Who do we draft?

[funkykingston]

I differentiate Markkanen over those other guys by asking this question: Who is going to develop into an NBA player the fastest? My answer is Markkanen. I think he's least project-type player of the bunch. Fox has talent, but man, it's going to several years for him to get it as an NBA point guard. You can look to Wall as an example: very talented in terms of speed and quickness, not as talented in terms of BBIQ, shot making, vision, and creativity. Another question I ask: Who is the least riskiest player to take out of the group that you mention. Again, I come up with Markkanen. It's hard to see a 7' footer with his footwork, body build and shot making ability not being a very good player in the NBA. Unfortunately, I've been to this rodeo before and it's not going to surprise me if you hear that during the rookie evaluations that Markkanen has moved into the top 5 and he is no longer within Kings' reach.

Hield and Cauley-Stein are 23. Skal just turned 21 and Richardson is just a couple months older. Papagiannis is 19. The new "core" of this team has an average age of 22.

If Cousins was still here I think drafting guys that can contribute early would be a concern, but now? I think you have to draft the player(s) you think will be the best NBA players long term.

I like Markkanen. I wouldn't be upset if the Kings draft him. He's the best shooter in this draft and probably the best shooting college big man I've ever seen. But the questions I still have are
(1) is he closer to Ryan Anderson or Dirk?
and
(2) who can he guard?

A big rotation of WCS, Markkanen, Labissiere and Papagiannis does offer some real versatility.

The fact that the Kings have no PGs or SFs signed for next season is concerning but you take the best player available. That might be Markkanen when the Kings pick but right now I have him as my 8th rated prospect, just ahead of Monk, Smith Jr and Bridges, in that order.

 

[Khanh]

Hield and Cayley-Stein are 23. Skal just turned 21 and Richardson is just a couple months older. Papagiannis is 19. The new "core" of this team has an average age of 22.

If Cousins was still here I think drafting guys that can contribute early would be a concern, but now? I think you have to draft the player(s) you think will be the best NBA players long term.

I like Markkanen. I wouldn't be upset if the Kings draft him. He's the best shooter in this draft and probably the best shooting college big man I've ever seen. But the questions I still have are
(1) is he closer to Ryan Anderson or Dirk?
and
(2) who can he guard?

A big rotation of WCS, Markkanen, Labissiere and Papagiannis does offer some real versatility.

The fact that the Kings have no PGs or SFs signed for next season is concerning but you take the best player available. That might be Markkanen when the Kings pick but right now I have him as my 8th rated prospect, just ahead of Monk, Smith Jr and Bridges, in that order.

The more I watch Markkanen, the more I start to like the guy and his ability to shoot and stretch the floor. I know we have a bunch of bigs on the team but I'm on the ship of we have to draft best available and Arizona has been surging as of late and he is one of the biggest reasons why. He lets the game come to him and doesn't force any shots. My biggest concern is his defense

 

[Kingster]

Hield and Cayley-Stein are 23. Skal just turned 21 and Richardson is just a couple months older. Papagiannis is 19. The new "core" of this team has an average age of 22.

If Cousins was still here I think drafting guys that can contribute early would be a concern, but now? I think you have to draft the player(s) you think will be the best NBA players long term.

I like Markkanen. I wouldn't be upset if the Kings draft him. He's the best shooter in this draft and probably the best shooting college big man I've ever seen. But the questions I still have are
(1) is he closer to Ryan Anderson or Dirk?
and
(2) who can he guard?

A big rotation of WCS, Markkanen, Labissiere and Papagiannis does offer some real versatility.

The fact that the Kings have no PGs or SFs signed for next season is concerning but you take the best player available. That might be Markkanen when the Kings pick but right now I have him as my 8th rated prospect, just ahead of Monk, Smith Jr and Bridges, in that order.

Regarding point #1, maybe he's a cross between Anderson and Dirk? That wouldn't be a bad thing. Markannen is definitely a better shooter than Nowitsky when he first came out. The first time I saw Nowitsky in the McDonald's HS All America game (they had foreigners) he drove to the basket like crazy, got fouled a heckuvalot, made the free throws, and established himself in my mind as a tough slashing 7-footer who could hit free throws. Now I haven't seen the driving capability of Markannen, but I've seen the shot making ability and I've seen the toughness inside. That's enough for me.

Regarding point #2: he's going to guard those stretch 4s that WCS was supposed to guard!

As to the point you made that I emboldened, for the same reason a dollar today is worth more than a dollar four or five years from now, a player that takes two years to develop instead of four or five is more valuable, all other things being equal. The developmental period must be factored into the decision. I want to stress this - I'm not talking all or nothing, black or white; I'm talking about the weighting of a player's characteristics in the overall evaluation, one of which is the developmental period. Certainly, you could take a fully formed senior in college who has nearly reached his ceiling in your evaluation and dismiss him from draft consideration in favor of a very raw athletic talent that is not close to his performance level. But it's a no-brainer that if you think one guy is close in potential ceiling to another guy, you are going to rightly choose the player more developed because of the aforementioned reasons. How many times have we seen a developmental player only start to make a positive effect on the 2nd or 3rd team? Whiteside, comes immediately to mind, but there many other examples. The first team spends the time developing while the 2nd 3rd or 4th team yields the benefits. Also, a player that is more developmentally ready relative to others is more of a tradeable assset relative to other players, which is a plus on a young developmental team, for certainly we cannot expect that the team will only be made up of future draft picks.

As for your last comment on no PGs or SFs signed for next year, it's really not concerning. Who really cares? As you intimate, this team is not going to be close to being playoff ready next year. Only pursuing the draft as the means to fill the position gaps for next year is foolhardy. This should be the strategy: Like you say, draft BPA. The exception: if you can't discern a difference in one player from another in your overall evaluation, draft for the position. Otherwise, like you say, draft BPA. Then fill in the holes through FA and trades. If you don't get it all done next year, whoopdee. Next year is purely a developmental year in which hopefully you have Skal, Papa, WCS, Buddy and two outstanding #1s that get a lot of playing time, get pointed in the right direction by guys like Temple, and take advantage of some great coaching. Nobody is going to be concerned with wins and losses for next year's team because nobody believes there is a chance of them going to the playoffs.

 

[Kingster]

By the way, I'm a making a rule: No more posting on this board about Markkanen. You can almost bet $$$ that the more we talk about him the more he's going to be out of reach of the Kings on draft day.

 

[funkykingston]

Regarding point #1, maybe he's a cross between Anderson and Dirk? That wouldn't be a bad thing. Markannen is definitely a better shooter than Nowitsky when he first came out. The first time I saw Nowitsky in the McDonald's HS All America game (they had foreigners) he drove to the basket like crazy, got fouled a heckuvalot, made the free throws, and established himself in my mind as a tough slashing 7-footer who could hit free throws. Now I haven't seen the driving capability of Markannen, but I've seen the shot making ability and I've seen the toughness inside. That's enough for me.

Regarding point #2: he's going to guard those stretch 4s that WCS was supposed to guard!

As to the point you made that I emboldened, for the same reason a dollar today is worth more than a dollar four or five years from now, a player that takes two years to develop instead of four or five is more valuable, all other things being equal. The developmental period must be factored into the decision. I want to stress this - I'm not talking all or nothing, black or white; I'm talking about the weighting of a player's characteristics in the overall evaluation, one of which is the developmental period. Certainly, you could take a fully formed senior in college who has nearly reached his ceiling in your evaluation and dismiss him from draft consideration in favor of a very raw athletic talent that is not close to his performance level. But it's a no-brainer that if you think one guy is close in potential ceiling to another guy, you are going to rightly choose the player more developed because of the aforementioned reasons. How many times have we seen a developmental player only start to make a positive effect on the 2nd or 3rd team? Whiteside, comes immediately to mind, but there many other examples. The first team spends the time developing while the 2nd 3rd or 4th team yields the benefits. Also, a player that is more developmentally ready relative to others is more of a tradeable assset relative to other players, which is a plus on a young developmental team, for certainly we cannot expect that the team will only be made up of future draft picks.

As for your last comment on no PGs or SFs signed for next year, it's really not concerning. Who really cares? As you intimate, this team is not going to be close to being playoff ready next year. Only pursuing the draft as the means to fill the position gaps for next year is foolhardy. This should be the strategy: Like you say, draft BPA. The exception: if you can't discern a difference in one player from another in your overall evaluation, draft for the position. Otherwise, like you say, draft BPA. Then fill in the holes through FA and trades. If you don't get it all done next year, whoopdee. Next year is purely a developmental year in which hopefully you have Skal, Papa, WCS, Buddy and two outstanding #1s that get a lot of playing time, get pointed in the right direction by guys like Temple, and take advantage of some great coaching. Nobody is going to be concerned with wins and losses for next year's team because nobody believes there is a chance of them going to the playoffs.

Here's a list of players who finished above Giannis Antetokounmpo in the ROY voting in 2014:

Michael-Carter Williams
Victor Oladipo
Trey Burke
Mason Plumlee
Tim Hardaway Jr
Gorgui Dieng

Think the Bucks are disappointed that he wasn't the fastest developing rookie?

Dirk Nowitzki looked like a bust his rookie year. Tyreke looked better than Steph Curry their first season. CJ McCollum struggled to stay on the floor.

As a small market team the most likely way the Kings are going to get a star player is if they draft him. Who cares if it takes 2-3 seasons to see what they really have? All that matters is that they do their best to identify the best long term prospect.

Whiteside is an outlier. He didn't take time to develop - he took time to realize that he had to listen and had to put in the work. He was on the fringes of professional basketball before he finally got serious. Teams have four years to evaluate what they have in a rookie. I'm struggling to think of another player who had opportunities for four years, didn't really produce and then exploded somewhere else. What do you think the odds are that Ben McLemore becomes an all-star after leaving the Kings?

And here's why the lack of PGs and SFs is an issue. It will mean that ALL of the Kings future pieces will play PF, C or SG. It means less minutes to go around. If two prospects are really close in your mind as BPA I don't think the deciding factor is NBA readiness as you suggest, I think it's fit with the pieces you feel are longterm parts of your team.

You only have to look at Philadelphia drafting Nerlens Noel, Joel Embiid and Jahlil Okafor. Could you argue that they were BPA? Sure. But now they've had to basically give away Noel at the deadline and have been unsuccessfully trying to move Okafor for a season now.

In Markkanen I see an offensive weapon and possibly a very effective sixth man or even a starter as a floor spacer if you have a dominant big (he'd be a good fit in Philly actually) but I don't see an overwhelming talent where you can almost guaranteed he'll be a star.

That's why the Porzingis comps I sometimes see make no sense to me. Porzingis is a shot blocker and has surprised with his rebouding. And he's 3 inches taller. Markkanen is a poor perimeter defender (he's heavy legged to my eyes), a poor rebounder and not a rim protector at all. He'd have to both be an absolute flamethrower on offense AND shore up his work on the defensive end to be a star. If he can't do the latter then he becomes somewhat of an offensive specialist.

That's not a bad thing per se, or a bad return on investment for a mid lottery pick. Just look at how much Ryan Anderson has opened things up for James Harden. The problem would be that the Kings don't have their James Harden. They would be continuing to stockpile potentially very good role players but lacking the star they really need.

Who is the player with the most star potential outside of Fultz, Ball and Jackson? That's the million dollar question and the one Vlade and co need to get right.

 

[kingjatt]

In my opinion a raw offensive talent is okay but I would prefer the player have the tools to play perimeter defense and not be a liability on that end first and foremost. We have adequate shooting now and even though it is a great skill to have its not something that has to be fully developed on a kid right now. We have gone after flashy college shooters in the past and gotten burned badly and I don't see a good enough shooter to chase over a top prospect that has everything physically but just cannot shoot yet.

I think Fox is a potentially a good pick for us if available because of his defensive versatility, he can switch without being killed. On the other end he complements Buddy's shooting with his slashing.

Theres a lot of potential in this draft but the growing trend is that these kids take 3 years minimum to develop into anything more than 15 MPG guys on winning teams. The growth in level of skill,size and speed of the veteran players is decreasing the impact that these kids have.

 

[ESP47]

I agree. When I watch the Kings, I don't get upset that they can't hit shots. I get upset that they can't get good shots and they can't cover anyone worth a damn. Adding another shooter will slightly improve our already adequate shooting (14th in FG%/5th in 3PT%) but it doesn't address any of the real issues with the roster.

 

[Kingsfan23]

I'm pretty sure Markannen and Skal are redundant. Stretch 4s who can't swing to center. Skal is one of the teams two top prospects. Anyone think they can play together?

 

[Kingsfan23]

By the way, I'm a making a rule: No more posting on this board about Markkanen. You can almost bet $$$ that the more we talk about him the more he's going to be out of reach of the Kings on draft day.

Skal will guard the stretch 4s, not WCS

 

[kingjatt]

I agree. When I watch the Kings, I don't get upset that they can't hit shots. I get upset that they can't get good shots and they can't cover anyone worth a damn. Adding another shooter will slightly improve our already adequate shooting (14th in FG%/5th in 3PT%) but it doesn't address any of the real issues with the roster.

One of the reasons the Warriors are so dam successful is that they are speedy long and pesky defensively. What they do offensively cannot be replicated but if you want to copy any thing copy what they do defensively, they put a lid on westbrook last night because there are zero defensive liabilities that teams can exploit over and over.

Long versatile defenders (but might be raw offensively) who Joerger can develop are prime targets in my eyes. If your going to build outside in then you better put a priority on defense first.

Vlades vision could be anything at this point though. One thing I do agree with is that since the talent is pretty close at the top of the draft character does matter.

Making sure to get a hard working coachable striving for greatness type player is huge.

 

[roasthawg]

One of the reasons the Warriors are so dam successful is that they are speedy long and pesky defensively. What they do offensively cannot be replicated but if you want to copy any thing copy what they do defensively, they put a lid on westbrook last night because there are zero defensive liabilities that teams can exploit over and over.

Long versatile defenders (but might be raw offensively) who Joerger can develop are prime targets in my eyes. If your going to build outside in then you better put a priority on defense first.

Vlades vision could be anything at this point though. One thing I do agree with is that since the talent is pretty close at the top of the draft character does matter.

Making sure to get a hard working coachable striving for greatness type player is huge.

This is a good post. Who knows what Vlade's vision is? He wasn't able to build a winner around DeMarcus but it's entirely possible that there's not a GM on the planet that could've done any better. I mean his picks look good to great so far. His coach looks good. I like the free agents we've signed. We'll see where it goes from here.

I also agree about the character point... It does matter. For me it always matters, not just as a deciding factor when the talent is really close. Character counts.

 

[funkykingston]

One of the reasons the Warriors are so dam successful is that they are speedy long and pesky defensively. What they do offensively cannot be replicated but if you want to copy any thing copy what they do defensively, they put a lid on westbrook last night because there are zero defensive liabilities that teams can exploit over and over.

Long versatile defenders (but might be raw offensively) who Joerger can develop are prime targets in my eyes. If your going to build outside in then you better put a priority on defense first.

Vlades vision could be anything at this point though. One thing I do agree with is that since the talent is pretty close at the top of the draft character does matter.

Making sure to get a hard working coachable striving for greatness type player is huge.

This is why I like the idea of drafting Isaac and Ntilikina or Fox.

Cauley-Stein
Labissiere
Isaac
Temple (or Richardson or Hield)
Ntilikina

Would be a long, rangy, quick defensive squad that could switch most everything, generate steals and protect the rim.

 

[Jimbob]

As I was just mentioning in the Pels Pick thread... The Pels are winning and I'm starting to think we will get closer to a 12 pick from them. That would alter some of the names we are throwing out there except perhaps Miles Bridges, so I started looking at his stats, size, clips etc... and see he has a bit in common with Draymond Green. Same size, weight, both listed as tweeners in the SF/PF category. I believe Bridges is considered the better athlete of the two coming out of the same college. Just curious does anyone think the two are worth comparing or is it just me with too much spare time.

 

[LA King Fan II]

My hopes:

Gotta get out of the Lawson/Collison business. Has be someone better at Guard in the top 6.

Should be able to get a solid SF in top 12 and I'd like to see the Kings get Boatwright from USC....maybe early 2ND round? Hes another thin body but has three point range and can play.

 

[funkykingston]

My hopes:

Gotta get out of the Lawson/Collison business. Has be someone better at Guard in the top 6.

Should be able to get a solid SF in top 12 and I'd like to see the Kings get Boatwright from USC....maybe early 2ND round? Hes another thin body but has three point range and can play.

No matter who the Kings draft they'll need to sign a veteran/FA point guard. Well, maybe not if they draft 3 PGs with their two first rounders and second rounder but I don't think there are great odds of that.

They don't have to bring back Lawson or Collison but I think there's a decent chance that one of them returns.

 

[upinsmoke]

No matter who the Kings draft they'll need to sign a veteran/FA point guard. Well, maybe not if they draft 3 PGs with their two first rounders and second rounder but I don't think there are great odds of that.

They don't have to bring back Lawson or Collison but I think there's a decent chance that one of them returns.

I don't want any part of them going forward. Not because they have not played well but it's time to move on in another direction. As far as the salary floor I would like to trade for a bigger contract for picks.

 

[Kingster]

Here's a list of players who finished above Giannis Antetokounmpo in the ROY voting in 2014:

Michael-Carter Williams
Victor Oladipo
Trey Burke
Mason Plumlee
Tim Hardaway Jr
Gorgui Dieng

Think the Bucks are disappointed that he wasn't the fastest developing rookie?

Dirk Nowitzki looked like a bust his rookie year. Tyreke looked better than Steph Curry their first season. CJ McCollum struggled to stay on the floor.

As a small market team the most likely way the Kings are going to get a star player is if they draft him. Who cares if it takes 2-3 seasons to see what they really have? All that matters is that they do their best to identify the best long term prospect.

Whiteside is an outlier. He didn't take time to develop - he took time to realize that he had to listen and had to put in the work. He was on the fringes of professional basketball before he finally got serious. Teams have four years to evaluate what they have in a rookie. I'm struggling to think of another player who had opportunities for four years, didn't really produce and then exploded somewhere else. What do you think the odds are that Ben McLemore becomes an all-star after leaving the Kings?

And here's why the lack of PGs and SFs is an issue. It will mean that ALL of the Kings future pieces will play PF, C or SG. It means less minutes to go around. If two prospects are really close in your mind as BPA I don't think the deciding factor is NBA readiness as you suggest, I think it's fit with the pieces you feel are longterm parts of your team.

You only have to look at Philadelphia drafting Nerlens Noel, Joel Embiid and Jahlil Okafor. Could you argue that they were BPA? Sure. But now they've had to basically give away Noel at the deadline and have been unsuccessfully trying to move Okafor for a season now.

In Markkanen I see an offensive weapon and possibly a very effective sixth man or even a starter as a floor spacer if you have a dominant big (he'd be a good fit in Philly actually) but I don't see an overwhelming talent where you can almost guaranteed he'll be a star.

That's why the Porzingis comps I sometimes see make no sense to me. Porzingis is a shot blocker and has surprised with his rebouding. And he's 3 inches taller. Markkanen is a poor perimeter defender (he's heavy legged to my eyes), a poor rebounder and not a rim protector at all. He'd have to both be an absolute flamethrower on offense AND shore up his work on the defensive end to be a star. If he can't do the latter then he becomes somewhat of an offensive specialist.

That's not a bad thing per se, or a bad return on investment for a mid lottery pick. Just look at how much Ryan Anderson has opened things up for James Harden. The problem would be that the Kings don't have their James Harden. They would be continuing to stockpile potentially very good role players but lacking the star they really need.

Who is the player with the most star potential outside of Fultz, Ball and Jackson? That's the million dollar question and the one Vlade and co need to get right.

Back at ya: Thomas Robinson. #5 pick. I think all of the draft boards had him going into the top 5, if not higher. He was a project and everybody knew it. A project that many thought had a high ceiling. We can cherry pick all we want by looking at history, but that doesn't tell us how to read the future. What we do know is that there is always disappointment in the top 10 consensus picks. Never fails. If you can know who the next Freek is, then the guesswork is taken out of it. But we know that we don't know, don't we? One of the inherent things we do know about projects is that the more they are "project-like" the more we don't know about their future prospects. The more a player is project-like, the more imagination has to come into play to evaluate the player's prospects. Whiteside is hardly an outlier.

 

[ockingsfan]

I like Markkanen. I wouldn't be upset if the Kings draft him. He's the best shooter in this draft and probably the best shooting college big man I've ever seen. But the questions I still have are
(1) is he closer to Ryan Anderson or Dirk?

I heard an interview with Jonathan Givony from Draft Express on the radio here in So. Cal and he said that Markkanen may not have the personality or mentality to be a #1 scorer in the league, he said he thinks he would be more comfortable as the #2 or #3 scorer for a team.

That being said, I do like Markkanen too. He reminds me of Porzingis.

But you would still have a gaping hole at SF if you draft him, unless Skal develops some SF skills, which I'm not sure he can.

 

[funkykingston]

Back at ya: Thomas Robinson. #5 pick. I think all of the draft boards had him going into the top 5, if not higher. He was a project and everybody knew it. A project that many thought had a high ceiling. We can cherry pick all we want by looking at history, but that doesn't tell us how to read the future. What we do know is that there is always disappointment in the top 10 consensus picks. Never fails. If you can know who the next Freek is, then the guesswork is taken out of it. But we know that we don't know, don't we? One of the inherent things we do know about projects is that the more they are "project-like" the more we don't know about their future prospects. The more a player is project-like, the more imagination has to come into play to evaluate the player's prospects. Whiteside is hardly an outlier.

You and I are remembering the 2012 draft very differently. Part of what made Thomas Robinson a consensus high pick going into the draft was that he was already producing at a high level. He was deemed NBA ready, especially in terms of rebounding and getting out in transition. Yes, scouts thought he could develop a jumper and be a real mismatch as too quick for big forwards and too strong for small ones. But I don't think anyone (certainly I didn't) look at Robinson and think - here's a mystery box of tools that will take years to develop.

Now, I didn't like the Robinson pick in terms of fit next to Cousins and Evans but I thought he'd be an athletic rebounder from day one. The fact that he flamed out didn't make him a project retroactively. He was a sophomore with plenty of game tape - he just was a bust in the NBA.

Paul George is a guy who was viewed as having a lot of tools but not having quite put them together. Of course so was Jerome Moiso. There will always be misses in the draft - but every year there are guys that are viewed as safer picks and guys that are viewed as riskier pick. Tatum is a relatively safe pick because of his skill level. Fultz looks like about the surest prospect I've seen in a long time. Markkanen will be a solid stretch four at the least and possibly a lot more. Lonzo Ball? He looks electric in college and I love him as a prospect, but can he get his shot off in the NBA and what happens when he faces bigger, faster defenders. Fox really gave him fits this year so there's a concern.

And then there are guys who have tools but you don't know what they can become. Giles is maybe the biggest boom or bust prospect in this draft (if he declares) but if he's taken in the middle of the first by a low seeded playoff team that's a reasonable gamble. But Ntilikina is a mystery box with elite tools. Isaac has a lot more tape against a known level of competition but Florida St's sub pattern and the way they used him (not to mention his really slight frame and wind up shot) make him a risky pick. But if either of those guys (or both) are the player that the Kings think will be the best long term you take them over playing it safe and taking a guy that you think has less of a chance of being a bust. You play to win, you don't play not to lose. Especially in the draft when you're a small market franchise.

And of course Whiteside is an outlier. Unless you can name me another 2nd round pick who blew his opportunities, was out of the NBA and then came back to land a max contract I have to take that stance. The Kings (and the Bighorns, Sky Force, Valley Vipers, Grizzlies, Energy and a couple international clubs) didn't give up on Whiteside because he took too long to develop - they gave up on him because he wasn't developing at all.

 

[funkykingston]

I heard an interview with Jonathan Givony from Draft Express on the radio here in So. Cal and he said that Markkanen may not have the personality or mentality to be a #1 scorer in the league, he said he thinks he would be more comfortable as the #2 or #3 scorer for a team.

That being said, I do like Markkanen too. He reminds me of Porzingis.

But you would still have a gaping hole at SF if you draft him, unless Skal develops some SF skills, which I'm not sure he can.

Except Zinger is that unicorn stretch 4 who also offers rim protection. Who can hold his own on defense and is a solid (and improving) rebounder. Markkanen right now doesn't give you much at all on the defensive end even though I love his offensive potential.

 

[ockingsfan]

Someone I really like with our early 2nd round pick, if he falls that far is SF Dillon Brooks 6'7" from Oregon.

This kid is a scrapper and he makes life a living hell for his opponents, he is all over the place. He is a high energy player and would be an asset to any team he joins.

 

[Kingster]

Please don't tell me that Robinson wasn't a project. I must have had 10 posts at the time in which I said he was a project and nobody objected. Of course Whiteside isn't an outlier. He's just one example of a multitude of players that have the athleticism and not the game, who you have to "project" into the future. Some of them make it; some of them don't. All of the intangibles that cause the player to be a project and then to not be a project are irrelevant. There are numerous factors, maturity being one of them, that make for a project. I really don't even know what your point is anymore. Is it that there is no such thing as a project? Is it that we should ignore the fact that a kid is a project? Is it that we should not give weight to the factor that a kid is a project in the overall draft evaluation? Is it that project players have no more risk to them than non-project players? Or are we left to quibble about whether Robinson and Whiteside were projects or not?

My thesis is simple: Giving weight to the "project nature" of a player should be part of any player's evaluation. It's self evident that some players are more project-like than others. Just the fact of age gives some players more project-like nature than others. It's also self-evident that more project-like a player is the more imagination one has to use in the evaluation of the player. Isn't that what we mean when we PRO-JECT the player's performance into the future? This is precisely why half-done real estate "projects" are looked upon as riskier - because you never know what's going to happen between it's current state of "development" and it's final stage of development. This is also why NBA drafting became much more difficult when high school grads were allowed into the draft as opposed to graduating seniors in college. It's all common sense.

 

[upinsmoke]

Zooooom!!!

 

[Kingsfan23]

Take on Turners contract for a falling Giles

 

[ParniValjak]

Isn't Giles the player that has no ACLs?

Why would anyone in their right mind spend a lottery pick on him?

 

[The_Jamal]

Hield and Cauley-Stein are 23. Skal just turned 21 and Richardson is just a couple months older. Papagiannis is 19. The new "core" of this team has an average age of 22.

If Cousins was still here I think drafting guys that can contribute early would be a concern, but now? I think you have to draft the player(s) you think will be the best NBA players long term.

I like Markkanen. I wouldn't be upset if the Kings draft him. He's the best shooter in this draft and probably the best shooting college big man I've ever seen. But the questions I still have are
(1) is he closer to Ryan Anderson or Dirk?
and
(2) who can he guard?

A big rotation of WCS, Markkanen, Labissiere and Papagiannis does offer some real versatility.

The fact that the Kings have no PGs or SFs signed for next season is concerning but you take the best player available. That might be Markkanen when the Kings pick but right now I have him as my 8th rated prospect, just ahead of Monk, Smith Jr and Bridges, in that order.

I think this draft will enlighten us to how the FO views the current core on the team (Buddy, Malachi, WCS, Papa, Bogdan?) and what their roles can be on a playoff contender. Do we think Buddy and Skal can develop into good 20 PPG scorers? If so, then taking more all-around players with big-time defensive potential like Isaac, Fox and Ntilkina would be the smart move. Do we think we still need to find a lead offensive player? Then guys like Tatum, Markkanen, and Monk should be at the top of our list.

 

[funkykingston]

I think this draft will enlighten us to how the FO views the current core on the team (Buddy, Malachi, WCS, Papa, Bogdan?) and what their roles can be on a playoff contender. Do we think Buddy and Skal can develop into good 20 PPG scorers? If so, then taking more all-around players with big-time defensive potential like Isaac, Fox and Ntilkina would be the smart move. Do we think we still need to find a lead offensive player? Then guys like Tatum, Markkanen, and Monk should be at the top of our list.

I would agree. The only concern I have is that we don't know if Vivek is still meddling or not. And if the Kings draft Monk I will have to question if it's because Vlade thinks the Kings still need a primary scorer or because Ranadive is still looking for his Curry and Klay.

 

[funkykingston]

Please don't tell me that Robinson wasn't a project. I must have had 10 posts at the time in which I said he was a project and nobody objected. Of course Whiteside isn't an outlier. He's just one example of a multitude of players that have the athleticism and not the game, who you have to "project" into the future. Some of them make it; some of them don't. All of the intangibles that cause the player to be a project and then to not be a project are irrelevant. There are numerous factors, maturity being one of them, that make for a project. I really don't even know what your point is anymore. Is it that there is no such thing as a project? Is it that we should ignore the fact that a kid is a project? Is it that we should not give weight to the factor that a kid is a project in the overall draft evaluation? Is it that project players have no more risk to them than non-project players? Or are we left to quibble about whether Robinson and Whiteside were projects or not?

My thesis is simple: Giving weight to the "project nature" of a player should be part of any player's evaluation. It's self evident that some players are more project-like than others. Just the fact of age gives some players more project-like nature than others. It's also self-evident that more project-like a player is the more imagination one has to use in the evaluation of the player. Isn't that what we mean when we PRO-JECT the player's performance into the future? This is precisely why half-done real estate "projects" are looked upon as riskier - because you never know what's going to happen between it's current state of "development" and it's final stage of development. This is also why NBA drafting became much more difficult when high school grads were allowed into the draft as opposed to graduating seniors in college. It's all common sense.

The only thing I can agree to at this point is that the discussion is becoming nonsensical.

Your original point was that all things being equal, teams should choose players who will produce sooner over gambling on players with more long term potential. I disagreed. Simple as that.

You can argue that Robinson was a huge project. I'd also disagree with that. Every rookie has to develop but there's a difference between drafting a guy like Buddy Hield and a guy like Zach Lavine. One has a lot of tape and production at a high level and one has a lot of tools but a long way to go to be a player. Robinson was somewhere in the middle but as a sophomore who had big production his second season I'd argue he was more of a "safe" pick than a a gamble. It's only with the gift of hindsight that we see how far he really was from being an impact NBA player.

Back to Whiteside - name me another player who had opportunities and failed, was out of the NBA and then came back to be a max player or all-star/all-NBA level player. Otherwise he's absolutely an outlier.

 

[Jimbob]

Ok just a hypothetical. Our pick is 6, the consensus top five players are off the board and that includes Fox. The NO pick falls out of top 10, which I now think is likely with NO's surge. Isaac, and Ntilikina, are both available at 6 and both play positions of need. Who do you take knowing players like Smith, Monk, Markanan and maybe Bridges will be gone between picks.

 

[Joshoua]

Ok just a hypothetical. Our pick is 6, the consensus top five players are off the board and that includes Fox. The NO pick falls out of top 10, which I now think is likely with NO's surge. Isaac, and Ntilikina, are both available at 6 and both play positions of need. Who do you take knowing players like Smith, Monk, Markanan and maybe Bridges will be gone between picks.

Take Smith and don't look back he has star talent. We are gonna need a go to scorer and Smith can be that guy and more