That seems to be the consensusPick6;1126280 wrote:I dont like Barnes.
2 things.Mulva;1124267 wrote:Your reading comprehension is horrific.
I don't get what's confusing about that comment. It's way too early to make a definitive statement like "it looks like we got the best 2 players in the draft" when there are plenty of examples of all-star players who took up to 3-5 years to really hit their stride, but in my opinion when it's all said and done I don't think it will be correct and even if you want to make that judgment now (which can't be fairly done, but again I'm not the one who brought it up to begin with) the current on-court results don't back the claim up.
Saying "it looks like we got the 2 best players in the draft" has absolutely nothing to do with potential. It's making a claim based on what has been shown.
And I'm not bitching about anything. I'm giving a completely reasonable opinion, but because it isn't sucking the Cleveland **** you can't comprehend it. Which really isn't surprising from the guy who went nuts defending ****ing Luis Valbuena and James Davis when I said they weren't good players. You are the ultimate homer. Which is fine, but it doesn't mean I'm bitching about anything because I don't do it too.
I'm sure they were too. But I wouldn't personally have drafted them #4 overall. And those were 1st team all NBA defenders.
If you make the comparison to solid defenders who aren't at the all-NBA level - guys like Serge Ibaka or Kendrick Perkins, would anybody really want to use a top 5 pick on them?
Bowen, Wallace, Raja Bell, etc. all went undrafted (Alonzo Gee on a lesser level). Not only not top 5 picks. Undrafted. It's much easier to find someone who struggles offensively but can lock you down on D than it is to find someone who can straight fill it up offensively. Those are the guys who have superstar potential, and those are the guys I spend a top 5 pick on. If none of them are there, I trade back or trade out. It's why I disagreed with the pick then, it's why I disagree now. I don't think Thompson is ever going to be an all-star, and so at #4 overall that isn't worth it to me.
It's a personal opinion. We can move on whenever you guys want.
Agreed. As a rebuilding team you take what you think is best. They obviously felt Kyrie and T2 were the two best prospects. Grant has said he had Tristan rated #2 on his board (but denies it was because of the workouts where Tristan abused Derrick and Kanter 1-on-1).Footwedge;1126326 wrote:2 things.
1. If the number 4 pick was so $hitty, then who would have traded up to get it? Trades work both ways you know.
2. There was a lot of speculation on whether or not KI was worth a true number 1. Well, I think that answer is pretty clear.
The bottom line.....given what was available last draft, the Cavaliers did damn good in what they picked. I just wish the Browns would have done half that good over the past 12 years.
There was no speculation at all on my part whether Kyrie was worth the #1. Guess what? Me being unhappy with the #4 pick is my personal opinion. I don't give a shit what other people thought about Kyrie or what they think/thought about #4. I can form my own thoughts.Footwedge;1126326 wrote:2 things.
1. If the number 4 pick was so $hitty, then who would have traded up to get it? Trades work both ways you know.
2. There was a lot of speculation on whether or not KI was worth a true number 1. Well, I think that answer is pretty clear.
The bottom line.....given what was available last draft, the Cavaliers did damn good in what they picked. I just wish the Browns would have done half that good over the past 12 years.
I already said multiple times that I think the #10 pick in most drafts is more valuable than the #4 pick last year. It was that weak of a draft class in my opinion. I personally wouldn't have worried about the unguaranteed nature of the lottery.hoops23;1126340 wrote:With the lottery there is NO GUARANTEE where that pick would be. We could have essentially traded the #4 pick this past year and ended up with the #8 pick in whatever draft we traded for... Not a good trade, especially when we took an athletic specimen at #4 this past draft.
What does your mom have to do with the Cavs' draft position?ichsnjb;1130228 wrote:Loose loose loose!
LOL + 1Y-Town Steelhound;1130254 wrote:What does your mom have to do with the Cavs' draft position?
7th http://espn.go.com/nba/standings/_/sort/winPercent/group/1/order/falsehoops23;1130419 wrote:I haven't really looked, but did this loss drop us to 4th overall in terms of worst record?
Nah. 5th in the east (Charlotte, Wash, NJ, Toronto), with NO and Sac-Town making us #7 overall still. But we're right there fighting for the #4.hoops23;1130419 wrote:I haven't really looked, but did this loss drop us to 4th overall in terms of worst record?
5th worst in the East. 7th overall.hoops23;1130419 wrote:I haven't really looked, but did this loss drop us to 4th overall in terms of worst record?
Ok. I heard we were 5th and if NJ won we'd be 4th... I wasn't sure if that was in the entire league or in our conference. Thanks for clarifying.Mulva;1130423 wrote:Nah. 5th in the east (Charlotte, Wash, NJ, Toronto), with NO and Sac-Town making us #7 overall still. But we're right there fighting for the #4.
Nobody is passing Charlotte, Washington, or NO. All 12 wins or fewer still. Doubtful any of them would pass the Cavs even if we lost out.
