What is krack Alakin hardware Knox listeners. I am damn Pavalley coming at you without my fantabulous co host Adam frommel I am, however, super pleased and excited as always end as ever to be joined by Adam two point zero the better Adam Adam Spinella coach Spins We calm around these parts. He's the head basketball coach at the boys's Latin School in Maryland. He's also the founder, creator, editor in chief, only writer of the Box and One, which you should absolutely follow on Twitter. Their draft coverage is spectacular. It is at the box end one underscore spelled exactly as it sounds. You can find Spins on Twitter as well a fantastic Twitter follow if you like basketball at Spinella fourteen at sp I n e l l A fourteen. He's also apparently a teacher and an expert in professional wrestling, two things that I did not know before we started this podcast, despite having bothered him for many many appearances over the years. Spins, how are you doing? Dan? That is an unrivaled introduction. I'm doing great. Thank you for having me on. It's the final week push before the twenty twenty one NBA draft, So as you can imagine, it's kind of that time that I call the calm between the storm or calm before the storm, right where a lot of people are set in their opinions, a lot of people have done their research and work. Now it's trade rumors, it's things that are else going on, and trying really hard not to let the last minute conversation in the eleventh hour opinions that come online try to dissuade me from some of the valuation or analysis that I've done. So final big board is set. I have said, I'm stepping away. I'm not tinkering with a dang thing over the final week leading up to the draft. Just let it be and hope that the hours that you pour in over the last eleven and a half months are worth it. That's what I think people probably naturally assume this time of the year is hectic for you, and I know that it is, but it's probably more so you doing things like this, coming on podcasts and talking about the draft itself, because I'm assuming all the you know, or I'm assuming now of all times, having seen so much of each of these players, that there's nothing that could materially change your opinion on anything that you've already done. That process is being done throughout the season when there's real basketball being played, maybe a little bit afterwards. And so now I imagine your schedule is just like you said, tackling the rumors, keeping up with the latest news, but also you know, coming on these dime store podcasts like hours and just discussing the NBA Draft at large dime store. I don't know about that, but I think the process is very similar to that of an NBA team right where free agency and trade rumors are pretty much what's going to dominate the final week here and to be the only thing that changes the playing field. So if you get your board set and you have a pretty good feel of where things are a week, ten days, two weeks out of the NBA Draft, then you use the rest of this time to try to leverage Hey, what's the best thing for our organization to do, not just the best player to draft at this spot. Do we trade up, do we trade down? Do we trade out? What superstars are available? All that stuff matters. So starting with I'm going to ask you about your big board. Obviously, what is the process that you look at behind making your big board. I know it changes throughout the year, but like, what is the stuff that you're weighing the most, or just what are you prioritizing? What are you looking at? Is it upside scalability, the next level of physical tools, etc. Etc. Yeah, of all the traits that matter. I mean, I like to say everything's a data point, right, Every interaction you have, every interview that they give, piece of film that you get is a data point. Now from an outsider's perspective, I'm not in an NBA front office. I don't have, you know, stell phone numbers for all these guys, agents or handlers or people that are around them. So basically the meat and potatoes of what I go off of is just the film in the encorporate formans predominantly from the year or two before they arrive in the NBA. So I'm not a huge fan of diving too deep into high school film. Or you know, if there's a guy who's coming out as a junior, seeing what he's like as a freshman because he's improved so much, hopefully the player that he is now is very different than the one back then. So that's really and the meat and potatoes. Of this is film, But in terms of constructing a board and putting it together and trying to find a ranking system, I use the tiered approach that thinking about draft tiers. It's fairly common a lot of other scouts and teams end up using them, but I think that it's a great way of framing it, not in a linear fashion, but clustering them together based on combination of things like high end outcome or the likelihood of achieving that outcome, and you have to look at that in a stance of prioritizing the translatability of their strengths and how fixable the areas of the need to work on our So trying to weigh all of that together and putting them into a tier or a pillar based on, you know, what type of role they're like they're going to play in the NBA. I use ten different categories for tiers. The balance of them is kind of high risk, high rewards, swings, good role player, like all the different things that you might look at. The top tier obviously the true superstars, the alpha talent likely and fringe all stars kind of come after that. Once I get down to maybe Tier four, it becomes to those high value, like low risk role players who end up being the fourth, fifth, or sixth option on a really good team, not necessarily stars or pillars of an organization, but players who log a lot of minutes. And then from there it continues to tick down for from role players to like high upside swings that have downside that would put them beneath that type of player. I think it's it's really fascinating. I've spent a lot of time the last year or so trying to research and learn more of myself about the best way to construct those tiers and which ones you rank above each other. Right, because there's a really large difference between a player with an incredibly high ceiling as well as a floor that would lead them to be out of the league and a more certain type of role player, somebody who might come in and not ever have superstar potential but you believe belongs on an NBA roster. How do you make a differentiation between which one is more valuable. So a lot of publications are people who do this exercise might have only five or six tiers that go down from all stars to good players to role players to like round out the bench type of guys I try to be a little bit more nuanced in pairing, like this is a really good role player who I believe is going to be on the floor and doesn't have many flaws. Right after that are high upside swings who might have a higher floor than a couple other high upside swings as well as a higher ceiling. So it's constantly trying to evaluate those conversations back and forth, which is a really really complicated way of I guess saying that you're either drafting franchise cornerstones or guys that are going to help you win by filling in the gaps around them. So the top tiers are always going to have a higher consideration for who could be a franchise cornerstone and as well as something that I believe is really valuable, going after guys that can fit in next to any type of franchise cornerstone. If they're not going to be one, do they exist well next to literally anybody. And the quintessential name that comes up for that right now is a guy like Micaal Bridges. There's no team in the league that isn't better if they have mcal Bridges on it. To me, that's worth much more of a draft pick than kind of a high upside swing on a guy that you're not quite sure if he is going to hit, even if he has some of that star wish potential. As a coach, how much would you wait in the process of if you were talking more to agents or hearing more about the interviews from players, or about how they practice or interact with coaches or even there you know, this is the time of year where we hear stuff. It was last year with Anthony Edwards because he gave an answer an interview where he basically said, like basketball wasn't his entire life. So I don't even remember what the quote was. It was ridiculous. It was read so much into But are there factors outside of what you're looking at? Again, and you do have, like being a head coach, I'm sure you understand, like the off court element of stuff. How much would you wait that if you were going about it from that perspective? In this process, you have to weigh it. It matters a lot. Again, it's a it's just a data point. It's not necessarily the overarching thing that matters most, but especially when it comes to being a role player, in the NBA. That stuff matters because if you're going to embrace taking a lesser role than you might have had in college, what's the mentality of the person who might have to shift down into that category? Talking about what it takes to survive in the NBA or what skills and traits kind of taking a step back from the league and viewing it from the outside is a relatively easy thing to do because we as as analysts and people who look at the game have an understanding about what traits and skills best translate. But when you're in the weeds and you're that player and you've been you know, the best in your age category at every stop that you've been at, and now you because that's the prerequisite level of talent to get to the NBA, and now you have to make that realization of I'm no longer than Lebron James, I'm the Jamario Moon's. That's a tough that's a tough realization to come through. Sometimes. I think that's where character and evaluation really comes into play. I'm going to steal a line from Frand for Shilla from ESPN. He mentioned something there are three types of players. Those who know those who don't know, and those who don't know that they don't know, And in essentially you want to avoid drafting players who are in that third category because you can teach someone you know what they don't know, but if they're completely oblivious to the fact that they lack knowledge or lack understanding of what it might take for them, that's a real issue. I think character is related to that and all those little traits that go hand in hand with it. But at the end of the day, embracing your role if you're just going to be not a superstar player in the NBA, I've only taken risks on guys that I believe are really high character. I think the answer this is I guess it's a cliche question at this point, or at least one of the most debated like draft philosophy topics, And you probably when you look at the tears that you set up at the box end one going through your big board, I think you can kind of tell where maybe you fall on this question. But the talk of drafting the best player available or drafting for fit, where do you where do you land on that? And I know, having discussed on this pod, there's I don't think there's like a recipe for every situation. It probably depends on the team, situation, the time, and the draft, But like, how do you sort of tackle that perspective or if you were the general manager of a team, how are you how are you going about that part of the draft process. Yeah, it's it's it's a great question. I think that's where tears has become so much more impactful than a straight linear ranking system. Sometimes let's say that you know, you're the Los Angeles Clippers and you're on the clock at twenty fifth overall, and you have twenty one guys that you think were in kind of this starter or high high high end rotation player kind of tier. If one of them falls to you at twenty five and he's still available, then you take it. It kind of eliminates the need to try to talk about fit or position or things of that because he has already been in a delineated category tier above you. When trying to, you know, make a difference between guys that are in the same tier. I think that's where you have to construct them in the right way and why I try to be more nuanced in having you know, seven, eight, nine, tiers instead of five or six, because there are those splitting hairs type of conversations that end up coming. I'd say a couple exceptions for not taking best player available. There's only a couple that would ever exist on my radar. One of them is if the title windows open immediately, because all you're concerned with are the next one or two years. That's all that matters. So you know, a, rookies don't typically make an impact on contending teams, at least in the postseason. And b if you construct your tiers the right way, you're not necessarily looking at a couple of guys in the same tier that are high upside swings or low ceiling, high floor role players. If you construct your board and your analysis the right way, you're not weighing apples to oranges in that regard. The other part is positional. That's the really unique part of this, right is teams think about drafting for fit as drafting for a position that they need filled on the roster. And the only time you would avoid taking a guy you overlaps with somebody as if he overlaps with that franchise pillar, that alpha that's already on your team. So I'll just use an example to describe this, Killian Hayes in Detroit. I really like him long term. It's way too soon to write off, you know what type of player he's going to be in the league. Was up and down as a rookie with the Pistons last year. But I can't fathom not taking Kid Cunningham number one just because Killian Hayes is already on the roster. Sure there's some overlaps in the thought that they're around the same size and not the highest tier athletes available, but you can't necessarily not take a much better player because Hayes is already on the roster. But I'll give a counter example of when avoiding positional fit matters. Indiana at thirteen, like if Alpa and Shangoon, who we'll talk about a little bit later. As one of the more polarizing guys in this draft. He's more of your traditional back to the basket type of center. You may have him in your top ten overall talent wise if you're the Pacers, but because you already have Sabonus and you can't necessarily make the two play side by side or go hand in hand with each other, you probably have to pass on Sangon even if he does fall to you at thirteen. So again it comes about the reinforcement of your best players, not as much a standard practice of well, I need to just figure out who's going to help me most right now. Like always draft long term view. Always draft best player available unless you have a two year title window and you need a piece now, or it just doesn't fit with the franchise caliber player that you already have. The last question sort of on this, does the positional direction of the league factor into that at all? Where I think as someone who's only now really going through his crash course on the draft, not the perfect example for it, but I'm just inclined to not value Biggs as much where yeah, there might be clear tiers if you're looking at the top four, five or six players right now, I'm like automatically going to put Evan Mobley on the lower part of that spectrum because there are other reasons. But also just looking at the best teams in the league, how many of them are really built around an elite big man right now? And so does that factor in twit at all? Or if you think that is a damaging way to look at it now. It definitely factors in the skill and positional scarcity is incredibly important. I think the hardest space to find yourself in as an NBA team is that you draft a big man and he's good but not great, and now you have to, you know, four years after you draft them, come up with should you pay them? How much should you pay them? Or should you let them walk? Because you can find a replacement player that provides a decent amount of value, but obviously not as much as the guy that you have. So the question is is signing him again to a longer term deal, more money and using his bird rights because that's a huge cap mechanism for teams to incentivize keeping their current players, you know, is that more? I think of, for example, Miles Turner in Indiana, like, no one's going to make the argument that he's a top three big man in the NBA, but the Pacers couldn't let him walk away for nothing and gave him a large contract. And now it's one of those situations where what's the fit with him and sabonus And it's been that way for years, but no one on the trade market wants to necessarily pay top dollar or fair value for Turner because they have so many other alternatives to grab big men. You want to avoid putting yourself in that position. So I agree with you on undrafting bigs like you have to really really know that they're going to be that franchise cornerstone that's worth it in order to take them very early in the draft. Yeah. I mean, this guy isn't a perfect example of the because I do think he has a more comprehensive game and Turner, but eton coming up on his extension is like kind of a case study where if let's say Phoenix wanted to trade for a third star, they're bringing back Chris Paul, they have Devin Booker, they want a more established star deandret and in theory is like a great asset in those talks. But because he's coming up on his next deal and you don't you know, is he going to be what top out as a top forty guy in the league, top like, it's that makes it a lot more difficult than something. I still someone who's a big Deandreton fan. It's just still so hard to wrap my head around where why would you? And I hate looking at it like this because I want every single player to get all the money in the world. But if you're building a team, you have to look at it, well, why would I give you? Known Miles's turn of contract doesn't look bad, But like if DeAndre Ayton com has more than twenty million dollars a year, is there a chance that you can replace seventy sixty to seventy percent of what he does on the free agent market for thirty to fifty percent of that price. Stagg Hey hardon Knox listeners. It's Dan again, this time to talk to you about hosting your own podcast with our parent distributor, Blue iire Pods, and there's no better place to host than Blue Wire Hustle. Hustle was created to give everyone the opportunity to take their podcast to the next level. Or if you want to host a podcast and just don't know where to start, Hustle is the perfect place for you. As part of the program, you'll receive personal cover art, Q and a's with Blue Wire's top podcasters that has included me so apologies in advance, access to our community discord, and an e learning course full of tips and tricks. On top of all that, we'll help you get your show pushed out to Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher and all the other listening platforms. The best part is you get all of this from only fifteen dollars a month. That's the same rate any other hosting site which charge you just for the initial setup. So if you're ready to do more than just listening to Hardwood Knoxes sub mediocre basketball takes, then make your voice heard in Hustle. Acceptance into the program is limited, so get your application in today. To apply, go to BW hustle dot com slash joint. Check out the description box in this episode to find out more. But that's BW Hustle dot com slash Joint. My next question here, though, is so what is your top ten big board look right now? It's on the box end one. Everyone should go check it out. He has again the ten tiers, goes through it all. I'm curious about the top ten and you are You brought maybe inadvertently, but when you look at your top ten like you did last year, there's some spice in there. I was surprised to see some names where they were. So what does your top ten look like right now? Yeah? I am not afraid to go against consensus or against the brain, because I kind of trust in my eye and try to tune out the noise from elsewhere. So it's very much a reflection on how I evaluate talent and would develop of them. But in the three kind of tiers that I would consider the top tiers, the really high upside, high belief in them, being a franchise player all star type of potential, second cogs in a wheel, and then fringe all stars who provide really good star production. Those are the top three tiers on my board, and there's ten total in that which makes up the top ten, which is an immense amount of talent, especially when you consider three of them are in Tier one and another four are in Tier two. It's absurd. So this draft class in itself is incredibly deep with top level talent. I think that consensus, so to speak, has shifted towards a top six with two tiers and separating themselves above and below. Kaid Cunningham, Jalen Green, and Evan Mobley are seen more at the top, Jalen Suggs, Scotty Barnes and Jonathan cominga right behind them to make up a pretty firmly entrenched top six. I have a little bit different than that. I switched Mobley and Sugs. I think Jalen Suggs out of Benzaga is a Tier one guy. He has that it factor and the comparison that I've given to him really different one. Dan Derek Jeter is I did not That is a different one. So again, I'm a huge sports fan all over and think that you know, maybe twenty twenty five years ago, if there any baseball fans out there that remember, there was a point in time in the American League when there were four dominant young shortstops Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Miguel Tahata and nomarc Garcia Para, and all four of these guys were kind of being talked about who's going to end up being the best in all of these different ways. And I view the kind of race at the top in very similar terms, where Kay Cunningham and Jalen Green and Evan Mobley get a ton of the sexiness to them because of the way that they play, being so either physically imposing or jaw dropping with what they do. But Suggs goes out there reduces is really really, really good and just has that hit factor that allows him to make winning plays when the lights are on brightest. That's kind of the Derek Jeter thing to me, right, He's a great was a great leader, Hall of Fame shortstop. Probably not the greatest tools of any of the guys that he was mentioned with early on, but he maximized who he was and made his teams better. And at the end of the day, if we're splitting hairs between all star level talent, that's something that matters a lot to me. So my top tier is Kate Cunningham, Jalen Green and Jalen Suggs Green and Sugs very very neck and neck, and then after that Scottie Barnes four, Evan Mobley five, and Jonathan coming to six. I know Mobley going five is probably the spicier take that you might see on there in comparison and consensus boards. And then finally, just to mention real quickly rounding out that second tier for me as a guy, Usman Garuba out of Real Madrid really unique type of aspect because he's kind of the closest reincarnation we've seen to Draymond Green defensively but also has a lot of the same offensive worries. Within an NBA floor, So really fascinating debate around Gruba right now. But I'm incredibly incredibly high on him. So that's kind of the top seven on my board right now. Rounding that out would be I believe Kean Johnson out of Tennessee is eight, James book Night out of Connecticut is nine, and the International Man of Mystery Alper and Shennon comes in at number ten. What is that You mentioned that it's basically a razor within margin between Green and Sugs. What was the Was there a primary differentiator for you between those two. Yeah, I mentioned the it factor with Sugs as being something that made me fall in love with him a ton. I think he's great with the ball in his hands, an unbelievable pick and roll creator who makes the right play as opposed to the right shot. There's a difference between being proactive and reactive as a ball handler. You know, good ones are reactive. They see what the defense is doing and they make the right pass and play to punish the defense for doing something. The proactive guys are the ones who realize who they want to get a shot for, where they want to score from themselves, and use their playmaking prowess earlier in the game to set those up for crunch time minutes, and that's an incredibly rare trait. I think Kate Cunningham has it, which is why he's the clear number one. I also think Suggs has it, which is why he's mentioned in that top tier for me. But the differentiating factor between Green and Suggs is the scoring. Jalen Green has unbelievable scoring potential, and as much as I want to knock him for the lack of feel that a guy like Sugs or Cunningham already has, Green gets rave reviews from those who've been around him in the G League bubble for the type of person and work ethic that he has. So I don't want to sit here. I'd feel like I'm talking out the two sides of my mouth if I were to say I love Jalen Sugs because he's a great leader and has that it factor and that's why I'm so high on him, without acknowledging that Green has so many of those same traits. So what initially was a tiebreaker in sugs favor, As I've gathered a little bit more intel and tried to weigh as we talked about earlier, the character piece of this. It can't be a negative against Green. So he had to slide slightly above to number two on my board and eded Mobley at five, I think is lower than the consensus by virtue of I've seen the top four or what was considered the top four names and all sorts of orders. Why is he down? What is it about Scottie Barnes I believe is the name that you have over him? Why is he there? Or why is Mobile so well, however you want to approach that, But how does he end up at number five? Yeah? So you know this is not to steal a line from my friends Steve Jones and Nikaia Stump, And this is not Evan Mobley slander, right, need to check his age or anything like that. I really would consider taking Mobley above somebody like Anthony Edwards number one overall in last year's draft. That just tells you how strong this year's draft class is. That we're talking about a guy fifth overall that I would take number one last year. So this is certainly not Mobley slander in any type of way. But I'm a really big believer in Scotty Barnes I think that he has the potential to impact the game in so many different ways. He's about six nine with a seven ft seven foot one wingspan, switchable to playing multiple positions and guard everyone on the floor. And he essentially at six nine, with that size and really freakish strength, played the point guard spot. He's used to creating with a ball in his hands. So the knock on Barns is that he doesn't shoot, and that's one of the areas that kind of for most people, keeps him outside that top tier a little bit, and more so in the five six range. My kind of point in what I've seen from evaluating him is that he's so good that it might not matter very similar to how a young Janis and Teakupo impacted the game. That's a lofty comparison to give to a guy. I'm not saying that Barnes is going to win two MVPs in an NBA Championship by the time he's twenty six. But what I'm saying is, with his raw tools and athleticism, that's a guy I would want to swing for the fences on above. Kind of a safer pick who, like you mentioned, is a big man at a position that isn't, you know, the hardest to find right now. I just I would feel much more comfortable and swinging for Barnes and saying he's going to be a triple double machine some day. I just I really firmly believe in him. Barnes shooting doesn't concern you in that conversation all like that wasn't enough to give Mobile the edge there? Yeah, I think it would have been enough if I believed in Mobile a lot. As a shooter. He was about thirty percent from three at us. He didn't blow me away with any of that. The conversation about Mobley is that he's really really good as a five, and those who are waving the flag for him most fervently probably believed he can also play the four, similar to like a Chris Bosh or an Anthony Davis in those stretches. I'm not quite there yet with his perimeter skill or three point shooting. So I think of Mobley as strictly kind of a really mobile five, but as a five, And that's where barnes versatility, combined with the fact that he's not that far behind Mobley as a shooter, I just I bump him ahead. In that are This is a question from a listener. I'll jump ahead to it because it is related directly to Evan Mobley. The actual question that I adjusted it was why is Mobley going to be better than Yanni's two point zero for the calves? So he compared one of these two tannas, it just wasn't Scotty Barnes. My actual question, I think based off that is do you think I think a lot of what's been measured about Mobley is his flour game and how he can create mismatches there. Do you trust his flower game to translate to the NBA, because from the again small amounts of stuff that I've watched, it just feels a little too slow and in his position, I think anyone who could put the ball on the floor can create mismatches. But at the same time, if you're operating off the dribble at like Jaren Jackson level speed where it looks like buffering Internet essentially, I just don't know how much of an advantage that really gives you. I know he's still young. I'm just curious as to what you think about that aspect of his game. You hit the nail on the head for me, with Mobli. A lot of his appeal as a perimeter creator when he's playing the four is that he's so long that his first step should be able to get past anybody if he's quick enough. He's a good passer, has some solid finishing off the bounce, like there's a lot of ways that he gets to the basket and can finish or make the right play when he gets there. But he has a propensity, like you said, to be a little bit more of that AOL dial up speed as a driver, where he wants to back guys down more so than use his length and quickness of his first step to his advantage. And that concerns me a little bit. He took a lot of drives where he'd go to his left and then get in the middle of the lane and have a man kind of a half step advantage on him, and instead of taking it to get to the rim, he would try to spin and pivot back to a righty hook. Like those little areas are concerning to me, just because the game has played at such a high speed in the postseason, really ridiculously high processing speed for things I think he can process. I think he makes smart and good reads, but I don't think he plays fast enough off the bounce right now. So again that leads me to believe in order to get past his man and be impactful in those areas, he has to play the five because he's guarded now by slower, bigger guys, especially in an NBA that's much more speed and pace at the four than it's ever been before us. It's not a league where he's going to be guarded by Karl Malone. He's going to be guarded by Jake Grabber, right and there's there's a difference in that. So yeah, that's one of the reasons why I think his floor game translates in certain positions, more so at the five and the functionality the top of the key and taking bigger, slower guys, you know, off the bounce as opposed to put him at the four and saying, hey, why don't try to slowly back this guy down or see if you can get around the Jake Grabber. I just don't see that right now for Mobili. So thank you for the question, El Javentupak. But Marl of the story is is that we don't think or Adams Spins does not think that Mobli is going to be better than Yannis two point up now. So some basic questions for you, and I'm always fascinating to get your answers on these, which prospect are you higher on most relative to the national consensus right now? Yeah? I mentioned Usman Garuba earlier being number seven for me and in a tier two public an all star production type of guy. That's not where he comes up on the consensus right now. He's much more of a middle to late first round of talent. Six foot nine with about a seven two wingspan, really really long, and Gruba is a little bit of a jekyl and hide, so to speak. In terms of his evaluation, especially an older tape on him, he looks like the most polished athletic Draymond Greeney guy on the floor. I mean, imagine if you gave Draymond three more inches in a seven two wingspan. His ability to move and process and do all of these different things on the defensive end make him an elite switchable defender, probably best served as a five and not necessarily a four, which one year, six eight sixty nine is small. So a lot of people will talk them out of talk themselves out of Gruba because of that, but defensively like he's able to hardheage ball screens and then recover to the pick and popper on the wing and block his shot all within one or two steps. Like some of the things that he does are absurd on the defensive end. Then you flip over to the offense and he looks like the tin man, like he can't move or function off the bounce. He's very, very robotic. He's got three left feet, like it's so strange in trying to see this unbelievable athlete from the defensive end who almost looks like he's playing in a phone booth offensively, just can't move anything more than very square. Guruba has gotten so much better on the offensive end since a lot of those perceptions were developed. Now he was not seen as a guy that had a three point shot. He's about thirty four percent from three on decent volume, playing on the best team that's thirty four and two in the second best league in the world. That matters to me. Production overseas is one of the easier indicators for whether a guy's going to succeed in the NBA. Luca don Chich did it? You know? Former MVPs of that league. Guys like Nicolamiratich or Luis Skola all had impactful NBA careers when they came over, and Gruba being able to play heavy minutes on a championship caliber team over there. I believe in him, you know. I think he's definitely best as a five because that allows him to be much more of a dumped down finisher, screen and roll type of big man. And he's an excellent short role passer, which as we all know, is becoming much more important in today's NBA game as teams pick you up farther beyond the three point line. But he can play off ball. I really believe that, at the very least, if you have to play him at the four, stick him in a corner and he's going to be a solid three point shooter, which makes everything he provides on defense worth it. So I value those really high end role players and guys that just make it an impact on the defensive end so much, and that's why Gruba ends up being so much higher in my opinion than a lot of other mainstream mallets. We'll call this the Tyree Haliburton section of the Spins questions, who are you most lower on compared to the national consensus. And during this yeah, they say keep your words soft and sweet because you may have to eat him later. Right, I've definitely eaten my words on Haliburton, LaMelo Ball of Patrick Williams. From last year, three guys I wasn't overwhelmingly high on in comparison and consensus, and all three seemed to prove me wrong, which good for them. I'm glad they do that. But the one guy this year who doesn't check out for me is davey On Mitchell out of Baylor. I think of him as a very late first round talent, and from the beginning of the season all the way through, I've had him in that twenty five to thirty five range, So he did not move up throughout the course of the season, whereas I felt that because Baylor won a national championship and finally received a large portion of the national eye upon them, Mitchell's game popped where he became the sexy prospects that really try to champion and get behind. And when that happens, it's really hard to stop that momentum, especially when they keep winning games end up winning a national championship. Davion Mitchell to me, is a lot more of a Patrick Beverley type of player. Intense, incredible on ball defense, but he has to just be a catch and shoot threat on offense. He's an unbelievable first step and so many people want to talk about his offense because he put up statistically strong pull up numbers and there's no flaws in his game from a statistical standpoint, but he's very one dimensional inside the three point line. When he attacks the basket, it's at full speed, and it's always with his right hand, either an inside hand finish or high off the glass on the right side, and the lack of nuance there really worries me for a guy that might play with the ball in his hands. He's six foot one. He's too small to be much of anything off ball. He's smaller than Patrick Beverley. But his defense is a calling card type of skill that should earn him a role in this league, but it's not necessarily a starting one, and I think that it comes with a cost of some offensive production as a result. Are you still as high on his teammate who you turned me onto? Which is why he's not listen? There's all every year it seems like there's a player you turned me onto. It was Devin Vassell last year was the most recent one who I became in love with, and I then became in love with Jared Butler after you talk to me about two months ago on a prior podcast appearance. So are you still noticeably higher on Butler relative to Mitchell? Yeah, yeah, I am. I have Butler as I believe eleven on my board overall, and he's you know, I he was going to be the answer for your hire consensus pick. Yeah, he I though he does have his fans out there. I think he's starting to creep up closer to that territory. I have Davey on Mitchell twenty nine. So about an eighteen ranking gap between those two, A couple of tiers between them. Really really high on Butler. I think he deserves much more of the attention of the two guards from Baylor. I don't know if this is accurate, but I'll call this the Patrick Williams question, just because last year it felt like he was mocked everywhere, and then I was flabbergasid when he went for I told you I was I think I told you I was mega sick on Draft night and I it takes. I've probably called out say from work like twice over the past ten years, and that was one of the nights I just had to do it. I couldn't move. I woke up mid NBA Draft eighth pick and saw Patrick Williams was off the board. Is there that type of mystery box player or who would if you had to pick within this class, who either you could see have the widest draft rings that you wouldn't even be willing to forecast where he's going, or even just looking at his skill set, who you view as the biggest like just mysteries box guy. Yeah, I'll give you two, and I think two different names, and I think they checked both boxes in that regard. One of them's Alpert and chen Gun I mentioned I have him as a top ten prospect on my board, but he's incredibly polarizing, your traditional back to the basket type of big man. You know, we mentioned earlier that production in European leagues professionally rarely doesn't translate to NBA success. It has always been an indicator for guys in that regard, and shen Goon is going to be someday the perfect case study as to figuring out how true that is because he won an MVP award in Turkey and a professionally get eighteen years older MVP of the league at eighteen, strongest player in the league, unbelievably productive offensive guy down scoring on the blocks, has shown flashes of both mobility, perimeter, game playmaking all the things that you care about. But he really struggles defensively, especially in terms of how he projects as a rim protector. And his game is a little bit more appealing to the old school, back to the basket type of way because that's how he was utilized during his time in Turkey. So there's this real question of functionality. Do we go by the numbers, the analytics and the fact that he dominated in a professional league and say that regardless of what the eye test shows in terms of his usage, he's so good it's not necessarily going to matter. Or do you go with the functionality argument of the NBA is a spread, pick and roll league. You have to be a good rim protector if you're going to be a five, and Shendu doesn't project as necessarily a great or even a good rim protector. Polarizing, definitely really polarizing. So his range. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up going somewhere in the top eight. That if Oklahoma City at six wants to pull a trader on him, it wouldn't make me bad an eye. I also wouldn't be surprised if he's available in the early twenties. Wow, because like that's such a that is such a wide draft range to think about, but it really speaks to and he's going to be fascinating not just in how we evaluate but on which team takes him. You know what they view about the center position. Can you just be a good enough back to the basket scorer for it to not matter? And the other name all throw out real quickly is Jayalen Johnson out of Due. He's polarizing as much for the red flags that surround him character wise or everything about the last year in his life as opposed to just his playing style. No doubt he's a top ten talent in this draft on talent alone. He actually put up two of what I would say two of the three best college games this year for any prospect, Like incredibly, incredibly impactful when he's at his high But he left the duke team early, dealt with injuries. They were a little bit better without him, and he struggles to unlock his other worldly athleticism in the half court. So a lot of fluctuation in his draft stock. If he ends up going eight to Orlando or nine to Sacramento, wouldn't be shocked if he's available at twenty five twenty six, also wouldn't be shocked. Again, major range for somebody like that, But I think that kind of is where this draft is at. There's a major cliff off perception wise from the top six that we mentioned earlier, and everybody from like seven to twenty two is very much in that same type of category. Wow. I'll ask this question from listener Kide Hornack now so that we don't force you to talk about saying Goun like an eighth time. I feel like his name has come up a million times. He wants to know what alprenzan Gun's NBA floor and ceiling would be. It's a good question, Yeah, Really, the international guys are tough to get a feel for, so I think his ceiling is some hybrid combination of Demonis Sabonis and Brook Lopez. You know, mobile a good driver for a big man who can beat other bigs off of bounce and be a mismatch post magnet when he forces switches where he can just kind of crab walk his guy down there, be patient, get to his spots, and really score and finish. There's a lot of Sabonis in his game there. But I also think Sangun projects well as a three point shooter, kind of in the same way that Brook Lopez has been over the last few years for the Milwaukee Bucks, where he can facilitate from the top of the key and be a screen and roll, pick and pop big or you just space him to the corner. That's his ceiling as being uber impressive on the offensive end, but didn't mention anything about defense, because that's really the floor for a guy like him. The floor is being a slightly more mobile and its Canther right, just comes in and brutalizes guys with his unbelievable back to the basket scoring acumen, but is not an impactful defender, doesn't move well enough laterally, and as a result, gets played off the floor in important games like there got There was a point a few years ago with Canther was in Oklahoma City they couldn't play him in the postseason, couldn't plan him, can't play Cantor, really, Donovan mouthed it on TV, can't play Candor. It's tough. It's it's tough when you have a guy who's so good offensively, but you just can't play him because two pointers are not worth the twos and threes you give up on the other end, and Shengu may end up being in that category, which makes it really hard to stay. Would you spend a lottery pick on somebody like that? Right now? You have to be able to project his defense improvement areas or say that his offense is even better than a guy like Can't, more modern and worth it. This is the most important question I'm gonna ask you all podcasts. How tall is Sharif Cooper? Actually? Oh, geez out of are we counting his hair? Sure? I feel like when given some of the measurements that have come out, I feel like his hair has in fact been counted in certain instances. Yeah, I don't know how to six one. He doesn't look above six one when I watch him on film or any of the interview circuit that he's storing on. What is the and the reason I'm actually asking about him? Is because he seems like he's being widely just discussed in all different veins. What is the appeal to him? Because I can't for me personally, I look at a guard who is somewhere in the let's say five five to six five range based on the measurements that are coming out just getting there, but shooting solo on threes in school and then thirty five percent I'm pull up jumpers. What is the appeal there or what is the reason to overlook that Cooper is also fairly polarizing. The appeal to overlook it will start there is what happened in the playoffs this year when you saw guys like Chris Paul and Trey Young basically carry their teams through the playoffs even because they are such good creators out of the pick and roll. I think Cooper has the upside and ability with what he's flashed at Auburn to similarly be an offensive engine that you just put the ball in his hands and say go and good things happen. Seven or eight times out of ten. He gets to the free throw line a ton. He makes every right pass that you would look for involves big men and rollers, which I love because that's the highest really highest percentage and highest efficient shot that you can find on the floor when you're playing in the pick and roll. Is a layup or a dunk, great with both hands, really smart and savvy. But he doesn't shoot it great, which helps hinder the usage of some of those skills because teams might go under the pick and roll, and he's small. He's very very small, which means you have to hide him and blanking him on the defensive end, similar to what the Boston Celtics always ran into in the Eastern Conference Finals, trying to find ways to cover up for Isaiah Thomas or Kyrie Irving. I don't I think he's able to overcome one, the size or the shooting. I don't think he's able to overcome both. So if he is six four, all right, maybe we can overlook the shooting and say, yeah, he's worth it. We want him to develop there obviously, but he can still be a really impactful NBA player because he's not that big of a defensive minas or he doesn't have the shooting, and you just say, I don't know, I don't know if we can take that risk, and I get your most underrated prospect at the following. No one can see this, but Air quotes positions, and you said yes in the commanded I thought you, so, I'm just gonna get right into it. Who is your most underrated guard or primary playmaking prospect? Guard? Playmaking prospect? Jared Butler has to be out of Baylor. I just love the guy. There's nothing that he can't do to keep him on an NBA floor. You know, late in games, when you're thinking about what rotation you have, you just want to put your best five guys out there. Butler has zero flaw that would keep him off the floor. Really good defender, very good playmaker out of the pick and roll, is a solid passe, scores it from three at every type of functionality way that you would want. He's really good off the bounce, and he shot over fifty percent on catching shoot jumpers last year at Baylor on high volume. That's incredible. I think he's underrated, undervalued, but specifically because he's such a good shooter, we don't talk enough about his playmaking ability. I think he'd be an incredible pro point guard. Who would be your most underrated wing prospect at the moment? Zire Williams out of Stanford probably stands out. I have him fourteenth on my big board. Another I don't want to say polarizing, just to overuse that term, but there are people who really believe in Williams and his upside and those who were completely turned off by the fact that he had a bad year at Stanford. And there's no way of sugar coating it. He had a bad year at Stanford. A lot of mitigating circumstances that might have led into that, COVID being a huge part of it. Not a typical year for any freshman, and I think Stanford was hit harder than any other program in the country because they weren't allowed to be on campus there. He was living in a hotel for most of the season, so a really unique type of circumstance, Like they didn't have access to a weight room, and when you're six foot ten and way thirteen pounds, you need a weight room. And that's what Ziah Williams is, Like, he's the skinniest guy in this year's draft class and got exposed because he didn't have a typical preseason or the ability to continue to work on his body throughout the year. Big fan of Williams think that six ten guys who have that type of fluidity creation with the ball in their hands and shot making are so rare that you want to gamble on them anyway. So that's why I gave him kind of a lottery grade. And I think you know you've already talked about Garuba here, but other than him, who would be your most underrated big man prospect? I love Isaiah Todd out of the G League Ignite. You have a top twenty grade for him on our big board. The floor is pretty functional for him as a pick and pop stretch for you know, guys like Nimania, be Eliza or Nicol o'melli or anybody else who just kind of sticks around in the league and is able to make a career for themselves and find spot minutes. In that role, it's valuable and Todd's able to come in at his very worst and fulfill that. But similar to how guys like a manual quickly at Kentucky, you know, sacrificed what he can do with the ball in his hands in order to fit in with a super talented college team, I think Todd did that with the G League Ignite. You know, we talked so much about Jalen Green and Jonathan Cominga as top tier prospects to go in the top six, and Todd helped to make that happen by being much more of a floor spacer as opposed to showing flashes of what he might be able to do with the ball in his hands or operating more out of the kind of the pitch post two areas. He seems very comfortable and competent to me, so I'm a big fan of his. Would believe and take him the risk on a guy like him because it's high upside with also a high floor. This is the narcissistic part of the podcast, where because I have you here, I get to ask you about the prospects I fall in love with every year that I think aren't getting enough shine. I have listed them in increasing order of my intrigue. The first of whom is Cam Thomas at LSU, and the primary reason I think I'm in love with him is the just the the shop making slash scoring, just the ability to do it from scratch. And he you know, to be clear, I know he's been firmly mocked in like the middle of the first round, so he's not like super under the radar, which is why I probably have him lower. But his brand of shot making just seems like very seasoned for someone coming out of college. He's an professional bucket getter. He's got it. He's got his PhD in scoring, There's no doubt about that. He also lives at the free throw line, which is something that I love from great scorers and kind of you your alphless so to speak, right, can you get to the free throw line and get easy buckets? There? Really crafty unorthodox game where his jump shot almost reminds me of that of Paul Pierce because how many times did we see defenders that would raise up and try to block Pierce's shot before he even started to release it, because his timing is unorthodox, and I think Thomas has that to his game, which leads me to believe he's going to be able to get his shot off and be an effective scorer, even if he's a little undersized for his position. You don't have to talk me into Thomas. I love him. I have him as a I think top seventeen guy on my overall board, but there are clear downsides to getting a guy like Thomas because he is the definition of a black hole, like he can go out there and get you buckets and score, but he's not given much else. So you have to either feel incredibly confident that the shot making is going to translate and that it's worth it, or that you can string them along enough within the right culture and organization get a little bit more out of him. I'll have you know, there's next one. I originally had him as the highest on my intrigue list, and then I read what you wrote about him and watched your scouting video on him, and you scared the shit out of me. With Bones Highland, who also has been called Busybones, which if that nickname becomes mainstream and sticks, might be immediately one of my favorite MBA nicknames. I love just the deep shot making. I think you called it the contortionist finishing. I'm not as worried. I mean, you look, he had almost as high as a turnover rate as assist rate this year. That is obviously problematic, but I'm just looking at his ability to his shop making, his ability to attack in so many different fashions, and the finishing itself. It feels like that part of his game could just open up by virtue of defenses forever being on tilt. At the same time, my original thought was, when I was watching him defensively, I was like, Oh, he's at least long, and if you get in a better stance, it feels like a lot of his issues could be solved. Then you wrote this whole thing about how guys were built like him are just gonna forever have problems with their stances, and so between that and the passing, I took the cowardly way out. I'm still intrigued by him, but he's not my most the guy that I'm most intrigued by. I think you had him was it forty one? Is that where you had him at yours? That was? If you're wondering if I play stock in your opinion, you scared me out of Bone Thailand. Well, but I'm certainly first and foremost I'm rooting for Bones. Right Having him at forty one as opposed to a lot of consensus places that have him higher, doesn't mean that I'm actively rooting against him. Unbelievable backstory in young Man, And if you or any other listeners haven't researched Bones and kind of get a feel for his upbringing, I recommend you do so because he's an easy guy to try to root for. You know, I have this aversion to really long legged perimeter defenders for the simple reason that it's really hard for them to sit in a stance and slide athletically in comparison to guys who are a little bit more proportionately built. I love the length with his wingspan, but I think it catches up to him and the fact that it makes it a little bit harder for him to sit in a stance and guard. That's really important at the point of attack, because you have to be narrow and effective at getting through and around ball screens quite frequently. You know, if he's guarding opposing point guards, all he's getting is a steady diet of ball screens, so he has to find ways to navigate through them. I think that he's going to struggle, even though he has length to recover. I think he's going to struggle getting through them. And I wasn't overly impressed with the diligence that he tried to do so at VCU. There's no doubt the shot making this tantalizing, deep, deep, deep range, really good shooter, comfortable taking and making really tough ones, but you have to ask yourself what the threshold level is that he's going to be allowed to do that at the end and b A right, what's the percentage mark that he needs to make of those tough shots in order for it to be worth the team that drafts him and plays him really giving him the ball and saying go. And there's kind of two parts of this. One. I think that level is raised at the NBA as opposed to where it was at VCU, where he was by far the best player on the floor and in the conference, So he has the license to do a lot of that stuff. The second is, if those shots aren't falling at a high enough percentage, I don't know what else he gives you basketball wise to really make playing him worth it. Not a fantastic finisher has to work on his body a little bit and gain strength like everybody else does. Don't love his pick and roll reads in passing for others, and certainly the defensive worries compound all of that. So I'm I'm more so not in that I don't see the upside of the intrigue to a guy like Bones, but I'm perfectly comfortable and letting someone else take that risk, because I don't know the best way for me to If I were a player development coach, I don't know how I would work with him to try to overcome some of those shortcomings. So you're saying if the Knicks took him at thirty two, that'd still be okay, it wouldn't be yeah, it would not know, it would not be a huge reach at all. And certainly, again I understand the appeal to a guy like Bones, but I'm just I'm out on him because I think defense matters, especially in this draft class, probably the deepest in recent memory for good point of attack defenders. The my final two guys that I that I have on this is Iotasumu is there. I find myself thinking I'd probably be a lot more intrigued by him if he was a little bit bigger. I also found myself wondering what if he upped his three point volume or was it more willing three point shooter and then was hitting them at a higher clip. You then wrote to me in the dock compared him to Donovan Mitchell, which is just not something that I and you said. It wasn't a perfect comp but that was not even like that exceeded my expectations. So he's like a guy that I'm zeroing in on and I want to do more work on. I haven't looked too much at what he would bring defensively, Like I said, if he were a little bit bigger, this might be shay Gil just's Alexander's level of love for him that I brought when SGA was coming into the NBA. Yeah, I mean, he does have about a six nine six ten wings family. He's long, but he's not overly big or built, and he is not a phenomenal athlete. I think the Donovan Mitchell comparison comes into like what his role at Illinois was, where he was asked to do pretty much everything and did it and did it all well enough, but wasn't incredibly efficient in any major area. That's the the dsum MoU that we saw over his time at Illinois. I don't think that that translates to being an alpha at the NBA level, but I was. I said those similar things about Donovan Mitchell coming out of Louisville, where I thought he was more of a bucket getter and a system in an offense that needed him to be so and I don't like the level of tough shots that he's made in the NBA. Didn't see that coming from Donovan Mitchell when he was in college. Dasum Moo could surprise me in a similar way. I think he has the capability of doing so. But it's a very different kind of downside for a guy like Dasuma because I don't think he has that one strength to hang his hat on if he doesn't end up becoming, you know, a late clock type of offensive option. He's an okay shooter, but not a great one. He's a good not a great defender, like doesn't have a true natural position. There's just so many things about him that you said, Okay, if he's not scoring with the ball in his hands the way he did at Illinois, how's the impacting the game? I don't. I don't have the clear answer, but there is somewhere wrapped up in all the things that he does and all of about who he is that makes him a top twenty twenty five talent. My final guy, and he would have been number two again, but you you you dissuaded me out of busy bones before we even started this podcast. Trey Murphy, the third. I am a he just seems like an all around really good player, and I'm curious why he's not higher up on draft boards when you're looking at some six foot nine is what he's listed at? Can defend score off motion? Is it really just because he doesn't have the scoring off the dribble experience? Is that what's holding him back? Maybe combined with it's so I feel so stupiditious, but like, oh, he just turned twenty one, Like maybe that's a little bit like what is it that's keeping him in like the mid late Like I've seen him listed everywhere from like early thirties to like in the forties at some point, So what's keeping him from like rising? I feel like he should just be a lot higher up. Yeah, So Murphy fifty ninety player this year at Virginia as a role player and an unbelievable on ball defender. Those combinations, just framing it in that regard should make you want to fall in love with a guy like him. And that's where the Mcal Bridges comparison really comes to fruition. A lot of people who see what Bridges is doing well at the NBA level and in the NBA playoffs and say, well, Trey Murphy can do that. He's long, he knocks down shots from the perimeter. You mentioned the off the dribble playmaking and scoring like I don't think that that's his role at the NBA level, And I don't think that it's the absence of being great in those areas moves him down draft boards. I think it's more so the fact that NBA caliber players need to have a certain requisite level of talent with the ball in their hands just to survive in the league, because if somebody pressures you on the perimeter, you have to be able to at least drive past them or bounce it a couple of times to get them off. And I have very little faith in Murphy in that area. And some of the earlier scouting notes that I have a scouting notebook with about thirty or forty pages of notes on a lot of these guys, and some of the earliest notes that I had on Murphy were pray, he doesn't bounce it like you just you have to really good athlete, great finisher in the open court where he can take maybe one bounce unimpeded and dunk it really good on backcuts along the baseline and knows how to move without the ball in his hands. Really good spot up shooter, so good in all of these areas, but if he doesn't get a shot off cleanly or know where his next pass is going, like I just I worry about what he has to do putting the ball on the floor. He took six shots at the rim off of spot ups and attack me back clothes outs last year. Six I thank you. I can't remember this was for me video. He took like ten pull up jumpers versus one hundred and fourteen catching shoet jumpers. It was just something mind bothering that he just wasn't clear that he probably put the ball on the floor incredibly rarely. And from a role player standpoint, you're fine with that. You don't want your three in D role players coming in and taking a lot of dribble pull ups. But there's still a floor level of his basketball talent and skill that everybody has to be able to have to bounce a basketball to survive at that level, and I'm worried that Murphy doesn't necessarily have it. If he did, he'd be a top twenty five. So it's kind of a thing versus you know you're looking more when the tools of his game, where it was clear that Mcal Bridges had the outline of more. This is more of a Reggie Bullock type guy, where it feels like he could be very different players, but just his skills is going to be very finite with it, or his role is going to be very finite with in the NBA. Like you, he can become over extended on offense specifically rather quickly. Yeah, And we see this every year, Dan, where somebody's a quick riser after the NCUBAA tournament because they have an awesome performance and all of a sudden, they're jumping up ten, fifteen, twenty spots off draft boards and go waitlier than they should. I call that the Malachi Richardson plan. This happens every year. Somebody just rises like that. And then there's people who watch the NBA playoffs in the finals and they see one guy that they didn't expect to pop off and they say, oh, I want to find the next version of him because what he does is so valuable. And I think that's Michael Bridges this year, which is why Trey Murphy is starting to rise a little bit. I think it has less to do with Trey himself for one of the reasons he's a prospect that's trending upward, and as much to do with the fact that everybody loves to compare him to Michael Bridges and sab Bridges do well. So if you know two plus two Eagles four, then you're going to draft Murphy earlier than he might have thought otherwise. Well, I apologize to these four players in advance for ruining their careers by becoming fascinated with them before they enter the NBA. Do you have a time for a couple of quick hitting listener questions? Absolutely? Kate Hornack asked another question, is there any chance the Suns could trade up for either Davion Mitchell or Kai Joe And thank you? He says, Well, you're welcome. From an asset management standpoint, I think it's really hard for the Suns to be able to trade up anywhere in this draft. The biggest piece that they had for doing so it was probably Dario Saris, and I don't think there's going to be any takers or any ability to trade him now that he's likely to miss the next season. So this is less about whether they should and more so about whether they can. I think the other part of this that's important is there are quite a few combo hybrid backcourt guys that are going to be available in that twenty five to thirty five range, and that could mean Phoenix is in a good position to develop somebody as that third guard that they do need with campaign hitting free agency, with Chris Paul getting a little bit older, and just having one more shot maker or guy at the ball in their hands. I think they can find that at twenty nine not going to be ready to play right away, but there's long term upside at that position. So I would expect them to standpat still. Wish they would have taken Tyris Alibert and he's fantastic and Sacramento, but that would have been that would have been a pick. And also I think what hurts them here is, let's say they wanted to go out and trade up, like the fact that Jalen Smith just doesn't have the cachet. If someone who was drafted tenth overall a year ago really hurts the appeal for their trade packages, no doubt. This next question comes from Adam Bushman, and I sent it to you, and I kind of rephrased it, but he asked, can we normalize talking about the three outcomes of a player and giving NBA comps for each optimistic, average, pessimistic, pick a lottery prospect and describe these outcome and comps can't wait to listen. I did say I changed this too, if it could be more basically like what goes into the idea of making NBA comps or how do you do that? If you want to answer his first one, it's solely fine with me. But I'm more fascinated by, like what do you look at when you're trying to like, how do these NBA comps just just come to you? Is it or not that they just come to you? But is that how it works? Like you see someone and their gamer seems like it's made in the image of someone else? Or is there something more in depth that goes into deciding those Yeah, I am I am a massive hypocrite, Dan, because I spend a lot of time talking about how much I hate NBA player comparisons, and then I probably throw out four, five or six every time I do a podcast. So just tell us that Tsuma was going to be the next Donovan Mitchell. So you didn't even pocate. You didn't hedge, you said definitely next Donovan Mitchell. Just kidding, Yeah, the college version of Donovan Mitchell. With comparisons, I think that there's a real dangerous game to play where you have to be able to differentiate between the type of player that they are and the overall impact that they have on the floor. Right, So when I throw out Io Dassumo and Donovan Mitchell, for example, it's more so in the fact that he's not a one, he's not a two. He's a good scorer who can create his own late clock, has length, and can guard a couple different positions, but is an All NBA type of defender, Like you have to live with him taking and making tough shots. That is different than saying he's going to be a fringe all star that leads his team to the Western Conference number one seed. And it's really hard when you're doing comparisons to try to say to somebody, he's going to play like Donovan Mitchell but produce like somebody else. Those are those are really that's a tight rope kind of conversation to have, and I struggle with the best and most accurate way to do that. With the original question that was kind of about the three different types of outcomes, you know, an optimistic, a pessimistic, and a medium level. I think that it's a unique and not necessarily a bad way of phrasing it, But I also think it doesn't account for how likely it is that a player gets there. You just give three outcomes and you leave two things out. One is, you know, Kaid kind him. The floor for him is probably, you know, a decent NBA player, but certainly not an all NBA type of performer. But there's such a strong likelihood that he plays closer to his ceiling that I almost feel like literally throwing out comparisons for floor and ceiling or pessimistic and optimistic kind of sets you up to be leaning more optimistically or pessimistically towards a player than you should. The other part of that is there's so much room in between those three buckets. Right Let's say it's a seventy fifth percentile outcome, a twenty fifth, and a fiftieth right in the middle, Like, you could get somebody who ends up being sixtieth on that kind of valuation system, so to speak. And it's really hard to put in two terms the likelihood of doing that. I think that all of these data visualization tools and other methods that people are trying to use online for anticipating role and impact, I think that it's a little as much ado about nothing. There's not a ton of substance to it. If it helps one person view the prospect in a clearer way, great, But I don't think that it's either as simple or as complicated as either of those two methods make it seem. Fox attend to Kopo asked, well, James book Night go top ten, and I feel like there's a real missed opportunity for that name to be pronounced James bow Knight, by the way, but please carry on. Yeah, book Night's strending that way. I think that's six to ten range is really where I see and hear him most right now. Just an electric scorer and a much better athlete than he gets credit four. I think six with Oklahoma City is in play, and I don't think he gets past ten in New Orleans. Well, leaving Warriors fan asked do you count college stats? If yes, I would ask who are the best shooters in the draft? So are there any go to college stats that you have that you'll read into when looking at something that someone will translate to the next level. And who do you have as your best shooters in this draft? Okay, yeah, there's good questions, but a lot there. So stats I look at the most catch and shoot numbers matter to me, especially for guys who project a little bit more as an off ball roll if you're a pick and roll creator, if you are somebody with the ball in your hands, it's more dribble pull ups out of the pick and roll that I'm looking at, especially out to three. I don't think you can be a poor finisher in college and then turn into a solid or a great one in the NBA. So there's a baseline level of accepted percentages that you need to be able to reach finishing at the basket in college to be considered a good pro prospect. And then turnover rate based on usage is another one. You know, if you're a catch and shoot type of guy at the next level or even at the college level, but you turn it over the same rate as somebody who plays with ball in their hands, that matters. You have to be able to parse through and anticipate what their role is going to be. But once you do, so, try to look at their turnover rate within it. Oh and one more that I'll throw out is free throw rate. I think that's really important for outphits, for great scorers being able to get to the free throw line and how frequently they generate those type of attempts. The other courtion was top shooters, right yep. I break down shooting into four different categories. Functionally, there's off the dribble shooting like pull up scorers guys like Steph Curry or Tree Young. There's catching shoot threats that might be just spotting up on the perimeter, movement shooting guys who dart off screens and are able to create openings for their teammates based on gravity. And then picking pop shooters, guys who are probably a little bit more of your traditional screener, big man type of prospect that can also shoot the ball from deep. Without getting too much into the nuances of each or who fits in what categories, I think there are two first round guys that stand out US shooting specialists. That would be Corey Kissberg from Gonzaga and Chris Duarte from Oregon. They are kind of neck and neck right now, and going back and forth in the middle part of the first round is who guys like more, but they're the stereotypic little shooter in like a Joe Harris or a JJ Reddick, Doug McDermott type of role. One guy who I believe is probably the best shooter in this class. No surprise to Dan here. Jared Butler just my man crushing the guy I absolutely love but going fifty percent on catch and shoot, looks as a national champion in college, doing an unbelievable job off the bounce and extending his range, Like there's just so many, so many ways that he can shoot. And he's really good off screens too. You know you mentioned Cam Thomas. I think Moses Moody and Trey Man are other guys that might be functional in two at least two of these categories. And then Isaiah Todd probably stands out as the best picking pop big to me in this year's class. Our two final questions, and I am seeing that I did not include this in the ally that sent you for some reason. But if the Warriors keep their picks, and this question comes from Mace Windex, who do you like for them at seven and fourteen? Based on who you think might be available in those ranges from the Jedi window cleaner, Mace Windex seven and fourteen. Well, I'll start by throwing the caveat out there. I think it's highly unlikely they keep these picks. You only think they'll even keep one if they if they only keep one, I said, you don't even think they'll keep one, I will say, I'm very I'm sure you saw the athletic report. Yeah, drey Clay and Steph asked the front office to, you know, trade the picks for more immediate help. I just love the apropos of nothing. I love the idea of Steph applying pressure to the Warriors front office. Who I think. I think the fans appreciate Stephen Curry. I think most basketball fans appreciate step Stephan Curry. I feel like he is underappreciated within the own walls of Chase Center at this point. So I love the idea of him asking solo maintenance. I just love the idea of him asking the front office to do anything, apply any sort of pressure to them. I apologize for that. We'll no, no, no, it's a fair point. If they keep the picks. I'll just stick to this. Really simply, I think they have to take best player available at seven because it's too valuable of a spot in the draft to reach for more of a role player, instant impact guy where you know. The names that come up are Davion Mitchell, Franz Wagner, and Corey Kissbert. I'm not overly high on any of them becoming starters at the NBA level, but they're the most NBA ready talent right now, which is why they get rumored going to Golden State at seven or fourteen. At fourteen, I get it, but not at seven. If it were me, I would take anybody that was in that aforementioned top seven that we talked about as being in the top two tiers of my board, whoever's available and falls to them. Ruba. I might have some hesitance just because of the overlap with Draymond, but I certainly I would. I would still take him, Yeah, I would still take him there. And then the other name for me at fourty Jared Butler. I just can't say it enough. I'll absolutely love him and if he's available there the shot making, the ability, and here's the other part of this. Clay Thompson coming off of essentially two missed years and so many injuries. I think he loses a half step. Projectively, play him more at the three than at the two than they have in the past. I think it's really now is the time for Golden State to add another backcourt playmaker and somebody that can be on the floor Layton games if they do it through the draft. Butler as one hundred percent the guy that would be that for me. Final question comes from Jake Weiss asked when can the Warriors trade for Pascal Siakam or SGA. I will answer the first one for you. They will not be trading for Shay Gillis Alexander, even though I think he's fantastic. I'm also certain that the Oklahoma City Thunder think he's fantastic. There's also the just mentioned at the report that the Warriors or their stars are interested in a Bradley Beal trade. I think that's if he's available, which I tend to think he will become available. I think that is an easier player to throw your best package at. But Pascal Siakam was rumored by the athletics John Hollinger. That seems like more of a difficult decision to make. If you're the Warriors, And so if someone who knows the types of value Golden State could get at seven and fourteen for a player like Pascal Siakham. Again, if it's Bradley Beal, I give Wiseman, I get seven, I get fourteen, you're sending money out in that scenario too, maybe other picks whatever. Are you giving up all three of those assets for a guy like Pascal Siakam, especially given while the Warriors would be tantalizing defensively, the shooting with him and Draymond in the front court could wind up being pretty rough. Yeah, yeah, there's there are risks to it, and I think the Warriors are basically bound to make the best win now scenario that they can in terms of a trade, and they probably need to make it before Draft night because there's so much depth at the spots that they're picking on the clock that they can't just take the clear best guy available and say, well, everyone else is going to value him, so we'll take him and package him with Wiseman and Wiggins and figure it out a couple of weeks after the draft. So I think there is going to be something that takes place, which may mean and overpay for a guy like Siakam So it's in a vacuum, so to speak. But it's worth it for the Warriors because their title window is now and they really need to value that more than James Wiseman and a couple of picks here in this year's draft. So I get the hesitants around the front court shooting wise with Siakaman Green, I actually think it fits well in terms of the pace they like to play at, as well as the ability to create and transition. Just having another guy that can push pace while Thompson and Curry sprint the floor is really really valuable. I love Wiseman. I am very high on him, despite the fact that there are others who lawren't right now. But if you're Golden State, I don't think you can turn down a trade for a bonified star listing the upside potentially of Wiseman as a reason you just gotta go for it. I think what's complicated is and this wouldn't be the reason I don't do the deal, but you have to unless there's a you know, an illegal sign and trade for Kelly Bridge and you're set up right now where he's willing to go whatever team. You have to include Wiggins in any deal, and I don't view Wiggins as a positive on that contract. He is one of the very few wings that the Warriors actually have. So if you trade Wiggins, you're left with Clay and yeah, there's Siakam and Draymond would help you a ton on defense. But if you're trading for Beal, it has to be part of the calculus too. You still do it, but it just it does make this decision to me a little bit more difficult, especially if there are other picks involved, where if you're just looking at the immediate cost of Wiseman these picks, fine, you're a Warrior's team that wants to win now, but if you have to, you know you already owe a twenty twenty four pick to Memphis. If you have to start giving out like a twenty twenty five, a twenty twenty six pick, maybe even a twenty twenty three swap, I think that's where it gets concerning, because you don't know what unless you're acquiring that bridge to the future, you don't know what you're going to look like two years from now. Yeah, no doubt, And again I'm not as worried about what we look like two years from now because you just try to win as much as you can and as many championships as possible. Will Curry's still in his prime, and the three of them, Curry, Thompson, Green are getting older quickly. They've been kind of out of sight, out of mind for the last two years. But they're all in their thirties now, thirty three for Curry and thirty one for Drey and Clay. Yeah, like they're all they're all in their thirties, So there's urgency for sure to get this right again. I love Wiseman. I think his value is completely understated in the Twitter sphere, so to speak. But you got to make a win now move, even if it means taking back a little less value. I'm in one percent agreement with you. Just looking at from the front offices perspective is where I was coming from. Spins, thank you so much for giving me too much of your time. I've monopolized it. Follow Spins on Twitter at Spinella fourteen at SPI n e l LA fourteen. He's the head basketball coach at the Boys' Latin School in Maryland. He is also the founder and writer and analyst extraordinaire at the box and one follow them on Twitter at the box and one underscore spelled exactly as it sounds, Spin Spins. This was great. I hope you're able to get some rest between now and next Thursday and then a little bit after next Thursday. I'm saying next Thursday, but this podcast is gonna be released on a Monday. But seriously, this is a busy time of year review. Thank you so much for giving me a bunch of your time, and as you know by now, I'm gonna be bothering you again in the future, always willing to come back on. Thank you for having me. And to all the listeners out there who have teams that are likely heading home with the draft pick next week, be patients. Always takes time to develop these guys. Don't judge him right away, Support and fall in love with whoever your team tis aka fall in love with Jared Butler.