There are two ways a draft can be iffy. One is because there's a severe drop off of talent at some point and they all start to look the same as far as upside goes. The other, is when there's so much talent that they all look similar as far as upside goes. This draft falls into the latter. There is a ton of talent in this draft, especially on the wing. So it becomes a pick your poison situation. All these players have something that makes them stand out, and then on taking a closer look, they all have some flaws.
It's been a long time since I've seen a player that didn't have a perceived flaw coming out of college. I have my own personal way of making decisions on a players ability, and for the most part, it works for me. But there is no perfect way. We're dealing with human beings here, not robots. Some things are hard to predict. So you throw the dice and hope for the best outcome. Which brings me to Alperen Sengun.
I've watched a lot of film on this player, and some of his games.
https://www.livebasketball.tv/home I've done a lot of research on this player, and as best I can come up with, he's somewhere between 6'9" and 6'9.5" in shoes. If someone has info disputing that, I would love to have the reference. His skill set, which is excellent, is as a center. He can shoot the three a little, but he's a definite liability defensively on the perimeter. We've struggled as a team with Holmes at center at times when he goes up against some of the bigger centers in the league, so how do you think we would do with Sengun out there, who is a bit shorter, and less athletic than Holmes.
Sengun is very skilled in the low post, and is also a very good rebounder. So I see him as a small ball center. Now if he can grow another two or three inches, then the situation changes. But he's not going to become more athletic, and his athleticism and height limit his future in the league. Now that's just my opinion, and I hope he proves me wrong. But I don't think the Kings can afford to gamble on this pick, and if they were to gamble, then do it on a player with a higher ceiling. Like Keon Johnson or Scottie Barnes. And I'm not suggesting you gamble, but what I would do if I were to gamble.
Here's a suggestion. Pick out your top 20 players. Regardless of the current mock drafts. Then go through them one by one and ask this question about each one. Do I think this player could eventually be a star in the league? If not, then put him on the rotational player list. If the answer is yes, then ask a second question. Do I think this player could eventually be a super star? If the answer is yes, then put him on that list, and if the answer is no, then put him on that list. At the end of this procedure go through each list and prioritize them in the order you value them
I understand that many of you haven't watched these players play an actual game, or if you did, you came to the party late, and saw maybe a game or two. If that's the case, then maybe you got lucky and saw a true representation of that player. Or not! For instance, if you only saw Kispert play in his last two games, your probably not to enthused about him. But those two games might have been his worse two games all year long. I lost track of how many times I saw Gonzaga play this season, and I'm sure I have a completely different opinion of Kispert than you might. He was probably the most clutch player on the team. Why his shot failed him in the tournament I have no idea, but I can't throw out everything I know about him because of those two games.
So, do I think Kispert can be a star? Borderline! Maybe in the sense that Buddy is considered a star of sorts. He's a better shooter than Buddy was coming out of college, and a far better defender as well. A superstar? Nope! Last year I asked myself whether Haliburton could be a star, and my immediate answer was yes! Could he be a superstar? A borderline yes? Only two other players got a yes to both questions, Ball and Edwards, with me being skeptical of Edwards because of his poor decision making and lack of interest on defense.
I'm not going to suggest who we should pick until I know the exact order of the draft. But whether we pick in the top five, or at fourteen, we should get a very good basketball player. There are players like Boston who is very talented and who will slide down the draft board because of his lack luster year. But remember what Immanuel Quickley did at Kentucky his freshman year, and then what he did his sophomore year. Night and day difference. It just took him a year for the lights to come back on. Now he's a part of the reason the Knicks are heading for the playoff's.
