View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7409 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 09/23/16 8:32 pm ::: DC Mystics 2017 |
Reply |
|
Mystics are still reeling from losing out on the "3 to see" after Trudi Lacey decimated the squad. Mike Thibault has done great with the picks he's had - problem is they've been just shy of a superstar. Emma Meeseman is a very strong sidekick but doesn't have the killer instinct all superstars need.
Setting that aside for a moment, let's look at positions of greatest need. IMHO, this team desperately needs a top flight PG. The current crew of Natasha Cloud, Leilani Mitchell and Ivory Latta ain't cutting the mustard. Cloud is an excellent back up PG, but not a starter for a playoff team. Who knows if Mitchell will gel better after spending a preseason with the squad. And Latta? Will she play again? Who knows?
And the Mystics luck out with SAS having one extra PG in DRob. But what will SAS want in return? I say anyone except Meeseman should be offered and I'm betting they'll want Steph Dolson, unless they pick up Coates in the draft. The loss of Dolson would be big for the Styx, who need extra rebounding WITH Dolson. I say the Mystics go for the best rebounding machine left at their pick.
With the Mystics luck, they'll get top pick in a draft that has no clear top pick.
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22477 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 09/23/16 8:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Not sure what they need as they seem solid on paper. But the thing with the Mystics is they have no superstar. It should be Meesseman, but she's not stepping up all season. They're also loaded at PG(Cloud, Latta, Mitchell & Hartley). Someone gets traded out of those four.
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32341
Back to top |
Posted: 09/23/16 8:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
One of their problems is that they are sort of, kind of ok at all positions but (as you say) nobody truly stands out.
A DRob for Dolson trade doesn't look too bad for either team EXCEPT Mike has made a point of trying to have shooters at all positions, which makes me think he wouldn't be high enough on DRob to make that trade. And the other problem is that you don't know how speedy she will be returning from that kind of injury - and speed is her game.
TRP is really pretty mediocre. A healthy Copper should help that situation and if they could find a reliable PG then perhaps Cloud could be a backup combo instead and even play some SF. Malott simply hasn't shown that she belongs in the league. Hill could be quite good but needs more support around her.
I think they're in a situation where they truly need to make some kind of move or it will be more of the same, even with everybody healthy.
_________________ For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009 Posts: 6827
Back to top |
Posted: 09/23/16 9:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think Dolson for D-Rob is risky but a decent risk.
I would go bigger. Assuming SA gets #1 and Was gets #4, and D. Deshields reaches some of her potential and declares.
Dolson and #4 for #1.
I think SA would do it. It would be a big risk for Washington but if Deshields turns out to be a super-star it would be a risk that pays off. If DD doesn't work out Washington will probably still be middles to low in the pack, but that is pretty much assured if they don't bring in some star talent.
Washington would be the right place for Diamond, they have a decent team, a good coach, her and Messeman could be a very complimentary 1/2 punch, And Hill would be a great 3rd option. Players like Latta, Mitchell and Vaughn might be the type of veterans that can help get Deshields in the right mind set to succeed. Diamond wouldn't have to be the #1 option from day 1, but would also get to be an important part of the team from day 1, which seems like the kind of position that she would be suited for. (I thinking being the #1 option in SA might be too much pressure, and languishing on the bench in LA or fighting Sims, Diggins and Powers for shots in Dallas might destroy her confidence.)
I think Washington has little to lose if they take the risk the real question is where is her ceiling and basement, if you think she could be the next McCoughtry you do it in a heartbeat, if you think she is the next R. Williams or T. hayes maybe you do maybe you don't. But If I'm Washington I swing for the fences.
Also if you did this trade I would look to grab C. Little who is an UFA to shore up the post.
Cloud/Mitchell
Hill/Copper/Latta
Deshields/TRP
Messeman/Little/Hawkins or Miljovavic(Sp.) (I think she is a reserved player in Was and showed well at the Olympics)
Vaughn/Sanders
You also have Hartley if she is able to play next season after giving birth, Malott, and a second round pick as other options.
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7409 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 09/24/16 9:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
J-Spoon wrote: |
I think Dolson for D-Rob is risky but a decent risk.
I would go bigger. Assuming SA gets #1 and Was gets #4, and D. Deshields reaches some of her potential and declares.
Dolson and #4 for #1.
I think SA would do it. It would be a big risk for Washington but if Deshields turns out to be a super-star it would be a risk that pays off. If DD doesn't work out Washington will probably still be middles to low in the pack, but that is pretty much assured if they don't bring in some star talent.
Washington would be the right place for Diamond, they have a decent team, a good coach, her and Messeman could be a very complimentary 1/2 punch, And Hill would be a great 3rd option. Players like Latta, Mitchell and Vaughn might be the type of veterans that can help get Deshields in the right mind set to succeed. Diamond wouldn't have to be the #1 option from day 1, but would also get to be an important part of the team from day 1, which seems like the kind of position that she would be suited for. (I thinking being the #1 option in SA might be too much pressure, and languishing on the bench in LA or fighting Sims, Diggins and Powers for shots in Dallas might destroy her confidence.)
I think Washington has little to lose if they take the risk the real question is where is her ceiling and basement, if you think she could be the next McCoughtry you do it in a heartbeat, if you think she is the next R. Williams or T. hayes maybe you do maybe you don't. But If I'm Washington I swing for the fences.
Also if you did this trade I would look to grab C. Little who is an UFA to shore up the post.
Cloud/Mitchell
Hill/Copper/Latta
Deshields/TRP
Messeman/Little/Hawkins or Miljovavic(Sp.) (I think she is a reserved player in Was and showed well at the Olympics)
Vaughn/Sanders
You also have Hartley if she is able to play next season after giving birth, Malott, and a second round pick as other options. |
I like the way you're thinking J-Spoon! Going straight for a potential superstar. We saw what happened DD's frosh year in a free flowing system in which she embraced being the go-to player. I also like that you addressed who could keep her reigned into playing in Mike T's system. His system is based on balance and keeping every player on the floor engaged. The main issue has been during crunch time. There has to be room for a player to take over - there has to be "that" player who loves to be in that role. Meeseman has the talent and skill to do that but she is too committed to balance to really be that player. The take-over player doesn't have to be the one who scores, but must actively command attention and make plays on both sides of the floor. DD has the athleticism and body type to be that player with those extra long arms and quick first step.
Re: DRob's lack of a shot - some players come off injury with an improved shot due to hours with a shot gun when not yet cleared for playing. I hope DRob is one of those as she would become a premier PG if she adds a shot to her game.
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11186
Back to top |
Posted: 09/24/16 11:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
A prediction: Diamond DeShields will not be a superstar. I think it's more likely that she will be a mediocre player than all-WNBA. She has the physical talent, no question, but she is yet to show that she's truly an elite player. She might be, but trading up to get Diamond DeShields is like trading up to get JaMarcus Russell (Oakland raider fans will know what I mean).
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22477 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 09/24/16 11:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Agreed about DeSheilds. Maybe a 6th woman type player. I also see her getting moved around a lot due to her personality. And she's not the #1 pick, either.
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7409 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 09/24/16 12:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
A prediction: Diamond DeShields will not be a superstar. I think it's more likely that she will be a mediocre player than all-WNBA. She has the physical talent, no question, but she is yet to show that she's truly an elite player. She might be, but trading up to get Diamond DeShields is like trading up to get JaMarcus Russell (Oakland raider fans will know what I mean). |
IMHO, she's the only potential superstar in this class. We should know more after this season before anyone has to roll the dice.
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
mavcarter #NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 5935 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 09/24/16 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
A prediction: Diamond DeShields will not be a superstar. I think it's more likely that she will be a mediocre player than all-WNBA. She has the physical talent, no question, but she is yet to show that she's truly an elite player. She might be, but trading up to get Diamond DeShields is like trading up to get JaMarcus Russell (Oakland raider fans will know what I mean). |
IMHO, she's the only potential superstar in this class. |
Exactly. You draft on potential and highest upside. The margin for error in WNBA drafts is way to huge to take a "safe pick", unless you're picking at the bottom of every round._________________
wrote: |
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009 Posts: 6827
Back to top |
Posted: 09/24/16 2:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mavcarter wrote: |
readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
A prediction: Diamond DeShields will not be a superstar. I think it's more likely that she will be a mediocre player than all-WNBA. She has the physical talent, no question, but she is yet to show that she's truly an elite player. She might be, but trading up to get Diamond DeShields is like trading up to get JaMarcus Russell (Oakland raider fans will know what I mean). |
IMHO, she's the only potential superstar in this class. |
Exactly. You draft on potential and highest upside. The margin for error in WNBA drafts is way to huge to take a "safe pick", unless you're picking at the bottom of every round. |
Obviously I am in the camp that she will be a super-star type of talent, but I agree there is some risk, but unless a bunch of other high potential players enter this draft I think she would be worth the risk. Maybe I'll feel differently after this college season but I definitely think she has the "it" factor, and that last season was the anomaly.
And I think Washington is the perfect Situation for Diamond to thrive. I would love for her to end up in NY but I don't see that happening.
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7409 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 09/24/16 3:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
J-Spoon wrote: |
mavcarter wrote: |
readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
A prediction: Diamond DeShields will not be a superstar. I think it's more likely that she will be a mediocre player than all-WNBA. She has the physical talent, no question, but she is yet to show that she's truly an elite player. She might be, but trading up to get Diamond DeShields is like trading up to get JaMarcus Russell (Oakland raider fans will know what I mean). |
IMHO, she's the only potential superstar in this class. |
Exactly. You draft on potential and highest upside. The margin for error in WNBA drafts is way to huge to take a "safe pick", unless you're picking at the bottom of every round. |
Obviously I am in the camp that she will be a super-star type of talent, but I agree there is some risk, but unless a bunch of other high potential players enter this draft I think she would be worth the risk. Maybe I'll feel differently after this college season but I definitely think she has the "it" factor, and that last season was the anomaly.
And I think Washington is the perfect Situation for Diamond to thrive. I would love for her to end up in NY but I don't see that happening. |
As you pointed out previously, DD will only thrive in DC is her teammates can get her to buy into the balanced attack and save her superjets for when the game is on the line. Also, I repeat, I expect Mike T to roll the dice ONLY if DD has an outstanding season, akin to frosh season.
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11186
Back to top |
Posted: 09/24/16 4:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think there's a difference between taking Diamond DeShields at number one, and trading to pick her.
If you have the number one pick, and draft her, then you've lost nothing, really, if she doesn't work out. But if you trade proven assets to get her, then that's a different story.
DeShields could turn out to be great, but her chances of ultimate success, it seems to me, are much less than those of previous number one picks such as Maya Moore, Diana Taurasi, etc.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
mavcarter #NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 5935 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 09/25/16 1:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
I think there's a difference between taking Diamond DeShields at number one, and trading to pick her.
If you have the number one pick, and draft her, then you've lost nothing, really, if she doesn't work out. But if you trade proven assets to get her, then that's a different story.
DeShields could turn out to be great, but her chances of ultimate success, it seems to me, are much less than those of previous number one picks such as Maya Moore, Diana Taurasi, etc. |
So who has superstar potential in this draft, in your opinion?_________________
wrote: |
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11186
Back to top |
Posted: 09/25/16 11:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
mavcarter wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
I think there's a difference between taking Diamond DeShields at number one, and trading to pick her.
If you have the number one pick, and draft her, then you've lost nothing, really, if she doesn't work out. But if you trade proven assets to get her, then that's a different story.
DeShields could turn out to be great, but her chances of ultimate success, it seems to me, are much less than those of previous number one picks such as Maya Moore, Diana Taurasi, etc. |
So who has superstar potential in this draft, in your opinion? |
No one. Some years are like that, unfortunately, in all sports -- and it's just bad luck to have the first pick in one of those seasons.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
mavcarter #NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 5935 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 09/25/16 6:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
mavcarter wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
I think there's a difference between taking Diamond DeShields at number one, and trading to pick her.
If you have the number one pick, and draft her, then you've lost nothing, really, if she doesn't work out. But if you trade proven assets to get her, then that's a different story.
DeShields could turn out to be great, but her chances of ultimate success, it seems to me, are much less than those of previous number one picks such as Maya Moore, Diana Taurasi, etc. |
So who has superstar potential in this draft, in your opinion? |
No one. Some years are like that, unfortunately, in all sports -- and it's just bad luck to have the first pick in one of those seasons. |
True, but their has to be one player in every draft that you think has the best chance of being the player Clay._________________
wrote: |
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11186
Back to top |
Posted: 09/25/16 7:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mavcarter wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
mavcarter wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
I think there's a difference between taking Diamond DeShields at number one, and trading to pick her.
If you have the number one pick, and draft her, then you've lost nothing, really, if she doesn't work out. But if you trade proven assets to get her, then that's a different story.
DeShields could turn out to be great, but her chances of ultimate success, it seems to me, are much less than those of previous number one picks such as Maya Moore, Diana Taurasi, etc. |
So who has superstar potential in this draft, in your opinion? |
No one. Some years are like that, unfortunately, in all sports -- and it's just bad luck to have the first pick in one of those seasons. |
True, but their has to be one player in every draft that you think has the best chance of being the player Clay. |
A lot depends on how things go this year, but Shatori Walker-Kimbrough can shoot threes and plays in a top-shelf program.
I haven't watched her that much, so I don't know if she can defend, but obviously she has to cut her turnovers way down. If she can guard, and can get smarter (which is easier, oddly enough, than developing a perimeter jumper), she could be a very good wing in the W.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63869
Back to top |
Posted: 09/25/16 8:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Walker-Kimbrough's TeamUSA weight was listed as 139 in 7/2015
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32341
Back to top |
Posted: 09/25/16 8:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think Shatori can play in the W, but it may be as a SG rather than a SF. She's pretty slight of body to guard the SF, but in general she is a pretty good defender, quick, has good instincts...and of course, can shoot!
_________________ For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63869
Back to top |
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32341
Back to top |
|
zune69
Joined: 27 May 2010 Posts: 8192
Back to top |
Posted: 09/26/16 2:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Diamond had a great freshman year with UNC.Latta was one of her asst coaches.Having Latta as a mentor might bring out the best in Diamond.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11186
Back to top |
Posted: 09/26/16 9:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Two things:
1) This whole mentor thing drives me crazy. We have mentors on every team — they're called coaches. Players play, and to say that Sue Bird or Ivory Latta or whoever is going to be a great mentor for some particular young player just makes little sense to me. Now if Ivory Latta is the coach, OK maybe.
If you look at professional sports as a whole, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a few true "mentoring" situations that really work. Just because one player is good doesn't mean that players going to be able to reach a younger player and teach her the things she needs to know to be successful.
Some players don't want to be coached, or can't figure out how to listen, and it doesn't matter who tries to tell them things. Some players are willing to learn, but then again they have coaches.
2) I'm not claiming Shatori Walker-Kimbrough is necessarily going to be any better than Alyssa Thomas, but I'm also not going to say that Alyssa Thomas has turned into a successful WNBA player. She's good, but PER shows she's barely ticking the above average category this year. She has a high shooting percentage, but otherwise I'm unimpressed with her overall game.
And going back to the previous point, she has never added a perimeter game and that's what really limits her. My guess is, and I don't know, is that she just has never really wanted to listen to people who have told her she must develop an outside shot to maximize her abilities.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63869
Back to top |
Posted: 09/26/16 10:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
Two things:
1) This whole mentor thing drives me crazy. We have mentors on every team — they're called coaches. Players play, and to say that Sue Bird or Ivory Latta or whoever is going to be a great mentor for some particular young player just makes little sense to me. Now if Ivory Latta is the coach, OK maybe.
If you look at professional sports as a whole, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a few true "mentoring" situations that really work. Just because one player is good doesn't mean that player's going to be able to reach a younger player and teach her the things she needs to know to be successful.
|
Coaches can't be all things to all players. Having an experienced player show you the ropes, especially if that player knows your position, is invaluable. I don't even see how this is debatable. Most of these coaches don't know what it's like to be a current WNBA player, so they can't really relate to a player like a fellow experienced player can.
ClayK wrote: |
I'm also not going to say that Alyssa Thomas has turned into a successful WNBA player. |
Well, she's in no danger of not finding a roster spot in any team in the WNBA, so I'd call that a success.
ClayK wrote: |
She's good, but PER shows she's barely ticking the above average category this year. She has a high shooting percentage, but otherwise I'm unimpressed with her overall game. |
Someday instead of just going by stats, you'll have to break down and watch some games. Maybe you'll see what most of us see.
ClayK wrote: |
And going back to the previous point, she has never added a perimeter game and that's what really limits her. |
Although that's okay for your home girl, DRob, and she's a guard. Don't you find it insane that in 5 years of WNBA play, a guard has yet to even attempt a three point shot? I guess you're willing to overlook that because she has these other fabled qualities, but Alyssa Thomas has some other qualities too. Not only can Thomas rebound in the paint, she can take that rebound and drive it down court herself, and either drive it to the hole or dish it off. Yeah, it be great if she could shoot better. She'd be an elite player like Maya Moore then.
ClayK wrote: |
My guess is, and I don't know, is that she just has never really wanted to listen to people who have told her she must develop an outside shot to maximize her abilities. |
Why does it have to be about not listening? Most likely it's not an innate part of her game. Is DRob not listening? Why don't you ask her.
You've said yourself if a player doesn't develop a three point shot early on, it's very hard to develop it later, so you seem to contradict your own comments. For Thomas, it's about not listening?
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
mavcarter #NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 5935 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 09/26/16 10:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
There's also a problem with evaluating talent, especially women's basketball.
Too much attention being paid to advanced stats instead of using the eye test as the main evaluator of talent._________________
wrote: |
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11186
Back to top |
Posted: 09/26/16 1:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
For the record, I've always been critical of Daniel Robinson for not having a perimeter game. Imagine how good she could be she could make a jumper. Still really good but she could be so much better.
You're entitled to your opinion about Alyssa Thomas, and so am I. She's a WNBA starter, and that's fine – but she was the fourth overall pick in the WNBA draft and I think many expected she would be more than just another starter. (Of course, it's not like two players who were chosen above her, Kayla McBride and Odyssey Sims, have torn up the league, so compared to her peers, she's done reasonably well.)
As for the eye test, just look at baseball. There was always this belief in "RBI guys", which have been proven to have be a figment of the imagination. There are cases, of course, where you can see things that the numbers don't reveal. I just don't think that applies to Thomas.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
|
|