AtTheDriveIn

I don't think knowledge of the individual really has any direct corrolation with team association.

Great job. It looks pretty accurate. I think the one team you may have been overly critical on was the Chicago Bulls. I'm on the opposite end of the scale toward them than you are, it seems. I thought, considering expectations, the team on paper, chemistry after their deadline (or thereabouts, I'm not sure when that even happened anymore) trade, they've impressed me a great deal. Derrick Rose finally got himself together to end the season, playing like a true star after the All-Star break, Luol Deng has sort of a breakout year after the disappointment that was last season and even became a decievingly impressive rebounder. I can recount at least two or three games where he had 15 or more rebounds, and one for sure that he had 20 in. The rookie of the team, Taj Gibson, didn't play like a rookie at all. He just played. Averages of 9 and 7 for a guy who was used rather sparingly all season long to me was good. Not to mention, he's also extremely smart out there, but that may have something to do with him being 24 years old already. Flip Murray, from what I can recall their only real addition through free agency played well, and especially well after Salmons left (although I'm not sure what happened to him this month). All in all, personally I'd have to give the Bulls a B, or even a B+. They made the playoffs in quite a comeback over the Raptors and given their financial situation for the upcoming free agency period, they can improve even moreso.

He certainly is. No better player to me than a Magic player.

That's the homer within you talking. That's all that needs to be said.

Since we're all being homers SIxth man: Redpierbasswilliams - all our bench players deserve that award. Most improved: Definitely Jason Williams! - He didn't even play last season. WOW!

He plays for a team which outside of Wade would struggle to be better than the Nets and his advanced numbers indicate that they are only slightly better with him on the court than without him defensively - a +1.1 on defensive, to be exact (-3.1 offensivley though) which really says that although he could be the greatest defensive player in the world, he doesn't have all that much influence on the game. He hasn't helped his team anywhere by 'graciously' choosing to be a bench player and despite what you say, I can ignore what he's done, because it really hasn't been anything that's worth an award. At least with Varajeo, he brings energy, long time considered a key characteristic for most sixth man of the year award winners, when he comes onto the court, as it shown with a huge +7.7 spike on points scored per 100 possessions when he's on the court. Haslem is a rotation guy, a guy you would love to have on your team as a reliable back-up or as a starter with a limited role if you have no other option. What he isn't, however, is spark plug. That's what the sixth man of the year has consistently been. The last player under 10 points a game to win it was in 1995 and the last forward to win it was in 2001. The sixth man of the year is almost exclusively a guard's award and you have to do something special as a forward (or just have a weak guard crop going for the award, as in both 1995 and 2001) to win it. As I've said before, Haslem's season, although probably by his standards and your standards might have been successful, he doesn't fit any criteria to win this award. And his season has not been good enough to create a change in the system of voting or how the selectors choose their winners.

You find it funny how two biased Heat fans voted for their own player? I don't think anyone else would find that funny a single bit. Haslem can lead the league the league in whatever stats he wants off the bench, that doesn't make him any more viable to win any award. It's obviously been Crawford this year who's been the best player off the bench and is thus deserving of that award. Also, Anderson Varajeo does everything Haslem does (and more) but does it four times better.

http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1069126 Under Monroe's name it says 'will stay in school' Georgetown has no one from their team graduating and they're bringing in 3 4-star recruits. Along with MSU and maybe Purdue, I'd consider G'town a favourite next season if this is true.

The prospect fo trading Harris to a yet unknown team in exchange for an yet unknown player who might be worth more or less than Harris is is not at all a perfect situation for the Nets. A 'perfect situation' is getting a player who's a safe bet immediately, something which you attributed to Evan Turner's short description. There's nothing safe about drafting a point guard when your best player is already a point guard. The value of both, moreso Harris, dwindles quite heavily because the Nets would be forced to compromised in a trade for either player to ensure the happiness (through playing time and importance to the team) of the other. I don't see this as an ideal situation at all. It creates all sort of problems for the Nets. If they want to explore trade options for Harris, how well would two new impact players fit with the Nets 'original' lineup? If they do trade Harris, what will they recieve back given Harris' less than inspiring season he's having thus far? If they decide to draft Wall and then end up not trading Harris at all, who becomes the go-to point guard and who becomes the guy who's going to be complaining to the media about the confusion of his role after nearly every game? On the other hand, you don't have any of these problems with Turner given his position and the Nets need for an effective wing player or even with Cousins or Favors given that both players are markedly better than anything the Nets have on their frontline at the moment (bar Lopez). There's just too many questions left to be answered in the drafting of Wall at #1. That's why I said that the Nets could afford to even drop to the second spot in the draft and be in a better situation for their organization. They may not get the most effective player in the end, but the gap in the myth of 'potential star power' between Turner and Wall isn't so big that they would not be at all happy with Turner. I'll even contend that if the Nets do end up with the #1 pick and take Turner, they still wouldn't be disappointed if Turner ended up being the second best player in draft; that's just how good I think Turner can become. James Anderson and Marcus Thornton actually have very similar bodies. Anderson being 6'6, 210 and Thorton being 6'4, 205. The 2 inch difference is nothing to me given Thornton's physicality on the perimeter. Regardless, a 2 inch difference is nothing anyway. Both players have been shooters their whole careers, but both are underrated when it comes to their penetration game. Neither are going to be 5 rebound or 5 assist per game players, but that doesn't take away from the effort and hustle that both show. Both will have come into the NBA at 21/22 years old. The similarities in their games are endless. And I'm not the only one that has this opinion. Lots of sports writers have said that the comparisons between Anderson and Thornton are uncanny. Your obvious preference toward Anderson doesn't make Thornton any less of a player. You say that you don't think Thornton will ever crack a lineup, or that Anderson could have more impact right away. Let me ask you something; have you seen Thornton recently (i.e. since late January. I'm even giving you a three-month window)? I know, you'll say you have, but I wont believe you. Let me just give you a refresher on some of Thornton's numbers since February: February: 10 games | 2 starts | 29.1 MPG | 18.8 PPG | 3.8 RPG | 1.8 APG | 46% FG | 43% 3PT March: 16 games | 5 starts | 32.3 MPG | 19.9 PPG | 3.8 RPG | 2.2 APG | 48% FG | 41% 3PT This season, he's scored more than twenty points 18 times, including two 30 point performances; both against good defensive teams (Cavaliers and Spurs). In February and March, he's only failed to score 10 points once, an eight point performance against Portland. In two games so far in April, he's averging a little over 18 points per game as well. Even before this boost in minutes through Jan, Feb, Mar and Apr, he's averaged just over 12 points a game for the Hornets, primarily off the bench. Although his Defensive Rating is shocking, Thornton's Offensive Rating is incredibly strong at the point. So, if Anderson is much more versatile than Thornton, what's the projection numbers for next season? Are we expecting 20/5/3? You grossly overrate Anderson if you think that he's going to easily surprass what Thornton is doing in terms of production for the Hornets so far. Please actually be learned in what you're talking about next time.

He's with Minnesota. Missed today's game with a concussion but played versus Miami a few days back.

Good effort on the mock draft. Hope you come out with some more after this. Having said that, I do have a few things to say. First, you seem to be just looking at which prospect fits which teams the most and I think your rationale sometimes is a bit off. The most glaring is probably the first pick. “Perfect scenario for the Nets,” you said about Wall going to the Nets. The Nets already have Devin Harris, a guy who when he was healthy last year averaged 21 and 7. Therefore, this pick becomes less than a ‘perfect scenario’ considering that they already have a great point guard already. The Nets perfect situation would be falling to #2, or even #3 and taking someone who does actually fit their roster, i.e. Evan Turner or DeMarcus Cousins (a wing or a strong body in the paint) rather than going with John Wall and having to compromise either his role, or Devin Harris’ role on the Nets. Ed Davis to Philadelphia probably isn’t that great a situation, either. The Sixers already have Mareese Speights and Jason Smith, although the latter probably won’t develop into a strong rotation player for them. What the Sixers need is immediate production considering their record is and their lack of players who can produce consistently. If anything, they’re going to look more toward Patrick Patterson or even Cole Aldrich, both who could contribute something meaningful immediately rather than looking at another big-man project who may or may not work out. I think you jumped the gun on James Anderson by about seven or eight picks, and considering that you have him going to the Hornets, who already have a James Anderson clone going by the name of Marcus Thornton in their long-term plans, this pick to me just seems puzzling at best. If they needed more scoring, and were willing to take a reach on a player, Gordon Hayward from Butler (who by the way you don’t have going in the first round.. confusing) or even Quincy Pondexter (28th? Underrated) would have been a better gamble than taking a player who the Hornets have a replica of already. I’m not sure you’re aware of this, but you have a little bit of bias toward American players. And I don’t know if this was intentional but you put Montiejunas is a spot where he can under no circumstances actually be a good player. The absolute last thing that the Grizzlies need is another big man considering they already have Gasol, Randolph, Thabeet, Haddidi, Hunter and Arthur. If anything, the Bucks, Pacers or even the Rockets will definitely take a chance on him before Motiejunas reaches #14. Come to think of it, I’ve seen Montiejunas no lower than twelfth on every singly mock thus far and you have him two spots lower than almost everyone else on the internet. A little bit suspect, but whatever. Apart from that and a few other minor things, good job. Repped.

The Warriors aren't bad. Their management picks players that fit Don Nelson's system. With a healthy team, we saw the Warriors make the playoffs and then miss the playoffs with a 48-28 season. The past two years have been a re-building for the Warriors. Not only that, but their players just can't seem to stay away from getting injured. That's basically the reason for their D-League call-ups. Oh, and their D-League call ups have been gems (at least a few have) - that's all the management getting that done. Actually now that I look at it, none of the teams you've mentioned are really deserving to be where they are. There are definitely worse teams. One I don't think you've even considered is the Timberwolves. They're basically stuck in Purgatory (Catholic Church references ftw) for a long, long time. The only real good things they have going for them is Love, Flynn and Jefferson. Apart from that, everyone is shocking on that team. When your team's rotation consists of Brian Cardinal and Ryan Hollins and Oleksiy Pecherov and Darko Milicic, you know you're going to a bottom dweller for a while. They've improperly used Sessions. He's suited more of an offense where he's got more control, something which the Wolves baby-Triangle offense cannot help him with. Oh and the fact that it's Minnesota has historically almost never appealed to players. So no matter how great their management might be in the future, and let's be real, their management will always be mediocre at best, players wont want to play there.

McGrady was an All-NBA teamer at SF. Why would we move Carter when McGrady is much more suited to a SF position? I'd love McGrady on the Magic. Too bad the Magic have only the MLE to offer McGrady.. which now that I think about it, might be enough to for McGrady.

^ A guy who plays 82 games and starts a majority of them is a 'franchise' player to you? Okkkk.

Well for one the first paragraph there sort of contradicts the second. And second of all, let's take a look at some drafts: 2006 NBA Draft: #1 Pick: Andrea Bargnani - Career averages of 13.5 points, 4.8 rebounds per game. Season average: 16.8 points, 6.2 rebounds per game #2 Pick: LaMarcus Aldridge - Career averages of 15.9 points, 7.1 rebounds per game Considering that Brandon Roy, Rudy Gay and Rajon Rondo, all arguably more successful players and much better values for their pick went much later than these two, does that make Bargnani or Aldrdige bust choices? Both have averaged over 16 points per game, both have found roles on their team and both have been very steady their whole career. Just because they most probably wont end up being the best pick in their draft does not mean that they are instantly busts. Neither of these guys will be the best player on their team at any stage of their careers either, but that's not to take away from the fact that they've very good players for the purposes they serve. 2005 NBA Draft: #1 Pick: Andrew Bogut - Career averages of 12.7 points, 9.0 rebounds per game. Season average: 15.9 points, 10.2 rebounds per game #2 Pick: Marvin Williams - Career averages of 12.0 points, 5.4 rebounds per game. I don't think anyone has ever called out Bogut for not contributing probably the way he should considering that Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Danny Granger, Monta Ellis, Davis Lee etc went behing him (in some cases, far behind him). Nor will they ever, in my opinion. He'll end up being a steady force, but the reason for the Bucks success is because they finally have a player who can handle the ball and is willing to put the team on his back (Jennings). Bogut is and will continue to be the second or even third fiddle on most teams he's on. The last time where you'll find the true definition of a bust, meaning a player who completely bombed out with such high expectations from the top two(with the exception of Thabeet this season) would be 2003 with Darko and 2001 where Kwame Brown and Tyson Chandler went #1 and #2 respectively. Aside from them and Adam Morrison, most top 3 picks have made solid contributions to their teams.

To me that sounds like gossip that people make up when they're bored. "Real Deal is selling our e-mails to corporate governments so they can send us viruses!!", "Real Deal is selling the site and he's going to make millions", "I heard Real Deal is a badass hacker who keeps closing down sites cuz he's so badass". It just sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me. Someone is just bored and looking to start trouble. But in this new age world where you can hide behind your computer and not be afraid of consequences, what's new? Eventually they all get bored, though. To me, Real Deal has been nothing but fair and honest from the time I met him on another forum (probably back in 2007?). He genuinly seems like a good guy who wants to make this site work for everyone. I don't know where they get the image of Real Deal being 'shady' and 'Stalin-like'. Someone's high on melodrama atm, it seems.

Anyone who knows a thing or two about basketball could have seen that this was inevitably going to turn out to be a bad free agent signing. First and probably most importantly, there should be a rule against teams offering players over the age of 30 contracts worth upwards of 10 million dollars a season. And that's exactly what Toronto has done. They offered a guy 10 million dollars a season until the age of 36. 36. What was the thought process behind that? The fact that his numbers have dwindled to 8/5 and 3 during March is no surprise to me whatsoever. That's what you get when you sign a 30 year old to a huge contract - a massive, massive underachieving effort.

Ironic that you're talking about bias in the Euro V Americans debate. And why aren't they giving him a shot to play? Probably because he's barely 17 and playing for one of the better clubs in Europe. These are grown men he's going up against. He's no longer going up againsts kids who are out there to 'just have fun'.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/player/david-lee/339191 superstar. Flash doesn't read anyones replies by the way, he just makes up opinions based on his own agenda. Useless to argue with someone who's rhetoric skill isn't tuned past the level of an 8 year old.

^ It's of course the top league in the world, there's no doubt about that, but it's not a group of the best players in the world scattered across 30 teams. It's just impossible for that to happen.

I don't think anyones really considered cultural aspects in their responses. Players coming from Europe is a relatively new concept still. And with every year, we see more and more international players being drafted. The first international player was only drafted #1 in 2002 (Yao), the first European was drafted #1 in 2007 (Bargnani) and last year we saw 5 international players come in as first round picks which accounts for roughly 17% of the first round (not including Thabeet who is from Tanzania). The concept of drafting international players is still very new, but it certainly is on the rise, especially in the last decade. Also a jump from Europe to the NBA prior to 2005 without being drafted was almost non-existent. I'm convinced still that many European league players could fill spots on NBA teams, even some starting spots who just haven't come over. Why? Maybe cultural aspects, language barriers. Many 25+ year olds have settled and are comfortable where they are in Europe. Learning a new language and adjusting to a new life is an uncomfortable experience. For example, Jorge Garbajosa lasted 2 seasons before going back to Europe at 32 and then starred on a great team back in Europe. Juan Carlos Navarro was gone in two seasons as well although it was obvious he could play NBA basketball. Theo Papaloukas was offered contracts by the Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers, Milwaukee Bucks, and the Miami Heat to fill their point guard spot and some reports were deals extended to $7 million a season, yet he declined for a 3 year deal (worth $10.5 million Euro) to stay in Europe. The NBA isn't a collection of the best basketball players in the world. Not everyone strives to be an NBA player. Sure, when you're 19 and eager to play and get payed, the NBA is definitely a serious prospect, but it's not the be all, end all league. There are many, many players in Europe who could easily stick it in the NBA if they had a yearning for it, but most don't.

Flash, it's so obvious that you have not watched a single game in which Montiejunas has played. I don't think you should even be allowed to comment on his game and his 'potential' without actually seeing first hand what his game is actually about. You gave yourself away by saying that he needs to improve his jump shooting when the only reason that he has such a high ceiling in the first place is because he's such a great jump shooter at such a young age. He's only 19. Reading and then using select sentences from DraftExpress or Draft.net (but you would never use that because it's such an inferior site ) definitely doesn't make any more of an expert than the next guy. DraftExpress, a site you rely on, called Beasley's comparison 'Amare Stoudemire meets Antwan Jamison' before he set foot on the court but I'm sure you probably had no problem with that comparison, right? So far, Beasley has looks like he'll struggle to be a quarter of the player they expect him to be, nevermind a combination of two of the most gifted offensive forwards in the league. Oh and if you want to get all technical on heights and weights and all this stupid stuff to cover up your hate for Europeans being to other Europeans. Montiejunas is 7' 215lbs according to his profile; Meanwhile, Bargnani is 7' 250lbs. By your rationale, these two players just can't be compared; they are utterly uncomparable because they're different weights and yet the comparisons are there. How is it so? Comparisons are guides, someone's comparison counterpart is not a literal clone of said player, it's just a vague description of what kind of player they could be. All players are unique, and all humans ultimately, are unique in their own way so using heights and weights to say that 'no, this player can't be compared to this one' is just ridicolous and did actually make me laugh at the stupidity. Oh and nobody agreed with Years when he said Montiejunas is part Yao, part Dirk, part Gasol. Infact, I don't think he even believed himself and honestly think the comment wasn't intended to be taken seriously by anyone.

It's not exactly fair to expect every player who's surrounded by hype that we incidentally set on them to actually live up to that hype. And it's even less fair to narrow it down to one corner of the globe either. Truth is, there is hype everywhere and on just about every player who's got some unique skill which apparently gives him limitless potential to succeed if he just does [insert unrealistic expecations here]. These players aren't confined in Europe, either. Take for example, DeShawn Stevenson. He averaged 30 points, 10 rebounds, 6 assists per game in high school. He's a legtimate 6'5, 210lbs. with a strong body to boot; an 'NBA' body as most scouts like to say. His grand comparison, as thought up by NBADraft.net and then agreed upon by other scouting websites through different source materials: Michael Jordan. Was this fair to Stevenson? A kid out of high school to yield such a comparison? What were the similarities in their games? - Both were black; - Both jumped high and far; - Both could score roughly 30 points a game in their league (Jordan's average 30.1 ppg in the NBA); - If you squint your eyes, and don't pay attention to the face, he kind of (but not really) looks like Jordan And that's pretty much where it ended. The only (I italisize that because it's such a big 'only') thing Stevenson had to do was 'put his game together' and he would be Jordan. So from this one example, could we stop asking (we did do this, but imagine it in a hypothetical sense) high schoolers to come to the NBA because they just wont live up to expectations? How about because they're not ready? For both questions, the answer obviously is 'no'. It's us, the guys who watch their games who put such high expectations on them in the beginning and we're from all corners of the world and to deny them the right to play in the top league in the world because the general consensus after they play two seasons might be that they wont live up to the expectations we set is ridicolous. .393 from three is pretty efficient to me.