Probable Lottery picks in the 2021 Draft:

[bajaden]

Why would 1 or 2 inches of height make such a difference if everything else is the same?

I love the intensity that Holmes plays with, but every time he has to go up against one of the bigger, taller, maybe stronger centers in the league, Adams, either Lopez, Gasol, Jokic, Gobert, Nurkic, and finally, the thug, Valanciunas, who Holmes had zero answer for last night, he struggles. Does anyone think that Valanciunas is an all star center? Holmes made him look like one, and I'm not trying to be critical of Holmes. He did everything he could to defend Valanciunas. He was simply too small by comparison to match up.

 

[bajaden]

given we are likely at 10 or 11, I think Giddey, Barnes and Wagner are all gone.

I think it's a 50/50 thing at this point. After what I think are a top four, there is a small drop off, but at that point, the talent level, which is still high, is fairly equal, and deep. Players like Wagner could go in the top 8, or he could just as easily go at 15 or 16. I truly think it will come down to a teams needs more so than other years. Were currently sitting in either the 9th or 10 position, and barring a miracle in the lottery, that's likely were we'll be picking.

If so, the players I think could be available will be Franz Wagner, Corey Kispert, Moses Moody, Jalen Johnson, Usman Garuba, Kai Jones, Cam Thomas, and a couple of my personal favorites, Chris Duarte, and Tre Mann. I believe that all these players listed will have solid to very good NBA careers. My point is, we should get a very good player to add to our core. I believe that the first five I listed can all be difference makers to some degree, and some more than others. I'm way higher on Johnson than most. Garuba is one of the most intriguing players in the draft. He has a very high ceiling, and his floor isn't that low, particularly because of his defensive abilities. If that man can learn to shoot the ball, oh my god, watch out!

Obviously I still love Wagner, Kispert, and Moody. Yeah, Wagner faded out of sight offensively in the tournament, but if you paid attention, his defense, and his overall BBIQ was still on point. He may be a couple of years away from achieving his potential, but I think the kid has a very high ceiling to go along with his great size and length for his position.

I'm still having mixed emotions about Giddey. I like what I see, but there's something that bothers me, and I can't put my finger on it. He's not Cunningham, if that's the ceiling, but how far removed from Cunningham is he? I know there are some here who think that Cunningham is somewhat overrated. My advice to them is to be silent or become a fool. Their choice! I guess my biggest question is, will Giddey be able to shoot a respectable percentage from the three? He has a great feel for the game, and is a terrific passer. He's not a great athlete, but he's very skilled. To me, he's more of a mystery player than most of the others. So I'll leave it up to McNair to bring him in for a workout and pass judgement.

Anyway, to get back to responding to your initial post, I do think that Scottie Barnes will be gone by the time we pick, but it's not written in stone. I never for a moment thought that Haliburton would slide down to us. So you never know. But I think both Wagner and Giddey are possibilities for us. It's one of the most unpredictable drafts in a long time. Not because of lack of talent, but because of an excess of talent. It' like going into a candy store, and trying to make up your mind on what tickles your taste buds that day.

 

[Turgenev]

I'm still having mixed emotions about Giddey. I like what I see, but there's something that bothers me, and I can't put my finger on it. He's not Cunningham, if that's the ceiling, but how far removed from Cunningham is he? I know there are some here who think that Cunningham is somewhat overrated. My advice to them is to be silent or become a fool. Their choice! I guess my biggest question is, will Giddey be able to shoot a respectable percentage from the three? He has a great feel for the game, and is a terrific passer. He's not a great athlete, but he's very skilled. To me, he's more of a mystery player than most of the others. So I'll leave it up to McNair to bring him in for a workout and pass judgement.

I've been looking for some different perspectives on draft prospects a little over the last few days. Some draft guys seem to love JG. The negatives I've seen are his defence and his all round game. E.g.,

https://twitter.com/statuses/1392171555409600512

And from Here:

Notice how that whole strengths segment was all basically one strength?

I mean, I think he could be a good pick for the Kings. He would move the ball well and contribute to a fun offence. Maybe, in 3 years time, he is good enough to start at the 3 for a playoff team? But there is risk.

 

[NiNetNiNe]

I've been looking for some different perspectives on draft prospects a little over the last few days. Some draft guys seem to love JG. The negatives I've seen are his defence and his all round game. E.g.,

https://twitter.com/statuses/1392171555409600512

And from Here:



I mean, I think he could be a good pick for the Kings. He would move the ball well and contribute to a fun offence. Maybe, in 3 years time, he is good enough to start at the 3 for a playoff team? But there is risk.

I don't follow prospects until it gets close to draft time. That's when I look through these threads and see who the most talked about players are and will then go through their games and read about them. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

From what I've seen of Josh Giddey, his defense doesn't seem to be neither positive nor negative. He doesn't seem to be a liability, and seems to have upside with his ability to move literally for his size.

Giddey has a slow shot with an inconsistent form. But is a wizard with the ball in his hands. I feel like he compares well to Lamelo.

 

[sactowndog]

I love the intensity that Holmes plays with, but every time he has to go up against one of the bigger, taller, maybe stronger centers in the league, Adams, either Lopez, Gasol, Jokic, Gobert, Nurkic, and finally, the thug, Valanciunas, who Holmes had zero answer for last night, he struggles. Does anyone think that Valanciunas is an all star center? Holmes made him look like one, and I'm not trying to be critical of Holmes. He did everything he could to defend Valanciunas. He was simply too small by comparison to match up.

yep why if I’m Richaun I’m looking to join a team that has a 5 who likes to play offensively on the perimeter.

 

[SacTownKid]

I don't follow prospects until it gets close to draft time. That's when I look through these threads and see who the most talked about players are and will then go through their games and read about them. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

From what I've seen of Josh Giddey, his defense doesn't seem to be neither positive nor negative. He doesn't seem to be a liability, and seems to have upside with his ability to move literally for his size.

Giddey has a slow shot with an inconsistent form. But is a wizard with the ball in his hands. I feel like he compares well to Lamelo.

One good thing about where Giddey comes from is that players come ready for the physicality of the NBA. Right now ball handlers or players that can run pick and roll are at a premium. Players that have wing size that can do it is a worthwhile gamble IMO. Especially with the Kings who don't have a lot of size in the backcourt or on the wing right now.

 

[SacTownKid]

yep why if I’m Richaun I’m looking to join a team that has a 5 who likes to play offensively on the perimeter.

Dallas can't be blind. He'd make up for a ton of what Porzingis lacks.

 

[sactowndog]

Dallas can't be blind. He'd make up for a ton of what Porzingis lacks.

yeah they would be a good fit also in terms of allowing Porzingas to stretch the floor and run pick and roll with Luka.

 

[sactowndog]

Dallas can't be blind. He'd make up for a ton of what Porzingis lacks.

the problem Dallas has is then where do you play Luka on defense. That problem is one big one having Luka as your point guard.

 

[Turgenev]

I don't follow prospects until it gets close to draft time. That's when I look through these threads and see who the most talked about players are and will then go through their games and read about them. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

From what I've seen of Josh Giddey, his defense doesn't seem to be neither positive nor negative. He doesn't seem to be a liability, and seems to have upside with his ability to move literally for his size.

Giddey has a slow shot with an inconsistent form. But is a wizard with the ball in his hands. I feel like he compares well to Lamelo.

This isn't directed straight at you despite the quote -

I'm lucky in that I live in Australia and can watch Giddey games. Overall, I think he's a good prospect. Others, including Australian basketball commentators, mainstream US sports sites, and select Twitter draft geeks also seem to rate him.

Having said that, I feel whenever I, or someone else, makes a post about a weakness in a prospects game, people who like that prospect jump in like 'oh no no this isn't an issue'. Whether it's Giddey or someone else, you can like a dude and acknowledge they have flaws. Further, until someone is actually in the NBA, maybe even a few years in, question marks are going to be question marks.

Giddey's passing is elite. He has good size. And has produced in a professional league. He should be a good get for the Kings. But don't be shocked when you see him standing upright on defence or missing consecutive free throws.

 

[SacTownKid]

This isn't directed straight at you despite the quote -

I'm lucky in that I live in Australia and can watch Giddey games. Overall, I think he's a good prospect. Others, including Australian basketball commentators, mainstream US sports sites, and select Twitter draft geeks also seem to rate him.

Having said that, I feel whenever I, or someone else, makes a post about a weakness in a prospects game, people who like that prospect jump in like 'oh no no this isn't an issue'. Whether it's Giddey or someone else, you can like a dude and acknowledge they have flaws. Further, until someone is actually in the NBA, maybe even a few years in, question marks are going to be question marks.

Giddey's passing is elite. He has good size. And has produced in a professional league. He should be a good get for the Kings. But don't be shocked when you see him standing upright on defence or missing consecutive free throws.

And everybody in this draft has flaws. This is where I think you can rate potential upside with what teams can exploit relative to where the NBA is at during the current times. Size/playmaking = good things. There are better fits but most of them don't have his floor game and he's also a pretty good athlete too. He's not a slug which makes a big difference as well.

 

[NiNetNiNe]

This isn't directed straight at you despite the quote -

I'm lucky in that I live in Australia and can watch Giddey games. Overall, I think he's a good prospect. Others, including Australian basketball commentators, mainstream US sports sites, and select Twitter draft geeks also seem to rate him.

Having said that, I feel whenever I, or someone else, makes a post about a weakness in a prospects game, people who like that prospect jump in like 'oh no no this isn't an issue'. Whether it's Giddey or someone else, you can like a dude and acknowledge they have flaws. Further, until someone is actually in the NBA, maybe even a few years in, question marks are going to be question marks.

Giddey's passing is elite. He has good size. And has produced in a professional league. He should be a good get for the Kings. But don't be shocked when you see him standing upright on defence or missing consecutive free throws.

I agree with most of what you said. The only reason I even commented was because I just happened to be looking through his games at the time of your post. Giddey has plenty of weaknesses, I just felt that defense wasn't exactly one of his major ones.

I don't really have a dog in the race as I am just getting to know a lot of these people.

 

[sactowndog]

I agree with most of what you said. The only reason I even commented was because I just happened to be looking through his games at the time of your post. Giddey has plenty of weaknesses, I just felt that defense wasn't exactly one of his major ones.

I don't really have a dog in the race as I am just getting to know a lot of these people.

interesting. Do you think Giddey can play the three in the NBA?

 

[serbiangoat]

Dallas can't be blind. He'd make up for a ton of what Porzingis lacks.

Maxi Kleber is a better player and will cost cheaper most likely they have zero needs for Holmes.

 

[Turgenev]

Kuminga has been slotted into the 5 slot in several mock drafts - but there do seem to be several draft geeks that do not rate him as highly. For example, Nate Babcock has him floating in the middle:

https://twitter.com/statuses/1393815646811549698

And THIS podcast is completely unimpressed. Their take: he is a poor shooter from all areas on the court, he has poor touch at the rim and a lot of bad misses if he doesn't have an open dunk, can create off the dribble well but can't convert that to efficient scoring or assists, is a poor spacer, moves poorly off the ball, and is slow to react offensively. Defensively, he has good moments as a point of attack defender, but rarely makes second or third efforts, gets caught ball watching and rotates slowly. He does have a good defensive rebounding percentage and gets good contested rebounds. In short, he has the aesthetics of an NBA player but not the game.

I haven't watched more than a highlight video - in which he looked great. But that is the nature of those videos.

 

[sactowndog]

Kuminga has been slotted into the 5 slot in several mock drafts - but there do seem to be several draft geeks that do not rate him as highly. For example, Nate Babcock has him floating in the middle:

https://twitter.com/statuses/1393815646811549698

And THIS podcast is completely unimpressed. Their take: he is a poor shooter from all areas on the court, he has poor touch at the rim and a lot of bad misses if he doesn't have an open dunk, can create off the dribble well but can't convert that to efficient scoring or assists, is a poor spacer, moves poorly off the ball, and is slow to react offensively. Defensively, he has good moments as a point of attack defender, but rarely makes second or third efforts, gets caught ball watching and rotates slowly. He does have a good defensive rebounding percentage and gets good contested rebounds. In short, he has the aesthetics of an NBA player but not the game.

I haven't watched more than a highlight video - in which he looked great. But that is the nature of those videos.

it will be interesting what we do if we get the 4 spot, Mobley is gone and we are looking at Green or Kuminga. I think you have to take Green but our backcourt becomes ridiculously over crowded.

at that point you almost certainly lose Davis in free agency.

 

[iowamcnabb]

it will be interesting what we do if we get the 4 spot, Mobley is gone and we are looking at Green or Kuminga. I think you have to take Green but our backcourt becomes ridiculously over crowded.

at that point you almost certainly lose Davis in free agency.

if Green is the pick I’m sure we would run him at the 3

 

[sactowndog]

if Green is the pick I’m sure we would run him at the 3

we would have to but at
6’3” 185
6’5” 185
6’5” 180

we would be physically overmatched defensively.

 

[Turgenev]

it will be interesting what we do if we get the 4 spot, Mobley is gone and we are looking at Green or Kuminga. I think you have to take Green but our backcourt becomes ridiculously over crowded.

at that point you almost certainly lose Davis in free agency.

I'm with you in the excess we have in the backcourt. But why would we have to pick either Green or Kuminga at 4? Maybe we really like someone else but they are projected 6-8. Why not take them at 4?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'm with you in the excess we have in the backcourt. But why would we have to pick either Green or Kuminga at 4? Maybe we really like someone else but they are projected 6-8. Why not take them at 4?

Not answering for @sactowndog but for my part I do believe that the popular assessment that the top 5 players in the draft are head and shoulders above the rest of the draft is a correct assessment. If we really liked somebody in the 6-8 region better than whichever two were left at #4, sure, take them (or, perhaps better, trade down). But the way I see it, we *won't* like anybody in the 6-8 region better than Green/Kuminga (or whichever two are left). There's just a big enough gap that we don't look any lower.

For instance, when the Heat picked at #5 in 2003, once Milicic was off the board they were taking one of the Anthony/Bosh/Wade trio. Maybe they would have liked one of those players better than Wade at the time, but they sure as heck weren't going to reach into the 6-8 range (Kaman/Hinrich/TJ Ford) because they thought Wade was an imperfect fit. So if we were to be picking at #4, well Cunningham and Mobley probably aren't there so we'd have a shot at Green/Kuminga/Suggs, and that's the order I'd personally put them in for the Kings. Suggs might actually be higher on my big board than Kuminga, but Kuminga is a much better fit. Nobody else really gets consideration. I really think the draft starts over at #6 this year.

 

[Turgenev]

Not answering for @sactowndog but for my part I do believe that the popular assessment that the top 5 players in the draft are head and shoulders above the rest of the draft is a correct assessment. If we really liked somebody in the 6-8 region better than whichever two were left at #4, sure, take them (or, perhaps better, trade down). But the way I see it, we *won't* like anybody in the 6-8 region better than Green/Kuminga (or whichever two are left). There's just a big enough gap that we don't look any lower.

For instance, when the Heat picked at #5 in 2003, once Milicic was off the board they were taking one of the Anthony/Bosh/Wade trio. Maybe they would have liked one of those players better than Wade at the time, but they sure as heck weren't going to reach into the 6-8 range (Kaman/Hinrich/TJ Ford) because they thought Wade was an imperfect fit. So if we were to be picking at #4, well Cunningham and Mobley probably aren't there so we'd have a shot at Green/Kuminga/Suggs, and that's the order I'd personally put them in for the Kings. Suggs might actually be higher on my big board than Kuminga, but Kuminga is a much better fit. Nobody else really gets consideration. I really think the draft starts over at #6 this year.

I don't know that I agree on the top 5 being head and shoulders above the rest. For one, I don't think Kuminga sounds that good. I think guys like Wagner and Barnes are better prospects than Kuminga. Appreciate your logic/ response nonetheless.

 

[SacTownKid]

we would have to but at
6’3” 185
6’5” 185
6’5” 180

we would be physically overmatched defensively.

Green seems to have a decent physical profile though. Rangy and wirey. The last measurements I can find were from when he was 16 so he had to have grown. He looks longer than the numbers suggest.

 

[ESP47]

I think Green is going to be better than Buddy and Haliburton. He has #1 scoring potential. His position is redundant but have you ever heard of a team that was mired in mediocrity because they had too many good guards? That gives you flexibility to trade for a better fit. Maybe they'd just have to trade Buddy and Fox/Green/Hali will be the guards of the future. Maybe Haliburton winds up being a better PG than Fox and Green winds up being a better scorer. That would give you a pretty huge trade chip in Fox. I say go BPA no matter what position they play.

You can change rotational players from season to season but it's difficult to acquire your main guys.

 

[sactowndog]

Not answering for @sactowndog but for my part I do believe that the popular assessment that the top 5 players in the draft are head and shoulders above the rest of the draft is a correct assessment. If we really liked somebody in the 6-8 region better than whichever two were left at #4, sure, take them (or, perhaps better, trade down). But the way I see it, we *won't* like anybody in the 6-8 region better than Green/Kuminga (or whichever two are left). There's just a big enough gap that we don't look any lower.

For instance, when the Heat picked at #5 in 2003, once Milicic was off the board they were taking one of the Anthony/Bosh/Wade trio. Maybe they would have liked one of those players better than Wade at the time, but they sure as heck weren't going to reach into the 6-8 range (Kaman/Hinrich/TJ Ford) because they thought Wade was an imperfect fit. So if we were to be picking at #4, well Cunningham and Mobley probably aren't there so we'd have a shot at Green/Kuminga/Suggs, and that's the order I'd personally put them in for the Kings. Suggs might actually be higher on my big board than Kuminga, but Kuminga is a much better fit. Nobody else really gets consideration. I really think the draft starts over at #6 this year.

could not have said it any better. Thanks for saving me the typing.

 

[sactowndog]

Green seems to have a decent physical profile though. Rangy and wirey. The last measurements I can find were from when he was 16 so he had to have grown. He looks longer than the numbers suggest.

he could be. We will have to see at the combine. They NBA is not allowing agent run workouts and is trying to force everyone to the combine.

 

[SacTownKid]

he could be. We will have to see at the combine. They NBA is not allowing agent run workouts and is trying to force everyone to the combine.

Really? Well, that means it will probably be a light year on measurements then since rarely do the top guys do it anyway and if there are more players they don't want to be exposed in any way I'm sure.

 

[sactowndog]

I think Green is going to be better than Buddy and Haliburton. He has #1 scoring potential. His position is redundant but have you ever heard of a team that was mired in mediocrity because they had too many good guards? That gives you flexibility to trade for a better fit. Maybe they'd just have to trade Buddy and Fox/Green/Hali will be the guards of the future. Maybe Haliburton winds up being a better PG than Fox and Green winds up being a better scorer. That would give you a pretty huge trade chip in Fox. I say go BPA no matter what position they play.

You can change rotational players from season to season but it's difficult to acquire your main guys.

yeah I think it’s more a question of Green versus Fox. I think Hali is the better facilitator. But then we would really see if Fox is worth that Max deal around the league.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Really? Well, that means it will probably be a light year on measurements then since rarely do the top guys do it anyway and if there are more players they don't want to be exposed in any way I'm sure.

his wingspan taken I think last year was 6’7.5. When he gets stronger he should have no problem playing on the wing

 

[sactowndog]

Really? Well, that means it will probably be a light year on measurements then since rarely do the top guys do it anyway and if there are more players they don't want to be exposed in any way I'm sure.

we shall see. They still want to be seen but the NBA won’t allow it on their terms. Covid was a good excuse to do what the NBA wanted to do anyway.

 

[sactowndog]

his wingspan taken I think last year was 6’7.5. When he gets stronger he should have no problem playing on the wing

he certainly can’t swing 3/4 and those guys are the ones in high demand.