2013 F Austin Nichols (Memphis Briarcrest)

#1,076
#1,076
Yes. If you go in the first round, you get money. They just redid the structure where rookies can not make as much as past rookies. I remember hearing something about how Anthony Davis would not make as much as the previous draft picks.
 
#1,077
#1,077
johnnybravo said:
And then the rest of the post said "hardly any first rounders stick around for another year". It's easy to pick and choose what you want to a post just to be argumentative. Most everyone on this thread has agreed to what you have said, but has just thrown out different senerios. I just don't understand the constant argumentative attitude when some are just trying to have a conversation. It's almost like this in EVERY single thread.
Click to expand...

I was simply saying not everyone takes the money, that's all, calm down.

And I'm not arguing, it's a conversation. You think stokes is gone, I was curious why. As I said, you won't find a legit board that has him as a lottery pick, you may not even find on where he's a first rounder. Hell, I've seen some that don't even have him on their board at all.

If you're saying, if he has a huge year his stock will rise, well duh. Same can be said for McRae as well, if he blows up and averages 18ppg his stock will go up. I expect stokes to be solid, but don't think he'll get enough touches to put up monster numbers that would be required to be a top 15 pick.

I'm expecting around 14/10 from him, and IMO that doesn't vault him into top 15. Are you expecting better numbers, or expecting those numbers to be good enough.

Hes undersized that's the problem. Who has come out in the last 5 years with his size and game? 2 people come to mind, Blair and Sullinger, one won't 19iirc and the other went 2nd round, and both guys put up much better numbers then 14/10.
 
#1,078
#1,078
bleedingTNorange said:
Is that new with the CBA, it wasn't that way before.

And if you're projected late 1st round, do you really take that risk(talkin stokes here).
Click to expand...

It has been that way since I can remember.....I wasn't commenting on whether stokes will leave or not but I guess that depends on his grade by NBA scouts after this yr.
 
#1,079
#1,079
johnnybravo said:
You're looking at it as a fan, not a recruit. Yes, Stallings can win come tourney time. We know that. But he has proven to put players in the NBA. He can win at a high percentage. He will take a team to the NCAA tourny most years. He keeps his program at the top of the league. And a 30K a year Vanderbilt education can not be beat in case you blow your knee out the first day of practice.
Click to expand...



Not really looking at it from a fan's standpoint here. And not sure how many NBA players have played under Stallings, outside of this years draft, tbh. I don't think it's many.

Kids listen to coaches, and talk to other players about how coaches handle things. Stallings is known to wear on players, which is part of the reason they can't get it done when it's on the line, and they are more talented.

Listen to him after a loss. Some people claim DD throws his kids under the bus. They need to listen to Stallings. "We did everything as coaches as possible to put our team in the position to win, but for whatever reason, they didn't listen, or didn't want to do what we told them to do." That's a common theme for him, and some players and parents will pay attention to that aspect of his personality and it becomes a factor in the player's decision.
 
#1,080
#1,080
zansdad said:
The Structure of NBA Rookie Contracts - Forbes

According to this all first round money is guaranteed and structured.
Click to expand...

Yea that's what volbeast just said, that's why I'm asking If that changed with the new CBA.

There used to be a big advantage to being a lottery pick, now from what I can tell there's no real difference between lottery pick and 30th pick, just amount of money, which the difference isn't massive.
 
#1,083
#1,083
bleedingTNorange said:
It didn't use to be that way did it, didn't it use to be only lottery picks were guaranteed?
Click to expand...

I googled it and found an article from 2005-2006 and it stated it was a two yr with a tram option third yr for all first rounders....maybe the difference in money has changed I'm not sure about that.
 
#1,084
#1,084
Yes. Money has gotten less than it was before. Not sure about the 3 year deal. I always thought they got a 2 year contract.
 
#1,087
#1,087
Shaun1985 said:
Yes. Money has gotten less than it was before. Not sure about the 3 year deal. I always thought they got a 2 year contract.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was just the money then, I thought there used to be a big advantage to being a lottery pick, seems theres only a slight difference in money.
 
#1,089
#1,089
bleedingTNorange said:
I was simply saying not everyone takes the money, that's all, calm down.

And I'm not arguing, it's a conversation. You think stokes is gone, I was curious why. As I said, you won't find a legit board that has him as a lottery pick, you may not even find on where he's a first rounder. Hell, I've seen some that don't even have him on their board at all.

If you're saying, if he has a huge year his stock will rise, well duh. Same can be said for McRae as well, if he blows up and averages 18ppg his stock will go up. I expect stokes to be solid, but don't think he'll get enough touches to put up monster numbers that would be required to be a top 15 pick.

I'm expecting around 14/10 from him, and IMO that doesn't vault him into top 15. Are you expecting better numbers, or expecting those numbers to be good enough.

Hes undersized that's the problem. Who has come out in the last 5 years with his size and game? 2 people come to mind, Blair and Sullinger, one won't 19iirc and the other went 2nd round, and both guys put up much better numbers then 14/10.
Click to expand...

Not some of the top draft boards, but Stokes name is already on some. Again, doesn't matter until he plays this year. He doesn't have to put up huge numbers to get drafted. Seems like the trend is to draft some of the young players on potential ala Orten.

PROSPECT CENTRAL: 2013 NBA Mock Draft

2013 NBA Mock Draft – One Year Early! (Just the Lottery) | The Big Lead

2013 NBA Mock Draft
 
#1,090
#1,090
All I know is...

Davis is getting 4.2 his first year and 4.4 his second and Ezeli, last draft pick of the round comes in making a cool 2 year / 2 mill deal. Would be hard to pass that up!! I wouldn't lol but still, the lottery is likely to make 4 million more those first two years.
 
#1,091
#1,091
johnnybravo said:
Not some of the top draft boards, but Stokes name is already on some. Again, doesn't matter until he plays this year. He doesn't have to put up huge numbers to get drafted. Seems like the trend is to draft some of the young players on potential ala Orten.
Click to expand...

And orton was bigger than jarnell by a bit, and drafted 29th overall. I just don't see jarnell leaving if he's projected in that late 1st round range. The young guys being drafted high on potential, and not performance, are your super athletic guys, stokes isn't one of those.

If he had Drummond size, yes I agree he doesn't need a big year. But name me a 6'8"-9" post guy, with similar game, who hasn't put up big numbers and was drafted top 15, recently.

I can't think of any, I just think in order to go high he has to have a big year.
 
Last edited:
#1,092
#1,092
bleedingTNorange said:
And orton was bigger than jarnell by a bit, and drafted 29th overall. I just don't see jarnell leaving if he's projected in that late 1st round range. The young guys being drafted high on potential, and not performance, are your super athletic guys, stokes isn't one of those.

If he had Drummond size, yes I agree he doesn't need a big year. But name me a 6'8"-9" post guy, with similar game, who hasn't put up big numbers and was drafted top 15, recently.

I can't think of any, I just think in order to go high he has to have a big year.
Click to expand...

We all know Stokes is an inch or 2 undersized. What we know is that he may not get any bigger. He is good around the basket and a beast inside. What we don't know is how well his shot is 10 - 12 feet out and beyond. FT's needs to come up at least 20%. If he can become a first rounder even late first rounder at the end of the year, then the only thing that will probably help his draft stock go up is his ability to develop an outside shot. This may never come ala T. Smith. With his size limitations, it will only make sense that if he has the opportunity to go first round, then he should.
 
#1,093
#1,093
johnnybravo said:
We all know Stokes is an inch or 2 undersized. What we know is that he may not get any bigger. He is good around the basket and a beast inside. What we don't know is how well his shot is 10 - 12 feet out and beyond. FT's needs to come up at least 20%. If he can become a first rounder even late first rounder at the end of the year, then the only thing that will probably help his draft stock go up is his ability to develop an outside shot. This may never come ala T. Smith. With his size limitations, it will only make sense that if he has the opportunity to go first round, then he should.
Click to expand...

I guess that's where we disagree. If he goes for 14/10 and we have a decent year I can see him being a late 1st rounder at best. However, I could see him returning, improving his game even more, and taking on a bigger role with maymon gone. Very unlikely he loses his spot as a late first rounder, but could definitely improve his stock.

All things considered, if he's a projected a late first rounder (he could still slide down) I don't see him leaving. He can easily improve that stock, or at worst keep that stock. But by returning for his junior season he gets to play with his friend Nichols, and have a legitimate chance at a deep tourney run.

I see him as a 1st rounder regardless basically, probably mid-late. I just see no way he really goes top 10, and only top 15 if he has a monster year at some point. So why not return for the chance at a great run and to play with your friends?

Undersized post guys just don't go real high in the draft, based too much on athletic potential now. I guess the difference is you think hell go if hes projected anywhere first round. I don't think he'll go unless he's guaranteed top 20. Agree to disagree I guess.
 
Last edited:
#1,094
#1,094
bleedingTNorange said:
I guess that's where we disagree. If he goes for 14/10 and we have a decent year I can see him being a late 1st rounder at best. However, I could see him returning, improving his game even more, and taking on a bigger role with maymon gone. Very unlikely he loses his spot as a late first rounder, but could definitely improve his stock.

All things considered, if he's a projected a late first rounder (he could still slide down) I don't see him leaving. He can easily improve that stock, or at worst keep that stock. But by returning for his junior season he gets to play with his friend Nichols, and have a legitimate chance at a deep tourney run.

I see him as a 1st rounder regardless basically, probably mid-late. I just see no way he really goes top 10, and only top 15 if he has a monster year at some point. So why not return for the chance at a great run and to play with your friends?

Undersized post guys just don't go real high in the draft, based too much on athletic potential now. Agree to disagree I guess.
Click to expand...

2 years guaranteed money vs. potentially dropping to no guaranteed money at all. Big difference. Any player that can get a guaranteed contract should take the money. If he is late first round to second round then there are limitations that keep him from moving up. he will have correct those limitations. He will not be able to grow 2 inches. Around the basket should not be a weakness. The ability to step outside to knock down a shot probably will be what will enable him to improve his stock. The longer he stays and shows that he's not able to really improve that may hurt him. I don't think playing with Hubbs and Nichols is worth the gamble of giving up guaranteed money. He's got friends in the NBA that he wants to play with also.
 
#1,095
#1,095
johnnybravo said:
We all know Stokes is an inch or 2 undersized. What we know is that he may not get any bigger. He is good around the basket and a beast inside. What we don't know is how well his shot is 10 - 12 feet out and beyond. FT's needs to come up at least 20%. If he can become a first rounder even late first rounder at the end of the year, then the only thing that will probably help his draft stock go up is his ability to develop an outside shot. This may never come ala T. Smith. With his size limitations, it will only make sense that if he has the opportunity to go first round, then he should.
Click to expand...

I was going to respond to the earlier point about Sullinger that someone made going late with something like you said here. Jarnell has to develop a midrange game or even a three point game to get drafted top 10. He IS undersized. He also isn't an elite athlete like the other 6'8 posts in the NBA are. Bottom line is I can see Jarnell being an elite college player and a solid starter/role player in the NBA. JMO.
 
#1,096
#1,096
Forget being a fan for a minute and look at this from a business perspective. The 2012 NBA draft was way deeper in talent compared to the 2011 draft. Guys projected in the top ten in 2011 had difficulty cracking the top 20 in 2012. Sullinger was injured but Jones didn't hurt or help himself. Yet he dropped 8 to 10 spots. Just a case of more talent in 2012.

That same thing applies to projections for the next two drafts. 2013 is projected to be slim in comparison to 2014. Unless Stokes makes astronomic strides between soph and junior years he would be better to go after this season. JMO
 
#1,097
#1,097
johnnybravo said:
2 years guaranteed money vs. potentially dropping to no guaranteed money at all. Big difference. Any player that can get a guaranteed contract should take the money. If he is late first round to second round then there are limitations that keep him from moving up. he will have correct those limitations. He will not be able to grow 2 inches. Around the basket should not be a weakness. The ability to step outside to knock down a shot probably will be what will enable him to improve his stock. The longer he stays and shows that he's not able to really improve that may hurt him. I don't think playing with Hubbs and Nichols is worth the gamble of giving up guaranteed money. He's got friends in the NBA that he wants to play with also.
Click to expand...

So basically you're saying the most he can improve his game is this year, after this year he's at his full potential?

I completely disagree, but ok.

And even if that's the case, that's where numbers matter. He's undersized, so the thing that will catch praise will be phenomenal numbers, like sully and Blair did. So if he goes for decent numbers this year, but returns his junior year and puts up monster numbers because maymon is gone, then IMO he can still improve his stock.
 
#1,098
#1,098
CatsQueue said:
Forget being a fan for a minute and look at this from a business perspective. The 2012 NBA draft was way deeper in talent compared to the 2011 draft. Guys projected in the top ten in 2011 had difficulty cracking the top 20 in 2012. Sullinger was injured but Jones didn't hurt or help himself. Yet he dropped 8 to 10 spots. Just a case of more talent in 2012.

That same thing applies to projections for the next two drafts. 2013 is projected to be slim in comparison to 2014. Unless Stokes makes astronomic strides between soph and junior years he would be better to go after this season. JMO
Click to expand...

Jones hurt himself big time, his game declined in every aspect.
 
#1,099
#1,099
CAVol said:
I was going to respond to the earlier point about Sullinger that someone made going late with something like you said here. Jarnell has to develop a midrange game or even a three point game to get drafted top 10. He IS undersized. He also isn't an elite athlete like the other 6'8 posts in the NBA are. Bottom line is I can see Jarnell being an elite college player and a solid starter/role player in the NBA. JMO.
Click to expand...

Agree in order to go top 15 range, he has to develop scoring mid range and out. That's what I'm saying, just didn't say it specifically. If he has a good year this year 14/10 let's say, but he doesn't show much of a mid range or outside game, and he's projected late first round so retuns. However, he tests the waters and the scout tell him he really needs to improve his outside shot.

So he returns for his junior year, shows off a good mid range game, and flashes the ability to hit the 3. You're saying his stock wouldn't improve? That's what I'm saying, that his stock can still go up if he returns junior year, it's not like his stock has to reach its highest point after sophomore year.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top