The Official Washington Basketball Thread: Wizards, Mystics etc

[StillUnknown]

Lakers would never make that trade. Wizards would unless they are insane. A young top center is far more valuable than a point guard that might be a star player.

Also trading for Bynum wouldn't be enough to entice Nash to sign here. He wants a title in the next year or two. He doesn't get that opportunity by signing with us.

[Kosher Ham]

Bynum probably will be traded however. He is going to get the same procedure done in Germany that Kobe got this past off-season with the "blood spinning".

I like the kid, but I would prefer to trade him while he has value (and he doesn't seem to care about being a Laker). I don't know that it would make sense to trade him for Wall however. I could see the Lakers going for Nash or perhaps Dragic also.

A better trade would be Bynum for that top pick that the Wizards will have.

[Thinking Skins]

I just have a good feeling about Vesely. He is a hard working dude that will put in the effort. He is a great piece for this franchise.

As much as I like what I see from Vesely, I can't say I wouldn't still want Kawhi Leonard right now.

[CrypticVillain]

Bynum probably will be traded however. He is going to get the same procedure done in Germany that Kobe got this past off-season with the "blood spinning".

I like the kid, but I would prefer to trade him while he has value (and he doesn't seem to care about being a Laker). I don't know that it would make sense to trade him for Wall however. I could see the Lakers going for Nash or perhaps Dragic also.

A better trade would be Bynum for that top pick that the Wizards will have.

If we do get the fourth pick, I would be in favor of doing that.

However, i would definitely talk to Bynum first before the trade is made. I don't want that dude coming here and he isn't ready to work hard.

[Thinking Skins]

I think we get the first overall pick. John Wall has proven marketable and our market is bigger than Charlotte and New Orleans. I don't think Sloan comes here though, again coaches that hold players accountable wont join Ernie. I think we keep Wittman and endure another year of the guard green light offense.

I'm all for keeping Wittman. My only real question about that though, is that with this year he kind of had a bit of freedom in not worrying about being fired because he was on a temp gig. That gave him a bit of ability and freedom to play and bench players as he chose. But lets say he gets a 3 year deal. Does that mean that Ernie comes and starts asking why Wall only played 20 minutes in a game where his jumper's not falling and he's turning the ball over, or why Crawford (assuming he's our #2) got benched after jacking up shot after shot?

Whoever is the coach will have some real decisions to make next year, especially at the 4/5 - we have Vesely, Searphin, Booker and Nene all vying for playing time. They can't all get 30+ minutes. Then if we get a top 3 pick, there's the possibility of getting Davis/Robinson which further complicates that position (I'd think we'd try to move one/some of the young guys if this were to happen).

I'd hate to be in a situation where we're not looking at the best players in the draft because its not a NEED for us. MKG/Beal may be the best players for us, but until we know that they're going to be studs, I'm still all about taking the best player available and making it work.

[RonArtest15]

I'm all for keeping Wittman. My only real question about that though, is that with this year he kind of had a bit of freedom in not worrying about being fired because he was on a temp gig. That gave him a bit of ability and freedom to play and bench players as he chose. But lets say he gets a 3 year deal. Does that mean that Ernie comes and starts asking why Wall only played 20 minutes in a game where his jumper's not falling and he's turning the ball over, or why Crawford (assuming he's our #2) got benched after jacking up shot after shot?

Whoever is the coach will have some real decisions to make next year, especially at the 4/5 - we have Vesely, Searphin, Booker and Nene all vying for playing time. They can't all get 30+ minutes. Then if we get a top 3 pick, there's the possibility of getting Davis/Robinson which further complicates that position (I'd think we'd try to move one/some of the young guys if this were to happen).

I'd hate to be in a situation where we're not looking at the best players in the draft because its not a NEED for us. MKG/Beal may be the best players for us, but until we know that they're going to be studs, I'm still all about taking the best player available and making it work.

I'm confused by your last line.

Even if MKG/Beal are the best players for us, you'd rather take the BPA? Who exactly would be the BPA for the Wizards to take if those two are still on the board?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

As much as I like what I see from Vesely, I can't say I wouldn't still want Kawhi Leonard right now.

Eh, it's the Spurs. Boris Diaw was run out of Charlotte--the worst team in NBA history--and now he's a contributor for the Spurs. Because it's the Spurs.

We'll see what happens. You could be right, but I do like Vesely.

[Thinking Skins]

I'm confused by your last line.

Even if MKG/Beal are the best players for us, you'd rather take the BPA? Who exactly would be the BPA for the Wizards to take if those two are still on the board?

They're the best players for us with this current lineup. Suppose Shaq was in this draft. Do you pass on Shaq, understanding that the 5 spot isn't really a need for us, or do you take possibly the best center prospect to come out in a while and say eff what we've got right now, we'll deal with too much talent at the 5 later on.

I have no problem with getting MKG or Beal, but I don't want to pass on Davis (who could be the next Tim Duncan) because we don't need a 4/5. Robinson, I'm not as high on, but I'm not willing to exclude him just because we don't need a 4. I'd put Robinson/Davis above Seraphin/Booker, so drafting either one improves our team.

The way I really see it, we have 4 legit options to help our team. I know who I'd like us to get (MKG), but that doesn't mean that if we get pick 2 or 3, that we don't do our homework on the other players available.

Portland drafted Sam Bowie for need and passed on MJ

---------- Post added May-24th-2012 at 02:17 PM ----------

Eh, it's the Spurs. Boris Diaw was run out of Charlotte--the worst team in NBA history--and now he's a contributor for the Spurs. Because it's the Spurs.

We'll see what happens. You could be right, but I do like Vesely.

I admit that my opinion on Vesely has changed. Funny that originally I wanted Leonard and Singleton as our two picks (and we could have easily gotten those two). And I hated the Vesely pick and admired the Singleton pick. Funny how things turned out.

[StillUnknown]

They're the best players for us with this current lineup. Suppose Shaq was in this draft. Do you pass on Shaq, understanding that the 5 spot isn't really a need for us, or do you take possibly the best center prospect to come out in a while and say eff what we've got right now, we'll deal with too much talent at the 5 later on.

I have no problem with getting MKG or Beal, but I don't want to pass on Davis (who could be the next Tim Duncan) because we don't need a 4/5. Robinson, I'm not as high on, but I'm not willing to exclude him just because we don't need a 4. I'd put Robinson/Davis above Seraphin/Booker, so drafting either one improves our team.

The way I really see it, we have 4 legit options to help our team. I know who I'd like us to get (MKG), but that doesn't mean that if we get pick 2 or 3, that we don't do our homework on the other players available.

Portland drafted Sam Bowie for need and passed on MJ

Unibrow is the consensus best overall player, and by a good margin in most analysts eyes. Barring some unforeseen injury/arrest, he's going #1 no matter who gets the pick. You don't have to worry about the Wizards passing on him if we get the #1 pick.

After Davis, opinions start to vary on how the rest should follow. You could make strong arguments for TRob/Beal/MKG/ and even Drummond for #2.

My preference for us would be (In Order):

Unibrow

Beal

MKG

TRob

Sully

Drummond

[Destino]

My board:

1- Davis

2- TRob

3- MKG

4- Beal

*Drummond jumps in at #2 for a team with time to develop him. Reason I leave him off is that time isn't the sort of thing typically found in the top 5 of an nba draft. He's got higher upside than unibrow physically, but has a much longer way to go and no guarantees of ever getting there.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

My board:

1.) Davis

2.) Drummond

3.) Beal

4.) MKG

5.) Lamb

Edited May 24, 2012 by BRAVEONAWARPATH

[SuperBash]

The way I see it, we'll be fine with a top 4 pick. One of Davis, MKG, Beal, or TRob will make me happy as a Wiz fan. I don't want to be in a position at 5 where we have to think about Drummond. The potential is there but we need more of a sure thing that can produce instead of banking on the potential of an immature big man, IMO.

In the 2nd round, I hope to grab Crowder and a skilled shooter like Jenkins (If he falls), Deamon, or Buford. If we can't get a shooter in the draft then it will be imperative that we grab at least one in FA such as Danny Green or Brandon Rush.

[Going Commando]

1.) Davis

2a.) MKG

2b.) Drummond

4.) TRob

5.) Disappointed

A couple of thoughts:

- This team could be upgraded easily at pretty much every spot but PG. Need won't factor heavily into any decision we make.

- Like Still said, Davis is the clear #1, one of the best #1 overall prospects of the decade, and there isn't any chance he falls past #1 overall, no matter who has the pick.

- I'm torn between Drummond and MKG. There is so much to love about MKG but he's not that special. You get a sense of where he stands when you look ahead and start watching guys like Shabazz Muhammad and Jabari Parker play.

On the one hand, MKG is a definite winner, a glue guy through and through, a versatile player with good (not great) skills that can provide a Pippen-esque impact to a team because he can do it all and has a relentless motor. He impacts your entire team on the court and in the locker room. I could see him becoming a rich man's Gerald Wallace one day. If he were as good an athlete as Pippen was, then he probably would be special.

On the other hand, MKG isn't as good an athlete as Pippen, not super quick nor super explosive, his size advantage will be lesser in the NBA, his scoring tools aren't special, he's been getting by on sheer tenacity, relentlessness, and a strength and speed advantage that will be much more average in the NBA.

And then you have Drummond, who is an elite athlete at a hugely important position. He is special. Good Drummond looks like young Dwight or Amare, only bigger. From a pure physical perspective, he's the best big man prospect to come out since Dwight. Plus he's got some skills, he can pass and can face up and shoot fairly well from range for a player his size. If you draft him and unlock his potential, then you've got a franchise changing big.

I understand and realize that chemistry and intangibles are extremely important. I would feel confident assuming MKG has tremendous intangibles and would be great for any team's chemistry. You can just kind of tell with him, and everyone raves about those qualities in him. But aside from that, I realize I'm in no position to judge the intangibles of these prospects from where I'm sitting. Especially to make a negative judgement. It's a complete unknown to me. Drummond got a bad rep this year because he was inconsistent and Pat Forde or someone from ESPN made some negative tweets about him. But I don't know how much that rep is deserved, so it doesn't really concern me. And I wouldn't pan someone for underperforming last year at Uconn, the program was in disarray. Drummond doesn't seem like a bad teammate. He seems like a nice kid.

Either way, I'm happy if the pick is one of those first three. I'd feel a lot better about picking MKG over Drummond if someone could look into a crystal ball and tell me DeMarcus Cousins was going to be a Wizard in a few years. Otherwise, I'd probably take Drummond 2nd, barring some sort of chemistry conflict. You don't get a chance to draft an athlete like Drummond often. This is the NBA draft, it's a huge crapshoot, you might as well go for upside after the great prospect is off the table. It's not like the Wizards are really in a position to get worse.

Draft classes usually produce only two or three stars at most. While I have a hard time seeing MKG end up being a bad player, I also have a hard time seeing him become a true star because he's not an elite athlete. The only players I could really see becoming stars from this class are Davis, Drummond, TRob, and maybe Austin Rivers. Beal has an outside shot at becoming a star because he's a great athlete, but he's not shown the scoring tools and instincts that make a star 2 guard, so I doubt he'd ever become one.

After TRob, I think Beal, Rivers, Barnes, and Sullinger all rate fairly evenly.

[nuposse87]

A lot will be determined at the NBA draft combine. We could potentially entertain different scenarios pending how certain players measure up. If T. Rob is actually taller than what scouts fear his value could really go up. He may already be the most NBA ready player in the draft. The only gripe with him, is that he needs to master the outside jumpshot. If he does, then he may end up being a 2 inch taller trevor booker, definitely someone who can start in the NBA on a winning squad. Davis is the clear #1 in the draft, and there are very few players I would trade for him. MKG's shot is odd, but I don't think it isn't beyond repair. If we go with MKG with the 2nd pick, we MUST hire a shooting coach for him. Lock him and Wall in a room together. At the very least we would play amazingly great defense. Beal is probably a safe pick with the 3-5 spot, he does add a critical need for us...I just think he has the least potential because of his size limitations, he is young though, he may pull a paul george and grow some..

If we trade down I'd entertain the idea of trying to acquire Terrence Ross who I believe is NBA ready in that he has a designated role running along Wall. Maybe an Afflalo type player. Also try to acquire PJ III, who probably has the 2nd most potential in the draft, but we would need a coach like Sloan to get the most out of him.

[Going Commando]

I think PJIII is a dud. After two years at Baylor, I'm afraid what you see is what you get with him. An Anthony Randolph clone.

[nuposse87]

I think PJIII is a dud. After two years at Baylor, I'm afraid what you see is what you get with him. An Anthony Randolph clone.

I think his floor is A. Randolph. He has the same problem as Drummond, they are both physical specimens with very questionable motors. The thing about PJ III is that he still has shown he has skills to be a lottery worthy pick for the NBA. His problem is consistency. Drummond is a project pick. He has andrew bynum like size and could possibly just as demanding as him, but I think he is at LEAST 2 years from being a top 10 NBA center. He may very well be worth the wait, but in the process we lose the ability to draft a position of need, which we need to escape futility and make sure Wall doesn't sour on the organization.

[Going Commando]

I think his floor is A. Randolph. He has the same problem as Drummond, they are both physical specimens with very questionable motors. The thing about PJ III is that he still has shown he has skills to be a lottery worthy pick for the NBA. His problem is consistency. Drummond is a project pick. He has andrew bynum like size and could possibly just as demanding as him, but I think he is at LEAST 2 years from being a top 10 NBA center. He may very well be worth the wait, but in the process we lose the ability to draft a position of need, which we need to escape futility and make sure Wall doesn't sour on the organization.

I think there are more similarities between Randolph and PJIII than differences. Randolph was actually a bit better and more successful in college. His team was better and he put up a little bit better averages scoring and rebounding.

There are a lot of differences between Jones and Drummond, chief among them their positions. PJIII is a perimeter player and Drummond is a true big. Drummond is also a one and done where as we saw PJIII be pretty much the same player for two years.

PJIII has skills and he's a terrific athlete, certainly a lottery talent. And I'll grant that he's still young and could have been completely miscast at Baylor. But in two years of college ball, he's just not shown any will to dominate at the collegiate level and I don't see that changing once he reaches the NBA. Not on a regular basis anyway. With Drummond, there were games he took over and physically dominated. He'll always have that physical ability and it's a good place to start from. PJIII is a perimeter slasher, he needs to be relentless to project as a dominant NBA player in that role, and I think he's shown that's not what he is.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wizards-insider/post/wizards-still-quiet-about-plans-for-coach-randy-wittman/2012/05/24/gJQA3C2NnU_blog.html

Wizards still quiet about plans for Coach Randy Wittman

A source with knowledge of the Wizards’ thinking recently described the situation as “an ongoing process,” adding that the team has no timetable to make a decision. Wittman and his assistants are still under contract for next season, lessening the urgency. But the silence – and lack of aggressiveness in pursuing other potential candidates – has raised speculation amongst agents and rival league executives that they all will be brought back.

A person who has spoken in recent weeks to President Ernie Grunfeld said “reading between the lines” from their conversations left the impression that Wittman would be retained. The person added, however, “Hey, I could be wrong.”

According to multiple league sources, Wittman was in Washington last week and recently had a face-to-face meeting with owner Ted Leonsis. A source that confirmed the meeting was unsure if it was a perfunctory get-to-know-you session or a formal interview.

[Going Commando]

I also like Beal in the top five, probably ahead of Barnes, but not necessarily ahead of Rivers.

I'm not worried about Beal's height. He's got good length for the 2 guard position, he should be fine. He's also a good athlete, quick and a good leaper with pretty good body control and outstanding strength and muscle tone for such a young, smallish player. He's very much in that wiry, Ray Allen mold from a physical perspective.

What worries me about Beal is his lack of a diverse scoring ability and natural scoring instincts. Offensively, he's a selfless, high IQ spot shooter. A great teammate, but those guys are almost never stars in the NBA.

There are a couple things I like to keep in mind when I'm thinking about NBA prospects and considering whether they project as stars.

1.) Athleticism matters. A lot. We're NFL fans and probably used to looking at prospects from that lense, where guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the best NFL players and Jerry Rice is arguably the greatest player in history, despite the fact that none of them are/were elite athletes. It's different in the NBA. Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, Tim Duncan, Shaq, Karl Malone, David Robinson, Isiah Thomas, Scottie Pippen, Patrick Ewing, etc. Go down the list and almost every great player in NBA history was also a freak athlete for his position. This is not a coincidence. In fact, the only great that stands out for not having been an elite athlete is Larry Bird, and he's arguably the highest IQ and most skilled player in the history of the game plus he was huge and had elite length for his position at the time. Bird is the exception to the rule that you pretty much have to be an outstanding athlete to project as a true superstar in the NBA.

I'm basically defining a player's athleticism as: length + speed + leaping ability relative to the norm for his position.

Michael Jordan was a freak with elite measurables in all three of those general areas. You don't have to be outstanding in all three, but if you're lacking in one, you should probably be brimming in the other two. Allen Iverson for instance. He was short but he was amazingly fast and explosive. Ditto for Chris Paul.

Look throughout the league at all of the star players and you're going to find every one of them except vintage Dirk and vintage Nash is at least outstandingly quick, explosive, or long. Durant, Melo, LeBron, Wade, Dwight, Rose, Kobe and Duncan (in their primes of course).

So if a college prospect does not have an outstanding length/speed/leaping ability ratio, then he'll probably never be a true NBA star without some sort of freakishly high skill level like Dirk, Bird, and Nash each had.

Part of this is because you pretty much have to be a terrific athlete to be a great defender, which brings me to my next point:

1.) In an ideal world, your future star NBA player needs to at least have the potential to be an excellent defender. This is something I feel gets undersold by fans and the media. Defense is as important as offense. Very, very few all time greats were not also high quality defenders. Many of them were some of the pre-eminent defenders of their era.

Defensive potential is an important determinant of future NBA impact, in part because it ties in so closely with that athletic ratio. Why was Durant so highly touted and Steph Curry kind of a draft darkhorse despite having pretty similar offensive skills as big time, highly efficient scorers and ranged shooters? In part Durant projects as an impossibly good defender with his length and explosiveness whereas it was pretty obvious Curry would always be a liability on the defensive end.

You want your star player to never be a mismatch because he needs to be on the court the whole game. You want him to at least be able to guard his own position no matter who the matchup is, and in an ideal world, he's able to guard multiple positions to cover up for mismatches created from the inadequacies of his teammates. That's what true stars can do. You can build around them and their versatility and they give your organization roster flexibility because you simply can't put an All Star out on the court at every position.

Finally,

3.) Just about every star perimeter player (PG, SG, SF) can seriously slash. I've searched my brain for examples of a star perimeter player who is still active who wasn't a fantastic slashing scorer and the only one I can think of is Ray Allen. Allen is the exception that proves the slashing rule. The reason he's an impact offensive player is because he's arguably the greatest spot up shooter of his generation. So unless you're getting a guy with that skill level, your impact offensive player has to be able to put the ball on the floor and get to the rim at a high level.

This is because your star offensive player needs to be able to create his own offense when he has to. He needs to have legit shot making ability. So if he doesn't have Ray Allen's freakish ability to sink any shot with a tiny amount of space from any spot on the floor in a huge variety of angles with picture perfect balance, release, and economy of motion, then he's going to have to do like everyone else and create space and looks for himself off the dribble.

I think those are some real general, minimum criteria for projecting whether or not an NBA prospect has it in him to be a future NBA star.

When you run down the list of this year's perimeter prospects, none of them really meet those criteria.

1.) Beal: definitely a good athlete, quick, fairly explosive, but fairly average length for his position. Makes up for his lack of length with excellent strength. Has the mentality and makeup to eventually become a solid defender, but doesn't really seem to project as elite here, mostly because he's got very average length. But he's majorly lacking in his dribble penetration ability IMO. He's a spot up shooter, not a slasher. And he's absolutely not Ray Allen caliber at shooting or scoring. No one in this class even comes close to that ability. The year Allen came out he scored 23 PPG for Uconn and his shooting splits were a terrific 47.1/46.6/81.0. He made 115 threes that year. On 46.6% shooting. Crazy.

So Beal comes up a little lacking in multiple criteria. I doubt he ever becomes an NBA star player. He's not a player who will create mismatches on either end of the court. I think he'll be a fine NBA player one day, but with a top five pick, you really need to be getting something like a star back or the pick is going to be considered a disappointment down the road. Especially with a top three pick. If you pass over someone like Drummond for him, and Drummond ends up becoming a star, then that's going to be very damaging for your franchise down the road. That's why I think you can argue that both Minny and, to a lesser extent Philly, made such big mistakes taking Wesley Johnson and Evan Turner over DeMarcus Cousins.

2.) Harrison Barnes: a fairly average athlete for his position by NBA standards--doesn't stand out for length, quickness, or explosiveness. A poor slashing scorer whose ball handling is still a bit of a weakness considering the caliber of player he's supposed to be. Doesn't stand out on defense. Again, I think he'll be a solid NBA player that can eke out a substantial career as a Luol Deng type role player, but he will never be a star. If you take him in the top three, he'll never live up to that pick. I think Luol Deng is the apt comparison, or a bit of a poor man's Danny Granger.

3.) Rivers: outstanding slashing scorer with superb scoring skills and instincts, cat like quickness and explosiveness, but very ordinary length and questionable strength making him look like a future defensive liability. He seems like a smarter, more efficient, more skillfull Monta Ellis type. I don't think he can be a true star player because of such low defensive potential. He'll be a mismatch guarding most NBA 2s, someone you're going to have to surround with good defenders, limiting your flexibility for building around him.

4.) MKG: slightly above average athlete for his position in all three respects, but doesn't stand out as special. Seems to have huge defensive potential, lock down type. Pretty good slashing ability but doesn't really blow you away here because he's not an elite athlete and his skills aren't that well developed like Rivers's are. I could see him becoming a star player down the line because of his versatility IF he develops his ball handling and slashing scoring skills so that he develops the ability to create his own offense. But that's a huge if. To my knowledge, that kind of offensive transformation is not something NBA players generally do. If anything, the thing you can confidently project is them becoming better shooters and becoming less reliant on their ability to attack the rim. Betting on him to make big strides here seems like a bad bet.

Those are the four perimeter players getting the most high lotto burn right now. The slashing criteria obviously doesn't apply to the future bigs like TRob, Davis, Sully, and Drummond. I'd have to rethink criteria for them.

[StillUnknown]

If Wittman is brought back, we'll be doing this same song and dance next year around this time.

[SuperBash]

What if we get the 2nd pick, Portland gets the 6th and 11th, and they really want Drummond? Do you make that trade? 2 for 6 + 11?

[StillUnknown]

What if we get the 2nd pick, Portland gets the 6th and 11th, and they really want Drummond? Do you make that trade? 2 for 6 + 11?

Depends on how our front office ranks the wing players in the draft.

If they see Beal/MKG as being head and shoulders better than the other wings, you keep the pick. If they feel Barnes/Rivers/Lamb can be close to that level, then you flip the pick.

I'd rather have Beal/MKG than 6 + 11. Our roster is young enough as it is, there comes a point of diminishing returns when you only have young players. I'd rather give that roster spot to a veteran free agent.

[SuperBash]

After watching some tape, I am really starting to fall in love with Dion Waiters. He really does have some D-wade to his game and he is going to explode up the boards leading up to the draft. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Wiz grab him if they fall to 4 or 5.

[Skin'emAlive]

Steve, sometimes your posts are literally essays man.

I agree with you that your top player should be ok at defense. But i dont think he needs to be elite. Just adequate is good enough for me. His supporting cast is more important. In my opinion, the the perception of the top players playing lock-down defense is skewed due to their offensive impact. I think the position that they play is much more important. Most of those top two-way players are in the same positions: SG, PF, C, and Lebron. The SG doesnt really need to play great defense. I think the only great offensive SG in recent years who can play great defense as well was Kobe. PF and C should always play at least decent defense, or their teams get destroyed. Lebron is in a league of his own. He can play any position on the court, and defend all of them. At the same time he can put up the similar numbers wherever he is. He is a phenom.

We need someone who can score on this team with high quality looks. Not someone who has a low basketball IQ and a great amount of athletic ability. If we dont get that, we are just grooming our replacement for NY, McGee, Crawford, etc. Wall and Crawford can both penetrate and kick-out to open jump shooters. We just dont have any jump shooters. haha. I think Wall getting better in the offseason will really help. Then with Seraphin and Nene controlling the interior, i think we are one efficient scorer from the playoffs. But our choice of coach will determine our ceiling. Wittman = 1st round and out. The guy has zero in-game adjustment ability.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

After watching some tape, I am really starting to fall in love with Dion Waiters. He really does have some D-wade to his game and he is going to explode up the boards leading up to the draft. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Wiz grab him if they fall to 4 or 5.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?name=nba_draft&id=7966737&_slug_=2012-nba-draft-does-dion-waiters-all-star-potential&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2fblog%3fname%3dnba_draft%26id%3d7966737%26_slug_%3d2012-nba-draft-does-dion-waiters-all-star-potential

A number of NBA scouts who I really respect have been telling me for more than a month that the real sleeper in this draft is Syracuse sophomore Dion Waiters.

One GM went even further. "There are really only two potential superstars in this draft. One is a sure thing -- freshman Anthony Davis. The other one is Waiters. He can be an electric scorer in the NBA. There's some Dwyane Wade in him."