Phx-Suns.Net

Split T wrote:Chad Ford says we're hoping ball drops to 4 as we think he's a great fit alongside booker and will pick between Jackson, fox, and Tatum if he's gone. Implied that we prefer them in that order(Jackson then Fox then Tatum). Had us drafting fox because Jackson was off the board. Mentioned that the kings really want fox and have even considered moving 5 and 10 to get him.

Tatum + 10 > Fox. I'll take the deal.

Cap wrote:

Split T wrote:Chad Ford says we're hoping ball drops to 4 as we think he's a great fit alongside booker and will pick between Jackson, fox, and Tatum if he's gone. Implied that we prefer them in that order(Jackson then Fox then Tatum). Had us drafting fox because Jackson was off the board. Mentioned that the kings really want fox and have even considered moving 5 and 10 to get him.

Tatum + 10 > Fox. I'll take the deal.

What if you trade Bledsoe for 3 after that? Or Bledsoe + 10 for 3?

That Chad Ford blurb is exactly where I'm at after everything that's been put out there.

I do think the Kings are hot for Fox and would move up to get him.

I do think Fox is in the mix at #2 with the Lakers.

I do think the Sixers would have a tough choice choosing between Fox and Jackson (assuming Ball is off the board).

I'm not convinced the Sixers would take Ball if he's there.

I think we (the suns) know Fox is the better player, but Jackson is the better fit and would lean towards Jackson in that scenario.

I do think we love the idea of Ball and Booker in the backcourt. But knowing McD, he'll force smallball with Bledsoe, Ball and Booker until he's forced to move Bledsoe or is fired.

I wonder if we'd take Fox and then leverage him against the Kings for picks/players.

Split T wrote:Chad Ford says we're hoping ball drops to 4 as we think he's a great fit alongside booker and will pick between Jackson, fox, and Tatum if he's gone. Implied that we prefer them in that order(Jackson then Fox then Tatum). Had us drafting fox because Jackson was off the board. Mentioned that the kings really want fox and have even considered moving 5 and 10 to get him.

I would be thrilled to do that for them.

I think they're probably looking at the philly #3 pick.

ShelC wrote:I think we (the suns) know Fox is the better player, but Jackson is the better fit and would lean towards Jackson in that scenario.

I don't know about the first part. I'm much more impressed with Jackson's body of work this season than Fox's. Imagine the Fox narrative had he not had that one game against UCLA. That game seems to have elevated him to another level, but I'm very leery about attaching too much significance to any one game.

Separately, if Ball's there at 4, I think he has to be the pick.

It's not just about their respective seasons, it's how each guy will translate to the NBA. I saw Jackson getting a lot of stuff off that he just won't get off in the league be it inside and around the rin, in transition, off the dribble. It's a guard's league and if you ain't first, you're last

Shabazz wrote:

ShelC wrote:I think we (the suns) know Fox is the better player, but Jackson is the better fit and would lean towards Jackson in that scenario.

I don't know about the first part. I'm much more impressed with Jackson's body of work this season than Fox's. Imagine the Fox narrative had he not had that one game against UCLA. That game seems to have elevated him to another level, but I'm very leery about attaching too much significance to any one game.

Separately, if Ball's there at 4, I think he has to be the pick.

Kentucky also seems hold back their players skills for the greater good of their team. I think Fox is right there with Jackson as one of the top 3 players in the draft, now I would be a little surprised if we took him over Jackson/Tatum. Unless we unload Bledsoe I dont see how adding yet another guard is the right call. Our wings need help, creating shots and on the defensive end, any one of the Jackson/Tatum/Isaac fit far better than another PG.

Speaking of PG, I wouldnt at all be shocked if DSJ passes Fox after the workouts are done, went back and watched his tapes, yeesh. His game versus Duke, he was far and away the best player on the floor that night.

[youtube][/youtube]
His athleticism and ability to finish through contact is NBA ready.

https://twitter.com/Suns/status/872165406194061312 Just leaving this here.

carey wrote:https://twitter.com/Suns/status/872165406194061312 Just leaving this here.

Just saw this, knew you'd like it.

IF and its a big IF, Monk can run the PG, then he's obviously a viable option at 4. There is no denying his athleticism and jump shot. Do you try to make him a PG? Do you let him run amok ala Agent Zero and let Booker be the primary ball handler?

TheOriginalOriginal wrote: IF and its a big IF, Monk can run the PG, then he's obviously a viable option at 4. There is no denying his athleticism and jump shot. Do you try to make him a PG? Do you let him run amok ala Agent Zero and let Booker be the primary ball handler?

I don't have any answers for those questions. I actually think he's a pretty bad fit here. I just like him as a player and think he is right up there with Fultz as the most talented player in the draft. But with Booker here Monk would be a luxury and we need to address some more immediate needs. I'm reading a lot about Sac trying to move up for Fox and Philadelphia considering trading 3 for 5 & 10. I'm hearing Fox is rising fast and the Lakers may be considering to take him. Have also heard that we want Lonzo bad and some are suggest we'd even go so far as to move Bledsoe and #4 to secure him. Draft night is going to be interesting.

I will say regarding Monk that we don't have much evidence one way or the other of what he can and can't do positionally. Last year was his first year ever playing off the ball. He averaged more HS assists than Fox did. What does that mean for the NBA? I don't know. Just throwing that out there.

I think Monk/Booker works on offense. They're both such great scorers that they'd put a lot of pressure on the defense. I don't know that you'd want to play them 25 minutes a game together because the ball might stagnate a little too much, but stagger them out and play them with Bledsoe or ulis and it could work. I'm not sure where Monk is defensively, but he's kinda small. I think he'll be able to defend the 1, but not likely the 2. The creates a problem for us defensively. We'd have 4 guards and only 1(Bledsoe?) Could guard 2's.

https://twitter.com/DraftExpress/status/872179868284407809 If you read my posts you know this is one of the guys I like at #32. I know Fowl isn't as high on him and he would know since he's a Duck! I just like this kid's game and attitude. I know it largely depends on what we do at #4 but he's 6' 7" and can really shoot it. Could make an interesting fit with Booker.

I'm fearful McD's vision would be that ball-sharing backcourt with no true PG the way he envisioned Bledsoe and Dragic, then Bledsoe and Knight and then Bledsoe/Booker/Knight. I don't know that we have the overall talent, IQ or coaching to be a full motion/cutting offense with the ball swinging around rather than one PG dribbling/probing, playing PnR and setting up everyone else.

That said, Monk would be a reach at 4 IMO. If we were 6-8, I'd be more worried about Monk.

Jimmer Fridette was also a pretty impressive shooter. So I'll also just leave this here.

djy2j wrote:Jimmer Fridette was also a pretty impressive shooter. So I'll also just leave this here.

Sir, I'm not sure you can compare the athleticism of Monk to Jimmer Fredette, but I'll take your virtual glove slap and stand steadfastly.

[youtube][/youtube]

If Monk was 6'8", he would go #1 in this draft. He's a special scorer.

I think he could play with Booker for stretches. I just don't like his fit with Bled or Ulis at all. If I drafted Ball, I would work at getting Monk to pair with him, but as it stands, I wouldn't want to use the #4 on him. I mean, it's odd to draft a guy #4 if you know he's a reserve, no matter how much you like him.

Now, if he can handle, pass, and defend PG's, he's my #4 without question.

He's 6-2 and his wingspan is, according to most measurements, 6-6. So that settles that. He'll never be any good.

I get it with Monk, I just don't know that you take a 6-2 shooting guard with our pick and our roster.

ShelC wrote:He's 6-2 and his wingspan is, according to most measurements, 6-6. So that settles that. He'll never be any good.

Now, if his wingspan was 6'7...

I get it with Monk, I just don't know that you take a 6-2 shooting guard with our pick and our roster.

I think that's where most of us are on Monk.