Three sure things, from today's perspective: Clark, Cardoso, Brink
One very close to sure thing: Jackson
Two rotation players who might develop: Edwards, Reese
One Greg Bibb pick: Sheldon, who might be better than I think.
After that, the darts start flying. Hey, maybe Alissa Pili is the next Charles Barkley (he wasn't even 6-5 and was one of the best power forwards in the NBA). Maybe Brynna Maxwell is the real deal. Maybe Angel Jackson (a star in high school) is quality post reserve.
But looking down the road at expansion, if 2024 was a deep draft, then with 14 teams, half the franchises will get a good or decent player each year, and half will not improve. Now if future drafts are better, all good; if future drafts are like 2021, the quality of the product will slowly degrade.
Can't say this was a strong draft since three foreigners went in the first round that aren't showing up. Borlase isn't coming over, either. Osbrone's terrible NCAA tournament performance plummeted her to the third round.
It's funny ... every year, it seems, it's a "deep draft". Until draft night.
Just like every year people say "most of these players won't make a roster", but every year most of them wind up playing.
There's a distinction between playing and making a difference.
Would the league be any different if the vast majority of picks below number seven were somehow prohibited from playing and their minutes were taken by players who were cut in the last two years?
Just like every year people say "most of these players won't make a roster", but every year most of them wind up playing.
There's a distinction between playing and making a difference.
Would the league be any different if the vast majority of picks below number seven were somehow prohibited from playing and their minutes were taken by players who were cut in the last two years?
I don't think that's any different from any draft in any league. Most of the players will be fungible.
Would the league be any different if the vast majority of picks below number seven were somehow prohibited from playing and their minutes were taken by players who were cut in the last two years?
This is also why you shouldn't focus on the end of the bench talent when discussing expansion. There are plenty of players of the same relative quality. That's not a reason to forgo expansion.
Would the league be any different if the vast majority of picks below number seven were somehow prohibited from playing and their minutes were taken by players who were cut in the last two years?
This is also why you shouldn't focus on the end of the bench talent when discussing expansion. There are plenty of players of the same relative quality. That's not a reason to forgo expansion.
An interesting point ... but if players from that large group are required to start -- especially two or more -- then that particular team will be bad and borderline unwatchable.
Basketball teams are most often driven by their stars, and the more the better. Having one isn't nearly enough; having one plus two solid starters will work, but much less than that and it can get ugly.
Yes, but we've reached the point that every team has at least a star and some players. Most have more. The Mercury had two HOFers and several solid players and finished dead last.