I absolutely agree with this. In any other draft, maybe Mitchell is the obvious choice if he's there at 9. Maybe Bouknight, too (though I don't see what others see as he rises up some big boards). This particular draft, however, is practically bursting with versatile talents on the wing with NBA-ready bodies who measure favorably for defending multiple positions in a league that has become both increasingly difficult to defend and increasingly reliant on switch-heavy schemes. In my opinion, a versatile, two-way, multi-positional player probably is BPA in the modern NBA, even though a dynamite scoring guard might seem more likely to be a traditional "star."
Players that I would target with the 9th pick:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
Did he care when another team offered him the moon and the stars and he became a superstar? That's one of the main factors in all of this. You don't want to be proven to be the team that discovered the best talent if that best talent is off doing the best for someone else after the fact. And look at Benny Mac. Next year BPA (in Viveks eyes), Nik rocks! "It'll work folks, trust us" as both stalemated eachother in the lineup worse than Bogdan and Buddy did.
There were a lot of questions about Luka coming into the draft. Who could he guard? Would his lack of athleticism allow him to get his shot off? Would he be able to consistently knock down the 3? There were several ex-NBA players playing in Europe who thought the speed and athleticism of the NBA would make things difficult for his game to transfer. Throw in the many touted European players who floundered in the NBA and I think it was reasonable for teams to be hesitant of Luka.
I have to disagree here. Watch how Mitchell defended Cade this year. Cade isn't super physical but he's about the same size as most of the guys you mentioned. I think things like reach and wingspan mattered a lot more 10+ years ago when you could be a leading scorer and put your back to the basket frequently. Guys like TMac and Paul Pierce would eat smaller guards alive in a man-to-man defense but that isn't how teams play anymore. When talking about stopping a player from penetrating off the dribble and finding outlet passes or creating space for a step back I think quickness, agility, and tenacity are far more impactful. A guy like Harrison Barnes for instance has ideal size for a wing defender and he's smart with his positioning but he doesn't have the foot speed to keep up with most wings off the bounce so he compensates by giving up an extra foot of space and that's why he's not a better defender. For any of those tough defensive assignments you mentioned you would get better results trying to check them with a lockdown defender who is 6 or 7 inches shorter but can move laterally with anyone and stop and start on a dime.
Here's another way to think about it: if Mitchell is the backup PG he's going to be sub in for Fox and play next to Haliburton then you sub Haliburton out and keep Mitchell out there with Fox while Hali is getting a break. In this situation there's no big lag in defense when your starters have to come out. I don't even like to think about backups positionally because most coaches only play a 9 man rotation and stagger their substitutions. You want three guards, three wings, and three bigs and the better you can make those 9 players the less everyone else on the roster matters (except for injury-related depth). If Mitchell is picking up the primary ballhandler when he's on the court that also gives Fox more time to focus on scoring and then when he switches to becoming the primary point-of-attack defender he'll have more energy to devote to that. Having that 3rd guard also be your best individual defender is likely to make Fox and Haliburton better defenders when they're on the court because they get a chance to conserve some energy while playing off the ball or tackling easier individual assignments. And having more guards who will fight around screens means less switching and less opportunities for the offense to catch you off balance.
Here's another way to think about it: if Mitchell is the backup PG he's going to be sub in for Fox and play next to Haliburton then you sub Haliburton out and keep Mitchell out there with Fox while Hali is getting a break. In this situation there's no big lag in defense when your starters have to come out. I don't even like to think about backups positionally because most coaches only play a 9 man rotation and stagger their substitutions. You want three guards, three wings, and three bigs and the better you can make those 9 players the less everyone else on the roster matters (except for injury-related depth). If Mitchell is picking up the primary ballhandler when he's on the court that also gives Fox more time to focus on scoring and then when he switches to becoming the primary point-of-attack defender he'll have more energy to devote to that. Having that 3rd guard also be your best individual defender is likely to make Fox and Haliburton better defenders when they're on the court because they get a chance to conserve some energy while playing off the ball or tackling easier individual assignments. And having more guards who will fight around screens means less switching and less opportunities for the offense to catch you off balance.
Luka's rankings among the media was consistent, not among NBA teams. Believe me when I say that NBA teams don't care where the media (draft experts) have players ranked. The scouting departments of NBA teams can do way more research and find out a lot more about players than the media. That doesn't always make them right, but they know more about these players than we ever could.
Yeah, the pick wasn't unreasonable, and I am not sure anyone who didn't like the pick didn't like the pick because they thought he'd have missed over half of his games after 3 years. I didn't like it at the time but over the first season I at least saw enough to suggest I was going to be able to live with the pick. The weird stuff going on between Joerger and Williams was not cool however.
But factoring in the franchise goals of winning at all costs including letting young talent rot on the bench, why they didn't take the ready made pro is a total head scratcher.
To that extent, if we don't trade out of the pick to land someone who can start opening night, I think Wagner might be our guy.
But factoring in the franchise goals of winning at all costs including letting young talent rot on the bench, why they didn't take the ready made pro is a total head scratcher.
To that extent, if we don't trade out of the pick to land someone who can start opening night, I think Wagner might be our guy.
As I said, it is my opinion that a versatile, two-way, multi-positional player probably is BPA in the contemporary NBA landscape. I think you're likely to get farther with one or more players like that in your starting lineup than without. Just as the back-to-the-basket big was an essential archetype to winning in a bygone era of NBA basketball, the multi-positional wing is an essential archetype today. The former was usually BPA in any year that such a player was drafted when low-post big men dominated the league. Likewise, I am of the belief that the latter is BPA in the modern NBA when all else is equal.
There are always exceptions, of course. But except for those rare #1 picks like Lebron James, most draft selections are a roll of the dice. So, all things being equal, I'm rolling the dice on a talented wing in today's league. And I just don't see enough of a talent disparity between someone like Davion Mitchell and someone like Scottie Barnes or Jalen Johnson, so I'm going with one of the two-way wing players. You value a guard like Bouknight considerably more than I do. He's BPA in your eyes. But he's not BPA in mine, not in a league where length and versatility are increasingly valued on both ends of the floor.
There are always exceptions, of course. But except for those rare #1 picks like Lebron James, most draft selections are a roll of the dice. So, all things being equal, I'm rolling the dice on a talented wing in today's league. And I just don't see enough of a talent disparity between someone like Davion Mitchell and someone like Scottie Barnes or Jalen Johnson, so I'm going with one of the two-way wing players. You value a guard like Bouknight considerably more than I do. He's BPA in your eyes. But he's not BPA in mine, not in a league where length and versatility are increasingly valued on both ends of the floor.
He's still a backup as he's not going to be guarding wings full time. Not even Marcus Smart can and he's elite defensively and much bigger than Mitchell. As I said above, out of he and the other SG's mentioned, he's the best fit as a non-fit type. And the issue isn't with Mitchell primarily, it's the combination of all 3 of the Kings guards. Fox can do some things guarding up but it puts him the role of risking fouls when you can't afford that since he's your offense basically. I said before, if Buddy were the player considered the future SG next to Fox then even that changes things. He's proven big enough to guard up at times. Fox, Haliburton, and Mitchell not being able to play full time together diminishes their overall impact and value in tandem, the same way it did with Westbrook, Harden, and Durant. Pure talent depth doesn't get you anywhere outside of helping when injuries come, having a unit that can maximize itself at it's top level is what keeps you in the running with the big dogs. Finding players that can get you production off the bench is where you should be using your cap space. If you can potentially fill a starting position with both decent talent and need in the draft you do it.
So if you go back far enough on this thread, you'll notice that I've stated multiple times that I would prefer the Kings draft a big wing, who can create. That is, I wanted a player like Barnes or Johnson or Giddey. All three were my initial preferred picks at 9. Then Bouknight came along. He wasn't on my radar at all during the season, but what he flashes, it has the potential to be elite. So, in my eyes, if he's at 9, take him--though I don't think he'll make it to nine, so the convo is likely moot.
Ultimately, we're talking about two different things. My opinion of a particular player and the concept of what BPA is. To me, BPA is BPA. Fit or positional value is irrelevant. Take the best player. Sort the rest out later. As for who McNair believes the BPA is, we'll find out at the end of this month.
Ultimately, we're talking about two different things. My opinion of a particular player and the concept of what BPA is. To me, BPA is BPA. Fit or positional value is irrelevant. Take the best player. Sort the rest out later. As for who McNair believes the BPA is, we'll find out at the end of this month.
Was Ginobili a backup too because he played off the bench? That seems like a pretty arbitrary reason not to draft somebody. Mitchell isn't my first choice here, I'm mainly arguing on his behalf because we all agree (I hope) that we need better defenders and he's the best perimeter defender in the draft. I know that we need wings more than anything else and I hope we come out of this draft with a wing too but if we're only going to draft the best wing player on the board at #9 the odds of us missing the BPA are very high. If Mitchell is still there at #9 it will be because either Sengun went early or another wing we might have liked is off the board. In that scenario, I really think we need to consider taking Mitchell since he's more proven as a shooter and a defender than anyone else on the board. Sure I would like that situation a little better if he were 3 or 4 inches taller but how much does that actually matter? Did you watch any of the playoffs this year? It's not uncommon now to see teams playing 3 guards or even 4 guards with a tall SF at the center position.
Ginobili wasn't really. They brought him off the bench for a spark but when the games ended there he was, on the floor. That's the question, at the end of the game, are your best 3 players on the floor or is one of Fox, Haliburton, or Mitchell on the bench for matchup reasons? And the Kings could have a team of 9 great on ball defenders, they need defenders that can swing that SF/PF spot. Not PG/SG. And how does it matter? Look at these playoffs and count the number of teams with size from SG-PF with wings at all spots. The days of tricking your way out of that are over. You need size on the wing period.
But if we apply this to, say, the current NBA MVP, then we'd have to fire the entire front office staff of every team in the league, because they all whiffed on Jokic in the first round. Talent evaluation is difficult and is not a precise science. Everybody makes mistakes, not just from time to time, but often. There's this idea from a lot of fans that front offices have to be 100% right in the draft every time, but they don't account for the fact that draft picks usually aren't layups, they're usually half-court heaves.
I get what you are saying, but when the majority get it wrong on a player I don't think they will all get fired. For some reason, certain players come along that confuse a lot of teams. This happens in both directions (over rating and under rating). It seems that European players have been at the center of this the most, but that might just be an optical conclusion.
I've never taken anyone to task for missing on players like Jokic or Antetokounmpo. Those players were not overnight successes. There's a lot of room for a successful career in an NBA front office between "100% right all the time" and not thinking that a guy who was an instant star less than a year later was even worthy of a top 10 pick.
Here's what I will say... the amount of follow the leader trend-chasing in the NBA draft year after year is constantly amusing. Remember the days when Darko went #2 and then Bargnani went #1 when the "next Dirk" mania was at it's height? The failure of those guys to live up to impossible expectations is part of the reason why international players actually started to be undervalued in the decade after that. Right now I guarantee you that every front office is looking for a Steph Curry or Trae Young clone. Not seeing what is there because you're chasing after some imaginary archetype continues to be a big reason why successful players end up sliding all the way to the late lottery.
Here's what I will say... the amount of follow the leader trend-chasing in the NBA draft year after year is constantly amusing. Remember the days when Darko went #2 and then Bargnani went #1 when the "next Dirk" mania was at it's height? The failure of those guys to live up to impossible expectations is part of the reason why international players actually started to be undervalued in the decade after that. Right now I guarantee you that every front office is looking for a Steph Curry or Trae Young clone. Not seeing what is there because you're chasing after some imaginary archetype continues to be a big reason why successful players end up sliding all the way to the late lottery.
Last edited:
I don't really think we are talking about two different things. To me, BPA is BPA, as well. But context matters to the evaluation of BPA in a given offseason. Twenty years ago... hell, even ten years ago, Marvin Bagley probably would have been BPA at the second pick in the 2018 draft. Springy PF's who could score off the bounce and rebound were much more highly valued back then, despite any defensive limitations they may have had (they also didn't struggle to defend as mightily when the league didn't play as small as it does today). Now the PF position has been mostly vacated by players like Bagley because it's no longer a winning proposition to play them there, so unless he can defend passably as a center, it's going to be hard for him to find success as a long-term starter in the NBA, much less achieve all-star status.
In hindsight, of course Luka Doncic was BPA in 2018. And wouldn't you know it? He's a versatile wing who the modern game was practically made for. I didn't see it then, unlike some around these parts, but I've also been slow to appreciate the way the game has evolved at the professional level. So I'm taking my licks and learning my lessons. That said, Doncic likely would not have been BPA twenty years ago, when his particular skill set wasn't as valued around the league in a player of his size and level of athleticism. The game was different back then. Versatility and playmaking weren't as necessary on the wing, and it was exceedingly rare to have a player initiating full-time at those positions. A versatile wing like Manu Ginobili was a second creator and part-time starter in San Antonio's offense, but guys like that were Swiss Army Knives and Sixth Man of the Year winners in that era of NBA basketball, and you could find them as late as the second round. They weren't MVP candidates.
All of this is to say that "BPA" is not a static concept. It is bound to time and place. In today's NBA, when all else is equal, I think the best player(s) available in a draft are likely to be versatile, multi-positional, two way wing talents. That's not to say that these players are always going to be BPA. There are obviously exceptions, particularly at the top of a draft. But when you're selecting in the mid-to-late lottery, the talent level is usually fairly equal, and given that, I think BPA becomes a much more contextual proposition. If Bouknight truly is a star-level talent, then you're right, GMs will see it, he'll probably shoot up various big boards, and he won't even be available to pick at 9. Talent rises, regardless of position or archetype. But at 9, I think it's a shifty proposition to take a guard who's not a guaranteed star when there are several talented two-way wing players that fit the mold for how a team builds a winner in the modern NBA. Those guys are my BPAs in this particular draft in this particular era of NBA basketball.
In hindsight, of course Luka Doncic was BPA in 2018. And wouldn't you know it? He's a versatile wing who the modern game was practically made for. I didn't see it then, unlike some around these parts, but I've also been slow to appreciate the way the game has evolved at the professional level. So I'm taking my licks and learning my lessons. That said, Doncic likely would not have been BPA twenty years ago, when his particular skill set wasn't as valued around the league in a player of his size and level of athleticism. The game was different back then. Versatility and playmaking weren't as necessary on the wing, and it was exceedingly rare to have a player initiating full-time at those positions. A versatile wing like Manu Ginobili was a second creator and part-time starter in San Antonio's offense, but guys like that were Swiss Army Knives and Sixth Man of the Year winners in that era of NBA basketball, and you could find them as late as the second round. They weren't MVP candidates.
All of this is to say that "BPA" is not a static concept. It is bound to time and place. In today's NBA, when all else is equal, I think the best player(s) available in a draft are likely to be versatile, multi-positional, two way wing talents. That's not to say that these players are always going to be BPA. There are obviously exceptions, particularly at the top of a draft. But when you're selecting in the mid-to-late lottery, the talent level is usually fairly equal, and given that, I think BPA becomes a much more contextual proposition. If Bouknight truly is a star-level talent, then you're right, GMs will see it, he'll probably shoot up various big boards, and he won't even be available to pick at 9. Talent rises, regardless of position or archetype. But at 9, I think it's a shifty proposition to take a guard who's not a guaranteed star when there are several talented two-way wing players that fit the mold for how a team builds a winner in the modern NBA. Those guys are my BPAs in this particular draft in this particular era of NBA basketball.
I agree that the NBA has changed, but do not agree that positional value should factor into the BPA equation.
Guys like Rafael Arujao, Spencer Hawes, Kwame Brown, and countless others were drafted ahead of better players, because they played a premium position during their eras. Assigning a higher value to them, because of their position was a mistake. Doing so now would be a mistake as well.
At 9, the Kings should take the BPA regardless of position. Whether it is a guard, a big, or a wing.
Guys like Rafael Arujao, Spencer Hawes, Kwame Brown, and countless others were drafted ahead of better players, because they played a premium position during their eras. Assigning a higher value to them, because of their position was a mistake. Doing so now would be a mistake as well.
At 9, the Kings should take the BPA regardless of position. Whether it is a guard, a big, or a wing.
We get 5 players on the floor right? Drafting Mitchell doesn't mean we no longer have bigs or wings on the roster. And these guys are probably going to be playing PF a large chunk of the game or even C for stretches. My first question would be: Who else on the Clippers even needs to be guarded? But assuming they have shooters out there and a rebounding big who we want to box out, I would feel fine putting a guard on either of them when they're attacking off the dribble since cutting off the initial drive and forcing them into a midrange shot is a win for the defense. If they're spotted up at the three point line denying the pass would keep them out of the play. And it's not like Fox and Haliburton can't guard a spot-up shooter.
Generally speaking, the whole way we go about playing defense needs to catch up with 2021 offenses and that's about more than personnel. But when I try to picture a defense that would be effective in the current NBA climate I feel like smaller, quicker individual defenders who can fight around screens and need less help on the perimeter is the direction every team should be moving in.
Generally speaking, the whole way we go about playing defense needs to catch up with 2021 offenses and that's about more than personnel. But when I try to picture a defense that would be effective in the current NBA climate I feel like smaller, quicker individual defenders who can fight around screens and need less help on the perimeter is the direction every team should be moving in.
Look at what Morris did in the postseason. Reggie Jackson is a beast of a guard. Morris was a key factor for them in their super small lineups. Terance Mann is a strong athletic SG. They will still target the mismatch and they did just that in the playoffs whether it was a big or a small. Where size comes in is on help and we already know how much Walton relies on run outs to contest so guarding spot shooting is more reliant on length and size than ANYTHING else. This is arguably where someone like Wagner in particular excels. The Kings tried running guards out there, none of which were the stature of Mitchell either and they couldn't reasonably contest shots and got picked apart on help. Every combination of the Kings guards both when Cojo was here and beyond put the team at a disadvantage and yes, so much so that Walton decided to put Harkless in the starting lineup largely for size reasons. For winning purposes it made sense, too bad they weren't going to win regardless and it cost them and Haliburton a ROY trophy potentially.
In the end, if you want to have a shot defensively you have to have legit size and versatility along your wing/front line. Count the number of teams running a team the size of what you would be getting with Fox, Haliburton, and Mitchell deep into a playoff run.
Well if we plan on keeping Walton around it really doesn't matter how we match up against a Clippers roster in the playoffs because we won't be there anyway. And looking at last year's results, this whole chicken little, switching and helping on everything, flying at shooters defensive scheme was probably about as effective as standing with our hands down doing nothing would have been. Sure we could probably bail the lifeboat out faster with an extra bucket but if we're in the lifeboat to begin with we've already failed.