Report: Maloofs pitching against Sacramento at NBA Board of Governors meeting

13 Comments

Here we go all over again.

It was around this time last year that the Maloofs stormed angrily out of the NBA’s Board of Governor’s meetings, rejected and dejected after they were told they couldn’t go to Disneyland. Today, they returned to New York to pitch the idea that they were somehow wronged during the past month’s negotiations with the city of Sacramento over a new arena.

Specifically, they’re expected to ask their fellow NBA owners to support the nebulous concept that they’re unhappy with the deal.  They’re also expected to ask owners to support their decision to move to Anaheim if they don’t get what they want out of Sacramento.

The only problem is that the NBA, and specifically David Stern, ran point on a negotiation conducted during All Star weekend that brought the Maloofs, the NBA, AEG, and the city of Sacramento into an agreement in principle on a $391 million Entertainment and Sports Complex similar to L.A. Live.

Hanging in the balance is a fan base that is roundly cited as one of the best in sports.  Also hanging in the balance is a city beset by 12 percent unemployment — that is banking on leading economists’ predictions that a downtown arena can raise property values by hundreds of millions of dollars and kick-start a broken economy.

The Maloofs themselves called the non-binding deal fair when it was struck over All Star weekend, and since that weekend nothing about the deal has changed. The only thing that has changed has been the Maloofs’ public position regarding the deal, which has been duplicitous in its approach.

On one hand, the family has said that they remain committed to Sacramento, and on the other they have unleashed a full-court legal press designed to disrupt the arena funding process.

The family’s newly hired ‘crisis consultant’ Eric Rose started feeding the family’s narrative to the press a few weeks ago, saying they don’t believe the city can deliver on a new arena in time for the 2015-16 season, and that Anaheim was still an option on the table.

Of course, if the city of Sacramento has any holes in its plans to build an arena by 2015-16, we now know that they will be cited by the Maloofs in today’s meetings as a reason the league should allow them to move to Anaheim, where they could make more money whether they keep the team or not.

The Maloofs’ attorney, Scott Zolke, followed Rose’s statements by issuing a letter to Sacramento assistant city manager John Dangberg, providing specific legal notice to the city about issues the family had with anything and everything. In fact, if you wanted to derail an arena project you would want to start a checklist using the items on that list. From the timing of environmental reviews to the ability of arena opposition groups to delay the process or stop it in its tracks – items that could have been discussed behind closed doors were now floating around in an increasingly hostile public domain.

The city responded to this first initial red flag, explaining to the lawyer that he had compiled information for his complaint from six-month old estimates from the city manager’s office that had since been publicly updated.  The 88-page letter went on to address the numerous issues raised by the Maloofs, but made one key point: “It is critical that all parties are pulling in the same direction.”

If it wasn’t clear after Rose’s newspaper run, it became abundantly clear where the Maloofs stood following their April 2 response to the 88-page letter, when they admonished the city for not responding to its concerns over an arena opposition group.

“An important new issue (casts) a giant shadow over the feasibility of the project,” wrote Zolke about a group called STOP (Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork).  The letter went on to set legal markers designed to threaten liability upon the city:

“All of your assumptions and projections are based on a premise that the Kings will be playing in a new arena for the 2015-16 NBA season. However, the issues we have identified likely will prevent the City from meeting its timeline, and thus pose imminent obstacles to the new arena being ready for the 2015-16 season. Such a failure will result in irreparable harm to the Kings, not to mention the losses the City will suffer.”

This is where things get wacky and border on bad faith.

While one would think that in a near $400 million transaction that the Maloofs’ attorney would have vetted this STOP group, it appears that no such vetting has taken place.

The group did indeed file a petition with the city to try to get the 30,000 signatures needed by May 22 in order to bring the Kings arena issue to a public vote.  If the group were to somehow get the signatures, a vote would occur in November and the project’s delay would almost certainly give the Maloofs a green light to move out of town.

The problem? The petition the group filed to authorize its signature drive might have been written on a napkin and handed to the city clerk with ketchup stains on it. It was recently removed from consideration at the request of the group, and amended to include basic, proper punctuation and simple legal terminology required of such requests.

So the organization the Maloofs’ attorneys are citing as a “giant shadow” doesn’t have an attorney, and it submitted a legal document without putting periods and commas where they legally need to be.

I followed up with the group to determine for myself what kind of organization it was and how seriously it should be taken. They had a public meeting on April 7 at a local park in Sacramento. At this meeting was a group of 10 people, with leader Julian Camacho flipping some hamburgers. Their Facebook page is up to 43 ‘likes,’ and they’re still waiting on the Sacramento City Clerk to review their most recent ballot initiative language, assuming they spelled everything correctly.

Since the April 2 letter to the city the Maloofs have also made a massive public records request – 53 separate requests total. They have requested all communications between the city and the NBA, AEG, and politicians of all levels, and nothing says trust and partnership like a public records request.

So in summary, the project is on a tight deadline, needs all the public support it can muster, and the Maloofs are refusing to pay $3.26 million in pre-development costs, or one year of Travis Outlaw’s salary. They’re saying that the handshake agreement David Stern helped to cultivate didn’t go down how every other stakeholder said it did. They’re delaying the project by not paying those minimal costs, but saying that they’re also not sure the project can be done on time. They’ve rang the bell for an opposition group of 10 people that apparently can’t punctuate nor afford an attorney — that can’t start collecting the 30,000 signatures they need because they botched the original paperwork request. Meanwhile, the Maloofs’ attorneys are deposing the city like defendants and a crisis consultant has been brought on board to manage the media.

Elsewhere, 25 prominent Sacramento business leaders sent a letter to David Stern today asking that the Maloofs be removed as owners of the Kings. The Maloofs’ crisis consultant responded by criticizing the business leaders, pointing out that they didn’t want to get behind a deal like the failed arena project from a few cities over in Stockton.  Never mind the fact that the two deals are like pineapples and oranges — simply mentioning the two deals in the same breath is akin to doing an ad about how rich you are before asking the public for money.  You just don’t do it, and you certainly don’t go on the offensive against the same businesses that you’ll be partnering with for the next 30 years.

So at 2 p.m. ET representatives for the Maloof family, presumably led by brother George, started to make the case that Sacramento has screwed them yet again.  They’ll be pandering to owners that want to maintain their leverage in their future dealings with municipalities. But if the NBA wants to get another publicly subsidized arena without every city citing Sacramento as a cautionary tale, they’ll send the Maloofs out the side door once again, angry and dejected.

De’Aaron Fox’s speed raced him up draft boards, made him confident wherever he lands

Leave a comment

De’Aaron Fox even talks fast.

Speed is what separates the point guard out of Kentucky from a deep crop at the position in this draft. Fox has got impressive playmaking skills, his defense can overwhelm, he has a maturity and confidence about him not seen in most 19-year-olds — there are multiple reasons he has climbed draft boards and is expected to be taken in the top five Thursday night during the NBA Draft.

However, it’s the speed that separates him.

“You can’t really teach speed, you either have it or you don’t,” Fox told NBC Sports. “For me, Coach Cal had me using that as a weapon and that’s just something I learned while I was at Kentucky.”

It’s that speed that intrigues teams. Fox generally has been projected to go to Phoenix or Sacramento (picks four or five), but the ground under this draft is shifting quickly and Fox said he has no idea where he will be taken. He could land a lot of places. He said he’d prefer it to be in an uptempo system, but he believes he can help any team that takes him.

“I think I just bring a level of playmaking that some of the teams in the lottery don’t have,” Fox said. “That’s offensively and defensively. Defensively that’s playing the passing lanes, just getting your hands on balls. And offensively just being able to beat your man and being able to create for yourself and others….

“The NBA game is a lot faster than the college game, but you still have to be able to play in the high gears.”

Where most people remember him using those higher gears was to overwhelm likely No. 2 pick Lonzo Ball of UCLA in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Tournament (frankly, he outplayed Ball both times Kentucky took on UCLA last season). Fox had 39 points on 20 shots that March night, plus got to the line 15 times. However, more impressive was his defense on Ball, holding the bigger guard to 10 points on 10 shots (with eight assists). Again, it was about speed.

“I’m quicker and faster than just about everybody I played against so just being able to get under guards, just try to limit what they can do with their size,” Fox said. “I try to speed them up, play to my tempo.”

Fox has been fast up the draft board — and fast to get endorsements and deals. He inked a shoe deal with Nike. He was in New York Wednesday to shoot a new commercial for Kids Foot Locker — they wanted him even before the draft. Like a lot of scouts, they see a potential star about to bloom.

“I always thought I’d want to see myself in a commercial and things like that, see myself on TV doing things other than just basketball,” Fox said. “This is a blessing to be able to do things like this. I’m just blessed God gave me the talent and I’m just taking it and being able to affect the world.”

If scouts had one question about Fox, it was his jump shot. He shot just 24.6 percent from three last season, and his jump shot was as inconsistent as his release point. His form wasn’t terrible, just a little all over the map.

However, it has looked better in recent workouts, largely because Fox and trainer Chris Gaston put in the time in the gym.

“I put a lot of work on it,” Fox said of his jumper. “I know I’m going to need it at the next level, but also that was something I really just struggled with at the beginning of the year at Kentucky, so I that was one thing didn’t really worry about, I just had to tighten (it up)…

“Really it was just getting up reps, staying focused on every shot, locked in.”

Fox’s maturity showed through when asked what else he’s been working on — he’s been getting in better shape. Something some players don’t figure out until they’ve been in the league a few years.

“Getting my body right,” Fox said. “At the next level, you got to be a lot stronger, quicker, faster… (conditioning) really goes up a tremendous level from college to the NBA, and it’s something that you really need work. You really have to focus on that.”

Fox credits part of him being NBA ready with a year under John Calipari at Kentucky, a school that feels like a one-and-done factory at points.

“Just the way he coaches. He tries to run it like an NBA organization,” Fox said. “You know the track record he’s had, so you don’t go in there like you’re the only high major player he’s ever had, you’re one of many. You just listen to him and he’s able to get you to the next level, he helps us that way. He has us playing like an NBA team, it’s difficult in college to simulate that but he does it the best.”

Thursday night, years of work in the gym for Fox will all culminate with him being drafted — then another whirlwind will start. He will be flown off to the city where he is picked, meet the media, sit down with the coach, and quickly start workouts with the team in advance of Summer League. Fox hasn’t focused too much on where he will land, but he has focused on what he will wear draft night.

“I’ve actually had my suit picked out for a while now,” Fox said. “I haven’t actually picked the shoes yet, though.”

Would John Calipari approve of the look?

“I think he would.”

Tiered 2017 NBA draft board

AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
2 Comments

The 2017 NBA draft has been touted as a great one.

I’m not convinced.

Sure, there are strengths relative to average years: No. 2, middle of the lottery, middle of the second round. But I don’t rate players projected 3-7ish as the inevitable future stars they’re being made out to be, and prospects worth getting truly excited about peter out before the lottery ends.

Still, teams must draft based on who’s available. So, lets classify prospects within my tier system. As explained before:

Draft for need or take the best player available?

It’s the question as old as drafts themselves. Personally, I favor the middle-of-the-road approach – the tier system. I judge prospects on three attributes:

  • Current ability
  • Potential
  • Likelihood of meeting that potential

Obviously, assessing those attributes is not easy. It’s really hard.

That’s why I don’t like taking the best prospect – based on all three criteria – available. It’s just too difficult to split hairs between players with so many variables.

But overly considering fit is problematic for the same reason. Rosters churn, and it’s foolish to pass on a clearly better prospect – in the cases that becomes clear – just because he doesn’t fit the current version of the team.

So how does the tier system work?

Divide players into tiers based on their value regardless of fit. Don’t worry about differentiating prospects with nearly identical values. Find natural cutoffs.

Then, within each tier, rank the players based on fit for the specific drafting team.

Theoretically, a draft could have anywhere between 1 and 60 tiers. A 1-tier draft would mean every prospect – from the top pick to Mr. Irrelevant – holds the same value. A 60-tier draft would mean every prospect is clearly distinguishable based on value. Obviously, neither is likely.

The size of tiers should be organic, and therefore, the number of tiers is also organic. Naturally, tiers tend to be smaller near the top of the draft, where lines between players are sharper.

Here are the 12 tiers necessary to get through the first round. Within each tier, I rank players as if the drafting teams had empty rosters. Obviously, actual NBA teams would need to consider other information when assessing fit of players within a tier.

Tier 1

1. Markelle Fultz, PG, Washington

Fultz is SO smooth, though sometimes a little too smooth. It’s mostly an asset – especially in conjunction with his size (6-foot-5 with a 6-foot-10 wingspan). His moves are dazzling, using fluid ball-handling and an impressive pull-up jumper as weapons to get to his spots. He can also post-up, pass and move off the ball. It’s a lot for defenses to handle. He’s nearly a prototypical modern point guard on offense, though the inconsistency of his shooting form raises questions. As does Fultz’s propensity to get sloppy in his decision-making, forcing some bad shots and committing some head-scratching turnovers. That lax focus is amplified on defense, where his effort level was routinely lacking, save a few impressive highlight chase-down blocks that at least show his defensive potential. Was Fultz victim of a lousy defensive culture at Washington, or was he one of the causes? Fultz’s smooth athleticism might not translate cleanly from offense to defense, even with better effort, because his smooth strides don’t lend themselves to the quick changes of direction necessary to guard on the perimeter.

Tier 2

2. Lonzo Ball, PG, UCLA

Ball has elite court vision – and tools to take advantage of it. He excels in transition and getting his team into transition. His size (6-foot-6) and length allow him to generate plenty of steals and blocks, prompting fastbreaks. He pushes the ball well and will direct it to the right spot before the defense recognizes it. His passing is still a weapon in the halfcourt with his ability to see over defenses. His cutting ability, including an ability to finish lobs, is an intriguing off-ball threat against set defenses. But his lackluster ability to run a pick-and-roll or set himself apart some other way with the ball in the halfcourt is disconcerting. So is his defensive effort when he actual has to do something physical, like fight through a screen, and can’t just deflect the ball. And then there’s his funky shot, which he converted efficiently at UCLA. If I trusted those results, he might be No. 1 on my board. As is, he’s still closer to No. 1 than No. 3.

Tier 3

3. Josh Jackson, SF, Kansas

I find myself caught between Jackson’s very vocal supporters and a credible contingent of doubters. I am concerned about his age and jump shot. But his passing speaks to an ability to quickly read the floor, which could serve him very well in other facets of his game. His defensive tools are also impressive, though he – like most rookies – probably isn’t ready to step in and immediately excel on that end.

4. Dennis Smith Jr., PG, North Carolina State

Smith attacks so well as a lead ball-handler, using tremendous burst and a comfort playing through contact. He’s neither a great outside shooter nor passer, but he’s good enough considering the threat of his drive. A high-level offense could run through Smith someday. There are questions about his attitude. Is that just because North Carolina State was bad, especially defensively, and it doesn’t seem he cared enough on that end? There’s only so much a freshman, even a point guard (a natural leadership position) as talented as Smith, can do. And he wouldn’t be the first young player who needed time to lock in defensively, especially considering his heavy offensive burden. If there’s more to the attitude questions, I don’t know.

Tier 5

5. Jonathan Isaac, F, Florida State

Isaac is a high-upside prospect who’s safer than credited (which is not to say safe) – as long as he’s not pigeonholed into traditional star scoring expectations. Despite being a lanky 6-foot-11, Isaac still excelled as a defensive rebounder. That speaks to his basketball intelligence and determination. His length and fluidity give him elite defensive potential. Then there are the tantalizing flashier aspects of his game: finishing alley-oops above the rim and a smooth-looking jumper. Isaac deferred a lot at Florida State, which both protected him from exposing his flaws (especially shaky ball-handling) and prevented him from showing off and developing his strengths. There might be an adjustment period as Isaac acclimates to a bigger role in the NBA, but he’s more likely than not to reward patience.

6. Lauri Markkanen, PF, Arizona

Markkanen is a 7-footer who made 42% of his 3-pointers at Arizona. Yet, even that eye-popping combination sells him short. He can generate 3-pointers so many ways — pick-and-pops, spot-ups, off off-ball screens and even running pick-and-rolls himself. He can shoot over smaller defenders and/or free himself from them. It’s difficult to find players to defend him, even if his inside-the-arc skills leave plenty to be desired. Markkanen is mobile enough to stick decently with smaller players defensively, so don’t expect a massive mismatch on the other end.

7. Malik Monk, G, Kentucky

Monk is an elite individual scorer who works well within a team’s offensive construct. He’s decisive, not bogging down the flow. He’s a threat with or without the ball, always working to get to a spot where he can rise up and shoot. Even at 6-foot-3, he has the athleticism and form to get his shot off cleanly from mid-range and deep. His size prevents him from getting all the way to the rim often enough, but his explosiveness suggests he could leap forward as a driver if he gets stronger. Right now, Monk is a shooting guard in a point guard’s body. If he develops into a point guard – he’s a good passer for an off guard, though he needs much better feel running the pick-and-roll – he’s too low on this board.  Even as an undersized shooting guard, he can still contribute. But moving to point guard would be particularly helpful, because his feeble defense projects to become passable against only point guards.

8. De'Aaron Fox, PG, Kentucky

Is he John Wall or Ish Smith? I see more Smith in his game, but Fox is just 19 with plenty of time to develop. The possibility he becomes Wall and a reasonably high floor warrant a high selection. Fox is fast, and that serves him well on both ends. He’s dangerous in transition, with or – given his ability to finish above the rim – without the ball. He can probe defenses in the halfcourt, snaking through defenders looking for passing lanes. Using his penetration to create more passing lanes would be a good next step for him. Of course, becoming a good outside shooter is the most important step he can take. It’s a huge, career-defining unknown, and I wouldn’t be surprised either way whether he adds that skill. Defensively, Fox uses his speed well to pressure the ball – both his man and on double-teams, with an ability to go back and forth. His frailty limits his defense and his finishing at the rim (though, curiously, not his foul-drawing), as he’s limited to a lot of floaters. I’m not sure how much strength Fox can add, but if he gets stronger without losing speed, he should stick in the league a while. His 3-point shot, though, will determine whether he can become a star.

Tier 5

9. Jayson Tatum, F, Duke

Tatum was often the best athlete on the floor in college. He rarely will be in the NBA. Will his game hold up? He’s a ball-stopper, though his individual scoring skills make the tradeoff worthwhile. He’s a fine shooter, fine passer and maybe will become a fine defender. I’m just not sure he’ll justify how often he disrupts an offense’s flow – or successfully adjust his style.

10. Zach Collins, C, Gonzaga

Collins is a roll of the dice. He spent one season coming off the bench in the West Coast Conference and never played more than 23 minutes in a game. But he’s a roll of the dice I’d be thrilled to make. He showed nice touch near the basket and a solid stroke from mid-range and occasionally beyond the arc. He moved well defensively, blocking shots and still getting into rebounding position. That’s a special combination. He plays more athletically than credited, though the strength concerns are real. He regularly enough got outmuscled by players way more fatigued than him. Collins’ age is a reasonable potential excuse.

Tier 6

11. Frank Ntilikina, PG, Strasbourg

The 6-foot-5 Ntilikina projects to become a player who can defend every perimeter position while playing as a capable point guard offensively. That opens so many doors. Just 18, Ntilikina might need to lean on another playmaker in the backcourt for a while. He’s neither steady nor dangerous enough, especially as a scorer, to run the offense himself at all times. But he has solid off-ball skills, so that should work. Ntilikina doesn’t possess standout athleticism, so a lower ceiling keeps him from climbing higher on my board

12. OG Anunoby, SF, Indiana

Anunoby could be a defensive stud who guards every position. He flies above the rim and at least offers hope on his jumper – when healthy. He suffered a season-ending knee injury in the winter and could miss time in his first NBA season. The latter doesn’t worry me. Anunoby losing athleticism or facing greater risk of re-injury does. Without more medical information, I’m somewhat shooting in the dark.

13. Harry Giles, PF, Duke

Giles looked like a complete prospect in high school, maybe even a future No. 1 pick. But injuries have piled up. Without access to his medical records, I’m mostly guessing here. He could belong much higher or much lower.

Tier 7

14. Luke Kennard, SG, Duke

Kennard is more than just a shooter. He has developed point guard skills, and at 6-foot-5, can see over defenses. He has reportedly tested well athletically in workouts – easing the biggest concern about him. That opens the door for him to defend adequately and maybe even play some point guard, where he’d be more valuable.

15. Donovan Mitchell, SG, Louisville

I believe in Mitchell’s ability to defend point guards. Otherwise, I’m skeptical. He’s 6-foot-3 with a 6-foot-10 wingspan, so defending wings is certainly within the realm of possibility. I don’t trust his ability to run an offense as a point guard. I don’t like his scoring game – to few good shots generated – as a shooting guard. But he’s athletic and has enough raw skills and areas for theoretical improvement to take chance on him.

16. Jonah Bolden, PF, FMP Beograd

Bolden is comfortable on the perimeter, where he can shoot off the dribble or spotting up, find teammates with impressive passes or drive to the hoop. Those skills aren’t completely developed yet, but its an impressive array. For a stretch four, Bolden’s athleticism takes him to the next level. Near the basket, he plays above the rim. He has all the tools to move with perimeter players on switches defensively. The big concern: Bolden shies from physicality and struggles when it finds him. Maybe that changes if he gets stronger. A point of confusion: Why was Bolden so unimpressive in his lone season at UCLA before thriving overseas?

Tier 8

17. John Collins, PF, Wake Forest

He’s a tenacious interior scorer and rebounder, always attacking his spots, through contact or otherwise. Those skills just don’t translate defensively. As much as defense is about effort, Collins just looks lost. Pedestrian athleticism and length limit him as a rim-protector. Sticking with stretch fours will require far more defensive discipline than he has shown. I’m not even sure about his role offensively, either. He has nice footwork in the post, but he’s not nearly enough of a passer for someone in that position. His jumper could come along and open things for him.

18. Isaiah Hartenstein, PF, Zalgiris

Hartenstein built a lot of his resume on outhustling less athletic players in Europe, but there are traits that will translate (size, a massive 7-foot-1), should translate (passing) and might translate (shooting). Shooting is the big one. If he develops his outside shot, that would allow him to spend more time on the perimeter and take advantage of his passing ability. While reasonably mobile, he’s too undisciplined defensively to take advantage. Just 19, he can improve considerably. A lack of explosive athleticism is concerning, though.

Tier 9

19. Ike Anigbogu, C, UCLA

Anigbogu, 18 until October, might be the youngest player drafted this year. He’s big (6-foot-10 with a 7-foot-6 wingspan, more than 250 pounds without a lot of body fat), and he throws his body around while moving well for his size. He just lacks any ball skills offensively and polish defensively. Sometimes, he’s too aggressive. Other times, he’s too passive. If he gains a better feel and/or becomes more polished, he could be a weapon. Time is on his side.

Tier 10

20. T.J. Leaf, PF, UCLA

Leaf is a pick-and-pop threat who expands into an offensive threat all over the floor. He can shoot from all levels of the floor, and his advanced court vision leads to impressive passes. But his defense poses problems. He’s subpar defending on the perimeter and even worse protecting the rim.

21. Justin Patton, C, Creighton

Patton is an excellent finisher, creating high-efficiency shots at the rim in transition, as roll man and as a cutter. He needs someone to set him up, but I hear NBA teams employ point guards. He has shown glimpses of playmaking out of the post and shooting from distance, suggesting his offensive game can expand. He doesn’t rebound well enough, but he has flashed solid rim protection. If he improves his physique, he could blossom.

Tier 11

22. Tyler Lydon, PF, Syracuse

Lydon’s strengths are 3-point shooting and shot-blocking, a dynamite combination for a modern big man. His rebounding and interior defense are lagging (and his ability to defend on the perimeter is even worse). But there’s a path to playing time for anyone who shoot 3s and block shots like Lydon projects to. If there’s a good reason Lydon has seemingly generated no momentum in the pre-draft process, I don’t know what it is.

23. Monte Morris, PG, Iowa State

Nobody in this range of the draft is a safe bet to have a long NBA career. Morris might come closest, as he could step in as and remain a backup point guard for a while. Let him run an offense, and he’ll make the right pass while committing few turnovers. The question: Without great athleticism, can he create enough situations where the right pass leads to a bucket often enough? I think he’s savvy enough to create seams with craftiness and decent shooting ability, but it’s not a given. Morris at least controls what he can control. He puts effort into defense and rebounding, adding more value with the latter.

24. Jawun Evans, PG, Oklahoma State

Evans is a blur, a 6-foot speedster who can attack the rim with abandon. That pressures the defense, and he’s adept at kicking to teammates (though not finishing at the rim). He can also pull up for jumpers, keeping defenses honest. But he’s small, which brings into question his ability to translate to the pros, especially defensively.

25. D.J. Wilson, PF, Michigan

For better or worse, Wilson plays like  wing. He shoots 3-pointers and dribbles and moves fluidly. He also too often avoids contact from fellow bigs. But the 6-foot-11 Wilson must play power forward, because that gives him his matchup advantages. With a 7-foot-3 wingspan and bounciness, he can protect the rim at times (and finish over it on the other end). He must work on still deterring shots at the rim when also countering a bigger offensive payer inside and rebounding.

26. Terrance Ferguson, SG, Adelaide 36ers

Ferguson projects as an athletic 3-and-D guard, but he’s not nearly as ready as hoped. His shot is unreliable. His defensive awareness lags behind professional standards. But these are issues young players sometimes enter the NBA with and figure out. There’s a path forward here that leads to Ferguson becoming a contributor in the league.

27. Tony Bradley, C, North Carolina

Bradley is huge (6-foot-11 with a 7-foot-5 wingspan), and he offensively rebounded like a beast in college. But why didn’t that nose for the ball on the offensive glass show up in other areas, namely defensively? His athleticism is lacking, raising questions how he’ll translate. His soft touch could serve him well, though.

28. Jarrett Allen, C, Texas

Allen is long (6-foot-11 with a 7-foot-5.5 wingspan) and mobile, but he uses those traits to too often play a finesse game – reaching by opponents for rebounds or blocks rather than banging. Shying from contact holds him back. So does how long it takes him to load up to jump (though he gets nice height once he elevates). I’m obviously relatively low on Allen and, with his unrefined offense, see him as a major project. But late in the first round, he’s worth a flier. He could certainly develop.

Tier 12

29. Semi Ojeleye, F, SMU

Ojeleye was a  22-year-old dominating the American Athletic Conference last year. Will that translate to the NBA? His best path is at power forward, where he can face up and either shoot 3-pointers (though not necessarily from NBA range) or drive (though with brute force, not creatively). Even at 6-foot-7, he’s strong enough to hold his own defending and rebounding inside.

30. Bam Adebayo, C, Kentucky

Adebayo is a voracious dunker. He displays impressive motor, explosiveness, physicality on his slams. He just hasn’t seem interested in applying those traits to other areas of his game, like defense and rebounding. If Adebayo applies himself in those less-glamorous areas, he could succeed in the NBA. Powerful dunks alone won’t keep him in the league.

31. Jordan Bell, PF, Oregon

Bell can protect the rim and guard on the perimeter, a special defensive combination for the 6-foot-9 fluid athlete. But he’ll have to play elite defense to stick in the NBA, because his offense is limited to finishing at the rim. Bell does that very efficiently, but it’ll be easier to take away with no other offensive skills as threats.

Report: NBA’s salary cap projection drops to $99 million

AP
3 Comments

A little more than a year ago, the NBA projected the 2017-18 salary cap at $107 million. That number fell to $101 million, but teams coped.

Now, there might be some last-minute scrambling.

Jay King of MassLive:

This is the product of a short postseason – 79 games, tied for the fewest in the 15 years of the current format – providing few opportunities to generate revenue. You could call it a Quickie.

This will squeeze teams that want to use cap space or dodge the luxury tax. Teams operating above the cap but below the tax will get a relative advantage with the mid-level exception occupying a higher percentage of the cap.

Here’s how max contracts are now shaping up:

Draft is next up during NBA’s dizzying days of deals

AP Photo/Greg Beacham
2 Comments

NEW YORK (AP) — Markelle Fultz is ready for the NBA draft. He’s already learned about life at the trade deadline.

During a dizzying few days of deals around the NBA, the presumed No. 1 pick had his Saturday plans – not to mention his future destination – change when the Philadelphia 76ers brought him in for a workout. They then completed a trade with the Boston Celtics and are expected to take the Washington guard to begin the action Thursday night.

And if the last few days are indication, what follows might be a wild night inside Barclays Center.

“It’s been a little crazy last couple days,” Duke forward Jayson Tatum said Wednesday.

Teams seem to have one eye on the draft and future stars like Fultz and Lonzo Ball, while the other is firmly focused on jockeying for proven veterans. Former and future No. 1 picks have already been dealt this week in what feels like the trade deadline, free agency and draft all rolled into one frenzy.

“It just shows you what the NBA is about. I mean, you can get traded in the blink of an eye, without knowing,” Fultz said. “It just shows you how this business is and like I said, I just go with the flow. I’ve got an opportunity to play basketball and that’s all I ask for.”

Though Fultz heads what’s widely regarded as a strong draft class, the young stars have had to share the spotlight this week with veterans who are – or could be – on the move. All-Stars and Olympic champions such as Paul George and Jimmy Butler are front and center in trade talk that usually isn’t this heavy until February. Dwight Howard was dealt and D'Angelo Russell – who just two years ago was on the same stage the players will walk Thursday as the No. 2 pick – was dealt by the Los Angeles Lakers, presumably to clear the point guard spot for Ball and salary cap space for the future.

“I’ve been seeing a lot of crazy things. They’ve been coming through my phone with the ESPN app,” Kentucky guard Malik Monk said.

“I knew right before the draft something crazy was going to happen. It happens almost every year, so I wasn’t shocked about it.”

Things are expected to settle down a bit for at least the first two picks. The 76ers, selecting first for the second straight year, should take Fultz before Magic Johnson takes Ball with the Lakers again in the No. 2 spot, which is exactly what the UCLA guard and his father, LaVar, want.

“It would mean a lot to play for my hometown and learn from the best point guard ever,” Ball said.

From there it could be Tatum, Josh Jackson of Kansas, Kentucky’s De'Aaron Fox or some other player in the mix at No. 3, where the Celtics will now pick after the deal with the 76ers. Celtics President Danny Ainge said after making the trade he thought he could get the player he wanted two spots lower.

“It’s a very loaded class and I feel like especially whichever guys go at the top four, five, there may not be that much separation between (them) because everybody’s just so talented,” Tatum said.

Many of them, as usual lately, are freshmen. A record 14 were taken in the first round of last year’s draft and that number should be threatened Thursday. The Sacramento Kings have two top-10 picks, while NBA champion Golden State and runner-up Cleveland have none in the first round.

Teams chasing those two squads may make up ground quickest with a veteran player they can only get through free agency or a trade, so that may have to wait until July.

But they should be able to find someone good Thursday.

“This, I think, has a chance to be a historic draft,” Minnesota Timberwolves general manager Scott Layden said. “You look at the top end of the draft and I think there’s a chance that there’s going to be a lot of very good players, but it also runs deep into the late first round. I think that’s why there will be a lot of activity at this draft, because I think teams see potential to get a great player.”