Kings draft Spencer Hawes: Discussion

[Bricklayer]

I think there is an irony here, and I am not sure if it makes it better or worse.

The irony is this: reading the tea leaves it seems apparent that Geoff did NOT want to draft Spenser Hawes. At least not if there were other viable choices. Doesn't mean he was anti-Hawes. But means he was trying for other guys. That he was working the phones trying to move up to grab, maybe Noah (which almost would have annoyed me -- not sure you move up to draft a roleplayer, but anyway), maybe Yi (if we thought he'd play here), maybe B. Wright. And so for years and years we have been getting increasingly restless because time after time Geoff has ignored defense, rebounding, interior presence in favor or one dimensional and undersized offensive guys. And yet in this draft, if the tea leaf reading is correct, he may have been trying to break that trend. Trying to get a guy with length + athleticism. And the irony being that in the end, he failed, was unable to move up, and ended up drafting the same guy he's been acquiring over and over for years, but this time not by choice. And so he ends up drafting the same guy that everybody thought would be a "Petrie pick", but this time it wasn't really and he juat got stuck taking the last remaining big of the high lottery guys (shockingly Geoff's formerly preferred traits weren't considered that attractive by the other lottery teams).

So is this a good thing? Good that Geoff tried to go another direction?

Or is it a bad thing? Bad that Geoff basically failed in his efforts? And when you talk failed in this case, it could be looked at as failed because Geoff wasn't dedicated enough to succeeding and refused to give up what it would take, or failed because Geoff was hamstrung by assets with little value to other teams, or failed because Geoff simply wasn't effective enough at constructing deals. Or a combination of some or all of the above.

I'm not sure. If the tea leaves are right there is room here to be disappointed that we ended up with Hawes wihtout necessarily being disappointed in the selection itself: i.e that the failure was in failing to move up rather than in taking the last big once we ran out of options. And maybe even room to not be outraged by the selction process, if indeed Geoff was trying to go elsewhere and failed. Of course the failure itself opens up a whole new can of worms...

 

[jcassio]

I didn't expect a superstar from this draft, and I hope you didn't either. I thought that I made it pretty clear that if we want to have the type of production that the Spurs have on a nightly basis, then we are going to need a PF that is a supreme rebounder, and an above average shotblocker. This mystery man won't need to have much of an offensive game because of Spencer. So we might not even need a superstar in our frontcourt, just a set of specialized stars. Not to mention we will need depth off the bench. Hopefully Justin will fill that role.

Hard to believe there's someone on this board that I actually agree with, but I do agree with you on this! Hawes is not the plodding big guy that Brad is and Vlade was. He also won't be confused with Mutumbo in protecting the basket. But, otherwise, the kid's got a big upside.

And all these folks who look at last year's team and question how Spencer Hawes is going to help us aren't accepting that we are, in fact, rebuilding. Note that no one in the Kings braintrust is suggesting that we will be a playoff team next year. In that context, there's no reason to think that Hawes can't be a piece of the puzzle that - eventually - turns into a winning team. And perhaps Justin Williams - if he continues to play with energy and continues to improve - can be the perfect compliment to Hawes.

 

[RangerC]

I think we have to look at the Hawes pick in context. Yes, it looks horrible in a vacuum that the Kings drafted an interior player whose weaknesses are rebounding & defense; at best, Hawes will probably be Brad Miller with a post game. However, when you're picking #10 you often don't even get the chance to draft a player like Hawes.

- Oden, Horford, Wright, Yi, & Noah were all unavailable at #10. Nothing to be done about that (and can't blame Petrie for not moving up; aside from K-Mart, the rest of the roster is damaged goods at best)

- The other available players were all extremely flawed in their own way:
J. Wright: has every skill you would want in a wing player... well, except ball-handling and shooting
Acie Law: very marginal athlete on NBA level, not a pure PG
Al Thornton: Over 4 years older than Hawes, tweener, poor BBall IQ

I think the choice of Hawes was actually a case of taking the best player available (he was always considered a lotto pick and was rumored at #7 or #9 prior to the draft). Brick laid out the situation pretty eloquently above: basically Petrie didn't really have a choice but to take him. The problem was that in the best year for tanking in a long time the Kings didn't 'pull out the stops'. In a year where two franchise talents were available and a player like Brandan Wright was available as low at #8 as a consolation prize, you just have to 'go for it'. Hopefully the Hawes pick is accompanied by an immediate 'rebuild' - the draft isn't quite the same next season, but OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose & Michael Beasley are all potential franchise talents. If the Hawes pick leads to 20 wins and a nucleus of say Hawes/Martin/Rose (a trio like that with 2 defensive roleplayers at SF and PF could at least theoretically compete for championships), then it was undoubtedly the right move.

 

[BawLa]

- The other available players were all extremely flawed in their own way:
J. Wright: has every skill you would want in a wing player... well, except ball-handling and shooting
Acie Law: very marginal athlete on NBA level, not a pure PG
Al Thornton: Over 4 years older than Hawes, tweener, poor BBall IQ

I think the choice of Hawes was actually a case of taking the best player available (he was always considered a lotto pick and was rumored at #7 or #9 prior to the draft). Brick laid out the situation pretty eloquently above: basically Petrie didn't really have a choice but to take him. The problem was that in the best year for tanking in a long time the Kings didn't 'pull out the stops'. In a year where two franchise talents were available and a player like Brandan Wright was available as low at #8 as a consolation prize, you just have to 'go for it'. Hopefully the Hawes pick is accompanied by an immediate 'rebuild' - the draft isn't quite the same next season, but OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose & Michael Beasley are all potential franchise talents. If the Hawes pick leads to 20 wins and a nucleus of say Hawes/Martin/Rose (a trio like that with 2 defensive roleplayers at SF and PF could at least theoretically compete for championships), then it was undoubtedly the right move.

Exactly. If we had drafted one of those three, there would be people breaking all their weaknesses apart too. I think the frustration has to do with the fact that we are watching two teams like Portland and Seattle, who were below us in the pecking order and are now above us, and the fact that Yi didn't fall to us.

We can talk FOREVER about who we shoulda taken, or how we shoulda dropped lower in the standings to maybe get a better pick. But the fact remains, Hawes is one of our guys going forward. And I for one have been satisfied with GP and his drafting of talent. They may not be the most pertinent needs, but he has been finding a way to bring in quality talent and quality character via the draft.

The weaknesses that everyone points out about Hawes aren't even neccessarily "weaknesses", as much as they are areas of less strength. Maybe I'm just a homer, but I see Hawes as more of an average rebounder than a "weak" one. So he can't shotblock with the best yet. He's pointed out that he will be making an effort to improve in those areas, and that is all I can ask for.

The real piece of meat to chew on has nothing to do with Hawes. If this team had a couple rebounders and shotblockers, we wouldn't be breaking apart Hawes. Moving forward, we have clean up 2 of the 3 contracts in our frontcourt ASAP. And I remind people, that this needed to happen before Hawes, and even if we drafted Oden, this would still need to happen. Thomas, Miller and SAR are guys that have at least 3 years left on their contracts and are all overpayed for what they provide. They need to be actively shopped for the remainder of their contracts. Similarly, we have to be careful and not give them too much playing time in order to sell them, because our young talent needs to continue to develop. That is way more important than trying to pawn off the big softies.

We need to find our way into the top 5 of next year's draft. It may be painful to watch this year, but this is something that needs to happen IMO. We need to draft a franchise player, make him the cornerstone of our new era, and then there will be excitement in kingsland again.

 

[Entity]

you can't garuntee a franchise player in the top 5 of a draft. I hope like hell we are not pinning our hopes on drafts to get us where we need to be. In fact we got 2 top 5 draft picks on our team now

 

[John Galt]

I have completely come around on Hawes. I'm fine with the pick.

One never knows "what might have been" but I bet the screams of bloody murder on this board would be a lot worse if he had taken a SF like Wright or Thornton. Picking in the 10th slot I don't know what any of us would have rather had Geoff do.

I'm actually starting to wonder if Geoff threw the remote control at his TV like I did when the Bulls chose Noah instead of Hawes

OK Geoff you can tell Joe and Gavin that Francisco takes back the nastygram email he sent to them demanding that you be fired. Just redeem yourself by getting rid of KT mkay?

 

[Vlade4GM]

I think there is an irony here, and I am not sure if it makes it better or worse.

The irony is this: reading the tea leaves it seems apparent that Geoff did NOT want to draft Spenser Hawes. At least not if there were other viable choices. Doesn't mean he was anti-Hawes. But means he was trying for other guys. That he was working the phones trying to move up to grab, maybe Noah (which almost would have annoyed me -- not sure you move up to draft a roleplayer, but anyway), maybe Yi (if we thought he'd play here), maybe B. Wright. And so for years and years we have been getting increasingly restless because time after time Geoff has ignored defense, rebounding, interior presence in favor or one dimensional and undersized offensive guys. And yet in this draft, if the tea leaf reading is correct, he may have been trying to break that trend. Trying to get a guy with length + athleticism. And the irony being that in the end, he failed, was unable to move up, and ended up drafting the same guy he's been acquiring over and over for years, but this time not by choice. And so he ends up drafting the same guy that everybody thought would be a "Petrie pick", but this time it wasn't really and he juat got stuck taking the last remaining big of the high lottery guys (shockingly Geoff's formerly preferred traits weren't considered that attractive by the other lottery teams).

So is this a good thing? Good that Geoff tried to go another direction?

Or is it a bad thing? Bad that Geoff basically failed in his efforts? And when you talk failed in this case, it could be looked at as failed because Geoff wasn't dedicated enough to succeeding and refused to give up what it would take, or failed because Geoff was hamstrung by assets with little value to other teams, or failed because Geoff simply wasn't effective enough at constructing deals. Or a combination of some or all of the above.

I'm not sure. If the tea leaves are right there is room here to be disappointed that we ended up with Hawes wihtout necessarily being disappointed in the selection itself: i.e that the failure was in failing to move up rather than in taking the last big once we ran out of options. And maybe even room to not be outraged by the selction process, if indeed Geoff was trying to go elsewhere and failed. Of course the failure itself opens up a whole new can of worms...

I honestly don't think we had any shot of moving up to get BWright or Jianlian without giving up Kevin Martin. So I don't blame Petrie for that, the guy really doesn't have a whole lot to work with here. He's got a declining PG with a mess of a contract and a talented SF but with character problems that only a select few would take on. If you want to blame him for not taking Wright over Hawes, I'll totally agree with you on that argument but blaming him for not getting something that was out of our reach from the get go is just unreasonable IMO. Even if we do take Wright we still didn't solve the issue of getting someone who can rebound, defend, and score inside. What we did get though was someone who can score in the low AND high post and has the potential to be a good rebounder. Having true back to the basket skills and face up skills are rare in the NBA today, it's a valuable weapon come playoff time.

Obviously since he's only 19 it's going to take time for him to develop his body but it's not like we're pressed for time here, we're waiting regardless. I'd say he's definitely more skilled offensively than Chris Kaman and probably even more skilled than Bogut sans passing. I just think people are underselling the value of a guy who can score in the low post and potentially average 15+ ppg. And all this nonsense about it's more of what we got, that's just a dumb point because what we got on our frontcourt right now is of no consequence to what we will have in 2-3 years. We had the 10th pick, that's the bottom line and we took the 2nd best player available IMO and we gave the edge to the post player. I can't blame Petrie a whole lot for that, I just can't. I can blame him for not being more active later in the draft, that I think is inexcusable for just sitting back and not getting anything done when quite a bit was up for grabs.

The way people are reacting to this pick is just silly, either they just really have a bias against the type of player Hawes is or they had some serious delusions about the 10th pick. Right after Hawes, the big man talent falls off dramatically.

 

[joejoe]

...
I'm not sure. If the tea leaves are right there is room here to be disappointed that we ended up with Hawes wihtout necessarily being disappointed in the selection itself: i.e that the failure was in failing to move up rather than in taking the last big once we ran out of options. And maybe even room to not be outraged by the selction process, if indeed Geoff was trying to go elsewhere and failed. Of course the failure itself opens up a whole new can of worms...

I agree that Hawes was the best choice Petrie had at the 10 spot. But I cannot be too disappointed that we weren't able to move up to a higher draft pick. Looking at the top ten picks this year, only 2 trades took place, and looking at the whole first round, there were only 6 trades taking place. That's 20% of picks that are acquired via deals. To me, that's not a lot. Given that probably every GM is open to trades (except for maybe Portland or Seattle this year) one could say that 80% of GMs failed this year.

I can't recall if Petrie has EVER traded for a different position in the draft (check that--didn't we ship off a second round pick a few years ago?). Point is, our pick was mostly choses by the ping pong balls. I'm just waiting to see what kind of trades can be made before the start of the season.

 

[Dime Dropper]

I'm fine with the pick. He can be a valuable piece for us in the future, solid centers with scoring and passing ability aren't too easy to find. While I'm not expecting him to develop into the next TD, I think he may be better than comparisons such as Miller and Mihm.

If we can't get Rose, OJ or Beasley next year, let's hope we get Collison. He will be an all star.

 

[Gary]

Look at it this way people..

Hawes is not a draft pick for the Kings of 2007-2008. He addresses nothing of our current needs.

Two to three years down the road when we have Garcia starting at SF, Martin at SG, and Hawes at C we can address the needs to get rebounding at the PF position, and ball control/distribution at the PG position. Salmons will be the bench veteran, and Williams should have another 2-3 years off the bench under his belt understanding what is needed of him.

If you expect Hawes to address any of our needs as it stands in 2007-2008 than you will drive yourself crazy. And if three years down the road we are still last in the league at rebounding than you can tell Petrie what a horrible pick it was. I am still pissed off at the pick, because I think we could have grabbed a better pick in 2008, or 2009 but can understand how you don't turn down a 19yo that can score who is 7'+. Lets hope coach works with him on positioning. At least to the point where he can grab 8-9 or so a game in starting @ 35 minutes in a couple years.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Look at it this way people..

Hawes is not a draft pick for the Kings of 2007-2008. He addresses nothing of our current needs.

Two to three years down the road when we have Garcia starting at SF, Martin at SG, and Hawes at C we can address the needs to get rebounding at the PF position, and ball control/distribution at the PG position. Salmons will be the bench veteran, and Williams should have another 2-3 years off the bench under his belt understanding what is needed of him.

If you expect Hawes to address any of our needs as it stands in 2007-2008 than you will drive yourself crazy. And if three years down the road we are still last in the league at rebounding than you can tell Petrie what a horrible pick it was. I am still pissed off at the pick, because I think we could have grabbed a better pick in 2008, or 2009 but can understand how you don't turn down a 19yo that can score who is 7'+. Lets hope coach works with him on positioning. At least to the point where he can grab 8-9 or so a game in starting @ 35 minutes in a couple years.

Well I think most of the board doesn't believe our needs as it stands right are relevant considering we aren't playing for the "now", we're playing for 2-3 years down the road when KT, Miller, Bibby, Artest, and SAR will all be history. It's irrelevant whether Hawes helps out our team the most next year out of all that was available, the only relevant things are whether we got good value for the 10th pick and upside that fits our rebuilding effort. It sounds like you have a bigger problem with what Hawes represents rather than Hawes himself.

 

[Gary]

Well I think most of the board doesn't believe our needs as it stands right are relevant considering we aren't playing for the "now", we're playing for 2-3 years down the road when KT, Miller, Bibby, Artest, and SAR will all be history. It's irrelevant whether Hawes helps out our team the most next year out of all that was available, the only relevant things are whether we got good value for the 10th pick and upside that fits our rebuilding effort. It sounds like you have a bigger problem with what Hawes represents rather than Hawes himself.

HAD problems.

I understand what Hawes is for. I just hope he will be able to work on his rebounding, and get the time in the next couple years to "build' on what he has already. That's the only thing I am looking forward to at this time. Just sucks to know the Kings are going to suck for a few years.

 

[VF21]

Just sucks to know the Kings are going to suck for a few years.

Welcome to the world of NINER fans.

 

[Gary]

Welcome to the world of NINER fans.

I lived it as a Bengal fan for years and years. Pretty much mirrored the Kings in suckiness...

 

[Bricklayer]

The flipside still remains that now you have Hawes...and unless he dramatically improves upon things he may not physically be able to improve upon, you have permanently and forever (until you trade him) made slowness and weakness inside a defining characteristic of your team. Its already been that way for years. People hate it. Well, people who know basketball hate it. And even the ones who don't hate what comes with it: losses. And now you have drafted, whether you really wanted ot or not, a young center for the future who embodies those traits. Tim Duncan and Shaqulille O'Neal have won 8 of the last 9 titles (the Admiral was along for the ride for two in there). The 9th was won by Ben Wallace. The team that did it the 3 times before that had Dennis Rodman. Then there was Hakeem. Greg Oden just showed up in town. Yao was already here. Duncan is still chugging. We got...Spenser Hawes. And so what was temporary stupidity (lack of rebounding, shotblocking, interior presense) now may have become permanent. Somebody just tore off the temporary "kick me" sign they had pasted on our backs and replaced it with a permament tattoo.

 

[VF21]

The flipside still remains that now you have Hawes...and unless he dramatically improves upon things he may not physically be able to improve upon, you have permanently and forever (until you trade him) made slowness and weakness inside a defining characteristic of your team. Its already been that way for years. People hate it. Well, people who know basketball hate it. And even the ones who don't hate what comes with it: losses. And now you have drafted, whether you really wanted ot or not, a young center for the future who embodies those traits. Tim Duncan and Shaqulille O'Neal have won 8 of the last 9 titles (the Admiral was along for the ride for two in there). The 9th was won by Ben Wallace. The team that did it the 3 times before that had Dennis Rodman. Then there was Hakeem. Greg Oden just showed up in town. Yao was already here. Duncan is still chugging. We got...Spenser Hawes. And so what was temporary stupidity (lack of rebounding, shotblocking, interior presense) now may have become permanent. Somebody just tore off the temporary "kick me" sign they had pasted on our backs and replaced it with a permament tattoo.

Hawes isn't the savior of the team, Brickie. He was, however, the best big available at the #10. I don't know what else you expected Petrie to do. Waive our pick because Oden was taken and no one would trade up with us?

The whole process is just beginning. I don't think you can possibly predict the end product at this point in time.

 

[Bricklayer]

To the degree that Geoff was trying to avoid this situation, I can forgive him for being backed into it. Although much depends of course on factors we can never know (what was offered, what was rejected).

It still doesn't change the implications of the pick. Nor the continuance, willing or unwilling, of one of the great plagues of the Sacramento Kings franchise over its entire existence: lack of rebounding, shotblocking, ahtleticism, rugged interior play. Still doesn't move us out from behind the eight ball. In fact if anything makes the situation worse by attaching it to youth.

 

[joejoe]

If Hawes is as good as this "Spenser," then I'm happy we hired him:

(Spenser is the guy on the right)

 

[fnordius]

I agree with Brick's diagnosis of Petrie's thinking process during the draft. I think that most of the debate around this pick is a matter of difference of emphasis.

The traditional Petrie draft pick has 3-5 of the following traits:
(1) more skilled and smart than athletic; known more for being a softie than for being fast or airborne
(2) not a great rebounder
(3) kinda undersized
(4) more offense than defense
(5) shooter, extra credit for avoiding physical contact or flopping

Prime examples: Peja (12-45), Douby (1-345)


The antithesis of a traditional Petrie pick would be:
(a) raw athleticism, speed, and jumping ability; call him a softie and people will laugh at you
(b) monster on the boards (for his position)
(c) a big, strong guy
(d) hardworking and reliable on defense
(e) prolific dunker who loves physically forcing his way to the basket

Prime examples: A bunch of guys who either weren't drafted by the Kings, and a lone exception who GP regarded as a mistake, that spent his entire time as a King waving a towel. The only guy on the roster right now who is, overall, not typical Petrie would be last year's freebie, Justin Williams (ab3de). Ronnie Price (a-3--) (another freebie) and Francisco Garcia (---d-) (last non-crappy guy left in a bad draft year) fit somewhere in the middle. Kevin (a2-4-) is a mixed bag; athletic, drastically balanced towards offense, benefits from a physical game because his flopping skills are superb.

What most of us really wanted was a very atypical Petrie pick; the ideal would have been Oden (abcde), Jianlian (a-c--) or Horford (-bc-e). What we got was Hawes (12c4-); a typical GP pick in every way but size, arguably less of the sort of "big" we need than Bonzi was.

So I'm thinking that the debate mostly centers around which un-Geoff-like traits we felt the team needed most. Some (including myself, and most mock drafts on draft day) thought that the athletic freak Thornton would serve us well, others preferred the more balanced J.Wright; not getting the size, but remedying some other deficiencies instead.

Unlike Gary, I don't see this as being a pick for the future. A pick for the future should be a guy who is undervalued because it's going to take a lot of work to get his skills to their peak; scads of potential but no immediate payoff. Someone who is anything but "NBA ready." Instead we got a guy whose offensive skills are much more polished than average.

I think that Hawes is a (misguided?) attempt to placate fans: Geoff has finally chosen a big in the first round (sorry, I'm counting Corliss as a F, not a PF). In the near term, he can sub for the chronically-injured Brad, which may satisfy fans who want to see us "playing the kids." Maybe those things will sell some tickets.

From a practical perspective, management has finally realized that we're a lottery team, and Hawes' relative degree of NBA readiness does nothing to interfere with that. The West has become absolutely brutal, and even the traditional East Coast punching bags can match the lineup we have now. Hawes is unlikely to remedy team deficiencies as well as Justin, but is almost certain to take away some of his minutes; giving Hawes PT shouldn't hurt our chances at Rose or Beasley in '08, and may help them.

He's also pretty tradable for a rookie. Any team heavy on defenders and rebounders would probably do really well with him, and we'd be delighted to take some of those defense-minded rebounders off their hands. His pay will be low enough that we could do the (usually) unthinkable, and use him as sweetener to help us unload some deadweight.

And that brings us to a point where I could be very happy with this pick -- if GP can quickly turn it into a major trade which helps us rebuild, I will be perfectly content with having gotten Hawes.

 

[Bricklayer]

If Hawes is as good as this "Spenser," then I'm happy we hired him:

(Spenser is the guy on the right)

Hint: if you are talking about a big man you don't want the guy the right. You want the guy on the LEFT. Now he was mean.

 

[nbrans]

The flipside still remains that now you have Hawes...and unless he dramatically improves upon things he may not physically be able to improve upon, you have permanently and forever (until you trade him) made slowness and weakness inside a defining characteristic of your team. Its already been that way for years. People hate it. Well, people who know basketball hate it. And even the ones who don't hate what comes with it: losses. And now you have drafted, whether you really wanted ot or not, a young center for the future who embodies those traits. Tim Duncan and Shaqulille O'Neal have won 8 of the last 9 titles (the Admiral was along for the ride for two in there). The 9th was won by Ben Wallace. The team that did it the 3 times before that had Dennis Rodman. Then there was Hakeem. Greg Oden just showed up in town. Yao was already here. Duncan is still chugging. We got...Spenser Hawes. And so what was temporary stupidity (lack of rebounding, shotblocking, interior presense) now may have become permanent. Somebody just tore off the temporary "kick me" sign they had pasted on our backs and replaced it with a permament tattoo.

I definitely agree with this -- it's kind of ironic (among the many ironies of this pick) that Geoff made the Hawes pick in the name of filling a hole that's hard to fill, only he has created an even bigger hole at the 4 that is perhaps even harder to fill: the Dennis Rodman/Horace Grant/Antonio Davis or dare I say Chris Webber to Hawes' Longley/Cartwright/Smits/Divac. And especially in this day and age when a bunch of extremely athletic bigs just entered the league, you probably want an appropriately sized PF/C backup as well. Justin Williams is in the right mold, although I question whether he has the size, strength and coordination to ultimately be that guy.

And then it's still an open question whether you can even afford have a guy on the floor like Hawes in this new athletic league. Perhaps the very best slow-footed guy in the entire league, Yao Ming, ended up being such a major defensive and rebounding liability for the Rockets that it partly cost them their series. Maybe they could have squeaked through if they had the right dirty-work four, but even in the best case scenario I don't know if Hawes will really be able to stay on the floor. We'll see.

 

[Entity]

The flipside still remains that now you have Hawes...and unless he dramatically improves upon things he may not physically be able to improve upon, you have permanently and forever (until you trade him) made slowness and weakness inside a defining characteristic of your team. Its already been that way for years. People hate it. Well, people who know basketball hate it. And even the ones who don't hate what comes with it: losses. And now you have drafted, whether you really wanted ot or not, a young center for the future who embodies those traits. Tim Duncan and Shaqulille O'Neal have won 8 of the last 9 titles (the Admiral was along for the ride for two in there). The 9th was won by Ben Wallace. The team that did it the 3 times before that had Dennis Rodman. Then there was Hakeem. Greg Oden just showed up in town. Yao was already here. Duncan is still chugging. We got...Spenser Hawes. And so what was temporary stupidity (lack of rebounding, shotblocking, interior presense) now may have become permanent. Somebody just tore off the temporary "kick me" sign they had pasted on our backs and replaced it with a permament tattoo.

yet had we not drafted him we would have gotten one of the 2 next best players available which were tweener PF's Julian Wright and Al Thorton. Then we would have been subjected to your rant about tweener PF's like we have the last 3 years. We get it Brick we know our frontcourt sucks we are not saying Hawes is the savior of this team but, with the 10th pick did you honestly see us getting the saviour? Outside Of Oden maybe Horford or the ? YI. I imagine you would have had some sort of rant about the pick we had. Move on from this the draft is over now its time for your yearly rant about trades and FA pickups. Hawes is here may be for 2 years and out maybe gone this offseason maybe he will be the next best thing either way get over it.

 

[Kingster]

Hawes, I believe, was the best player on the board when Petrie picked. Would he have like Yi, or B. Wright? You bet. But at #10 they weren't there and the Kings didn't have the ammo to get them.

So, we have a guy who looks to be a very good low post scorer, good passer, ok defender and rebounder at the center. Assuming he is what I have described, can the Kings succeed, or in a distant future, actually win an NBA championship with that kind of center?

Yes. They can win if the offense is centered (no pun intended) around Hawes, thereby maximizing his effectiveness on the court. You can't have Hawes and have him be a third option on offense. Maybe, a second, but not the third. HE has to be the one that touches the ball, probably more than any other player on the floor. Second, you have to surround him with uber-athletes to minimize his defensive and rebounding weaknesses. Hawes IS like Miller on D - at least that's my presumption right now. And if there is one thing that is indisputable it is that a defensively average unathletic point guard plus the same at center is out of the question. That experiment was an absolute unadulterated unmitigated freaking disaster. So that means that every-last-player that we get from here on out better be some athletic freak. Otherwise, we'll end up three to four years from now with a "nice little team", but won't ever be taken seriously as an NBA championship contender. If we're going to go through all this rebuilding pain, I at least want to believe that at the end of it we'll have a shot at championship.

 

[Jerryaki]

Yes. They can win if the offense is centered (no pun intended) around Hawes, thereby maximizing his effectiveness on the court.

can you really imagine an offense that is built around someone like a brad miller? at that point, i think it's time to go back to the drawing board.

 

[D13]

Spencer and Kevin Durant best friends? Here's an article from Seattle's newspaper right before the draft on them:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2003765707_kelley28.html

...

 

[Gary]

The flipside still remains that now you have Hawes...and unless he dramatically improves upon things he may not physically be able to improve upon, you have permanently and forever (until you trade him) made slowness and weakness inside a defining characteristic of your team. Its already been that way for years. People hate it. Well, people who know basketball hate it. And even the ones who don't hate what comes with it: losses. And now you have drafted, whether you really wanted ot or not, a young center for the future who embodies those traits. Tim Duncan and Shaqulille O'Neal have won 8 of the last 9 titles (the Admiral was along for the ride for two in there). The 9th was won by Ben Wallace. The team that did it the 3 times before that had Dennis Rodman. Then there was Hakeem. Greg Oden just showed up in town. Yao was already here. Duncan is still chugging. We got...Spenser Hawes. And so what was temporary stupidity (lack of rebounding, shotblocking, interior presense) now may have become permanent. Somebody just tore off the temporary "kick me" sign they had pasted on our backs and replaced it with a permament tattoo.

He is one player. Look.. Nobody hates this pick as much as me, but I have come to the realization that he is just one player of eight that will be seeing time regularly in a couple years. He seems to have a nice step back jumper, turn around jumper, fade away, ball fake and to the hoop, and a hook shot. Everyone was saying his first few weeks playing he had a stomach virus. I did a second half of his season tally and his rebounding was up a bit over 7 per game.

 

[BawLa]

The continued molding of Hawes' future into what people percieve is getting laughable. Suggesting he is going to be a defensive liability is just as preposterous as suggesting he is going to be the next Tim Duncan. Look, I don't presume to know the future. But I do presume to know that no one else knows the future. Why don't we just let Spencer decide his future instead of trying to decide it for him. Okay? Thanks.

So what if we had chosen Julian Wright or Al Thornton. They turn out to be complete busts, shooting less than 40% from the floor over their entire careers. But some would be happy in 2007, because they are "athletic". You don't go in the top 10 if you aren't somewhat athletic. You don't have a nasty collection of post moves that you can destroy kids with if you aren't athletic. Just because he is not a "freak" doesn't mean he's not athletic.

If the day comes, when Spencer is one of the worst players on the team, and his weaknesses become the main losing point of our team, then I will get on him. But for pete's sake, he hasn't even played ONE FRIGGIN GAME! So will you unjustified negative nancies just take your act somewhere else please?

 

[AleksandarN]

The only way I see hawes working out defensively is if we get an athletic PF who can defend and block shoots. Rebounding anyone can rebound it is all about efford. I think Hawes can learn to rebound the ball.

 

[Bricklayer]

Rebounding anyone can rebound it is all about efford.

That's really not true. Its an art like anything else. Anybody can MAXIMIZE their rebounding wiht effort and positioning, but without a strong core of instints, strength, timing, leaping ability, good hands, ability to read the ball off the rim, and physicality, its going to be a struggle.

 

[Ms.Williams]

The continued molding of Hawes' future into what people percieve is getting laughable. Suggesting he is going to be a defensive liability is just as preposterous as suggesting he is going to be the next Tim Duncan. Look, I don't presume to know the future. But I do presume to know that no one else knows the future. Why don't we just let Spencer decide his future instead of trying to decide it for him. Okay? Thanks.

So what if we had chosen Julian Wright or Al Thornton. They turn out to be complete busts, shooting less than 40% from the floor over their entire careers. But some would be happy in 2007, because they are "athletic". You don't go in the top 10 if you aren't somewhat athletic. You don't have a nasty collection of post moves that you can destroy kids with if you aren't athletic. Just because he is not a "freak" doesn't mean he's not athletic.

If the day comes, when Spencer is one of the worst players on the team, and his weaknesses become the main losing point of our team, then I will get on him. But for pete's sake, he hasn't even played ONE FRIGGIN GAME! So will you unjustified negative nancies just take your act somewhere else please?

Totally Totally Agree