The draft is good -- but not great

It’s that time of year -- the weather is warming up and the flowers are starting to bloom, at least down here in the Deep South.

But that also means the annual mental agonizing and poker playing maneuvers have begun – yes, it must be time for yet another WNBA draft.

A skillful pick here or lucky guess there can, in the end, be the difference in making the playoffs or being out (as in out of a job). Yet some years, such as the 2007 draft, the truth is revealed by the equation: Nothing times nothing is still nothing.

To put in more simply, there just wasn’t a lot of help to be gotten in spite of all the analysis here or in WNBA franchise board rooms. Fortunately, 2008 does look better, but not as good as the talking heads on draft day (Wednesday, April 9) will lead you to believe. So many of the players touted on television as locks to be in the league this summer will either be cut or of little impact.

Some issues have, barring a very late season serious injury to Candace Parker (everyone would move up a slot as I suspect she would not come out then), been resolved. In reality, Minnesota, not Los Angeles or Chicago, is on the clock -- and if the Lynx believe me that decision should to some extent also have been made.

That would put the master of draft drama, Detroit’s Bill Laimbeer, center stage with six players to really choose from. Another interesting thing to watch will be how Sun coach Mike Thibault attempts to find replacements for the departed Katie Douglas and Nykesha Sales.

As you get late into the first round, there is certainly some talent but even more questions. The second round will have the usual mixed bag of one or two gems, some rotation-to-bench players and its share of cuts. Traditionally, about one third-round pick makes a roster (Gillian Goring to Washington and Martina Weber to NY in 2007).

I will guess 22 drafted players stick, with hopefully half impacting their teams. Last year 18 drafted rookies showed up on the scoring chart but only three (Lindsay Harding, Sidney Spencer and Armintie Price) averaged more than 7.0 ppg. I think it is a safe bet 2008 will produce more.

Note that in most cases, the names are listed alphabetically within each sub-group. Also, I made no attempt to figure foreign players from outside the U.S. college scene into the equations below.

First round

1. Candace Parker, Tennessee: Doh -- that’s brilliant, isn’t it? Some would ask why not Fowles? Sylvia is terrific but Parker’s game is the right fit for show-time L.A and though Parker may not yet be the best in the world, she’s in the discussion. Currently, I must defer to Lauren Jackson but Parker is likely to own the title in the next few years. CP3’s skills continue to get better and better. However, for now, consistent range and more game-to-game focus are still needed but from a WNBA perspective, Parker in L.A. is picture perfect.

2. Sylvia Fowles, LSU: The city known for its steaks gets a giant T-bone, as we have here a second Olympian. The kid from Miami who was recruited by about nine high schools has really matured as a player. She has added a strong left hand around the basket and extended her range some. Foul shooting, while still not strong, has also gotten better. Listed at 6-6, Fowles is a combination of mega-size, athleticism and the ability to finish in close. To become best in the world, she must learn to deal with doubles (and triples) better, and continue to broaden range. She must develop a still better feel for the game. Regardless, with this pick the Sky may have assured themselves a spot in the playoffs this September.

3. Candice Wiggins, Stanford: While likely not close to as physically dominant as either of the first two picks, this fierce competitor will be almost a sure thing to give her team something positive on and off the court at the WNBA level. You can argue her slender built or three-point motion but the kid is a winner with very high basketball IQ. If I had a say in the Lynx war room, listen to trading the pick for proven post help or take Wiggins, and then re-arrange the roster through trades. This is a safe, non-adventurous pick, kind of like a conservative mutual fund. You may not get rich but you won’t lose your money either.

Now things get tricky as I see a group of players with both significant pluses and some important questions to answer. I will put them alphabetically in slots 4-9, but I would take the Rutgers players fourth and fifth.

Matee Ajavon, Rutgers: More of a two guard, still, she could back up the point. She is athletic with ability to shoot off the dribble or spot up. Occasionally Matee will push the limits of control which is a no-no in C. Viv’s disciplined offense. I have repeatedly said that Rutgers players often show more than anticipated at the next level in spite of coming from this system that stresses defense.

Essence Carson, Rutgers: Stock rising. This combo wing will D-up all night and give you something on the offensive end to boot-- and that area seems to be improving!.If nothing else she can help lead the band with her musical prowess (just a little joke).

Tasha Humphrey, Georgia: One coach used an apt phrase to describe the talented Bulldog product: “a hero or a zero.” Tasha appears not to show up some nights. On pure talent, she should go no lower than number four but desire is a factor and that is in question. She could be the next Tina Thompson or much less. Would you rather take: (plan A) talent and try to motivate it; or (plan B) desire and hustle and try to teach it to play? I say you could be fired in this league well before plan B would kick in.

Alexis Hornbuckle, Tennessee: This hard-nosed Lady Vol is one of the most controversial players in the draft. Some will tell you with 5-10 size, she can play all three perimeter positions. Others will say she is not a point guard and can’t shoot well enough from the outside. My guess is she will contribute enough to earn playing time as it is agreed she can defend and rebounds well for her size. I suspect the team that takes her will try to turn her into a point guard.

Erlana Larkins, North Carolina: What position did Larkins rarely play in high school? Center. She did just about everything else in leading Palm Beach Benjamin, a small school in South Florida that I heard Jack Nicklaus helped launch. Now more of those somewhat rusty perimeter skills will need to be spruced up as Larkins lacks the size to succeed on a steady low block diet. Her passing and basketball IQ (I have talked hoops with Erlana, someday a coach in my opinion) are top shelf but range and handles need to be improved. She may not pay dividends right away but I won’t bet against this kid, who will go to war for you every night.

LaToya Pringle, North Carolina: At 6-3, this quality post defender has added enough offense to become a solid first-round pick. My gut tells me that there is not enough here to be a full-fledged star but rather a quality helper. I doubt she will be around past 10, but will she go ahead of Larkins due to upside?

Late first round prospects (10-14 have a reasonable chance to contribute but some nagging questions as well.

Nicky Anosike, Tennessee: At 6-4, one gets an aggressive rebounder and tall, well-built, multi purpose defender even out to the perimeter. Unfortunately, Anosike is not a good finisher, so don’t take this kid if looking for scoring.

Quianna Chaney, LSU: At 5-11, this Baton Rouge product has the prototype WNBA perimeter body and can knock down threes. The problem is she is a bit erratic and settles too often for the outside shot. Handles could be better. Still, I have a hard time seeing her escape the first round.

Amber Holt, Middle Tennessee: This tweener may be a stretch here as she is undersized at 5-11 to play inside and her perimeter skills are not yet fully up to speed. She can create perimeter shots but must also make them. I see Holt as a player that a team like the Sun might gamble on to fill one of those empty wing slots.

Laura Harper, Maryland: Here is another 6-4 well-built post with sometimes range out to the foul line. Some think she will blossom as a pro and others just see her as another version of Anosike with less defensive versatility.

Crystal Langhorne, Maryland: Another undersized low post at 6-1. She is quick off her feet but not strongly built or a quality passer (like Larkins). Range is also an issue. The fear here is that she was a terrific college player whose skill set will not translate successfully to the next level. Of course, from time to time one of these undersized posts will hit it big and have a successful WNBA career. Maybe it’s Crystal this year?

Second round

Starting with the second round, we can discuss the issue of the mostly little point guards, once again a draft position with too little quality. For that matter, in the women’s game I can’t name a true point guard who was a great player, the equivalent of the likes of a Magic Johnson and more recently Steve Nash. In the women’s pro game, the point guard usually is lacking the ability to score or at the least fully dominate the game in the same way as her top male counterparts.

What happens is some teams have converted two-guards to the position to spruce up the offense. Detroit did this last year primarily playing Katie Smith in the position. On the other hand, if a young player shoots it too well, she is usually “promoted” to off guard so her development as a point gets stunted. The result for the pro game has been a severe shortage of top level lead guard talent. Enough speech making -- back to the draft.

Upper second round (15-20)

Charel Allen, Notre Dame: Listed at 5-11 but perhaps two inches shorter, I sometimes see a smaller version of the recently retired Crystal Robinson with less outside shot. Her instinct is to attack the basket or take a midrange jumper. In some games that I have witnessed, I must check the box score to see that she has been on the court. Simply put, consistency is one issue. Another is a lack of strength which could be a problem in the more physical WNBA. She, along with Chaney and Holt, have to be under consideration for those vacated Connecticut wing slots, assuming Hornbuckle and the Rutgers guards are already taken.

Morenike Atunrase, Texas A&M: I believed this 5-10 wing would have had a shot to be a first-round pick but that was before the last year, when she all but disappeared due to a series of leg-related injuries. In January, she became healthy enough to start to play more productively, returning as the proverbial sixth man. Was it a coincidence the Aggies started to win again, capping the season with the Big 12 Tournament title? Now the question is how good can she be? Will she, over time, be better than the wings listed above her? To be so, her handles must improve.

Shannon Bobbitt, Tennessee: At 5-2, this Lady Vol is as quick as a rabbit grabbing for the carrot. On top of that she has shown the ability to knock down big threes under pressure. So what’s the knock? Obviously height is an issue, but the lack of a jumper and bad decisions a bit more often than one would like are also factors. The question persists as to whether her success is a product of the Tennessee system (having Parker around to wash away errors) -- or will she be able to succeed on her own? Still, I have her as the best of the small guard/backup point guard candidates. She might even be picked at the bottom of round one, but I can’t see her around after more than the first few picks of round two.

Jackie McFarland, Colorado: At 6-3, I was never that impressed by her until I watched her at this year’s Big 12 Tournament. Relatively thin but fairly wide in the shoulders, I have always considered her pretty decent close to the basket but her face-up range is greater than I expected. Thus, I see her as having more of a chance to make a squad than I previously thought. Remember, she scored well, with good shooting percentages, on a team with not that many threats to stop.

Ketia Swanier, Connecticut: Forget about all their all-Americans, this Georgia native is a major UConn success story. As a freshman, Swanier was your typical fast, out-of-control point guard. In all too many cases, this situation improves but little during the college years. Some will slow down but the feel for the game remains lacking. Not in this case. Swanier’s speed with the ball remains exceptional, but both shooting skill and decision-making have improved enough to give her a good shot at sticking in this league. A good Final Four could propel her past Bobbitt in draft order, maybe even into the lower first round.

Erica White, LSU: Out of Jacksonville FL, I have watched this maybe 5-3 point guard from early in her high school career. I never thought I would be discussing her in terms of the WNBA draft but rather her more heralded high school teammate (name omitted here on purpose to protect the soon-to-be-retired) who recently ended Florida State’s tournament run with one very dumb foul. White has emerged as a true coach on the floor for the Tigers, and besides quality decision-making and ball protection, her defense is solid -- though her game is not flashy. The knock is that she does not shoot the long ball that much but hit on about 34% from three this year. The more you see, the more this player is appreciated. In the end, lack of size will likely be her undoing if she does not make a roster.

Low second rounders (21-28)

Charde Houston, Connecticut: This West Coast talent has spent much of her career in Geno’s doghouse but lately she has shown signs of life. Given that, a power forward gamble after round one is entirely possible. Unlike Swanier, mentioned above, Charde would not rate as a success story in the Husky media guide.

Crystal Kelly, Western Kentucky: Listed at 6-2, I just must not be watching the right games as some have her in the first round. When I see her, range is a question and athleticism is decent but not great. Still her numbers are impressive, be they at non-BCS level. Somebody’s going to take this kid before this round ends.

Marscilla Packer, Ohio State: Listed at 5-9, this Ohio native should be picked only by a team looking for a three-point specialist, as she is shooting about 40% for her senior year. In some games that I have seen where her shot was not falling, she could have been accused of disappearing.

Allie Quigley, DePaul: At 5-11, for several years I have considered this Illinois native just a high-volume shooter (has to take lots of shots to get her points) but lately this seems to be less the case. Given her size and generally decent mobility, Quigley has a chance to stick on the right roster. Remember, though, that two guard is the easiest position in the league to fill.

Olayinka Sanni, West Virginia: At 6-2 of Nigerian heritage out of Chicago, Sanni has improved her skills during her stay in Morgantown. She works hard around the block but still could use more range to have a better chance of sticking with a club.

Angela Tisdale, Baylor: This is one player I was excited to see at the Big 12 tournament -- however, I came away disappointed. Listed at 5-7, she is closer to 5-5 and is more strong than quick. Her big plus is that for a point guard, she can come off the floor and shoot a jumper and her three-ball is a respectable 34%. On the other hand, her assist to turnover ratio is just over 1.0.

Khadijah Whittington, North Carolina State: If hard work and never-quit attitude were the only draft criteria, this warrior would be a sure top five pick. Unfortunately, size and skill are factors. As for size, she is barely 6-0, and as for skill, her game is all too programmed (normally turning over right shoulder to her left, preferring the left side of the basket). Range also is an issue as she is primarily a low left block player.

Sharnee Zoll, Virginia: At 5-7, this New Jersey native gives you lots of leadership and fine ballhandling and court vision. Unfortunately, shooting continues to be a question and defensively she is no better than average. A fine college point guard, some analysts see her going much higher, but I fear her game will have trouble translating to the WNBA level.

Third round

These are hopes, prayers and possible training camp invitees. I’m sure I’m missing a few, but there are more 300 Division I teams. History says one or two will stick, but which two?

Kate Achter, Bowling Green: This Ohio native has improved her outside shooting and does a decent job staying in front of her opponent at her level of play. She is not strongly built and may be no more than a training camp invitee as a point guard candidate.

Alex Anderson, Chattanooga: I watched this post with nice numbers twice this year (against Tennessee and later Kansas State). In neither case did her performance indicate that she was an overlooked star playing in a conference of less reputation.

Jolene Anderson, Wisconsin: Before this season, there was hope in Madison that the star would be a first-round pick, given her success with USA Basketball. However, her outside shooting has been mediocre in a very down Big Ten and defensively she is more of a liability than asset.

Erneisha Bailey, Texas: A strong perimeter defender at the BCS level, lack of offense could well keep her out of the league.

Janese Banks, Wisconsin: On the right day, she looks better than her more heralded college teammate (Jolene Anderson), but on the wrong day, not so good. She may not have enough punch to make the league.

Patrika Barlow, Louisville: A decent athlete and a point guard with 5-7 height and glossy assist stats. Still, her decision-making and ball care are questions. Shooting stats are mediocre as well.

Kimberly Beck, George Washington: Stock is likely down based on mediocre postseason play. If you look at her stats, she shoots it OK, is decently athletic, plays hard and exhibits solid basketball IQ. Still there is something missing. Maybe it is a lack of late game heroics or big performances against the best teams (such as recently against Rutgers) or perhaps it is her thinner build that reminds me of Erin Grant, who has hovered around the edges of the league.

Meg Bulger, West Virginia: Mistakenly drafted last year by Sacramento, Bulger is now available. Lacking foot before her knee problems, she is probably slower yet today. Someone may draft her as a three-point specialist with good size (close to 5-11).

Chakhia Cole, West Virginia: Cole was primarily an around-the-basket scorer growing up. She has added range but still is not a true small forward in game and at close to 5-11, is therefore undersized.

Lady Comfort, Temple: Kudos for improvement since high school in Pensacola. However, mobility is lacking for the WNBA level.

Megan Darrah, Georgia: At 6-3, here is another tall wing who can shoot the three. She is slow north-south and not quick east-west but will play in the system and take good shots.

Kim Dietz, Kansas State: With improved penetration skills to complement her fine outside shot, I marked her as a possible third-round pick, hurt by lack of foot. Out with ACL, will anyone invest a third-rounder in her for next year?

Natalie Doma, Idaho State: I have not seen this 6-3 Canadian play but box scores against some of their better opponents were not encouraging (four of 16 from the field a few times). My report from someone in her conference agrees with that negative assessment.

Sarah Elliott, Kentucky: Listed at 6-6, this center is pretty well skilled and well-built, but mechanical, not moving well enough to impact the WNBA level.

Lauren Ervin, Arkansas: I had Ervin marked as a possible low first-round pick as an athletic 6-3 post with upside. Out with ACL, will anyone invest a third-round pick in her for next year?

A’quonesia Franklin, Texas A&M: Another 5-3 point guard who has improved with her control and judgment over the years. Shooting could be better.

Tulyah Gaines, Notre Dame: A good athlete at point, there just doesn’t seem to be enough skill for the WNBA level.

Kamela Gissendanner, Penn State: A versatile perimeter player who’s not afraid to go inside as she is strongly built. Productivity and foot speed are questions.

Danielle Green, Oklahoma State: At 5-8, Green is a tireless worker with a willingness to attack you or shoot over you as need be. The problem is that her game is more suited to be a small forward and she is the size of a shooting guard. Handles are just OK.

Carlene Hightower, LaSalle: I watched her once. She appeared to be a lean but decently athletic small forward with some skills -- but probably not at the top level.

Danielle Hood, Hartford: I don’t get to see this power forward too often from down here in the Deep South but I don’t see enough power in this post player.

Amanda Jackson, Miami of Ohio: She is a combo guard of about 5-9 size and solid enough built with ability to defend. Her numbers, I’m told, are hurt by her taking too many shots late in the clock. She may be worth a training camp invite.

Samantha Mahoney, Kentucky: This decently athletic Wildcat is a very versatile scorer but just may not be strong enough in any one area to make a roster.

Leilani Mitchell, Utah: On offense, she is really fun to watch, seeing the court very well, showing great creativity and unlike most point guards, can shoot from beyond the arc or middle distance. Sadly, she is not well-built (maybe 5-5) and appears to be adversely affected by physical play. She also struggles to stay in front of relatively quick guards. Issue her shoulder pads and come back later.

Chioma Nnamaka, Georgia Tech: At close to 5-11, this Swedish import can shoot the long ball, but can she do it well enough at the next level? Tech was a team based more on defense than offense this year, usually not a good sign in these matters.

Danielle Page, Nebraska: Listed at 6-2, Page was mostly a face-up player who shot in the low 40s. She moved pretty well but may not provide enough punch for the WNBA level.

Lindsey Pluimer, UCLA: At 6-4, this Bruin is somewhat contact adverse yet has decent mobility for her size. She loves to shoot the three-ball and does so at 35+% for her career. She might be as close to being the Sidney Spencer of this draft as any candidate. Unfortunately, players coming out of UCLA have recently shown less than expected in the WNBA (Blue, Willis, Quinn).

Amanda Rego, San Diego: I watched this flashy 5-10 point guard, a poor man’s Ticha Penicheiro, a few times. She handles well enough, liking to stay right, unusual for a lefty. Passing can be a wow at times -- but the more I saw, the more her lack of shooting ability (even layups) stood out. Unlike the real Ticha, Rego’s defense is just average. She still needs much work on her game to join this league.

Maurita Reid, Miami: This Hurricane can at times move like one, but at times control becomes an issue even as an off guard.

Wanisha Smith, Duke: A well built combo guard, her game has not progressed from last year.

Rashida Suber, Coppin State: If you can put up 20+ on North Carolina and Maryland, you deserve consideration. Athletic at a 5-8 list, someone needs to give this non-BCS product a serious look at off guard. Her three-ball stats do not look up to speed, however.

Marcedes Walker, Pittsburgh: A wide body in the paint, this Panther does not seem to have enough skill for the next level. In her last game, she struggled to defend Stanford’s low-post Jane Appel.

Tierre Wilson, Fresno State: At 5-8, this trim, athletic slasher may be insufficient in her ability to shoot outside (just under 30% from three) and thus earn an unwanted summer vacation.

Mallorie Winn, Pittsburgh: A tall (5-11) field general who can pop a three-ball, but quickness and foot in general may just be too lacking.

Kia Wright, St. John’s: Listed at 5-8 (I always thought she was no more than 5-6), she does not have the best supporting cast for a point guard but her shooting stats are not good (overall below 40%; three-ball below 30%).

Tamara Young, James Madison: An athletic small forward at 6-1, she is more of a penetrator -- shooting about 40% overall but under 20% from behind the arc.

Final thoughts

Draft boards will fluctuate right until the final moments on Wednesday. The pre-draft camp on Friday and Saturday may shift players several spots and promote a few less seen players into a draft slot. I have learned to be wary, however, of what happens there, particularly good looking performances against sub-WNBA level players that give G’s a bad read.

A few teams may once again succeed because others in front of them make bad picks. With some exciting rookies entering the league this spring, hopefully more excitement will carry over to the early stages of the 2008 WNBA season. The NCAA women’s tournament is being followed by more and more casual sports fans (though if you got this far in the article, you are not casual).

Parting story

Back in 1999, Joe Smith, our recently deceased colleague, was sure that he had found a WNBA player from what today is termed a non-BC. conference. He made some phone calls encouraging WNBA coaches to draft the young lady. Remember it was a strong year with the ABL players being merged into the league, but he still thought she deserved a slot. I remember saying “Joe, she is too small (maybe 5-5 and at that was more of a shooting, not really a point guard), not quick and not built like anyone else at that size who was succeeding in the league. She will not get drafted.”

As the 50 picks of this draft concluded, this prospect had not been selected. “I told you so” was my comment to Joe. Some days later, Joe told me the player had been assigned to the Liberty. As training camp ended, Joe called me, all excited that the young lady “had stuck.”

Supposedly, coach Richie Adubato saw a future for this kid, though others wanted to show her the door. Well, today Becky Hammon is now a WNBA all-league player with close to cult figure status.

Joe was often a champion of the underdog both in basketball and life. As we approach another WNBA season and the start of another cycle of high school recruiting, those, like me, who were privileged to regularly debate with him, continue to miss his presence in the game he loved so much.