2017 NBA Draft

[Gil Dobie]

Most mock drafts have Lonzo Ball going #2 to the Lakers.

Timberwovles getting Lauri Markkanen, unless the 76ers pass on Tatum and take Monk. Isaac was on their list, but he won't workout for any team below #4 in the draft.

[Gil Dobie]

There is also rumors the Wolves will trade Wiggins & Rubio for Jimmy Butler and Chicago's pick. Rumors out there that low key Wiggins doesn't like coach Thibs. Butler would replace Wiggins in the lineup, and the Wolves would then need a point guard to replace Rubio, possibly Dennis Smith with the #7 pick.

[clenz]

There is also rumors the Wolves will trade Wiggins & Rubio for Jimmy Butler and Chicago's pick. Rumors out there that low key Wiggins doesn't like coach Thibs. Butler would replace Wiggins in the lineup, and the Wolves would then need a point guard to replace Rubio, possibly Dennis Smith with the #7 pick.

Done.

I like Wiggins but he isn't progressing like I thought he would. Getting Butler for him is a no-brainer. The Bulls wanted Dunn/Lavine last year for him at this time.

Butler is only 27. Wiggins is 22. That's not a major difference. Depends on how KAT and Lavine react to the move.

I like Rubio though, but his time isn't long in Minnesota.

[GannonFan]

All pretty much depends on what the Lakers do at #2. Boston, or anyone they would trade with (I don't think a trade for #1 is likely) are picking Fultz. If the Lakers pass on Ball, do they take Fox or Jackson. If they take Jackson, you could see the Kings trade #5 and #10 to the Sixers for #3 so they can take Fox. That's the best scenario for the Sixers, IMO - let's them decide to pick either Ball or Monk at #5 (I think Phoenix takes Tatum at #4 in that scenario) and then get another guy at #10. If the Lakers take Fox then I think the Sixers stay put and take Jackson or Ball (I'm not against taking Ball).

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Ball is a bust

[GannonFan]

Ball is a bust

Could be, but I think it depends on what you see him as. I question his ability to play defense, that's where I see the biggest issue. I think a shooter is a shooter, no matter how funky it looks. He's proven he can make shots, so I don't think that's a bust. Tim Hardaway had one of the ugliest shots you'll ever see, but the ball went in and that's what matters. I think Ball is a great ball-handler and a passer and creator, so those are all plusses. It depends what your team needs and how they can address/cover over the deficiency that Ball will have defensively.

With that said, I think if the Sixers are down at #5 after trading with the Kings then it comes down to whether they want Monk or Ball - I might take Monk in that case.

[bluehenbillk]

Supposedly the Sixers trading #3 to the Kings for 5 & 10 is a sports talk radio dream. Adrian Wojnarowski said there is next to no chance of that deal happening from the Kings end.

[GannonFan]

Supposedly the Sixers trading #3 to the Kings for 5 & 10 is a sports talk radio dream. Adrian Wojnarowski said there is next to no chance of that deal happening from the Kings end.

I'm okay with that - from the Sixers end there's going to start to be a numbers problem - the roster's just not big enough to hold all these players. They have four 2nd round picks and there's no way they hold onto all of those picks either. Heck, they still have Furkan on a draft and stash over in Turkey and they're fine with him staying there for another year so that they can find room for him.

For me, at #3, I'd pick in the following order of preference: Fultz (won't be there), Fox (could be there), Jackson (could be there), Ball, (could be there), Tatum (will be there), Monk (will be there). So basically, I'm taking Fox or Jackson, depending on who's there. With that said, if Fox is there at #3 you have to think the Kings will be calling, no matter what Wojo says.

[GannonFan]

Here's an odd one, and first time I saw it - granted, SI's talking about best fit for every team - how about Lauri Markkanen going to the Sixers at #3? Seems way too high for it, but I wonder if he would fit. Sixers just need guys who can shoot right now, and apparently he can do that. Interesting.

[Gil Dobie]

Latest rumor, Phlly trading a future #1 and #3 to Boston for #1 to take Fultz or Jackson. Lakers also had a good workout of Fultz, and may want to move up to pick him.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Whoever drafts Zach Collins is getting the gem of this draft.

[Ivytalk]

Latest rumor, Phlly trading a future #1 and #3 to Boston for #1 to take Fultz or Jackson. Lakers also had a good workout of Fultz, and may want to move up to pick him.

Deal now done. We'll see how it works out.

[GannonFan]

Latest rumor, Phlly trading a future #1 and #3 to Boston for #1 to take Fultz or Jackson. Lakers also had a good workout of Fultz, and may want to move up to pick him.

Deal now done. We'll see how it works out.

Yup, seems to be a trade that will work well for the Sixers - only give up one #1 pick (not counting the swap this year) and if Fultz can translate his shooting from college to the NBA then they should have the type of guard they need to play with Simmons. A starting lineup of Fultz, Embiid, Simmons, Bayless (already have), and Saric (or a stretch-4 like him and have Saric be the 6th guy off the bench), along with a bench that has Covington and Holmes and others would put the Sixers in the playoffs next year with the promise of more to come. Worth the roll of the dice.

[Gil Dobie]

Whoever drafts Zach Collins is getting the gem of this draft.

I would like to see the Timberwolves trade down and draft Collins. Rumors of the Jimmy Butler trade rearing it's ugly head again this year.

[VictorG]

Latest rumor, Phlly trading a future #1 and #3 to Boston for #1 to take Fultz or Jackson. Lakers also had a good workout of Fultz, and may want to move up to pick him.

Deal now done. We'll see how it works out.

I really like the trade. the Celtics need help in the front court and better 3 point scoring....Very interested to see who they pick...

[93henfan]

Did the Sixers' pick get a season-ending lower body injury yet?

[UNI88]

Deal now done. We'll see how it works out.

I really like the trade. the Celtics need help in the front court and better 3 point scoring....Very interested to see who they pick...

IMO it was a very good trade for the Celtics. There is no sure fire #1 or #2 pick and the order of the top 4-5 picks is questionable so it's entirely possible that the Celtics could get a better player at #3 then the 76ers do at #1 and they pick up a future #1.

[GannonFan]

I really like the trade. the Celtics need help in the front court and better 3 point scoring....Very interested to see who they pick...

IMO it was a very good trade for the Celtics. There is no sure fire #1 or #2 pick and the order of the top 4-5 picks is questionable so it's entirely possible that the Celtics could get a better player at #3 then the 76ers do at #1 and they pick up a future #1.

It's good for both. Fultz wouldn't improve the Celtics one bit - they would still have the same holes that cost them dearly when they were run over by the Cavs this year. They need people who can play defense and they need more interior help. And if that guy can score a little bit that would help too. Either Jackson or Tatum is the guy they should be looking for and picking them later in the draft saves a little in payroll. They already have Fultz-type players in who they have - adding more of them doesn't fix the other holes. And yes, they get the Lakers pick next year (seems likely, but not outside the realm of possibility that it stays with the Sixers and they get the pick the next year) to use or trade - considering the number of pick the Celts have they might need to trade it or other ones.

For the Sixers, it's good as well, assuming that Fultz is the player people believe he is. If he can shoot the 3 around 40%, play the pick and roll, penetrate with the dribble, and play defense against the point, then it's a win for the Sixers because they don't have that and none of the other guards in the draft could do all of that well enough. He fits the hole nicely that the Sixers have. Giving up the Lakers pick next year isn't the end of the world - the Sixers still have their pick and they still have Furkan coming over next year (he was a first round pick last year in a draft and stash). Roster spots are becoming a premium for the Sixers as they already have a lot of potentially good young players on the roster. Spreading things out isn't a bad idea.

[GannonFan]

Did the Sixers' pick get a season-ending lower body injury yet?

There's still time.

[VictorG]

Don't the Celtics now have something like 7 first round draft picks in the next 4 years? Something crazy anyway unless they bundle and trade for an existing player...

[UNI88]

IMO it was a very good trade for the Celtics. There is no sure fire #1 or #2 pick and the order of the top 4-5 picks is questionable so it's entirely possible that the Celtics could get a better player at #3 then the 76ers do at #1 and they pick up a future #1.

It's good for both. Fultz wouldn't improve the Celtics one bit - they would still have the same holes that cost them dearly when they were run over by the Cavs this year. They need people who can play defense and they need more interior help. And if that guy can score a little bit that would help too. Either Jackson or Tatum is the guy they should be looking for and picking them later in the draft saves a little in payroll. They already have Fultz-type players in who they have - adding more of them doesn't fix the other holes. And yes, they get the Lakers pick next year (seems likely, but not outside the realm of possibility that it stays with the Sixers and they get the pick the next year) to use or trade - considering the number of pick the Celts have they might need to trade it or other ones.

For the Sixers, it's good as well, assuming that Fultz is the player people believe he is. If he can shoot the 3 around 40%, play the pick and roll, penetrate with the dribble, and play defense against the point, then it's a win for the Sixers because they don't have that and none of the other guards in the draft could do all of that well enough. He fits the hole nicely that the Sixers have. Giving up the Lakers pick next year isn't the end of the world - the Sixers still have their pick and they still have Furkan coming over next year (he was a first round pick last year in a draft and stash). Roster spots are becoming a premium for the Sixers as they already have a lot of potentially good young players on the roster. Spreading things out isn't a bad idea.

It's definitely good for the Celtics but a little riskier for the Sixers. While Fultz is the consensus #1, there really isn't that much separation between him, Ball and Fox. While Fultz's skill set and upside do match the Sixers needs better than Fox's, giving up a future #1 for a player that appears to be marginally better than a player you could have had at #3 is taking a chance. Only time will tell if it was a good decision. Fortunately as you stated the Sixers have a lot of picks and limited roster spots so that mitigates the risk somewhat.

[GannonFan]

Don't the Celtics now have something like 7 first round draft picks in the next 4 years? Something crazy anyway unless they bundle and trade for an existing player...

You would think they have to - there just isn't enough roster space for that many first round picks on one team.

[GannonFan]

It's good for both. Fultz wouldn't improve the Celtics one bit - they would still have the same holes that cost them dearly when they were run over by the Cavs this year. They need people who can play defense and they need more interior help. And if that guy can score a little bit that would help too. Either Jackson or Tatum is the guy they should be looking for and picking them later in the draft saves a little in payroll. They already have Fultz-type players in who they have - adding more of them doesn't fix the other holes. And yes, they get the Lakers pick next year (seems likely, but not outside the realm of possibility that it stays with the Sixers and they get the pick the next year) to use or trade - considering the number of pick the Celts have they might need to trade it or other ones.

For the Sixers, it's good as well, assuming that Fultz is the player people believe he is. If he can shoot the 3 around 40%, play the pick and roll, penetrate with the dribble, and play defense against the point, then it's a win for the Sixers because they don't have that and none of the other guards in the draft could do all of that well enough. He fits the hole nicely that the Sixers have. Giving up the Lakers pick next year isn't the end of the world - the Sixers still have their pick and they still have Furkan coming over next year (he was a first round pick last year in a draft and stash). Roster spots are becoming a premium for the Sixers as they already have a lot of potentially good young players on the roster. Spreading things out isn't a bad idea.

It's definitely good for the Celtics but a little riskier for the Sixers. While Fultz is the consensus #1, there really isn't that much separation between him, Ball and Fox. While Fultz's skill set and upside do match the Sixers needs better than Fox's, giving up a future #1 for a player that appears to be marginally better than a player you could have had at #3 is taking a chance. Only time will tell if it was a good decision. Fortunately as you stated the Sixers have a lot of picks and limited roster spots so that mitigates the risk somewhat.

There's plenty of separation between Fultz and guys like Ball and Fox. Ball can't play defense, perhaps at all (one of the reasons why the Lakers traded DeAngelo Russell - he already can't play defense, so having a backcourt pairing of Russell and Ball would be disastrous) and there's legitimate worry that Ball can be an effective shooter in the NBA, especially creating his own shot. Fox is smaller that Fultz so there's a question how well he can guard the bigger players, and then there's the issue of whether Fox can shoot from outside the lane - 24% from 3pt range in college is not the same as the 41% that Fultz shot. If it's down to guards, Fultz is clearly a better prospect. The question is whether Jackson or Tatum would be better overall players, albeit at a different position, than Fultz - that's where the Celtics can take solace with this trade. They didn't need anymore guards anyway.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Tatum is hands down better than Jackson, what sets him apart is his ability to make plays one on one or as the "talent scouts" say create space. He plays defense and would be my second choice after Collins.

I would never draft ball even in the 3th round, I would rather take a guy off the street than waste a pick on him there is very little to like about his game. Its very puzzling why he is hyped the way he is.

[GannonFan]

Tatum is hands down better than Jackson, what sets him apart is his ability to make plays one on one or as the "talent scouts" say create space. He plays defense and would be my second choice after Collins.

I would never draft ball even in the 3th round, I would rather take a guy off the street than waste a pick on him there is very little to like about his game. Its very puzzling why he is hyped the way he is.

I like Tatum too, and think he shoots much better than Jackson. With that said, there is concern that Tatum can get his shot in the flow of an offense. Kinda like Okafor before him, if he needs the ball in his hand and then has to play one on one, that doesn't work as well in the NBA anymore. If the Celtics think he can play enough defense and crash the boards, I'd take Tatum over Jackson. The Celtics will never beat the Cavs if they can't shore up their defense, especially the interior.

As for Ball, he did shoot very effectively in college, despite the weird mechanics. I'll take results over mechanics anyday. And he can distribute, I don't think there's any doubt about that. But being a sieve on defense and potentially not a hard worker are the red flags for me. I would still take him before the non-existent third round. But I would certainly take Fultz ahead of any guard and I would take Fox before Ball. Maybe even Smith Jr as well.