With the news that the Bulls will be receiving Anthony Randolph (and his guaranteed $1.8m salary) in their trade for Doug McDermott, that means this trade was definitely not about freeing up cap space.
The Bulls just really like Doug McDermott. I can't say that I've spent much (any) time scouting for this draft, and pay merely marginal attention to college hoops, but luckily there's a lot out there on the guy.
The initial consensus I've found is that merely one of the guys who slipped to #16 and #19 (Gary Harris especially) could project to be better than McDermott, let alone both of them combined. But this isn't meant to be about what the Bulls missed out on, it's about what they now have: here's hoping the Bulls once again scouted well.
First, here's the scouting report video from our pals at DraftExpress.
There's also a lot of work done by our bro-sites across the network:
the dude can flat out shoot a basketball...It's even more impressive when you consider how opposing defenses always keyed in on him. McDermott developed other ways to score over his four years at Creighton. He grew into a crafty post player and developed a one-footed, Dirk Nowitzki-like fadeaway to create space against quicker defenders.
But how will his game translate to the NBA? McDermott doesn't have the speed to get past NBA small forwards or contain them on the drive, and he doesn't have the strength or length to defend power forwards or attack those larger bigs in the post.
At 6'7 with a 6'9.25 wingspan, McDermott sizes out as a typical NBA wing, but he doesn't have the lateral quickness to defend the three-point line. He registered a horrible steal rate (0.4 percent) and block rate (0.5 percent), statistics used to quantify athleticism.
He'll be asked to do one thing: Shoot the rock. That's something he's very good at.
Also includes this beautiful graphic:
One of the more underappreciated stats for McDermott-for a player who handled the ball as much as he did (36.2% usage rate), he only had 1.7 turnovers at a 7.9% turnover rate. That was a serious improvement from his junior year, where he averaged 2.6 turnovers a game.
Surprisingly, McDermott took more shots at the rim (38%) the he did from three (30%). He was effective in the paint, showing great timing and a good understanding of how to catch defenders off balance. This won't be as effective in the NBA...[but] his spatial awareness in the paint and ability to attack off the dribble will keep him a dual-threat.
his defensive weaknesses are not something a team can't overcome.
From SBNation NCAAB
From SBNation NCAAB
Seriously, read this piece by Sports Illustrated's Luke Winn on the shooters in this draft. McDermott scored almost two points per possession on unguarded catch-and-shoot jumpers. If he's open, that sucker is going in.
good motor. He never stopped moving, never stopped fighting for post position. He drew plenty of off-ball fouls simply due to his movement and effort. He runs the floor well and looks to get early post position...He's effective on curls and cuts to the basket because of his touch and how quick he gets the ball into and out of his hands.
His block and steal numbers are almost nonexistent, although that is partly by design. Creighton could not afford to have McDermott stuck on the bench with foul trouble, so he was coached to avoid reaching in or going for the block...
If McDermott is put into the right situation, his strengths can be exploited and his weaknesses can be minimized - making him a true weapon.
And our own in-house College Basketball guy, Ricky, who over a month ago had this to say:
McDermott would likely be a bad pick in the top 10, but I think he'll be a solid role player for a long time, so I'd fine with him going No. 16, I suppose. It would be a low ceiling-high floor pick. Maybe that's a bummer, but maybe you remember high ceiling-low floor bros like Tyrus Thomas and James Johnson and suddenly think an ace three-point shooter who won't do a ton else doesn't sound too reprehensible so long as he can stick in a league for a decade.
Indeed he didn't technically go top-10, but he was merely 4th on Ricky's 'realistic for Bulls range' rankings, and the Bulls gave up a lot to get him, to the point where this is clearly them wanting their guy. We'll see how this move is graded in terms of the picks they gave up, but hopefully they got a really good player.