KINGS PICKING 4TH IN 2022 NBA DRAFT!

[Padrino]

I mostly would agree with you on this, If we were a properly run franchise haha. Going BPA gave a ton of trade value and landed us Sabonis. At the very least we can prolly pull off another trade like this if necessary due to the upside of the player. I also don’t trust our scouting dept to pick based on fit as we have never landed anybody in forever for the most part

But at a certain point, you have to build a team, rather than a collection of assets. That is, if you want to construct a playoff contender. I'm on the record as being extremely positive on the trade for Sabonis, in that it was a huge flex of Monte's skill in flipping assets for greater value while maintaining future flexibility. Unfortunately, the Kings are now on the clock with Sabonis. He's got two years left on his deal. If the team isn't in the playoffs next season, they had better be in the playoffs the following season. Otherwise, Sabonis walks and the gamble fails to pay off.

All of this is to say that the Kings either need to draft a player who isn't a massive risk for busting and that also fits their current timeline or they need to trade the pick for talent that likewise fits the timeline. The Fox and the Ox aren't getting it done on their own. The last two draft selections under Monte's tenure could exist within a vacuum, because there was no pressure yet to accomplish anything in particular. He could ignore fit. He could ignore roster construction. But now he's staring down a playoff mandate and his job is on the line. Whatever decisions he makes should justify the investment in Domas.

Otherwise, what was the point? Just keep Haliburton and build through the draft. Many of us would have preferred that strategy. But since Vivek had no interest in it, the team is on a particular path to achieve a playoff berth as soon as possible, and they need to be making moves this off-season that align with that path.

 

[EIM86]

But at a certain point, you have to build a team, rather than a collection of assets. That is, if you want to construct a playoff contender. I'm on the record as being extremely positive on the trade for Sabonis, in that it was a huge flex of Monte's skill in flipping assets for greater value while maintaining future flexibility. Unfortunately, the Kings are now on the clock with Sabonis. He's got two years left on his deal. If the team isn't in the playoffs next season, they had better be in the playoffs the following season. Otherwise, Sabonis walks and the gamble fails to pay off.

All of this is to say that the Kings either need to draft a player who isn't a massive risk for busting and that also fits their current timeline or they need to trade the pick for talent that likewise fits the timeline. The Fox and the Ox aren't getting it done on their own. The last two draft selections under Monte's tenure could exist within a vacuum, because there was no pressure yet to accomplish anything in particular. He could ignore fit. He could ignore roster construction. But now he's staring down a playoff mandate and his job is on the line. Whatever decisions he makes should justify the investment in Domas.

Otherwise, what was the point? Just keep Haliburton and build through the draft. Many of us would have preferred that strategy. But since Vivek had no interest in it, the team is on a particular path to achieve a playoff berth as soon as possible, and they need to be making moves this off-season that align with that path.

I completely agree with you but how can we build a team without even a top 20 player? This franchise has zero player development capability. Maybe Brown and Co but Ill believe it when I see it. Drafting Murray or whoever for fit isn’t gonna get us an extra 10+ wins. Drafting BPA is tried and true and makes the most sense for a small market team that can’t attract free agents. We’ve seen teams turn around real quick but the one thing they get, is an infusion of better talent. Something we still lack a ton of. We have I would say 3 guys that would start on other teams while better teams have around 6+. Without better assets we have less flexibility hence why I’m a major proponent of BPA.

 

[KainLear]

Those of you who like us taking Ivey at #4, can you enlighten me why?

If we go by Funkykingston's assessment here:

Morant's AST% was 51.8% while Ivey's was 19.2%.
Morant had an AST/TO of almost exactly 2:1 and Ivey was just under 1.2:1.
As a whole the numbers tell me the same thing the eye test did - Ivey is more of a scoring guard and not a lead guard, at least at this stage. That may allow him to fit better alongside Fox as a SG vs another PG, but I think it may also limit his star potential.
But slightly undersized, super athletic SGs are a different story. That puts Ivey more into the Victor Oladipo, Zach LaVine, Donovan Mitchell mold.

That's still potentially a valuable player, but maybe not a franchise changer. I wouldn't be upset if Ivey were the pick. You'd want a great shooter to round out the starting five and some additional bench shooting as well, but that's a backcourt that will attack the basket for sure.

So a 6'4" scoring guard who's more scoring than dishing, slightly undersized, super athletic but not the best outside shooter.

Don't we have one already? Why would we wanna double down on having two similar guards? Even if one is better at playing off-ball that's hardly the answer to our woe, no?

 

[Chupacabra]

Because they aren't close to the same type of players in both positive and negative ways. Look at that Ivey scouting report. He's entirely different. The Kings tried to put a passing PG like Haliburton next to Fox more than once, this isn't a PG, Ivey is a SG with potential to run an offense. It's even right there in his college numbers. He's got no middle game right now, but guess where Fox lives? No crossover there either.

The crossover is they both need the ball in their hands. It's the same problem that occurred once we started featuring Haliburton more.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I completely agree with you but how can we build a team without even a top 20 player? This franchise has zero player development capability. Maybe Brown and Co but Ill believe it when I see it. Drafting Murray or whoever for fit isn’t gonna get us an extra 10+ wins. Drafting BPA is tried and true and makes the most sense for a small market team that can’t attract free agents. We’ve seen teams turn around real quick but the one thing they get, is an infusion of better talent. Something we still lack a ton of. We have I would say 3 guys that would start on other teams while better teams have around 6+. Without better assets we have less flexibility hence why I’m a major proponent of BPA.

Not drafting Murray assumes the gap between Ivey/Sharpe and Murray is more than a few percentage points. I just don't see Ivey or Sharpe as sure things vs. Murray. I don't see how a 2-way player who shot 40% from 3 and can defend all 3 forward positions (in the case of small ball at least) doesn't excite people?

When we were 7 this was the guy we all hoped could land in our laps.

I feel like we did with with Wagner when we all assumed he was going to be there for us last year, but stressed if we were going to pick him one or two spots too early.

Well guess what: he wasn't there for us. And he would have 100% been the correct pick if he were.

also like go back to the 90s, if we wanted to we could have drafted Nash over Peja and then we'd have most likely picked Pierce over Williams and that would have been a hell of a team but we also had a really fun time with the one we had. What are the odds that Ivey is *that* much better than Fox. I think we all acknowledge the 2017 draft was far better and deeper than this one and they are slotted similarly. We're disappointed that Fox got paid and hasn't stepped up but there's no reason to think he can't make a leap with a new coach with a proven system.

 

[sactowndog]

Those of you who like us taking Ivey at #4, can you enlighten me why?

If we go by Funkykingston's assessment here:


So a 6'4" scoring guard who's more scoring than dishing, slightly undersized, super athletic but not the best outside shooter.

Don't we have one already? Why would we wanna double down on having two similar guards? Even if one is better at playing off-ball that's hardly the answer to our woe, no?

Kind of liking trading 4 and next years #1 top 1 protected for #2 and drafting Jabari Smith if he is there.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Kind of liking trading 4 and next years #1 top 1 protected for #2 and drafting Jabari Smith if he is there.

I think I'd ask for top 4 protections but I'd definitely do it.

 

[SacTownKid]

The crossover is they both need the ball in their hands. It's the same problem that occurred once we started featuring Haliburton more.

Yeah, but while they do some of the thing things, together they do different things than what you got out of Haliburton and Fox. If Jaden has the ball he's attacking. If Fox has the ball, he's attacking. The potential is off the charts when you think of both also attacking off the ball with cuts off of Sabonis.

 

[SacTownKid]

Not drafting Murray assumes the gap between Ivey/Sharpe and Murray is more than a few percentage points. I just don't see Ivey or Sharpe as sure things vs. Murray. I don't see how a 2-way player who shot 40% from 3 and can defend all 3 forward positions (in the case of small ball at least) doesn't excite people?

When we were 7 this was the guy we all hoped could land in our laps.

I feel like we did with with Wagner when we all assumed he was going to be there for us last year, but stressed if we were going to pick him one or two spots too early.

Well guess what: he wasn't there for us. And he would have 100% been the correct pick if he were.

also like go back to the 90s, if we wanted to we could have drafted Nash over Peja and then we'd have most likely picked Pierce over Williams and that would have been a hell of a team but we also had a really fun time with the one we had. What are the odds that Ivey is *that* much better than Fox. I think we all acknowledge the 2017 draft was far better and deeper than this one and they are slotted similarly. We're disappointed that Fox got paid and hasn't stepped up but there's no reason to think he can't make a leap with a new coach with a proven system.

You're also assuming that what they did at the college level is entirely indicative of what they'll be at the NBA level. They are two entirely different games. With the kind of calls guards get and the spacing you get speed kills. And they all excite me! It's going to be a pretty easy draft IMO unless they take Duren or something and shock us all, haha. The Kings got lucky, now they can have an option to go all in on potential. I kind of look like it like this, in terms of ceiling I think Ivey can be a Donovan Mitchell type. Keegan, I think is probably going to be a Shareef Abdur-Rahim type. Good knees and faster but if his one on one skills translate he'll be that versatile as a scorer. They can't go wrong, but maybe the question is how can they go most right? I think most right is getting the most valuable type of player for todays game. Ivey screams that to me. If the Kings don't make it next year I'd much rather hit reset with Ivey's upside than almost anyone else at 4.

 

[The_Jamal]

Yeah, but while they do some of the thing things, together they do different things than what you got out of Haliburton and Fox. If Jaden has the ball he's attacking. If Fox has the ball, he's attacking. The potential is off the charts when you think of both also attacking off the ball with cuts off of Sabonis.

If I felt like Ivey was a 37-38% 3pt shooter, I wouldn't care about the defensive fit. Balls to the wall with him and Fox, score 130 while giving up 120. The problem is I don't trust the shot to be that good; and then you're stuck with the worst defensive back-court in the NBA that can't shoot; not good Bob.

Maybe in the aggregrate, it can be fine if Fox keeps that stroke he had to end the season. 16 games, shooting 38% on 5.8 attempts. That's encouraging and much needed.

 

[SacTownKid]

If I felt like Ivey was a 37-38% 3pt shooter, I wouldn't care about the defensive fit. Balls to the wall with him and Fox, score 130 while giving up 120. The problem is I don't trust the shot to be that good; and then you're stuck with the worst defensive back-court in the NBA that can't shoot; not good Bob.

Maybe in the aggregrate, it can be fine if Fox keeps that stroke he had to end the season. 16 games, shooting 38% on 5.8 attempts. That's encouraging and much needed.

I think they'll be fine with enough shooting around them. Memphis with Ja wasn't shooting the lights out. Outside of Bane shooting a staggering 43%, Ja was the next highest at 35% of the starters. JJJ was around 32%, and Brooks was at 31%. Factor in that they have Adams at C who make Domas look like prime Dirk, haha. Russell and Edwards both shot around mid-30's for the Wolves. If teams think they can play 5 feet off of Fox and Ivey I think you'll eventually come out OK in that battle.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

and then you're stuck with the worst defensive back-court in the NBA that can't shoot.

What’s with the continued hyperbole from people? Whatever point is trying to be made becomes less true. When you have to exaggerate to make a point, you don’t have a point. Not a good one, anyway.

Neither “worst defensive backcourt” nor “can’t shoot” can be substantiated.

 

[The_Jamal]

What’s with the continued hyperbole from people? Whatever point is trying to be made becomes less true. When you have to exaggerate to make a point, you don’t have a point. Not a good one, anyway.

Neither “worst defensive backcourt” nor “can’t shoot” can be substantiated.

Funny you of all people should mention "substantiating claims". All you do is yell at clouds about how basketball was so much better "back then". Maybe you should tell me why I'm an idiot and bring something of substance to the conversation?

And if you'd actually read the rest of my post, I qualified a lot of statements. Like Fox showed encouraging signs at the end of the year with a real surge in shooting.

And sure, maybe I should have said "potentially." Sorry, I'll be sure to proof-read all my KF.com forum posts from now on.

 

[Albatros]

I don't see any way they go for another young prospect that may or may not work out.

Moving the pick for some real impact makes more sense.

 

[kb02]

If I felt like Ivey was a 37-38% 3pt shooter, I wouldn't care about the defensive fit. Balls to the wall with him and Fox, score 130 while giving up 120. The problem is I don't trust the shot to be that good; and then you're stuck with the worst defensive back-court in the NBA that can't shoot; not good Bob.

Maybe in the aggregrate, it can be fine if Fox keeps that stroke he had to end the season. 16 games, shooting 38% on 5.8 attempts. That's encouraging and much needed.

I wonder if people’s opinions of Ivey are more than just highlights. The highlights look unreal. No doubt. But there are a ton of warts in his game that may make his transition much less seamless than most think. The defense is going to be an issue. The shot will definitely be an issue. That’s probably the worse fit imaginable next to Fox and Domas. But beyond fit, I’m not convinced he’s the BPA at 4.

 

[funkykingston]

I don't see any way they go for another young prospect that may or may not work out.

Moving the pick for some real impact makes more sense.

I have a lot more faith in getting a good player with McNair as the GM.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to trading the pick for impact players as long as you aren't dealing for a player near the end of their career and ideally one that's along the same timeline as Fox and Sabonis.

But I'm just not seeing a ton of options where teams would trade a good 23-27 year old player for the #4 pick.

I wouldn't trade the pick for Jerami Grant, Malcolm Brogdan, or Christian Wood straight up. Especially with Grant and Wood being on the last year of their deals.

PJ Washington seems like a good fit with Fox & Sabonis but he's not nearly enough value for #4 straight up and he's also entering the last year of his deal.

If there's a reasonable deal for the pick that improves the Kings significantly, I haven't seen it yet.

Not to mention, the Kings have two solid cornerstones but neither is the best player on a contending team. For Sacramento, the only way to get those types of talents is in the draft.

There will likely be one available at #4. I'd rather gamble on McNair making the right pick than settling for a minor improvement by trading for a solid but unspectacular veteran.

I think Banchero can be that player. I think there's a chance Jabari Smith can too, but I think a better chance that he's a high end role player. Holmgren, if he hits his potential, is jack of all trades who isn't a go to scorer but is an elite interior defender.

Could Sharpe be that player? Maybe. I honestly have no idea. Ivey? He's a talent for sure, but if he's truly a SG and not a lead guard I think that makes it tougher, and playing next to Fox isn't ideal for him either.

Murray? Maybe. I think odds are that he's a solid, long time NBA player but not a star, but there's outcomes where he becomes exactly that.

Mathurin? I could see it.

Sochan? Only if he develops an outside shot.

Duran? He's not a great fit and would take years so I'm not in favor of it, but he's got the tools and is one of the youngest prospects.

AJ Griffin? I'm not super high on him but he has the tools to be a Jaylen Brown type player. Especially if his defense and explosiveness was still hampered by lingering issues from his injuries and he improves in both areas.

Dyson Daniels? Maybe, but not with the Kings if Fox stays. A lot of the same issues with pairing Fox & Haliburton but Daniels lacks Tyrese's outside shooting. Daniels is a better defender though.

Ousmane Dieng? Hmm. Some real tools but his overall game is very soft. He doesn't play physically on either side of the ball. On offense he's really limited to floaters when attacking the basket, despite his size. Good ballhandler and passed though. A bit like Brandon Ingram but if he hits it will likely take a few years.

Tari Eason? Probably not. I love him, but mostly because he's a high motor, switchable defender who gets blocks & steals. If he can be a consistent outside shooter he's a great fit next to Fox & Sabonis and I'd love to see the Kings pick up an extra late lotto pick to get him. That said, if he learns to play more under control and tighten his handle he could even be a possible all-star.

There's also a player or two that go in the late first to early second that have all-star potential.

There are good to great players to be found at #4. For a small market team, finding them is really the only way to get good.

 

[OptimusRhyme]

If I felt like Ivey was a 37-38% 3pt shooter, I wouldn't care about the defensive fit. Balls to the wall with him and Fox, score 130 while giving up 120. The problem is I don't trust the shot to be that good; and then you're stuck with the worst defensive back-court in the NBA that can't shoot; not good Bob.

Maybe in the aggregrate, it can be fine if Fox keeps that stroke he had to end the season. 16 games, shooting 38% on 5.8 attempts. That's encouraging and much needed.

Mitchell/DDV will be in the mix aswell tho, so they're not gonna be terrible on D if staggered correctly. i meen if Mike Brown could turn steph into a good defender.. im sure he could transform Fox & Ivey and make them respectable. They both have all the tools. And if they're ever slacking on D? Davion/DDV will always be ready to snatch their minutes away from them.

I feel like adding more speed to the team makes a lot of sense. Build on your strengths and create a team identity around those strengths. With Fox/Mitchell/Ivey constantly attacking teams are gonna be shook trying to keep up.. I'm not to worried about Iveys shooting either, his freshman year he was at 25 % from 3 and he improved to 35 % in one year- thats huge! I like that he gets to the line alot aswell (75%).

I dunno, i just see something special with Ivey. His swag, his burst, his energy. He wont be perfect right away but if he does reach his potential hes a possible superstar. I like Murray aswell tho, and Holmgren/Smith. So whatever happends on draft day i think Kings fans are gonna be happy regardless.

 

[Kingz19]

It’s always BPA for me.

Bagley was the final straw in worrying about using the draft to address “fit”and “needs” for a losing team. The Kings greatest need is elite talent. Period.

Tyrese ultimately wasn’t a “fit” because Fox didn’t play well next to him, but he was BPA and landed an all star at a position we did need. Davion appears to BPA at his slot but may turn out to be a fit as well.

Very few rookies are immediate needle movers anyway.

People should be prepared that even the absolute right pick by the Kings likely won’t have as big an impact on the Kings record next season as off-season trades and FA acquisitions, Fox/Sabonis chemistry , and the improvement of other players. Any rookie short of a LeBron, Luka, or Donovan Mitchell level of NBA ready isn’t on the same timeline as the now in-prime core that absolutely needs to start winning more often than they lose next season. So, forget fit and positional need. Just make sure it’s a guy that can get on the floor to develop/showcase.

so if it’s decided that Jaden Ivey or another guard is by far the BPA, they must take Ivey or trade the pick for a “fit” or “need”

 

[EIM86]

It’s always BPA for me.

Bagley was the final straw in worrying about using the draft to address “fit”and “needs” for a losing team. The Kings greatest need is elite talent. Period.

Tyrese ultimately wasn’t a “fit” because Fox didn’t play well next to him, but he was BPA and landed an all star at a position we did need. Davion appears to BPA at his slot but may turn out to be a fit as well.

Very few rookies are immediate needle movers anyway.

People should be prepared that even the absolute right pick by the Kings likely won’t have as big an impact on the Kings record next season as off-season trades and FA acquisitions, Fox/Sabonis chemistry , and the improvement of other players. Any rookie short of a LeBron, Luka, or Donovan Mitchell level of NBA ready isn’t on the same timeline as the now in-prime core that absolutely needs to start winning more often than they lose next season. So, forget fit and positional need. Just make sure it’s a guy that can get on the floor to develop/showcase.

so if it’s decided that Jaden Ivey or another guard is by far the BPA, they must take Ivey or trade the pick for a “fit” or “need”

 

[24 rick barry]

I have a lot more faith in getting a good player with McNair as the GM.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to trading the pick for impact players as long as you aren't dealing for a player near the end of their career and ideally one that's along the same timeline as Fox and Sabonis.

But I'm just not seeing a ton of options where teams would trade a good 23-27 year old player for the #4 pick.

I wouldn't trade the pick for Jerami Grant, Malcolm Brogdan, or Christian Wood straight up. Especially with Grant and Wood being on the last year of their deals.

PJ Washington seems like a good fit with Fox & Sabonis but he's not nearly enough value for #4 straight up and he's also entering the last year of his deal.

If there's a reasonable deal for the pick that improves the Kings significantly, I haven't seen it yet.

Not to mention, the Kings have two solid cornerstones but neither is the best player on a contending team. For Sacramento, the only way to get those types of talents is in the draft.

There will likely be one available at #4. I'd rather gamble on McNair making the right pick than settling for a minor improvement by trading for a solid but unspectacular veteran.

I think Banchero can be that player. I think there's a chance Jabari Smith can too, but I think a better chance that he's a high end role player. Holmgren, if he hits his potential, is jack of all trades who isn't a go to scorer but is an elite interior defender.

Could Sharpe be that player? Maybe. I honestly have no idea. Ivey? He's a talent for sure, but if he's truly a SG and not a lead guard I think that makes it tougher, and playing next to Fox isn't ideal for him either.

Murray? Maybe. I think odds are that he's a solid, long time NBA player but not a star, but there's outcomes where he becomes exactly that.

Mathurin? I could see it.

Sochan? Only if he develops an outside shot.

Duran? He's not a great fit and would take years so I'm not in favor of it, but he's got the tools and is one of the youngest prospects.

AJ Griffin? I'm not super high on him but he has the tools to be a Jaylen Brown type player. Especially if his defense and explosiveness was still hampered by lingering issues from his injuries and he improves in both areas.

Dyson Daniels? Maybe, but not with the Kings if Fox stays. A lot of the same issues with pairing Fox & Haliburton but Daniels lacks Tyrese's outside shooting. Daniels is a better defender though.

Ousmane Dieng? Hmm. Some real tools but his overall game is very soft. He doesn't play physically on either side of the ball. On offense he's really limited to floaters when attacking the basket, despite his size. Good ballhandler and passed though. A bit like Brandon Ingram but if he hits it will likely take a few years.

Tari Eason? Probably not. I love him, but mostly because he's a high motor, switchable defender who gets blocks & steals. If he can be a consistent outside shooter he's a great fit next to Fox & Sabonis and I'd love to see the Kings pick up an extra late lotto pick to get him. That said, if he learns to play more under control and tighten his handle he could even be a possible all-star.

There's also a player or two that go in the late first to early second that have all-star potential.

There are good to great players to be found at #4. For a small market team, finding them is really the only way to get good.

Excellent thoughtful analysis again by Mr. Funky Kingston. I alway look to see his posts.

To add, if that future STAR (I will be interested to see how Shaedon Sharpe's career plays out) is not there, then what would be so bad with Detroits's or Portland's pick, instead of our 4th pick, if it get 2 high first rounders-this years and next years (like the deal for Luka with Atlanta), and/or answers to the wing problem here.

However, if we see a future STAR on the board, then we need to jump on it-we're in a good position to do it this year, notwithstanding-and even perhaps to move even lower, ie to obtain a Jabari Smith perhaps. Magic, Luka, Kobe, Michael's only rarely come around.

 

[Gguod]

The Kings greatest need is elite talent. Period.

That is the most important thing to remember in these draft discussions. And should be reminded more often

Very few rookies are immediate needle movers anyway.

This is also important. I happened to listen to locked on kings and the host (whoever he is) was talking about Kings needing to draft a player that can definetly contribute immediately. I wanted to throw up and stopped listening. The most idiotic thing you can do in draft is to draft someone just because they can contribute from day one. You draft the player that will provide the most value throughout his career and thats that

 

[pdxKingsFan]

It’s always BPA for me.

What's lost in all this is that Brandon Williams convinced everyone else in the org that Marvin was the BPA.

I think the other thing lost in the "fit" conversation was regardless of how well Luka and Fox would have fit together, there is absolutely zero question they could have been on the court at the same time. There are legit questions as to whether Fox and Ivey should be on the court at the same time or if Ivey is a Fox replacement.

 

[Sac.Kings]

What's lost in all this is that Brandon Williams convinced everyone else in the org that Marvin was the BPA.

I think the other thing lost in the "fit" conversation was regardless of how well Luka and Fox would have fit together, there is absolutely zero question they could have been on the court at the same time. There are legit questions as to whether Fox and Ivey should be on the court at the same time or if Ivey is a Fox replacement.

Guards or point guards that can’t shoot well or pass at least at an average level will really really struggle to fit in today’s NBA. Ivey sounds like he shares many traits with Fox and I think the two of them together would be be bad for us and great for the opposition. Our two primary guards on the court at the same time and neither can shoot? No thanks. We might get a highlight dunk or two but we lose most games by 10+. I think he’s got some holes in his game that would be even more obvious being planted next to Fox. Of all the guys that might be at 4, assuming talent is around the same, he is among the worst fits. Unless we trade Fox…

 

[Padrino]

It's worth mentioning that "BPA" and "day one contributor" are often the same thing. Luka Doncic comes up regularly as the BPA that the Kings foolishly passed on. He was also the most capable of contributing from day one. He was not a pile of unrealized "promise" or "potential". If someone thinks Jaden Ivey truly is the BPA, that's fine. But I and many others are not convinced that he has talent that clearly rates him head and shoulders above other prospects.

If a player like Keegan Murray is capable of being a day one contributor who happens to fit well on the Kings' current roster while also having talent that puts him in the BPA conversation, so much the better. In my estimation, a guy like Ivey needs to be much, much more clearly a future star than a player like Murray to justify stuffing the Kings' backcourt further with guys who deserve minutes. He is not an obvious BPA, not to me, anyway.

I think Ivey could be really good. But I don't see him as a surefire star. I see him as a Fox-level talent with enough holes in his game to keep him on the fringes of the all-star conversation. It's very easy to project all of one's hopes and dreams onto players with notable flaws. It's easy to witness Ja Morant's ascendance and map a similar trajectory onto Jaden Ivey before he's even set foot on an NBA court.

The difficulty with the 2022 draft is that it doesn't have the high wattage top heaviness of, say, the 2018 draft, where it seemed like you could throw a dart at any player in the top 5 and land on a true difference maker. Marvin Bagley ended up being the bust of the bunch, which is depressing for Kings fans, of course, but it doesn't mean that the 2022 draft is comparable in terms of owning a top 4 pick and making sure you're able to pull a star out of it. Not all drafts are created equal. "Swinging for the fences" doesn't mean the same this year that it might mean in a different year.

With Luka, there were questions about how his game, body, and lack of athleticism would translate to the NBA, but there were no questions whatsoever about his resume, talent, skill level, and extraordinary basketball IQ. A player with his unique profile doesn't exist in this draft. There will be good players available at 4. There will be future all-stars available at 4. But it will be very difficult to identify which among the available prospects is destined for that kind of greatness. For me, a guy like Murray is just as likely as a guy like Ivey to reach it.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Guards or point guards that can’t shoot well or pass at least at an average level will really really struggle to fit in today’s NBA. Ivey sounds like he shares many traits with Fox and I think the two of them together would be be bad for us and great for the opposition. Our two primary guards on the court at the same time and neither can shoot? No thanks. We might get a highlight dunk or two but we lose most games by 10+. I think he’s got some holes in his game that would be even more obvious being planted next to Fox. Of all the guys that might be at 4, assuming talent is around the same, he is among the worst fits. Unless we trade Fox…

If we traded Fox for a player like Murray I'd be ok picking Ivey and rolling with a Mitchell/Ivey/DDV primary guard rotation, but I'm not sure that's the smart route to take here.

I hear a lot of "but Ivey is a 2" but I still think Fox and Ivey are going to do mostly the same things on the court and have the same weaknesses and I also think Fox deserves some time with Brown who has a track record of getting young talent to play D.

 

[Jc121]

I really like the top 3 they predict to go in those spots. But after that like many have expressed its mainly a roll of the dice. I feel we need a game changer and just don’t see one after the top 3.

Trading back maybe but the deal must blow me away and must be a player that is way above anyone that’s on our current roster. We would not be able to trade any one on our roster for a top 4 or 5 pick.
Lots of trade combinations so I would have to see what is offered before I can make a guess if it’s a winner or not.

I guess right now if one of the top 3 drop to 4 grab him. Other wise just take a flyer on Sharp (That is if he passes the eye test on workouts.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If Sharpe is willing to come in after the finals and do a workout with Brown, Monte, Wilcox and some of our players present, and scrimmage with them, I would trust our assessment.

 

[ESP47]

If Sharpe is willing to come in after the finals and do a workout with Brown, Monte, Wilcox and some of our players present, and scrimmage with them, I would trust our assessment.

I personally wouldn't trust it at all. I don't care if Popovich was doing the assessment. There's only so much you can get from a player dancing around cones and going around trainers who are pretending to defend. I mean making your shots in an empty gym is better than not making your shots but the information you get from a workout like that is only about 1% as important as the information you get by watching the rest of these players play dozens of games against like minded competition.

In the end, I think Sharpe is just a pure roll of the dice so I don't have an opinion one way or another. Where it gets annoying is if Sharpe is Monte's favorite pick but Vivek has him on the hot seat to get someone who can produce right away. So Monte picks a poor man's Barnes level player while Sharpe goes on to be Bradley Beal in 3 years. That would be a pure Kangz move.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I personally wouldn't trust it at all. I don't care if Popovich was doing the assessment. There's only so much you can get from a player dancing around cones and going around trainers who are pretending to defend. I mean making your shots in an empty gym is better than not making your shots but the information you get from a workout like that is only about 1% as important as the information you get by watching the rest of these players play dozens of games against like minded competition.

In the end, I think Sharpe is just a pure roll of the dice so I don't have an opinion one way or another. Where it gets annoying is if Sharpe is Monte's favorite pick but Vivek has him on the hot seat to get someone who can produce right away. So Monte picks a poor man's Barnes level player while Sharpe goes on to be Bradley Beal in 3 years. That would be a pure Kangz move.

I specifically said scrimmaging our team. Absolutely zero cone workouts.

To my knowledge he skipped the combine scrimmages?

 

[ESP47]

I specifically said scrimmaging our team. Absolutely zero cone workouts.

To my knowledge he skipped the combine scrimmages?

Oops you're right, I missed that part.

Do teams normally have rookies work out by scrimmaging against their team? I don't think I've heard of that being done.