2026 NBA draft thread

[mvossman]

That is exactly how I feel.

It really does feel like there is some separation after the top 9.  It would be a real kick in the pants if the end result of this season is the no 10 pick.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

Boozer held up really well against Michigan’s vaunted front line.  The Michigan front court is indeed nasty, but their guards are awful. They’re not winning the title. Duke is a better rounded team, but their backcourt isn’t that great either. Looks like Arizona is the favorite to me. They have the best front court/ back court balance.

Michigan was in foul trouble all game. Especially Mara. He's a big part of what they do on defense and offense. His foul trouble changed their matchups and rotations because he couldn't stay on the floor. I want to see what would happen if that wasn't the case. But I give Duke credit to take advantage of the situation. Arizona is good, they bounced back from those losses, but they're much better with Peat. All those teams that played yesterday can get to the Final Four.

[Scott41theMavs]

Someone in the chat yesterday was talking about trading down if you're the Mavs. I get that they need assets, but they also need to really nail this pick. I am of the school that BPA and being right about it does not include reaching - if your genius scout just "knows" that so-and-so is going to be a superstar but everyone else in the league sees him as a project or meh rotation player, you don't take your Giannis-type with the 6th pick if you can get him with the 13th pick. You trade down for a pick in the 10-13 range and get more assets. Moreover, if you find some simp who just has to have Tractor Traylor or Anthony Edwards or similar player (i.e. might be a highly-rated prospect but your genius scout sees through the BS and knows he's going to be a bust), sure, trade down a spot or two.

But if the only way to get the BPA, the guy who is going to help your team the most, is to stay put, that's whatcha gotta do. Especially in this draft. If I have the #1 pick, I'm taking Dybantsa and running. If I have the 2nd pick, then since I don't rate Peterson (flake + injuries) or Boozer (skillset not adapted to winning in the modern NBA), I am willing to trade down to 4 or 5 - unless the teams above were dumb as dirt and picked one of the other guys instead of Dybantsa; then I'm of course using the pick to grab him (cf. the '18 draft). Perhaps the same with #3 trading down to #5 - depends on how much I value either Flemings or Wilson above the other.

[loki]

Someone in the chat yesterday was talking about trading down if you're the Mavs. I get that they need assets, but they also need to really nail this pick. I am of the school that BPA and being right about it does not include reaching - if your genius scout just "knows" that so-and-so is going to be a superstar but everyone else in the league sees him as a project or meh rotation player, you don't take your Giannis-type with the 6th pick if you can get him with the 13th pick. You trade down for a pick in the 10-13 range and get more assets. Moreover, if you find some simp who just has to have Tractor Traylor or Anthony Edwards or similar player (i.e. might be a highly-rated prospect but your genius scout sees through the BS and knows he's going to be a bust), sure, trade down a spot or two.

But if the only way to get the BPA, the guy who is going to help your team the most, is to stay put, that's whatcha gotta do. Especially in this draft. If I have the #1 pick, I'm taking Dybantsa and running. If I have the 2nd pick, then since I don't rate Peterson (flake + injuries) or Boozer (skillset not adapted to winning in the modern NBA), I am willing to trade down to 4 or 5 - unless the teams above were dumb as dirt and picked one of the other guys instead of Dybantsa; then I'm of course using the pick to grab him (cf. the '18 draft). Perhaps the same with #3 trading down to #5 - depends on how much I value either Flemings or Wilson above the other.

I'd take BPA if they land top 3. Dybantsa, Peterson, Boozer in that order. 

The 4th pick is where I think they could consider trading down. Is Wilson really the clear cut choice there? The fit with Flagg is odd due to his lack of shooting. I'm also concerned that Flemings may be getting overrated a bit. Everyone seems to assume he won't have defensive issues at the next level, but what happens if he measures out only .5" taller than Acuff? I think it could be smart to trade down few spots and pick up a future FRP if they can still draft one of Brown/Wagler/Acuff.

[Winter]

I'd take BPA if they land top 3. Dybantsa, Peterson, Boozer in that order. 

The 4th pick is where I think they could consider trading down. Is Wilson really the clear cut choice there? The fit with Flagg is odd due to his lack of shooting. I'm also concerned that Flemings may be getting overrated a bit. Everyone seems to assume he won't have defensive issues at the next level, but what happens if he measures out only .5" taller than Acuff? I think it could be smart to trade down few spots and pick up a future FRP if they can still draft one of Brown/Wagler/Acuff.

Well my feelings about Wilson, I stated earlier. Despite some issue with perimeter shooting, he is very quick and an excellent defender, shot blocker, passer, and rebounder. He has so much of everything (except the the 3-pt shot) that I think you take him absolutely. He is going to be good wherever he lands and he has big upside if he gets that perimeter shot in the mid-30s. His mid-range game is good enough to make me think he can get there.

But I struggle after that. Brown, Flemings and Acuff all look pretty good, but not star-quality good. Wagler looks good now, but his ceiling is fuzzy to me. None of these guys look like the top 4 picks, all of which will likely be in someone's starting lineup on day 1 next season. I suspect all the PGs will look like starters eventually, so a #7 pick is acceptable to me, but I could see a lot of reasons to move down if an extra pick is there for us. We got Lively by managing that kind of move if I remember right. Omax wasn't the payoff we hoped, but the idea was good.

[Winter]

I think at some point, we should discuss these PGs - Flemings, Brown, and Acuff - individually. Flemings might be gone, but I suspect Brown and Acuff are there.

Brown has the right body - 6'5" 190 lbs. Shoots about 35% from three on pretty good volume. Good FT% at 80%. Assts are OK fo a PG at 4.9 Probably the knock on him is his shot selection which needs to get better and he has a few more TOs than the other PGs. He's getting 18 ppg.

Flemings is the best floor general I've seen. 6'4" at 190lbs. He averages fewer points than the other two guards (16 per game) but he has better players around him. Shoots the 3-ball in the upper 30s and has 5.2 assists per game. Good FT shooter. He really seems in command every I game I've watched. Not much weakness in his game.

Acuff is only 6'3" maybe 6'2" and 190 lbs. Ive watched a lot of Acuff. Statistically he's the best of the three, and he has gotten better every game. His 3-point shooting is almost up to 44% now on good volume (5.6 a game). He also has the best 2-point percentage of the three guards. He has great assist numbers at 6.2 per game. He's muscular so he can handle his man defensively, but they will try to shoot over him. He's getting 22 ppg. He too is an 80% FT shooter, and he has the fewest TOs of the three guards. He's the centerpiece of the Arkansas offense. I've seen interviews with this guy and he looks dead serious about the game.

All these guys look like they can play to me.

[mvossman]

I think at some point, we should discuss these PGs - Flemings, Brown, and Acuff - individually. Flemings might be gone, but I suspect Brown and Acuff are there.

Brown has the right body - 6'5" 190 lbs. Shoots about 35% from three on pretty good volume. Good FT% at 80%. Assts are OK fo a PG at 4.9 Probably the knock on him is his shot selection which needs to get better and he has a few more TOs than the other PGs. He's getting 18 ppg.

Flemings is the best floor general I've seen. 6'4" at 190lbs. He averages fewer points than the other two guards (16 per game) but he has better players around him. Shoots the 3-ball in the upper 30s and has 5.2 assists per game. Good FT shooter. He really seems in command every I game I've watched. Not much weakness in his game.

Acuff is only 6'3" maybe 6'2" and 190 lbs. Ive watched a lot of Acuff. Statistically he's the best of the three, and he has gotten better every game. His 3-point shooting is almost up to 44% now on good volume (5.6 a game). He also has the best 2-point percentage of the three guards. He has great assist numbers at 6.2 per game. He's muscular so he can handle his man defensively, but they will try to shoot over him. He's getting 22 ppg. He too is an 80% FT shooter, and he has the fewest TOs of the three guards. He's the centerpiece of the Arkansas offense. I've seen interviews with this guy and he looks dead serious about the game.

All these guys look like they can play to me.

Flemings is supposed to be the best defender of the three.  I think he has the best odds to be a quality starter vs 6th man.  But most mocks I have seen have him landing at 5 and that is the least likely spot the Mavs will pick at.  My guess is it comes down to Brown or Acuff.

[Winter]

Flemings is supposed to be the best defender of the three.  I think he has the best odds to be a quality starter vs 6th man.  But most mocks I have seen have him landing at 5 and that is the least likely spot the Mavs will pick at.  My guess is it comes down to Brown or Acuff.

Agree with all of that.

I guess it's possible for a team to want Wagler before Flemings, but it's hard to see Flemings falling far.

[DL2RimRocker]

Someone in the chat yesterday was talking about trading down if you're the Mavs. I get that they need assets, but they also need to really nail this pick. I am of the school that BPA and being right about it does not include reaching - if your genius scout just "knows" that so-and-so is going to be a superstar but everyone else in the league sees him as a project or meh rotation player, you don't take your Giannis-type with the 6th pick if you can get him with the 13th pick. You trade down for a pick in the 10-13 range and get more assets. Moreover, if you find some simp who just has to have Tractor Traylor or Anthony Edwards or similar player (i.e. might be a highly-rated prospect but your genius scout sees through the BS and knows he's going to be a bust), sure, trade down a spot or two.

But if the only way to get the BPA, the guy who is going to help your team the most, is to stay put, that's whatcha gotta do. Especially in this draft. If I have the #1 pick, I'm taking Dybantsa and running. If I have the 2nd pick, then since I don't rate Peterson (flake + injuries) or Boozer (skillset not adapted to winning in the modern NBA), I am willing to trade down to 4 or 5 - unless the teams above were dumb as dirt and picked one of the other guys instead of Dybantsa; then I'm of course using the pick to grab him (cf. the '18 draft). Perhaps the same with #3 trading down to #5 - depends on how much I value either Flemings or Wilson above the other.

The reasoning for trading down in a deep draft would be to have multiple options to hit on a player.

I dont see a huge difference in players 7-25 so to have 2 picks in that range would better our chances at landing a star and potentially getting. 

Also, we don't have many draft picks over the next few years so having 4 in this draft would be nice.

Unless there is the guy you absolutely want is there when we pick, I wouldnt mind trading down.

[DL2RimRocker]

I think at some point, we should discuss these PGs - Flemings, Brown, and Acuff - individually. Flemings might be gone, but I suspect Brown and Acuff are there.

Brown has the right body - 6'5" 190 lbs. Shoots about 35% from three on pretty good volume. Good FT% at 80%. Assts are OK fo a PG at 4.9 Probably the knock on him is his shot selection which needs to get better and he has a few more TOs than the other PGs. He's getting 18 ppg.

Flemings is the best floor general I've seen. 6'4" at 190lbs. He averages fewer points than the other two guards (16 per game) but he has better players around him. Shoots the 3-ball in the upper 30s and has 5.2 assists per game. Good FT shooter. He really seems in command every I game I've watched. Not much weakness in his game.

Acuff is only 6'3" maybe 6'2" and 190 lbs. Ive watched a lot of Acuff. Statistically he's the best of the three, and he has gotten better every game. His 3-point shooting is almost up to 44% now on good volume (5.6 a game). He also has the best 2-point percentage of the three guards. He has great assist numbers at 6.2 per game. He's muscular so he can handle his man defensively, but they will try to shoot over him. He's getting 22 ppg. He too is an 80% FT shooter, and he has the fewest TOs of the three guards. He's the centerpiece of the Arkansas offense. I've seen interviews with this guy and he looks dead serious about the game.

All these guys look like they can play to me.

The big knock on Acuff is his defense and questionable size. Otherwise I love his game.

[Winter]

The big knock on Acuff is his defense and questionable size. Otherwise I love his game.

I've heard his man-on-man defense is fine. It's his wingspan that is apparenty unforgiving. He won't get many "stocks" but his stats for steals and blocks are about the same as both of the other PGs at the top of the lottery. There's no defensive specialists in this group even if both the other PGs are considered better defenders. Brown for example is 6'5" but doesn't get any more blocks than Acuff does. Brown is better with steals and probably a better defender with that reach just by default.

I suspect Acuff is only going to be average on defense at best. If he turns into Brunson, no one will care I guess.

[Chicagojk]

I've heard his man-on-man defense is fine. It's his wingspan that is apparenty unforgiving. He won't get many "stocks" but his stats for steals and blocks are about the same as both of the other PGs at the top of the lottery. There's no defensive specialists in this group even if both the other PGs are considered better defenders. Brown for example is 6'5" but doesn't get any more blocks than Acuff does. Brown is better with steals and probably a better defender with that reach just by default.

I suspect Acuff is only going to be average on defense at best. If he turns into Brunson, no one will care I guess.

I thought I read how he may have a good wingspan.  Who knows though.  I read a year ago,or so he was measured at 6’0.  If so, that will hurt him.

Some movement of tankathon.  I haven’t seen much of flemings or Wagler yet, but I am not sold they go before Ament, brown or acuff…maybe someone else too

https://www.reddit.com/r/NBA_Draft/s/f7r0AGeIbB

[Winter]

I thought I read how he may have a good wingspan.  Who knows though.  I read a year ago,or so he was measured at 6’0.  If so, that will hurt him.

Some movement of tankathon.  I haven’t seen much of flemings or Wagler yet, but I am not sold they go before Ament, brown or acuff…maybe someone else too

https://www.reddit.com/r/NBA_Draft/s/f7r0AGeIbB

Acuff has the shortest wingspan of the three guards in question (Flemings the best). There is a little problem with Brown that bothers me. He is more turnover prone than the other PGs. Somehow I think he has the highest ceiling, but it may take him awhile to get there.

Out of the gate, Acuff is instant offense and Flemings more reliable I think. 

I just can't get my mind around Wagler yet. Or Ament for that matter. It may come down to their workouts with the teams.

[Chicagojk]

I thought I read how he may have a good wingspan.  Who knows though.  I read a year ago,or so he was measured at 6’0.  If so, that will hurt him.

Some movement of tankathon.  I haven’t seen much of flemings or Wagler yet, but I am not sold they go before Ament, brown or acuff…maybe someone else too

https://www.reddit.com/r/NBA_Draft/s/f7r0AGeIbB

sort of silly to talk late first picks at this stage, but I am board.  Of their list, here are a yes or now

27- Amari Allen-  Yes.  skilled freshman with good size
28 Alijah Arenas-  I have no idea.  Sort of scares me.  Upside play
29- Aday Mara-  Tough one
30-Flory Bidunga- tough one
Ebuka Okorie- Don't know enough of him
32- Malachi Moreno- Don't know enough of him
33- Morez Johnson- Heck yes
34- Dailyn Swain- Yes, but limited knowledge of him
35, Serio De Larrea- Don't know him
36- Meleek Thomas- Yes
37 Henri Veesaar- tough one
38- Zuby Ejiofor- Dont know him
39- Isaiah Evans- Yes

one more thing, some of these guys are SG/PG types but they have a potential 7 point guards going in the top 19.  Two more in the top 25.  Total of 9.  1-2 may go back to school.  But with a league going away from the true point guard and teams looking for wings, I think 1-2 of those guys drop.

[Winter]

Of those above, I like Morez Johnson and Isaiah Evans too. Those would be my picks.

I'm not as keen on Meleek Thomas. I've watched a lot of Arkansas basketball, and he's good with catch-and-shoot 3s, but there doesn't seem like much else to him. I can kind imagine him going the way of Tim Hardaway jr. in all the wrong ways. He's hard to figure out.

I like the videos on Henri Veesar just because he's a big man who loves to shoot from the 3-pt line. But I don't see him making it in the NBA really. He would be great in G league though

[DL2RimRocker]

Flory gets alot of attention but Bryson Tiller will be the better NBA player imo.

6'10 240 with 7'3 WS and can play inside and out.
Athletic and a good defender.

If he comes out, I'd love to pick him with our 2nd rnder.

[F Gump]

The reasoning for trading down in a deep draft would be to have multiple options to hit on a player.

I dont see a huge difference in players 7-25 so to have 2 picks in that range would better our chances at landing a star and potentially getting. 

Also, we don't have many draft picks over the next few years so having 4 in this draft would be nice.

Unless there is the guy you absolutely want is there when we pick, I wouldnt mind trading down.

MY THOUGHTS ...

1 My hope is to get ONE top player in this draft. Just one guy who will be a star, or a top-tier starter for years.

2 If they do that, and nothing more, imo it's a win. A huge win. Because that result, even with a top-10 pick, is not a given -- looking back the last 10 years, most drafts only have 2-3 players from the top 10 that turn out to be very good, and some end up having zero star players at all. 

3 Don't draft for need or for fit, when it comes to a star potential. You take the best. If you end up with 2-3 who are top NBA caliber, they will make each other better and fit just fine, because they aren't limited in how they can impact a game. Top players can always fit, until you already have 3 star level players (and whoever has that?). They need another star guy first and foremost. 

4 I strongly differ with some, who want to chase multiple picks. Typically a huge mistake. Quantity does NOT come anywhere close to giving up quality. That means if they find a player who looks like a winner, they must grab him. Don't get cute and trade back, because you think no one else will take him and you can somehow get 2-for-1. Trading 1 star for 2 pieces of junk, by getting cute, can set you back for a decade. See Giannis, and the Larkin/Ledo prizes they got instead. 

5 What this team really needs the most, ideally, would be a top level ball-handling creator, who can play both ends, has some size, can make 3s -- but if that guy is in this draft, imo he hasn't really shown himself yet. All of these PG/G types have multiple flaws and tons of inconsistency, and bust potential. OTOH, not sure the available forwards will necessarily be any better to try. Somewhere in these players will be some good ones, is the hope, but having the guy with an eye for talent is going to be worth gold.

[DL2RimRocker]

MY THOUGHTS ...

1 My hope is to get ONE top player in this draft. Just one guy who will be a star, or a top-tier starter for years.

2 If they do that, and nothing more, imo it's a win. A huge win. Because that result, even with a top-10 pick, is not a given -- looking back the last 10 years, most drafts only have 2-3 players from the top 10 that turn out to be very good, and some end up having zero star players at all. 

3 Don't draft for need or for fit, when it comes to a star potential. You take the best. If you end up with 2-3 who are top NBA caliber, they will make each other better and fit just fine, because they aren't limited in how they can impact a game. Top players can always fit, until you already have 3 star level players (and whoever has that?). They need another star guy first and foremost. 

4 I strongly differ with some, who want to chase multiple picks. Typically a huge mistake. Quantity does NOT come anywhere close to giving up quality. That means if they find a player who looks like a winner, they must grab him. Don't get cute and trade back, because you think no one else will take him and you can somehow get 2-for-1. Trading 1 star for 2 pieces of junk, by getting cute, can set you back for a decade. See Giannis, and the Larkin/Ledo prizes they got instead. 

5 What this team really needs the most, ideally, would be a top level ball-handling creator, who can play both ends, has some size, can make 3s -- but if that guy is in this draft, imo he hasn't really shown himself yet. All of these PG/G types have multiple flaws and tons of inconsistency, and bust potential. OTOH, not sure the available forwards will necessarily be any better to try. Somewhere in these players will be some good ones, is the hope, but having the guy with an eye for talent is going to be worth gold.

Agree with a lot of this Gump, but there isnt a clear choice past 5 that I can see. 

Guys like Cenac and Burries are late lotto picks or later in several mock drafts I've seen and I'd be comfortable taking either of them over guys like Brown, Acuff, Mullen, Arenas and Ament who are usually projected to go higher. I like Wagler a lot but his limited athleticism is concerning at the NBA level.

If we were picking top 5 I'd completely agree with you but 6 through 20 will be where GMs and scouts will have to earn their pay in this draft.

[F Gump]

Agree with a lot of this Gump, but there isnt a clear choice past 5 that I can see. 

Guys like Cenac and Burries are late lotto picks or later in several mock drafts I've seen and I'd be comfortable taking either of them over guys like Brown, Acuff, Mullen, Arenas and Ament who are usually projected to go higher. I like Wagler a lot but his limited athleticism is concerning at the NBA level.

If we were picking top 5 I'd completely agree with you but 6 through 20 will be where GMs and scouts will have to earn their pay in this draft.

You may be right ...and if you are, and everything after 5 is TRULY all the same caliber, then of course trading down is a plus, assuming you get 2 shots instead of one, all of the same value of player.

But I would have to be persuaded of that. I think the lure of "2 instead of 1" can be a temptation DESPITE there being a player you really think has emerged as the best choice. And the idea that "we do like one guy the most, but we will trade back, and STILL get the same player" is also a mind trick you can play on yourself, and end up screwing yourself out of the one player worth having when someone else surprises you and takes him. 

If they get ONE player who is all-star caliber, that's a win. Identify that guy, and if you can pick him, get him and don't look back. There is no such thing as picking that guy "too high" -- there will be tons of bad picks, and the goal is to make a great one, somehow or other.

[Winter]

You may be right ...and if you are, and everything after 5 is TRULY all the same caliber, then of course trading down is a plus, assuming you get 2 shots instead of one, all of the same value of player.

But I would have to be persuaded of that. I think the lure of "2 instead of 1" can be a temptation DESPITE there being a player you really think has emerged as the best choice. And the idea that "we do like one guy the most, but we will trade back, and STILL get the same player" is also a mind trick you can play on yourself, and end up screwing yourself out of the one player worth having when someone else surprises you and takes him. 

If they get ONE player who is all-star caliber, that's a win. Identify that guy, and if you can pick him, get him and don't look back. There is no such thing as picking that guy "too high" -- there will be tons of bad picks, and the goal is to make a great one, somehow or other.

I've pretty much decided that I'm ok either way if I believe in the GM and FO. In this instance, I'll just need to cross my fingers.