Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...had&id=2096792

    Grading the NBA Draft, from A+ to all the rest



    By Chad Ford
    ESPN Insider
    Archive




    See ESPN.com's updated depth charts

    We've billed this year's NBA Draft as being the deepest and most unpredictable in recent memory, and it certainly lived up to that billing.

    After the first eight picks (of which we pegged seven correctly in our final mock draft), the draft went a bit haywire.

    Lottery prospects like Danny Granger and Gerald Green slid fast.

    Problem cases like Charlie Villanueva and Rashad McCants got love in the lottery.

    Second-round prospects like Nate Robinson and Jason Maxiell made their way into the first round. So did France's Ian Mahinmi -- yes, Mr. Mahinmi made it.

    Former first-round locks like Martynas Andriuskevicus, Andray Blatche and Chris Taft went into freefall, all the way into the netherworld of the second round.

    The second round became Bizzaro World, as Ricky Sanchez, Bracey Wright, Cenk Akyol, Von Wafer and Alex Acker got drafted and Randolph Morris, Matt Walsh, Kennedy Winston, Dwyane Jones, Sean Banks, John Gilchrist, Eddie Basden, Will Bynum, Jawad Williams, Angelo Gigli and Keleena Azubuike found themselves unloved and undrafted.

    So did your team score?

    Here are our grades for each of the 30 teams:



    ATLANTA HAWKS
    Round 1: Marvin Williams, SF, UNC (No. 2)

    Round 2: Salim Stoudamire, SG, Arizona (No. 31)

    Round 2: Cenk Akyol, G, Turkey (No. 59, from San Antonio)

    Analysis: Can't slam the team that ended up with the best player in the draft, but something just doesn't seem right. Passing on Chris Paul and Deron Williams may come back to haunt the Hawks if they can't land a decent point guard in free agency or via trade. Marvin was a want. Paul and Williams were needs.

    They blew their second chance at a lead guard in the second round. They had a shot to land Croatian point guard Roko Ukic at 31 and instead took an undersized shooter in Stoudamire who duplicates what Tony Delk already does for them.

    Grade: B



    BOSTON CELTICS
    Round 1: Gerald Green, SG, Gulf Shores Academy (No. 18)

    Round 2: Ryan Gomes, SF, Providence (No. 50)

    Round 2: Orien Greene, PG, Lafayette (No. 53, from Sacramento)

    Analysis: Danny Ainge pulled off one of the best drafts of 2004, but he topped himself this year -- and he got two guys named Green/Greene to boot.

    Gerald Green should have been a top six pick in the draft based on his talent and potential. Al Jefferson from last year's draft and Green from this year's draft could be superstars down the road.

    Gomes was a guy the team seriously considered with the 18th pick and should become a big part of their young core, along with Delonte West and Tony Allen.

    Grade: A+



    CHARLOTTE BOBCATS
    Round 1: Raymond Felton, PG, North Carolina (No. 5)

    Round 1: Sean May, PF, North Carolina (No. 13)

    Round 2: None

    Analysis: Bernie Bickerstaff played it safe and went with two local college stars who will contribute right away and generate ticket sales.

    But did Bickerstaff play it too safe? He passed on players with more upside at No. 5 and it's unclear how May will fit alongside Emeka Okafor, Primoz Brezec and Melvin Ely on the front line.

    As with last year's bold move to No. 2, they could have traded the No. 5 and No. 13 picks to the Blazers to get their hands on local favorite Chris Paul, who brings more to the floor than Felton and May combined. Instead, the Bobcats are merely filling the team with solid players with good backgrounds.

    After drafting in the top five its first two years, Charlotte is still a franchise that needs a true superstar to build the team around.

    Grade: B



    CHICAGO BULLS
    Round 1: None

    Round 2: None

    Analysis: No picks this year.

    Grade: Incomplete



    CLEVELAND CAVALIERS
    Round 1: None

    Round 2: Martynas Andriuskevicius (No. 44, from the Magic)

    Analysis: Owner Dan Gilbert couldn't stand to sit this one out.

    He started by shipping Jiri Welsch to the Bucks for a 2006 second-rounder (remember when they gave up a first-rounder for him four months ago?), then they purchased the draft rights to Martynas Andriuskevicius from the Magic. Andriuskevicius was once pegged as a top five pick. Getting him for some cash could turn out to be a big steal down the road.

    Grade: B



    DALLAS MAVERICKS
    Round 1: None

    Round 2: None

    Analysis: No picks this year.

    Grade: Incomplete



    DENVER NUGGETS
    Round 1: Julius Hodge, SG, NC State (No. 20, from Washington via Orlando)

    Round 1: Linas Kleiza, SF, Missouri (No. 27, from Dallas via Utah and Portland)

    Round 2: Ricky Sanchez, SF, IMG Academy (No. 35, from Portland)

    Round 2: Axel Hervelle, PF, Spain (No. 52)

    Analysis: The Nuggets landed two quality players in Hodge and Kleiza and two prospects for the future in Sanchez and Hervelle. All have a lot of talent. Hodge and Kleiza have that toughness that George Karl loves.

    But I wonder if the Nuggets missed the target here. The Nuggets needed a big-time shooter to play the three and a center to help spell Marcus Camby. They landed neither even though there were intriguing prospects on the board.

    For instance, Francisco Garcia and Johan Petro might have been a better combo for them.

    It wasn't a disastrous draft by any stretch of the imagination, but it wasn't all that it could have been either.

    Grade: B-



    DETROIT PISTONS
    Round 1: Jason Maxiell, PF, Cincinnati (No. 26)

    Round 2: Amir Johnson, PF, Westchester HS (No. 56)

    Round 2: Alex Acker, G, Pepperdine (No. 60, from Utah via Philadelphia)

    Analysis: Joe Dumars knows what he likes. He identified Maxiell early and knew he'd be a great fit on Detroit's squad. He's a mini-Ben Wallace who plays with an intensity and aggression that's rarely seen in the league.

    The Pistons went for upside in the late second round and will probably send Johnson and Acker to the NBDL next year.

    Grade: B



    GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS
    Round 1: Ike Diogu, PF, Arizona State (No. 9)

    Round 2: Monta Ellis, PG, Lainier HS (No. 40)

    Round 2: Chris Taft, PF, Pittsburgh (No. 42 from LA Clippers via New Jersey)

    Analysis: I must be getting a warm place in my heart for the Warriors.

    First it was Andris Biedrins. Then the Baron Davis trade.

    And now they've put together a very solid draft that gets them some serious help on the boards from Diogu and Taft and a young prospect who could eventually back up Davis and Jason Richardson in the backcourt.

    Some will say the Warriors took Diogu too high. I don't think so. I think the Elton Brand comparisons could be dead on. He'll add much needed toughness and rebounding up front and he's more skilled than teams give him credit for.

    We've been tough on Taft most of the year, but in the second round he's a steal. If he plays with a chip on his shoulder, he could end up being the best pick the Warriors made on Tuesday.

    Grade: A-



    HOUSTON ROCKETS
    Round 1: Luther Head, PG, Illinois (No. 24)

    Round 2:

    Analysis: The Rockets needed a point guard and got, in my estimation, one of the two or three most underrated prospects in the draft at No. 24. Head has the athleticism, jump shot and experience to be a long-term solution for the Rockets at the point. He should have a long career ahead of him.

    Grade: A



    INDIANA PACERS
    Round 1: Danny Granger, SF, New Mexico (No. 17)

    Round 2: Erazem Lorbek, PF, Slovenia (No. 46)

    Analysis: To put this into perspective, had Utah not moved up to No. 3, the Jazz had planned to select Granger with the No. 6 pick in the draft. As it stands, the Pacers, who were trying to move up all night, did nothing ... and watched Granger fall into their lap at No. 17.

    Granger is the perfect fit for what the Pacers like to do. He is versatile, can shoot and handle the ball, and most importantly can defend three positions. He may be one of the five best prospects in the draft and one of the few who is ready to come in and contribute immediately. Adding Granger gives the Pacers' title hopes a pretty big shot in the arm.

    In the second round, the Pacers landed a guy many believe is the top young player in Europe. He's not flashy, but Larry Bird loves him. In a few years, after an extended stay in Europe, he could become a fixture in Indiana.

    Grade: A+



    LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS
    Round 1: Yaroslav Korolev, SF, Russia (No. 12)

    Round 2: Daniel Ewing, PG, Duke (No. 32, from Charlotte)

    Analysis: Yaroslav Korolev may turn into a Toni Kukoc type of player in three or four years, but it's hard to understand why the Clippers, on the verge of being a serious contender for the playoffs, would pass on the immediate help (and upside) that Danny Granger or Antoine Wright would have brought to the team. The problem appears to be that the Clippers made a promise to a player who didn't quite deserve one.

    Ewing was a solid second-round pick who'll be able to play both guard positions backing up Shaun Livingston and Bobby Simmons.

    Grade: C



    LOS ANGELES LAKERS
    Round 1: Andrew Bynum, C, St. Joseph HS (No. 10)

    Round 2: Ronny Turiaf, PF, Gonzaga (No. 37, from Charlotte)

    Round 2: Von Wafer, SG, Florida State (No. 39)

    Analysis: If Andrew Bynum turns into the dominant big man that the Lakers believe he could be, the Lakers deserve an A+ for the draft. If he turns into the next DeSagana Diop, they get an F.

    Given that Phil Jackson wants to win now, it's a little surprising they passed on guys like Granger or May.

    Turiaf was a solid second-round pick and Wafer has enough talent to make it worth the Lakers' gamble.

    Grade: B



    MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES
    Round 1: Hakim Warrick, PF, Syracuse (No. 19)

    Round 2: Lawrence Roberts, PF, Mississippi St. (No. 55, from Seattle)

    Analysis: The team debated whether to take Warrick or Julius Hodge. Both are typical Jerry West players: They went to school for four years, play hard and like to win. I didn't see Warrick as a lottery pick, but he makes more sense here. The issue now is that there's a pretty big logjam at the forward position in Memphis, with Pau Gasol, James Posey, Shane Battier and Brian Cardinal all in front of Warrick. But he should make a nice long-term replacement for Stromile Swift.

    Drafting Roberts in the second round will give them a solid, albeit undersized rebounder.

    Grade: B



    MIAMI HEAT
    Round 1: Wayne Simien, PF, Kansas (No. 29)

    Round 2: None

    Analysis: When you're drafting at No. 29, you expect to get a role player. The Heat exceeded their own expectations, we're sure. Simien is an upgrade over last season's starting power forward, restrictred free agent Udonis Haslem. If he can stay healthy, Simien could be a productive scorer and rebounder in Miami and serves as a great insurance policy should Haslem bolt in free agency. The Heat couldn't have done any better with their pick.

    Grade: A



    MILWAUKEE BUCKS
    Round 1: Andrew Bogut, C, Utah (No. 1)

    Round 2: Ersan Ilyasova, SF, Turkey (No. 36)

    Analysis: Thanks to this draft, the Bucks could be looking at their starting frontcourt of the future.

    Bogut will come in immediately and take over the starting center position. He might not be destined to be a superstar, but he should be a top 10 center in the league his rookie year and work his way into the top five eventually.

    Ilyasova is a longer-term project, but he has lottery talent that was obscured by an ankle injury last year. He plans on staying in the U.S. and learning his trade with the Bucks, perhaps in the NBDL. If he lives up to his potential, he could be a Andrei Kirilenko type of forward for the Bucks and the perfect complement on the front line to the less athletic Bogut.

    While I still think they should have taken Marvin Williams with the first pick, it's awfully tough to take issue with what they did.

    Grade: A



    MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES
    Round 1: Rashad McCants, SG, North Carolina (No. 14)

    Round 2: Bracey Wright, G, Indiana (No. 47)

    Analysis: The Wolves made their first lottery pick since 1998 and swung for the fences. McCants is a high risk, high reward player, a top five talent who had a number of issues that hurt his stock. He could step in and immediately replace Latrell Sprewell at the two if he stays healthy (he has stomach issues) and gets on new coach Dwane Casey's good side. Or he could be a bust.

    The Wright pick in the second round is shakier. He's undersized, like McCants, but he can't create his own shot.

    Grade: B-



    NEW JERSEY NETS
    Round 1: Antoine Wright, SG, Texas A&M (No. 15)

    Round 2: Mile Ilic, C, Yugoslavia (No. 43)

    Analysis: The Nets made an interesting choice. They clearly needed another big man and Hakim Warrick, one of their favorites, was on the board. They also needed some shooting and both Antoine Wright and Danny Granger had slid to them. What I don't understand is why they didn't split the difference and grab Granger. He could have been a three or a four in the Nets' system and would have added great defense, toughness and sharp-shooting to the team. Nothing against Wright, but I think Granger was a better prospect.

    Ilic is a solid prospect in the second round. In a few years, he could be part of the answer in the middle for New Jersey.

    Grade: B





    NEW ORLEANS HORNETS
    Round 1: Chris Paul, PG, Wake Forest (No. 4)

    Round 2: Brandon Bass, PF, LSU (No. 33)

    Analysis: Landing the best point guard in the draft and a sleeper power forward in the second? Nice. Things couldn't have gone much better for New Orleans. Well, the Raptors could've taken their offer of Jamaal Magloire for the No. 7 and the No. 16 and the Hornets could've really started rebuilding. Still, it's not horrible that the Raptors turned them down.

    With Paul, Magloire and J.R. Smith, the Hornets have a great core and plenty of cap room to fill in the blanks at the three and four.

    Grade: A



    NEW YORK KNICKS
    Round 1: Channing Frye, C, Arizona (No. 8)

    Round 1: Nate Robinson, PG, Washington (No. 21, from Chicago via Phoenix)

    Round 1: David Lee, PF, Florida (No. 30, from Phoenix via San Antonio)

    Analysis: The Knicks have been the worst drafting team in the NBA over the last decade, according to our John Hollinger.

    Isiah Thomas did a good job of reversing course on Tuesday. He may have taken Frye a bit high, but you can't blame him. The Knicks needed size and Frye was clearly the best center on the board at No. 8.

    I really like the Robinson pick. He's an electric player who will, if nothing else, keep Knicks fans interested next year.

    Lee was a safe pick at the end of the first round, though I think Isiah could have afforded to take a risk at No. 30 with a high school player like Andray Blatche.

    Overall, it was a solid performance for the Knicks.

    Grade: B+



    ORLANDO MAGIC
    Round 1: Fran Vazquez, PF, Spain (No. 11)

    Round 2: Travis Diener, PG, Marquette (No. 38, from Toronto)

    Round 2: Marcin Gortat, C, Poland (No. 57, from New Orleans via Phoenix)

    Analysis: Orlando pulled one of the surprises of the draft when it drafted Vazquez at No. 11, because no one knew the team was even interested. But it's a good pick for the Magic. They needed size and toughness in the paint and Vazquez can provide that right away. I'm a little surprised they didn't take a swingman who can shoot the ball, but obviously they felt like they couldn't afford to pass on a big.

    Diener is an interesting pick in the second round to play behind Jameer Nelson, another small point guard. I wonder if this means that Steve Francis is done playing the point (or just done in Orlando).

    The Magic also acquired Gortat, an athletic center from Poland who should be a great fit in the Magic's up-tempo offense.

    Grade: B



    PHILADELPHIA 76ERS
    Round 1: None

    Round 2: Louis Williams, SG, South Gwinnett HS (No. 45)

    Analysis: I don't understand this pick by Philly. Williams is an Iverson knockoff. But wasn't Willie Green the same thing? And isn't Iverson the real thing?

    Williams is so far away from being an NBA player you have to wonder whether he's really worth the Sixers' time. He'll always be an athletic two guard who's undersized.

    Grade: C-



    PHOENIX SUNS


    Round 2: Dijon Thompson, SF, UCLA (No. 54, from Houston via New York)

    Analysis: The team traded away the draft rights to both Nate Robinson and Marcin Gortat and picked up the rights to Dijon Thompson.

    Thompson is a good fit for the Suns, but Robinson and Gortat were better. I know that the Suns made this trade to get the Knicks to pull the trigger on the Quentin Richardson-for-Kurt Thomas swap and to give themselves a better chance to bring back Joe Johnson, but it's still unfortunate for basketball fans that we didn't get to see what Robinson could do in the Suns' run-and-gun system.

    For the second straight year, it's a wash on draft night for Phoenix.

    Grade: C



    PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS
    Round 1: Martell Webster, SG, Seattle Prep (No. 6, from Utah)

    Round 1: Jarrett Jack, PG, Georgia Tech (No. 22, from Denver)

    Analysis: The Blazers didn't need a point guard and did the right thing by moving out. But did they take the right guys? I love Webster, but am not sure he's really as good a prospect as fellow high school star Gerald Green. He's more ready, but his ceiling is a little lower. That said, I think Webster is a pretty good pick here. He could be a Glen Rice-type player and give the Blazers some much-needed shooting.

    Adding Jack via trade with another first-round pick was a nice move. He should help relieve a lot of the pressure on Sebastian Telfair.

    Grade: B+



    SACRAMENTO KINGS
    Round 1: Francisco Garcia, SG, Louisville (No. 23)

    Round 2:

    Analysis: Didn't the Kings make this same pick last year when they selected Kevin Martin in the late first round? Martin is a long swingman who can shoot and score. Garcia is a long swingman who can shoot and score. Garcia is an upgrade over Martin, but not by that much. I have to wonder if the Kings weren't better off trying to add some size. Johan Petro, Wayne Simien, David Lee and Chris Taft were all available when the Kings picked.

    Grade: C+



    SAN ANTONIO SPURS
    Round 1: Ian Mahinmi, PF, France (No. 28)

    Round 2:

    Analysis: I wish I could say that I knew everything there is to know about Mahinmi, but the truth is that the information on him is sketchy. Normally that would raise eyebrows in a first-round pick, but given the Spurs' fantastic track record in recent drafts, it's hard to second guess them. He's a long, athletic big man who plays defense already. He's a long-term project, but given the success of their other projects, Manu Ginobili and Luis Scola (who should be arriving in San Antonio soon), the Spurs have shown what upside is all about.

    Grade: Incomplete





    SEATTLE SUPERSONICS
    Round 1: Johan Petro, C, France (No. 25)

    Round 2: Mickael Gelabale, SF, France (No. 48, from Memphis)

    Analysis: I think the Sonics did a great job getting maximum value late in the first round. Both Petro and Gelabale have great potential and the Sonics have the option of bringing them to the U.S. or continuing to develop their game in Europe. Look for Petro to come now and Gelabale to come later.

    In three or four years, we may look back at what the Sonics did as some of the best moves of the draft.

    Grade: B+



    TORONTO RAPTORS
    Round 1: Charlie Villanueva, PF, Connecticut (No. 7)

    Round 1: Joey Graham, SF, Oklahoma State (No. 16, from Philadelphia via Denver and New Jersey)

    Round 2: Roko Ukic, PG, Croatia (No. 41, from Orlando)

    Round 2: Uros Slokar, PF, Slovenia (No. 58, from Miami)

    Analysis: What are Rob Babcock and Co. thinking?

    Last year they really reached for big man Rafael Araujo at No. 8 and paid a huge price. So what did they do this year at No. 7? They really reached for a talented but troubled big man who happens to play the same position as their best player, Chris Bosh. Villanueva has the skills to be worthy of a top-seven pick, but it's questionable whether he'll ever have the attitude or drive. Even if he does get it together, why not take a more sensible route and address their problems at center, point guard or small forward? I just don't get it.

    They compounded the mistake by taking Graham over Danny Granger, given that I haven't talked to one scout who had Graham rated over Granger. Babcock talked about improving the team's defense, but Granger is actually a superior defender and a much better offensive player. Passing on Granger at No. 16 was inexcusable.

    They saved themselves from a grade of F by landing Ukic, a guy they flirted with at 16, with the 41st pick. Ukic has the ability to come in and dethrone Rafer Alston at the point immediately. He's a great second-round pick.

    Grade: D+



    UTAH JAZZ
    Round 1: Deron Williams, PG, Illinois (No. 3, from Portland)

    Round 2: C.J. Miles, SG, Skyline HS (No. 34)

    Round 2: Robert Whaley, C, Walsh (No. 51, from Chicago via Houston)

    Analysis: GM Kevin O'Connor did the right thing by swapping the No. 6 and No. 27 pick (along with a future first-rounder from Detroit) to the Blazers for the No. 3. I think they should've gone with Chris Paul, but it's hard to criticize the selection of Deron Williams, who may be a little bit better fit in their system.

    I'm not a huge fan of either of their second-round picks. Miles is a project and Whaley is interesting, but he's got enough background issues to scare Dennis Rodman. How's that going to fly in Utah?

    Grade: A-



    WASHINGTON WIZARDS
    Round 1: None

    Round 2: Andray Blatche, PF, South Kent Prep (No. 49)

    Analysis: Armed with just one second-round pick, the Wizards made the most of it. Blatche has the talent to have warranted a mid first-round selection. He's long, athletic and skilled, and he has heart. I have no idea how he slipped this far, but it turned out to be a great second-round pick for the Wizards.

    Grade: B+




    House Name: Pacers

    House Sigil:



    House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

  • #2
    Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

    Thanks for posting this.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

      Is anybody else really scared of how good Boston might be in 4-5 years.

      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

        Originally posted by Kegboy
        Is anybody else really scared of how good Boston might be in 4-5 years.

        No, cause they'll blow it. They'll start trading it all away.
        House Name: Pacers

        House Sigil:



        House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

          Originally posted by Kegboy
          Is anybody else really scared of how good Boston might be in 4-5 years.

          I was scared BEFORE this draft with Jefferson, West, Banks, etc.

          Amazingly, in 2 years Danny Ainge has gone from being the worst GM in the league to one of the best. Does that mean there's still hope for Isiah?
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
            I was scared BEFORE this draft with Jefferson, West, Banks, etc.

            Amazingly, in 2 years Danny Ainge has gone from being the worst GM in the league to one of the best. Does that mean there's still hope for Isiah?
            I can't see it. Isiah is on a whole other playing field. Then again, stranger things have happened
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

              It's kind of a cop out for Chad Ford to give a grade of "incomplete" to the Spurs -- eventhough they did make a pick -- just because he doesn't know much about their pick, Ian Mahinmi, but assumes they know what they're doing since they have such a good track record with picking international players.

              The ESPN guys last night gave the Spurs the same kid gloves treatment, while lighting into other teams' equally risky/unknown picks.
              "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
              -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

                I just think that Danny Ainge is a master at the NBA draft and evaluating young talent.

                This is 2 drafts in a row he has aced.

                I think he really would like to trade Paul Pierce eventually, and just build his team around these young guys. As long as Pierce is there, that's going to be difficult to do.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

                  Ford should have given himself a F for his Final Mock Draft that he did the day before.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

                    Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                    I just think that Danny Ainge is a master at the NBA draft and evaluating young talent.

                    This is 2 drafts in a row he has aced.

                    I think he really would like to trade Paul Pierce eventually, and just build his team around these young guys. As long as Pierce is there, that's going to be difficult to do.
                    I'm not sure I'd go that far. Its not like Ainge did anything special to get Green. He just slipped down that far. It was a no-brainer.
                    House Name: Pacers

                    House Sigil:



                    House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

                      Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                      I just think that Danny Ainge is a master at the NBA draft and evaluating young talent.

                      This is 2 drafts in a row he has aced.

                      I think he really would like to trade Paul Pierce eventually, and just build his team around these young guys. As long as Pierce is there, that's going to be difficult to do.
                      How can you say he "aced" it when either Granger or Green was going to fall into his lap? Both the Pacers and Celtics were extremely fortunate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

                        Yes, Green fell to Ainge, just like Granger fell to us. You don't give anybody "props" for having a guy fall into your lap.

                        That said, the second round is always terribly underrated. Back in the day we got Tony and Freddie in the 2nd. Today, with all the "upside" picks, you get future stars like Arenas and Boozer falling down there.

                        Anyway, my point is, you have to give props to Larry for taking Lobek, as well as Ainge credit for taking Gnomes. The second round is an absolute crap shoot, and it's easy to screw up royally. Just look at Minny taking Bracey Wright.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Chad Ford's Insider Draft Grades

                          Originally posted by Harmonica
                          How can you say he "aced" it when either Granger or Green was going to fall into his lap? Both the Pacers and Celtics were extremely fortunate.

                          He aced 2004, and he had an excellent second round this year.

                          So what if Green fell into his lap?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X