Why anyone would continue to question Tyreke's ability as a playmaker despite all evidence to the contrary continues to mystify me, but we can agree to disagree on that one. 
Last edited:
Prospect watch 2011
- Thread starter asakkings
- Start date
Getting assists does not necessarily mean one is a good facilitator of an offense. Iverson got assists, but I think he was a crappy facilitator, he got bailout assists. Irving has passing, vision, IQ, and decision making abilities that Evans does not.
I'm positive that Irving will declare for the draft. Pretty sure that Williams will as well. But we'll see. The Kings would be blessed to aquire either Williams or Irving in this draft. But between the two, Williams would make the biggest impact. And Williams will be a SF in the NBA and not a cross between SF and PF. Although he does have the value of being able to play some PF if needed. Getting either player depends on the Kings choosing either 1 or 2 in the draft. Not something I would bet my life on, so although we know whom we would perfer, we need to have plan b,c, d, and e. And this is where we get into T. Jones, K. Walker, B. Knight, and god forbid, P. Jones territory. I'm not going to endorse any of these guys at the moment, other than to say that the perceptionn of T. Jones and B. Knight, is lower than it should be. Both these guys have the ability to impact games without scoring a lot of points. Yet both are capable of scoring. I'll just leave it at that.
Again, I understand your point. I just don't see how the facts back it up. Is your evaluation of Irving's point guard skills based on 11 college games against mostly inferior competition? From what I've seen of Irving, which has been limited, I'd say he's a smooth ball handler, a deadly shooter, and a competent point guard. He hasn't blown me away with superior passing skills. But more to the point, I just don't know. He's still pretty unproven right now.
Assist numbers do not tell you everything, I agree. I would also agree that there were times this season when it appeared as if Tyreke and "point guard" should never be uttered in the same sentence ever again. His decision making in all areas was poor three or four months ago as he clearly just did not have his head in the game. But for the majority of last season and the second half of this one, he's shown that he can be a go-to scorer and set up his teammates for open looks.
He played only limited minutes last night and he had 8 assists -- most of which were wide open jumpers or open layups that he created by attacking the defense. Not just empty numbers, but finding points for his teammates. And he wasn't leaving his feet and then forcing a pass out when he got in trouble as he has been guilty of in the past. He also controls the pace of the game and defends on-the-ball very well. He's still figuring out when to shoot and when not to shoot, there's work to be done. But right now I would feel pretty confident with Tyreke as our future PG. He's never going to be a pure facilitator since he's also the first or second scoring option, but as others have pointed out -- do we need that anymore when Cousins seems quite capable of being a playmaker as well? We already have two guys who are going to demand double teams when they have the ball. That's a lot of open shots for somebody.
Assist numbers do not tell you everything, I agree. I would also agree that there were times this season when it appeared as if Tyreke and "point guard" should never be uttered in the same sentence ever again. His decision making in all areas was poor three or four months ago as he clearly just did not have his head in the game. But for the majority of last season and the second half of this one, he's shown that he can be a go-to scorer and set up his teammates for open looks.
He played only limited minutes last night and he had 8 assists -- most of which were wide open jumpers or open layups that he created by attacking the defense. Not just empty numbers, but finding points for his teammates. And he wasn't leaving his feet and then forcing a pass out when he got in trouble as he has been guilty of in the past. He also controls the pace of the game and defends on-the-ball very well. He's still figuring out when to shoot and when not to shoot, there's work to be done. But right now I would feel pretty confident with Tyreke as our future PG. He's never going to be a pure facilitator since he's also the first or second scoring option, but as others have pointed out -- do we need that anymore when Cousins seems quite capable of being a playmaker as well? We already have two guys who are going to demand double teams when they have the ball. That's a lot of open shots for somebody.
What the Kings need are guys who can play on both sides of the ball. Tyreke, Garcia, and maybe Thornton are the only guys on this team that lay claim to being a two-way player. In this draft, Williams, Irving, Kemba, and Knight all fit that bill in my mind. T. Jones might fit that bill, but I have doubts about his offensive potential. Still looks too much like Greene. Sullinger doesn't fit the bill at all. I don't think the guy has the ability to ever be a good defensive player in the NBA. He's going to be condemned to mediocrity when it comes to defense because he just doesn't have the athletic ability. Jimmer falls in the same category.
It's looking more and more like we need to come out of the draft with a SF. It's too bad Derrick Williams has risen up the draft boards because he would be perfect and it's unlikely we will have the chance to nab him. We may be able to get Barnes and I think he would be a good fit, but I don't see him becoming more than a Luol Deng type player (although that is still a good player and a pretty good pickup after the top few picks).
2009 was supposedly going to be weak draft too if you recall. And as far as Sullinger is concerned, I seem to recall another Ohio State player last year who was "not going to declare", and then went onto "is going to weigh his options" and then eventually declared and ended uP being the #2 overall pick. If Sullinger is projected to be a top 5 pick I have a feeling he might think again about going back to school.
No, 1981 at least gave us Hardaway, Elliot, Rice, Payton, Kemp, Divac, Cliff Robinson, etc. The 2000 draft gave us Kenyon Martin, Mike Miller, Michael Redd, Hedo Turkoglu, Jamal Crawford and pretty much nothing else. There's like 3 all stars total and one of those was Jamaal Magloire. Seriously, after this group the other most notable players are guys like Eddie House, Pryzbilla, Stromile Swift, Desmond Mason and Brian Cardinal.
Check it out for yourself: http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2000.html
Easily, easily the worst draft ever and no I don't think this year will be that bad.
Check it out for yourself: http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2000.html
Easily, easily the worst draft ever and no I don't think this year will be that bad.
I don't put too much stake in what the "experts" say, but both Chad Ford's draft the other day and I think one on Draftexpress mentioned that this draft was weaker at the top than normal, but looked very deep. That could actually bode well for our two second round picks. Though, considering how much youth we have, I seriously doubt we use both pick. I wouldn't be surprised if we package them to move up into the first round or as part of another trade.
I'd imagine a team like the Lakers or Mavs would love to get out of a guaranteed contract and would rather take a flier on two unguaranteed contracts.
I'd imagine a team like the Lakers or Mavs would love to get out of a guaranteed contract and would rather take a flier on two unguaranteed contracts.
But at the same time, I'd rather build a more complete team and I don't want confusion with Evans and Irving both on the team. I think what williams brings to this team is exactly what we need with Evans and cousins already on the team. And since williams and Irving are both considered to be the top two prospects, I don't see this as us picking for need. I just like how our team will mesh more if we had williams over Irving.
I would be fine with either and think that an Irvin-Evans back court with Thornton coming off the bench as our instant offense would work very well. Having 3 high usage players works well for very good teams. Especially if we can get a Bruce Bowen type 3 who plays D and hits open 3s as a low usage player.
The one need argument for Irving over Williams for me has nothing to do with Reke as a primary ball handler, but is more that Irving would be more useful on defense. He shoots the 3 as well as Williams, so we wouldn't be losing offensive fire power. And Irving is supposed to be a very good defender. I don't think Williams will be a bad defender, but if we are starting Reke, Thronton and Williams than Reke is the only 1, 2 3 we have in that lineup who is a good defender. Most elite teams have another backcourt player who can guard the other team's best 1, 2, 3 so their primary ball hander doesn't have to carry the offense and defense for 40 minutes a game. Irving would do that for us and give us the chance to find a 3 who plays D and can shoot. It's much easier to find that in free agency or via trade than a point guard who can shoot and play great D.
The one need argument for Irving over Williams for me has nothing to do with Reke as a primary ball handler, but is more that Irving would be more useful on defense. He shoots the 3 as well as Williams, so we wouldn't be losing offensive fire power. And Irving is supposed to be a very good defender. I don't think Williams will be a bad defender, but if we are starting Reke, Thronton and Williams than Reke is the only 1, 2 3 we have in that lineup who is a good defender. Most elite teams have another backcourt player who can guard the other team's best 1, 2, 3 so their primary ball hander doesn't have to carry the offense and defense for 40 minutes a game. Irving would do that for us and give us the chance to find a 3 who plays D and can shoot. It's much easier to find that in free agency or via trade than a point guard who can shoot and play great D.
The organization doesn't have the luxury of picking the player that best fits the position of need. They'll draft the best player available, and then if that player obviously (Sullinger) doesn't fit into the team, then hopefully they'll trade that player for the type of player they need.
Then after the draft the Kings can modify their FA approach based on who they got in the draft. If they get a D. Williams, they probably don't go after a 3. If they get a Kemba Walker, Irving or a Knight, they might not go after another guard, but go mightily after a 3.
Another thing I want to add. Another way of thinking about what the Kings "need" is the qualities that are needed, not the position. In that vein, the Kings need quickness, poise, smarts and outside shooting. From what I've seen (and heard), Walker, Irving, Williams, and Knight all have those attributes. In that sense, any of those players will fill a need. Personally, I think Walker has more quickness, poise and smarts than any player the Kings currently have. Having a player like that (or the others) is going to be like a man dying of thirst in the Saraha finding a oasis.
Then after the draft the Kings can modify their FA approach based on who they got in the draft. If they get a D. Williams, they probably don't go after a 3. If they get a Kemba Walker, Irving or a Knight, they might not go after another guard, but go mightily after a 3.
Another thing I want to add. Another way of thinking about what the Kings "need" is the qualities that are needed, not the position. In that vein, the Kings need quickness, poise, smarts and outside shooting. From what I've seen (and heard), Walker, Irving, Williams, and Knight all have those attributes. In that sense, any of those players will fill a need. Personally, I think Walker has more quickness, poise and smarts than any player the Kings currently have. Having a player like that (or the others) is going to be like a man dying of thirst in the Saraha finding a oasis.
Last edited:
I've been continually more and more impressed with Knight. Didn't like him when the season began, at this point I put him above Kemba Walker and I'm not sure I wouldn't take him at #3. Irving/Williams, and perhaps Barnes. Beyond that I'm not sure I could take Sullinger, either Jones or any of the big-4 Euros above him.
Can I have a discussion on the wisdom of picking a starting quality guard? We have Reke who I think has proven that he can start. We have Marcus who is a cross between Mitch Richmond and Bobby Jackson. No matter what his parentage, he will average 20 points and is the kind of guy who can explode. Reke is not. I think Mitch/Bobby is a starter. If a draft pick is satisfied with being an eternal bench player and a reserve in case of injury, I have no problem with drafting a point guard except that all of the three guards I have mentioned need court time to adjust to the NBA. This is a problem.
We have Beno.
If we are in the top of the pick, I have no problem in picking the best player available even if it is a guard but I doubt if we will be in that position. Given the quality of this draft, even at the the top, I'm not sure if it is absolutely necessary to draft the BPA because after the top two picks, that is not known unless bajaden has some info for me. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to pick for need and that could be Barnes, SF. As to a PF, well, maybe especially if he can catch a basketball but it's not crucial in my mind.
So back to this idea of picking a PG. Really?
We have Beno.
If we are in the top of the pick, I have no problem in picking the best player available even if it is a guard but I doubt if we will be in that position. Given the quality of this draft, even at the the top, I'm not sure if it is absolutely necessary to draft the BPA because after the top two picks, that is not known unless bajaden has some info for me. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to pick for need and that could be Barnes, SF. As to a PF, well, maybe especially if he can catch a basketball but it's not crucial in my mind.
So back to this idea of picking a PG. Really?
So back to this idea of picking a PG. Really?
Now with Williams/Irving I think the talent levels are close enough that Williams over Irving for a team needing SF is acceptable - so long as the front office truly believes that Williams can slot in at the 3 rather than the 4 (more Carmelo than Jamison, that is to say). But we probably need a top-2 to be in the discussion for those guys. And Barnes is a wild card, could be good value at #3 over Knight. But I really think that's it - right now I don't think anybody out there knocks Knight out of my top four.
We've got a lot to do in the offseason - yes we have money to spare, but we want to bring back Dalembert (who won't be cheap), and we want to bring back Thornton (who's going to cost more every day), and all of a sudden bringing back both of them and addressing the whole "veteran leadership" thing the front office seems to be in to looks a bit more difficult. I hate to say it, but maybe the best way to get a veteran SF is to sign-and-trade Thornton (depending on what CBA rules turn out to be). In that case, drafting a guard doesn't look so silly. Or maybe we draft a guard and trade him for what we need. Jerry Reynolds has suggested the possibility that we trade out of this draft on his web videos recently. We'll see, I guess.
Signing Dally only adds to our team salary the amount of his raise. I presume that is obvious. People are talking of signing him for $8 mil the first year and if he accepted that, it would add to the money we have available. I also think it is an insult to Dally.
He now makes $13 mil. If we signed him for $15 mil which I doubt will be necessary, it adds $2 mil to our salary. I don't know what Thornton will want. If we paid him what he is worth, it could be a lot but he was a 43rd pick and might be very happy at this point to be on a team that starts him and gives him $6 mil. Maybe less.
Assuming we have $25 mil to spend at the moment, which I think is petty close, we now have $17 mil left. Not many teams can sign two starters and have that much money left over. This is guessing but I doubt if I am too far off. The new CBA might even make this all we can do but I doubt if it will be that draconian.
IF we draft Barnes I think trying to sign Battier makes sense. He's at the end of his career and still has more to offer than any SF we have. He is a leader which we need. He's an all around player which seems to be the way our team is going. I dont' think he will ask for an arm and a leg. Maybe just a thumb. He makes $7.3 mil now.
He now makes $13 mil. If we signed him for $15 mil which I doubt will be necessary, it adds $2 mil to our salary. I don't know what Thornton will want. If we paid him what he is worth, it could be a lot but he was a 43rd pick and might be very happy at this point to be on a team that starts him and gives him $6 mil. Maybe less.
Assuming we have $25 mil to spend at the moment, which I think is petty close, we now have $17 mil left. Not many teams can sign two starters and have that much money left over. This is guessing but I doubt if I am too far off. The new CBA might even make this all we can do but I doubt if it will be that draconian.
IF we draft Barnes I think trying to sign Battier makes sense. He's at the end of his career and still has more to offer than any SF we have. He is a leader which we need. He's an all around player which seems to be the way our team is going. I dont' think he will ask for an arm and a leg. Maybe just a thumb. He makes $7.3 mil now.
Last edited:
Can I have a discussion on the wisdom of picking a starting quality guard? We have Reke who I think has proven that he can start. We have Marcus who is a cross between Mitch Richmond and Bobby Jackson. No matter what his parentage, he will average 20 points and is the kind of guy who can explode. Reke is not. I think Mitch/Bobby is a starter. If a draft pick is satisfied with being an eternal bench player and a reserve in case of injury, I have no problem with drafting a point guard except that all of the three guards I have mentioned need court time to adjust to the NBA. This is a problem.
We have Beno.
If we are in the top of the pick, I have no problem in picking the best player available even if it is a guard but I doubt if we will be in that position. Given the quality of this draft, even at the the top, I'm not sure if it is absolutely necessary to draft the BPA because after the top two picks, that is not known unless bajaden has some info for me. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to pick for need and that could be Barnes, SF. As to a PF, well, maybe especially if he can catch a basketball but it's not crucial in my mind.
So back to this idea of picking a PG. Really?
We have Beno.
If we are in the top of the pick, I have no problem in picking the best player available even if it is a guard but I doubt if we will be in that position. Given the quality of this draft, even at the the top, I'm not sure if it is absolutely necessary to draft the BPA because after the top two picks, that is not known unless bajaden has some info for me. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to pick for need and that could be Barnes, SF. As to a PF, well, maybe especially if he can catch a basketball but it's not crucial in my mind.
So back to this idea of picking a PG. Really?
When Beno is your fourth guard, that's when you know you're in business.
Tyreke, Thornton, Kemba ...OR
Tyreke, Thornton, Irving... OR
Tyreke, Thornton, Knight.
They all have a nice ring to them, don't you think?
The only way you don't go bpa is even the players are so equal in ability, you might as well go for position. When you get down to Barnes's level, that's where there might be that kind of situation. If we choose Barnes, that is going to be a MAJOR dissapointment.
Barnes is overated. Vanilla. Not that great of an athlete for his position. Fairly mechanical.
When Beno is your fourth guard, that's when you know you're in business.
Tyreke, Thornton, Kemba ...OR
Tyreke, Thornton, Irving... OR
Tyreke, Thornton, Knight.
They all have a nice ring to them, don't you think?
The only way you don't go bpa is even the players are so equal in ability, you might as well go for position. When you get down to Barnes's level, that's where there might be that kind of situation. If we choose Barnes, that is going to be a MAJOR dissapointment.
When Beno is your fourth guard, that's when you know you're in business.
Tyreke, Thornton, Kemba ...OR
Tyreke, Thornton, Irving... OR
Tyreke, Thornton, Knight.
They all have a nice ring to them, don't you think?
The only way you don't go bpa is even the players are so equal in ability, you might as well go for position. When you get down to Barnes's level, that's where there might be that kind of situation. If we choose Barnes, that is going to be a MAJOR dissapointment.
I am far more interested in having veteran leadership on this team than most. Drafting a PG may make Beno the odd man out and he's as vet as we have on this team. Anyway, we'll see what happens. Putting the guard rotation in the hands of three guys with at the most 3 years experience worries me but then I've said it before and no one sees that as a problem.
I think when we lose yet another game in the last few minutes we'll get back to this.
Well, we are currently responsible for $27.3M next year for 8 players (Beno, Cisco, Tyreke, Cousins, Thompson, Casspi, Greene, Whiteside). We have $1.7M in options/unguarateed money for Jeter and Taylor. We don't know the details of the CBA obviously, but since the owners are trying to slash salary, I'll assume they manage to cut the salary cap by 20%. That would put the cap at about $46.5M, leaving us about $19.2M to flesh out the roster - at least 5 players. Our draft pick will make about $3M (depending on where we pick), so that leaves $16.2M for at least four players. I don't think we would be able to afford to pay Sammy $15M. Then again, nobody else will either. $8M is probably a much closer approximation, even if you think that's insulting - if the owners force salaries down, they force them down. Assuming the system remains similar, Thornton's qualifying offer will be about a million, so on top of Dally and the Thornton QO we can sign a vet for about $7M. Then we match whatever offer sheet Thornton gets (putting us over the cap) and fill out the roster with our second round picks at the minimum salary, letting Jeter and Taylor go.
Obviously we might make some trades, but just spending our money we might not be able to do better than this:
Tyreke/Beno
Thornton(match offer sheet)/Garcia
FA($7M)/Casspi/Greene
Cousins/Thompson
Dalembert($8M)/Whiteside
First round pick/2 second round picks
Obviously we might make some trades, but just spending our money we might not be able to do better than this:
Tyreke/Beno
Thornton(match offer sheet)/Garcia
FA($7M)/Casspi/Greene
Cousins/Thompson
Dalembert($8M)/Whiteside
First round pick/2 second round picks