Driving to the Basket: A Detroit Pistons Podcast - Episode 50: Fiftieth episode mega-mailbag

Episode Date: July 8, 2021

This episode answers a plethora of listener-submitted questions. Thank you to everybody who sent in a question!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Driving to the Basket, part of the Basketball Podcast Network. I am Mike. I'm here with Dante and Tommy. Fellas, how you doing? Stuff starting open up in Canada. So finally doing fun stuff on the weekends again. So that's been nice. Excellent.

Doing well, man. Doing well. Thank you for asking. Great. Glad to hear it. So this is going to be our 50th episode, spectacular mega mailbag episode. I'd like to thank all of you who submitted questions, whether on the Detroit Piston and Subreddit Discord.

server or on our Twitter, which is to the basket pod. That's T.O. Not the number two. So before we get started, we're just going to hear a quick word from our sponsors, Draft Kings. All right, guys. So today we're going to be telling you about Draft King Sportsbook. It's my favorite sports book.

My friends and family love it. It's America's top rated one as well. There's tons to do, tons to bet on. They got a great new promotion going on right now. Basically, you're going to pick any teams still in the NBA playoffs. And if they win that game, you're going to take. turn $1 into $100 in site credits. And it's not just basketball.

They offer promotions on baseball, hockey, so much more all week long. It's safe, secure, reliable. You can deposit and withdraw your funds at your convenience. So download the top rated draft king's sportsbook app now. Use promo code TBPN when you sign up to turn $1 into $100 in free credits. Bet on the basketball team of your choice to win their next game. And if they do, you'll claim $100 in free credits. That's promo code TBPN for a limited time.

time, only a Draft King's sportsbook. Must be 21 years or older in New Jersey, Indiana, or Pennsylvania only. New customers only. Wager paid out in site credits. Restrictions apply. See DraftKings.com slash sportsbook for details. If you have a gambling problem, call 1-800 gambler or in Indiana, 1-800-9 with it. And with that being said, let's get back to the episode.

All right. So let's just kick it off. We got a lot of questions today. We're just going to try to actually, we will be making it through all of them. So we didn't order these in any particular way. I suppose actually probably in the order that we got them, but honestly, we have so many of them that I'm not entirely sure. So we are going to start and end in no particular order.

Now, let's get to it. Number one, based on everything we've seen this season, what is Big Beef Daddy Stews? Of course, we're talking Isaiah Stewart. Future will look like? Will he be an all-star? Will he eventually transitioned to becoming a four? So I would say with Isaiah Stewart,

he came into the league as more of a high floor player, much like Sadiq Bay. So in my opinion, when you're looking at these players, you don't really look at how they perform in year one. It's more in year one if they don't perform well. You start to get a little bit concerned because they're guys who come in from the NCAA or overseas or wherever with easily translatable skills. And Stewart was one of those. He was a guy who was probably going to, no matter what, is probably going to be able to make himself as a career as a backup center. Now, he definitely impressed in year one.

I was impressed. I know all of us were impressed. But I think that his performance shouldn't be taken is, oh my goodness, you know, look how good this guy is. He's, you know, this guy's the limit. So I don't think Stuart will ever be an all-star. I think he could be in the top half of starting centers in the league, which would be a major coup.

And, of course, as we've said multiple times in the show, or I certainly have said really odd nauseam, that he brings so much in the way of intangibles and just makes the players around him better. So I wouldn't put it past him to be like the 10th, anywhere between the 10th and 15th best centers, kind of a guy who's not going to cost you too much money, but will be effective on the court. I don't think he'll ever be a power forward. I think he's, I think sending him to the fore just minimizes his strengths. His strengths are really interior defense and sort of on the pick and rule,

but particularly on defense, he's more suited to defend the interior than to scamper around the perimeter because it's just not that quick. So particularly on defense, I think you'd really just be minimizing his strengths while maximizing his weaknesses. I think he's a long-term center. What do you guys think? 100% agree with you. Yeah, you phrase it all well.

I don't think that Isaiah Stewart is most useful at the fore, so I don't want to see him there. I think the fact that he has power forward skills, maybe a little bit in the way of those in the three-point shot and attacking closeouts, that's still far better used as a five. That makes him a dynamic five floor spacer. and that's his best position. That's where you're going to get the most out of him. And as far as the ceiling, we made a lot of the fact that, at least me personally, he kept redefining his ceiling out throughout the year.

I thought he was a backup. I thought he was a rotation player. Now I think he's a starter, and maybe he can be a very, very good starter. I don't think he's an all-star, but at this point, I almost wouldn't put it past him. Yeah, I'm with you guys. I just think athletically he doesn't have it. I mean, I think Tommy, you kind of touched on it. And if you didn't say it, I was going to say it because you kept coming on episode after episode

talking about how he was redefining his ceiling. And so out of all the players on this team, I think he's the hardest to project as far as, you know, what his future ceiling is because at the end of the day, we really don't know. And it's almost like he came out on a week to week basis and played differently and played better. You know, he showed that he had more than he had the previous week. And so who's to say he doesn't come in, you know, to a brand new season and he's even better. So I don't feel comfortable projecting his ceiling because I don't know, but I'm optimistic about it. As far as the position, yeah, I agree with you guys. I think a dynamic five is a great way to put it. I certainly wouldn't slide him over to the four. Yeah, I would say primarily for me,

his ceiling is going to be defined by his athleticism. I'd say athleticism is one of the ultimate ceiling definers in the NBA. And Stewart is neither particularly quick. I mean, he's not quick footed. he's smart enough to make up for it on defense. It is not particularly quick, and he's not a good leaper. If he were quicker and a good leaper, you would have easily been a top ten pick. You know, you'd then have a guy who's, yeah, last year in last year's draft, at least, which wasn't the strongest draft. So, all right.

So moving on to a question number two. Why don't you take this one away, Donnie? Yeah, I think in 2022, Zach Levine. who Zach Levine would be like the dream free agent for me personally. You throw all the money that you have in him or that you can give him, and he fills a position of need. I think the situation in Chicago, I think he would be more than willing to move on from that. They lost their draft pick this year.

Vutchevich is getting old. I think they're off, they're losing one of their draft picks again in a couple of years. It's just not a good situation there. So I think that if you can get him and if you're on the up and up, that you could realistically pull Zach Levine. It would depend on who else has money, who else is in a good situation. But I think if the Pistons are kind of showing

that they're going to be real in a couple of years, that's somebody that we could potentially get. That's the dream scenario. Yeah, I don't really agree about Levine. I honestly don't have a good answer to this question. I think it's just a little bit too hard to project. You really have to look at how, if you're looking at team needs, really,

how the players and the Pistons project, really what they look like at the end of this season or maybe even at the end of next season. I've said it before. I don't think Troy Weaver is going to be like certain general managers. And Joe Dumears was absolutely guilty of this in the sense of have cap space, must spend cap space. So I think that if the 2022 free agency, a free agent class just doesn't present a good opportunity for him, he'll wait until it's 2023. It's not ideal because at that point you have Jeremy Grant's cap hold on the books because he's, then his contract will have expired and he'll have a very large cap holds.

Cap holds will explain that. We'll do a CBA episode just about the salary cap before free agency, but we'll talk about cap holds then. But nonetheless, it's just a question I have difficulty answering. I don't think Levine is it, whether the Pistons take Cade Cunningham, which I think we all think that they will or in the very, I would say, very, very unlikely scenario to take Jaywin Green. these are both guys who are very bald dominance do most of their scoring on the ball. So does Zach Levine.

I also don't agree that he's an excellent player. I think he's a player who locks you in in a certain way because he has to play him heavily on the ball to get the most out of him. But he doesn't really have the same sort of, and I really don't like this term. I'm just struggling for how to put this. He doesn't really have the same sort of, say, it factor as the league's other superstar heavily on ball score. He's also not the strongest defender. So I wouldn't go with him. I feel like you'd be spending a lot of cap space.

to get a guy whose talents will overlap with, you know, assuming good performance by the draft pick, whichever guy the Piston select, number one this year. Or if they trade down, I don't think that'll happen, but so on and so forth. Yeah, I may come in with kind of a take in the middle between the two of you guys. So I was going to say Zach Levine, too. I'm a little biased because I've actually met Zach Levine before in Toronto. He's a cool dude. I got to fist bump him, which is awesome.

So I'm very, very, very biased. and I want him on the team. But as far as his, you know, the question says good, interesting, realistic fit. I agree with Mike. I don't think Levine is an excellent player. I think he's a very good player. But one thing that makes him an interesting fit is that, you know, we've got this perceived, well, I guess not perceived, but we do have a lack of athleticism in the starting lineup.

If we do pick Cade, which we're assuming we're going to. And really the only hyperathletic player is Grant. And so I think that Levine would immediately alleviate that issue. And I don't know if I agree, Tommy, that he'd be the best player instantly because who's to say what Cade can be right off the bat. And if Cade has showed himself to be a star immediately, I don't think you necessarily have to play Levine heavily on the ball. I think that he's a talented player. And he could adapt. And having an athletic pairing with Cade might be very, very interesting and very beneficial.

So if he wants to come here and the logistics line up, it's certainly a swing that I would take. But I do agree with Mike that the whole idea poses. some issues. So I guess we're going to see what happens. But I definitely think it's an interesting fit. Yeah, I would just say when you're spending that much money, for Levine will almost certainly be a max contract player. And this is also the time when the Pistons really have to swing and make an impact. Maybe that's the best. Maybe you just decide that's the best you can do. Or maybe Levine is completely uninterested because he can't be the primary ball handler in this offensive, you know, if there's already one there. All right. So next question, Dante, why don't you

take the lead in this one. All right. So the next question is, what do you guys make of Bay's ceiling or talk of the plan next year? Would you guys rather see us tank for another year to get more talent? That's sort of three questions and one question, so I'll answer them in a rapid fire way. If you want to know our take on Bay's ceiling, you could listen to pretty much any episode of the past year. We talk about Bay and his ceiling or his lack of a high ceiling, depending on who's doing the talking all the time. I'm a lot higher on his ceiling than Mike in Tom. are, but it's an interesting conversation, so I'd encourage you to go back and listen to those. Talk of the play-in.

I've said it. I'm on record. I think that this is going to be a play-in team next year. I'd be disappointed if they're not. And I think there's some questions further down the list that ask us to get more into it, so we can cover that in more detail later. And then, would you guys rather see us tank for another year to get more talent? No.

I'm sick of rooting for losses, and I want to see them win. And I think they're in a position to where they could make the play-in, and we could have a fun, interesting and exciting season. So I'm not aboard the tank train at all. Yeah, for those of you who are looking at what Dante just referenced, it's episode 41, actually, which is dedicated to a significant portion to it about Sadiq Bay ceiling. I'll just summarize what I think. I don't think Sadiq has the, he's not, he's got mediocre half-court athleticism in terms of his verticality and explosiveness and just half-court foot speed in general. some guys can compensate for that through whatever special skills they have.

Sadiq is more of just an all-around player. I don't think he has the special skills. And so I think he'll struggle to create offense for himself at the NBA level. He improved that at this season from very bad to okay on low volume. But I don't think he's likely to get a good deal higher than that. So as for the remainder of the question, we've got talk of the playing next year. really just depends on how things go. I think the priority next season will be development.

And if things, if everything goes well, if health is all good, it's not a question the Pistons can make the plan. And, you know, a nice thing about the protections on the pick the pistons are to the Houston Rockets is if they're the, if they're in the, it's top 16 protected, to put it that way. So if they're the eighth seed, chances are, well, they will be keeping the pick unless the, it must disparate between the conferences.

so great that, wait, whatever. I'm not even going to try to think that through at the moment. Maybe I just said something. It was completely wrong. Whatever the case, we'd rather see us tank for another year to get more talent. I don't think it's going to be much of an option. I think that the Pistons were better than their record this last season. They were just a lot of things,

like they were just in terms of they were this horrible clutch team or great clutch team, as I like to think about it. And they had really wrested. the guys down the stretch that helped them lose. Just the team is better than its record. And you have the number one overall pick than, and you see further development from the youth. I don't think that tanking is really an option.

Nor do I think it would necessarily be a good idea, even if it were. But I don't think it's an option anyway. So I think it's a move point. Yeah, so, yeah, three questions. I'm going to go ahead. Sadiq Bay, like Mike and Dante said, we have had this discussion on him and I haven't changed. I'm kind of in the middle.

I think Sadiq can add more because he's a very skilled. and I think Mike would put it as neural player, something like that, but he's a very smart player, and I think he can add more in the way of, not in terms of burst or athleticism, but just like mechanical, solid footwork, making the right decisions, that sort of stuff. One thing that he was starting to add at the end of this year was motion threes, and I think that's going to be his role going forward, especially now that we have, we project to have Cade Cunningham and Jeremy Grant, and if we do sign a big name free agency in 2022.

Sadiq figures to be a low usage player, and I think he just kind of won curling off screens, taking quick shots, and I think that's his ideal role. He don't really need him to be a ball-dominant player or ball-heavy player anymore. And that's kind of the luxury of bringing in a guy like kid, Cunningham.

He kind of alleviates a lot of your problems, plugs a lot of holes. I don't think that we have, moving on, I don't think we have the option of really trying to tank another year. I don't think that's a good look when you get the number one overall pick. Jeremy Grant has talked about we're not looking to do things big three to four years from now. We want to do big things next year, which is going to be this upcoming season, and I think we will. I looked at what teams in the Eastern Conference would be, would figure to continue to try to be competitive.

I think there are like 10 teams, so I think the playing is kind of where I expect us to end up. And, you know, it's one game. Anything can happen. Maybe we do and make it into the playoffs through that. But it's definitely too early to say we got to see what happens in Free Agency. and I'm excited to see what the team does and how strongly they commit to that direction. Yeah, the way I described Bay was cerebral, I believe. Cerebral.

Yeah, I think he did improve this season in terms of attacking closeouts and using his strength, and he's pretty darn strong player to attack along the baseline. But, yeah, I just, I don't see it going much higher than that. I think it'll be a valuable player, but like Stewart, I think that he's not going going to, I think he's a high floor player and just a lower ceiling player. So a valuable player, but I don't think he's got a great deal. He's got some space for improvement, but not a great deal more. All right, next up.

Would Hamadu be a better fit? Homadu Della be a better fit than Killian since the only current Wob threat slash freak athlete in the starting lineup right now is Jeremy Grant. So this really depends on three things, I would say. And I don't think this is necessarily being answered next season. But number one, how does Killian develop? What do we see for him next season? Does ultimately what he provides in the starting lineup just justify keeping the narrower, more athletic player?

And it's not out of the question that you see Sadiq Bay go to the bench and just become a sixth man. That's not a bad situation. So that's number one. Number two, I just assume we have Kate Cunningham here. How does he function as a ball handler? Does he need more help, let's say, whether it's in, you? year two or in the long term, if Killian can provide that, is the best to keep him in the lineup, just to provide that sort of secondary ball handling help.

And number three, of course, is how Hamadu develops. So Hamadu has to have a three-point shot. If you can shoot, pull-up three is fantastic, because then he's an extremely difficult cover. And I've said, I think he's the guy on the team with, right now, with probably the most star potential out of all the youth. And we've been over that. I'm not going to repeat myself because we want to get through these questions. in less than three hours.

But yeah, if Hamedu develops as the team hopes, it'll probably be a little bit difficult to keep them out of the starting lineup. So, and I do agree that having more athleticism in the starting line will be important because you want guys who can switch on to more explosive, on defense can switch on the more explosive players the teams will face in isolation in particular. And yeah, guys who can cut explosively to the basket, whether for layups or to catch lobs. So that's my answer. Tommy, what do you think?

I would just echo what you said. I think you covered it really well. Yeah, Mike, I think you nailed it. What I do believe is that you're completely right on track when you say that it's going to depend on how each of these players develop, obviously, right? Like if Killian is far and away, the better player when compared to Diallo, I think you start Killian for sure. That's not even a question. But one thing that's important to note is that the front office is probably somewhat on this train or at the very least, views it as a valid consideration because they prioritize trading for Diallo and because based on Weaver's comments, they're going to prioritize resigning him. They clearly see some kind of important

future of Diallo's on the team, right? And so it's going to depend on how he develops, but I think the organization is high on him. And I don't think the fact that Killian was a lottery pick and Diallo just arrived here in kind of a smaller trade will hinder him from getting increased playing time and getting an increased role if he proves to be the better player. So I wouldn't even just say athleticism is what it depends on. I'd just say who's going to be the better player, and that player is going to play. Yeah, well said. So moving on, the next couple questions actually kind of rolled together really nicely.

So I'm just going to read them both and kind of answer them all at once. Who do you think the Pistons trade with to get back into the late first round if they do? Who do you think they should draft in that area? And the next one is realistically, what picks and specific players would the Pistons need to give up to move to the 25 to 30 range in the first round. I think I don't know who it would specifically be. I don't think it matters too much because the second half of the first round, and especially the second round, it's all kind of very hard to project who's going to be there. You can have a favorite player. The Pistons thought Saving Lee was a first round talent, and they picked him up with the 37th pick or

something like that. So I don't know who the Pistons would trade with, but I think if they trade two of their second rounders. I think we have, what, 37, 42, and 50 something? Correct me if I'm wrong. But I think there are a few interesting names in that area. And I think you can just get back into the late first with just a couple second rounders. I don't think you need to put too much more into that. There is some extra value in second rounders and the fact that they're non-guaranteed.

I think especially contenders that are usually pretty cap-strapped are looking to fill out the roster with cheap talent. and second rounders are very good for that. So I think if you get back into that area, there are a few names that I really like, but Jared Butler, I would assume, well, Jared Butler, he was actually barred from continuing to play basketball at the draft combine because I think he was some kind of heart condition. That's what it was alluded to, similar to Chris Bosch,

and they had to just stop him from playing. But if that is something that he can't come back from, I really like Jared Butler at that point. I think he could be a steal of draft. Christopher, I'd assume Moe, and then Bones Highland. Pardon me. Bones Highland is another guy who in the Combine rose up and he's probably going to be a late first.

So any of those guys I'd be very happy with. I think you would want to try to go for the guys who are maybe more athletic but have a worse jump shot. I think a team like this, you're just looking to add high ceiling guys because the clock is ticking now. We have our talented guy. We need to put talent around them. Yeah, I would say,

The teams you're generally looking to when you're trying to trade second round picks and trade up into the first round are teams that are well above the cap already and are looking for, well, just to clarify, the difference between second and first round talent. First rounds, at least for your two years, first two years, you're unguaranteed money. And then you have an additional two options. second round picks are more you can get them on contracts that are more advantageous to to the team because there aren't any regulations you have to pay them the minimum and above of course

but you can make the really you only have to make the first year guaranteed I believe so basically unless there's a player who like if you have pick number 30 or if you're just looking at between picks number 30 and 31 unless there's a player you really think is going to be off the board at 31, then 31 is the better pick because just in terms of how much you have to pay the player and you're just your flexibility

with the salaries in general, the 31st pick is more valuable. So that's where second round picks are more valuable. Also, they are useful trade bait. So the Pistons do have those three picks this year, 37, 42, and 52. They also have Sacramento's second round pick in, I believe, 2023, I think. So it might take you three of those picks. It might take you Toronto, Charlotte, and Sacramento to trade back into the first round. Or, yeah, that's just hard to predict. It's just really hard to predict. As far as the teams you might trade with, I haven't.

Yeah, I'm sorry to whoever asked this. I didn't give this as much thought as thinking about it now. I would have liked. But you look at teams like the Clippers, the Wakers, the Nets, and the 76ers, there's teams that really want to compete right now, even the Jazz. Teams that really want to compete right now. and you give them multiple shots at talent that they can just wave after one season if it doesn't work out. Yeah, that's for some reason a question that I feel like I'm not answering well.

But, you know, I gave me my best shot. I think you guys answered it well. I actually don't have anything to add because I deferred to the resident draft experts. And I'd say those were some pretty thorough answers. So I'm good to move on to the next question if you guys are. Just one last thing. I forgot to say who I would take waiting around. But I agree with Tommy. Absolutely. Like after number five in this draft, or after number six, I'd say you've got your top six of Cunningham, Green, Mowgli, Suggs, Cuminga, and Scotty Barnes. After that, it gets pretty nebulous. And after 10, it gets pretty crazy. You just, you never know where a lot of these guys are going to go.

You just can't know right now. As far as the guys I would take, I feel like at this point, you have two different philosophies. kind of go for broke on Boomerbuss players, or you can just get the kind of player, you know, that that's more reliable and you know that every team wants them in like 3-D wings, for example. Like you've got Trey Murphy, not particularly athletic, but reliable 3-D wing. And a guy like Greg Brown, who is not really a wing, is, you know, more on the forward side of things, whatever distinction that is, but just super athletic. and those are the two guys I look at, but you just don't know who's really going to be available at that point. Yeah, no, I don't have anything more to add.

If you want to move on to the next question, Dante, let's go for it. Sure, let's do it. So is the playing tournament a serious consideration with Kate on the roster? If so, how many wins will it take to get to the 10th seed? So, yeah, we alluded to this earlier. Absolutely, it's a serious consideration. And I would go so far as to say it's an expectation. I understand that this is a young developing team.

but if you've been following with the players, with the coaching staff and what the executives have been saying, they expect to win and they expect to win now. To the degree that they expect to win, I can't tell you, but listen, they can't really be worse than last year. That's not really in the realm of possibility,

in my opinion. As Mike said earlier, this was a remarkably unlucky team in the clutch, though, depending on how you look at it, you could say that they were lucky. So if a couple of those games, you know, two, three, four, five of those flip, and a couple buckets are scored that maybe weren't scored or the other team misses a few

clutch shots, then we're looking at a few more wins here. And then just by virtue of adding the best player in the draft and then internal development, this is going to be a better team than last year. And so you definitely expect to see some natural improvements. So as far as how many wins it'll take to get to the 10th seed, it varies by year. I couldn't put an exact number on it. But I have no doubt that we can reach it. Yeah, I wouldn't say, I disagree that it's necessarily an expectation.

I think the expectation is more that the Pistons will start really focusing on winning now, whereas this was very much a rebuilding year. And it would have, you know, there's a minor point, but it would have taken quite a few more than just a few more wins when Pistons finished with 20 wins. And the top, excuse me, the number 10 playoff seed, which went to the Hornets. They had 33 wins. But whatever the case, I'd say, I don't think it would be a priority. I don't think it's an expectation.

I think if it happens, yay. and I know a report came out before last season that the Pistons aren't expecting, really aren't expecting to make the, at that point, we're not expecting to make the playoffs for a few years, but it would be fine if it just happened of its own accord. So we'll see. I think it would just be an unintended,

or not unintended, a sort of maybe happy benefit if they do that. Now, how many wins would it take? So two years ago in the last full-length NBA season, the 10th seed was 39 wins. Now, it'll be a little bit less than that this year, or less or more. We'll put it this way. There are more competitive teams now.

I mean, they're so, they're far less in the way of tanking teams in this past season. It just kind of happened for a few teams, like the magic and the thunder in particular. But you just have more teams trying to win. So that total will likely be lower. So high, I don't know, like mid-high 30s, like maybe 37 wins maybe. but yeah it just really depends on how the season goes if teams stay healthy if teams keep competing and so on and so forth yeah definitely i'm glad you brought up the uh the fact that there's a lot less in the way of tanking teams that was going to be like my biggest point the league is a lot

more balanced this year there just weren't that many teams that we're trying super hard to lose which i think is kind of the best case scenario i think that's probably a byproduct of the new lottery rules and that's a good thing because the league is just more fun that way i don't like super teams and that's, well, that's a completely different discussion. But yeah, I would just echo exactly what you said. I think the Pistons, if I had to guess right now, I think the Pistons could get to the 35 wounds and I would kind of expect them to finish there.

Maybe that gets you into the play-in. Maybe you just miss it. I don't really care either way. I think by the end of the season, I would want to see, like if we were really close to making the play-in, I would want the Pistons to kind of make it and get him just because I think that would be fun and it's not going to hurt your draft position.

at that point. But if by like 75% of the way through the season, you know, you're, you're doing worse than expected, I would like for them to tank a little bit and kind of preserve their draft position because I think that's just more beneficial long term. Yeah, I don't think we'll see them try to tank at all unless they, unless really bad things happen in terms of injuries and they're at the bottom of the standings. All right. Next question. What is the ideal thing our rookies should ideally focus on during the offseason in order to, in your opinion, make the biggest leap in regards to their individual games going into the sophomore seasons. Yes, Dave counts as a rookie. And if you don't include him, I'm going to fight you all. Okay, I know who this question

came from. That's a solid snake. Yes, indeed. All right. So the ideal thing, okay, just based on the individual rookies, so Stewart shooting and working on his defense such that he'll be a little bit less foul prone. I think he's got the intelligence to do that. You see physical defenders from the NCAA coming into the NBA and just have trouble with the pace and the higher level of opposition and the ability of good players to bait them in a foul as and you follow more. So, yeah, shooting, that aspect of defense. And I don't know, I really like post offense too much. It's just, it's really tough to make it a good aspect of your offense. But I think maybe Stewart works a little bit on that since he actually did pretty well on low volume.

moving on to bay motion threes so being able to take threes off the run on handoffs off screens and and shoot at a high percentage it's a super valuable skill also just continue finding ways to attack off the dribble to some extent and whether it mismatches or elsewhere killian shooting working on his right hand which is still had major left-hand dominance last season and that was one of his main concerns coming out of the draft. So shooting, just spend the entire summer only dribbling and only passing with your right hand. And I guess continue to work on his in-between game, though, that was actually one of his strengths in Europe. And Saban Lee shooting. I've said it several times. I think if Saban develops a good shot, he's a reliable shooter that becomes a pretty darn valuable

player, highly athletic, smart, and fearless. All right, thoughts you guys. Tommy, what do you think? Yeah, I'm going to echo a lot of what you just said. For Isaiah Stewart, attacking closeouts, that was something that he added late in the season, and that was one of my favorite developments of the season, when he took some guy who was closing out on him and just took it all the way to the rack. It made me very, very happy. Sadiq Bay, agree with you. Motion 3s, that's going to be his role moving forward, I think.

Killing Hayes mentality, it's hard to train that in an empty gym, but getting more comfortable attacking and taking contact. That was one of the things he said he had worked on prior to the season, but it just needs to manifest itself on the court and games. I wouldn't be surprised if they brought him off the bench to start next year, just because I think that would make him more comfortable, and maybe that's good for him long term. Savingly, absolutely agree.

Shooting. Dave, controlling your power so you don't break the game. Oh, no, I forgot Dave. Yeah. Yeah, we've said it. Like, Dave, I think it's highly responsible and wants basketball to continue being enjoyable for people to watch. So he doesn't fully unleash his power because, you know, I mean, it'd be fun to watch the Pistons win by like 60 points every game.

But in a way, it would also be a little bit boring. It would be. So I think Dave is just trying to do his thing. For Dave, seriously, though, really similar to an extent with Bay, learned to be a good motion three-point shooter. But we've seen so little of him that I couldn't exactly tell you what he needs to work on. I wish I could, but he just didn't really play all that much. But, you know, we know that his primary role is probably going to be a three-point shooter. So learning to shoot three is every which way.

Sure. Yeah, I would say those are all astute points from all of you guys. I would maybe have some of the same answers with a bit of variance. So for Killian, just score. Obviously right-hand dominance or left-hand dominance, excuse me. That's something he needs to work on. But scoring in general will really open up the rest of his game if he could do that from any level. Bay, I would say, attacking the basket and finishing it.

the rim at an acceptable percentage would open up his game as well. Stuart, I mean, if he could just go in the Dragon Ball Z hyperbolic time chamber and come out as an incredible leaper, that would be cool. So that's something that he should look into. Sabin Lee, shooting, definitely shooting, because him with a three-point shot, he'd be a nasty player. And Dave, I know we joke, but on a serious note about Dave, he actually plays, there's a great article about this, sort of an underrated one, I don't know how many people read it.

But he actually plays with a weighted vest under his jersey and 20 pound ankle weights to keep the game fair. So if he removes those weights, I think we could see him unlock his full potential. I believed you. I was like, what, does he practice? You had me go. All right. I kept a straight face too. Yeah, nice.

No, that was good. All right. So we'll just move on then. Who is the better player, Luke Kinnar with Andre Drummond's mentality or Drummond with Kinnard's mentality? I'm going to go Luke Kinnard with. No, no, no, rather. Drummond. No, this is a good question.

You know what, no, I'm going to go back. Luke Kennard with Andre Drummond's mentality, because that's basically just Luke Conard. Andre liked to play like a guard. So if you give him Luke Conard's skill set, he's basically the same player as Luke Canard. So it's Luke Conard with Andre Drummond's mentality. Oh, I completely disagree.

There are so many bad aspects of Andre Drummond's mentality. You want no player anywhere to have under Drummond's mentality. I mean, do you want Conard to be taking shots he shouldn't take, to be sulking when things don't go his way, to be deciding he doesn't really want to try at any given time if he's not getting the role he wants or just if things just aren't working out. Check out of important games. Just generally be, yeah, I don't want, I don't think he wants this question to exactly what they were doing. Oh, of course you were. I would say, I would say Drummond with Kennard's mentality,

because I think that Drummond still could be a valuable player to some degree. I think far less of a ceiling than I did three years ago. But I think he still could be a, or at least with the Pistons, he could have been a more valuable player if he had Kennard's mindset in terms of sure, Kenarba is always hesitant to shoot, but you don't want Drummond to be attempting. He doesn't, he shouldn't be attempting. He's not a good score. And also, Conard is a team first guy. And if you can put a team for his brain in Drummond's body, you've got, I think, a far more effective player. Yeah, that's fair. But I would probably go with Conard with Drummond's mentality just for maximum chaos. So basically, you're taking Luke Conard. You're making him sulk a lot when things don't

go his way, but he would just launch shots from anywhere, and that'd be fun to watch. So I would do that for, yeah, for the chaos, for the memes. I think that'd be funny. Not much of the analysis there, but it's the truth. You imagine Luke Conard constantly gambling for steals? Yeah, that would be something. That'd be a sight to behold. So sort of just to see the craziness unfold, that's what I would go with.

They don't have to be on our team, right? That makes a big difference for me. No, you get to watch them from afar. Okay. Yeah, then definitely I want chaos. All right. So moving on. This is a good question, but an easy one for me. Would you trade the 2004 title for the drafting of Carmelo Anthony and then everything that comes with that potential timeline? No, no, I wouldn't. I don't think you trade a title under any circumstances and it doesn't have to be Carmelo Anthony. Could be Michael Jordan. I still would have trouble trading a title for anything because there's so much variance in the NBA. So much of what happens in a given season is due to luck, is due to good or bad fortune and things bouncing your way or not. And so I don't think you can trade a title under any circumstances.

Yeah, I'm with you. I keep the 2004 title. That's a special championship. People still reference it as like different from the rest. I know Carmelo probably doesn't slot into the whatever. I just, I don't trade that title. I love that. Me neither.

I love that team so much. I think you could have both. Maybe I'm being a little bit greedy here. I think certainly Carmelo has made it, I think, pretty clear between the lines that he wish he'd been drafted by the Pistons because he probably would have a title now. So here's why I think. think about it that way. I think you can draft Carmelo. Larry Brown hated rookies. He just really did not like playing rookies at all. I don't think Carmelow would have gotten

significant run to any degree. I think you still would have seen Joe Dumas trade for Rashid Wallace, especially because the price really wasn't very steep. And I think that Carmelow really just growing up in that team might have turned into an entirely different player. I don't want to say person, but who knows. So I think you can draft Mello and you have that title and you have a Hall of Fame player going forward. All right. How much of Isaiah Stewart's perimeter defense ability would you trade for extra room protection ability?

Isaiah really isn't a great perimeter defender at all. He is competent. He can, he's really admirably good on switches, given the fact that he is not very quick. But you really don't want, you want him to be on the perimeter as little as you can because he's just really not that quick.

If you make him try to go around the screen, he's probably going to get there a little bit late. So I would say none because you don't want him to become a worse perimeter defender. You don't want him to become a switch liability. But also because I don't, he's, I think he projects as a decent room protector. The fact that he does not have the greatest standing reach is a disadvantage for him, as is the fact that he's just not a good lever. But he really improved over the course of the season.

He's beefy. He knows out of position himself. I think he'll be a competent room protector. maybe like an actually good rim protector. I don't think elite though. But I think in terms of the distribution between perimeter and an interior defense, I think I like him where he is. Yeah, I definitely agree with you.

I like Isaiah Stewart or what he showed on the perimeter. He moves his feet well there. And as far as in the paint, I think he did a really good job of getting to his spots to contest and showing big. And I think that was enough. And then he's not the most vertical athlete. We've said that a million times. but he does have that, what is it, seven foot four wingspan.

He gets to his spots quicker than I think most centers do. And once he's there, he's able to show. And that makes, I think he does project to be a very good rim protector and just a very good presence in the paint. So I wouldn't make any tradeoffs. I think just being good enough to switch onto the perimeter gives you enough defensive versatility. And you want them in the paint anyway. So I don't think it's going to be too much of an issue. I think beef stew is perfect the way he is.

And I love them. So I wouldn't trade anything. And I think you guys have answered the question very succinctly and very thoroughly, so I've got nothing more to add. Cool. So next question would be, how many percentage points off base three point shot would you trade for him to have Josh Jackson's athleticism? I wouldn't make that trade. I think, I like the idea of Sadiq Bay being just a very high percentage, low volume, catch and shoot guy. I think especially if you have Kade Khan, I, Jeremy Grant's potential free agent, that's maybe three very high volume guys or high usage guys. guys. So having that shooting specialist who just gets the ball in their hands and gets rid of it immediately is very valuable. And so I would rather just have Sadiq continue to do what he does,

be the 3-&D guy who doesn't need to be any more than that right now. I would say it really depends on three-point percentage of which we're looking. Like this season he was only 38%. You really don't want to shave much off of that. So if next season he's at like 43%, which would be fantastic. Sure. Then you give up four percentage points and you have a 39% three point shooter who has Josh Jackson's athleticism and Sadiq Bay's brain. Absolutely. I would make that. I would even get him down to 38%. That is still a pretty darn good player. If he's reliable from 3 and 38%. He's smart and he's super athletic. Then that's a potential star player. Yeah, I think Mike's right. As it stands, I wouldn't make the trade. If his three point percentage was higher, yeah, absolutely. Then you could afford to shave some off for a truly true. truly special player, but as it stands, I think things are fine. And I wouldn't make that trade. And I guess that concludes that question. So we'll move on to the next one. And this is a good

question too. So how do you feel about the Blake trade, knowing it directly led to Cade and knowing what you know, would you still do it? Yeah. Yeah, I think I would still do it. I think as things stand, the Pistons have been incredibly fortunate. And Mike has said this in previous episodes, a lot had to go right and a lot had to go the piston's way to end up in the position they're in now. And if, if, look, if Blake's trade there and him ending up in Detroit was the first domino to fall, so be it because it was the catalyst for something bigger and something greater. So I would do that trade again.

Absolutely. I would. Was there probably a better way to do something like that? So it set us up better with future assets, sure. But as it stands, I like where we are. And I wouldn't be able to change the recent past because I think it would have too drastic of an effect on the future. Yeah, I just don't think you can trace Blake, you know, straight from the Blake trade to selecting K number one overall and just being in the position

that the pistons are in right now. There are just so many, so many things that happen between now and then. And if you want to talk about, you know, situations that may have just gone right in the same sort of way in terms of just random chance, like the lottery and whatever else happened in between, Maybe the Pistons just make what would have been, I believe, the only rational decision back then. Trade whoever you can away, whether it be Tobias, Avery Bradley, whatever. Play the young guys, tank for a good draft pick. Maybe you get down to number seven, and you're the team instead of Sacramento, that jumps to number two. And unlike Sacramento, you actually draft Lukutanshich.

You know, then where are you right now? So there is nothing for me that will make the Blake Griffin trade defensible. I think it was just, I consider it the way. worst trade that's been made in the NBA since the Nets got annihilated by the Celtics back in 2013. It was that 2012. I think it's 2013. So, yeah, there's just looking back, there's just, there's nothing for me that can justify that trade. And I just think it's too far back to really reliably trace it, you know, and say, well, this is what got us Cade is. There's just so many things happened in between. Knowing what we know now, I would, I'm happy with the way things worked out.

So I'm fine with it because you think about the roster pre-Lake Griffin trade. They had Tobias Harris, Reggie Jackson, was Avery Brad. No, yeah, it was. It was Avery Bradley. He was part of that trade. That team doesn't project to make a big splash. And maybe if you had added Donovan Mitchell at one point, maybe they get a lot closer. But that team still has Drummond.

It still has Drummond's issues. It still has Reggie Jackson's issues. I bet he would have trouble handing the reins off to. I got like Donovan Mitchell anyway. So knowing what we know now, I think the team is in a much better state, and they project to have a lot more room to grow now. So I'm happy with the way things worked out. And only because things have worked out the way that they've worked out, I'm happy with the Blake Griffin trade. Well, yeah, just to clarify a few points, I would say under the scenario that I laid out, Tobias would have been traded, every Bradley would have been traded.

Jackson, by that point, had really already grown into a much better teammate. I don't think at that point he really had any issues with handing over the reins. And, yeah, I mean, demonstrably had no issues at that point. He'd really grown up over the previous two seasons, excuse me, versus the previous two seasons. So like I said, who knows? Yeah, you still have German on the team, but you have Luca Dantzic, maybe. I mean, again, it's like it's not a probable scenario, but neither was this.

Okay, so moving on from there. Do you think if Stu had a two inch longer neck, people would be higher on him? Of course, Stewart is like 6-8. Does he 6-8 in shoes without shoes? Yeah, he's listed at 6-8, yeah. 6-8 without shoes. All right. So the issue is not just that he's 6-8.

I mean, if he were 6-8 and had like a 7-foot-8 wing span, then it would be no issue. So it's less the height than it is how the height impacts the standing reach. So if you just increase his neck by 2 inches, then no, I don't think people will be necessarily higher on him, aside from those who are completely unfamiliar with him. because basically okay, you've now got an unnaturally long neck, but that's not going to help you in basketball. You know, really, you're going to go out there and you're going to play as you play and having a longer neck. I mean, I guess you can see above picks a little bit better and maybe see the floor a little bit better.

But I think that the quote-unquote people you're referring to are those who just don't really have much familiarity at all with Stewart. I love how you tackled that question, Mike. Yeah. You took that so safe. No, I think the issue with Stewart is more. his vertical than his listed height. I think he's strong enough and strong enough that his physical dimensions are not the issue. I think it's just the vertical. You don't even have to limit it to

vertical. You could say that the issue is like a general lack of explosiveness. So I think he shows a good degree of athleticism when he like protects the rim. Not optimal, but it's certainly there. So yeah, I agree. I don't really think it's the two inch longer neck thing that's the issue. I think it's his athleticism that's holding him back, at least in terms of how, you know, the general fan perceives him. So, yeah, Mike, you took that question very seriously. I liked it. That was funny. That was good. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So I guess moving on, rank these centers if they were dropped into today's NBA with no preparation for one game. Bob Lanier, Bill Lambier, Ben Wallace, Andrew Drummond, Isaiah Stewart. I have never watched Bob Lanier play. I know Lambert was a spacing

He was one of the first centers to shoot three, I think, so maybe he'd do well. But I'm just going to stick with Ben Wallace, Drummond, and Stewart. I think Ben Wallace would destroy Drummond. I just don't think that he has the mentality for it, I think. I know Ben said that he would do fine in today's NBA or do well. I think without a jump shot, he's at a disadvantage, but this is Ben Wallace. We're talking about he's an absolute athletic freak. I think he'd be okay.

And then I think Stewart comes after him and Drummond, this is the mentality thing. I think he comes in last. He proved so just the valley was just so bad when he was on the court for the Lakers. And they got tired of him so quickly. It was really fun to watch them kind of turn on him. Yeah, it was fun. And you hate to root for like former Pistons to fail. But it was interesting to see how what Pistons fans have been saying for years,

that whole empty stats thing really came to fruition. And people were able to see it on the national stage, right? Because look, if you go for a layup, or a putback and you miss, rebound, miss, rebound, miss rebound. Your contribution as it's reflected on the stat sheet is not quite your contribution as it's reflected in your overall impact in the game, right? And so people were able to see that on a very big stage. And so I would probably rank them the same.

I would say Ben right now would do very well. He doesn't possess a lot of the modern five skills that you look for, but athletic freak, like you said, absolutely tenacious. I think he would do well. Stu maybe has a higher ceiling in terms of pure skill. Well, actually, he definitely does just by virtue of the fact that he can shoot. He can do a little more on offense and drumming dead last out of the three of them. Yeah, I would say, I don't know too much about Lanier either.

Other than that, he was really a very, very good basketball player. And so I'm just going to rank him first just basically on purely on the merits of that. I mean, he came into the end of the league and he averaged about 16 points per game as a rookie. You know, pretty darn good. So second I would rank Lambeer. Lambeer came into the league at, I believe, 23. So he was just, he was a more polished player, already good defender, good rebounder, decent score. So I'd rank him number two.

Here's where it gets a little bit controversial. I would put Drummond at number three. So Drummond, when he came into the league, his first two seasons, he was actually pretty decent aside from being a horrible free-thro shooter. I don't think horrible properly gets it across. We're talking about worst in league history. But he was a player back then who didn't suffer from the mentality issues he ultimately would. And he was fairly efficient, a decent mob threat, already a good rebounder. So if you're coming in on day – again, we're talking day one here, just with no preparation.

I think I'd put him number three, assuming that he were used the right way. Isaiah Stewart, I'd put it number four. Again, this is based on what we know about these players. But Isaiah Stewart would put it number four just from what he brings, even though he was incredibly foul prone early on and wasn't the most efficient. But this is more just because I'm placing Ben Wallace last because when he came into the league, he was nowhere near the player he is. He ultimately was. Nobody had, nobody's wild as dreams. Was there the notion that he would grow into the defensive player and just the overall player that he was?

The overall is basically just defense plus effort. So that is how I would rank them. Okay. So you kind of approached it as like they're a rookie. and they're entering the league. Yeah. Well, that's a question. And they've just put in the game.

Oh, absolutely. If we're talking, if we're talking prime of the career, prime of their career, you're looking, I believe, at Wiener, Lambeer, Wallace, Stewart, and then Drummond. Though Stewart isn't the prime of his career,

I think he'll be a more effective player than Drummond was. I think so too. I would agree with that perspective. So these next two questions have elements of each other within them. So I'll read them both. And I think we can tackle them both. So how do you rate Casey's performance last year and Weavers? and then as it pertains to Weaver.

The very next question is discussing his offseason, specifically the Knard Deal, the Wave and Stretch of Deadman, the Wood sign and trade, basically saying that people raise some eyebrows and how do you view it now? So I'm cool to tackle this first. So as far as Casey is concerned, the three of us were very, very low on him as the season began. We just didn't understand how a tanking team was able to throw out like a nursing home for like 40 minutes a night, every single night. It was ridiculous and we were pissed and we were getting on here.

And our spirits were pretty low. So that was not fun. But as the season progressed and things started to evolve and the rookies all came into their own, even Killian at the end was performing much, much better than he had performed at the beginning of the season, you sort of think to yourself like, okay, maybe Casey did have a grand plan for how to play these guys and how to bring along the players who will be relevant to the future slowly and effectively. And I think it paid dividends with, well, you know, two all rookie team selections, one on the first team, one on the second team.

Killian, who showed a lot of promise at the end of the year, Sabin, who came out of nowhere, and Dave, who is Dave. So I would say Casey's performance started off poorly, in my opinion, but as it all came to fruition, I was pleased with it. And I think the guys were too. And as far as Weaver is concerned, it's like Mike said, you can't give Weaver credit for winning the lottery because that's 100% pure luck. Now, the moves that he made to put us in position to win the lottery shouldn't be ignored. You know, he recognized that we needed to do a total tear down. He wasn't afraid to make bold moves to shape the roster as according to his vision. And so as it all kind of worked out here, and we do hold the number one pick and we do have a bunch of young, exciting players,

I would have to give it, if I had to write it on a grade scale, probably an A plus because we're in a one million percent better place than we were this time last year. So I would give Casey an A minus to an A and Weaver an A plus. Yeah, the only thing, I agree with most of what you said, the only things that I would have to add, pardon me. I think definitely credit to Casey for bringing the guys along slowly. I think there was a lot of benefit in that that we got to see kind of in the second half of the season. And that's part of the reason I said.

I hope it kind of bring Killian off the bench to start the upcoming season because I think getting comfortable with the league's physicality is going to be huge for him. It's probably going to make or break his career, honestly. And that the only move that I When I look back at what Weaver did The only one that I still don't like Was stretch and wave Dwayne Dedman That's that puts you I think that puts you in some interesting

Like financial constraints Going into the future and it's like a five year thing I think because he had two years left So that's the only one that I still am like I rather we wouldn't have done that But other than that seems like every signing that he made Other than maybe well not other than Josh Jackson Every signing he made had a purpose.

I think the personalities matched together well. I think the culture of this team is really improved. So, yeah, I'm very happy with both the jobs that they did. Yeah, I would call it slightly where Weaver is concerned a little bit. Not an unfair question, but I'll put it this way. If it's easy to look at it and say, well, he did a great job because it turned out the way that it did with the first overall pick. Now, if this had been the case, if the Pistons have. had if he'd done everything he did in the business were in the same spot and they got number six,

then you're suddenly feeling quite a bit worse about it. So just the way that it turned out simply with random chance from the lottery definitely gives it a boost. It's like we said on a previous episode when we were talking about, you know, was signing Jeremy Grant the right move and I said, well, ask me after the lottery. Because it's like if these extra wins he got, you know, put us in a place where we get a much worse pick, then, you know, then the picture really changes. You know, overall, the way things went, sure, I would give him an A. The only move I really, he didn't really make any moves that, in retrospect, I really dislike.

But again, it's just because, in part, because of the way that things turned out. But on the whole, yeah, it just revamped the roster of business are in a much better place. Lots of promising youth, good team culture. When it came to Casey, I'd give him a B because early on in the season, I don't think it wasn't necessarily a matter of bringing the players along slowly. I think just that Casey will deal with his, with his veterans with all due deference. And that was Derek Rose, and that was Blake Griffin.

Seeing Derek Rose come out and just do his thing, which is call for a pick and then drive and try to score at the hoop without passing to anybody. I don't think that was a matter of bringing the rookies wrong slowly. I think it was a matter of Casey just coaching in that particular way. And that's the way that Derek, you know, it's just said, Derek, I don't know, go out there and just do your thing. And I don't think that the way Griffin was playing was necessarily good for the youth either.

So once Rose and Griffin were off the team, sure. you know A, absolutely. He has a good relationship with the young players, put them in major roles, seemed to set them up to succeed. So it was really a tale of two seasons. So actually early on, I would give them a C. And after Griffin and Rose were gone, cool, then you get an A. So moving on to the next question.

What offensive sets would you like to see Casey Abb at the arrival of Cunningham? That's a tough one. Yeah, I really just don't know. That'll depend on how Cade looks. and how the other guys in the team look. I imagine you'll see Cade, unless he proves that he's not ready for it, you'll see him get a heavy run as just the primary ball handle or take the ball and do something with it. I think that's, you know, that when he's on the floor is probably the most common set you'll see.

Yeah, I'm ignorant to the exact names of specific sets as well, but I think Mike is completely right in that if Cade comes in and he proves that he's a really good player right off the bat, I think you'll see just by virtue of how the games go, probably a lot of isolation stuff, which we know that Casey loves his isolation, but hopefully Cade can do it, especially in the playoffs, a little better than Demard de Rosen can do it in Toronto. But I like sort of the free-flowing no-set plays offense that Casey sometimes runs. And I think we need to run that heavily, especially at the beginning of the season, to sort of kind of iron out how Cade actually fits with the rest of the players.

So I guess my answer to wrap it in a bow would be, it depends. on how they look, and then from there we'll have to adjust accordingly. Yeah, same thing as you guys. I wanted to see more driving kick, and I think now that we have an actual offensive initiator and Cade Cunningham, I think that'll go a lot more smoothly. One of the issues that Killian had was he couldn't get things going. Like he could break his defender down a little bit with some handles, but once he did, he just wasn't able to finish it out and take it into the paint.

And when he did, a lot of times it would just kind of result in. and that in-between floater, which was actually a decent shot for him. It's not a good shot in general, but it was probably one of his better options. But certainly now I think we have the initiator that we need. And then I think Isaiah Stewart could do some short roll stuff because he shot that elbow jumper from the mid-range pretty well. So I'd like to see more of that. I think him and Kidd can run that and that'll be a viable option. All right.

Next questions. I just shotgun the rest of these. Some of these are, we've already answered them. We could rapid fire it if you guys. Yeah. Teal jerseys. What do you think? Yay or nay? It depends how they look.

I'm not too concerned with the color. I'm more concerned with, are they cool and do I want to spend money on them? And if they are cool and I want to spend money on them and they happen to be teal, I would give it a big yay. I would like them to bring back the flaming horse or the horsepower logo. Just make it red, white, and blue. I like that color scheme a lot more, but our jerseys are boring. That would love this. I've seen some concepts that look amazing.

Just bring back the horse. I don't like the horse. I don't like the teal jerseys. I'm probably in a very small minority here in kind of having liked the jerseys that the Pistons wore in the 2015-2016 season that were just very heavy grays. I don't exactly have to have a picture up in front of me, but I remember liking those.

But I agree that a nice red, white, and blue jersey would be good. Preferably not the really pretty, what I considered pretty ugly one that the Pistons wore the season before this last one that just looked like a European soccer jersey. Oh, with the stripes? Yeah, not a fan. Like, not a fan at all. Yeah.

Yeah, I actually skipped a couple questions. Maybe we can just run through those really quickly. Favorite shooter in the draft, Kate Cunningham. Yeah, I would agree with that. Yeah, I think that Cade is all around, it's just all around the best shooter. Yep. Yeah. I would say so.

And then what kind of contract would you sign Hammy to? I can't give you an exact number. But what I do know is I'd like to lock him up long term, maybe a little less overall money in exchange for long term security because I think he's a player who can progress and get a lot better and eventually outplay that contract. Yeah, I would say either three years, $33 million or four years, $40 million, maybe go a little bit higher than that. It's a risk because if he does not develop well as a shooter, then you're overpaying him pretty significantly. But I think it's a risk worth taking. Yeah, that's fair. That's fair.

You're higher on him than me. I would do 27 over three years, and I think that's kind of where I max out. I don't have a lot of belief in him as a motion three-point shooter. He shot better as a piston, but it was on streaky shooting, low volume. And I think if you want him in your starting lineup, he has to be a good three-point shooter, not just a passable one around Cade. I don't think it needs to be a motion three-point shooter. I think as long as he can hit spot-up three is he's got the capacity to be a very valuable player.

I just don't know how good Jeremy Grant was. was on motion three's. Well, he was pretty high usage. You had a ball in his hands a lot, but not great. Almost all of his. Yeah, almost all of his were other pull-ups when he had the ball or spot-up threes. He never really shot around screens. Yeah. So if you think that Hamadu is going to be replacing Killian in the starting lineup at the two, I think you do need motion threes there. And that's kind of like the whole idea behind some of these trade ideas that I've had for certain guys in the first round. I would like more dynamic scoring there. And I don't think Hamadu is that. So I'm a a little bit lower on him than you guys.

Gotcha. All right. So the next one, but of the main realistic goals for the season, development, development, and development. That is,

I think, that I think should be the priority and that I believe will be the priority and whatever happens, happens. You forgot Big Sean jerseys. Oh, good, me. Give me a break.

All right. Next question. When we draft Cade, what type of numbers do you expect from him? How many years in before his first All-Star game, if any? Numbers is going to depend. on that offensive sets question.

It depends on what he proves himself to be out of the gate. As far as his first All-Star game, I'll give you a bold take right now. The narrative that I see playing out is something like this. So I think Cade really lights it up this year. He's excellent. He wins rookie of the year. But the Pistons don't really do anything of note

in the greater NBA landscape. But he generates a lot of attention. And then next year, he leads the team to a strong playoff spot, makes his first All-Star game. Yeah, I'm there with you. I think conservatively 15, 5, and 5. He's still a rookie, and I think Casey will bring him along slowly. Even if he does start within the first 10 games around opening night,

I don't think he's going to get a ton of minutes. I don't think there's any reason to overwork him. I think Casey will like him. And everything that we've seen from Cade so far, he is like that team first or a team-oriented player that I think Casey will like. But I could just as easily see the starting lineup being killing. and Corey Joseph on opening night. This is, it's still Dwayne Casey.

I hope not, man. I really don't see that. I think Kate is going to get heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy run off the bat and that'll go on for like 15 years. I agree that he'll get, he'll get heavy run off the bat. I cannot, I just absolutely cannot foresee a situation in which you have Corey Joseph and Gillian Hayes who are just starting back court on day one. I don't think Corey Joseph is likely to be on the team.

Maybe if they decide to let him go and then assign him to a veteran's minimum contract. but I don't know if Corey Joseph would be particularly interested in doing that. But yeah, I think Cade just has a ready player written all over him. You know, he's skilled all around. He's very mature. I think he'll be in the lineup and see heavy usage from day one. As far as his stats, really hard to say, in part depends upon the team around him. And as far as All-Star games, yeah, I, yeah, who knows.

It's just such a difficult, it's just such a difficult thing to see. He's shooting for his sophomore season. That's what he said on an old man in the three. You can say, Okay, great. Yeah. All right. So, yeah, how can being on the select team help the progress of Isaiah Stewart and

Sadiq Bay for year two? I would just say, I don't really know what the select team is. What is the select team? I know that they were named. That's the Olympic practice team. They go practice with the Olympic team. Oh, got you. Okay.

Well, just more opportunity to play significant minutes against very good players, so it can only be good for the development. Yeah, you are who you surround yourself with. And there are some really good players on the select team. obviously the best players in the world for the most part on Team USA. So it behooves them to be around those guys playing at a high level. And you know, you practice like you play, right? Yeah, absolutely.

All right. So what's a stat line you would like to see Killian achieve in year two for you to consider it as success for him? I'm not necessarily personally, not necessarily going to measure it on stats alone. You look at other things like is he assertively attacking? Is he not avoiding contact? Most importantly, is he able to operate with? with his right hand at least an acceptable level. But as far as stats, three point percentage, 36% or above,

field goal percentage, really whatever gets him to, like, I don't know, like at least 54% true shooting. Assists, you'd like to see him over five, but also important you'd like to see his assist at turnover ratio rise enormously. Just be safer with the ball. I'd like to see him at least two to one in terms of assisted turnover. So part of it is as qualitative rather than quantitative for me. As far as points, that's such a hard thing to say with Killian.

I personally would like to see Killian score over 10 points a game. I just think that if you're kind of meandering around the 5, 6, 7 points in game mark, you're just not maximizing your passing ability. And so while I agree with you that it's qualitative, more so than it's quantitative, eventually you've got to start seeing some results that translates to the stat sheet. So yeah, more than 10 points, assists, I don't know, 6, 7 maybe. I think he's that kind of passer and he has that kind of ability. Three point percentage, field goal percentage, just make them respectable,

make sure that you can actually score. That's what I would say would be a success. Yeah, definitely. I agree with Mike. There's two big issues for me with Killian. One, the lack of assertiveness, not being able to take it inside, shying away from contact. I think that's the biggest issue as things stand right now.

Fixing that issue would open up the rest of his game because he does have skills. I just think it's a hard shift to make mentally. So I do fear that that's something he'll struggle with for his entire career. maybe he gets part of the way there, but if he's not like an assertive, you know, I think I'm better than you. I'm going to break you down that type of player. I just don't think that he's going to be the player

that we envisioned when we drafted him. So that's certainly like that's like the first concern that I have with him. And then obviously the three point shooting, it was much better off the catch. But I'd like to see him, you know, make more of it or make more than just off the catch three. I think especially playing next to Kate, if you do envision that fit,

working. Killing needs to be a guy who's relocating on the perimeter a lot, and maybe he doesn't have all that time to set his feet. And so continuing to, you know, work on shooting motion threes or, you know, threes that he's shooting off-balance a little bit. That's a tough shot for anybody, but getting to 33% in his second year, I would be encouraged by that, depending on the types of threes that he's taking. All right. And then are there any late first round guys between 20 and 30? you'd like to see the Pistons trade back into the first to get. We had a few ideas. Late first, I think honestly, I don't know if you guys want me to do this one, but I still want

us to trade up for Book Night. And I don't know if I even suggested this one on the last episode, but I would trade Killian to get higher up into the first round. Like if there's a guy that you like there, for me, it's Book Knight because I like his player archetype. If you can get him, I would absolutely make the try. trade for Killian. Killian, you're two seconds if you can package those and to get a late first.

And if that gets you to the point where you can get Book Knight at like 14, if he falls all the way there, I'm not sure that he will anymore. He had a really good combine showing. But if you can get him, I make that trade. And I know you guys disagree with me, but I'm higher on him and his archetype. I'm not, it's not that I disagree with him. I just think it's very implausible. After the performance that Book Knight, I mean, he really impressed the combine.

And if he gets his shot together, he. He's, of course, those are the dreaded words for anybody. But if he gets a shot together, he could potentially be a very good player. So that's one factor. I don't think that the Pistons would reasonably be able to trade up into his range without giving up. Maybe Sadiq Bay or maybe not even then, you know, in addition to Killian. There's also the fact I just don't think Killian will trade you much higher. So Killian was drafted last year, number seven in a week draft.

By many accounts, he might have gone double digits, like 10 or 11 if the Pistons hadn't hadn't drafted him. Apparently the Pistons are very high on him. He did not impress in season one, obviously. He spent most of it injured, and he didn't look good in the time he did spend on the floor. So I don't think he's raised his value any. He remains an upside pick, and just a lot has to go right for him to become an impact player. Now, I don't think a team who would be drafting Book Knight for upside is going to trade him for Killian, who might have significantly less upside. because that, I just don't see that as a realistic possibility, especially like a late first. A late first, you're rolling the dice and you're hoping to get to you,

and you're happy if you get a long-term rotation player. So I don't think the Pistons have the means to trade into the lottery unless they're getting rid of Bay or Stewart or Jeremy Grant, which I think is very unlikely. So as far as guys in the 20 to 30 range, I would just have trouble answering the question because, like we said, this draft is so nebulous, you know, even after you get, just out of the top six players.

You just, you never know. It's just in this draft. It's so hard to say who's going to be there 20 to 30. Who's going to continue to raise his stock or lower a stock based on workouts with individual teams. It's just, yeah, it's just, I think it's too difficult to question to answer because legitimately don't know who's going to be available there. Yeah.

No, I would agree. I think you guys nailed it. I agree with Mike in that I think a trade, like a Killian Book Knight type of thing is not quite plausible. especially as the value of all those players stand. And then I'd also like to exercise a little bit of patience, too, with Killian. I am just sick of giving up on guys early. And yet the thought of Killian going and blossoming somewhere else just really grinds my gears.

I would hate to see that. So me personally, I'd err on the side of patience. But otherwise, I think you guys answered the question very well. So I'm cool to move on. And the next question is, do you think Kate has a skill set similar to Paul George? Maybe not as explosive. Certainly not as explosive. but in terms of, you know, they're both willing to take a big shot, I'll give them that.

And if Kate approaches Paul George's, you know, the heights of Paul George, I'd be pretty happy with that. Yeah, I don't know Paul George's game that well to make that kind of comp. I've seen people make this one before. Maybe it has more to do with the dimensions and the size and overall effectiveness and maybe the usage. I don't know if Paul George has that type of playmaking ability. I don't think he has what Cade projects to be. But I don't know what Paul George averages in terms of. assist, so I can't really answer this one very well. I think maybe it's more on the dimensions of these

guys and their play styles, if anything, but I know Paul George is a high-usage player who's definitely going to be getting things going for the Clippers. I think, number one, on Paul George, I mean, as good of a player as he is now, when he came into the week, he was extremely athletic, like extremely athletic. There's that highlight if you want to, you know, for any of you who want to go look for it, which Paul George did a windmill dunk in transition. Of course, that's not fully getting across just how athletic he was, but he lost a fair amount of that when he completely butchered his leg,

I think, playing for Team USA. Nonetheless, I don't really see the comp too much. Paul George is, so Paul George, just, he's still quite athletic, more athletic than Kate is. He's a guy who is quite good at penetrating into the basket. He's a very good shooter, too, but getting into the basket is something he's very good at. I don't think that's something which Cade is going to be quite as good.

Maybe I'll be wrong, but if he is good, it'll be for different reasons. Paul George doesn't really do it by being shifted. He does it by doing being tall, strong, and explosive. Kate is, I think, likely to come into the NBA is a better playmaker for others than Paul George will ever be. I mean, Cade is very, very high IQ in terms of playmaking, court vision, and so on and so forth. So I think they're very different players in terms of that.

in terms of shooting, it took Paul George some time to become a good shooter. Cade might come in as a better, it's an significantly better shooter than Paul George was. But again, I think it'll just be different because just given the differences in athleticism, it's going to, yeah, Kay's just going to play in a very different way. So next question. So how do you feel going into this draft compared to last year as in the team, the prospects and the direction weaver is taking us? Do you like it?

Do you trust the Weaver process? I feel better going into this draft than I did last year because we've got the number on overall pick in a first year. very strong draft. I also feel better because going into the draft last season, there was just a lot of uncertainty. And also it was a weak draft. And you never really didn't know what was going to happen. Weaver was completely unproven.

I feel a lot better about Weaver now. I feel a lot better about the team's direction now. The Weaver process, I mean, I think he's proven himself to be competence. Now we see where he can take the team, you know, where he takes the team from here. Yeah, definitely, I agree with you. Weaver has certainly proved himself. I think the way that he built this team from the ground up with the culture in mind and then getting lucky in the lottery and bringing in guys who, well, putting the team in the position to,

you know, have that 14% chance to win. It's all gone very well and couldn't really ask for a better feeling going into the draft, except for that that little bit of anxiety that the Pistons see Jalen Green's athleticism and they opt to take him. But I don't think that's likely. But definitely I feel much better about this one than last year's last year. It was like, I think we're going to take Killian, but I'd like us to take Halliburton. Yeah, I'm happy that we don't have that issue this year. This is a very good draft to be going number one overall.

I certainly could agree with that, and I think I'll tackle this question a little differently. So specifically in terms of how do you feel about the team right now going into the draft as opposed to last year at this time? This is a tweet that I thought it was funny. And it's dated November of 2019. and the tweet reads, Luke Kennard, Sekudumboya, Christian Wood,

Jordan Bone, Bruce Brown, kind of a promising young core. Oh, God. That sums it up for me. I don't think I need to continue. All right. Well,

then I guess we can do the next question, which is can you rank your top three draft prospects? I don't think we disagree on this one. It's Cade first. No. Jalen Green second. Oh,

oh, wait. Are we going to get some Evan Mowley? blasphemy. Oh, you do disagree. Okay. Yeah. I think it's Jalen Green number two overall. It doesn't really matter at this point, but Jalen Green number two overall, that was my Discord tag for like several months. Yeah. Yeah, I would say, I would say Kade Green Mobley as well. Okay. Yeah, Tommy, would you put Mobley number three now or are you still sticking Sugs at number three? Oh, that's right. I did do that. Yeah, no, I still put Sugs at number three. For the piss. Oh, no, no, no. For the, in general, in general. In general.

I think Mobley is number three, but for the Pistons, I like Suggs more. That's fair. That's fair. I can maybe get behind that. I just think the talent differential is too much, but that's fair. And then moving on, what was the best and worst move by Troy Weaver since he started? Okay, the best move, tearing the team down. I know that's a collection of moves, and that's more of a generality, but it's like we talked about with Matt Shook on the last episode,

fans have been begging for a total tear down and for, at the very least, us to pick a direction and stick to it. So Weaver doing that in general, not being afraid to completely dismantle the team and reshape it. I would say is his best overall move, and it's netted some very positive results. His worst move, not starting sooner. That's funny. I would say best move, if we're looking at specifics, if we're not just looking at, you know, tear down and very attentively build for development and rest players down the stretch to make sure that the pistons don't win. too much and ended up being a good draft position and just focus on a goal and do the necessary

things. It's the best move. First one that comes to mind maybe is signing Jeremy Grant's just, it was really a tone setter for the team. Yeah, tone setter for the team who gave them a fairly steady offensive presence and a good presence in the locker room and just somebody who's going to continue, I think, to be a steady presence as the players around him develop. Yeah, I would definitely agree with that.

I think bringing him in first decent free agent in a long time and clearly show that weaver has an eye for talent and that the Pistons were that Jeremy did not make a mistake joining us. So definitely a good move in my mind. So that takes us to ask questions. Worst move for the two of us. I would say it's tough to nail down. Oh, worst move. Yeah.

You could say stretching Deadman for the sake of Plumley, but the Pistons ended up getting the first overall pick. So it's really hard to say that that was a mistake. Honestly, the move that's looking back that he made that makes the least sense to me. And this is a very minor thing. And maybe I'm forgetting something. but Julia Lofour, who's just a low-upside player and just his presence on the team doesn't really make all that much sense. That's really the move looking back that continues to make very little sense to me.

However, that is a very, very minor, I mean, is a guy in a minimum contract. So it's not really a big deal. I agree with you, waving and stretching, Dwayne Edmund, that the lack of flexibility there, I didn't like that. It's just, I mean, yeah, it's not, it was a befuddling move. And for the next three years, I believe you had Zayor Smith's contract to that. And the Pistons are on the hook for about $4 million. And then Devin's $3 million and the two years after that. And it's not ideal.

But, you know, you look back and say the Pistons got the first overall pick. And maybe Plumlee was a good, you know, it was good for the team somehow. All right. Final question. Where do you see Sekku Dumboya in his spot on the team from here on out? Seku, I believe, will be in the G League next season. I believe if the G League had had a normal season in 2020, 2021, second would have spent his time there.

I believe he'll start, unless he really impresses in training camp. And in preseason, I believe he will start the season with the cruise and spend a significant amount of time there. He's just, he's a very raw player. He continues to be a very raw player. I've said it before, I'll say it again. When the Pistons drafted him, he was not expected to, you know, by every account. He was not expected to play in the league in the NBA for at least two seasons.

He was a guy who was drafted for, you know, three seasons down the line. So he came in, he looked all right. for a period, it looked good and appeared for a period in his first season. And he fell flat in his face. He was not good last season. He's a very raw player. And, yeah, like I said, he wasn't even meant to be in the NBA at this stage. Yeah, I mean, it kind of sucks because, I mean, I just read that Pistons Thoughts tweet.

It's like, things have changed so much. And the circumstances are so different now than they were one or two years ago. Seku kind of went from the crown jewel, like, here's the future of our franchise to, hate to say it, but a bit of an afterthought, right? And so the way that I view Seku is this may seem, you know, kind of harsh, but almost like a draft and stash. Like to me, he's kind of like, yeah, he's 20. He's got a lot of athletic upside. We'll see what he be like, we'll see what he can become.

It sort of is what it is. And then a spot on the team, completely agree with Mike. I think he's going to be in the G league next season. And unless injuries force him into the rotation or he really, really shows something, I just, it's tough to see him contributing in a meaningful way, especially for a team who I think is going to be competing for a play-in slash playoff spot. So I just don't know. I guess we're going to have to wait and see,

but I do like his upside. Yeah, definitely. I agree with you guys. The good thing about this upcoming season is that this is the first season of the Motor City Cruise, the Pistons new G-League team that will be playing downtown right next to the Pistons, not the few hours away in Grand Rapids. So I think we'll see a little bit of movement between Seku playing for the minor league and the major league team.

And I would expect him to thrive. Casey said that Pascal Seaccombe's time with the Raptors 905, and that's a very, very good G-League franchise. It was absolutely critical for his development and his growth as a player. And I know people have made a lot of comparisons to those guys because, well, a lot of it's their play style and measurables, but I think it can have the same effect on Seku. I agree with Edante. I forget about him all the time, honestly, now.

But, yeah, he was definitely. projected to be a guy who's very, very raw, and a few years away from being a few years away. And hopefully that his time in the G.A. will be beneficial for him, and he'll get more comfortable. I think that'll be very big for him. Sure. And let's just say this, whatever he becomes, if it's something good, would be a happy, pleasant surprise. Yeah, pick number 15, you're happy if you get a good rotation player there.

I like a good rotation player. Yeah, I'd say Seku was done a little bit of a disservice by playing in the NBA so early. hopefully it doesn't really impact his confidence. You certainly struggle. All right. So that'll be it for this episode. Again, thank you for all of you, to all of you, rather, who submitted questions. And as ever, thank you for listening. We'll catch you in the next episode.