My team grades for the 2025 NBA draft, completed Thursday night, are the only ones you’ll read that aren’t concerned with results.
After the teams call in their picks, factors outside their control — and even perhaps outside the player’s control, particularly health — will determine the results. No team, not even the Brooklyn Nets with their five first-round picks, drafts enough players in one year for that to even out.
Keeping that in mind, we’re evaluating picks based on the information available to us at the time they were made in terms of value and fit. I’m relying heavily on my stats-based projections for prospects, as well as analysis from ESPN’s Jonathan Givony and Jeremy Woo.
Trades are also considered. In general, teams overpay to move up in the draft, overestimating their ability to evaluate prospects better than their peers. Even by those standards, this year’s trade up from No. 23 to No. 13 by the New Orleans Pelicans stands out as especially risky. As a result, the Pelicans got the worst grade of any team while the Atlanta Hawks (who dealt with New Orleans) are tied for the best.
Let’s run through my grades for every team.
It almost didn’t matter whom the Hawks took after getting an unprotected 2026 first-round pick — the better of those from Milwaukee and New Orleans — via the Pelicans to move down 10 spots. I might have made that trade straight up without getting No. 23. All the better that Atlanta did take a prospect ranked 13th in my projections.
Time will tell if Newell cracks the rotation quickly enough to pair with newly acquired Kristaps Porzingis, but I love that fit since Porzingis’ strengths fit perfectly with the shortcomings that make Newell something of a forward/center tweener.
Gonzalez would have made more sense for Boston as a stash pick, to come over later in his development. Instead, Brad Stevens indicated the Celtics plan to bring him to the NBA next season.
On the broadcast, Gonzalez was compared to Denver Nuggets wing Christian Braun. One key difference: Braun, though not thought of as a shooter, hit 38% of his 3s in college. Gonzalez shot 27% at Real Madrid.
Williams is an intriguing prospect with multiple strengths as a rebounder, rim protector and facilitator at the elbow. However, he shot just 54% career on 2s, very poor for a center who doesn’t stretch the floor. Shulga, the last of Boston’s three picks, actually projected best my model because of his 39% career 3-point shooting.
The record-setting volume of first-round picks the Nets made is almost more important from a process standpoint than the picks themselves, one reason I graded the trades to acquire them well.
That said, Brooklyn is betting on developing a remarkable number of teenagers, many of them with overlapping skill sets. In particular, Demin and Traore share a lot of traits as strong playmakers with size whose shooting and scoring efficiency need work. They can play together defensively, but spacing the floor with those groups could prove challenging.
Drafting so many projects should help the Nets’ efforts to land in the lottery again in 2026, the last year they control their first-round pick before the Houston Rockets get it in 2027.
Cue the jokes about the Hornets’ penchant for drafting players from the Research Triangle, but Knueppel was second in my projections and perfectly fits a void for Charlotte at shooting guard.
Although the same was true of Tre Johnson, Knueppel was a far more efficient scorer at Duke and rated better by my metrics than Johnson in a larger on-ball role in the Nike EYBL.
Since McNeeley fits a similar mold, that was likely a best-available pick after the UConn product dropped well below his expected range in the early 20s. I’m less enamored with the Hornets going back to the Blue Devils well for James high in the second round. Strictly a role player in five college seasons, James never had a usage rate higher than 17.1%.
After Charlotte traded starting center Mark Williams, there may be an opening for Kalkbrenner to contribute immediately if his pick-and-roll defense is up to speed.
Round 1: Noa Essengue (No. 12)
Round 2: Lachlan Olbrich (No. 55)
I’m intrigued by how Essengue will fit with 2024 lottery pick Matas Buzelis, another young combo forward. If they two shoot well enough to play together at forward or Buzelis bulks up enough to play center at times, they’d give Chicago combined strengths of length and athleticism.
Credit to the Bulls for taking the best player available and continuing to draft young, despite their resistance to bottoming out and picking higher in the lottery.
Round 2: Tyrese Proctor (No. 49), Saliou Niang (No. 58)
The Cavaliers didn’t get on the clock until well into night two of the draft and landed an interesting prospect in Proctor, who continued to develop post-one-and-done hype. Proctor shot 40.5% on 3s last season and shows promise as an on-ball defender, though he could stand to improve his steal rate. Niang, a stash pick, faces longer odds due to his shooting: 26% career on 3s and 71% from the foul line.
Round 1: Cooper Flagg (No. 1)
How long do you think the Mavericks’ front office spent debating this pick? From the moment Dallas’ combination unexpectedly came up No. 1 in the draft lottery, we knew Flagg was the pick, and rightfully so.
From a process standpoint, they don’t get credit for winning the lottery, only for not screwing it up.
Get used to seeing the Nuggets graded “incomplete.” They didn’t control any future second-round pick before getting access to their 2032 second-rounder when the draft concluded and still owe a pair of protected first-round picks, starting in 2027.
Round 2: Chaz Lanier (No. 37)
Much like Tennessee predecessor Dalton Knecht, Lanier bloomed late, going from 4.7 PPG at North Florida in 2022-23 to 18 PPG in the SEC last season. He’s a big-time shooter (40% career on 3s) with size who gives the Pistons some insurance if they can’t re-sign free agents Malik Beasley and Tim Hardaway Jr.
Round 2: Alex Toohey (No. 52), Will Richard (No. 56)
Toohey’s shooting is still a work in progress after he hit 31% in the Australian NBL last season, but his defensive activity stood out in terms of steal and block rates. I’ve long liked Richard, who ranked in the top 30 of my projections by virtue of his high 2-point percentage.
The Rockets used both of this year’s picks to acquire Kevin Durant in a trade that can’t officially be completed until July 6. As a result, consider them a winner despite their strong track record in the draft.
Round 2: Kam Jones (No. 38), Taelon Peter (No. 54)
The Pacers have made one of my favorite second-round picks two years in a row. Unlike 2024 second-rounder Johnny Furphy, who played sparingly as a rookie at age 20, the 23-year-old Jones has more potential to contribute immediately. Indiana could use the guard help with Tyrese Haliburton sidelined after his heartbreaking Achilles rupture during Game 7 of the NBA Finals
Peter, who spent the bulk of his college career at D-II Arkansas Tech, is a fascinating swing. He’s a guard who averaged just 1.0 APG as a fifth-year senior at Liberty, but why pass when you shoot 76% on 2s and 45% on 3s? I’m not sure that will translate, but at the 54th pick, there’s no downside for Indiana.
Round 1: Yanic Konan Niederhauser (No. 30)
Round 2: Kobe Sanders (No. 50)
As a second-round pick, I could buy the value proposition on the late-blooming Niederhauser, an outstanding shot blocker who grew into a scoring threat after transferring to Penn State.
Taking him in the first round is a tougher sell, given Niederhauser is a below-average defensive rebounder and posted more than twice as many assists as turnovers. The overall profile is similar to Daniel Oturu, drafted No. 33 by the Clippers in 2020.
Sanders was a late bloomer as well, not having averaged double-figure scoring until his fourth year in college. My projections put more weight on earlier college seasons based on how standing out early has typically been a better indicator.
Round 2: Adou Thiero (No. 36)
Kudos to the Lakers for using cash to move up from No. 55 all the way to 36 after making a pair of trades. Thiero’s steal and block rates suggest defensive potential if he can make enough outside shots to stay on the court. Thiero was a career 28% college 3-point shooter.
1:58
Why the Grizzlies selected Cedric Coward
Check out the plays that led Cedric Coward to the Grizzlies in the first round of the NBA Draft.
Round 1: Cedric Coward (No. 11)
Round 2: Javon Small (No. 48), Jahmai Mashack (No. 59)
It wouldn’t be a Grizzlies draft without a trade up, their fourth in the first round since 2019. Going up two spots for Brandon Clarke worked out. Giving up more value to get Jake LaRavia and Ziaire Williams did not.
In this case, Memphis sent one of the unprotected Orlando first-round picks acquired in the Desmond Bane trade to move up five picks, questionable value at best. Don’t take this as an indictment of Coward, who ranked 13th in the stats-only version of my projections. But I would have been content to wait at least until one of Coward or Carter Bryant (No. 14) was off the board to look into moving up.
I liked the Grizzlies’ value with Small, who is — fittingly — undersized but scored efficiently considering his 28% usage rate as a senior at West Virginia. Mashack, who topped out at 6.0 PPG as a senior at Tennessee, would have fit the Grit n’ Grind Grizzlies with his active defense.
Round 1: Kasparas Jakucionis (No. 20)
Certainly Jakucionis is an imperfect prospect. His steal and block rates are troublingly low, and he also struggled with turnovers in his lone season at Illinois.
This still feels like an overcorrection for a player who was ranked in the top 10 much of the year, and Miami took advantage with one of the draft’s better value picks.
Round 2: Bogoljub Markovic (No. 47)
No prospect the Bucks could have drafted at the 47th pick was going to alter Giannis Antetokounmpo‘s future in Milwaukee. Markovic scored efficiently in his first full season in the Adriatic League, shooting 61% on 2s and 37% on 3s, though low steal and block rates raise defensive questions.
Round 1: Joan Beringer (No. 17)
Round 2: Rocco Zikarsky (No. 45)
The Timberwolves can surely envision how Beringer, a low-usage center who was a premier rim protector playing in Slovenia, will fit in their system. It’s unrealistic to expect Beringer to become Rudy Gobert, a premier finisher with a wingspan measured four inches higher at the NBA Draft combine.
But as Gobert ages, Minnesota will need a replacement and Beringer has the potential to fill that void.
In the second round, the Timberwolves doubled down on that role by taking the 7-foot-3 Zikarsky. The two players have remarkably similar projections and it will be interesting to see how Minnesota handles their simultaneous development.
Round 1: Jeremiah Fears (No. 7), Derik Queen (No. 13)
Round 2: Micah Peavy (No. 40)
It’s possible for a trade like the Pelicans made to take Queen at No. 13 to work out. The Phoenix Suns gave up an unprotected future first-rounder in 2018 to move up six spots and never regretted landing Mikal Bridges.
Still, New Orleans is betting heavily on its evaluation that Queen is both less valuable than Fears and still worth moving up to get. And the downside is higher because the Pelicans’ own 2026 pick is potentially part of the deal. At least Bridges was a prospect who rated sixth overall in my projections. Queen was outside the top 30.
I did like New Orleans eschewing need to take Fears at No. 7, when he was the consensus best prospect on the board. With hindsight, however, the Pelicans would be better off having drafted Queen with their own pick than landing both prospects.
Peavy broke out as a fifth-year senior at Georgetown, averaging 17.2 PPG and 2.3 SPG. The jump to 40% 3-point shooting gives Peavy a shot at a 3-and-D role, though he didn’t show the same improvement at the foul line (66%).
Round 2: Mohamed Diawara (No. 51)
Diawara hasn’t yet developed into an impact player in his native France, having averaged just 5.8 PPG for Cholet last season. Stashing Diawara overseas might make more sense than having him take up a roster spot.
Round 1: Thomas Sorber (No. 15)
Round 2: Brooks Barnhizer (No. 44)
As with Beringer, the vision here is clear. Sorber posted terrific defensive numbers at Georgetown and was a strong passer for a freshman center, recording more assists than turnovers.
Squint and you can see the outline of Isaiah Hartenstein, likely to be an odd man out as Oklahoma City’s core grows more expensive.
Lacking roster spots for multiple first-round picks, the Thunder pushed the No. 24 pick down the road in a deal with Sacramento that lacks upside (Oklahoma City can’t pick higher than No. 17), but better fits the timeline for the champs.
Barnhizer will be on a two-way contract, per Givony. He was an inefficient college scorer (.500 true shooting percentage) who racked up steals and blocks at Northwestern.
Round 1: Jase Richardson (No. 25)
Round 2: Noah Penda (No. 32)
There’s fun symmetry in Richardson going to one of his father Jason Richardson’s four NBA teams, and I like the value too.
Richardson was projected in the lottery before measuring in at 6-foot and a half in bare feet in the NBA Draft combine. Such dramatic shifts always confuse me. Richardson still produced what he did at Michigan State.
Orlando doesn’t need Richardson to contribute now, but he can grow into a rotation player when the Magic are feeling the effect of giving up four first-rounders to acquire Bane.
Orlando then paid a heavy price — No. 46 and No. 57, plus two future second-rounders — to trade up and take Penda. Penda’s shooting is a work in progress. He hit under 70% of his free throws last season.
1:22
V.J. Edgecombe’s family emotional after draft selection
V.J. Edgecombe, along with his mother and brother, get emotional while recounting their story from the Bahamas to the Philadelphia 76ers.
Round 1: VJ Edgecombe (No. 3)
Round 2: Johni Broome (No. 35)
Although Knueppel was a little ahead in my projections, I probably would have taken Edgecombe here too. I like his combination of a defensive base to build from with a sky-high steal rate at Baylor and the athleticism to become a shot creator in time.
Knueppel might have fit more cleanly with Joel Embiid, but given the state of Embiid’s health, I’m not sure that should be Philadelphia’s primary timeline anymore.
A consensus first team All-America pick last season, Broome could help the Sixers immediately. He brings more skill to the center spot than the backups (Andre Drummond and Adem Bona) who struggled to fill in for Embiid last season.
Round 1: Khaman Maluach (No. 10)
Round 2: Rasheer Fleming (No. 31), Koby Brea (No. 41)
A Duke center falling in the laps of the frontcourt-needy Suns made it a bit more confusing they simultaneously traded to acquire former Duke center Mark Williams in a deal graded separately.
It’s worth wondering, particularly in that context, whether Phoenix could have gotten the valuable trades down that teams just behind them made. As Maluach was the top prospect on the board, however, standing pat made more sense for the Suns.
Active in the second round, Phoenix used future picks to move up to the top pick and No. 41. Teams were competing to take Saint Joseph’s forward Rasheer Fleming, 12th in my stats-only projections. Fleming gives the Suns another quality shot blocker, this time with more range. Though Brea is yet another shooting guard on a team overloaded with them, Phoenix could use his shooting — he has the highest skill projection as a shooter of any player in my database — particularly if Grayson Allen gets traded elsewhere.
Round 1: Yang Hansen (No. 16)
Hansen may prove an All-Star. He could lead the Blazers into championship contention. None of that is knowable now. What we do know is other teams didn’t seem to value Hansen as much as Portland, meaning the team is betting on its ability to beat the market.
To the Blazers’ credit, they did pick up an extra first-round pick by moving down. However, they would have been far better off making the same trade the Hawks did if available.
Round 1: Nique Clifford (No. 24)
Round 2: Maxime Raynaud (No. 42)
Having sent the No. 13 pick to Atlanta to complete the Kevin Huerter trade, the Kings tapped into the extra first-rounders coming from the De’Aaron Fox deal to get back in the first round. Sacramento limited the possible downside of the move by putting top-16 protection on the pick, which has only a one-year window to convey.
My model was lower on Clifford than scouts because he didn’t emerge as a serious NBA prospect until his fifth year of college at age 23. Time will tell how much of that was Clifford legitimately improving his skill, as opposed to utilizing an experience advantage that won’t carry over.
Scouts were also higher on Raynaud, largely because of his subpar block rate for a center. However, my model missed on Quinten Post last year, and Raynaud brings a similar skill set after hitting 67 3-pointers as a senior.
Round 1: Dylan Harper (No. 2), Carter Bryant (No. 14)
Harper was always the consensus No. 2 pick, so aside from considering possible blockbuster trades, San Antonio’s work there was done early.
The Spurs get more credit from a process standpoint for their other lottery pick, where they waited out Bryant falling to them. I’m high on Bryant’s 3-and-D potential, making him an ideal fit on a team that’s overflowing with shot creation between Harper, Fox and Victor Wembanyama.
Round 1: Collin Murray-Boyles (No. 9)
Round 2: Alijah Martin (No. 39)
I’m a believer that Murray-Boyles’ unorthodox game will translate to the NBA, though Toronto wasn’t necessarily an ideal landing spot.
If he’s going to succeed as a power forward, Murray-Boyles needs shooting around him, and the Raptors have a non-shooting center in Jakob Poeltl and only adequate perimeter shooting.
If 2024 second-round pick Jonathan Mogbo can develop 3-point range after shooting 24% as a rookie, the two undersized big men could an interesting frontcourt pairing that’s high on impact defensive plays.
Martin is undersized for a shooting guard at 6-foot-2 but productive in college. He ranked 26th in my stats-only projections.
Round 1: Ace Bailey (No. 5), Walter Clayton Jr. (No. 18)
Round 2: John Tonje (No. 53)
I’ve compared Bailey to the Boston Celtics’ duo of Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum coming out of college in terms of the benefit to him going to a contending team, where he’d be asked to refine his shot selection.
That comparison looks especially relevant with the same executives who took those wings (Austin and Danny Ainge) taking Bailey to join an Utah team that’s still far from winning. The value proposition for Bailey, fifth in my model, makes sense here. And I’m not particularly worried that Bailey didn’t want to land here.
But the Jazz will have to carefully manage his development to turn Bailey into a perimeter star like the Celtics did with Brown and Tatum. Adding Clayton, an NCAA champion and dangerous outside shooter, could help that process. Utah has a crowded backcourt, but veterans Jordan Clarkson and Collin Sexton may not be part of that for long, creating opportunity for Clayton.
At 24, Tonje was the oldest player selected, so his ability to get to the foul line nearly seven times per game at Wisconsin as a sixth-year senior is worth discounting. But Tonje hitting them at 91% clip and 38% of his 3s career should translate better to the NBA.
Round 1: Tre Johnson (No. 6), Will Riley (No. 21)
Round 2: Jamir Watkins (No. 43)
Like the Nets, the Wizards are leaning heavily into youth, taking two more teenagers to go with the four they added from the 2024 first round. (That includes AJ Johnson, acquired at the deadline.)
I was skeptical of Johnson as a top-five prospect because of his poor defensive metrics and low 2-point percentage. Outside that range, his potential as a shooter does more to justify the pick. Riley went a little ahead of where I had him and also will have to improve his defensive playmaking.
Watkins, who will turn 24 in July, brings more experience. There’s no questioning Watkins’ defensive potential. Improving 32.5% career 3-point shooting will be a swing skill.
