Following 2018 draftees

[bajaden]

I don't need 25 games to get a read on a player. It's not rocket science in which one has to pore over minutiae to determine that Fredette isn't a guy you want to draft, that his left hand dribble is wobbly and quickness is suspect, or that WCS isn't going to transform himself and rebound at a rate of one rebound every three minutes when he gets to the NBA and that his straight-ahead speed is not going to make up for his other offensive deficiencies.

Your assumptions about my viewing are incorrect and self-serving. I watch some games during the regular season as well as the NCAAs. I just have a lot more concentrated viewing during the NCAAs. If you or anybody else on this board was right about Mitchell and Kuzma in the last draft as well as being right many more times than not in past drafts I would bow to you, defer to you, and give homage to you. Absent that, I'll go with my own gut on a lot of these players and if it miffs you that I'm not deferring to your opinion, so be it. In general, I'm pessimistic about a lot of these guys for good reason - history shows that most of them aren't going to make it in the NBA, or will be role players if they do make it in the NBA. That's a simple fact. So my pessimism is constructed out of historical experience, not a predisposition to be a nay-sayer.

Your right! I took a cheap shot. But I do appear to be wasting my time, and believe me, you have no idea how much time. By the way, I had Kuzma on my list for the Kings to draft with their 2nd round pick along with Mason and a couple others. And, I had Mitchell high on my list, but had him as a combo guard who we wern't likely to draft if we took Fox with our first pick. Did I think he'd be this good this early? No, of course not, and I can guarantee you that the Jazz didn't think he'd be this good this early either. But at the same time, it doesn't surprise me.

The only reason I do this,is to try and inform people who don't have the time to watch games the way I do. Or maybe don't have the inclination, but are interested in the draft. I've said many times, that if you only watch a couple of games, maybe only games during the tournament, you may see the best games or perhaps the worse games that player has played all year. It's for that reason that I try and watch as many games as I can, and then maybe I'll have a good idea of whether the player has improved over the course of the season, and what that players consistency is over the course of a season.

I've been a huge DiVincenzo fan all year, but he doesn't have a 31 pt game every night just like Spellman doesn't shoot lights out every night. Both players have a couple of warts, but nothing that would stop me from drafting them. The most consistent player on the Villanova team this past season has been Bridges. He doesn't have the flash that either DiVincenzo or Spellman has. He doesn't show his emotions on the floor like they do, but he's there, night after night. As I've stated, I'm very biased when it comes to Bridges, so take that into consideration. And I could be wrong, he could turn out to be the biggest bust in the history of the NBA. But I'd bet my house that won't happen.

That said, there are others that I would take before him if available. But I'm done beating this drum. My arm is getting tired and my brain over taxed. I'm going to leave it to you. All I ask is that you try and be fair. There is no perfect player, and the most important part is what's between their ear's. Adios Amigo!

 

[whozit]

Your right! I took a cheap shot. But I do appear to be wasting my time, and believe me, you have no idea how much time. By the way, I had Kuzma on my list for the Kings to draft with their 2nd round pick along with Mason and a couple others. And, I had Mitchell high on my list, but had him as a combo guard who we wern't likely to draft if we took Fox with our first pick. Did I think he'd be this good this early? No, of course not, and I can guarantee you that the Jazz didn't think he'd be this good this early either. But at the same time, it doesn't surprise me.

The only reason I do this,is to try and inform people who don't have the time to watch games the way I do. Or maybe don't have the inclination, but are interested in the draft. I've said many times, that if you only watch a couple of games, maybe only games during the tournament, you may see the best games or perhaps the worse games that player has played all year. It's for that reason that I try and watch as many games as I can, and then maybe I'll have a good idea of whether the player has improved over the course of the season, and what that players consistency is over the course of a season.

I've been a huge DiVincenzo fan all year, but he doesn't have a 31 pt game every night just like Spellman doesn't shoot lights out every night. Both players have a couple of warts, but nothing that would stop me from drafting them. The most consistent player on the Villanova team this past season has been Bridges. He doesn't have the flash that either DiVincenzo or Spellman has. He doesn't show his emotions on the floor like they do, but he's there, night after night. As I've stated, I'm very biased when it comes to Bridges, so take that into consideration. And I could be wrong, he could turn out to be the biggest bust in the history of the NBA. But I'd bet my house that won't happen.

That said, there are others that I would take before him if available. But I'm done beating this drum. My arm is getting tired and my brain over taxed. I'm going to leave it to you. All I ask is that you try and be fair. There is no perfect player, and the most important part is what's between their ear's. Adios Amigo!

Hey, I appreciate those of you who follow the prospects closely. I have neither the time nor inclination to do so. But I do value the imparting of what you all see. I am sure there are others like me who read but don't have anything of value to add to this thread. You are doing what you say you want to do. Thanks.

 

[Kingster]

Your right! I took a cheap shot. But I do appear to be wasting my time, and believe me, you have no idea how much time. By the way, I had Kuzma on my list for the Kings to draft with their 2nd round pick along with Mason and a couple others. And, I had Mitchell high on my list, but had him as a combo guard who we wern't likely to draft if we took Fox with our first pick. Did I think he'd be this good this early? No, of course not, and I can guarantee you that the Jazz didn't think he'd be this good this early either. But at the same time, it doesn't surprise me.

The only reason I do this,is to try and inform people who don't have the time to watch games the way I do. Or maybe don't have the inclination, but are interested in the draft. I've said many times, that if you only watch a couple of games, maybe only games during the tournament, you may see the best games or perhaps the worse games that player has played all year. It's for that reason that I try and watch as many games as I can, and then maybe I'll have a good idea of whether the player has improved over the course of the season, and what that players consistency is over the course of a season.

I've been a huge DiVincenzo fan all year, but he doesn't have a 31 pt game every night just like Spellman doesn't shoot lights out every night. Both players have a couple of warts, but nothing that would stop me from drafting them. The most consistent player on the Villanova team this past season has been Bridges. He doesn't have the flash that either DiVincenzo or Spellman has. He doesn't show his emotions on the floor like they do, but he's there, night after night. As I've stated, I'm very biased when it comes to Bridges, so take that into consideration. And I could be wrong, he could turn out to be the biggest bust in the history of the NBA. But I'd bet my house that won't happen.

That said, there are others that I would take before him if available. But I'm done beating this drum. My arm is getting tired and my brain over taxed. I'm going to leave it to you. All I ask is that you try and be fair. There is no perfect player, and the most important part is what's between their ear's. Adios Amigo!

I think it's great that watch a lot of these guys during the year. Certainly you see a lot more players than I do, and certainly you see them in more games than I do. That's why I ask questions of you about players during the year that I have not seen multiple times. That said, as you said, you had Kuzma as a 2nd round pick and did not see Mitchell as the best player in the draft, or even a top 5 pick. I didn't know Kuzma existed, and I don't think I watched Mitchell all year long. So we aren't perfect, are we? I guess we can leave it at that and hope that Divac has both watched every player worth watching in this coming draft and that he has the keen insight to pick a Mitchell or a Kuzma when other's cannot.

 

[bajaden]

I think it's great that watch a lot of these guys during the year. Certainly you see a lot more players than I do, and certainly you see them in more games than I do. That's why I ask questions of you about players during the year that I have not seen multiple times. That said, as you said, you had Kuzma as a 2nd round pick and did not see Mitchell as the best player in the draft, or even a top 5 pick. I didn't know Kuzma existed, and I don't think I watched Mitchell all year long. So we aren't perfect, are we? I guess we can leave it at that and hope that Divac has both watched every player worth watching in this coming draft and that he has the keen insight to pick a Mitchell or a Kuzma when other's cannot.

If I were to take a guess, I'd bet that most people who predicted in advance who the best player in the draft would be, would be wrong a high percentage of the time. The one element that's hardest to predict is the human one. You never know how much heart and desire a player will have after he suddenly has multiple millions of dollars in his bank account. He can have a terrific track record up to that point, but all that money will change some of them. I have appropriately named it the Donte Greene syndrome.

I doubt many had Mitchell down as the best player out of this draft. And to be fair, that's the short term opinion. Who knows who will hold that title four or five years from now. There are so many variables when judging a player. If you had watched Kevin Johnson at Cal in just a few games, you never would have predicted his career. But if you watched 20 or 25 games, every once in a while you'd see him throw caution, and the coaches system out the window and explode with talent. Talent that the coaches system was depressing.

People forget that the players, for the most part, play the game the way the coach wants them to, and that may not necessarily be to their strengths, or at best, doesn't allow them to show their strengths. And then, they get drafted, explode on the scene, and everyone wonders how everyone missed on them? That was partially the case with Kuzma. How many people knew that Cousins could handle the ball as well as could? Or that he had a 15 to 17 foot jumpshot.

The first game I saw DiVincenzo play, it was obvious that he could play the game. He didn't score a lot of points in that game, but his switches on defense were spot on. He moved well without the ball on offense and had decent to good handles. But most of all, it was the way he carried himself on the court. He played with confidence, which is part him, and part coaching. Jay Wright is a terrific coach, and he was my choice for the Kings coaching job until they signed Joerger, who I like equally.

Right now I have Bamba in the 7th spot on my list, but he could easily turn out to be the best player in this draft, as well as Young could be. All these guys, especially the top 10 are very talented, but somewhat different as well. Each and every one of them has a wart somewhere, even if the wart happens to be the players age. There are players that will get picked lower, in the 16 to 25 range, that could end up being better than some of those chosen higher. Players like Keita Bates-Diop, Zhaire Smith or Mitchell Robinson.

There's going to be some excellent backup PG prospects to be had in the 2nd round, and perhaps the Kings would be served by choosing one to bring in as competition with Mason. I'm a huge fan of Jevon Carter, who is a terrifc defender and has more size at 6'3", shoots 39% from the three, and averages 6 assists a game. Another is Landry Shamet, a 6'4" PG who shoots 45% from the three and also defends. And of course there's Jalen Brunson of Villanova.

My point is, there is a lot of talent in this draft, but you have to find the player that fits best in your system and culture. If you looking to build an unselfish team, then don't draft a hero ball player, even if he's extremely talented. A good team has a hero of the night roster. No one cares who hits the next shot, or the winning shot. Hey, just my demented view of how the game should be played.

 

[kingsfan1984]

If I were to take a guess, I'd bet that most people who predicted in advance who the best player in the draft would be, would be wrong a high percentage of the time. The one element that's hardest to predict is the human one. You never know how much heart and desire a player will have after he suddenly has multiple millions of dollars in his bank account. He can have a terrific track record up to that point, but all that money will change some of them. I have appropriately named it the Donte Greene syndrome.

I doubt many had Mitchell down as the best player out of this draft. And to be fair, that's the short term opinion. Who knows who will hold that title four or five years from now. There are so many variables when judging a player. If you had watched Kevin Johnson at Cal in just a few games, you never would have predicted his career. But if you watched 20 or 25 games, every once in a while you'd see him throw caution, and the coaches system out the window and explode with talent. Talent that the coaches system was depressing.

People forget that the players, for the most part, play the game the way the coach wants them to, and that may not necessarily be to their strengths, or at best, doesn't allow them to show their strengths. And then, they get drafted, explode on the scene, and everyone wonders how everyone missed on them? That was partially the case with Kuzma. How many people knew that Cousins could handle the ball as well as could? Or that he had a 15 to 17 foot jumpshot.

The first game I saw DiVincenzo play, it was obvious that he could play the game. He didn't score a lot of points in that game, but his switches on defense were spot on. He moved well without the ball on offense and had decent to good handles. But most of all, it was the way he carried himself on the court. He played with confidence, which is part him, and part coaching. Jay Wright is a terrific coach, and he was my choice for the Kings coaching job until they signed Joerger, who I like equally.

Right now I have Bamba in the 7th spot on my list, but he could easily turn out to be the best player in this draft, as well as Young could be. All these guys, especially the top 10 are very talented, but somewhat different as well. Each and every one of them has a wart somewhere, even if the wart happens to be the players age. There are players that will get picked lower, in the 16 to 25 range, that could end up being better than some of those chosen higher. Players like Keita Bates-Diop, Zhaire Smith or Mitchell Robinson.

There's going to be some excellent backup PG prospects to be had in the 2nd round, and perhaps the Kings would be served by choosing one to bring in as competition with Mason. I'm a huge fan of Jevon Carter, who is a terrifc defender and has more size at 6'3", shoots 39% from the three, and averages 6 assists a game. Another is Landry Shamet, a 6'4" PG who shoots 45% from the three and also defends. And of course there's Jalen Brunson of Villanova.

My point is, there is a lot of talent in this draft, but you have to find the player that fits best in your system and culture. If you looking to build an unselfish team, then don't draft a hero ball player, even if he's extremely talented. A good team has a hero of the night roster. No one cares who hits the next shot, or the winning shot. Hey, just my demented view of how the game should be played.

I like the idea of a 3rd PG to give Mason a run. Especially a larger gaurd that fill a combo role should injury bug hit.

 

[Kingster]

If I were to take a guess, I'd bet that most people who predicted in advance who the best player in the draft would be, would be wrong a high percentage of the time. The one element that's hardest to predict is the human one. You never know how much heart and desire a player will have after he suddenly has multiple millions of dollars in his bank account. He can have a terrific track record up to that point, but all that money will change some of them. I have appropriately named it the Donte Greene syndrome.

I doubt many had Mitchell down as the best player out of this draft. And to be fair, that's the short term opinion. Who knows who will hold that title four or five years from now. There are so many variables when judging a player. If you had watched Kevin Johnson at Cal in just a few games, you never would have predicted his career. But if you watched 20 or 25 games, every once in a while you'd see him throw caution, and the coaches system out the window and explode with talent. Talent that the coaches system was depressing.

People forget that the players, for the most part, play the game the way the coach wants them to, and that may not necessarily be to their strengths, or at best, doesn't allow them to show their strengths. And then, they get drafted, explode on the scene, and everyone wonders how everyone missed on them? That was partially the case with Kuzma. How many people knew that Cousins could handle the ball as well as could? Or that he had a 15 to 17 foot jumpshot.

The first game I saw DiVincenzo play, it was obvious that he could play the game. He didn't score a lot of points in that game, but his switches on defense were spot on. He moved well without the ball on offense and had decent to good handles. But most of all, it was the way he carried himself on the court. He played with confidence, which is part him, and part coaching. Jay Wright is a terrific coach, and he was my choice for the Kings coaching job until they signed Joerger, who I like equally.

Right now I have Bamba in the 7th spot on my list, but he could easily turn out to be the best player in this draft, as well as Young could be. All these guys, especially the top 10 are very talented, but somewhat different as well. Each and every one of them has a wart somewhere, even if the wart happens to be the players age. There are players that will get picked lower, in the 16 to 25 range, that could end up being better than some of those chosen higher. Players like Keita Bates-Diop, Zhaire Smith or Mitchell Robinson.

There's going to be some excellent backup PG prospects to be had in the 2nd round, and perhaps the Kings would be served by choosing one to bring in as competition with Mason. I'm a huge fan of Jevon Carter, who is a terrifc defender and has more size at 6'3", shoots 39% from the three, and averages 6 assists a game. Another is Landry Shamet, a 6'4" PG who shoots 45% from the three and also defends. And of course there's Jalen Brunson of Villanova.

My point is, there is a lot of talent in this draft, but you have to find the player that fits best in your system and culture. If you looking to build an unselfish team, then don't draft a hero ball player, even if he's extremely talented. A good team has a hero of the night roster. No one cares who hits the next shot, or the winning shot. Hey, just my demented view of how the game should be played.

But the point is that we want the Divac or whomever is to be the Kings' draft head to be better than most, not like most. Saying that most got it wrong is not relevant. What we want is someone to be right more than most, and what we really want is a draft head who comes up with great picks 90% of the time regardless of what the consensus around the league thinks. To add to this point, it just drives me nuts that I hear Jerry Reynolds talking about the luck of the draft. That's just a cop-out as far as I am concerned. When Divac picks Fox I don't hear Reynolds talking about lucky the Kings are. When Divac pick Papa though I hear about how it's all just chance. Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. I guess the Spurs then are just soooo much more lucky than everyone else. Nope. They are smarter than everyone else. And it also drives me nuts to hear the "everybody else did it" excuse. That's another cop-out. Essentially, the GM is saying, don't blame me, everybody else had it wrong too. Cop-out. Usually the "everybody" he is talking about is a convenient small universe of "everybody" that got it wrong just like he did. You can bet that he didn't call around the league after he makes his mistake to find out the other teams that had it right when he had it wrong.

 

[bajaden]

But the point is that we want the Divac or whomever is to be the Kings' draft head to be better than most, not like most. Saying that most got it wrong is not relevant. What we want is someone to be right more than most, and what we really want is a draft head who comes up with great picks 90% of the time regardless of what the consensus around the league thinks. To add to this point, it just drives me nuts that I hear Jerry Reynolds talking about the luck of the draft. That's just a cop-out as far as I am concerned. When Divac picks Fox I don't hear Reynolds talking about lucky the Kings are. When Divac pick Papa though I hear about how it's all just chance. Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. I guess the Spurs then are just soooo much more lucky than everyone else. Nope. They are smarter than everyone else. And it also drives me nuts to hear the "everybody else did it" excuse. That's another cop-out. Essentially, the GM is saying, don't blame me, everybody else had it wrong too. Cop-out. Usually the "everybody" he is talking about is a convenient small universe of "everybody" that got it wrong just like he did. You can bet that he didn't call around the league after he makes his mistake to find out the other teams that had it right when he had it wrong.

First, it's basically impossible to have a constructive discussion on this subject with you. You've already made up your mind, and it's a black and white issue with you. Your not interested in the details, and it's the details that make up anyone's final decision. Why do the Spurs have one of the best drafting records in the NBA? Simple, because they've had the same management in place for over 20 years. They have hands down the largest scouting dept in the NBA.. They've had the same head coach for a thousand years and have been using the same system during that time.

The Kings on the other hand, have been the biggest revolving door of players, coaches, and GM's in the NBA. Under Petrie they had built one of the best scouting dept's in the NBA, but when the Maloof's ran into financial trouble, all that started to shrink. It shrunk to the point where we had no one scouting for us in Europe. Even Petrie wasn't allowed his annual trip over to see the players. Until Vivek bought the team, none of this had changed. This is what Vlade inherited. That's starting to change. We've double the size of our coaching and scouting staff. We're scouting in Europe again.

Now you can throw up your hands and say none of that matters and your sick and tired of excuses, and if so, then our discussion is over, because those things do matter and to deny them, is simply illogical. To expect to rebuild what it took 7 or 8 years to tear down in a year or two is also illogical. But I do believe that the Kings are on the right track now, and the results should start to show. What I laid out in the previous post wasn't about excuses, but I was simply describing the landscape that all GM's have to operate in when it comes to the draft.

You can pick a player that ends up being the best player in the draft, and still not win if he doesn't fit the system of the team. Yeah, you can say that the team should figure out how to fit around him. But do you change the entire way your team plays just to accommodate that player? The reason the Spurs are so successful is that they always bring in players that fit their system, or, they believe that player is young and raw enough to be taught their system. Sometimes it's better to drop down a notch in talent to get a better fit, not only for the system, but also the culture.

One final thing. I don't understand your obsession with Jerry Reynolds. He works for the Kings and is a PR guy. What the hell do you expect him to say? His job is to try and put a good spin on what the Kings do. Honestly, I listen to Jerry for his sense of humor, and in game insights. That's about it. By the way about 3 or 4 weeks ago I posted an article that looked at the last 20 years of the draft, and the percentages of getting it right. It's an accurate and very insightful article. I recommend reading it.

 

[Kingster]

First, it's basically impossible to have a constructive discussion on this subject with you. You've already made up your mind, and it's a black and white issue with you. Your not interested in the details, and it's the details that make up anyone's final decision. Why do the Spurs have one of the best drafting records in the NBA? Simple, because they've had the same management in place for over 20 years. They have hands down the largest scouting dept in the NBA.. They've had the same head coach for a thousand years and have been using the same system during that time.

The Kings on the other hand, have been the biggest revolving door of players, coaches, and GM's in the NBA. Under Petrie they had built one of the best scouting dept's in the NBA, but when the Maloof's ran into financial trouble, all that started to shrink. It shrunk to the point where we had no one scouting for us in Europe. Even Petrie wasn't allowed his annual trip over to see the players. Until Vivek bought the team, none of this had changed. This is what Vlade inherited. That's starting to change. We've double the size of our coaching and scouting staff. We're scouting in Europe again.

Now you can throw up your hands and say none of that matters and your sick and tired of excuses, and if so, then our discussion is over, because those things do matter and to deny them, is simply illogical. To expect to rebuild what it took 7 or 8 years to tear down in a year or two is also illogical. But I do believe that the Kings are on the right track now, and the results should start to show. What I laid out in the previous post wasn't about excuses, but I was simply describing the landscape that all GM's have to operate in when it comes to the draft.

You can pick a player that ends up being the best player in the draft, and still not win if he doesn't fit the system of the team. Yeah, you can say that the team should figure out how to fit around him. But do you change the entire way your team plays just to accommodate that player? The reason the Spurs are so successful is that they always bring in players that fit their system, or, they believe that player is young and raw enough to be taught their system. Sometimes it's better to drop down a notch in talent to get a better fit, not only for the system, but also the culture.

One final thing. I don't understand your obsession with Jerry Reynolds. He works for the Kings and is a PR guy. What the hell do you expect him to say? His job is to try and put a good spin on what the Kings do. Honestly, I listen to Jerry for his sense of humor, and in game insights. That's about it. By the way about 3 or 4 weeks ago I posted an article that looked at the last 20 years of the draft, and the percentages of getting it right. It's an accurate and very insightful article. I recommend reading it.

Re the bolded part: All to the good. I'm not arguing anything to the contrary and am somewhat confused why you think I'm arguing against that position.

Re the italics part: I hope so.

Re the underline part: Reynolds and Napier seem to mimic current Kings' management thinking. That's the only reason I take a cue from their opinions. Typically, they are a mirror of management and apologists of management.

Lastly, I still stand by the main thrust of my last post: To hell with consensus when it comes to the draft. When somebody on this board makes a mistake in evaluating talent, it's their mistake. And if a GM makes a pick that most agree with, but it turns out to be the wrong pick, guess what - it's still a bad pick. Don't fall back on the old excuse, "Well, everybody else thought it too." There was consensus on this board about WCS. Does that make it the right pick? Not necessarily. And there was consensus on this board about Fox. Does that make it the right pick? Not necessarily. To say that many others also made the wrong pick does not make the pick right. It just means that a lot of people got it wrong.

 

[bajaden]

Re the bolded part: All to the good. I'm not arguing anything to the contrary and am somewhat confused why you think I'm arguing against that position.

Re the italics part: I hope so.

Re the underline part: Reynolds and Napier seem to mimic current Kings' management thinking. That's the only reason I take a cue from their opinions. Typically, they are a mirror of management and apologists of management.

Lastly, I still stand by the main thrust of my last post: To hell with consensus when it comes to the draft. When somebody on this board makes a mistake in evaluating talent, it's their mistake. And if a GM makes a pick that most agree with, but it turns out to be the wrong pick, guess what - it's still a bad pick. Don't fall back on the old excuse, "Well, everybody else thought it too." There was consensus on this board about WCS. Does that make it the right pick? Not necessarily. And there was consensus on this board about Fox. Does that make it the right pick? Not necessarily. To say that many others also made the wrong pick does not make the pick right. It just means that a lot of people got it wrong.

I don't speak in generalities if I can help it, and that's what your doing. If your argument is that the Kings have made some bad picks along the way and that the team has been a mess for the last 9 or 10 years, then hey, I agree with you. And you seem to want to make that statement, and simply leave it at that. I can't do that. I have to dig into the mess and try and figure out why, and by why, I'm talking only about the Kings. Please don't throw that everyone else did it at me. Just because everyone else is going down on the Titanic doesn't mean I want to join them.

That doesn't mean that taking an overview of the entire league in conjunction with the Kings and their success isn't important. I think it's good to know what your percentages of success are at any given time. For instance, if the free agent market is a poor one in a given year, your chances of landing a top free agent are diminished percentage wise. The same is true of the draft. Some drafts are stronger than others which will increase your chances of getting a good player. And I grant you that you need good input to accomplish this, which the Kings didn't have for a period of time.

I don't know if it's your intent or not, but you sound like someone that thinks you should be able to find the needle in the haystack even though the odds are against you, and there's no excuse for not finding it. Now that's an exaggeration, but that's how your coming across. First I guess we would have to come to a description of what a good draft pick is. To many on this forum, it's a superstar at best, and star at worse. When you consider that the article I referred to showed that on average, over the last 20 years, your chance of getting a star out of the top ten players in the draft is slim at best. That's just a fact, and so there's an element of luck to the process.

However, to my mind, a successful draft is acquiring a solid rotational player at worse, and a solid starter at best. Anything beyond that is gravy. I do believe that if you continue to make good choices, you will on occasion stumble across a Paul George or a Kawhi Leonard. In most cases, but not all, consensus players turn out to be solid rotational players at worse and many end up being solid starters. Many times, a teams expectations aren't matched by it patience, and they give up too soon on a young player. The best you can do in the draft, is try to increase your chances of making a good choice.

How do you do that? First and foremost by having a good scouting dept. Since you brought up the Spurs. If you were to ask an NBA scout about the Spurs, they would tell you that when they're out scouting a game, it's not unusual to see not one, not two, but sometimes three scouts from the Spurs at the same game, all scouting from a different perspective. It's the same thing in Europe. The Spurs have invested millions of dollars in European scouting. It's not a guarantee, but it increases your chances.

And then of course, there's always the possibility that someone makes a move and grabs the player you had targeted. The year that the Lakers drafted Kobe, somehow West found out that Petrie had targeted Kobe for the Kings, and so on draft day he made a trade to move up one spot in front of the Kings and grab him. Hey, kudo's to West! But how were the fortunes of the Kings changed on that day? It's hard to know what you don't know.

Lastly, there have been times when the player the Kings have chosen isn't the player I would have chose. But once drafted, I try and keep an open mind and give that player the benefit of the doubt. I had serious reservations about McLemore, and very serious reservations about Thomas Robinson. I had both Harrison Barnes and Damian Lillard ahead of him. I had mixed emotions about Jimmer. He wasn't my first choice, but I didn't think at the time he was a bad choice. However, my choice, and the consensus on the forum at that time was Kawhi Leonard. I also would have taken Brandon Knight ahead of Jimmer. Also in the 2nd rd, I desperately wanted to pick Chandler Parsons, but instead they chose Tyler Honecutt.

I might add that I wasn't a big fan of Drummond's and he's turned out to be better than I thought, but probably not as good as some wished. At the end of the day, it's all about expectations. If Fox ends up being a 15 pt, 7 assist, 2 steals a game player I'll be happy, but some will be disappointed that he's not a superstar. Right now, Bogdanovic looks like a steal by the Kings. He's probably the best all around player on the team, and we got him as a throw in. I've been impressed with the progress that Hield has made this season. I think Willie is on the bubble of whether he's a starter or a backup in the NBA. He has to bring it next season right out of the gate.

So I'm conservatively optimistic about the progress the team has made this year. We've won almost as many games with the young team as we did with Cousins and Gay on the team. Not sure what that means in the grand scheme of things. Maybe nothing! But it could have been worse and it wasn't. Ironically, many of course wish that it had been worse, which is a double edged sword. Your happy for the better chance at a top prospect, but your disappointed in the current prospects on the team. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Kingster]

I don't speak in generalities if I can help it, and that's what your doing. If your argument is that the Kings have made some bad picks along the way and that the team has been a mess for the last 9 or 10 years, then hey, I agree with you. And you seem to want to make that statement, and simply leave it at that. I can't do that. I have to dig into the mess and try and figure out why, and by why, I'm talking only about the Kings. Please don't throw that everyone else did it at me. Just because everyone else is going down on the Titanic doesn't mean I want to join them.

That doesn't mean that taking an overview of the entire league in conjunction with the Kings and their success isn't important. I think it's good to know what your percentages of success are at any given time. For instance, if the free agent market is a poor one in a given year, your chances of landing a top free agent are diminished percentage wise. The same is true of the draft. Some drafts are stronger than others which will increase your chances of getting a good player. And I grant you that you need good input to accomplish this, which the Kings didn't have for a period of time.

I don't know if it's your intent or not, but you sound like someone that thinks you should be able to find the needle in the haystack even though the odds are against you, and there's no excuse for not finding it. (1)Now that's an exaggeration, but that's how your coming across. First I guess we would have to come to a description of what a good draft pick is. To many on this forum, it's a superstar at best, and star at worse. When you consider that the article I referred to showed that on average, over the last 20 years, your chance of getting a star out of the top ten players in the draft is slim at best. That's just a fact, and so there's an element of luck to the process.

However, to my mind, a successful draft is acquiring a solid rotational player at worse, and a solid starter at best. (2)Anything beyond that is gravy. I do believe that if you continue to make good choices, you will on occasion stumble across a Paul George or a Kawhi Leonard. In most cases, but not all, consensus players turn out to be solid rotational players at worse and many end up being solid starters. Many times, a teams expectations aren't matched by it patience, and they give up too soon on a young player. The best you can do in the draft, is try to increase your chances of making a good choice.

How do you do that? First and foremost by having a good scouting dept.(3) Since you brought up the Spurs. If you were to ask an NBA scout about the Spurs, they would tell you that when they're out scouting a game, it's not unusual to see not one, not two, but sometimes three scouts from the Spurs at the same game, all scouting from a different perspective. It's the same thing in Europe. The Spurs have invested millions of dollars in European scouting. It's not a guarantee, but it increases your chances.

And then of course, there's always the possibility that someone makes a move and grabs the player you had targeted. The year that the Lakers drafted Kobe, somehow West found out that Petrie had targeted Kobe for the Kings, and so on draft day he made a trade to move up one spot in front of the Kings and grab him. Hey, kudo's to West! But how were the fortunes of the Kings changed on that day? It's hard to know what you don't know.

Lastly, there have been times when the player the Kings have chosen isn't the player I would have chose. But once drafted, I try and keep an open mind and give that player the benefit of the doubt. I had serious reservations about McLemore, and very serious reservations about Thomas Robinson. I had both Harrison Barnes and Damian Lillard ahead of him. I had mixed emotions about Jimmer. He wasn't my first choice, but I didn't think at the time he was a bad choice. However, my choice, and the consensus on the forum at that time was Kawhi Leonard. I also would have taken Brandon Knight ahead of Jimmer. Also in the 2nd rd, I desperately wanted to pick Chandler Parsons, but instead they chose Tyler Honecutt.

I might add that I wasn't a big fan of Drummond's and he's turned out to be better than I thought, but probably not as good as some wished. At the end of the day, it's all about expectations. If Fox ends up being a 15 pt, 7 assist, 2 steals a game player I'll be happy, but some will be disappointed that he's not a superstar. Right now, Bogdanovic looks like a steal by the Kings. He's probably the best all around player on the team, and we got him as a throw in. I've been impressed with the progress that Hield has made this season. I think Willie is on the bubble of whether he's a starter or a backup in the NBA. He has to bring it next season right out of the gate.

So I'm conservatively optimistic about the progress the team has made this year.(4) We've won almost as many games with the young team as we did with Cousins and Gay on the team. Not sure what that means in the grand scheme of things. Maybe nothing! But it could have been worse and it wasn't. Ironically, many of course wish that it had been worse, which is a double edged sword. Your happy for the better chance at a top prospect, but your disappointed in the current prospects on the team. You can't have it both ways.

1) Nope. That's the GM's job, and yes, I do fully expect that he (or she) find the needle in the haystack. That's what they are paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for. I guess my expectations are higher than yours.

2) Totally disagree. It depends where you pick. If the Kings pick in upper part of the lottery, you better darned well get a star, not a freaking rotational player or an ok starter. This especially applies to the Kings, as they will never get a star FA to come here unless the earth spins off it's axis; therefore acquiring stars through the draft is incredibly important.

3) You're not just preaching to the choir on this, you're preaching to the preacher-man. I've said for years that if the Kings owners want to have a very big positive impact on the team they should pull up the Brink's truck for the scouting staff and the GM who makes the ultimate picks in the draft. There is no cap on spending for scouting staff's or management personnel. I've also said that the first place the Kings ought to look for additional scouts is the Spurs. After analyzing whatever plums might be available in the Spurs' scouting staff, I would do a full-on raid that would make the Vikings and Visigoths proud. Then I'd analyze every single scout in the league as best as I could with as much information as I could to rank them all according to their scouting expertise. Then I'd add them to my list of those who I want to "steal" for my organization. There needs to be more imagination and desire by Vivek to get this ball rolling.

(4) I'm conservatively optimistic as well. As I've said before, I give less weight to Divac's early bad decisions (Papa & surrender a #1 pick) less weight than later decisions because he was after all a rank greenhorn when he was hired. (Whether it was a good move to hire a greenhorn is another topic entirely). Lately, there seems good reason to believe that he has found his footing. I certainly hope so. All that said, this pick is extremely important because he doesn't have a #1 next year and for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. Getting a role player or an ok starter would be a big disappointment.

 

[206Fan]

You guys think Bagley and WCS could play together? The big worry with the two seems to be floor spacing. At this stage, Bagley doesn't have a consistent jumpshot, meanwhile WCS' range is only 15ft out. Defensively, the only problem I see is lack of rebounding. Bagley is an energy bunny, but he struggles boxing out.

I like Bagley as a future PF. I think he's got the tools to extend his range all the way out to the 3pt line.

 

[bajaden]

1) Nope. That's the GM's job, and yes, I do fully expect that he (or she) find the needle in the haystack. That's what they are paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for. I guess my expectations are higher than yours.

2) Totally disagree. It depends where you pick. If the Kings pick in upper part of the lottery, you better darned well get a star, not a freaking rotational player or an ok starter. This especially applies to the Kings, as they will never get a star FA to come here unless the earth spins off it's axis; therefore acquiring stars through the draft is incredibly important.

3) You're not just preaching to the choir on this, you're preaching to the preacher-man. I've said for years that if the Kings owners want to have a very big positive impact on the team they should pull up the Brink's truck for the scouting staff and the GM who makes the ultimate picks in the draft. There is no cap on spending for scouting staff's or management personnel. I've also said that the first place the Kings ought to look for additional scouts is the Spurs. After analyzing whatever plums might be available in the Spurs' scouting staff, I would do a full-on raid that would make the Vikings and Visigoths proud. Then I'd analyze every single scout in the league as best as I could with as much information as I could to rank them all according to their scouting expertise. Then I'd add them to my list of those who I want to "steal" for my organization. There needs to be more imagination and desire by Vivek to get this ball rolling.

(4) I'm conservatively optimistic as well. As I've said before, I give less weight to Divac's early bad decisions (Papa & surrender a #1 pick) less weight than later decisions because he was after all a rank greenhorn when he was hired. (Whether it was a good move to hire a greenhorn is another topic entirely). Lately, there seems good reason to believe that he has found his footing. I certainly hope so. All that said, this pick is extremely important because he doesn't have a #1 next year and for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. Getting a role player or an ok starter would be a big disappointment.

Of course it depends on where you pick, but if you think you should get a star every time you pick in the upper part of the lottery, then your living in La La land. Simply not going to happen! Unless you get lucky. In the 2013 draft only two players in the top five have reached what some consider star status. Otto Porter and Oladipo. They went 2nd and 3rd. However three other players taken later, only one of which was in the lottery became stars. C. J. McCollum, who was taken 10th, and who I really liked, but wouldn't have predicted him to be a star. Adetokoubo who was taken 15th and Gobert who was taken 27th might be considered the two biggest stars out of that draft, and no one would have predicted that.

You simply have no idea how hard a player is going to work once in the NBA. If they work hard and have the physical tools, chances are your going to get somewhere between a solid player and a superstar. For instance, Willie has all the physical tools, and by every account, he works hard on his game, but so far all that has added up to is a player that we know can play in the NBA. He still has time, but the clock is running. In this years draft Bamba has been compared to Gobert. Similar size and athleticism. He appears to have the same shotblocking instincts that Gobert has. But can you guarantee me that he'll be as good as Gobert? No, of course not. But is seems that's what you want from a GM. Well, good luck with that.

 

[biltalent]

You guys think Bagley and WCS could play together? The big worry with the two seems to be floor spacing. At this stage, Bagley doesn't have a consistent jumpshot, meanwhile WCS' range is only 15ft out. Defensively, the only problem I see is lack of rebounding. Bagley is an energy bunny, but he struggles boxing out.

I like Bagley as a future PF. I think he's got the tools to extend his range all the way out to the 3pt line.

Don't like this pairing at all. None of them can guard big bodied centers. None protects the rim. And despite my believe that Bagley will develop his jumper, his most value comes at the rim offensively.
If the Kings where to draft Bagley I am advocating for a big bodied C that can stretch the floor. A guy that comes to mind and might be available is Mike Muscala.

 

[biltalent]

If you had to pick one of the "common top 10" (Ayton, Doncic, Bagley, JJJ, Porter, Young, Bamba, Carter, Bridges, Bridges), who do you guys think is the most likely to not develop into what his upside seems to be?

 

[bajaden]

If you had to pick one of the "common top 10" (Ayton, Doncic, Bagley, JJJ, Porter, Young, Bamba, Carter, Bridges, Bridges), who do you guys think is the most likely to not develop into what his upside seems to be?

That's a tough one. All those players are talented, and if they all work on their game, all of them should come close to expectations. I guess if I had to take a stab at it I'd go with a player that for some reason scares me the most, and that's Jaren Jackson. On the other hand, the player who I think has been over hyped is Bamba. I have no doubt he'll be a good defensive player, but I can't even venture a guess as to whether he'll ever be a good offensive player.

I guess to answer the question properly, one would have to know what the expected upside is for each player.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

You guys think Bagley and WCS could play together? The big worry with the two seems to be floor spacing. At this stage, Bagley doesn't have a consistent jumpshot, meanwhile WCS' range is only 15ft out. Defensively, the only problem I see is lack of rebounding. Bagley is an energy bunny, but he struggles boxing out.

I like Bagley as a future PF. I think he's got the tools to extend his range all the way out to the 3pt line.

I don’t think he could play with WCS, but I have him #2 on my big board behind Doncic, mostly for the reasons you mentioned. I just think he’s a great fit for Vlade and Joerger. His defense needs to improve, but he never lacks effort or coasts. He’ll definitely extend his range out to three.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

If you had to pick one of the "common top 10" (Ayton, Doncic, Bagley, JJJ, Porter, Young, Bamba, Carter, Bridges, Bridges), who do you guys think is the most likely to not develop into what his upside seems to be?

1. Bamba
2. Porter
3. Ayton
4. Young

I’m pretty sure Bamba will be a bust unless he goes to the perfect situation for him. I like Dallas and NY for him in the top ten. Anywhere else and he busts, IMO.

Porter will be solid but underwhelming. I think he’ll be a massive disappointment for casual fans because he’s being sold as a SF when he’s really a stretch 4 all day, everyday. Likeliest outcome is a Mike Dunleavy Jr type of career, unless he can land on a team like the Mavs or golden era Kings where he can fulfill the Peja or Dirk role.

Ayton’s defense is just atrocious. I’m ruminating on doing a separate thread about this, but when a prospect with his measurables has BBIQ and/or defensive effort issues to the level he does that is a huge, huge red flag for me. Again, Ayton seems like a guy who has worked hard with great skills coaches, but is maybe more interested in the basketball life (meaning comfort, nothing bad) than basketball legacy (i.e. wins and championships). He’s being billed as a franchise savior...I’ll be stunned if he’s anything close to that. This guy seems like the type of dude that gets the coach/GM who drafts him fired, turns down his QO to hit UFA, signs with Miami and finally puts it together there. I think if you draft him you are still praying to land a Jimmy Butler type player to light a fire under Ayton before you run out of time on his rookie deal. Which is fine as far as prospects go, but this guy is being billed as the best big man prospect since Anthony Davis and maybe even since Tim Duncan. The casual fan is going to be irate at still only winning 38 games three years into Ayton’s career.

Young is pretty obvious. I think the rest of the guys come pretty close to fulfilling initial expectations barring injury.

 

[Joshoua]

I don’t think he could play with WCS, but I have him #2 on my big board behind Doncic, mostly for the reasons you mentioned. I just think he’s a great fit for Vlade and Joerger. His defense needs to improve, but he never lacks effort or coasts. He’ll definitely extend his range out to three.

You guys think Bagley and WCS could play together? The big worry with the two seems to be floor spacing. At this stage, Bagley doesn't have a consistent jumpshot, meanwhile WCS' range is only 15ft out. Defensively, the only problem I see is lack of rebounding. Bagley is an energy bunny, but he struggles boxing out.

I like Bagley as a future PF. I think he's got the tools to extend his range all the way out to the 3pt line.

In a dream world we have Giles/Bagley starting together that would instantly fix our rebounding issue. I also believe Bagley will develop a respectable jump shot

 

[Kingster]

Of course it depends on where you pick, but if you think you should get a star every time you pick in the upper part of the lottery, then your living in La La land. Simply not going to happen! Unless you get lucky. In the 2013 draft only two players in the top five have reached what some consider star status. Otto Porter and Oladipo. They went 2nd and 3rd. However three other players taken later, only one of which was in the lottery became stars. C. J. McCollum, who was taken 10th, and who I really liked, but wouldn't have predicted him to be a star. Adetokoubo who was taken 15th and Gobert who was taken 27th might be considered the two biggest stars out of that draft, and no one would have predicted that.

You simply have no idea how hard a player is going to work once in the NBA. If they work hard and have the physical tools, chances are your going to get somewhere between a solid player and a superstar. For instance, Willie has all the physical tools, and by every account, he works hard on his game, but so far all that has added up to is a player that we know can play in the NBA. He still has time, but the clock is running. In this years draft Bamba has been compared to Gobert. Similar size and athleticism. He appears to have the same shotblocking instincts that Gobert has. But can you guarantee me that he'll be as good as Gobert? No, of course not. But is seems that's what you want from a GM. Well, good luck with that.

This is a straw man. I've never said that and I've never seen nor heard anybody say that. I qualified my statement for a good reason - so that this kind of exaggeration would not occur.

 

[bajaden]

This is a straw man. I've never said that and I've never seen nor heard anybody say that. I qualified my statement for a good reason - so that this kind of exaggeration would not occur.

Perhaps I misunderstood this sentence from you:

2) Totally disagree. It depends where you pick. If the Kings pick in upper part of the lottery, you better darned well get a star, not a freaking rotational player or an ok starter. This especially applies to the Kings, as they will never get a star FA to come here unless the earth spins off it's axis; therefore acquiring stars through the draft is incredibly important.

 

[kingsfan1984]

Everytime I see PJ Tucker or tobias harris i think Miles Bridges? Can someone explain how beyond body type the comparisons end there?

 

[bajaden]

Everytime I see PJ Tucker or tobias harris i think Miles Bridges? Can someone explain how beyond body type the comparisons end there?

Well I can see why you might find the Tucker/Miles Bridges comparison. Similar body types, although Tucker is a bit shorter, and not quite as good an athlete as Miles. Tucker was listed at 6'5" at the combine, and Bridges is listed at 6'6.5". But I won't quibble over an inch one way or the other. Tucker played PF in college as did Harris, while Bridges has played both PF and SF at Mich St. I don't see that much of a comparison with Harris who is 6'8" tall and who today plays more away from the basket. Bridges scores over half his points attacking the basket.

For what it's worth, Bridges comes out of college with more upside than either Tucker or Harris did. But to quote Bill Walsh, "Upside means you haven't done anything yet."

 

[bajaden]

For those interested, here is video podcast with Cole Zwicker covering some of the top picks in the coming draft that was made about halfway through the college season. Even though dated, it's a pretty accurate analysis by Zwicker, who I have great respect for.

 

[bajaden]

While I'm not particularly high on Bamba, I do think he'll find his place in the NBA. I see him as a good shotblocker and a decent to good rebounder. But that's about it, at least right now. I don't think he's all that athletic and doesn't have elite jumping ability. Offensively he can be almost comical at times trying to find a way to put the ball in the basket, if its not an uncontested dunk. I also question his hands a bit. Anyway, here's an article from the Stepien that seconds my thoughts.

http://www.thestepien.com/2018/04/16/bet-mo-bamba-bet-athletic-development/

 

[Joshoua]

While I'm not particularly high on Bamba, I do think he'll find his place in the NBA. I see him as a good shotblocker and a decent to good rebounder. But that's about it, at least right now. I don't think he's all that athletic and doesn't have elite jumping ability. Offensively he can be almost comical at times trying to find a way to put the ball in the basket, if its not an uncontested dunk. I also question his hands a bit. Anyway, here's an article from the Stepien that seconds my thoughts.

http://www.thestepien.com/2018/04/16/bet-mo-bamba-bet-athletic-development/

I value Stepien scouting reports as number one right now one reason is they aren’t paid so agents do ditctate there rankings.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

While I'm not particularly high on Bamba, I do think he'll find his place in the NBA. I see him as a good shotblocker and a decent to good rebounder. But that's about it, at least right now. I don't think he's all that athletic and doesn't have elite jumping ability. Offensively he can be almost comical at times trying to find a way to put the ball in the basket, if its not an uncontested dunk. I also question his hands a bit. Anyway, here's an article from the Stepien that seconds my thoughts.

http://www.thestepien.com/2018/04/16/bet-mo-bamba-bet-athletic-development/

I can’t find any real basketball minds that are terribly high on Bamba. The quants (eg Kevin O’Connor) and basketball neophytes (eg Kevin O’Connor) seem bewitched by Bamba because wingspan. Are there any front offices in front of us that are overly reliant on quants? Dallas, maybe? Memphis’ owners?

Jerry West built some great teams with differing characteristics, but he had a knack for finding guys who loved the game and played hard (also signed Shaq who was big maybe on both counts). Here’s my question I always ask: would Jerry West draft this guy? Answer on Bamba....resounding no.

 

[bajaden]

I value Stepien scouting reports as number one right now one reason is they aren’t paid so agents do ditctate there rankings.

I agree on the Stepien. They have some sharp young minds that break down players from different perspectives. I enjoy their reports, especially when it agree's with my opinion.

 

[bajaden]

I can’t find any real basketball minds that are terribly high on Bamba. The quants (eg Kevin O’Connor) and basketball neophytes (eg Kevin O’Connor) seem bewitched by Bamba because wingspan. Are there any front offices in front of us that are overly reliant on quants? Dallas, maybe? Memphis’ owners?

Jerry West built some great teams with differing characteristics, but he had a knack for finding guys who loved the game and played hard (also signed Shaq who was big maybe on both counts). Here’s my question I always ask: would Jerry West draft this guy? Answer on Bamba....resounding no.

I agree with you. West is a good judge of talent, and he also knows how to put a team together. Those two things can be mutually exclusive of one another. West built the Lakers, then went to Memphis, and built that team, and then on to the Warriors, and built that team. Now he's with the Clips. Should be interesting to see what happens there. Not sure how much power he has now, but if it were me, I'd give him Carte Blanche.

 

[biltalent]

Jackson Hoy who writes for the Stepien as well brought up this old quote from Mike Schmitz regarding Ayton. I can't verify it because it is behind a paywall. Does someone have Insider and can verify that Schmitz wrote that?

Later in his high school career, [Ayton] became infatuated with the idea of being a power forward, which has continued to this day, despite the fact that modern basketball has gone in the complete opposite direction. The fact that he's listed as a "forward" by Arizona and is starting and playing heavy minutes alongside another 7-footer in Dusan Ristic is not an accident. It's entirely by his own design.
...
While acknowledging that he isn't the hardest worker off the court, people at Arizona rave about his on-court competitiveness and overall personality. He seems very well-liked by teammates, too. Ayton is clearly making significant strides in the right direction.

http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/sto...deandre-ayton-leader-no-1-pick-2018-nba-draft

 

[Tetsujin]

Jackson Hoy who writes for the Stepien as well brought up this old quote from Mike Schmitz regarding Ayton. I can't verify it because it is behind a paywall. Does someone have Insider and can verify that Schmitz wrote that?



http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/sto...deandre-ayton-leader-no-1-pick-2018-nba-draft

You know who else had the same "I'm a power forward" argument? Boogie.