I was thinking along similar lines as a comparison. And I also think the added defensive value of a combo 3/4 capable of defending three positions is what pushes him to the top tier of this draft for me. Nobody else in this draft has both the all-around scoring aptitude and the defensive versatility that Murray does. I can see why people are comparing him to Harrison Barnes but it's also worth noting that Barnes never had the scoring output in his two years at North Carolina that Murray did this season.
KINGS PICKING 4TH IN 2022 NBA DRAFT!
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
- Status
I don’t think he participated: https://www.nba.com/stats/draft/combine-strength-agility/?sort=POSITION&dir=-1&SeasonYear=2022-23
Agree in principle, but our situation might not be conducive to it. The team is trying to win now, right from Vivek to Monte (entering the last year of his contract), a new coach, hired with the express directive of making the PO, to the players, who should always be aiming for that. Having a player who will fight for minutes with two of the core pieces, and a hopefully healthy DDV (and possibly TD), while we have a gaping hole at the wing position is not helpful to the win-now mode.
Add to this the fact that he is (currently at least) lacking in one major area a 2 guard is expected to be good at, and something we desperately need; outside shooting.
If Monte thinks he's the BPA (and with some margin), I would still go along with your thoughts and draft him. However, if the difference is not significant, perhaps drafting for need will not be bad. If the pick can be traded/traded down to get someone who can help, I'd prefer that.
Add to this the fact that he is (currently at least) lacking in one major area a 2 guard is expected to be good at, and something we desperately need; outside shooting.
If Monte thinks he's the BPA (and with some margin), I would still go along with your thoughts and draft him. However, if the difference is not significant, perhaps drafting for need will not be bad. If the pick can be traded/traded down to get someone who can help, I'd prefer that.
Johnny Davis and Keegan get a pass for now from me. Their teams were just so so bad with little offensive talent; all the scoring had to run through both guys or they'd just lose. And just how smart/efficient both guys are as offensive players, I think there's a reasonable chance they're "surprise" playmakers.
Not to say they'll magically develop in the NBA, but I don't see how their college context really says much about their future as playmakers going forward.
Not to say they'll magically develop in the NBA, but I don't see how their college context really says much about their future as playmakers going forward.
I don't recall Paul Pierce being known for his playmaking when he first entered the NBA, he developed that over time. Keegan Murray was that Iowa offense this season and with the rate at which he was knocking down shots, why would you want him passing to someone else? Commanding a double team in the post and shooting well enough that defenders need to respect him on the perimeter and close out quickly in the triple threat position should present him with opportunities to be a playmaker with guys like Fox, Barnes, and Sabonis playing next to him. Jayson Tatum is actually a good comparison for him too. I was way off in my assessment of Tatum as a prospect because I was overly focused on what I thought he couldn't do. Murray is coming into the league older but even if he's 80 or 90% of who Tatum is now, that's still worthy of a #4 pick.
Who did Ivey have on his squad though? Murrays brother is probably a 1st round talent in his own right. This is about a skill and yes Murray could develop it, but for the same reason I wouldn't count on Ivey being an all star lead guard right now you really can't think Murray is going to show the triple threat abilities these players he's being compared to as a scorer did.
Oh he had them and over time he developed into someone that could literally run an offense up to a point, but he was never anything other than a true wing. People are comparing Murray to players in one aspect of their game when there are other safer examples of players that were potentially missing some of the same attributes. Unlike a Tatum or Pierce, Murray is going to be a PF that can possibly play some SF and C and that brings it's own set of positives. And I think people are doing the same thing some people did to Tatum, to Ivey and Murray. The difference is when you compare someone to a particular player you have to call out the differences with the similarities otherwise everything is off to some degree. That's why I think the Morant comps to Ivey are off. If he can become that as a lead guard then you really don't pass that up. This is what disappoints people. Vlade says Bagley is like Giannis. Sure, some of that was there, but they never even attempted to develop the other aspects of his game like the passing and pick and roll game. Of course, those were never actually there either but yes, the potential was there. When a player is 20/10/1-2 apg it could be usage, but it could also be that's just what they are. Murray, Ivey, or Sharpe all seem like solid choices to me, but with where the league is at and where the Kings sit it would be Ivey, Sharpe, and Murray in that order for me even though I agree, Murray is a safer pick.
That's not what I said. I said I'm giving them a pass for now and I'll wait and see in the NBA if getting next to teammates where they aren't a 30%+ only scoring option on the team if some playmaking skill starts to show out. It could be as simple as getting around better teammates and in a better system to highlight it. Plenty of recent examples of this being the case with these combo forwards:
Tatum had a 12.5% AST rate in college and he wasn't a playmaker in the NBA until these last few years. 8-10-14.5 % his first 3 years in the league until he was up to the elite 20% the last 2 seasons. Pascal very similar with a 12.1% AST rate in college and 8% his rookie year before really developing elite playmaking chops. Tobias was 10.4%. Barnes was 9.4%)
Murray was 10.1% AST this past season (while blowing Tatum/Siakam/Barnes/Tobias last college seasons out of the water in basically every respect.)
Now, maybe the playmaking doesn't develop and he ends up closer to the Barnes/Tobias career arc rather than the Tatum/Siakam tier. And you're right, the development of the playmaking is basically what separates these guys on offense.While Siakam/Tatum are far superior on defense too. I think Murray aligns far more closely to them on D than Barnes/Tobias.
The point is when you have an incredibly talented 6'8-6'10 forward with wing like on-ball skill/scoring, it gives you real potential uspide.
Tatum had a 12.5% AST rate in college and he wasn't a playmaker in the NBA until these last few years. 8-10-14.5 % his first 3 years in the league until he was up to the elite 20% the last 2 seasons. Pascal very similar with a 12.1% AST rate in college and 8% his rookie year before really developing elite playmaking chops. Tobias was 10.4%. Barnes was 9.4%)
Murray was 10.1% AST this past season (while blowing Tatum/Siakam/Barnes/Tobias last college seasons out of the water in basically every respect.)
Now, maybe the playmaking doesn't develop and he ends up closer to the Barnes/Tobias career arc rather than the Tatum/Siakam tier. And you're right, the development of the playmaking is basically what separates these guys on offense.While Siakam/Tatum are far superior on defense too. I think Murray aligns far more closely to them on D than Barnes/Tobias.
The point is when you have an incredibly talented 6'8-6'10 forward with wing like on-ball skill/scoring, it gives you real potential uspide.
I get what you're saying and I said before, the Siakam comp is interesting but I don't ever see a player comparison chart flowing from Siakam to a Tatum in reality and some of these comparisons have done that. They are entirely different players playing entirely different positions in a league where position is king. Even if they do all 3 things offensively fairly well they are vastly different. A player looking anything like a cross between Siakam and Tatum is number 1 and there wouldn't be doubts about that because that would be insanse versatility. And I'm not debating Murrays upside, I'm debating his comps. I agree about his upside, and I already stated, I wouldn't be mad at all with about 6-7 players in this draft at this point, but in comparison to players like Ivey? That's where it breaks down for me. Ivey could fizzle but to me the boom is so immense it's worth the gamble considering you'd figure they had no chance to get into the top 4 of what for most of the year was considered a top 4 draft.
His warts are skill related though, so there's a chance, haha. And at 4/5 are the two teams that I think can live with his limited court vision as a passer because of who they have at PG already. Murray is more complete in terms of what he does but he'll also be 22 when the season starts so he should be. That could be a negative or a positive depending on what you expect out of his development curve.
Think about all the different scenarios for the Kings next season:
Draft Murray, is Midwest Siakam
Draft Murray, is poor man’s TJ Warren
Draft Ivey, is poor man’s Ja Morant
Draft Ivey, poor mans Ja, Fox averages 19 points on 28 percent shooting
Draft Ivey, is a Ja imposter just like Morant’s Dad is an Usher imposter
Trade pick
Draft some other person no one saw coming.
if we are winning next year it won’t matter as much but if we are losing the forum is going to be a cesspool haha
Draft Murray, is Midwest Siakam
Draft Murray, is poor man’s TJ Warren
Draft Ivey, is poor man’s Ja Morant
Draft Ivey, poor mans Ja, Fox averages 19 points on 28 percent shooting
Draft Ivey, is a Ja imposter just like Morant’s Dad is an Usher imposter
Trade pick
Draft some other person no one saw coming.
if we are winning next year it won’t matter as much but if we are losing the forum is going to be a cesspool haha
I'm of the mindset that it's perfectly fine to go for a double, rather than swing for the fences and greatly increase the likelihood of striking out altogether. It honestly doesn't pain me that the Kings missed out on generational talent Doncic. It pains me that w/the #2 pick they couldn't even land a long-term building block.
As for "Paul Pierce," Hall-of-Famer, top-50-All-Timer Paul Pierce - his like probably won't be drafted at 4 or beyond.
As for "Paul Pierce," Hall-of-Famer, top-50-All-Timer Paul Pierce - his like probably won't be drafted at 4 or beyond.
Kings answer could be this very soon to turn 19-year-old Canadian talent? Risk, a bit for sure but ultimate reward could be off the chart.
https://www.sactownroyalty.com/2022...ft-profile-shaedon-sharpe-is-worth-the-gamble
https://www.sactownroyalty.com/2022...ft-profile-shaedon-sharpe-is-worth-the-gamble
I’m so confused by all the “we need to swing for the fences” posts I’m reading on this forum…
Sure, if someone pans out, it might be a game changer. But can this franchise afford another Bagley? What happens if we shoot for the stars and fail, once again?
let’s just say we draft someone solid and miss on someone spectacular. Let’s say that solid guy is Murray. In that scenario, the team improves. Maybe not drastically, but it gets us one step closer to being competitive, and could potentially help balance out the roster and push the team closer to the playoffs.
on the other side, we draft a high risk high reward player who ends up not panning out. In that scenario, we end up continuing to be the laughing stock of the nba, and are even further from ending our playoff drought.
i get the desire to swing for a potential superstar, but I’d argue that we’re probably better off drafting safer than riskier at this point, just considering where the franchise is at. We’ve whiffed SO many times…another one would be BRUTAL.
I just want to see competitive, solid, intelligent basketball players on the court at this point. I don’t know if I can stomach another big swing and a miss, and I’d argue that another miss might set the franchise back really, really far.
Sure, if someone pans out, it might be a game changer. But can this franchise afford another Bagley? What happens if we shoot for the stars and fail, once again?
let’s just say we draft someone solid and miss on someone spectacular. Let’s say that solid guy is Murray. In that scenario, the team improves. Maybe not drastically, but it gets us one step closer to being competitive, and could potentially help balance out the roster and push the team closer to the playoffs.
on the other side, we draft a high risk high reward player who ends up not panning out. In that scenario, we end up continuing to be the laughing stock of the nba, and are even further from ending our playoff drought.
i get the desire to swing for a potential superstar, but I’d argue that we’re probably better off drafting safer than riskier at this point, just considering where the franchise is at. We’ve whiffed SO many times…another one would be BRUTAL.
I just want to see competitive, solid, intelligent basketball players on the court at this point. I don’t know if I can stomach another big swing and a miss, and I’d argue that another miss might set the franchise back really, really far.
I just posted in another thread about this desire to knock it out of the park. That's what landed us Bagley and striking out. That's what many teams did not picking Pierce - he was also not the most studtastic guy just a boring guy with lots of tools, he went tenth. Behind Olowokandi, Reif LaFrenz, Antawn Jamison, Robert Traylor, and Larry Hughes.
That’s absolutely incorrect about Bagley. We went with fit with Bagley, not BPA, because we wanted a running mate for Fox. I specifically remember Divac talking about that, saying he wasn’t sure if Fox and Luka could co-exist. Out of the 2, Doncic would have been the more swing for the fences play as he was less well known and lots of folks were minimizing him because of him playing overseas.
I don't see Murray ever being a high assist guy. He just doesn't have a quick first step at all. I think his ceiling is limited due to this.
What he is really good at is finishing in the paint. He's really awkward and not smooth at all but when he puts the ball up, it goes in. He's very heavy when it comes to spinning to his right and finishing with his right so he'll have to fix that or else he'll get stymied like Bagley did after a while.
People aren't going to like it but Bagley is kind of comparable to Murray. Both are good at finding holes in the defense when it comes to positioning themselves to get easy buckets. Both have loose handles and can't really drive from the top of the key to the rim very well. Both rely on post up moves in the paint to do the bulk of their scoring.
Where Murray excels is he's kind of what we were hoping Bagley would develop into as a King. He plays solid switchable defense, shoots from the outside, gets weakside blocks and finishes efficiently in the paint. That's basically what we were hoping to get out of Bagley once we realized he wasn't going to be a top player in the league.
What he is really good at is finishing in the paint. He's really awkward and not smooth at all but when he puts the ball up, it goes in. He's very heavy when it comes to spinning to his right and finishing with his right so he'll have to fix that or else he'll get stymied like Bagley did after a while.
People aren't going to like it but Bagley is kind of comparable to Murray. Both are good at finding holes in the defense when it comes to positioning themselves to get easy buckets. Both have loose handles and can't really drive from the top of the key to the rim very well. Both rely on post up moves in the paint to do the bulk of their scoring.
Where Murray excels is he's kind of what we were hoping Bagley would develop into as a King. He plays solid switchable defense, shoots from the outside, gets weakside blocks and finishes efficiently in the paint. That's basically what we were hoping to get out of Bagley once we realized he wasn't going to be a top player in the league.
We also went with "potential" and athleticism. I'm hearing a lot of that with the Sharpe and Ivey talk, that the tools they are missing can all be taught. How many people come into the NBA allergic to defense and get taught it?
A lot of people thought Doncic was a finished product, Bagley was raw and could be some new type of player we'd not seen before. That's what I'm talking about here. Oh, Murray is a finished product and lacks the lateral quickness or raw potential that you "can't teach". But he has all the skills ready to succeed immediately too like shooting and defense.
A lot of people thought Doncic was a finished product, Bagley was raw and could be some new type of player we'd not seen before. That's what I'm talking about here. Oh, Murray is a finished product and lacks the lateral quickness or raw potential that you "can't teach". But he has all the skills ready to succeed immediately too like shooting and defense.
- Status