The Andre Drummond Thread

[Tornicade]

Normally, I like seeing contrasting viewpoints and especially how staunchly you hold your positions.

But now, I think you should stop.

Really . What has he improved at in the last two seasons that he wasnt already good at ? Tristan, Waiters, Irving etc have all shown improvement even if slight improvement in different areas of their game outside their base skillset. Drummond.

Ill say the same thing about faried. I can give you plenty of examples in the NBa of players who played at a nice statistical level from their rookie year and never made that jump entering their prime.

 

[gourimoko]

Beal is used as a catch and shoot guard and Waiters is used as a driving guard. One has a point guard who is an elite distributor and the other has a point guard that an elite scorer. Beal would be catching and shooting less and driving more in celveland and Waiters would be doing the opposite in Washington.

The bolded is false.

You can certainly compare their effectiveness and contrasting is part of comparing. You cant argue in one line that drummond has more value as a center then dismiss a beal and waiters comparison because they play a different style so position doesnt matter.

You are conflating two different topics that were being discussed by Jack and I. We weren't directly comparing Drummond and Waiters/Beal, but comparing the prospects potential for success and their ultimate value and impact. Drummond likely has more value, regardless of how your team is configured, than Waiters. Whereas Beal, on draft day, had greater value and a higher ceiling than Drummond and still might.

but if your insistent then this argument applies to the Waiters Drummond comparison and it comes down to Drummond and Waiters cannot be compared any more than beal and drummond or beal and waiters.

Again, this line of argumentation is really pointless. There are value comparisons that are made, but that's got nothing to do with the earlier statement saying that one can't compare styles of play. It's tiresome... especially when the question is obvious.

 

[STAT]

Really . What has he improved at in the last two seasons that he wasnt already good at ? Tristan, Waiters, Irving etc have all shown improvement even if slight improvement in different areas of their game outside their base skillset. Drummond.

Ill say the same thing about faried. I can give you plenty of examples in the NBa of players who played at a nice statistical level from their rookie year and never made that jump entering their prime.

Do you really mean to say that improving in areas of strength does not qualify as improvement? That's an absurd position to hold and one that I really don't think you want to take.

Further, even if you haven't watched Drummond at all, one glance at his basic box score stat line would show you that he's gotten better; anytime a 20 year old center who picks up an extra 12 minutes per game from the season before and yet manages to improve his scoring and rebounding per minute and improve his field goal % to the point that he's handily leading the league, it's safe to say that he's improved. And if you have been watching Drummond you can see a guy who is far better conditioned, who has much improved court awareness, is getting better at boxing out, and is moving more quickly defensively and improving as a PnR defender.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Why? Dion and Beal are two completely different players. Beal coming out of college looked like the second advent of Ray Allen, and he just might be. Dion Waiters isn't really comparable -- very different player. Wait.. Why do you keep doing this..? No matter what Dion and Beal are doing, it's not what they were doing coming out of college.

Well, for starters, since it's a GM's job to evaluate how players will play in the NBA, how they are doing right now is entirely relevant to the discussion. It's the same reason people such as yourself kill Grant for not drafting Drummond, after all.

Without a doubt, they have similar production at this point (I'd rather have Beal) but.. what's that got to do with the draft?

See above.

This is a different point entirely, but I think we'd have been better off with Beal and I really wanted the Cavs to trade up to get him, but I don't fault Grant for not being able to pull off such a trade.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think Beal would look significantly worse (at least right now) here than he does in Washington. In fact, he'd probably look kind of like he did in Washington when Wall was hurt, which was pretty terrible.

And that's not to say I'm against Beal or think he would have been an awful pick. In fact, before I really started to break down Kyrie and how he plays I thought Beal would have been a great pick. I'm just not so sure any more. I agree with Grant's idea that the Cavs needed a second creator. Another guy who can get to the rim at will and create points for both himself and others. Waiters is that kind of player. Beal is not. If Kyrie Irving were Chris Paul, Beal would be the most amazing running mate out there. But Kyrie isn't, and never will be, Chris Paul. He's never going to average ten assists per game. That's not who he is.

Grant may have been wrong to pass over Drummond, but I think that Waiters is a significantly better fit for this team than Beal would have been, both short and long term.

 

[gourimoko]

Well, for starters, since it's a GM's job to evaluate how players will play in the NBA, how they are doing right now is entirely relevant to the discussion.

Not it's not. You can't judge a draft pick after the fact. That's absurd.

It's the same reason people such as yourself kill Grant for not drafting Drummond, after all.

This is what I keep telling you, and I know it's not getting through. I'm not basing my argument on Drummond's production today, it's based on the fact that Grant made a very unconventional pick in Dion Waiters and it made little sense given we hadn't even worked him out, given Drummond was still on the board. I could care less what Drummond is doing today - I'm not a Pistons fan.

And that's not to say I'm against Beal or think he would have been an awful pick. In fact, before I really started to break down Kyrie and how he plays I thought Beal would have been a great pick. I'm just not so sure any more. I agree with Grant's idea that the Cavs needed a second creator. Another guy who can get to the rim at will and create points for both himself and others. Waiters is that kind of player. Beal is not. If Kyrie Irving were Chris Paul, Beal would be the most amazing running mate out there. But Kyrie isn't, and never will be, Chris Paul. He's never going to average ten assists per game. That's not who he is.

Grant may have been wrong to pass over Drummond, but I think that Waiters is a significantly better fit for this team than Beal would have been, both short and long term.

Don't really want to argue Beal vs Waiters in this thread. But the problem with this argument is that you're basing your evaluations on the players in the NBA, and I'm basing mine from the collegiate performance.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I could care less what Drummond is doing today - I'm not a Pistons fan.

This is kind of where I'm coming from. Drummond racking up garbage buckets and rebounds in Detroit is great, but we knew he could do that coming out of college. All he needs is one offensive move and some basketball knowledge and he could be Dwight Howard. The chance that could happen is why I wanted him in the first place, and the only reason I would trade Waiters for him even after seeing the potential Dion has shown.

 

[Hydroponic3385]

Not it's not. You can't judge a draft pick after the fact. That's absurd.

If that were true, then I believe that changes many people's arguments about Drummond (and I want to preface that before the draft, on draft day, and since the draft - I've been of the belief that Drummond was the best pick for us at #4 if the top 3 fell the way it did. But as I've stated before, I can understand why we passed on him at the time). Because he went from a sure-fire top 1-2 pick before he ever played a college game, and then after the course of his freshman year and leading up to the draft, his stock definitely slipped. MANY people (from fans to "experts") were concerned about his lackluster freshman year (at least a little bit of concern), and very concerned about some glaring "red flags" at the time (e.g., attitude concerns, motivation concerns, "does he really care?"). He was by no means an obvious pick at #4, although there was certainly intrigue about selecting him. At the time of the draft he still had huge potential, but also huge red flags and concerns. It just so happens that his first two seasons are proving those concerns wrong and proving that he would've been an excellent pick whether it were at #2 to Charlotte, #4 to the Cavs, or obviously where he fell at #9 to Detroit.

 

[gourimoko]

If that were true, then I believe that changes many people's arguments about Drummond (and I want to preface that before the draft, on draft day, and since the draft - I've been of the belief that Drummond was the best pick for us at #4 if the top 3 fell the way it did. But as I've stated before, I can understand why we passed on him at the time). Because he went from a sure-fire top 1-2 pick before he ever played a college game, and then after the course of his freshman year and leading up to the draft, his stock definitely slipped. MANY people (from fans to "experts") were concerned about his lackluster freshman year (at least a little bit of concern), and very concerned about some glaring "red flags" at the time (e.g., attitude concerns, motivation concerns, "does he really care?"). He was by no means an obvious pick at #4, although there was certainly intrigue about selecting him. At the time of the draft he still had huge potential, but also huge red flags and concerns. It just so happens that his first two seasons are proving those concerns wrong and proving that he would've been an excellent pick whether it were at #2 to Charlotte, #4 to the Cavs, or obviously where he fell at #9 to Detroit.

I think the two choices that would make sense for the Cavaliers, at the time, were Harrison Barnes or Andre Drummond. Had Grant picked Barnes over Drummond, I wouldn't be making the argument that I am - and understand that in retrospect, I think Waiters is the better player, but not at the time.

 

[Cashius X]

Torn is funny as shit lol

 

[mAo_mAo]

Really . What has he improved at in the last two seasons that he wasnt already good at ? Tristan, Waiters, Irving etc have all shown improvement even if slight improvement in different areas of their game outside their base skillset. Drummond.

Ill say the same thing about faried. I can give you plenty of examples in the NBa of players who played at a nice statistical level from their rookie year and never made that jump entering their prime.

So Torn, if we drafted Drummond would you trade him straight up for Dion? Just a yes or no answer would do.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I think the two choices that would make sense for the Cavaliers, at the time, were Harrison Barnes or Andre Drummond. Had Grant picked Barnes over Drummond, I wouldn't be making the argument that I am - and understand that in retrospect, I think Waiters is the better player, but not at the time.

Why? We needed players at the 2-5 positions. Tristan was pretty awful his freshman year, Anthony Parker was our two, we had a dumpster fire at the three, and Varejao (a hybrid F/C) was our five. Given that we had drafted a high upside guy in Tristan at the four the previous year, I don't think it was unreasonable for us to draft anyone at the 2, 3, or 5.

Plus, Dion was a better prospect than Barnes coming out of college.

 

[Spencer Hawes]

Why? We needed players at the 2-5 positions. Tristan was pretty awful his freshman year, Anthony Parker was our two, we had a dumpster fire at the three, and Varejao (a hybrid F/C) was our five. Given that we had drafted a high upside guy in Tristan at the four the previous year, I don't think it was unreasonable for us to draft anyone at the 2, 3, or 5.

Plus, Dion was a better prospect than Barnes coming out of college.

At that time? My okole.

 

[Hydroponic3385]

At that time? My okole.

That's the part you nitpick? If you want to imply that having Tristan shouldn't have impacted our 2012 #4 pick, then all that does is add to Jack's argument (that it would've been reasonable to draft a guy to fill any of FOUR positions on our team). Plus, the only guy we would've considered as a PF at #4 would be Robinson, and we don't exactly regret not drafting him.

 

[Jack Brickman]

At that time? My okole.

Probably should read the entire post and not just the part you bolded.

The bottom line is that every position not point guard was reasonable going into the 2012 draft with our number four pick.

 

[Spencer Hawes]

Probably should read the entire post and not just the part you bolded.

The bottom line is that every position not point guard was reasonable going into the 2012 draft with our number four pick.

I thought it was funny that in the same post, you said TT had a bad rookie year yet followed that up with "high upside" and Torn said Drummond came into the league playing at his peak already lol.

But let's cut to the chase. Sure, we needed to address all the holes but you don't reach for players when there are other players that were more obvious like Gouri said. If you reach, that pick better hit or you fucked it up. So now we have Dion coming off the bench. Make all the excuses you want, our #4 pick who was suppose to be drafted as our starting SG is coming off the bench.