SSBA

2016    170    Wizards    Draft SG Sidney Moncrief with pick #11 of round 1.
2016    170    Supersonics    Draft SG Wiley Peck with pick #12 of round 1.
2016    170    Nets    Draft PG Kyle Macy with pick #13 of round 1.
2016    170    Rockets    Draft SG Nigel McPhereson with pick #14 of round 1.
2016    170    Timberwolves    Draft SG Jim Paxson with pick #15 of round 1.
2016    170    Clippers    Draft PF Nolan Friedman with pick #16 of round 1.
2016    170    Bucks    Draft SG Bailey Frahm with pick #17 of round 1.
2016    170    Supersonics    Draft PF Phil Hubbard with pick #18 of round 1.
2016    170    Heat    Draft SF James Bailey with pick #19 of round 1.
2016    170    Nets    Draft C Mason Perry with pick #20 of round 1.

I really wanted Moncreif at #12, but I'll take Peck.  Surprisingly, Hubbard, who has B inside, C+ defense and B- rebounding, lasted until pick #18.

This is a solid draft class for the Sonics.

I'm really surprised - shocked even - that I ended up with Macy - he was the best player left on the board IMO at #13 - very good D and outside shooter, so he could be a steal - though I'm alittle leary knowing that enough C A- shooters underproduce abit sometimes. Terrible handles for a lead guard, but that's fine, he's a SG right now IMO and I can develop hid PG skills over time. I now have a bit much there, but I do like the flexibility.

Really not the guy I thought I'd get....

Like Mason Perry PI as well, the potentials there for him to develop into a solid starter while being  old and big enough that he should make a decent enough contribution over the next few years.

Pretty happy with the outcome in the end.

not sure how Kyle Macy could drop out of the top 8 with these ratings ... unless some "advanced scouting" was involved (if you know what i mean) ...
;-)

Probably due to two things:

1. he is a PG with C handles....terrible.
2. There are so many PGs available through FA, why waste a pick on one in this draft who will probably turn into a backup anyways.

I was shocked that the Nets (and four other clubs) passed on Hubbard, who is a PF with B inside and B- rebounding. 

he's 19, he'll probably go to B- after TC, still lots of room for improvement, and being A- A- and just 19 is a pretty promising thing, and he can use him as SG also.

age has no barring on improvement (REF: Ferry, Oscar)

usually yes, but sometimes :) , im really looking forward to see what happens of that Jeremy guy, he's in 4th season, now 21 y.o, keeps his A pot for 4 seasons and improving slowly but improving, i wonder if he'll stop or continue and be a nice player or backup by age 23-24.

But, it doesnt hurt when the actual potential is high.  :wink:

Though I dont know if that's the case with Macy (yet), two A-'s is an excellent start for any player - especially at 13. Plus, he rates as average at his position in two of the other three categories already AND hes average at all three other categories if I play him at the 2.

If they stay the same, he's a solid to very good two; if he develops B handles, that'll be fine for a SG+backup PG which makes him a very useful guy; and, if they get better, he stays at the PG spot and can back up the 2. Not really a bad proposition in there. 

1. But as a SG, they're fine. Lots of time for them to improve which - would make him exceptional value at that spot.
2. Free agency can be a big risk...you know what they say about a bird in the hand. Most teams have bird rights to their guys, and seem careful about protecting their assets/interests.....

Bigs weren't that plentiful in this draft, and I was looking at them - my next two options were bigs - but I ended up thinking that the BPA is the best priority, and this was the guy. Hubbard looks alright, I had him ranked behind several other bigs tho....some who came tantalizingly close to my pick at 20, which would have made for one heckuva draft for me.

sorry bods but bucks and clips picks are way too good for the hard cap rule penalty.

"If you do forfeit the pick, then I will pick a player whom I determine will not be drafted, and that player will be cut and become a free agent."

What are you talking about?  Both of those teams are well below the cap, so those two picks are not going to free agency.

By the way, both of my picks (Peck & Hubbard) share the same hometown; Seattle.

Will that have any impact on their careers?  We shall see.

both didn´t get under the hard cap before "contracts roll over to next year"
for me this is pretty clear. If you are over hardcap before the end of the season you will loose your first. Only way to get below is to trade like celtics and pacers did before deadline.
Otherwise everyone of us would sign his players to 1yr max contracts.

guess best way to correct this here is to check if someone later had the players on the draft list and so would have drafted them or if not bring them back to the draft pool.

the deadline to get below the hard cap was at the trade deadline last season.

from rules: "If you able to get under cap before the end of the current season (before contracts roll over to next year), you will not have to forfeit the pick."

bods even defined last seasons violators already: http://forums.ssbabasketball.com/index.php?topic=4903.0



So I agree with the Pacers, both guys taken were apparently CPU picks and not "forfaitable" picks. I had Friedman #20 and Frahm #22 on my draft list (out of 100 prospects).

Would I have taken Frahm? you bet ...
:-(

Nigel McPhereson was a real nice pick IMO.

Not too short at 6'3 but could be taller, could be B-B D+ B C A with a reasonable training camp...

so he could become and undersized Drew Fox (which is decent) or Luol Deng (which is good), but looks like an undersized Antonio Turkoglu now (ouch). Let's hope that potential is true ...
;-)


btw, he's also one of only 3 fictional players taken among the first 15 picks. Can you name the other two ?
:?:

check out
http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=BAILEJA01

his a real player.... height, weight and college is accurate  :D nice to have him on board  :D jammin james

You got yourself a Matt Geiger

that -28 efficiency rating in 82 would worry me a little ...
:lol:

i like his height 6'9" at 220 pounds...quick and would play good defense  :D not a matt geiger type of player  :shock: