KINGS PICKING 4TH IN 2022 NBA DRAFT!
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, could be some real interesting GM chicken going on. If OKC actually wants Ivey, but they think they can get him at 4, do we budge and cave and trade up? Or would we just be happy with any one of the bigs that fall and call their bluff that they'd pass on their actual target?
It really is hilarious we ended up in this 4 spot, which feels like one of the most undecided draft positions in a long time.
It really is hilarious we ended up in this 4 spot, which feels like one of the most undecided draft positions in a long time.
If Ivey is the pick, it has to be the case that he is used in a trade for our ideal piece + a pick in order for me to feel emotionally stable. If that isn't what we're doing then it has to be either we pick Banchero because he falls to us, or we pick Murray and put our ear muffs on when all of the criticism that he is underwhelming comes after year one. Develop some talent for christ sake.
It's beginning to feel to me like we may need to pick Murray and develop him. All of the stuff I have heard about him makes him sound like a really good fit. Looking at him on the court: He is a full-sized PF that plays intelligently and can shoot. I don't know that we should pick someone that needs the ball to be effective, a la Jaden Ivey, with the intention of keeping that player.
It's beginning to feel to me like we may need to pick Murray and develop him. All of the stuff I have heard about him makes him sound like a really good fit. Looking at him on the court: He is a full-sized PF that plays intelligently and can shoot. I don't know that we should pick someone that needs the ball to be effective, a la Jaden Ivey, with the intention of keeping that player.
Last edited:
I hope they don't trade up. There isn't a single player in this draft that looks like a no brainer all star. I like Smith but he's not a Durant type draft pick who you knew would be a 20+ppg scorer for years to come. He can hit tough shots but he has plenty of warts to his game that other no brainer picks don't have. I'd hate to give up 2 FRP to move up 2 or 3 slots in the draft when there isn't a consensus future all star pick among the group.
The Kings are building around totally different positions than the Celtics. PG/C, not two wings so they aren't comparable at this point. Also, as I described there is plenty of minutes with a 3 player rotation just like the Kings used to run with 3 bigs. And I'm sure there will be moments where since plenty of teams do run 3 G's at times that they all play together. Even 3 extra minutes for Davion means all of them probably hover around 33-35 mpg. The difference is Ivey is a scoring guard, not another PG. The issue with Haliburton was he clocked in at around 170 and was always looking to pass to his side of the drive and dish or look for step back 3's. Ivey will look to cut or attack when he's got he ball.
What do you not see in Chet? Is it the weight?
Because skill-wise, I don't think there's a weakness and he has a chance to be a real unicorn defensively. The defensive instincts are just ridiculous, he's a serious competitor and he shows really intriguing handle/shot for his size. And he had an argument as the best player in the country last year, so it's not like there's anything in the stat profile we can point to that should worry us. What I think really puts him over the top for us is the fact he doesn't have to face NBA Centers night after night as a rookie; Sabonis takes the beefy bois inside and he can handle the much more manageable 4's.
Because skill-wise, I don't think there's a weakness and he has a chance to be a real unicorn defensively. The defensive instincts are just ridiculous, he's a serious competitor and he shows really intriguing handle/shot for his size. And he had an argument as the best player in the country last year, so it's not like there's anything in the stat profile we can point to that should worry us. What I think really puts him over the top for us is the fact he doesn't have to face NBA Centers night after night as a rookie; Sabonis takes the beefy bois inside and he can handle the much more manageable 4's.
And again you can't look at defenders in college and not take into account the game itself. Iowa ran a lot of defensive formations that almost no contender is running these days. Jaden Ivey has the athletic ability to lock it down on the perimeter. Murray has a better grasp, is bigger, longer, but will be expected to switch down if he's a 4 man.
People aren't considering Murrays potential shortfalls nearly enough though. If he's a 4, there's inherently less value. Value players in todays league run all 3 aspects in the triple threat. He's shown potential in those areas, but then age comes in. How much is left to go and what does he look like as a 3rd wheel?
With this stroke of luck and max space coming, I'd rather Monte build for a championship. Potential star talent at 4 and max space is the way it's done. Shoot for the middle and stay there and Fox/Sabonis are probably gone at some point anyway. Rely on any of these rookies to get this team into the play in and it's probably looking drab anyway. That should be doable without the pick. Look how quick windows can close. The Suns being a prime example. It's not closed but shutting potentially.
Yeah and I wasn't big on Green either, which is probably giving me some pause on including Ivey as a truly elite prospect. He had a good run at the end of the season, but dude has miles to go on defense before he's even average. Green is a more dynamic overall scorer and a cleaner shot, but I think that's a pretty good comp for him.
The comps drafted in the top 10 recently that look similar in some ways are Toppin, Hachimura, and maybe Okongwu. And yeah the question is obviously on drives. He's got the same move Bagley had. Drive left, spin right and wiggle his defender towards the rim. As a stretch 4 he's a great fit, he's a smart system guy, and he's got great length even if he's a little undersized at 4. I think the potential is also there for him to become an interesting mismatch 5 like some think. I
Some of these conversations are taking me back to a time, a time where arguments were being had in a similar fashion. In one corner, Justin Jackson. Experienced. Winner. Good defender. In the other corner, OG Anunoby. Raw. Athletic. Questions and somewhat unproven.
Some of these conversations are taking me back to a time, a time where arguments were being had in a similar fashion. In one corner, Justin Jackson. Experienced. Winner. Good defender. In the other corner, OG Anunoby. Raw. Athletic. Questions and somewhat unproven.
This is a main reason I'd go Ivey. I think a Davion/Ivey package could have a lot more value at the deadline than the other options. You can basically tell a team looking to rebuild, hey, here's your backcourt for the next decade. Stretch 4's just won't have the value to most teams that already have a 3 and D wing there.
Weight and the ability to play the 4. There is skinny and there is Chet skinny. I just don't think he's going to be as valuable as people think at the 4. He'll get played off the floor by most 4s IMO. I think his position is the 5 but I don't know if he'll ever have the strength to hold down the fort there. Sort of Bagley-esque in that department....although Bagley didn't really fit offensively or defensively at the 4 but Chet should fit better offensively but his outside shot is no guarantee. I just think he's a risky pick and certainly not one I would trade the 4th pick plus another likely lottery pick for.
I'd much rather trade down for a known good player and then cross my fingers and hope the pick works out so we can keep stacking good players instead of relying on strange ill fitting guys that may or may not work out together. Trade down for a solid wing and pick up Eason and if Eason develops, you've got two players who can play with any of our current core without special exceptions needing to be made.
I'd much rather trade down for a known good player and then cross my fingers and hope the pick works out so we can keep stacking good players instead of relying on strange ill fitting guys that may or may not work out together. Trade down for a solid wing and pick up Eason and if Eason develops, you've got two players who can play with any of our current core without special exceptions needing to be made.
Probably my favorite fake trade is Vassell+9+20 for #4+filler from the Spurs. At 9 you have a chance to draft Eason or one of that 2nd tier (Griffin, Davis, Sharpe, Murray, Mathurin) will also be available. Talk about fixing the defense with Vassell at the 3 and Eason at the 4 and at 20 should have a good shot at a Liddell, Kessler, Branham, Jovic type being available.
Meh, this feels like diminishing what Murray actually did on the court. Doesn't take into account his team context (the only viable scorer), the statistical dominance, 5.7% TOV rate for his usage is insane and the fact he got better as the season went on vs better competition. He's literally 99%ile player in transition/half-court/post-ups... so like the entire offensive spectrum.
I think where I will agree is the post-ups aren't going to be the same reliable source of production. I do like that's it's now a unique wrinkle in his game that only a few guys in the NBA are capable of now, but it probably only becomes a serious weapon if he hits his ceiling and is a feature offensive threat in the vein of a Siakam/Tatum.
Perhaps where I differ on Murray than a lot of people is I see a significant upside in his player archetype. 6'8 forwards with his physical measurables/IQ/shooting/defensive versatility are few and far between; they're basically never available outside the draft because teams hold on to them for dear life. He'll need to show a few things at the NBA level (off the dribble creation, playmaking, switchability onto NBA 3's) to become a star, but what's important to me is he actually has the ability to get there at the NBA level. The late-bloomer rise, the work ethic, how hard he plays on the court. It's the real deal to me. I just think there's just upside to what he can be and I want to bet on that player archetype more than anything. You mention Crowder, but I'd bet on that being more the floor than the median outcome; which is a 10+ year starter that's incredibly valuable to winning. Certainly not the best outcome with a #4 pick, but we can absolutely do worse.
Conversely, I think everyone is focusing in on Ivey's ceiling rather than focusing on his potential downside. All we hear on Ivey is how his ceiling is sky-high and all the ridiculous player comps. People seemed to have made up their minds (possibly due to highlights and the national draft media saying so) that Ivey is the ceiling/star play while Murray is the fit/floor play.
I think where I will agree is the post-ups aren't going to be the same reliable source of production. I do like that's it's now a unique wrinkle in his game that only a few guys in the NBA are capable of now, but it probably only becomes a serious weapon if he hits his ceiling and is a feature offensive threat in the vein of a Siakam/Tatum.
Perhaps where I differ on Murray than a lot of people is I see a significant upside in his player archetype. 6'8 forwards with his physical measurables/IQ/shooting/defensive versatility are few and far between; they're basically never available outside the draft because teams hold on to them for dear life. He'll need to show a few things at the NBA level (off the dribble creation, playmaking, switchability onto NBA 3's) to become a star, but what's important to me is he actually has the ability to get there at the NBA level. The late-bloomer rise, the work ethic, how hard he plays on the court. It's the real deal to me. I just think there's just upside to what he can be and I want to bet on that player archetype more than anything. You mention Crowder, but I'd bet on that being more the floor than the median outcome; which is a 10+ year starter that's incredibly valuable to winning. Certainly not the best outcome with a #4 pick, but we can absolutely do worse.
Conversely, I think everyone is focusing in on Ivey's ceiling rather than focusing on his potential downside. All we hear on Ivey is how his ceiling is sky-high and all the ridiculous player comps. People seemed to have made up their minds (possibly due to highlights and the national draft media saying so) that Ivey is the ceiling/star play while Murray is the fit/floor play.
Last time I checked, you have to get into the playoffs in order to win a championship. The Kings org has to have granite resolve to establish this team as a winner. Only then will they have a chance to luck out with a move or two to be a contender for a championship. No chance in hell will they get a FA of any magnitude to come to this team without a 180 in public perception, and without winning a playoff spot such a perception is the impossible dream.
- Status