Draft Trades 1

It's a bit late to be commenting on this, but hasn't Kevin McHale pulled off a great deal swapping O.J. Mayo, Antoine Walker, Marko Jaric, and Greg Buckner for Kevin Love, Mike Miller, Brian Cardinal, and Jason Collins? Of the eight players in this deal, there are two prospects, five scrubs, and one good player. McHale got the good player. And while I wouldn't be shocked if Mayo turned out to be a better player than Love, I wouldn't be shocked if things turned out the other way. And the Timberwolves didn't take any kind of financial hit on this in terms of contracts.

Basically the Wolves exchanged one plausible #3 draft pick for another totally plausible #3 draft pick and snagged Mike Miller in the bargain. That's still not a playoff team in the West, but it's a pretty damn solid trade.

Comments

OJ Mayo is 6'4, he hasn't got pro handle, had a 1:1 assist to turnover ration, and doesn't have exceptional passing ability. I don't see how he can run the point and I don't think he's big enough or a good enough shooter (he shot poorly from the field) to play shooting guard. Don't know why some people are so high on him.

Posted by Freddie | June 30, 2008 11:22 AM

People are raging on the deal because McHale has done such a horrible job with the Twolves, but this is a very strong move by him. Love and Big Al will be a tremendous offensive duo and could be the best pair of bigs in the league if they can become merely competent defenders. And no matter how much you like OJ, I don't see how Love/Miller combined isn't better than OJ alone.

I think the groupthink about point guards in the wake of Chris Paul and Deron Williams is fascinating, considering that Lakers made the Finals with profoundly ordinary PGs and the Celts won with a PG who can't shoot a lick and especially considering that the last dominant PG to win a title was...what, Magic?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 30, 2008 11:29 AM

Agreed. The only problem, if you're a Twolves fan, is that you could have said the exact same thing about the Randy Foye-Brandon Roy trade in '06. Foye and Roy were a lot like Love and Mayo, insofar as they were similar prospects projected to go at similar spots in the draft.

An optimist would say that it's the Twolves' turn to catch a break on a deal like this, but it's hard being an optimist with McHale at the helm.

Posted by owenz | June 30, 2008 11:29 AM

Of the eight players in this deal, there are two prospects, five scrubs, and one good player.

Put it this way: if McHale got Miller and Adam Morrison for OJ Mayo, would you still think it was a good deal for the Wolves? And Mayo has size for a point guard.

FWIW, Hollinger's really high on Love. I'd love to know what his projected PER said about Morrison (or Reddick, come to that), though.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 11:32 AM

I agree that McHale got the better end of this since at the very least he picked up a veteran with a pulse (Miller).

I absolutely hate the idea of pairing Love & Jefferson in the frontcourt, however. Two short, chunky, unathletic big men--just a bad fit. Who protects the rim on that team?

Posted by Jake H. | June 30, 2008 11:34 AM

I completely agree with the comments thus far. Kevin Love was insanely productive for an 18 year old college freshman. John Hollinger had him as far and away the 2nd best prospect and Jeffery Ma of Protrade says he will be the best player from the draft. OJ Mayo will be in his age 21 year next year and his skill set is widely available. The same can certainly not be said of Kevin Love who will be a great, offensive at least, fit with Miller and Big Al Jefferson. Considering the Twolves can likely now be a player in the super FA summer of 2010, this shapes up to be Kevin McHale's best move since drafting Garnett.

Posted by Mark | June 30, 2008 11:36 AM

The problem for Minnesota is that Al Jefferson is not a center. I think maybe MN should ship Love to the Nets for Brook Lopez and some other pieces.

With a potential Telfair/Foye backcourt and Love/Jefferson frontcourt, I would offer this could be another ugly, ugly year for the Timberwolves, who should be routinely abused on defense by even the most woeful and undersized teams.

Tim, I believe Hollinger projected Morrison as a bust.

Posted by matthewcc | June 30, 2008 11:39 AM

I would add, however, that the Twolves are probably hoping that Foye will be healthy this year and Foye is awfully similar to Mayo. They are both somewhat undersized (albeit talented) shooting guards who kinda sorta projected as PG's coming out of the draft.

If you truly believe Mayo can play PG, then picking him would have made sense for Minny, since going into a season with one of the all time losing-est PG's (Mr. Telfair) is no way to start a year...but I think the skepticism surrounding Mayo's PG skills is well founded.

Posted by owenz | June 30, 2008 11:40 AM

The same can certainly not be said of Kevin Love who will be a great, offensive at least, fit with Miller and Big Al Jefferson.

The defensive implications are too severe to gloss over. Who do they beat in the West with that frontline? How do they stop Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Duncan, West, Chandler, Nowitski, Yao, Aldridge, Oden, Stoudamire...I could go on. Seriously, what would that front line do to handle any one of those guys? It's just not a team built to win in the Western Conference.

It's better than not making the trade, but I wouldn't oversell what this will do for the franchise. Unless they're going to move Love or Jefferson.

Posted by Jake H. | June 30, 2008 11:42 AM

MBunge, Isiah was after Magic. And while I wouldn't necessarily call it dominant, I would say Houston's Smith-Cassell point guard platoon was pretty damn outstanding in 1995. Through the playoffs they combined for 21.8 points, 8.5 assists, 2.9 turnovers, 1.6 steals a game, and they were efficient: about 42% from three and 85% from the line. Obviously Hakeem made things happen, but those guys were really, really good that year. Then, Chauncey Billups was the best offensive player when the Pistons won a few years ago.

That's hardly an overwhelming set, and they all came in combination with other really good players. But great point guard play can be a key component.

That said: I think you're quite right about this trade in particular.

Posted by jhupp | June 30, 2008 11:48 AM

I absolutely hate the idea of pairing Love & Jefferson in the frontcourt, however. Two short, chunky, unathletic big men--just a bad fit. Who protects the rim on that team?

I agree to a point, although I don't think Jefferson is particularly short, chunky, or unathletic. I just think he lacks defensive skill. Still, the fear with Love and Jefferson in the front-court is that you basically have a good attitude version of Zach Randolph and Eddie Curry: talented scorers without a lot of defensive ability. On the bright side, Jefferson is already an extremely talented rebounder at 23, and defense often comes down to effort and heart...of which Love and Jefferson certainly possess a lot more of than Randolph and Curry.

Twolves fans have to hope that McHale learned something from his buddy Danny Ainge. From the "stockpiling talent for a future blockbuster" perspective, this move makes good sense.

Posted by owenz | June 30, 2008 11:51 AM

"the Celts won with a PG who can't shoot a lick"

Rondo put up 10.6 ppg on 49.2% shooting. Yeah, he isn't a good shooter, but he isn't terrible either.
And with Pierce, Garnett, and Allen on your team you're not looking for the PG to take a lot of shots.

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 30, 2008 11:55 AM

Tim, I believe Hollinger projected Morrison as a bust.

Thanks. I saw that after I posted. I don't quite understand Hollinger's methodology, though. It looks like rebound rate killed Morrison (and Redick), but I'm not sure how the model was built.

In any case, I'll be extremely interested to see what happens with Love, as I think of him as having similar problems to Morrison. I'll be pretty impressed with Hollinger if he called that one properly. (And is there anything that Love can do that physically (or athletically, if you'd rather) Hansborough can't or can't learn to do?)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 11:56 AM

Big Al and Love seem to be pretty similar players,actually--both are best suited to play the 4, and are soft defensively. Love is by far the better passer and face-up scorer, while Jeff is the better post player and, with the benefit of three NBA seasons, is more ready to bang with bigs. I agree that playing Jeff at the 5 is a serious defensive liability, but that seems to be the Minny plan: Al at the 5, Love at the 4. We'll see how that works out, I guess.

As mentioned above, Hollinger projected Morrison to be a bust based on two things: shockingly low rebound totals from a collegiate 3/4, and high shot totals. Like everyone else, Hollinger was down on Reddick as an undersized two, with one tool (long-range scoring) and little NBA play-making ability. As for Mayo: the last half of the season, he showed he could be a starting point guard in the NBA. I really don't know where "he hasn't got pro handle" came from--unless you stopped watching him play after mid-January.

That said, McHale has to be seen as getting the better value in this trade. Plus, he managed to get three white guys in one deal. Impressive.

Posted by Chesser | June 30, 2008 12:00 PM

Well, neither Love or Jefferson is a true center, and both will have trouble guarding many of the really good forwards in the west, this is certainly true. But during the college season, I saw surprising stretches from Love on the defensive end of the court. At least enough to say he has potential defensively. His size will probably always limit him against 7 footer types, but I think he could develop the kind of defensive skill that would prevent that front court from being a disaster defensively. Especially with Jefferson grabbing rebounds, which is a big part of that big man 'defense'.

The Wolves are so far from a title run in the west, I think it's a little early to start talking about matchups. They just need to keep acquiring talent first.

Posted by mpowell | June 30, 2008 12:02 PM

as a minny resident, I have come around on this trade mainly due to mike miller. If he can continue his 3 pt shooting ways, this team can score a lot of points.

Love/Mayo will play over over a few years.

But, this will be the most dunked-on team in the leauge next year. I promise.

Posted by notchris | June 30, 2008 12:02 PM

Bring back the days when NBA teams had two guards, not a point guard and a shooting guard. Players once learned both skill sets; think Oscar Robertson and Jerry West and the post Cousy Celtics. Maybe the league has too many teams and maybe the sportcenter highlight reel model of young player development obscured that role, but it worked before and could work again. If the Lakers had had a guard to play alongside Kobe Bryant instead of an aging point guard and an adolescent point guard, the Celtics would have been forced to defend them very differently.

Posted by masinter | June 30, 2008 12:04 PM

"the Celts won with a PG who can't shoot a lick"

For comparison, Rondo's season shooting averages
FG 0.492, 3P 0.263. Magic Johnson career averages
FG 0.520, 3P 0.303.

For sure, Rondo could stand to improve his shooting,
but if you put him up against the best PG of all
time and they shot 20 three-pointers each, Magic
hits 6 and Rondo hits 5. That doesn't strike me as
a huge deal.

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 30, 2008 12:09 PM

And is there anything that Love can do that physically (or athletically, if you'd rather) Hansborough can't or can't learn to do?

Be tall

Posted by BasketballMe | June 30, 2008 12:20 PM

Only if you think a 6'9" power forward who can't jump and a 6'10" center who can't jump will be able to play any defense and block shots. I agree with the skeptics.

Posted by Nathan | June 30, 2008 12:23 PM

Be tall

Love's measured pre-draft camp height (w/o shoes) was 6'7.75". I'm not sure what Tyler Hansbrough's real height is, but how much smaller can it be? Love is essentially the same height as Joe Alexander.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 12:31 PM

I also think the T-Wolves got the better of this deal, but a front line of Miller, Love and Jefferson might be the worst defensive front line in NBA history. They could put Brewer at the 3 and Miller at the 2, which helps, but its still a horrific lineup defensively.

But I'd be quite suprised if Love turns out better than Mayo. It's not that I think Mayo is that great, it's that Love looks like a pretty crappy NBA prospect. He's short for his position, he's almost unbelievably slow, and he has that stupid chin-strap beard. He'll rebound, he can pass, and he'll hit permiter shots when they leave him open. Best-case, I could see him being a Bill Laimbeer type, only not as mean. But Laimbeer was 6-11 and played center. At 6-8, that skill set isn't so great.

But he's way better than Hansbrough, SCMT. I doubt that Hansborough could just "learn" to pass like a Love; it's not really a teachable skill. Love is also way, way stronger and tougher than Hansborough.

Posted by too many steves | June 30, 2008 12:32 PM

Love is also way, way stronger and tougher than Hansborough.

Maybe stronger, but how much tougher does it get than pulling off the mask when you have a broken nose?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 12:37 PM

"For comparison, Rondo's season shooting averages
FG 0.492, 3P 0.263. Magic Johnson career averages
FG 0.520, 3P 0.303.

For sure, Rondo could stand to improve his shooting,
but if you put him up against the best PG of all
time and they shot 20 three-pointers each, Magic
hits 6 and Rondo hits 5."

I'm a Celtic fan who loves Rondo and hopes the improved shooting we saw at times in the playoffs is a harbinger of things to come, but let's not fool ourselves. At his best right now, Rondo is a streak shooter who can't even hit a layup when he's cold. The announcers constantly harping on it got a bit old, but it is amazing that the Celts were able to function offensively at all with both Detroit and LA simply refusing to guard Rondo and Rondo refusing time and again to take open jumpers.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 30, 2008 12:50 PM

Love Height (w/o shoes): 6'7.75"
Love Wingspan: 6'11"

Danny Green Height: 6'4.5"

Check out this picture.

Danny Green takes a step back and they're about the same height. And Hansbrough is known to have short arms. If Hansbrough were three inches taller with Love's wingspan, he'd of been the third pick in the draft.

Posted by BasketballMe | June 30, 2008 12:54 PM

Try this link:

http://blogs.bet.com/news/playahater/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/hansbroughandgreen.jpg

Posted by BasketballMe | June 30, 2008 12:58 PM

This is kind of silly. Hansborough is definitely as strong as Love. But Love is WAY more athletic than Hansborough. Love may look a little awkward, but his 'combine' stats showed that he's very athletic. Also, Love can shoot. Tyler Hansborough can't. The funny thing is, Tyler Hansborough probably would have been drafted in the top 5 if he would come out after his freshman year. He was very high on many draft boards. Teams imagined him continuing to improve his skill set. Unfortunately for him, he really hasn't. He's only proven his ceiling to be pretty low. He'll be a decent backup PF.

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 12:59 PM

I don't think it's such a great idea for a bad young team to be paying a merely good player already in his prime such as Miller $9 and $10 million in the next 2 years. Taking salary into account, is Miller really more of an asset than a liability, for any team but a contender? And doesn't Miller eat up minutes that might more productively (in the long term) go to the younger Brewer, McCants, Snyder, and Gomes.

That said, the fact that Memphis is taking on the bad 3-year contracts of Jaric and Buckner still makes it a pretty solid trade for Minnesota. Cardinal's bad contract is only 2-years.

Memphis must really like OJ Mayo. Conley/Mayo/Gay does look intriguing. + they have complementary speedy young 4s in Warrick and Darrell Arthur. +athletic Darko at 5. They need to find a way to move Lowry or Crittenton for some more size.

Posted by Ban Johnson | June 30, 2008 1:00 PM

On the Rondo shooting point: I think Magic drew a little more defensive attention. Rondo's numbers are his 'wide open jumper' numbers.

And Love's wingspan is important. If he had the wingspan of a 6'7'' guy, he would be a disaster of a prospect.

Posted by mpowell | June 30, 2008 1:03 PM

"At his best right now, Rondo is a streak shooter who can't even hit a layup when he's cold."

Well yeah, but then Ray Allen went ice-cold for a
while in the playoffs as well. And Pierce had some
off-nights too. Seems to me that happens to just about everyone, and at the end of the day you have
to go the stats to distinguish perception from reality. And the stats say Rondo's shooting is a
weakness, but just about good enough.

A lot of teams have underrated Rondo and given him space. 66 wins in the regular season and an NBA championship say that approach hasn't paid off.

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 30, 2008 1:04 PM

Who's responsible for pulling the trigger on these deals in Memphis, anyway? Doesn't Jerry West have a role down there? I mean, if it's Chris Wallace I understand - he's incredibly bad. But I thought Jerry had a better record.

Posted by TedL | June 30, 2008 1:10 PM

Does anyone else think the idea of Kevin McHale and Chris Wallace negotiating a trade is hilarious?

McHale: We'll give you Al Jefferson for Darko.

Wallace: Nah, I don't like that. How about we give you Rudy Gay for Marko Jaric?

McHale: no, no, that's no good. Why don't we swap draft picks instead?

Wallace: That works, but you have to take Mike Miller too.

Posted by too many steves | June 30, 2008 1:12 PM

Chris Wallace is terrible, but we'd probably all look terrible if we were just trying to be cheap. That's all his owner wants him to do, right? They got rid of Miller's big contract. They also got rid of Brian Cardinal's TERRIBLE contract. After getting rid of Gasol's contract last year, he appears to have met his objectives.

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 1:23 PM

OJ Mayo is severely underrated by just about everyone. Dude was best prospect in the draft, and Mayo > Rose easy.

Mayo is a stud on offense and defense. Let's start there. Nobody else in the draft combines those two facts. Mayo is hyper-athletic AND can shoot lights out. Mayo can play the point or the shooting guard positions. Yes, he plays the point. Yes, he did it all college. No, he's not a "shoot first" point guard. Mayo deferred at USC. Every game. Guy can play whatever game you want him to play.

Love is a great offensive power forward and should be fantastic with Al Jefferson when they have the ball, but he is undersized and a straight defensive LIABILITY (this is undeniable).

As to including Mike Miller, that's why McHale won this trade. They are going to be a very fun team to watch. Al Jefferson is Top 3 post players in the league. Best knack for putting rock in hole in the league. Plus the guard grow up. No defense on that team. None.
_________

I still wouldn't be surprised if Mayo is traded to Miami for Michael Beasley.

Posted by Busta Highman | June 30, 2008 1:32 PM

Beasley was the best prospect in the draft. Pat Riley should be put in a home immediately if he trades him for Mayo. And I REALLY like Mayo. Like, I like-LIKE him. But Beasley will be the rookie of the year and the best player from this draft. Chicago fucked up.

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 1:40 PM

If it's ever truly possible, a trade between McHale and Chris Wallace has to be a lose-lose for both teams. These two have got to be the worst 2 GMs in the NBA, and it's a long way up to find #3. As is, I'd say Wallace got the better of the deal because he got the best player in Mayo. Miller is a nice shooter. That is all. Love is going to be a disaster on the defensive end and will be unable to make it up with whatever his offensive numbers are.. I believe with this trade that McHale has cemented Minnesota as the worst defensive team in the NBA for years to come. How can you win games when you're slow and undersized? At almost every position? I'd love to be able to interview McHale, just so I could ask him what his philosophy was. The only rationale I can imagine for him is that the only factor he cares about in a player is FG%, so he's got a bunch of small, slow stiffs who shoot well, with the hope that Telfair/Foye can somehow magically create open shots for them. Oh, and defense doesn't matter. If Love plays big minutes, I think opposing teams will shoot 49+% against this team (they were 47.2% this year, 4th worst in the league). They're going to be awful...

Posted by Crusty Dem | June 30, 2008 1:57 PM

Mayo turns the ball over WAY too much. .95 A/T ratio in college, and people really expect him to run the point in the NBA? Madness. He is a great athlete, but Rose actually beat him in just about everything at the combine fwiw.

Posted by Ethan P | June 30, 2008 2:00 PM

Crusty, I called it a lose-lose on the first thread here about draft trades. I think more highly of Miller than you do, though. If you watch him play, its clear he does more than just shoot. He can handle the ball, score in a few different ways, and pass pretty well. Just because he's white, doesn't mean he plays like Wally Sczerbiak or something. Although, true to racial stereotype, he plays no D.

Posted by too many steves | June 30, 2008 2:05 PM

Memphis must really like OJ Mayo. Conley/Mayo/Gay does look intriguing. + they have complementary speedy young 4s in Warrick and Darrell Arthur. +athletic Darko at 5. They need to find a way to move Lowry or Crittenton for some more size.

Blasphemy! What Memphis needs are more guards. Maybe they can send next year's first-rounder and Gay to Chicago for Hinrich, then find a way to turn Kwame Brown into Stephone Marbury...

+athletic Darko at 5.

I just wanted to read that again.

+athletic Darko at 5.

Awesome.

Posted by scythia | June 30, 2008 2:10 PM

Love's measured pre-draft camp height (w/o shoes) was 6'7.75".

I would like to know why Love's shoes were 1.75" (since his height w/ shoes was 6'9.5") whereas most everyone else's shoes were 1.0".

Someone get Mars Blackmon on the case!

Posted by Al | June 30, 2008 2:19 PM

Danny Green takes a step back and they're about the same height. And Hansbrough is known to have short arms.

Thanks. I'm surprised. I hope, somehow, that the apparent equivalence of height in that photo is a function of perspective. But I doubt it.

Gawd, I hate sports writers. How hard would it be for someone who purports to be a journalist to try and get correct heights for the people he covers? It's not like the notion that height matters in basketball is a new one. But, no, that's a step too far. Best of all, post-combine, the majority of sports writers I read continue to use the fake heights. Jeebus.

Taking salary into account, is Miller really more of an asset than a liability, for any team but a contender?

I was kind of wondering the same thing. He's a nice compliment to a great player, but it's not clear to me that MN has anything to compliment.

And Love's wingspan is important. If he had the wingspan of a 6'7'' guy, he would be a disaster of a prospect.

Fair point. I hadn't realized he had an oversized wingspan.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 2:20 PM

"I doubt that Hansborough could just "learn" to pass like a Love; it's not really a teachable skill."

Not entirely true, but Love is a very good passer, and ... well, we really don't know how good a passer Hansbrough is, because he just doesn't.

"Love is also way, way stronger and tougher than Hansborough."

That's a joke. Ask Greg Oden.

"He'll be a decent backup PF."

Mark my words, Hansbrough is an NBA starter.

Posted by drinkof | June 30, 2008 2:26 PM

I think the bright side for Minnestora is that Love and Miller can have some truly epic HORSE games. They should open practice to the public and charge for tickets. It would have to be more entertaining than watching their games.

Posted by too many steves | June 30, 2008 2:27 PM

And is there anything that Love can do that physically (or athletically, if you'd rather) Hansborough can't or can't learn to do?

Love is 18-19, and still covered in baby fat. He is going to add about 20-40 pounds of muscle in the next 5 years without losing quickness or speed. His father was considered to be one of the strongest men in the NBA, but was overshadowed because he played on the same line as Unseld.

Hansborough isn't changing.

Posted by Njorl | June 30, 2008 2:33 PM

BTW - as to the Love/Hansbrough debate - I think the major difference between the two isn't height, but rather is body type. Hansbrough is not bulky at all - he's actually pretty skinny. Love is quite bulky with broad shoulder. I think that makes Love potentially a much better rebounder and defender, even if the same height.

Posted by Al | June 30, 2008 2:37 PM

hansbrough an nba starter? sure, if the nba starts power forwards who don't dribble, shoot, defend the rim or rebound particularly effectively, yeah, he's a sure-fire starter.

i'm sorry, the above is probably somewhat exaggerated but i'm just angry about hansbrough being the beneficiary of a prolonged media blowjob last season when he didn't even have a top-5 college basketball season.

Posted by dtah | June 30, 2008 2:39 PM

Maybe not tougher, but Love is stronger than Hansbrough.

Also, I just can't get behind the idea that Mayo will be a better POINT GUARD than Rose. Did nobody else watch the tournament???

Rookie of the year = Beasley
Highest ceiling = Rose

Posted by JS | June 30, 2008 2:45 PM

I'm not sure if Love or Hansborough have the size (or the quickness to make up for a lack of size) to be legitimate 4's, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want either one unless he were playing next to a big, solid, shot-blocking 5. Since Love will be playing next to undersized, slow, defensively challenged Al Jefferson, I predict pain for Twolves fans (all 3 of them) this year.

Posted by Crusty Dem | June 30, 2008 2:49 PM

Yeah, Hansborough definitely did not deserve the Player of Year last year. But we all know the media LOVES hustling white guys. I suppose its possible that he could be a starter in the NBA. He'd have to be matched up with an offensively talented 5 so he could just rebound. But he'll still be a liability against quicker 4's.

As far as Love v. Hansborough, the biggest difference appears to be their coordination. Love appears to have a much softer touch and a better skill set around the basket. Once his body hardens up a bit, there will be no comparison left between the two. Love is also longer and more athletic. I have a feeling their skin tone is the only reason we're having this discussion.

Posted by Ted2 | June 30, 2008 2:51 PM

In regards to Beasley, it seems silly to think that his ceiling can't be higher than Rose's. I think Beasley was obviously the best player in the draft. The only reason people don't view him as having a high ceiling is because he was already so accomplished as a 19 year old kid. He was clearly the best player in the country last year as a freshmen. His body is ready for the NBA. And he shoots better than Rose OR Mayo.

Posted by Ted2 | June 30, 2008 2:55 PM

The problem with the trade is that Minnesota's interior defense is going to be awful again. Al Jefferson needs to play alongside a solid post defender (even someone like Pau Gasol would do) to cover up his deficiencies in lateral quickness and his general lack of defensive awareness. Kevin Love, all six-nine of him, won't do that. To me, he looks like a midrange Antoine Walker.

Posted by Joel | June 30, 2008 3:02 PM

I'm with you Ted2, no way would I ever draft Rose over Beasley. Not only does he have a higher ceiling, he has a much higher basement (did I just make the term up?). Rose could end up being a fairly average NBA PG, but I find it impossible to imagine Beasley not starting multiple all-star games.. I think too many people were trying to turn Rose into Chris Paul, he's a nice player, but I just don't see it; likewise, people were trying to turn Beasley into Kevin Durant, which 1) wouldn't be a bad thing and 2) he's likely going to be superior to.

Posted by Crusty Dem | June 30, 2008 3:04 PM

Kevin Love, all six-nine of him, won't do that. To me, he looks like a midrange Antoine Walker.

I think if you can get Antoine Walker's production without actually having to put Antoine Walker on your team, that's a huge win. Walker was a three-time All-Star before he went all Kirstie Alley.

Yeah, Minnesota will have no D, but fuck it, it's the West, and a lot of teams could say the same. Remember, a eight-seed would be a triumph here. Let them get a core of guys playing well together before worrying about building a top-four franchise.

Posted by scythia | June 30, 2008 3:13 PM

I think the term would be 'lower basement,' right? But yeah, your point is spot-on. If CP and Deron Williams didn't have the years they did, no way Rose goes number 1. It seems much more likely to me that he ends up like a Marbury without the issues. Their size, athleticism, and skill sets seem to be very similar. Now granted, there could be much worse things than having a career like Marbury, but expecting him to be another Chris Paul is dumb. I don't know if Beasley will be better than Durant, but he's certainly a sure thing. The thing is, Beasley was widely considered to be the #1 pick all year. Then, Rose had a tournament in which he does the same things he's done all year, and the media is ready to annoint him. It confuses me. For some reason, just because Beasley LOOKS like Derrick Coleman, people think he's going to be a bust like Derrick Coleman. And, for lack of a better term, that's just retarded.

Posted by Ted2 | June 30, 2008 3:15 PM

SCMT and others who were wondering whether Miller has value to the Wolves:

Yes, $9-10 million is a lot to pay for Mike Miller, but it beats the hell out of paying that money for Marko Jaric amd Antoine Walker. I'd much rather be overpaying for a useful spare part than for dreck, and McHale didn't have to add salary to do it.

Posted by BP in MN | June 30, 2008 3:15 PM

Some posters have a very narrow conception of athleticism. Athleticism is not just about speed and jumping ability. It's also about strength, agility, balance, coordination, and form/technique/mechanics. Every one of the top five picks is a world-class athlete.

I am a USC season-ticket holder in the L.A. market who also adopted Memphis after being blown away by Rose in the very first game of the college season on ESPNU against Tennessee-Martin, so I can honestly say that I saw virtually every game played by USC, UCLA and Memphis this year. I hate the Bruins, but I would not underestimate Love. He is as strong as a bull, and very skilled.

One thing to bear in mind about Mayo's numbers is that he pretty much had to carry USC. Davon Jefferson is a flake, and Taj Gibson was inconsistent. No one was expecting Nick Young and Gabe Pruitt to leave. With the graduation of Lodrick Stewart, USC was a shell of the Sweet 16 squad of 2006-07. Mayo did not have a lot of help, but check out the difference in his numbers after his disastrous 10-turnover game against UCLA in their second meeting. Turnovers were down, shooting percentage was way up, especially on threes. And, despite what a lot of people want to believe about him, Mayo has got a great attitude and works like a fiend.

Having said all that, Rose is just a special player. I will follow the Bulls with great interest just to watch him play.

Posted by Brian | June 30, 2008 3:17 PM

Didn't anyone see Love at the draft? He looked very trim, supposedly lost 15 lbs. I would have picked him #1, but then again I only watched all these guys play 2 or 3 times so making me a GM of a professional franchise might be a bit reckless.

Posted by Dan | June 30, 2008 3:20 PM

Brian,

1. I agree completely about people's perception of athleticism. Love is very athletic, he just looks a little awkward running down the court. But his strengh, coordination, and touch make up for it.

2. Beasley had to carry his team just like Rose and shot a very high percentage. He was head and shoulders better than Rose or Mayo. I like both those other guys, but Beasley had a better year than Durant did the year before. 5x All-Star at least. Barring injuries of course...

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 3:25 PM

I only watched all these guys play 2 or 3 times so making me a GM of a professional franchise might be a bit reckless.

I guarantee that's more basketball than Chris Wallace has watched all year. You'd be fine.

Posted by scythia | June 30, 2008 3:25 PM

"Beasley had to carry his team just like Rose..."

Sorry, meant to say, Beasley had to carry his team just like Mayo.

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 3:27 PM

For some reason, just because Beasley LOOKS like Derrick Coleman, people think he's going to be a bust like Derrick Coleman. And, for lack of a better term, that's just retarded.

1. Derrick Coleman wasn't a bust at all, just a little disappointing given his vast potential: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/colemde01.html
3 20-10 seasons early in his career: those Nets teams weren't bad, either.

2. Beasley doesn't just look like Coleman, he has a very similar game -- both are excellent outside shooters and rebounders. Beasley is smaller and has quicker feet, however.

Posted by Ban Johnson | June 30, 2008 3:28 PM

FWIW, I don't think Beasley has anything like the potential of a Derrick Coleman. Coleman may have been the biggest waste of talent I've seen in the NBA. Certainly from his generation of players.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 3:30 PM

When I said Beasley looked like Coleman, I meant the entire package. Their both left-handed. They both shoot and rebound well. They are also similar in size and skin-tone. We all know skin-tone is what most people base their comparisons on, right? Robin Lopez=Anderson Varejao anyone?

Also, we can't have it both ways. While Coleman had a few good seasons, he was considered by most to be a bust due to his potential. Also, I don't really get how Beasley couldn't have as much potential as DC. Even though that's not what I said, I certainly believe that. He is a 19 year old kid who completely dominated college baskeball the one year that he played. He is completely NBA ready and the only negitive in his game is his defense. What exactly did DC do better than Beasley?

Posted by Ted2 | June 30, 2008 3:38 PM

Love is very athletic, he just looks a little awkward running down the court. But his strengh, coordination, and touch make up for it.

It's more than that. Joey Dorsey pushed him around, holding him to 12 and 9.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 3:39 PM

Their=They're

Sorry, just violated one of my own pet-peeves.

Posted by Ted2 | June 30, 2008 3:40 PM

Their=They're. Sorry, just violated one of my own pet-peeves.

Don't you hate it when that happens? It's like the internet makes you stupider...

Posted by scythia | June 30, 2008 3:43 PM

SCMT,
Joey Dorsey is a beast, and was the Conference USA Defensive Player of the Year two years in a row. I know you'd still like your #1 pick to have a better game, but there could be worse guys to have it against. Also, he's a man. Love still has to fill out a little bit.

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 3:47 PM

SCMT,
Joey Dorsey is a beast, and was the Conference USA Defensive Player of the Year two years in a row. I know you'd still like your #1 pick to have a better game, but there could be worse guys to have it against. Also, he's a man. Love still has to fill out a little bit.

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 3:47 PM

What exactly did DC do better than Beasley?

Play against much, much better competition. Coleman was a force to be reckoned with when the Big East was arguably the best conference in the country, and when the best players didn't usually leave after one year. Put another way: are we as impressed by Beasley if Durant and Oden are still playing in college this past season?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 3:49 PM

Stacy,

I didn't mention Beasley in my post, but it wasn't intended as a slight. I'm just not in the same position to assess him as the other three. From what I saw of him, he is incredibly talented. I can't remember the last guy at the college level with Beasley's ability to use his strength to convert while being fouled and set up the conventional three-point play. There's a case to be made that Beasley's performance was better than Durant's and Oden's the year before, but he got a fraction of the attention during the course of the season that those two did.

I'm not sure how it's an indictment of Love that, in his worst game, matched up against a specimen like Dorsey and a loaded team, he still put up 12 and 9. When your lowest output is 12 and 9 against the best team in the country-- and, yes, Memphis was the best team, even though they ended up losing to Kansas-- you're pretty damned good.

Posted by Brian | June 30, 2008 3:52 PM

Yes, I think we would absolutely be as impressed by him if Durant and Oden were playing. For starters, he would be outplaying them both. Now, you can say that his numbers might be down a bit if players didn't leave early at all, but he would still be having a better season than Durant in the same conference. The question is, would we be as impressed by Durant and Oden if they were in class below theirs? They're all incredible talents, but this class is even more stacked top to bottom.

Posted by Ted2 | June 30, 2008 3:55 PM

One thing that went unnoticed about the draft: 12 of the 60 players selected were from the Pac-10. That is a pretty astonishing figure-- fully 20 percent of the draftees came from a single conference.

I saw many notes about the number of Pac-10ers in the top five, top 11 and first round, but I never saw this note, taking it all the way to the end of the draft, anywhere.

Posted by Brian | June 30, 2008 4:01 PM

I know you'd still like your #1 pick to have a better game, but there could be worse guys to have it against. Also, he's a man. Love still has to fill out a little bit.

I don't know why I'm so down on Love. My best guess:

1. I expect him to be, at best, a passable player. I think his relatively small stature and his lack of quickness are going to hurt him. (I have strong biases towards athleticism (in the non-rhythmic gymnastics sense of the word).)

2. I picked up Mike Love-hatred by osmosis.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 4:01 PM

I think I'm just a little defensive of Beasley because I don't really get the critiques of him. It seems as though they hint at character issues, but don't specify what they are. He played at a number of different high schools, but he had no issues whatsoever at K-State. The media just seems to grab a narrative and run with it. We should be used to that, I suppose...

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 4:05 PM

I don't think there are many rhythmic gymnasts with the strength that Kevin Love possesses. And this is coming from someone who hates UCLA with a passion and who chafed all year at the Love-as-golden-boy/Mayo-as-problem-child media-and-fan narrative that prevailed for much of the year. But eventually I had to just tip my cap and acknowledge that Love is an outstanding basketball player.

Posted by Brian | June 30, 2008 4:10 PM

I don't think there are many rhythmic gymnasts with the strength that Kevin Love possesses.

I don't doubt that he's pretty strong, but he did get pushed around in that final game. And the people matched up against him aren't going to be weaker (or slower) than the people he played in college.

But I have a real tendency to underrate skill. I seem to assume that things can just be learned if you have the necessary physical tools. That's idiotic on my part, and the careers of any number NBA bench players seem to indicate otherwise.

Nonetheless, I expect Love to get pantsed regularly.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 4:17 PM

For those of you doubting Love's strength:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1z2sFmrR7bc

And yes, it's real.

Posted by 55 | June 30, 2008 4:24 PM

Beasley's numbers should be compared to Glenn Robinson's. Similar competition, too.

Posted by Joel | June 30, 2008 6:51 PM

Okay. Compare them to Glenn Robinson. What does that even mean? Glenn Robinson was an awesome college player. Because he didn't pan out in the NBA means that Beasley won't either? That's bizarre, but typical.

Posted by Stacy | June 30, 2008 9:40 PM

"BTW - as to the Love/Hansbrough debate - I think the major difference between the two isn't height, but rather is body type. Hansbrough is not bulky at all - he's actually pretty skinny. Love is quite bulky with broad shoulder. I think that makes Love potentially a much better rebounder and defender, even if the same height."

"Maybe not tougher, but Love is stronger than Hansbrough."

You guys really are missing the point, although Al may get at it a bit. Strength is not a generic, one measurement thing.

Anybody old enough to have watched Moses Malone play? Malone was MVP, indeed, there was a 3-4 year period when he was dominant. During his last couple of years with Houston, he took a team with a losing record to the finals, steamrolling the Kareem / Magic Lakers along the way. He was traded to the Dr. J / 76ers. After a nasty eye socket injury he fell to only decent for his last 1/2 dozen years, so if you didn't see him in his heyday, you didn't see him.

What was his secret? He weighed in at 260, maybe, was barely 6'10" at center, had a decent but ugly fadeaway jump shot and a bunch of ugly little slop it up moves around the basket. Why was he dominant? Lower body strength, a tremendously low center of gravity for a center, and constantly shuffling / working feet. He moved every big, tall, athletic guy in the league around like he was wearing them for a coat. He also, for that same reason, led the league in rebounding a number of times (20 RPG his first year, 15 the year they won the championship).

In the 4 game finals that year (Fo'Fo'Fo' for you oldsters), Riley wouldn't even put Kareem on him, having seen the destruction Malone laid on him the year before when they played the Rockets. When he finally put Kareem on him (the series of PF's they threw at him having failed to slow him down) in game 3, Malone destroyed him. Which put Kareem in good company, Walton (in his pre-damaged prime) and, really, everybody in the league had no prayer guarding him one on one.

Hansbrough has, in essence, that body (Malone was no bigger as a 20 year old). Look at him; he is kinda slope shouldered, certainly compared to Love, who looks like a bench press specialist. Now think Ron Cey, Kirby Puckett. A solid offensive lineman. It works for him, big time, and explains why, as ugly (and unusual) as his game is, there's still nobody who guards him with one guy.

Am I saying that Hansbrough is Moses Malone? Nope. But he's got that same ridiculous body geometry, trunk strength and very, very low center of gravity for a big man. The Heels were doing it with mirrors this year, they weren't a dominant team, but the Kansas game wasn't Hansbrough's doing. The only guy, really, to school Hansbrough in his career (including the OSU game last year, which Oden ducked) was his hugeness Mr. Hibbert, who was enormously tall and who Hansbrough couldn't budge (he still got 26 pts and 11 rebs).

Love is a big, strong, guy. He's going to be a very good player. He and Hansbrough are very, very different players. Mark my words, Hansbrough is an NBA starter.

Posted by drinkof | June 30, 2008 9:48 PM

How can anyone say that Jeffersons d is weak? he was one of the best rebounders in the league last year with a ton of double teams. and who knows what the line up is going to be. what about a.....
1.foye
2.miller
3.love
4.jefferson
5.collins

...type line up? and yes love is known as a good perimeter defensive player for his size and runs the court well. check out some scouting reports ppl. that line up seems feesable with all of them rotating positions when the subs start to enter the game. (telfair, brewer, mccants,gomes, ect ect....
so lots of options right now for minnesota. It will be interesting to see how it plays out!

Posted by shawn | June 30, 2008 10:09 PM

Okay. Compare them to Glenn Robinson. What does that even mean? Glenn Robinson was an awesome college player. Because he didn't pan out in the NBA means that Beasley won't either? That's bizarre, but typical.

What Glen Robinson are you referring to? The only one I can think of played for 11 years in the NBA and ended up averaging 20.7 points and 6.1 rebounds per game over his career. Not sure who thats not panning out...

Posted by rochrist | July 1, 2008 1:46 PM

Glenn Robinson was drafted ahead of Jason Kidd and Grant Hill. Now, I was in high school at the time and I already knew Jason Kidd should have been the #1 pick. Hill had a better career than Robinson too, and would have been much better if not for his injuries.

Glenn Robinson had a good career for a #8 pick. For a #1 overall, not so much.

Posted by too many steves | July 1, 2008 6:23 PM

Glenn Robinson was drafted ahead of Jason Kidd and Grant Hill. Now, I was in high school at the time and I already knew Jason Kidd should have been the #1 pick. Hill had a better career than Robinson too, and would have been much better if not for his injuries.

Glenn Robinson had a good career for a #8 pick. For a #1 overall, not so much.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Any player who plays 11 years in the NBA while averaging more than 20/6 wasn't a bust whether he was picked 1 OR 8. The majority of #8 picks don't hang around in the league as longtime starters. Hell, a lot of them never make it in the league at all. And there have been more than a few busts at 1 and 2 as well.

Posted by rochrist | July 8, 2008 2:04 AM

freddie are you kidding me mayo's handle is top tear. and with his freakish speed no one can stay in front of him. he is a better than average shooter as well. also he can finish at the rim.
probably will score some points in the nba.

Posted by gasman3000 | July 12, 2008 6:33 PM

first off love has excellent range and can make defenders pay for doubling jefferson. second I don't see how you can knock his athleticism, he averaged 3 blocked shots in the ncaa tournament. I for one love the idea of jefferson and love as a frontcourt. sure neither is a great defender but they can hold their ground and with the way mchale has been praising love I think we will get to see it.

Posted by severin | July 12, 2008 6:48 PM