What position do you think the kings should draft in 2010?

[Liguid]

Well looking at our team so far i think its safe to say we need a TRUE Center. But at the same time i also believe we need a true PG. Evans is more of a 2 and already showed us he can play the game. He just needs to develop over the season. But what i'm concerned about is what can we do to improve this team. We don't need a SF as we have Donte and Casspi already. We have 2 good SGs which consist of Martin and Evans. Admit it, Evans doesn't fit into the PG role. As for our PF thompson and hawes can play that position. Thompson just needs to stop fouling. I believe we need to Draft a true PG or a true Center.

Which do you think is more important to the team right now? Personally I would love to get John Wall, but if say we happen to get the first pick of the 2010 draft. The top 3 projected picks are John Wall, a Center, and Other.. i would draft the center, assuming he is a true Center.

 

[Vlade4GM]

bpa

 

[TheRaven]

Still too early to tell I think. We haven't seen more than a couple games with the Evans/Martin combo and we don't know what sort of development players may show over the course of the complete season.

Unless we make a big move for someone like Okafor though, I think a true defensive-oriented PF/C that is not undersized for the NBA is clearly the biggest need right now. Even if Hawes does snap out of his current horrid slump, we still need a guy like that you can bring off the bench or to start depending on the matchups.

 

[Prince_XY]

Well looking at our team so far i think its safe to say we need a TRUE Center. But at the same time i also believe we need a true PG. Evans is more of a 2 and already showed us he can play the game. He just needs to develop over the season. But what i'm concerned about is what can we do to improve this team. We don't need a SF as we have Donte and Casspi already. We have 2 good SGs which consist of Martin and Evans. Admit it, Evans doesn't fit into the PG role. As for our PF thompson and hawes can play that position. Thompson just needs to stop fouling. I believe we need to Draft a true PG or a true Center.

Which do you think is more important to the team right now? Personally I would love to get John Wall, but if say we happen to get the first pick of the 2010 draft. The top 3 projected picks are John Wall, a Center, and Other.. i would draft the center, assuming he is a true Center.

Well, that is hard to admit when Evans is actually doing equally very well at both PG and SG position. So, don't even ask for anyone to admit.

I would still go with Vlade4GM's choice - BPA. This is the smartest way to go for a rebuilding young team like the Kings which upto now needs help in every position. I would still gamble on BPA to hopefully get a Superstar, than fill-up the roster according to need. Also, we need to pile-up with good chips for future trading. It is just too early to pick based on the team's positional need right now.

 

[fnordius]

Without knowing where we'll be picking, or who will be available, I'd be for getting whoever is arguably BPA that fills one of those positions. In case of a tie I'd go with the C, if only because they're harder to pick up elsewhere.

 

[Emma]

I believe in BPA.

 

[VF21]

This is the old BPA vs. PFN (player that fills a need) argument come to roost.

If the question is what position to we really need to address without looking at the upcoming potential players in the 2010 draft, I think it's pretty obvious we have to do something about our front court.

 

[TTown Kings]

if you get a chance at John Wall you take John Wall, no center will be equally rated. BPA then you fill the hole in the frontcourt via trade or FA...

 

[Merdiesel]

You take the BPA everytime. No question.

 

[VF21]

You know, this whole idea of BPA is something that is simply not necessarily supported by the evidence, especially if you look past the obvious and occasional "Lebron James" type player in the draft IMHO.

How many times has someone been looked on as the "best available" at the time of the draft and then not fulfilled the expectations of the team that drafted him.

I know it's easy to say BPA but what exactly determines who the best is at 3, 4 or even 7 in the player rankings on draft day?

 

[dbfish]

Realistically, you know the Kings won't get Wall. We either won't be that bad or won't draw the right ping pong ball. (See last years draft)

Since the 2010 draft looks like it is top heavy in big men I say take the best big man available, whether he is a 4 or a 5 is of no conseqence as long as he can and will rebound, bang and block some shots.

 

[bajaden]

bpa

There you go again. Applying logic into the conversation..

 

[hammystyle]

You know, this whole idea of BPA is something that is simply not necessarily supported by the evidence, especially if you look past the obvious and occasional "Lebron James" type player in the draft IMHO.

How many times has someone been looked on as the "best available" at the time of the draft and then not fulfilled the expectations of the team that drafted him.

I know it's easy to say BPA but what exactly determines who the best is at 3, 4 or even 7 in the player rankings on draft day?

This is true, but in a way you're proving the BPA argument even more. Basically what you're saying is that evaluating players is difficult and its tough to know who the best player really is anyways. But if its so difficult anyways wouldn't you just want to simplify the process to "who do we think the best player is?" vs "who do we think the best player is who also fits a need?"

Basically you're subject to error either way, but the more qualifiers you add the higher your error rate rises.

Of course, there's always the Hawks who when they took Marvin Williams over Chris Paul managed to draft the NBPAOTGWWTBPAAAFTBN (Not best player available over the guy who was the best player availabe and also fit their biggest need). Somehow they're now a good team which just goes to show how hard it is to stink when you get high lotto picks every year.

 

[VF21]

Isn't "who do we think the best player is?" rather like "Who will help us the most?" in regards to how our front office looks at the draft, other than the obvious LBJ-type player?

I just think always using the BPA is vague and without real definition because WHO the BPA is generally varies past the top couple of picks. And we've seen numerous times how, well after the draft, some people will point at Tony Parker or Paul Pierce and say, "SEE! We could have picked him" when the Kings - or any other team for that matter - actually did pick the BPA at the time.

 

[bajaden]

You know, this whole idea of BPA is something that is simply not necessarily supported by the evidence, especially if you look past the obvious and occasional "Lebron James" type player in the draft IMHO.

How many times has someone been looked on as the "best available" at the time of the draft and then not fulfilled the expectations of the team that drafted him.

I know it's easy to say BPA but what exactly determines who the best is at 3, 4 or even 7 in the player rankings on draft day?

Well your right in the sense that its subjective. So it all depends on who's deciding which is the best player available. Petrie decided that Evans was the best player available in the last draft. So far it appears he was right. Although a case could be made for Jennings now. Anyone that follows college basketball with the serious intent of just judging the talent, can pretty much tell you who the best ten players are. Especially at the time of the draft. The problem is that too many people think the ten best means that their all going to be great players. No! It just means that they, at the time were the ten best. And sometimes the best of the ten may be no better than the 10th best in another year. So as I said, its subjective.

Its also a matter of taste. For instance, I'll take a highly skilled, but only average athleticly, over a freak athlete that doesn't have the fundamental skills. Of course if you can find a player that has both, then you have Lebron, or Jordan etc. There are others that are more willing to gamble on the athlete and hope he develops the skill level to match.

But, But! If your sitting there and its your turn to pick. You need a center and there's a center available and you THINK he can develop into a good player, and, there's a SG available and you KNOW he will develop into a good player. You take the SG. If you already have 5 SG's, you figure it out later. Because I would rather have a player that might be the next Michael Jordan, than a player that might be the next Brad Miller.

 

[hammystyle]

Isn't "who do we think the best player is?" rather like "Who will help us the most?" in regards to how our front office looks at the draft, other than the obvious LBJ-type player?

I just think always using the BPA is vague and without real definition because WHO the BPA is generally varies past the top couple of picks. And we've seen numerous times how, well after the draft, some people will point at Tony Parker or Paul Pierce and say, "SEE! We could have picked him" when the Kings - or any other team for that matter - actually did pick the BPA at the time.

See, I think Jason Williams over Paul Pierce was a clear need pick at the time. Pail Pierce was hands-down a better college player and pro prospect, but the Kings desperately needed a PG.

 

[ovrush]

For this team it should be BPA. We're not one position away from contending and we have some cap room. We have young talent at every position even though Spence is underperforming and we need some depth up front, we don't absolutely have to have a center or we'll be hosed.

Due to our cap space we also have the advantage of being able to plug any holes we have through free agency and keep the draft for getting the best talent we can get.

 

[Nighthawk1]

bpa

This should be automatic I'd hope

 

[swisshh]

A PG or an althletic big man who can finish inside. Sort of need a finisher/shot-blocker type. Unfortunately, that is not the typical Petrie draft pick. I'm afraid to just say "center" because that could mean more of the same.

 

[Gary]

BPA because I don't think my heart can take another year when we need something but we draft BPA.. So I say BPA.

 

[fnordius]

Isn't "who do we think the best player is?" rather like "Who will help us the most?" in regards to how our front office looks at the draft, other than the obvious LBJ-type player?

I just think always using the BPA is vague and without real definition because WHO the BPA is generally varies past the top couple of picks. And we've seen numerous times how, well after the draft, some people will point at Tony Parker or Paul Pierce and say, "SEE! We could have picked him" when the Kings - or any other team for that matter - actually did pick the BPA at the time.

I have to agree with you. Look at any draft, and the top 10 picks will not be the top 10 guys, in correct sequence. They won't even be close. Half of them probably won't belong in the top 10 at all. That's not to say that the draft is a total crapshoot, but it's a bit of one.

Need, on the other hand, is known. No guesswork involved. An earlyish pick, if not blown, will yield either a starter or bench player at the desired position. No Gerald Wallace situations. Your team gets better.

If Geoff were trading redundant players soon after drafting them, trying to go purely by BPA might be great. But he isn't. We draft 3 SGs in a row, and never trade any of them, etc. So we can't afford to neglect either side of the equation; minimizing risk and maximizing return means finding balance between both factors.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

bpa

+1

we have youth at every position right now. we should take whoever is the best that falls to us.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

But, But! If your sitting there and its your turn to pick. You need a center and there's a center available and you THINK he can develop into a good player, and, there's a SG available and you KNOW he will develop into a good player. You take the SG. If you already have 5 SG's, you figure it out later. Because I would rather have a player that might be the next Michael Jordan, than a player that might be the next Brad Miller.

i'll take the next MJ over B52 anyday too

 

[Chupacabra]

Excluding John Wall they should draft the most talented bigman availabe.

 

[AleksandarN]

You know, this whole idea of BPA is something that is simply not necessarily supported by the evidence, especially if you look past the obvious and occasional "Lebron James" type player in the draft IMHO.

How many times has someone been looked on as the "best available" at the time of the draft and then not fulfilled the expectations of the team that drafted him.

I know it's easy to say BPA but what exactly determines who the best is at 3, 4 or even 7 in the player rankings on draft day?

Grizzly fans would dissagree with you.

 

[bajaden]

Well looking at our team so far i think its safe to say we need a TRUE Center. But at the same time i also believe we need a true PG. Evans is more of a 2 and already showed us he can play the game. He just needs to develop over the season. But what i'm concerned about is what can we do to improve this team. We don't need a SF as we have Donte and Casspi already. We have 2 good SGs which consist of Martin and Evans. Admit it, Evans doesn't fit into the PG role. As for our PF thompson and hawes can play that position. Thompson just needs to stop fouling. I believe we need to Draft a true PG or a true Center.

Which do you think is more important to the team right now? Personally I would love to get John Wall, but if say we happen to get the first pick of the 2010 draft. The top 3 projected picks are John Wall, a Center, and Other.. i would draft the center, assuming he is a true Center.

Just my opinion, but if your looking for objective answers to a poll, then you simply list all the positions and BPA at the end. You don't try and influence the poll by discrediting the center postion with what is only your opinion. Thats if you truely want to know what other people think. If you don't, then why have the poll?

 

[fnordius]

Just my opinion, but if your looking for objective answers to a poll, then you simply list all the positions and BPA at the end.

Or, instead of "BPA," you could just have a box that says, "I want whatever Geoff decides he wants." The actual BPA is unknowable on draft night, so there's no point in even answering that, it's meaningless as anything but an expression of philosophy.

 

[bajaden]

Or, instead of "BPA," you could just have a box that says, "I want whatever Geoff decides he wants." The actual BPA is unknowable on draft night, so there's no point in even answering that, it's meaningless as anything but an expression of philosophy.

That fine too. Just give options without influence, and then you get poll results that hopefully are more objective. Although after reading most of the posts, I thought the written results were pretty objective.

 

[AriesMar27]

We should trade for a pg or c that is more established... Drafting for need or bpa(non-lebron level players) will require more time to develop the team as a whole. I'd rather we acquire a young player in the offseason that can contribute immediately. Obviously John wall could be a rookie that can do it all from day one but what are the chances? We either won't suck enough or won't be lucky enough to get the number 1 pick.

Centers take about 3 years before they can be considered a bust or not. If we draft a center we will have to wait 3 more years

 

[bajaden]

We should trade for a pg or c that is more established... Drafting for need or bpa(non-lebron level players) will require more time to develop the team as a whole. I'd rather we acquire a young player in the offseason that can contribute immediately. Obviously John wall could be a rookie that can do it all from day one but what are the chances? We either won't suck enough or won't be lucky enough to get the number 1 pick.

Centers take about 3 years before they can be considered a bust or not. If we draft a center we will have to wait 3 more years

I tend to agree with you on the center issue. I'd rather trade for one, or sign one in freeagency. But someone like Evan Turner could step right in and play next to Evans. They can both handle the ball. They can both pass the ball. They both can get to the basket at will, and both are great rebounders for their position. And, both play very good defense. You would have two guards that are multifuctional and that are both in the 6'5" to 6'7" range.

I'm not saying that should happen. But there are players in this draft that will be able to contribute right away.