Kings Select in the 2008 NBA DRAFT??

[hammystyle]

Bmiller,
The stats don't back up your comps or arguments. Arthur may look, run and jump like Bosh and McDyess, but he doesn't play like them. Both those guys were better scorers, rebounders and shotblockers. Particularly on rebounding, it wasn't even close. Arthur is a good athlete, solid scorer, decent shot-blocker and bad rebounder. That's what his stats say.

As for Hansbrough vs Love - What, because they're both white? Love is younger as a Freshman than Hansbrough was and has a HUGE edge in rebounding. As in 7.8 vs 10.9. Love is basically as good as Hansbrough is now except three years younger.

College stats don't always translate to the pros. John Hollinger from ESPN has created a system to evaluate college statistics, age, and measurables to show which types of players are most likely to succeed on the next level. Its not perfect Kevin Love is basically tied for second among all college players this year with Blake Griffin. Both are well behind Michael Beasley who is blowing the system off the charts. Darrell Arthur does not do well with the system because he's a bad rebounder, and as a big man that's a bad indication for future success.

If you have insider you can read it:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf.../story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=prorater

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...lumnist=hollinger_john&page=DraftRater-080131

 

[Cal-Kings]

"Ryan Anderson is a big time talent and the first-team All-Pac-10 selection not only leads Cal in scoring, but the entire league with a 21.5 ppg average. The versatile Anderson is also pulling down 9.9 rpg to pace the Bears and rank third in the conference, and he has shown his range by draining 41.0 percent of his long-distance attempts."

http://www.sacbee.com/867/story/779767.html

 

[gunks]

Yeah, I dont understand the hype on Arthur.

Hawes/Arthur frontcourt would average a combined 8 boards a game (with Hawes getting about 6 of those).

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

There is zero logic in comparing Love to Rodman or Barkley. Those guys were athletic freaks, Love is ground-bound and pudgy. I think some people are just becoming enamored with his college stats and fail to see that the NBA is built on athletes and having an athletically deficient frontcourt of Love/Hawes means we'll have the next Randolph/Curry defensive dream team pairing for the next decade.

You can get away with being unathletic if you're big. Hawes is big, a solid 7 ft tall. Love is not, he's 6'8-6'9. You can also get away with being unathletic if you're a true C, which Hawes is and Love is not. Love is going to get murdered by the speed and athelticism of PFs at this level. Are you telling me you want Love to guard the Amares, Duncans, Dirks, Boshs, Boozers of the NBA? That spells disaster.

Darrell Arthur may or may not be the answer, but he's a hell of a lot closer than Love would be. Arthur's tall (6'10), Athletic, has a nice J and developing postgame, plays defense, and plays well with considerable talent around him.

 

[hammystyle]

There is zero logic in comparing Love to Rodman or Barkley. Those guys were athletic freaks, Love is ground-bound and pudgy. I think some people are just becoming enamored with his college stats and fail to see that the NBA is built on athletes and having an athletically deficient frontcourt of Love/Hawes means we'll have the next Randolph/Curry defensive dream team pairing for the next decade.

You can get away with being unathletic if you're big. Hawes is big, a solid 7 ft tall. Love is not, he's 6'8-6'9. You can also get away with being unathletic if you're a true C, which Hawes is and Love is not. Love is going to get murdered by the speed and athelticism of PFs at this level. Are you telling me you want Love to guard the Amares, Duncans, Dirks, Boshs, Boozers of the NBA? That spells disaster.

Darrell Arthur may or may not be the answer, but he's a hell of a lot closer than Love would be. Arthur's tall (6'10), Athletic, has a nice J and developing postgame, plays defense, and plays well with considerable talent around him.

You can't make a decision on Love based on Hawes' strengths and weaknesses. Just take the best player and worry about the fit later. Like I said before, Love's stats say he's the better player RIGHT NOW. Do you really think Hawes would be averaging a double-double if he were still at UW?

Name me one player in a major conference that averaged anything close to 17/11 56% as a freshman that didn't go on to be a good NBA player. Because I can name plenty of good-looking athletes with questionable production who didn't do squat in the pro's.

Yes Love will undoubtedly have trouble guarding Amare, Duncan and Bosh. But guess what? He's got the skills to give it back to them on the other end. Arthur hasn't shown anywhere near the same ability. Their stats are not even close.

 

[Kingster]

"Ryan Anderson is a big time talent and the first-team All-Pac-10 selection not only leads Cal in scoring, but the entire league with a 21.5 ppg average. The versatile Anderson is also pulling down 9.9 rpg to pace the Bears and rank third in the conference, and he has shown his range by draining 41.0 percent of his long-distance attempts."

http://www.sacbee.com/867/story/779767.html

Ryan Anderson is soft.

 

[Kingster]

I thinking you're discounting his athleticism because he's white and pudgy. I'm not saying he's Amare, but he's averaging 11 boards a game in 30 minutes in the Pac-10. That's awesome. You HAVE to be a good athlete to do that. Also he's listed at 6-10, he's probly at least the same height as my comps Boozer and Randolph, so I don't know why you say he's too short.

Love vs. Hawes: Their Freshman stats aren't even close. Love beats him soundly in EVERY category and I highly doubt Hawes would have been able to match them even if he were playing at Washington this year. Hawes isn't even close to proven either so whether Love is is irrelevant.

Love vs Thompson: Thompson's having a monster year, but per minute Love is equivalent him in every category but blocks. Love is a Freshman and Thompson is a Senior. Thompson plays in a weak conference, Love plays in the Pac-10. I do like Thompson though.

Love vs Arthur: Better scorer??? How? Arthur averages less PPG on a lower shooting percentages. Love almost doubles his rebounding. Arthur averages .4 more blocks in 5 less minutes (Why does he only play 24 mpg?), that's his only edge. Every time I watch UCLA Love makes a huge impact and a number of impressive plays. I can't say the same about Arthur and I've seen a lot of games both sides.

I think you're too worried about what Love can't do and ignoring his elite-level skills It'd be nice if he were a little taller, a little thinner and averaged over three blocks a game, but if that were the case he'd be the first pick in the draft. The fact that he's pudgy white kid who may be a little short is exactly the reason the Kings may be in a position to get a player who's game is so dominant.

Examples: Boozer (too short, not athletic enough), Randolph (too fat, head case)

Hawes's coach at Washington said Love was better than Hawes, but I don't want Love because he is a LOUSY complement to Hawes and his game does not translate as well in the pros. He just can't guard near the basket. We need a guy who is more of an athletic defensive/rebounder, as opposed to a skilled 6'8" power forward who is basically defenseless under his own basket. It's one thing to be short for your position, it's another to be both short and relatively below average athletically for your position. Drafting Love would be a mistake, and this comes from a Bruin.

 

[hammystyle]

Hawes's coach at Washington said Love was better than Hawes, but I don't want Love because he is a LOUSY complement to Hawes and his game does not translate as well in the pros. He just can't guard near the basket. We need a guy who is more of an athletic defensive/rebounder, as opposed to a skilled 6'8" power forward who is basically defenseless under his own basket. It's one thing to be short for your position, it's another to be both short and relatively below average athletically for your position. Drafting Love would be a mistake, and this comes from a Bruin.

I'm repeating myself here, but you can't worry about whether or not he's a good complement to Hawes.

I'm defending Love so hard here because he is basically a sure thing. His stats are that dominant. Freshman big men who score and rebound like he does always turn into good players.

BTW - If a guy is said to be 6'8" w/out shoes, that means he's the same as every 6'9-10" guy in the NBA, because all those guys are padded in the program too.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

You can't make a decision on Love based on Hawes' strengths and weaknesses. Just take the best player and worry about the fit later. Like I said before, Love's stats say he's the better player RIGHT NOW. Do you really think Hawes would be averaging a double-double if he were still at UW?

Name me one player in a major conference that averaged anything close to 17/11 56% as a freshman that didn't go on to be a good NBA player. Because I can name plenty of good-looking athletes with questionable production who didn't do squat in the pro's.

Yes Love will undoubtedly have trouble guarding Amare, Duncan and Bosh. But guess what? He's got the skills to give it back to them on the other end. Arthur hasn't shown anywhere near the same ability. Their stats are not even close.

You're so stuck on college numbers. For the last time, they don't always translate to the pros. You want a list of names? Tractor Traylor. Jason Collier. Kirk Haston. Michael Sweetney. Ike Diogu. Sean May. Paul Davis. Wayne Simien. What do they all have in common? Go ahead, look up their draft profiles. 1. Unathletic, 2. Undersized, 3. Great fundamentals, 4. Excellent post game. All put up the same "monster" numbers Kevin Love puts up in college. All were nobodys in the NBA.

Find me a list of players who were stars in the NBA with those attributes. I guaruntee you the list will be shorter than the one above. Even shorter will the list of those players who play great defense, which is an absolute prerequisite if Hawes truly will be our starting C.

 

[Gary]

Yeah, I dont understand the hype on Arthur.

Hawes/Arthur frontcourt would average a combined 8 boards a game (with Hawes getting about 6 of those).

I agree with that my friend.. If you can't board in college odds are it will carry over into the NBA and you will pretty much be an Eddie Curry rebounder.

Go through the draft the last few years, and look how poorly the bad rebounding PFs have done in the NBA..

Arthur is a PF, and if he cannot rebound he is of no use to us.

 

[Gary]

There is zero logic in comparing Love to Rodman or Barkley. Those guys were athletic freaks, Love is ground-bound and pudgy. I think some people are just becoming enamored with his college stats and fail to see that the NBA is built on athletes and having an athletically deficient frontcourt of Love/Hawes means we'll have the next Randolph/Curry defensive dream team pairing for the next decade.

I am not just watching stats.. I have actually seen him play whenever it has been on TV, and the games I missed I had TiVo'd. I still have about 4 games saved which I went back and watched again..

First off, in the NBA I am SURE 99.999999999% that they will put him on some kind of weight loss program in order to lose about 20lbs. That's been a major knock on him. Once he is 100% committed to BBall, and not school, girls, BBall, and other activities then it wont be tough to lose the weight. Hell I lost 20lbs just by running, and I wasn't a big guy to begin with.

Second, the defense that you speak of is NO worse than Anderson, Lopez, Jordan Hill, Taj Gibson, or any other stud in PAC-10. Love has put similar numbers up on all of those players, and they the same with him. Watching the games he gets decent position defensively, but his footwork is a bit slow, and because of his size he is a bit slow to react. That's the only knock on him defensively. It's not because he is inheritly bad defensively... Not at all.. Mostly because of his weight.

Third, comparing him to Randolph, or Curry is just a joke. the kid has a work ethic. A damn strong work ethic. Randolph, and Curry do not. Once the kid loses that 20lbs which he probably will be asked to do once in the NBA he will be fine.

I will never mistake him for a defensive stopper, but he will probably give a LOT more to the kings than a guy like Thabeet, or Randolph (LSU Randolph, not NY Knicks) ever would.

 

[Gary]

You're so stuck on college numbers. For the last time, they don't always translate to the pros. You want a list of names? Tractor Traylor. Jason Collier. Kirk Haston. Michael Sweetney. Ike Diogu. Sean May. Paul Davis. Wayne Simien. What do they all have in common? Go ahead, look up their draft profiles. 1. Unathletic, 2. Undersized, 3. Great fundamentals, 4. Excellent post game. All put up the same "monster" numbers Kevin Love puts up in college. All were nobodys in the NBA.

Find me a list of players who were stars in the NBA with those attributes. I guaruntee you the list will be shorter than the one above. Even shorter will the list of those players who play great defense, which is an absolute prerequisite if Hawes truly will be our starting C.

What about "Project Picks"? Come on.. College studs succeed a LOT more than projects.. Projects are the ones that usually blow up in your face after three years of "This kid can rebound and block shots but that's it!", and 3ppg 3rpg 0.5bpg... I am sure I can come up with about 25 projects in the last 3 years that have not succeeded. A couple years ago a lot of Kings fans were wanting to trade up to get Cedric Simmons, Hilton Armstrong, and Saer Sene.. Where the heck are those studs now? They are athletic shot blocking bigs who a lot of Kings fans touted two years ago (these are the three off the top of my head). Simmons, and Armstrong were questionable college players who put up rebounding numbers, and some blocks, but nothing else.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

What about "Project Picks"? Come on.. College studs succeed a LOT more than projects.. Projects are the ones that usually blow up in your face after three years of "This kid can rebound and block shots but that's it!", and 3ppg 3rpg 0.5bpg... I am sure I can come up with about 25 projects in the last 3 years that have not succeeded. A couple years ago a lot of Kings fans were wanting to trade up to get Cedric Simmons, Hilton Armstrong, and Saer Sene.. Where the heck are those studs now? They are athletic shot blocking bigs who a lot of Kings fans touted two years ago (these are the three off the top of my head). Simmons, and Armstrong were questionable college players who put up rebounding numbers, and some blocks, but nothing else.

When you're in the position that the Kings are (with Hawes being the future at C), I'd argue that it's better for us to take that risk than to pair both Love and Hawes together, have their weaknesses magnified, and have their trade value toileted. The key here is that we do have Hawes, who offers pretty much everything Love does with better size and a more agile physique.

Secondly, the fact that we have skilled athletes on the table to take further makes picking Love unwise. Darrell Arthur, Anthony Randolph, Jason Thompson... these guys are athletes who can play the game, not some raw kid getting off the plane from Africa. They're not as skilled as Love, but are far better defensively, which again must be prerequisite.

Lastly, I don't think that Love will be a bust, just not the stud everyone makes him out to be. Point to college stats all you want. 6'8 unathletic PFs have a miserable track record in the NBA. Love probably will carve a niche as a roleplaying facilitator on a complicated offensive team, but will always be a liability defensively, and that's just unacceptable for a team with Spencer Hawes at C.

 

[hammystyle]

You're so stuck on college numbers. For the last time, they don't always translate to the pros. You want a list of names? Tractor Traylor. Jason Collier. Kirk Haston. Michael Sweetney. Ike Diogu. Sean May. Paul Davis. Wayne Simien. What do they all have in common? Go ahead, look up their draft profiles. 1. Unathletic, 2. Undersized, 3. Great fundamentals, 4. Excellent post game. All put up the same "monster" numbers Kevin Love puts up in college. All were nobodys in the NBA.

Find me a list of players who were stars in the NBA with those attributes. I guaruntee you the list will be shorter than the one above. Even shorter will the list of those players who play great defense, which is an absolute prerequisite if Hawes truly will be our starting C.

Kevin Love is a Freshman! Age matters! None of those guys you mentioned averaged 17/11 as a Freshman, and most weren't even close. If Love improved as much as they did during their soph/junior years he'd average something like 22/13 which would blow everything they did out of the water. The only guys on the list who went on to average as much as 11 RPG were Simien and Sweetney and they did it as a senior and junior. My guess is they did it in more than 30mpg too.

Size Issue - Is it documented somewhere that he's remarkably shorter than his listed height? Because for the most part, everyone is 1-2" shorter than their listed height, so the fact he's listed at 6'9-10" makes me think that he's probly the same height as guys like Boozer, Zach randolph, Karl Malone, McDyess, etc. etc. Honestly if it turns out the guy is 6'6" i'll shut up.

And c'mon man - I'll give you that May, Diogu, and Sweetney are reasonable if not perfect comps....but Haston, Collier, and Paul Davis? Lame.

I've listed Boozer, Randolph as comps before and I think those are fair upside possibilites with May/Sweetney being fair downsides.

 

[BMiller52]

Kevin Love is a Freshman! Age matters! None of those guys you mentioned averaged 17/11 as a Freshman, and most weren't even close. If Love improved as much as they did during their soph/junior years he'd average something like 22/13 which would blow everything they did out of the water. The only guys on the list who went on to average as much as 11 RPG were Simien and Sweetney and they did it as a senior and junior. My guess is they did it in more than 30mpg too.

Size Issue - Is it documented somewhere that he's remarkably shorter than his listed height? Because for the most part, everyone is 1-2" shorter than their listed height, so the fact he's listed at 6'9-10" makes me think that he's probly the same height as guys like Boozer, Zach randolph, Karl Malone, McDyess, etc. etc. Honestly if it turns out the guy is 6'6" i'll shut up.

And c'mon man - I'll give you that May, Diogu, and Sweetney are reasonable if not perfect comps....but Haston, Collier, and Paul Davis? Lame.

I've listed Boozer, Randolph as comps before and I think those are fair upside possibilites with May/Sweetney being fair downsides.

Zach Randolph is trash.

Anyway I give up at the moment. You're so obsessed with Love you're forgetting we are trying to build a team with players that have skillsets that are supposed to complement eachother. Basically you're saying "lets build around someone who won't be a franchise player AND has plenty of weaknesses".

 

[BawLa]

Tell me what we get in Love that we couldn't get in the 2nd round with a guy like Richard Hendrix.

I've brought 'ol Richie up before, but twas a long time ago. Anyway, a general breakdown of Hendrix: "Strengths: Has tremendous strength at the power forward position … Possesses sound post moves and excellent touch around the basket … A beast who loves contact inside the paint … Physically dominant forward who uses his size and girth to overpower opponents … Fights for position and understands how to box out and use his lower body strength to get rebounds … Has solid athletic ability and a nose for scoring … Possesses excellent hands and good touch within 10 feet of the basket … A solid passer, with good vision who plays unselfishly … Has a huge wingspan giving him extra length and making him a solid shot blocker at the college level ..."

I know Rich doesn't quite have the post moves that Love does, but he can play defense. He's another undersized PF, but has a better chance of rebounding well at the next level because he is an athletic bruiser. The key is 2nd round.

I understand Love is doing great for a freshman. I am interested to see what happens in the big dance. But that is neither her nor there. I still haven't seen a single decent argument justifying the pairing of Hawes and Love. If we "can't pass on Love" because of the value, then we should just trade down. Heck, maybe, just maybe we could pawn off KT or SAR in the process.

 

[Gary]

When you're in the position that the Kings are (with Hawes being the future at C), I'd argue that it's better for us to take that risk than to pair both Love and Hawes together, have their weaknesses magnified, and have their trade value toileted. The key here is that we do have Hawes, who offers pretty much everything Love does with better size and a more agile physique.

Secondly, the fact that we have skilled athletes on the table to take further makes picking Love unwise. Darrell Arthur, Anthony Randolph, Jason Thompson... these guys are athletes who can play the game, not some raw kid getting off the plane from Africa. They're not as skilled as Love, but are far better defensively, which again must be prerequisite.

Lastly, I don't think that Love will be a bust, just not the stud everyone makes him out to be. Point to college stats all you want. 6'8 unathletic PFs have a miserable track record in the NBA. Love probably will carve a niche as a roleplaying facilitator on a complicated offensive team, but will always be a liability defensively, and that's just unacceptable for a team with Spencer Hawes at C.

Love is 6'9.. Supposedly up .75 inches this year after measuring 6'8.25 w/o shoes.

Darrel Arthur is Love's height at best.. Longer arms, but he isn't a tall PF. He isn't a good rebounder..

Arthur is the definition of what I said in my last post... A PF that is athletic, and has the lateral quickness like Armstrong, Simmons, and Sene but Arthur has weaknesses that Sene, Armstrong, and Simmons doesn't have.. Do we want to take that chance? The knock against Arthur is that cannot grab a rebound when it matters to save his life, which watching him about 5-6 times this year I agree.. He isn't very good... If this kid is supposedly so athletic, and so quick how come he averages Kevin Love type blocks, and about half the amount of rebounds per game that love does.. If Arthur is so athletic, and fast off his feet with a longer armspan than Love why is his blocks per game not higher than Love's? Kind of interesting... Arthur's athleticism means nothing if he can't use it.I like Jason Thompson, so you will get no argument from me. i only seen him play 2 times this year, but both were against good teams, and he impressed the hell out of me in both games.. Now he is a guy I would like to see in a Kings uni..

As for Randolph I haven't seen him play outside of highlight reels, and probably wont before the draft because LSU sucks. He is averaging OK stats on a bad bad bad team. He's an inch taller than love, but from all the reports he is raw as they get.. No thanks.. I don;t have much to say about him because I haven't seen him play.

 

[Gary]

Tell me what we get in Love that we couldn't get in the 2nd round with a guy like Richard Hendrix.

I've brought 'ol Richie up before, but twas a long time ago. Anyway, a general breakdown of Hendrix: "Strengths: Has tremendous strength at the power forward position … Possesses sound post moves and excellent touch around the basket … A beast who loves contact inside the paint … Physically dominant forward who uses his size and girth to overpower opponents … Fights for position and understands how to box out and use his lower body strength to get rebounds … Has solid athletic ability and a nose for scoring … Possesses excellent hands and good touch within 10 feet of the basket … A solid passer, with good vision who plays unselfishly … Has a huge wingspan giving him extra length and making him a solid shot blocker at the college level ..."

I know Rich doesn't quite have the post moves that Love does, but he can play defense. He's another undersized PF, but has a better chance of rebounding well at the next level because he is an athletic bruiser. The key is 2nd round.

I understand Love is doing great for a freshman. I am interested to see what happens in the big dance. But that is neither her nor there. I still haven't seen a single decent argument justifying the pairing of Hawes and Love. If we "can't pass on Love" because of the value, then we should just trade down. Heck, maybe, just maybe we could pawn off KT or SAR in the process.

Come on.. I have seen Hendrix play last year & some this year and his game isn't even close to Love's.. Love has better hands, better passing ability, an inch and a half taller, higher ceiling on talent, higher BBall IQ, better work ethic, better box out ability, better post moves, better jump shot, better range on his jump shot.. shall I go on? All you did was look at stats and compare the two.. Hendrix is at best Corliss Williamson with a knack for rebounding. Love is much more.

 

[Gary]

Zach Randolph is trash.

Anyway I give up at the moment. You're so obsessed with Love you're forgetting we are trying to build a team with players that have skillsets that are supposed to complement eachother. Basically you're saying "lets build around someone who won't be a franchise player AND has plenty of weaknesses".

Unless we get Beasley, Rose, or Mayo (I say mayo based on pure talent even though he might go higher than 3rd pick), and MAYBE Bayless than we aren't worrying about building around a specific player in this years draft..

What's the problem with building around a core of players anyway? We have a finesse center, bruising powerful PF who is a great rebounder, streaking shooting athletic SF who can score in bunches, a SG that can score with the best of them and is very good at getting to the FT stripe, and a PG that drives and kicks like no other and plays decent D..

What's the problem with building a team around that kind of bunch? As long as the chemistry is there, and they compliment each other then things should work right? I know, I know, I know... Defense right? Nobody wins w/o defense... That's when you bring in specialists like a Pollard, or a Keon Clark.. Someone who can play sustained minutes and give you some defense. We have a couple guys right now who can hold their own though.. Mikki Moore is an underrated man on man defender. Salmons is decent.. Beno is OK, Garcia, and Douby are a bit better than average on the ball defenders.

As long as the team defense is OK then we will be OK..

 

[BMiller52]

Sorry but with a starting frontline of Hawes/Love our team defense isn't going to be okay. Neither is fast enough to rotate to the rim and we'll allow 1000 layups. Sorry but it just doesn't work. Anthony Randolph would actually compliment Spencer by providing the quickness to rotate and the length to block shots. He's also a good rebounder and a freshmen just like Love, except he's less polished and more talented.

Look man I'm not saying Love won't be a good player. He might be. I'm saying he won't be a good fit for this team. We already have 2 building blocks. Getting a player that doesn't compliment Spencer would be like throwing him away, because only 1 of them will be able to be a significant minutes guy as long as they're both here. You even said "we aren't worrying about building around a specific player in this years draft..". That just proves my point. We have building blocks already, why get someone who doesn't compliment those guys or provide anything they don't.

You also talked about how championship teams DO need defense. Well lets look at the last couple championship teams:

07 Spurs-Duncan/Oberto, both played big mins, TD is the best defensive big man in the NBA
06 Heat-Shaq still averaged about 2-3 blocks per game and Haslem is a very good athlete and post defender because of his lateral quickness. Zo also played big minutes for them. 3 guys who all were really good at something.
05 Spurs-Duncan/Mohammed, Both got over 1 BPG. Duncan got like 3 and pulled down a bunch of boards. Best defensive big man in the game+another very solid post defender.
04 Pistons-Sheed is a great shotblocker+post defender, not a great rebounder(just like Arthur!). Ben averaged 3 or 4 BPG and 14 RPG or so. Wow I'm seeing a pattern here.
03 Spurs-Duncan.
02 Lakers-Shaq/Grant/Horry was a very good defensive front line, one of the reasons they beat us IMO.
01 Lakers-look above
00 Lakers-^
99 Spurs-Robinson/Duncan, 2 insanely good big men. But they were both GREAT defensive players.


See, the last 8 or 9 championships have all had frontlines that played very good D. Love/Hawes isn't that sort of frontline.

btw on another topic, anyone else like JaVale McGee? He's an extremely athletic 7 footer that plays for Nevada and I guess Petrie has been to a few of his games. He has a ton of potential. Seems like he could be a PF/C similar to Bynum or if he developed more of his skills, who knows. But he looks like he has a TON of potential.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Kevin Love is a Freshman! Age matters! None of those guys you mentioned averaged 17/11 as a Freshman, and most weren't even close. If Love improved as much as they did during their soph/junior years he'd average something like 22/13 which would blow everything they did out of the water. The only guys on the list who went on to average as much as 11 RPG were Simien and Sweetney and they did it as a senior and junior. My guess is they did it in more than 30mpg too.

Size Issue - Is it documented somewhere that he's remarkably shorter than his listed height? Because for the most part, everyone is 1-2" shorter than their listed height, so the fact he's listed at 6'9-10" makes me think that he's probly the same height as guys like Boozer, Zach randolph, Karl Malone, McDyess, etc. etc. Honestly if it turns out the guy is 6'6" i'll shut up.

And c'mon man - I'll give you that May, Diogu, and Sweetney are reasonable if not perfect comps....but Haston, Collier, and Paul Davis? Lame.

I've listed Boozer, Randolph as comps before and I think those are fair upside possibilites with May/Sweetney being fair downsides.

No, being a Freshman does not mean that Love has great upside. Because he already has the skills and already has a developed body. What more do you expect from Love as he gets older? You're not waiting for him to gain a better understanding of the game nor are you waiting for him to gain weight/fill out his body. If you really want to, look up those comparisons and tell me they don't all sound familiar.

In the meantime, your comparisons really are awful. Boozer is athletic and very quick laterally, plus is insanely strong with great footwork. Love isn't like Boozer at all. Randolph, while pudgy himself, also is very quick laterally for his size. Love's lateral quickness is terrible. And even in the unlikely event that Love can reach that level, both are pathetic defenders that I wouldn't want to place next to Hawes.

Love is 6'9.. Supposedly up .75 inches this year after measuring 6'8.25 w/o shoes.

Darrel Arthur is Love's height at best.. Longer arms, but he isn't a tall PF. He isn't a good rebounder..

Arthur is the definition of what I said in my last post... A PF that is athletic, and has the lateral quickness like Armstrong, Simmons, and Sene but Arthur has weaknesses that Sene, Armstrong, and Simmons doesn't have.. Do we want to take that chance? The knock against Arthur is that cannot grab a rebound when it matters to save his life, which watching him about 5-6 times this year I agree.. He isn't very good... If this kid is supposedly so athletic, and so quick how come he averages Kevin Love type blocks, and about half the amount of rebounds per game that love does.. If Arthur is so athletic, and fast off his feet with a longer armspan than Love why is his blocks per game not higher than Love's? Kind of interesting... Arthur's athleticism means nothing if he can't use it.I like Jason Thompson, so you will get no argument from me. i only seen him play 2 times this year, but both were against good teams, and he impressed the hell out of me in both games.. Now he is a guy I would like to see in a Kings uni..

As for Randolph I haven't seen him play outside of highlight reels, and probably wont before the draft because LSU sucks. He is averaging OK stats on a bad bad bad team. He's an inch taller than love, but from all the reports he is raw as they get.. No thanks.. I don;t have much to say about him because I haven't seen him play.

Love is probably somewhere between 6'8 and 6'9. For an unathletic bruiser, that's undersized. There's no way in hell he's 6'10.

And like I said, Arthur may or may not be the answer for us. My concerns have been well documented in this thread, namely his rebounding and passing ability; just go back a few pages. But he's still a hell of a lot closer than Love is. He is legitmately 6'10, as evidenced here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ODKbu0fcys. In this video, he is clearly taller than both Richard and Horford, both of whom are listed at 6'9. But we'll see when measurements come out.

Randolph is not raw from an ability standpoint. He's playing SF out on the perimeter right now, has significant dribbling and passing ability, and possesses and nice stroke. He's raw in the sense that he has talent but has not put it together yet, and he's a toothpick. He can easily make the conversion to PF because of his height, length and athletic ability once he puts on some weight.

You're so sure that we'll be able to play good team defense without the personnel when history really has taught us otherwise. We just don't have great perimeter defenders (Once Artest is gone). Beno tries hard but sucks, Martin only plays when he feels like it, Cisco has some gems and goose eggs to his name, and Salmons is useless off the bench. Having a good interior defender to help is necessary if we're going to roll with this group. Team defense doesn't just magically get better with commitment.

 

[hammystyle]

Zach Randolph is trash.

Anyway I give up at the moment. You're so obsessed with Love you're forgetting we are trying to build a team with players that have skillsets that are supposed to complement eachother. Basically you're saying "lets build around someone who won't be a franchise player AND has plenty of weaknesses".

Whatever dude, I'm just saying take the best player. I don't care whether its Love or whomever. My "obsession" is was with presenting a case that if we did take Love, it would not be the wasted pick you make it out to be. There are other realistic picks I like in the draft like Randolph, Batum, even your by Jason Thompson. I wouldn't even be upset if we took Arthur. I'm not an NBA scout, but based on what I do know, I think Love is more likely to succeed in the pros.

Tell me what we get in Love that we couldn't get in the 2nd round with a guy like Richard Hendrix.

I understand Love is doing great for a freshman. I am interested to see what happens in the big dance. But that is neither her nor there. I still haven't seen a single decent argument justifying the pairing of Hawes and Love. If we "can't pass on Love" because of the value, then we should just trade down. Heck, maybe, just maybe we could pawn off KT or SAR in the process.

I don't have a problem with Hendrix and whether we did or didn't take Love, he'd be a worthy 2nd round pick or even late first rounder if we traded up.

My justification pairing Hawes with Love is that it is my opinion that it is bad team building to worry right now about how two guys under 20 are going to fit together. Hawes is really promising, but he's not a lock to be a star or even a solid starter. He has a LONG way to go, so worrying about how this years draft pick fits in with him is just getting way ahead of yourself.

There's no such thing as a sure-fire NBA star with the 12th pick so just take the best guy and hope he turns into a player. Whoever they take this year, hopefully both he and Hawes turn into solid NBA players or better. If that's the case but, aw shucks, they don't fit together.....guess what? You can trade one of them for a piece that fits better. IMO that is far better than raching to fill a need.

 

[hammystyle]

No, being a Freshman does not mean that Love has great upside. Because he already has the skills and already has a developed body. What more do you expect from Love as he gets older? You're not waiting for him to gain a better understanding of the game nor are you waiting for him to gain weight/fill out his body.

Of course he's going to get better. Pretty much every 19 year old basketball player does. The fact that he has the work ethic to have been so advanced already only leads me to believe he will get better at a rate faster than most. Its also possible for him to actually lose weight, gain muscle and be a better athlete. In fact I think its really likely he will.

In the meantime, your comparisons really are awful. Boozer is athletic and very quick laterally, plus is insanely strong with great footwork. Love isn't like Boozer at all. Randolph, while pudgy himself, also is very quick laterally for his size. Love's lateral quickness is terrible. And even in the unlikely event that Love can reach that level, both are pathetic defenders that I wouldn't want to place next to Hawes.

Randolph and Boozer both had lateral agility and height questions too. I looked it up. Maybe my comps aren't perfect, but neither are the bunch of scrubs you threw out there. Just because their scouting reports look similar doesn't make them the same player. Chris Duhon's freshman scouting report looked like Chris Paul's.

You're so sure that we'll be able to play good team defense without the personnel when history really has taught us otherwise. We just don't have great perimeter defenders (Once Artest is gone). Beno tries hard but sucks, Martin only plays when he feels like it, Cisco has some gems and goose eggs to his name, and Salmons is useless off the bench. Having a good interior defender to help is necessary if we're going to roll with this group. Team defense doesn't just magically get better with commitment.

I'm not at all worried about who already have on the team, because I only consider Martin to be a sure-fire building block. I'm only concerned with getting the best player we can because the main problem on our team isn't defense, or shootig, or passing, or whatever. Its just that we don't have very good players.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I hope we get a pick where Randolph is still available, this guy can be the steal of the lottery. It seems his weaknesses are nothing that can't be fixed with added strength and experience, stick him in a real strength and conditioning program and get him a good coach to work with and we have ourselves a pretty good prospect. I can see him becoming like a Bosh/JO hybrid.

 

[BawLa]

My justification pairing Hawes with Love is that it is my opinion that it is bad team building to worry right now about how two guys under 20 are going to fit together. Hawes is really promising, but he's not a lock to be a star or even a solid starter. He has a LONG way to go, so worrying about how this years draft pick fits in with him is just getting way ahead of yourself.

There's no such thing as a sure-fire NBA star with the 12th pick so just take the best guy and hope he turns into a player. Whoever they take this year, hopefully both he and Hawes turn into solid NBA players or better. If that's the case but, aw shucks, they don't fit together.....guess what? You can trade one of them for a piece that fits better. IMO that is far better than raching to fill a need.

That is not justification. That is just ignoring the argument under the guise that it doesn't matter because we are rebuilding. That makes no sense. Do we want to be rebuilding forever? Because that is the road we are headed down if we draft players with the same skillsets and the same weaknesses. It just makes no sense.

Tell me something, would you draft another undersized non-defensive big if you already had 3 undersized non-defensive bigs just because he is the BPA?

As I stated before, drafting for BPA only makes sense if your team is good at filling the teams actual needs through free agency and trades. GP hasn't exactly lit my lamp in these areas. Maybe you disagree with that.

We have a need for a defensive big...hopefully one that will make a good pairing with Hawes in the future. I can't understand why we wouldn't try to find a good pair for Hawes. That would give Hawes and our team the best chance to have frontcourt with all the necessary attributes.

If Hawes doesn't pan out then so be it, we can move on and find another player with similar skills down the road. But giving up on him now is just silly and seems to be counterproductive. We have already started investing in Hawes. So why would we throw that away for an undersized Forward? Haven't we seen enough undersized forwards in Kings unis in the recent past? I need an undersized forward like I need acid poured on my eyes.


Again, if Love were too good to pass on at our pick, then there is a good chance he won't even make it to our pick. And if he still somehow made it to our pick, and we just couldn't pass on the value, then we should just trade down a couple slots and get something we actually need out of it.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

That is not justification. That is just ignoring the argument under the guise that it doesn't matter because we are rebuilding. That makes no sense. Do we want to be rebuilding forever? Because that is the road we are headed down if we draft players with the same skillsets and the same weaknesses. It just makes no sense.

Tell me something, would you draft another undersized non-defensive big if you already had 3 undersized non-defensive bigs just because he is the BPA?

As I stated before, drafting for BPA only makes sense if your team is good at filling the teams actual needs through free agency and trades. GP hasn't exactly lit my lamp in these areas. Maybe you disagree with that.

We have a need for a defensive big...hopefully one that will make a good pairing with Hawes in the future. I can't understand why we wouldn't try to find a good pair for Hawes. That would give Hawes and our team the best chance to have frontcourt with all the necessary attributes.

If Hawes doesn't pan out then so be it, we can move on and find another player with similar skills down the road. But giving up on him now is just silly and seems to be counterproductive. We have already started investing in Hawes. So why would we throw that away for an undersized Forward? Haven't we seen enough undersized forwards in Kings unis in the recent past? I need an undersized forward like I need acid poured on my eyes.


Again, if Love were too good to pass on at our pick, then there is a good chance he won't even make it to our pick. And if he still somehow made it to our pick, and we just couldn't pass on the value, then we should just trade down a couple slots and get something we actually need out of it.

shall i prepare the acid for your eyes?

from what i've seen he has a low post game, doesn't have much lift or foot speed, great ball handling skills, nice jump shot. perfect fit for the kings!

 

[hammystyle]

That is not justification. That is just ignoring the argument under the guise that it doesn't matter because we are rebuilding. That makes no sense. Do we want to be rebuilding forever? Because that is the road we are headed down if we draft players with the same skillsets and the same weaknesses. It just makes no sense.

Tell me something, would you draft another undersized non-defensive big if you already had 3 undersized non-defensive bigs just because he is the BPA?

As I stated before, drafting for BPA only makes sense if your team is good at filling the teams actual needs through free agency and trades. GP hasn't exactly lit my lamp in these areas. Maybe you disagree with that.

We have a need for a defensive big...hopefully one that will make a good pairing with Hawes in the future. I can't understand why we wouldn't try to find a good pair for Hawes. That would give Hawes and our team the best chance to have frontcourt with all the necessary attributes.

If Hawes doesn't pan out then so be it, we can move on and find another player with similar skills down the road. But giving up on him now is just silly and seems to be counterproductive. We have already started investing in Hawes. So why would we throw that away for an undersized Forward? Haven't we seen enough undersized forwards in Kings unis in the recent past?


Again, if Love were too good to pass on at our pick, then there is a good chance he won't even make it to our pick. And if he still somehow made it to our pick, and we just couldn't pass on the value, then we should just trade down a couple slots and get something we actually need out of it. I need an undersized forward like I need acid poured on my eyes.

1) The undersized argument is tired. Boozer is 6'7.75"w/out shoes. Amare is 6'8.5". Wilcox is 6'8.25". If Love is 6'8" or better w/out shoes it should not be an issue.
http://www.nbadraft.net/2002predraftmeasurements.htm
2) Hawes hasn't proven anything. You're totally ignoring the possibility that if you take a lesser player who "fits better", you could just end up with two guys who can't play. That is how you end up "rebuilding forever". I totally have high hopes for Hawes, but I think his strengths and weaknesses should have zero impact on our draft pick this year. If he were averaging 15 and 8, I'd probly think differently.
BTW- I hated the Hawes pick. I wanted Thad Young.
3) I totally agree that we need a defensive big, but I just don't want to reach for one? If there's equal or even closely graded players, definitely go for the athletic defensive guy. JJ Hickson, Mareese Speights, and Jason Thompson all look pretty good to me
4) If trading down in the draft were as easy as it is in football I would listen to that argument. But its just rare that a team will give up much to move up a few spots. So if they're offering a 2nd round pick and cash to move down three spots and take a lesser player i'm not interested.
5) I honestly defer to Petrie, and I think there's going to be some good players there. I just think Love should certainly be in the conversation.

 

[Vlade4GM]

1) The undersized argument is tired. Boozer is 6'7.75"w/out shoes. Amare is 6'8.5". Wilcox is 6'8.25". If Love is 6'8" or better w/out shoes it should not be an issue.
http://www.nbadraft.net/2002predraftmeasurements.htm

Boozer also has a 7'2.25 wingspan and a 9'1.5 standing reach, he's also got solid hops too. Amare has a 7'1.75 wingspan and a 9'0.5 standing reach, and as I'm sure you know great hops. Wilcox has a 7'1 winspan and a 8'11.5 standing reach, has great hops, and even he is not that great of a rebounder/scorer/defender/shot blocker; he's a decent scorer and rebounder, but doesn't play much defense and isn't that good of a shot blocker. From appearances I'd guess Love is around 6'8/6'9 w/shoes and with a pretty average wingspan, he's not going to have the length or size to compete well with NBA 4's. DX's best case scenario on Love is David West and West has a 7'4+ wingspan and a 9 ft standing reach. So is the undersized argument tired? yes when you look at it as a completely isolated measurement, but when you compile it with his lack of leaping ability and average wingspan it's one more strike against him.

 

[Gary]

Just watch when the measurements come out.. Love will be 6'9. Not 6'7, not 6'8.. Ok maybe 6'8.75-6'9..

There was a post above comparing him to Boozer.. That's probably right rebounding wise. I believe Love has a high BBall IQ, and Love will be a better passer than Boozer too. You don't pass on a guy with Love's ball handling ability at that position. Especially since we are the last team in assists per game. We need guys with good hands. If we are drafting 13th and Love is available we might as well take him. He couldn't hurt our team like players that are real raw could. It's not like Love will be a guy to set us back like others might.


Oh btw, anyone watching the UCONN game? Thabeet is sucking it up lol.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Thabeet always disappears when the big boys come out to play. Size of a lion, heart of a mouse.

I'm looking forward to the Cal/UCLA game today. Hopefully this time they won't be robbed.