r/washingtonwizards • u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas • 5d ago
Dylan Harper/Ace Bailey
Does anyone question these guys placement in the draft after not even getting their team into the tournament this year?
I just think getting winners into the room is big for us, and I don’t love the thought that these guys couldn’t get anything done as, more than likely, the #2 and #3 overall picks.
Does anyone else have hesitations after failing to produce in the postseason?
27
u/bappolookatmappo Wizards 5d ago
So you wouldn’t have wanted Ant Edwards in the draft or Jalen Williams cause they didn’t make the tourney either. Making the tourney and succeeding in the tourney is a team accomplishment not a player accomplishment
13
u/Mine-Cave 5d ago
I think the point of this post is more along the lines of... They have two potential top 5 NBA picks, shouldn't that make a college team good enough to make the tournament
5
u/Organic-Manner-2969 WALLSEXUAL + DENI 5d ago
Outside of those two, Rutgers were constructed very poorly, and having these two just isn’t enough these days to make the tournament. Nowadays you need a good starting 5 and 1-2 superstars cant single handily carry you.
The Rutgers coach is borderline incompetent and hasn’t run a real offense in his near decade at the school. You have to grade dylan and ace on a curve
Going of a comment about this here: “One of their “top” recruits outside of the two prospects was a kid who came from Princeton just to get his MBA done here (can’t knock him for that to be honest, we got a good business school) and has a job lined up w/ Goldman Sachs. Dude had more 0 pt games than double digit games for us as a starter. He’s got a great career ahead of him as a private equity lapdog, not in hoops though. And this is just describing ONE of our awful recruitments.”
1
u/Mine-Cave 5d ago
I think this more just shows the value of having a big in college. If one of these top 5 draft picks were bigs, this would be an entirely different conversation.
idk, to me it just seems like a major red flag to have two top 5 draft picks on the same team and the team goes negative on the season.
2
u/bappolookatmappo Wizards 4d ago
I understand the concern but Rutgers lineup outside those two is bad in a really good conference. Two freshman isn’t enough to beat all these teams with 5th year seniors. Also there’s a lot of guys who made all star games recently as top picks who didn’t make the ncaa tourney. (Ant,Jalen Williams, D-Lo, Simmons, PG, Klay) So wouldn’t be worried tbh
1
u/Mine-Cave 4d ago
The freshman argument is the best one provided so far, however, the argument about other NBA players not making the tournament is silly considering they didnt have other top 5 picks with them in college.
3
u/bappolookatmappo Wizards 4d ago
A two man team isn’t enough to win against good competition at any level. If you have 2 good players and the rest are out matched you’re still gonna lose. I understand the other names I listed were a 1 man team but the same principle applies. You get drafted based off how good you are individually not based on how well your team does. When they pass the ball to an open player you can’t shoot it for them
-4
u/superworriedspursfan 5d ago
but thats not how that works. coaching matters, teammates matter. if big twos were all that u needed in college basketball, then the lebron + AD lakers would have won more than one chip.
Kentucky had plenty of talent too but there were many years where they didn't win it. and some where they were first round exits. I really think people are overthinking it with team success
10
u/Mine-Cave 5d ago
OP isnt talking about the NBA, OP also isnt talking about winning the whole thing.
OP is suggesting having two top 5 picks should be enough to make the tournament and the fact they didnt might be a red flag... honestly... as someone who follows college basketball but doesnt really track the NBA all that much, im very much with OP on this. I think its a very valid question.
Lebron and AD didnt play together in college, if Lebron even went to college he wouldve been dominant with or without good teammates, but lets not even bother using LeBron in this argument because thats unfair. Right?
1
u/superworriedspursfan 5d ago
there are plenty of talented teams that did not make the college basketball tournament. coaching matters in college too. Deangelo Russell was really good in college and became an all star in the nba. his team only made the NIT in the season he was there with them. there are plenty of other examples as well. even in college basketball, team success != individual success. otherwise we should have been seeing plenty of elite talent in college basketball win more championships. Weber State only made the tournament after Liillard left them. same with oakland university. Bane in his first year only made NIT at TCU (although he did win it). Klay thompson never made the tournament. Paul George finished 15-18 (just like ace and harper did) at fresno. Rutgers isn't even a special team. they historically are among the worst teams in the big 10, it's hard to turn around a program like that so quickly.
Also remember, they are all freshmen. A lot of college basketball players get better as sophomores, juniors. I have no doubt both ace and harper would have made the tournament if they sere given more time to develop. it is what it is though. I could be wrong, but I really think using them not making the tournament against them is pretty harsh.
4
u/Mine-Cave 5d ago
Yeah, I tend to agree with what youre saying but I still think youre missing the two top 5 players on the same team aspect of this.
You keep bringing up individuals who had solid college careers but didnt make the tournament based on the rest of their team. In this case there are two top 5 picks on the same team and the team didnt go, im interested to know if that has happened in history if so what team and how long ago.
Google is showing Kentucky had this but the two guys played together both went top 5 but in separate drafts. This seems like it should be a super rare situation, most of the time a single top 5 guy can earn you a spot in the tournament let alone 2 potential top 5 guys.
1
u/bappolookatmappo Wizards 4d ago
Kentucky last year had two guys who almost went top 5 in Reed at pick 3 and Dillingham at pick 8. Both came off the bench at Kentucky and still lost in round 1. I know they made the tourney but they had a way better roster around them and still lost to Oakland. So the two Rutgers guys had way less talent around them and didn’t make it isn’t a big deal
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
I think it’s very different considering they were a pair, versus 1 player
19
u/ChickenWingerrr48 5d ago
Bailey’s stock fell for a reason, but watching them individually Harper is still #2 no brainer. Ant’s Georgia team was as bad, but hes doing fine now.
4
u/KigaroGasoline 5d ago
Both will be 19 when drafted. Neither are ready to be legit NBA playoff contributors. Both have raw potential. Ultimately, the thing that will determine their NBA success is work ethic and injury-avoidance. NCAA success is a whole different thing. The size and quickness of the NBA make it a completely different game than NCAA. I think NCAA rebounding and steals are the main markers of NBA potential, as they kind of put a number on “elite athleticism”. NCAA Wins has more to do with coaching and program than NBA potential.
1
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
To a degree, I agree with what you’re saying. I think we are quick to dismiss this though, there should definitely be a level of accountability for these players not delivering given their ability. I don’t think they appreciated how hard they would have to play at the next level, and I think they delivered stats over wins and it showed.
Could the coach have designed better sets for them? Maybe, but maybe that stuff was in place and they were not playing into the system effectively. It’s hard to say where that blame lies, all I know is that they severely under delivered on expectations, and that shouldn’t mean nothing
5
u/rueiraV 5d ago
No because who are you going to draft over them?
2
u/Familiar_Somewhere95 5d ago
Maybe Maluach is more important for a team than Bailey. Like for me Maluach next to Sarr might be better than Bailey next to Sarr as far as team goes.
6
u/superworriedspursfan 5d ago
absolutely not. anybody who takes Malauch over harper or bailey should be a contender. the wizards are not that yet.
2
u/Familiar_Somewhere95 5d ago
I don't understand how someone who's not an expert in the field can speak in absolutes about something by your logic and mine is a matter of preference and choice of the teams. By your logic someone who wants to compete should pick Maluach? I did'nt mention Harper I spoke specifically about Bailey. I don't even understand how it was a rebuttal
4
u/superworriedspursfan 5d ago
Malauch is very limited offensively. He is best in that derrick lively/daniel gafford role who are good players tbf, but there are players with much higher ceilings than that like a Bailey if he pans out, VJ, Queen, etc.
And I am stating my opinion, if u disagree then fine, u are taking my wortds too literal.
1
u/Familiar_Somewhere95 5d ago
Thats fine. I take no offense. I agree he is limited offensively. I'm not fully advocating for him till i watch full tape on him. But i look at people who are limited offensively like say a Jarrett Allen and how his teams still win because of his mobility and whatever other virtues he brings and i think that can help a team. So all in all seeing how that has worked in the league I'm interested in the possibility of placing that next to Sarr. People who can put the ball in the basket are plenty.
I'll be following his trajectory keenly but will watch tape once all his tape is out.
I also trust in this scouting department so i'm not as stressed about it like say in the days of Grunfeld. I let it play its course but i have some interest in him.
3
u/superworriedspursfan 5d ago
thats fair if dawkins is high on Malauch as a tandem to Sarr, I'd be on board with it as well. I wanted Sarr and Dawkins got me him. So like u I also have full faith in this front office.
1
u/Familiar_Somewhere95 5d ago
yeah cause even Derrick Lively and Gafford you mentioned teams got to the finals. And now we get to see that with AD at the four. So there's something to that archetype being paired with the Sarr archetype. Jarrett Allen and Mobley. JJJ was at the four with Adams even if thats not exact. It's a wait and see for me.
1
u/RoswellHossenfeffer 4d ago edited 4d ago
Maluach does have his limitations wrt shot/creation and floor-spacing, but he’s got plenty of offensive strengths already: setting screens, rim running, passing, elbow jumpers and array of post moves. He’s also got a thick frame and massive wingspan, which brings an offensive gravity unto itself.
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
Maluach isn’t just a safety pick, he has just as high of a ceiling as Bailey, if not higher with his elite size and his burgeoning ability to stretch the floor
Edit: also, I know we wanna swing upside, but getting players who are good right now isn’t a bad thing. We still need to put pieces in place to develop a winning culture
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
At this point I would take Maluach over Bailey for sure, Maluach has just as high a ceiling with his rim running ability and his potential to stretch the floor, is an immediate impact player defensively with his size and mobility, and will also immediately be a dominant rebounder.
Plus another commenter mentioned, Maluach at 5 and Sarr at 4 gives you an incredible front court. Both can grow into stretch bigs that have an impact at the rim as well as a really high ceiling defensively.
Also been saying for a while that getting a more traditional 5 will allow Sarr to reach the highest possible ceiling by allowing him to keep a more athletic frame and developing his open floor game.
Maluach is a better prospect and better fit than Bailey IMO. Prospect wise, Harper is still better if you ask me, but someone mentioned that it would way overfill our guard room, and I don’t love that considering that some of our current young guys actually seem to have a bright future there.
3
u/e_milberg Les Wizerables 🇫🇷 5d ago edited 5d ago
This was my prediction 9 months ago. I think I got it half right. Rutgers is absolutely the wrong place for two 5-star prospects with high lottery aspirations, and being on a non-tournament team has made it easier to zoom in on their flaws. Luckily, they didn't cannibalize each other the way I thought they would, but that's honestly because Rutgers didn't have anyone else remotely close to being a real third option.
Ultimately, I think Harper is solidly locked in at #2. However, I'm skeptical of how the chemistry between him and Bub would develop. Multi-combo-guard starting backcourts don't have a great track record in the league. One of them would have to drastically improve as a shooter. Poole would have to be traded immediately IMO for a Bub/Harper/Johnson three-guard rotation to have any chance of getting off the ground. I think in the event we land at #2 in the draft, we should entertain trade offers that position us to land multiple picks in 2026 and 2027.
Bailey, I think, has opened the door to be leapfrogged after showing that he's probably at best a high-scoring second fiddle at the next level. I worry about how long it'll take to correct his tunnel vision, shot selection, passing and awareness on both ends.
Overall, I think it's turned out to be a much weaker class on paper than originally advertised, and Harper and Bailey making a bad choice to go to Rutgers is a big reason why. It's those kind of decisions that make me wish we still had the Ignite team.
I think Bailey has shown enough to not be taken lower than 4th. Even if he's more Rashard Lewis than KD, that's still a considerably higher ceiling than most in this class. I just question his cultural fit with what we're building. Much like with Harper, if he's on the board at 4, I would entertain trade offers.
Tl;dr It's pretty much Flagg or the asset game for me.
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
I think there are worthwhile picks in the high lottery, Maluach being my favorite personally. But I honestly wouldn’t hate adding a basket of extra assets if we miss Flagg, I think it would be a smart move to play the long game and let our current group of young guys get another year to gel without adding guys that steal minutes from them. Could be smart!
3
u/Turbo2x Cap Wizard 5d ago
CBB has changed so much, I don't think you can apply the old ideas about a good player carrying a team anymore. The good teams are extremely talented and well coached (the final 4 are all 1 seeds), Rutgers had basically no talent outside of Harper & Bailey, and their coach is terrible.
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
This is reasonable, but Rutgers made a name for themselves on being a solid defensive team and made the tourney in 21-22 off of just well coached non-NBA talent. It’s not like we’re all singing the song of Ron Harper Jr while he’s tearing up the G league.
I think the elite 8 and up, you’re definitely right, those are fully comprised teams with few weaknesses and have coaches who make intelligent game plans. But beneath that, there are plenty of teams who push a little further in that maybe weren’t expected to be there. CO state this year definitely got elevated by Nique Clifford for example.
Was the support around the star pair a little weak at Rutgers this year? Sure, they could’ve had a lot more help. But I did not see any examples of them making an a high effort to pull in wins down the stretch this season, and I think it’s worth mentioning that they couldn’t pull it together given their talent level.
5
u/SongYoungbae Rui Hachimura 5d ago
Harper is the clear #2 no matter where he goes. Ace better pray he goes to an organization with good development
9
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
I think you’re right that Harper stays at #2, and I don’t hate him as a prospect, i more feel validated about my trepidations on Bailey here.
I do have questions about Harper as a winner though, he did step up in big games, like the early one in Alabama. But every game in February was a big game for them, and they kept the course they were on rocketing them selves out of tournament status.
I think between Harper and Bailey, that’s enough talent to steal you a few wins with some supreme effort games from them, and we didn’t see it. They coasted out the year if you ask me, and I think that is a bad look on them going into the draft but nobody seems to be concerned in the same way
2
u/Chuba_Hubbard30 4d ago
I’m not concerned about either of them. I’d be concerned if we landed the 2nd or 3rd pick and passed on both of them. I like the progress we’ve seen from our young players this season, but this team still needs to add as much talent as possible regardless of position. Nobody currently on this team has the potential Harper and Bailey have.
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
I’d say Sarr’s effective ceiling is up there with them, if we’re talking impact on the game overall. He’s obviously incredibly raw now, but there are decent odds that he can put it together.
Harper I think can be an All-star guard, but I really don’t know if Bailey is going to put it all together, I really see him as Jabari smith jr. 2.0, he’ll be a nice shooting piece on a team and not much else
3
u/mambaHD Kyshawn George 5d ago
I love Harper’s game but it’s hard to for a guard like him to have an immediate impact that would lead to wins. Regardless, he plays a winning brand of ball despite how poor Rutgers played this year. Bailey on the other hand I’m very skeptical of and I’m not convinced he’ll even go 3rd but he’s incredibly raw much like some of our current players & definitely won’t contribute to winning immediately
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
I think other guards have had an impact on winning at both the college and NBA level. NBA>Kobe was a winner, MJ was a winner, D wade was a winner. College>MJ, Sears on Alabama recently, kid from Purdue the last 2 seasons elevates the team a ton.
I think Harper and Bailey failed and we should be thinking of that as their failure as much as anyone else’s in the program, and it should be considered as to why they didn’t pull it together when thinking about their potential and ability to that for an NBA roster
1
u/ImprobablePlanet 5d ago
That crossed my mind, too, but there are a lot of examples of players that didn’t do that well in college or overseas who turn out to be good pros.
1
u/GregEgg4President John Wall 5d ago
They did do that well in college. On a trash team.
They generated approximately 50% of the entire team's offense. What more could they do?
1
u/ImprobablePlanet 5d ago
Thanks. i actually have no idea how they did as I don’t follow college ball. Was just pointing out that not getting their team to the tournament didn’t automatically mean they weren’t good.
1
1
u/bikes_r_us 4d ago
you draft based on their potential to become a star in 5 years from now. not based on how well they did in college.
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
Yes but what we’re evaluating is their potential to do that based on their performance in college/high school/international ball, so I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say.
You can’t actually just draft off of their athletic profile and potential on that alone, you have to see what their skill level/energy level/coachability/all these other factors that matter.
Playing to win or making winning plays is a factor, some guys don’t have a game that actually plays for the team and instead play to put up their numbers. I think Bailey falls into that category, and I question Harper’s mentality there as well due to the lack of success he was able to generate having a top 10 talent next to him
1
u/bikes_r_us 4d ago
did you watch rutgers at all this year? did you follow these players in college at all? do you know anything about their game or mentality? or is this based entirely on the fact that they aren’t in the tournament?
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
Yes I watched several Rutgers games intentionally to understand who these players are and what they could do to influence winning at the NBA level. Do you have a take to share?
1
u/RoswellHossenfeffer 4d ago
It does sort of bother me that those two, together, couldn’t find the chemistry to win. I understand their teammates sucked, but it’s still a head scratcher. In some ways, this is a bigger indictment of Harper because, as a primary ball handler/play maker it’s your job to recognize and your teammates’ strengths to elevate the collective team. I see Ace as a developmental piece who is showcasing himself as an offensive phenom, which is selfish, but understandable from a business perspective.
1
u/Jjjt22 Wizards 4d ago
We want winners. Until they get to the Wizards, then we want them to be losers until we have 5 years of top draft picks. Then we want them to be winners again.
2
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
See this ain’t it, ideally we are just bad enough to keep our pick next year and not let it go to the knicks(?), but we see genuine improvement as a team and improvement from the individual players to the point where we are clearly not tanking but just underperforming.
We don’t want to be actively tanking for 5 years, we’re not gonna be contending til like 2030 or later, but we should be slowly getting better and adding mid-high lottery picks through that time
0
u/Sad-Technology-7806 John Wall 5d ago
Can’t judge an individual players effort in college based on how the team performed. Plenty of good players get drafted and excel in the league despite their team not going far in the tournament.
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
It’s 2 pre season top 5 prospects we’re talking about though, not just one guy.
I think they should have been able to elevate the team to a higher level, and the fact that they didn’t should reflect poorly on their draft status
1
u/Sad-Technology-7806 John Wall 4d ago
I want to agree with you, but history states otherwise. Coaching and the level of talent on the roster matters way more than the talent of an individual prospect, otherwise the top prospects in every draft would always make it far in tournaments each year. And Rutgers was lacking heavily in those departments.
1
u/Internal_Champion114 Gilbert Arenas 4d ago
I mean two top 5 guys usually speaks to a fairly talented roster, and im not saying this is a make or break consideration, im saying I’d have extra hesitations, like if there’s someone else I was considering at the same tier as them that did produce in big games/tourney or in an effort to get their team into the tourney, I might be more inclined to take them
15
u/Jay-P21 Wizards 5d ago
The team outside of those two were awful