Who do we draft?
- Thread starter Folsomkingsfan
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, the Kidd comparisons are bad. Maybe offensively, but what made Kidd so great was he was probably a better defensive player than he was an offensive player. Ball has a LONG way to go on the defensive end, even if he is a willing defender at this stage.
Rubio with a jumper comp isn't bad, but Rubio is also a really damn good defensive player too.
Rubio with a jumper comp isn't bad, but Rubio is also a really damn good defensive player too.
So just went over some Miles Bridges tape, as it's looking like one of the picks will be later in the lottery and all I can say is this draft is absolutely amazing if he's the kind of talent we can take at 10 or 11. First, the guy is a physical specimen and looks like he's been on an NBA training program for 5 years already. His athleticism also jumps off the page; he flat out attacks the rim when driving and he ran into very little resistance as far as people being to stay in front of him.The rebounding is also super encouraging; a lot of his boardwork is him working harder than the other team and using his physical gifts to be dominant. Would not be surprising to see him be at 7-8 RPG in the NBA at some point. Also, his passing ability improved quite a bit as the year went on and I think that's an aspect of his game that can be pretty good at the next level. He's an amazing finisher too with great hands too; had a lot of "Oh my goodness, how did he do that" kind of moments watching him finish a PnR when he rolled to the rim.
Defensively, I think he'll be able to step in right away and make an impact. He has outstanding anticipation and lateral quickness and he's incredibly tough take advantage of because of his strength. He's a great fit in the modern game because I do think he'll be able to defend the 4 pretty effectively at times as the kid is built like a tank and is an outstanding rebounder. That versatility shouldn't be ignored
A few concerns I do have is he pulled up from 3 a little more than I would have liked (although, 38% on 5.1 attempts, is far from awful). Just saw him pass on too many opportunities to take it to the rim and get fouled and instead settle for the jumper. Not a huge deal, but I want a big physical kid like him to be getting to the FT line far more than he did this year. He has the ability, but he needs to trust it more.
The weakest part of his game is probably is ball-handling. It's shaky at best and that might be a reason he settles for jumpers as much as he does as he doesn't trust his handle enough yet to create off the bounce. I think he'll need a good playmaker, at least initially, to help his scoring game
Ultimately, I see a young kid who competes damn near every minute he's on the floor and makes his presence known while doing it. The other SF's are getting more of the pub, but it would not surprise me in the slightest to see Bridges as the best SF in this class.
Defensively, I think he'll be able to step in right away and make an impact. He has outstanding anticipation and lateral quickness and he's incredibly tough take advantage of because of his strength. He's a great fit in the modern game because I do think he'll be able to defend the 4 pretty effectively at times as the kid is built like a tank and is an outstanding rebounder. That versatility shouldn't be ignored
A few concerns I do have is he pulled up from 3 a little more than I would have liked (although, 38% on 5.1 attempts, is far from awful). Just saw him pass on too many opportunities to take it to the rim and get fouled and instead settle for the jumper. Not a huge deal, but I want a big physical kid like him to be getting to the FT line far more than he did this year. He has the ability, but he needs to trust it more.
The weakest part of his game is probably is ball-handling. It's shaky at best and that might be a reason he settles for jumpers as much as he does as he doesn't trust his handle enough yet to create off the bounce. I think he'll need a good playmaker, at least initially, to help his scoring game
Ultimately, I see a young kid who competes damn near every minute he's on the floor and makes his presence known while doing it. The other SF's are getting more of the pub, but it would not surprise me in the slightest to see Bridges as the best SF in this class.
This is in the same ballpark as the Kidd-Gilchrist trade suggestion for me. If we have a shot at Jackson, Isaac, or Tatum it's hard to pass on them but that's looking more and more unlikely right now and we still need a SF. Not a lot of people are high on Stanley Johnson right now but he's one of the best overall wing prospects I've ever reviewed so I still believe in his talent. He is having an impact already as a defender but his shot isn't falling at all and he doesn't have a lot of offensive impact on the court if he's not spacing the floor. We had a discussion about this early in the season when he got pushed out of the rotation because he's been a favorite target of mine since the draft. He's struggled long enough at this point that you have to ask if he's in a bad situation or he just doesn't have the skill level to hang with NBA talent. Stan Van Gundy is a good coach -- if he's not happy with Stanley Johnson's effort or in-game execution that should give pause to consider what the underlying issues are.
Part of the reason I was so gung-ho about drafting Johnson in the first place is that I think he's got a really strong work ethic. The other reason is that I think he's an elite off the ball defender. As good as Kidd-Gilchrist is on the ball, I think Johnson is just as good off the ball -- anticipating passes and getting himself in position to make plays. But then he has to be able to contribute something on offense to justify keeping him on the floor. Statistically speaking, the trends are not encouraging. If we do trade for him, the first thing I would do is get him in a gym with a shot coach because his lower body is all over the place right now on his jumpers -- his feet are in a different position on his follow through every time -- and he'll never be consistent shooting like that. The next thing I would do is tell him to keep it simple -- your job is to make smart reads on defense, crash the boards hard, and spot up in the corner. That's it. If he can be a shotmaker he'll stay on the floor and you can progress his role offensively from there. He's got a lot of confidence in himself but that can be a detriment as well if he's not realistic about what he needs to work on and how hard he needs to work on it.
He's at his absolute low point in terms of value right now so most people are probably going to say we should keep the pick instead. If Miles Bridges is still on the board that adds some intrigue but we're looking at picking in the 10-14 range right now with that New Orleans pick and there's no one else I'm remotely excited by in that range. Maybe Adebayo. It's easy to forget since everyone is falling over themselves to max Otto Porter Jr. right now (which I get, he and Jokic are the breakout stars of this season) but he was considered a bust after two seasons. What's worrying about Johnson is that he hasn't shown the progression you want to see from year one to year two but at least Washington had a steady backcourt for Porter to play off of. The guard situation in Detroit has been erratic all year. Reggie Jackson seems to have pulled a Marcus Thornton on them and regressed as soon as his new contract kicked in. Caldwell-Pope has talent but he's inconsistent and Detroit fighting for a playoff spot means Stanley gets a short leash. I just go back to the way I felt about Stanley pre-draft -- he's not an elite athlete and he's got some issues with the shaky jumper and sloppy decision-making to sort out -- all of his weaknesses have been front and center this season but he shows flashes of being one of the better two way wings in the league if he can shore up his weaknesses and play within himself.
Part of the reason I was so gung-ho about drafting Johnson in the first place is that I think he's got a really strong work ethic. The other reason is that I think he's an elite off the ball defender. As good as Kidd-Gilchrist is on the ball, I think Johnson is just as good off the ball -- anticipating passes and getting himself in position to make plays. But then he has to be able to contribute something on offense to justify keeping him on the floor. Statistically speaking, the trends are not encouraging. If we do trade for him, the first thing I would do is get him in a gym with a shot coach because his lower body is all over the place right now on his jumpers -- his feet are in a different position on his follow through every time -- and he'll never be consistent shooting like that. The next thing I would do is tell him to keep it simple -- your job is to make smart reads on defense, crash the boards hard, and spot up in the corner. That's it. If he can be a shotmaker he'll stay on the floor and you can progress his role offensively from there. He's got a lot of confidence in himself but that can be a detriment as well if he's not realistic about what he needs to work on and how hard he needs to work on it.
He's at his absolute low point in terms of value right now so most people are probably going to say we should keep the pick instead. If Miles Bridges is still on the board that adds some intrigue but we're looking at picking in the 10-14 range right now with that New Orleans pick and there's no one else I'm remotely excited by in that range. Maybe Adebayo. It's easy to forget since everyone is falling over themselves to max Otto Porter Jr. right now (which I get, he and Jokic are the breakout stars of this season) but he was considered a bust after two seasons. What's worrying about Johnson is that he hasn't shown the progression you want to see from year one to year two but at least Washington had a steady backcourt for Porter to play off of. The guard situation in Detroit has been erratic all year. Reggie Jackson seems to have pulled a Marcus Thornton on them and regressed as soon as his new contract kicked in. Caldwell-Pope has talent but he's inconsistent and Detroit fighting for a playoff spot means Stanley gets a short leash. I just go back to the way I felt about Stanley pre-draft -- he's not an elite athlete and he's got some issues with the shaky jumper and sloppy decision-making to sort out -- all of his weaknesses have been front and center this season but he shows flashes of being one of the better two way wings in the league if he can shore up his weaknesses and play within himself.
The Clippers win was brutal. Just looked at our schedule and we play the Wolves, Mavs, Lakers, and Suns with 4 of our last 9 games. Joerger needs to sit all of the veterans except for Collison and Temple the rest of the season. Call up Isaiah Cousins from Reno. Keep a strict lineup of Collison/Cousins Hield/Richardson/McLemore Temple Skal/WCS PapaG.
I like Stanley a lot too, one of my favorite prospects in that draft, but giving up a lottery pick for him at this point is insane. I would entertain flipping him for Malachi though. Pistons get a wing with an extra year on the rookie deal and we balance out the roster a bit by getting a guy we know can run at SF.
I get that it's an overpay -- you could probably say the same thing about trading for Kidd-Gilchrist. But at some point it's really just about the players not their relative value. If you think Stanley Johnson can be your starter at SF for the next 6 years than he's worth a pick in the 11-15 range. We're not getting an elite SF in that draft range. Miles Bridges is looking like he'll probably go top 10 too.. We have a huge need for a competent defender at the wing position. If there was someone in this draft that I felt strongly about left on the board I would just take them instead but looking at where that Pelicans pick is likely to land right now, I'd rather have MKG or Stanley Johnson than anyone we can get in the early teens. I think very highly of both of those guys though so the value I put on them is going to be higher than most.
Most prospects the more I watch them the more I noticed little blemishes. It's kind of been the opposite with Bridges. I watched him and thought about the things he wasn't great at and as the year went on he improved in a lot of those areas. I really like him as a prospect.
As the small forwards go I have them ranked: Jackson, Tatum, Isaac and then Bridges. Barring some lottery magic to get Jackson, Isaac is the guy I really want. But Bridges would be a great consolation prize. He and either Fox or Ntilikina would make me happy.
As the small forwards go I have them ranked: Jackson, Tatum, Isaac and then Bridges. Barring some lottery magic to get Jackson, Isaac is the guy I really want. But Bridges would be a great consolation prize. He and either Fox or Ntilikina would make me happy.
I'd not deal for Stanley Johnson with that pick....I'd take best player available if need be and keep the rookie level contracts hoping for someone who can come in with more upside. Don't just settle for any SF available because we need to fill a hole, best player available. We might strike gold. We know what Johnson is mostly or what he's going to be mostly. Plus we might end up picking a SF with the first of our picks.....maybe taking Isaac who looks to be a higher upside guy than Johnson.
My order is probably the same but the gap between Tatum/Isaac/Bridges is closing pretty quickly. I like Isaac a lot too, but man do I worry about his frame, especially after watching Brandon Ingram struggle with NBA defenders. The skill with his length is certainly intriguing, but you have to make sure he bulks up or he's not going to be able to tap into his potential.
That's the problem with drawing conclusions on a handful of tournament games. Hell, Malik Monk and De'Aaron Fox didn't have stellar games yesterday either, so are you not wild about them now too?
You should watch JJ a bit more. I kind of see him as a cross between Richard Hamilton and Kevin Durant. Not saying he's going to be either player, but he's got that same silky smooth movement to his game.
And did you not notice his defense on Malik Monk in yesterday's game? After what Monk did to UNC the first time around, he got the assignment on him this time and held him to 6 points until Monk hit those two late 3's. Still, holding him to 12 ain't bad. The kid has good length and athleticism. You say he got D'ed up, yet still led his team in scoring with 19 points and also chipped in 5 reb and 4 asst. Pretty good line considering the level of opponent. He also was main target of UK's swarming defense.
You should watch JJ a bit more. I kind of see him as a cross between Richard Hamilton and Kevin Durant. Not saying he's going to be either player, but he's got that same silky smooth movement to his game.
And did you not notice his defense on Malik Monk in yesterday's game? After what Monk did to UNC the first time around, he got the assignment on him this time and held him to 6 points until Monk hit those two late 3's. Still, holding him to 12 ain't bad. The kid has good length and athleticism. You say he got D'ed up, yet still led his team in scoring with 19 points and also chipped in 5 reb and 4 asst. Pretty good line considering the level of opponent. He also was main target of UK's swarming defense.
I get why Ingram and Isaac get compared - they have really similar frames and somewhat similar offensive games. But while I thought Ingram had star potential coming out of Duke (I've been surprised by his struggles) I don't know that Isaac has that type of ceiling. That's obviously not a good thing, but I think Isaac also has a higher floor, mostly because of his style of game.
Ingram was a better offensive player as a freshman - period.
Per 40 he took 3 more shots per game than Isaac and took 2 more threes. He also shot a higher percentage on threes (40% vs 35%) and had a higher usage while also averaging more assists.
What really encourages me about Isaac is his rebounding. Ingram and Isaac had about the same rate for offensive rebounds (both were long, athletic guys who could swoop in for the board or the putback with Isaac having a slightly higher rate on the offensive glass) but Isaac has been significantly better as a defensive rebounder. For a guy with a very thin frame this is a huge thing for me. He sticks his nose in there, boxes out pretty well and is aggressive going after it.
Per minute Isaac also averaged more steals and more blocks. Both move their feet really well for their size/length, but I've been especially impressed with Isaac's lateral footspeed when he slides on defense and his commitment on that end. He looks like a wing defending wings or guards and not like a big guy out of his element.
Overall I see a defensive SF who rebounds well despite his frame, blocks shots and can switch on smaller players without getting embarrassed. His shot is a bit slow for my liking but it looks pretty good and gives me confidence that he can be a 3&D SF in the NBA and possibly play some stretch 4 if he bulks up. He could certainly be more than that, but he's a guy I don't worry about being a bust.
Tatum is actually a bit more like Ingram in terms of my draft concerns. They have different body types and different games, but while both of them are fairly well rounded players, their real value is as a scorer. If Tatum can transition his scoring to the NBA player he could be a good or even great player. If he struggles, he'll be in a similar boat as Ingram - trying to find out what else he can do to help his team and find his role in the NBA.
So while I think Tatum has more star potential, I think Isaac is actually the safer pick. At least IMO. And while I'm normally in favor of drafting the guys with the highest upside, Tatum's game is a little bit too much of a throwback/midrange focused for my tastes. And that's probably my bias showing through. His game reminds me of guys like Gay, Melo and Jabari Parker and for me that's not a good thing. He sure is smooth on offense though.
Ingram was a better offensive player as a freshman - period.
Per 40 he took 3 more shots per game than Isaac and took 2 more threes. He also shot a higher percentage on threes (40% vs 35%) and had a higher usage while also averaging more assists.
What really encourages me about Isaac is his rebounding. Ingram and Isaac had about the same rate for offensive rebounds (both were long, athletic guys who could swoop in for the board or the putback with Isaac having a slightly higher rate on the offensive glass) but Isaac has been significantly better as a defensive rebounder. For a guy with a very thin frame this is a huge thing for me. He sticks his nose in there, boxes out pretty well and is aggressive going after it.
Per minute Isaac also averaged more steals and more blocks. Both move their feet really well for their size/length, but I've been especially impressed with Isaac's lateral footspeed when he slides on defense and his commitment on that end. He looks like a wing defending wings or guards and not like a big guy out of his element.
Overall I see a defensive SF who rebounds well despite his frame, blocks shots and can switch on smaller players without getting embarrassed. His shot is a bit slow for my liking but it looks pretty good and gives me confidence that he can be a 3&D SF in the NBA and possibly play some stretch 4 if he bulks up. He could certainly be more than that, but he's a guy I don't worry about being a bust.
Tatum is actually a bit more like Ingram in terms of my draft concerns. They have different body types and different games, but while both of them are fairly well rounded players, their real value is as a scorer. If Tatum can transition his scoring to the NBA player he could be a good or even great player. If he struggles, he'll be in a similar boat as Ingram - trying to find out what else he can do to help his team and find his role in the NBA.
So while I think Tatum has more star potential, I think Isaac is actually the safer pick. At least IMO. And while I'm normally in favor of drafting the guys with the highest upside, Tatum's game is a little bit too much of a throwback/midrange focused for my tastes. And that's probably my bias showing through. His game reminds me of guys like Gay, Melo and Jabari Parker and for me that's not a good thing. He sure is smooth on offense though.
No. Shutting down Malachi does not open up his roster spot. We still have 15 players under contract, we would have to cut one of them to offer ICuz a contract.
Basically, here is the list of players we can cut without consequence:
Lawson
Collison
Tyreke
Even then, I don't think we are likely to cut any of these guys in favor of ICuz for the final nine games of the season (technically eight, since it's basically too late for tonight's game).
Players we are probably not cutting just to give ICuz some minutes:
McLemore (we will want to keep the option of tendering a QO, just in case we can work a sign-and-trade)
Galloway (hope for him to opt out of next year, if not, he could be included in a trade next year)
Players we are definitely not cutting just to give ICuz some minutes:
Rudy (hope for him to opt out of next year, if not, hope he recovers or is tradeable)
Afflalo (hope to trade him, will probably be cut later in the summer
Tolliver (probably keep him next year, has value anyway)
Players we are straight up not cutting:
Koufos
Temple
WCS
Hield
Skal
Malachi
PapaG
And that's all 15.
The interesting thing is that next year we may have a bit of a roster crunch. I've listed 7 players above we are absolutely keeping. We're going to have two first-rounders, plus the thinking is that Bogdanovic is likely to come over, plus we have the Sixers' second rounder who might be good enough to earn a guaranteed contract. That makes 11. If we keep Tolliver, that's 12. We're probably stuck with Galloway to start the season, so 13. And if Rudy doesn't opt out, that's 14. Now if you think we might trade Afflalo's team-option to get somebody another team doesn't want, that's 15 - full up and unless we drafted one we still don't have a PG!
Now, things can obviously go better than that in terms of roster slots. We can straight cut Afflalo if there's no trade we like. We can straight cut Galloway without too much concern. That would free up two slots, or maybe we can trade both of them for one guy and free up one slot. Rudy still might opt out. And Tolliver isn't a sure thing that we bring back. Now we're up to maybe four slots, or even five if our second rounder is destined for Reno. But one of the problems with having so much youth on the team is that...you have a lot of youth, and they take up roster slots.
Basically, here is the list of players we can cut without consequence:
Lawson
Collison
Tyreke
Even then, I don't think we are likely to cut any of these guys in favor of ICuz for the final nine games of the season (technically eight, since it's basically too late for tonight's game).
Players we are probably not cutting just to give ICuz some minutes:
McLemore (we will want to keep the option of tendering a QO, just in case we can work a sign-and-trade)
Galloway (hope for him to opt out of next year, if not, he could be included in a trade next year)
Players we are definitely not cutting just to give ICuz some minutes:
Rudy (hope for him to opt out of next year, if not, hope he recovers or is tradeable)
Afflalo (hope to trade him, will probably be cut later in the summer
Tolliver (probably keep him next year, has value anyway)
Players we are straight up not cutting:
Koufos
Temple
WCS
Hield
Skal
Malachi
PapaG
And that's all 15.
The interesting thing is that next year we may have a bit of a roster crunch. I've listed 7 players above we are absolutely keeping. We're going to have two first-rounders, plus the thinking is that Bogdanovic is likely to come over, plus we have the Sixers' second rounder who might be good enough to earn a guaranteed contract. That makes 11. If we keep Tolliver, that's 12. We're probably stuck with Galloway to start the season, so 13. And if Rudy doesn't opt out, that's 14. Now if you think we might trade Afflalo's team-option to get somebody another team doesn't want, that's 15 - full up and unless we drafted one we still don't have a PG!
Now, things can obviously go better than that in terms of roster slots. We can straight cut Afflalo if there's no trade we like. We can straight cut Galloway without too much concern. That would free up two slots, or maybe we can trade both of them for one guy and free up one slot. Rudy still might opt out. And Tolliver isn't a sure thing that we bring back. Now we're up to maybe four slots, or even five if our second rounder is destined for Reno. But one of the problems with having so much youth on the team is that...you have a lot of youth, and they take up roster slots.
Thanks everyone for the feedback on Stanley. I liked him coming out of college, and he drew some very good comparisons. I recon this years draft would seem a lot deeper if the Stanley of two years ago was in it. Todays Stanley might be a different story, but I cant get that excited about any player out of the top 10 this year, so for me its a bit irrelevant that the Pelicans pick will be a lottery pick.
He's a 6'6" SF, same as Bridges, both are strong , but Bridges wing span doesn't compare. Talent wise to early to tell. It was just a thought, maybe Detroit is not be the best situation for a player who should be showing more.
He's a 6'6" SF, same as Bridges, both are strong , but Bridges wing span doesn't compare. Talent wise to early to tell. It was just a thought, maybe Detroit is not be the best situation for a player who should be showing more.
Yes, you do need to watch more. It's pretty laughable that you believe you can gauge any player off such a small sample size. Get real.
Mock all you want, but even the announcers yesterday made the Hamilton comparison so it's not just me. But he's bigger than Rip. Longer and more gangly like KD. His smooth fall away shot reminds me of KD. But you obviously chose not to read the part where I stated "Not saying he's going to be either player". It's possible to make comparisons to what a player reminds you of without it meaning that he's going to average KD numbers. I certainly am not predicting that he'll be near as good as Durant. But I do believe he can become a pretty darn good player in the league.
Mock all you want, but even the announcers yesterday made the Hamilton comparison so it's not just me. But he's bigger than Rip. Longer and more gangly like KD. His smooth fall away shot reminds me of KD. But you obviously chose not to read the part where I stated "Not saying he's going to be either player". It's possible to make comparisons to what a player reminds you of without it meaning that he's going to average KD numbers. I certainly am not predicting that he'll be near as good as Durant. But I do believe he can become a pretty darn good player in the league.
I feel like Bridges will be the best SF in this draft in the end. Just a gut instinct.. Love his toughness, defense, attack mode. I'm still hoping for Bridges, Fox or Frank.. Wouldn't mind Isaac either.
Frank would be nice beside Hield.. Big PG that has defensive versatility. He can take the tougher defensive matchup.. which would give Buddy a little more energy on offense.
Frank would be nice beside Hield.. Big PG that has defensive versatility. He can take the tougher defensive matchup.. which would give Buddy a little more energy on offense.
I agree with Funky: the more you watch these guys, the more holes you see. That's why I usually go with my initial first impression.
I would like to see all the Kings' rookies play 30 or more minutes a game from here on out, and please play them together, and Coach might want to give Buddy some time at point guard to hone his ball handling skills. Collison should rest for a long long time (he's been shooting far too well).
I would like to see all the Kings' rookies play 30 or more minutes a game from here on out, and please play them together, and Coach might want to give Buddy some time at point guard to hone his ball handling skills. Collison should rest for a long long time (he's been shooting far too well).
For me, an ideal draft would be coming away welith either Fox or Smith Jr. with our first pick and then Isaac or Bridges with our second pick. I love that Fox and Smith look so passionate when they play, because a lot of these kids have talent so that drive is something important to highlight.
Then I think neither Isaac nor Bridges are surefire good NBA players but I like their potential, especially Bridges, imo he will be a good starting SF.
My core to cone away with after draft night:
PG) Fox
SG) Hield, Richardson
SF) Bridges
PF) Labissiere
C) WCS, Papagiannis
Then I think neither Isaac nor Bridges are surefire good NBA players but I like their potential, especially Bridges, imo he will be a good starting SF.
My core to cone away with after draft night:
PG) Fox
SG) Hield, Richardson
SF) Bridges
PF) Labissiere
C) WCS, Papagiannis
I'm a fan. I also like the Tatum/Ntilikina idea but I highly doubt Tatum is a possibility given where we will be. I prefer Fox and Isaac although I do like both other guys. I've heard about character concerns with Smith and I think Bridges lateral quickness is average at best but I don't think either one of those things preclude those guys from being very good NBA players. I think Smith has all-star level talent but I think Fox's ceiling is higher. If we get some combination of those guys which I think it highly likely we will have a really bright young future.
Considering where we will pick, I think Smith with our 1st and Bridges with our 2nd are at least realistic. I would want Frank over Smith if possible. Seems unless Sac jumps into the top 3 and Philli plays bad enough that they stay below 6, we should be able to get one of Fox or Isaac.
Every year some darkhorse workouts impress so much they climb and shake up these conversations.
Every year some darkhorse workouts impress so much they climb and shake up these conversations.
Last edited:
- Status