plays guys like Oubre at the 4 in stretches. It’s when we don’t have another option where it hurts. Oubre is only 6’7 but he’s a very good athlete and has a 7’2 wingspan. He showed some pretty decent rim protection skills as well.

If he’s out there and the other team goes big and starts crushing us on the boards, we just need to be able to adjust and have someone else who can play the 4. That was our problem last year, all our options at the 4 were small ball 4’s.

There's no way we keep both Bridges and Oubre without playing them together for stretches. The trouble with rebounding is when we have Booker / Bridges / Oubre all out there together. Ayton can't do it all himself.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:31 pm

We already have two SFs to take Josh Jackson's minutes. That isn't our biggest need at all. I still do agree with the sentiment that Josh Jackson shouldn't be in the rotation, or perhaps on the roster at all.

It's not about what our biggest need is. In this draft, the BPA at 6 may be a role player. It's about getting the value that is there.

I believe there's a non-zero percent chance that Oubre is the starting 4 on opening night.

Flagrant Fowl wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:36 pm

I believe there's a non-zero percent chance that Oubre is the starting 4 on opening night.

The big question in that situation is who would be the starting 1 on opening night? How much would a Dinwiddie/Johnson of rotation move the needle on this team?

Flagrant Fowl wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:36 pm

I believe there's a non-zero percent chance that Oubre is the starting 4 on opening night.

Better than Ariza.

Shabazz wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:10 pm

Flagrant Fowl wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:36 pm

I believe there's a non-zero percent chance that Oubre is the starting 4 on opening night.

Better than Ariza.

That's a low bar.

jonh wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:07 pm

Flagrant Fowl wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:36 pm

I believe there's a non-zero percent chance that Oubre is the starting 4 on opening night.

The big question in that situation is who would be the starting 1 on opening night? How much would a Dinwiddie/Johnson of rotation move the needle on this team?

just having Tyler Johnson for 65-75 games this year would be a huge improvement on this team. He only played 13 games for us last year. We went 5-8 in that stretch, and the first 4-5 games he was coming into a brand new offense and trying to run it. Heck, even if you talk all 13 games at 5-8 and project for a season, that is 31-32 wins.

I think if Dinwiddie is on this team, he is starting next to Book, though.