Lets say you had the 3rd pick in the draft and Drummond and Davis were off the board and you had a hole at SF. Your franchise lacks 2 things, a franchise player and toughness. Who do you pick and why?
I legitimately don't know who I'd take. It really depends on the team picking. If they need a player like Gerald Wallace who's a non-stop motor, great defense, and works extremely hard every play, then they'd go with MKG. If they need a guy who's a potential game-breaker with his offense, go with Barnes. MKG may have a higher floor, but Barnes has a higher ceiling. Honestly, you can't go wrong either way.
Barnes all day.. MKG has only done it for about 15 games while Barnes has been handing it to fools for almost 2 years now..
Honestly, this will be something that probably gets talked about for a while. I am honestly leaning towards Mike Kidd-Gilchrist. He is a far better defender, rebounder and I love the energy he brings to the game. The one thing I worry about with Mike is how he will score in the NBA at a consistent rate, Barnes is well ahead in most things offensively.
My guess is, Barnes will probably finish out the season pretty well and I would choose him. Even though Mike seems to be better at a number of things and a great athlete, I honestly worry about him scoring consistently at the NBA level. Barnes has much more potential as far as that goes, his shot is money and I could see him becoming one of the better scoring small forwards out there.
I was kind of amazed that there are only 10 SF's in the league right now averaging around 13 PPG. Harrison Barnes seems like a player that will probably be around there immediately. Mike Kidd-Gilchrist definitely could be around there, but I have a feeling that Barnes will always be the much more dangerous offensive option. So, despite Mike having some characteristics that I believe could make him a better all-around player, Barnes overall offensive ability makes him the more enticing prospect to me.
I ultimately look for the player who has the fewest weaknesses as an offensive player, unless the other players capabilities are exponentially better than the other prospect. In the case of Barnes versus Kidd-Gilchrist, I give Barnes the edge right now. Hopefully this makes sense and is not to complicated and I could change my mind, but Mike's jumper, while not totally ineffective, scares the life out of me as having him be a big time offensive option. Barnes has a fantastic stroke and he looks to me like an offensive player you can rely on more at the NBA level.
Barnes game translates to the NBA for sure. He can give you 15 ppg and 5rpg from day 1 and I think he can be at worst a top line 2nd option scorer in his prime. He may not have elite athleticism, but I will take a guy who works hard, continues improving, wants to improve, and is smart over athletic freaks everyday of the week.
I really like Gilchrast as well, but I just dont know if his game really translates that well. He seems to get alot of his points off rebounds, cuts, and in transition. I love him as a college player and is one of the few Calipari recruits that I actually root for due to his heart and hustle, but I smell a better version of Kawhi Leonard in him. I think he could be like a Gerald Wallace type, and I dont think it can be argued that he is not a franchise player.
That is really your reasoning? I just do not get that. That was the same reasoning people used for Irving not being the first pick, he had only played 11 games. I agree with your choice, but the logic of "he has played more games" is pretty lost on me. Experience is one thing if you feel the players are similar prospects, but I think that there is enough difference between these two prospects that it is not something I really buy as a good reason.
Sorry man, just had to get this out there. To me, these guys are different enough that if you are using experience as your key differentiation, that is a "deadly" precedent.
I would have to go with MKG, I'm biased because he's my favorite prospect.
I think Harrison Barnes is the safer pick, you're getting exactly what you're asking for. A starting small forward that could be near all-star level at some point of his career whereas with MKG it's a medium risk-high reward. He could end up being an annual all-star or end up averaging 12ppg on a team. If you're a team that needs something solid like the Kings, you go with Barnes. They're so young in this rebuilding phase, they need as much consistency as you can find but when you're the Raptors, I think you just go for MKG and hope he can become your franchise player since you're still in this rebuilding phase that isn't going anywhere soon.
Barnes is more NBA-ready but MKG could end up being the better player because of his athletic tools in an athlete driven league.
Just the way that he plays, his energy is fantastic. I truly think that Mike is a fantastic piece to a winning team. But, if you are drafting #3, I think you want more production, which is ultimately what I see from Barnes. I do not see either being a "franchise" type guy, but I think Barnes would be the one more likely to do so with his offensive capabilities.
To me, Mike Kidd-Gilchrist is the ultimate role guy I would want at the 3 spot. If you have a couple of strong offensive options, that are not just chuckers but actually solid all-around players, than Mike might be an excellent choice. The problem is, I anticipate that whoever gets the third pick in the draft is probably looking for one of those potential options. That is why I think Barnes would more than likely be my answer.
I don't think he's going to have that big of a problem scoring. He'll probably never be a 20 ppg guy, but he should be in double figures his whole career. He's athletic, can get into the paint, and his jump shot is improving. At the end of the day, he really only takes good shots anyway so even if he doesn't score often, he'll do it efficiently.
I like MKG but my concerned he could be closer to CDR in the league than Wallace
MKG with 44 percent mid range jump shot will be exceptional. Mike must improve that jumper. I think he will too. Currently Barnes is the safer pic, but be careful! MKG gets a reliable 45 percent J 37% from three he will be scary.
Gilchrist because he's more built for the NBA than Barnes. Barnes is my 4th overall pick though. I think both will be pretty good.
I love Barnes over Gilchrist. I think Barnes is gonna be a great player like Danny Granger, while Gilchrist is Gerald Wallace.
barnes offensive potential exceeds MKG
MKG all around game will be appreciated by a team one day more so than barnes
This site compares kidd-gilchrist to gerald wallace which is a very good comparison
i see iggy in his game as well.... both athletes, somewhat unrealiable shooters, can defend and rebound well and hustle!! basically a cross between wallace and iggy
Danny Granger is a good player, he isnt a great player. But your dead on with the comparison of Barnes to Granger and MKG to Gerald Wallace.
But I would rather have Wallace who can play both the 3 and 4 spots, than Granger who is more of a shooter playing the 2 or 3.
Barnes seems like a soft player. Give me MKG.
im digging the granger comparison.
Barnes its not even close.... Kid has the IT factor to be one of the best players in the league
Kid has the IT factor to be one of the best players in the league
But not the jumper.....
I love them both as prospects, but I'll take Barnes too. Everything else aside, he's clutch as hell, which is sometimes the most important thing for your franchise player.
I think Barnes will show more of his offensive game in the NBA and justify a high selection, but really it depends entirely on team need.
Teams which fit your description somewhat;
Charlotte - Barnes because they need scoring, badly.
Wizards - MKG because they need leadership and defence.
Hornets - Barnes because Gordon might leave and Ariza is getting old for a rebuilding franchise.
Detroit - MKG for similar reasons to Wizards.
Toronto - MKG for similar reasons to Wizards.
Sacramento - MKG for similar reasons to Wizards.
Nets - Barnes, because he'd thrive alongside Williams or replace him as franchise player if he leaves.
Cleveland - Barnes, because like Charlotte they are offensively challenged outside of Kyrie.
I agree with most of the comments. I really, reallly like the game of MKG. I think a front line of him T.T. and Varajeo would be the most active in the NBA. But Cle. needs reliable scoring more than anything. Jamison will be gone so who ever comes in has to step in and be a #1 or #2 scorer for the cavs. therefore you go Barnes. And it's not a consolation prize. Barnes can hoop and we would be much better off with him.
MKG baby! There are more layers to his game.
Barnes choose, he will be best player in the NBA than it is proving to be at UNC, I still think that a player will type Paul Pierce / Brandon Roy
For somebody with such a great offensive skillset and effiency Barnes has a good all around game, you dont see that very much nowadays. If Joe Johnson had Luol Dengs hustle plays and will to win Atlanta would be contenders... Now MKG's all around game is amazing, he really has no weakness aside from his offensive game which relies on skill which could be taught. Intangibles are established already and it is quite obvious that MKG has Artest like on ball defense and intensity.
Basically the choice boarders around how your stance on MKG's offensive cieling. The jury is still out and it is extrmely close but at this point I dont think you can take MKG over Barnes. Lets see what happens during march though.
It absolutely depends on the team. The Kings, for example, would need the leadership and professionalism of MKG. The Raptors have the interior presence and could use more floor spacing for their offensive system. The Wizards could use either, so are a good test case. I think they need culture changers more than scoring and MKG could run with Wall. Bobcats and Hornets need marquee scorers, however, and so would go with Barnes...
Wow.. Even though lots of people agree with me, lots of people disagree with me..
Did not expect that reaction 8th. That is pretty extreme. But, I was personally curious in your reasoning. Care to go further into it?
LoL.. I know.. I am an emotional roller coaster...
I just like Barnes' skill set better. I am not saying he can be Kevin Durant but a scorer that can command a double team is something that most teams don't have. MKG, as great as he is, doesn't have the offensive ability to command a double team. I don't think that Barnes commands a double but his ability to score from everywhere is invaluable... Post, midrange, three, on the break and from the half court set... There aren't many people in this draft that can make that claim..
Also, I like how you worked my name into your response to my original post.. I know youwere mocking my brand with my posts and recognition but it's okay, I enjoy your brashness..
Just thought that it worked well to write it that way, lol. I just was wondering why you went the "experience" route rather than stating why Barnes was better than MKG. To me, when people say "well he has done it longer" or "well he has not played enough" when talking about a prospect, it really confuses me.
You (more than universal you than you in particular) would really pass up on who you deem to be a potentially better prospect because they have played fewer games than someone else? I did not like that reasoning with Irving, I did not like that reasoning with Enes Kanter and I rarely find it to be sound reasoning when comparing two prospects. Experience can be a factor, but it is more about skill set and abilities in my opinion.
People that disliked Irving for playing only 11 games, saying "has he really played enough to be taken that high?" seemed to have little legitimate argument when you broke Kyrie Irving down as a player. I do not know why you got negged to that extent, but I think it was the way you stated the conclusion more than the conclusion itself.
It took Gerald Wallace a few years to find his niche in the NBA. I think Harrison Barnes is ready day one. His game may be better suited for the NBA anyway. He is a full offensive arsenal and he plays under control. This 2nd year will wind up helping him in the long run.
You keep bringing up Irving.. There is an exception to every rule.. What about the guys like Kwame, Garko, G. Green, and so many more.. When you draft someone with a small sample size, the risk is always ther for them to be bad and you just didn't see it because you didn't get to see him do it long enough..
My opinion stands but to please the crowd, I will explain it better.. I want someone who had dominated for 2 years before someone who has only done it for a year... I do not doubt Barnes in the slightest.. I think he will be a top 10 scorer in the league one day.. I still am not sold on MKG as an NBA player...
Are you not entertained?!!??!!?
For those of you who didn't understand my last line, it was a quote from the movie "Gladiator" with Russel Crowe.. I was only commenting to please the crowd much like Crowe was fighting to please the crowd.. Our intentions are different but the basic situation is the same..
is Al Harrington... he may have a higher ceiling but only because everyone has a natural tendency to give guys a higher peak. 10 to 12 years in the league as a healthy Al Harrington is a good career. I fear Barnes will be seen as a tweener by time the draft comes. How can he stay with Rudy on the perimenter or fight through screens chasing small forwards in the league. I still think he is top 5 and deservedly so but if Terrance Jones has question marks of guarding 3's then why wouldn't Barnes. Barnes is a legit 6'8 with the frame to hold more weight. He will gain the weight and it will be certainly all muscle but will lose even more agility which is already compromised. He's a better prospect than Derrick Williams. MKG gets into lane with determination and I think he can develop into a shooting guard if his shoot gets better. His ability to drive is D. Rose like. His defensive intensity and all around energy is great also. All that being said if the Cavs have the 3rd pick I would take Barnes. He is just seems at this point more professional and a safer pick. He will contribute faster because of his polished jumper and guys will lay off MKG until his shoot develops if it ever does.
No no.. Harrington is more of a PF than a SF.. He isnt fast enough to play on the wing for an entire season.. Barnes is a natural SF and is not a chucker like Harrington.. Al is explosive in his scoring and doesnt seem to care about running any offense that isnt "let Al score." Barnes is a very smart and smooth player.. IMO, he is a scorer like Joe Johnson.. You think you defended him like crazy but you look at the box score, he put up 25 with only 14 shots..
Just wait and see, Barnes will be legit.. Not saying that MKG wont be either but Barnes will be nice.. Maybe too quiet and makes stuff look "too easy" to be a superstar but he is gonna be very good..
Tough but i'm going with MKG, he plays very hard every game, he does nothing great but does everything good, Barnes doesn't play with that same passion and he doesn't have that hustle in him like MKG.
Also MKG has gotten the better of Barnes in head to head matchups twice(HS and College).
You really can't say that if Barnes gains more weight he will be even slower, it might be true, but the exact opposite could happen as well, his core could become stronger and stronger once he gets to the NBA and starts doing all those top notch excersises and he could possibly become quicker and more explosive while adding more weight, you never know.
Look at Durant, not a really good comparison because he was rail thin and body could use 30 pounds without losing any type of athleticism, but he is quicker off the dribble and more explosive after gaining some weight this summer.
We just have to wait and see what happens.
I agree, Roy Williams is known for conditioning and running his players to death. North Carolina is like a track meet when they are good. I think he will get thicker and stronger but not quicker. I'm also not talking about the Bad Al chucker who is a loner and gunner. The earlier good Al with the Pacers deveoped into a good shooter mid range and outside like Barnes. What makes me draw the comparision is Barnes only takes one to two action dribbles and predictably pulls up everytime. He doesnt have the handle or the drive to the basket game or the comparision would be to TMac who his pull up could evolve into.
Wow.. Im sure everyone but we knew you were talking about early Al Harrington from the Pacers.. Not Harrigton with the Warriors, Knicks, or Nuggets.. Gee, I feel stupid..
we dont judge a guy be when he is not good, like Iverson or Mcgrady for the Pistons. Barnes has all the intangables to be a great teammate, players and citizen. His work ethic is great and proved by going back to school he is serious about being a great player not just paid like one. Those thongs set him apart from maybe being where Al Harrington ended up.
You do realize that most of his career was spent play outside of Indy, right? His best years were in NY.. You jude a player based on the majority of his career.. For the majority of his career, even while he was in Indy, he has been a chucker..
If you mean a specific time in a person's career, be specific.. Think about it..
You could have compared Lebron to Grant Hill... But wait, Hill is just an average starter in the NBA, right?? Well, yeah, now he is but early in his career, he averaged like 27, 10, and 8..
You screwed up man.. Its okay.. You have to make mistakes in order to get better.. I forgive you and I still love you..
Well if you keep "pink thumbing" me we cant be pals.. I care way too much about points to talk to you if you are gonna take them from me everytime I make you look dumb.. Because trust me, its gonna happen again...
even thumbed up the not fill in the blank teams comment......but Im not saying judge a guy on his whole career. Players go through ups and downs. Al Harrington couldnt shoot his self out of a wet paper bag in highschool and was a bruiser in his first couple years, but what he could and couldn't do reminds he or Barnes. I feel Barnes is ultimately a tweener, a good one at all star level but nevertheless a tweener. Scouts dont say that now but they will when draft measurements roll around.
Okay... Since you dont pink thumb, we are pals..
Also, if Barnes is caught between 2 spots, its SG/SF.. He is not a PF.. He lives on the wing until he has a play called for him to post a smaller defender..
I don't understand where I am supposed to interject...
I'll take Barnes over Kidd-Gilchrist, though I think both will be good players. A lot of good points have been made on both sides of the issue, but for me it comes down to Barnes' scoring potential, which is certainly much higher than Kidd-Gilchrist.
If Kidd-Gilchrist develops a more consistent outside jump-shot and learns to control himself a little better, he becomes an ideal role-player at his position. There's more room for improvement, but I don't see him developing into a go-to scorer.
Barnes on the other hand, can do a lot of things well already. His handle has shown a lot of improvement, and he's the kind of player who will work on it until it's a strength. He'll be an above-average defender at the next level (albeit, not as versatile a defender as Kidd-Gilchrist), while potentially scoring 20+ points per game.
I like both players a lot, but Barnes has the kind of ceiling that I look for in a top-3 pick.
Thats all.. LoL.. Thank you.. How much is Barnes like Al Harrington?
I don't like that comparison at all, though I can see why it was made.
A pessimistic person may be inclined to compare him to Xavier Henry, but I like him a lot more than that. He can create his own offensive a lot better than he's shown the last year and a half, and he's super-clutch. Both qualities of a great scorer that Henry lacked.
Would you compare his game to Paul Pierce?? Early Peirce.. Not vet Pierce that is super smart.. Pierce with Antione Walker?
I don't really like comparisons in general.
The Harrington comparison makes sense because he used to score in a way I could see Barnes scoring, but wasn't the teammate, defender or even athlete that Barnes is.
Henry had a similar strengths/weaknesses profile heading into the draft, so that one makes since in a way too.
If you're talking about size, shooting and defense; I could see Pierce, though Barnes lacks the confidence that Paul had/has.
They all make sense in a way, it just depends what you're looking for in a comparison. Future production? Role on a team? Style of play?
Wise man right there.. I like you man.. But I dont like that your a mod and I'm not..
I would like to point out that we should start throwing Harrison Barnes name into the Shooting Guard discussions as well. I honestly think he can come in and start at SG or SF, whichever positions your team needs.
That is just one of the many reasons I would take Barnes. Better offense, established, etc. but more than anything: I have seen him take and make BIG shots. Like game winners and such. That quality about Harrison makes him one of, if not my most, favorite prospects.
it's really more of the team need..two very different player both were named as a future 1st picks even in HS years it will be so interesting to see who will live up closer to the hypes..
i see Barnes as a Granger solid rebounder passer but not great and mostly allstar because of scoring..but with the form ethic and great per minute scoring already i see his potential to be better may be pretty close to Paul Pierce.
MKG is at least G.Wallace..an all around stud rebounder better than some pf's great defender but with his appearences against top ranked teams his slashing aggresiveness and improving jumpshot and the thing he is the youngest this years draftees gives me some hopes he could actually have some 20ppg years what would make me thing he is better overall than Barnes..
but is a big IF at the end of the day i would still draft that one who is the best fit