PGs, the draft and other stuff (split from Beno thread)
- Thread starter Vlade4GM
- Start date
I will buy you a Coke if he's not. I was saying to that guy above that the only reason Beno is a better NBA player is because the players I mentioned haven't played an NBA game yet. I can guarantee that at least ONE PG in each years draft will be better than Beno in the NBA. In the 2009 draft probably 3 if I had to guess. Rubio, Holiday, and Evans.
The PGs in this years draft have SIZE. At least 4 of the top 6 prospects are over 6'3 and a couple are a muscular 200lbs with speed. Combinations hard to find in a PG.
I have been scouting college/high school players going into my 4th year now, and it seems they are getting better every year. I can say with 99% certainty that at this point you throw a couple of those PGs mentioned above into a Kings uni and He will be better than Beno. Not that Beno is a bad player.. I actually like him, and think Beno still has a little room to develop. Plus I think Beno understands the "team game" more than some of these draft picks might with the exception to Rubio. We won't touch Rubio unless we get a #1/#2 pick though.
The PGs in this years draft have SIZE. At least 4 of the top 6 prospects are over 6'3 and a couple are a muscular 200lbs with speed. Combinations hard to find in a PG.
I have been scouting college/high school players going into my 4th year now, and it seems they are getting better every year. I can say with 99% certainty that at this point you throw a couple of those PGs mentioned above into a Kings uni and He will be better than Beno. Not that Beno is a bad player.. I actually like him, and think Beno still has a little room to develop. Plus I think Beno understands the "team game" more than some of these draft picks might with the exception to Rubio. We won't touch Rubio unless we get a #1/#2 pick though.
Last edited:
Yes Beasley went to the worst team and that team would have rather had the #1 pick and Rose. Didn't you follow the draft articles? You made my point. You could be the worst team and get a #2 pick and still not get the PG you needed. The point is that there is a lot of luck involved in the draft position. The lottery does it's job and the only way to make sure you eventually get that perfect #1 pick with the best player is to flat out tank every year and eventually you'll get your man. I'm not sure that is a viable rebuilding plan if you own a team that expects to sell game tickets to the public.
Can somebody explain this to me, because some haven't addressed it:
Some said they want the PG of "the future", and Beno isn't it. Why not? The point guard doesn't have to be the best player and superstar in order to win. Even if that were the case, hasn't Beno showed he can help the team win games? He has shown he can score when the team needs that. He has shown he can distribute and be a pass-first guard too. He's got range and can break down the defense and penetrate. He's got a great midrange shot. He's also shown he's a competent defender and can stay in front of his man. Why, exactly, is Beno not the point guard for the rebuilt Kings? Are you expecting stars at every position, or is a solid player unacceptable?
Also, the second point is addressing this viewpoint:
"we need to just hold the fort until we can come across a PG of the future, rather than just spending the full MLE on a guy who has really only had one good year and has been injury prone."
How long does the team wait for that "PG of the future"? If they don't sign Beno, how long do they wait for that guy? 2 years? 5? My point in bringing up the draft issue previously was to show that not only is it unlikely that kind of player would be there in the draft, but also that player might not even pan out. And if that player IS there and pans out, you will still have to wait a few seasons for him to mature, so I will ask again:
How long should the Kings "hold down the fort" with temporary cheap vets and temporary cheap youth until that player shows up, when it could take years?
I will end with another point about the last comment about Beno only having one good year. Think about the circumstances of said good year. Think about a player who was out of a job, asked to come into a brand new situation with an unknown team that he hadn't played with before. Think about learning the system from a first year head coach. Think about dealing with a fluctuating roster and lineup, and trying to establish some kind of team chemistry. Think about that, and then consider his position at the point and what that entails. Shouldn't that make his season even that much more impressive? Shouldn't that at least make you wait until next year to say that, after we see what he can do in a more stable environment?
I understand 5 years might seem too long for a guy who had one good season, but I think they saw he can do better, and were impressed with how he handled things considering the circumstances. If that's the case, and Beno keeps up the good play, wouldn't the MLE be worth it, considering the other guards in the game with that level of salary? Prices are going up, and the cap will go up again, so maybe they feel that in a few years, Beno might be the underpaid player.
Some said they want the PG of "the future", and Beno isn't it. Why not? The point guard doesn't have to be the best player and superstar in order to win. Even if that were the case, hasn't Beno showed he can help the team win games? He has shown he can score when the team needs that. He has shown he can distribute and be a pass-first guard too. He's got range and can break down the defense and penetrate. He's got a great midrange shot. He's also shown he's a competent defender and can stay in front of his man. Why, exactly, is Beno not the point guard for the rebuilt Kings? Are you expecting stars at every position, or is a solid player unacceptable?
Also, the second point is addressing this viewpoint:
"we need to just hold the fort until we can come across a PG of the future, rather than just spending the full MLE on a guy who has really only had one good year and has been injury prone."
How long does the team wait for that "PG of the future"? If they don't sign Beno, how long do they wait for that guy? 2 years? 5? My point in bringing up the draft issue previously was to show that not only is it unlikely that kind of player would be there in the draft, but also that player might not even pan out. And if that player IS there and pans out, you will still have to wait a few seasons for him to mature, so I will ask again:
How long should the Kings "hold down the fort" with temporary cheap vets and temporary cheap youth until that player shows up, when it could take years?
I will end with another point about the last comment about Beno only having one good year. Think about the circumstances of said good year. Think about a player who was out of a job, asked to come into a brand new situation with an unknown team that he hadn't played with before. Think about learning the system from a first year head coach. Think about dealing with a fluctuating roster and lineup, and trying to establish some kind of team chemistry. Think about that, and then consider his position at the point and what that entails. Shouldn't that make his season even that much more impressive? Shouldn't that at least make you wait until next year to say that, after we see what he can do in a more stable environment?
I understand 5 years might seem too long for a guy who had one good season, but I think they saw he can do better, and were impressed with how he handled things considering the circumstances. If that's the case, and Beno keeps up the good play, wouldn't the MLE be worth it, considering the other guards in the game with that level of salary? Prices are going up, and the cap will go up again, so maybe they feel that in a few years, Beno might be the underpaid player.
Last edited:
In 1996 Phoenix drafted Steve Nash. Unfortunaly for him, they already had Kevin Johnson as their starting Pt guard, and had already drafted another unknown named Jason Kidd. Nash was already 22 yr's old at the time, so he obviously had no upside. He was in a worse situation than Beno was. Playing behind two great pt guards.
In 1996 Nash averaged 3.3 pts per game and 2.1 assists a game. Nothing to write home about, but in hindsight, expainable.
In 1997 Nash averaged 9.1 pts per game and 3.4 assists a game. Nash was then traded to Dallas with seemingly no future in Phoenix.
In 1998 Nash averaged 7.9 pts per game and 5.5 assists per game. Still nothing to write home about.
In 1999, now 25yrs of age, Nash averages 8.6 pts per game and 4.9 assists per game. Not a lot of improvement yet, but not really a chance to play a lot yet either. He has shown that he has some good moments.
In 2000, now 26 yrs of age, Nash averages 15.6 pts per game and 7.3 assists per game, and finally bursts onto the scene as one of the better pt guards in the NBA.
From 2001 till 2003 his averages remain somewhat similar and he becomes a free agent. He resigns with the team that drafted him, Phoenix.
In 2004 he averages 15.5 pts per game and 11.5 assists per game at the age of 30. He's obviously over the hill at this pt of his career. Who cares about a MVP trophy.
In 2005 he averages 18.8 pts per game and 10.5 assists per game.
Last year 16.9 pts per game and 11.1 assists per game at the age of 33.
So whats the point of all this? Am I comparing Beno to Nash. As players no. In circumstantce, yes. In no way am I suggesting that Beno is going to turn into the next Nash. What I'am saying, is that there was a pt in Nash's career that he was undervalued, and I doubt anyone thought he would become the player he is today. Thats why when people make blanket statements about what a players future is going to be, I think they should be a little more careful and a little more thoughtful.
As far as the signing. Well, If petrie signs him to the deal thats proposed, there's alway going to be a certain number of naysayers that think its was the wrong thing to do. If Petrie doesn't sign him and in two years he's an all star, then there's going to be a certain number of people who will say he should have done more to sign him.
The funny part, is that in some cases, its the same people.
In 1996 Nash averaged 3.3 pts per game and 2.1 assists a game. Nothing to write home about, but in hindsight, expainable.
In 1997 Nash averaged 9.1 pts per game and 3.4 assists a game. Nash was then traded to Dallas with seemingly no future in Phoenix.
In 1998 Nash averaged 7.9 pts per game and 5.5 assists per game. Still nothing to write home about.
In 1999, now 25yrs of age, Nash averages 8.6 pts per game and 4.9 assists per game. Not a lot of improvement yet, but not really a chance to play a lot yet either. He has shown that he has some good moments.
In 2000, now 26 yrs of age, Nash averages 15.6 pts per game and 7.3 assists per game, and finally bursts onto the scene as one of the better pt guards in the NBA.
From 2001 till 2003 his averages remain somewhat similar and he becomes a free agent. He resigns with the team that drafted him, Phoenix.
In 2004 he averages 15.5 pts per game and 11.5 assists per game at the age of 30. He's obviously over the hill at this pt of his career. Who cares about a MVP trophy.
In 2005 he averages 18.8 pts per game and 10.5 assists per game.
Last year 16.9 pts per game and 11.1 assists per game at the age of 33.
So whats the point of all this? Am I comparing Beno to Nash. As players no. In circumstantce, yes. In no way am I suggesting that Beno is going to turn into the next Nash. What I'am saying, is that there was a pt in Nash's career that he was undervalued, and I doubt anyone thought he would become the player he is today. Thats why when people make blanket statements about what a players future is going to be, I think they should be a little more careful and a little more thoughtful.
As far as the signing. Well, If petrie signs him to the deal thats proposed, there's alway going to be a certain number of naysayers that think its was the wrong thing to do. If Petrie doesn't sign him and in two years he's an all star, then there's going to be a certain number of people who will say he should have done more to sign him.
The funny part, is that in some cases, its the same people.
I agree COMPLETELY with what Showtime said. I mean, it seems that a couple people here would like Chris Duhon instead. Is he really that great? Udrih is much better than him. Sure, Duhon plays good D, Udrih does too, PLUS he has a much better offensive game. Udrih is only 26, came in the middle of the season with Sacramento without even going to camp and performed exceptionally well. What more can you ask? If he were to sign with another team last year instead of Sac and performed the way he did last year for that team, I think Sac would be kicking themselves in the butt. How can you go into go into a season with a 2nd round PG and Douby who has shown that he can't really run the point? Udrih has shown that he can make plays, play defense, shoot, penetrate, what more can you ask for? The MLE was spent well on him. Although, I can't say the same for the previous signings like Moore and SAR when they got signed in their 30 somethings.
Spot on.
A recent post here in another thread also showed the crap-shootiness of having a top 10 pick in the last several years. Nothing guaranteed.
There is still a huge logic disconnect by those that espouse tanking when it comes to both methodology and the impacts on the business side of the team.
A recent post here in another thread also showed the crap-shootiness of having a top 10 pick in the last several years. Nothing guaranteed.
There is still a huge logic disconnect by those that espouse tanking when it comes to both methodology and the impacts on the business side of the team.
Are you saying you'd rather have a pick in the 10-14 range every year?? If a team ends up with the worst record, they are GUARANTEED at worst, the #4 pick in the draft. A first overall pick doesn't always produce the best player. In the past 5 drafts alone (not including 2008), players picked 2-4 include Bosh, Anthony, Paul, Deron Williams, Okafor, Livingston, Conley, Horford, Durant. As opposed to #1 picks such as Oden, Howard, Bogut, Bargnani, and of course LBJ. Yes, typically great big men are taken with the #1 pick. But its very clear that you don't need the first pick to get a great PG or wing player.
Last edited:
holy cow, why why WHY do people who poo-poo the draft keep thinking the rest of us thinks it's the answer to all of our prayers??? a high draft pick just gives you the BEST ODDS of getting a franchise player in the draft, not a guarantee. why would you not want the highest percentage of getting a good player??? why would you not want the highest draft pick you can get just as a trading asset? WTF?!?!?!?!
for goodness sakes, there's only three ways we're going to get an elite player:
1) draft
2) trade
3) free agency
which of those is the most viable to a team? hint: #1. especially if (like our team) you don't have many tradeable assets and you don't have cap space.
for goodness sakes, there's only three ways we're going to get an elite player:
1) draft
2) trade
3) free agency
which of those is the most viable to a team? hint: #1. especially if (like our team) you don't have many tradeable assets and you don't have cap space.
Last edited:
Why does the "tank brigade" think it's a viable option to intentionally lose a lot of games just for the slim hope that maybe a franchise player will be there for the taking? How many years in a row are you willing to go into the tank to get one? If you owned the team, would you want to risk alienating a fan base year after year in the hope that maybe a great player is there for the taking? Add into that this team is trying to get a new arena built so that we can keep the team in town.
Name the last top 5 drafted PG to start on a championship team?
Answer: Billups. And that was after his 7th year and 5th team.
Next player is?
1990 Isiah Thomas. And he got his first ring after his 8th year.
If you want to go top 10 drafted you can add J-Will for those drafted all the way back to 1990. Oh, Kenny Smith drafted #6 in 1987 won in 94 and 95. So after 8 years again.
Answer: Billups. And that was after his 7th year and 5th team.
Next player is?
1990 Isiah Thomas. And he got his first ring after his 8th year.
If you want to go top 10 drafted you can add J-Will for those drafted all the way back to 1990. Oh, Kenny Smith drafted #6 in 1987 won in 94 and 95. So after 8 years again.
but you're the one who's advocating that you want the team to try to win in the short term, right? do you need a "franchise" PG for that? heck, do you need a franchise "anything" for that? no, you just need a good, solid player...exactly like the ones you get in the draft at the higher picks. or rather, the ones you have a better chance of getting. the aldriges, roys, jeffersons, dengs of the world. young players with talent, potential, and would generate excitement and hope. isn't that what you want? for the fans to not be alienated?
and again, if YOU don't think a high draft pick is valuable, then get it and trade it to another team that does. where's the argument against doing that?
guess what: putting forth a mediocre team season after season also alienates fans. that statement is proven positive easily: people on this board already gave up their season tickets. you think they're alone?
i've heard your argument; i've been hearing it for five years. we've tried twiddling our thumbs; let's go in another direction, shall we? i'm STILL waiting for this team to get good. how long are YOU willing to wait in mediocrity?
and again, if YOU don't think a high draft pick is valuable, then get it and trade it to another team that does. where's the argument against doing that?
guess what: putting forth a mediocre team season after season also alienates fans. that statement is proven positive easily: people on this board already gave up their season tickets. you think they're alone?
i've heard your argument; i've been hearing it for five years. we've tried twiddling our thumbs; let's go in another direction, shall we? i'm STILL waiting for this team to get good. how long are YOU willing to wait in mediocrity?
I keep hearing the same argument against obtaining a high draft pick. Here's my take on them:
1. There is no guarantee in a draft.
Well, there's no guarantee that we can be competitive without a high draft pick. There is no guarantee that we can sign a star player. There's no guarantee in anything, period. If there's a guaranteed method that surely guarantee us a championship, let's hear it. Until then, getting a high draft pick is still the best way to turn around a franchise for a small market team.
2. A lot of luck is involved in landing a high draft pick.
A lot of luck is involved in winning a championship too. Does that mean we shouldn't even try? I really don't get this "luck" thing. As if they're saying that since "luck" is such a random and uncontrollable element, we shouldn't do anything that involves luck. What's wrong with just putting the team in a position for a high draft pick and let luck runs its course? If the Kings are in a high enough position (draft-wise), even luck can't ruin things. The T-Wolves were unlucky in landing the #3 spot. They still got Kevin Love and Mike Miller. See what I mean?
3. We'll be tanking year after year.
Not if we draft the right player. Did Cleveland tank every year after they drafted Lebron? In fact, landing a high draft pick is a very good way to avoid having to tank year after year, because that young star is going to lift your team. Now, on the flip side, trying to go for that 8th spot with an average team IS the surest way to go lottery year after year. You end up with a late lottery pick every year so your team hardly improve. Witness the Kings during the 90s.
4. There's no guarantee that you'll draft the player that you want.
You think Miami and Atlanta are sobbing that they have Beasley and Horford instead of Rose and Oden? Of course not, they're grinning from ear to ear. A good player is a good player wether or not he's the one you originally wanted. We may not get the guy we want with a high draft pick, but we will get a potential star player. That's the bottom line.
5. Just look at Atlanta
In fact, the Hawks is exhibit A on why you should build through the draft. Look closely and you'll see that the Hawks were always in a win-now mode, which is why they once traded the #8 pick for Lorenzen Wright. If you chart their history, they got better once they settled down and started keeping the draft picks instead of trading them away. Also, the Hawks were miserable at drafting talent. The lesson here is that even a franchise as incompetent as the Hawks managed to assemble a very exciting team with high draft picks. So what does that tell you about the power of high lottery?
6. We don't need high picks. We can sign or trade for a star player.
Er, who? Lebron is not coming. Dwight Howard is not coming. Oden is not coming. Kobe, Yao, Arenas, Bosh, Dirk, Wade are not coming. You know who maybe interested in coming to Sacto? Andre Miller (maybe), or Okafor (doubt it). At best we sign a very good role player. That's it. And now that Memphis has traded all its stars (except Rudy Gay), good luck finding a team dumb enough to give us a franchise player like Washington gave us Chris Webber.
7. "Tanking" is bad for business
Sometimes we have to take two steps back in order to go four steps forward. Look at the Celtics. All I have to say is, if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship.
1. There is no guarantee in a draft.
Well, there's no guarantee that we can be competitive without a high draft pick. There is no guarantee that we can sign a star player. There's no guarantee in anything, period. If there's a guaranteed method that surely guarantee us a championship, let's hear it. Until then, getting a high draft pick is still the best way to turn around a franchise for a small market team.
2. A lot of luck is involved in landing a high draft pick.
A lot of luck is involved in winning a championship too. Does that mean we shouldn't even try? I really don't get this "luck" thing. As if they're saying that since "luck" is such a random and uncontrollable element, we shouldn't do anything that involves luck. What's wrong with just putting the team in a position for a high draft pick and let luck runs its course? If the Kings are in a high enough position (draft-wise), even luck can't ruin things. The T-Wolves were unlucky in landing the #3 spot. They still got Kevin Love and Mike Miller. See what I mean?
3. We'll be tanking year after year.
Not if we draft the right player. Did Cleveland tank every year after they drafted Lebron? In fact, landing a high draft pick is a very good way to avoid having to tank year after year, because that young star is going to lift your team. Now, on the flip side, trying to go for that 8th spot with an average team IS the surest way to go lottery year after year. You end up with a late lottery pick every year so your team hardly improve. Witness the Kings during the 90s.
4. There's no guarantee that you'll draft the player that you want.
You think Miami and Atlanta are sobbing that they have Beasley and Horford instead of Rose and Oden? Of course not, they're grinning from ear to ear. A good player is a good player wether or not he's the one you originally wanted. We may not get the guy we want with a high draft pick, but we will get a potential star player. That's the bottom line.
5. Just look at Atlanta
In fact, the Hawks is exhibit A on why you should build through the draft. Look closely and you'll see that the Hawks were always in a win-now mode, which is why they once traded the #8 pick for Lorenzen Wright. If you chart their history, they got better once they settled down and started keeping the draft picks instead of trading them away. Also, the Hawks were miserable at drafting talent. The lesson here is that even a franchise as incompetent as the Hawks managed to assemble a very exciting team with high draft picks. So what does that tell you about the power of high lottery?
6. We don't need high picks. We can sign or trade for a star player.
Er, who? Lebron is not coming. Dwight Howard is not coming. Oden is not coming. Kobe, Yao, Arenas, Bosh, Dirk, Wade are not coming. You know who maybe interested in coming to Sacto? Andre Miller (maybe), or Okafor (doubt it). At best we sign a very good role player. That's it. And now that Memphis has traded all its stars (except Rudy Gay), good luck finding a team dumb enough to give us a franchise player like Washington gave us Chris Webber.
7. "Tanking" is bad for business
Sometimes we have to take two steps back in order to go four steps forward. Look at the Celtics. All I have to say is, if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship.