Anyone upset they could have had Knight?
- Thread starter RookieOfTheDay
- Start date
See but this is BS, and I hear this from our front office every year. Brandon Knight has been a high profile prospect at least since his freshman year of high school. He won player of the year for two straight years for god's sake. To say that they don't know enough about him because of one workout? Come on. I know they watched some games over the course of his career. Petrie has consistently overvalued the significance of the team workout in the draft process. There's not a lot you can learn about any of these guys by having them do some drills in a gym for a couple hours, whether it's against other prospects or not. Knight being a "name guy" had nothing to do with him being projected as the third best player. You get the name recognition by being really really good.
Here's why also I don't buy that Petrie loved Knight. Tristan Thompson went #4 and was never projected higher than #7 anywhere. I think it is very likely we could have sent Casspi and #7 to the Cavs for #4 since they could have gotten TT there. I just think they could have gotten Knight if they really wanted him. And there is always a chance he slips and Petrie made the move down anyway. I doubt he does that if he loves Knight. Pretty sure Knight was below Jimmer on Petrie's board. We'll see if he is right.
Just as a sidenote mini-rant. I think people put WAY too much faith in these mock drafts. Ever notice how useless they are right up until hours before the draft? Which means that they constantly change based upon rumors that get floated about. Most of which are started by sources with agendas. Drafting is also not such an exact science otherwise no team would ever make a mistake. In the end it comes down to beauty in the eye of the beholder. Making absolute statements about picks the day after a draft that are anything but absolute, is just nonsense.
Even many years later it's still open to debate. For example I'm sure you would get strong arguments on all sides whether Jason Williams was the right pick in '98 or they should have gone with Nowitzki or Pierce.
Even many years later it's still open to debate. For example I'm sure you would get strong arguments on all sides whether Jason Williams was the right pick in '98 or they should have gone with Nowitzki or Pierce.
It's not as bad as people are making it out to be. Signing a player like Salmons in free agency wouldn't be much cheaper than what his current contact is. He may be overpaid by a million or two a year, or even three but this is not a Rashard Lewis caliber franchise crippling contract. And if Salmons works out next year and the team is winning games, people will forget all about his contract and how upset they were over this trade.
Thompson was projected at the fourth pick by at least one analyst. I saw that two weeks before the draft. We knew Cleveland liked him. Apparently they couldn't find a trade they liked so they just took the guy they wanted with their pick. I had Thompson ranked fifth myself with only Knight above him left on the board and they already picked a PG in Irving so it was also the smart pick I think. Not the bombshell some people think it was.
But I agree with you that the Kings wanted Jimmer more than Knight. I'm not clear if that was a Petrie decision or a Maloof decision though. In either case I think the (mistaken) assumption that we needed to get better right away ("We will never be in the lottery again") instead of drafting the player with the most long-term potential played a big role in the decision. Jimmer will make this team better next season than Brandon Knight would have. But in 5 years? Knight will probably be a better NBA player I think (and most scouts agree on that). With our two best players being 20 and 21 years old right now, that long-term potential makes Knight a slam dunk pick to me.
But I agree with you that the Kings wanted Jimmer more than Knight. I'm not clear if that was a Petrie decision or a Maloof decision though. In either case I think the (mistaken) assumption that we needed to get better right away ("We will never be in the lottery again") instead of drafting the player with the most long-term potential played a big role in the decision. Jimmer will make this team better next season than Brandon Knight would have. But in 5 years? Knight will probably be a better NBA player I think (and most scouts agree on that). With our two best players being 20 and 21 years old right now, that long-term potential makes Knight a slam dunk pick to me.
Last edited:
Again there is no evidence we were going to take Walker, even if he had been there at #10. Fns has their favorites. So did Petrie. And I think he got his guy. Now whether his guy is the best guy or not we will have to see, but history suggests its not a high percentage thing to go against Geoff's draft instincts. Of course on the flipside I think if he's got an Achilles drafting a pure shooter making him all misty eyed about his own shooting, defenseless past, would be the way to cloud his vision.
Baja, we may disagree, but saying I'm dead wrong is a leap. How can you say I'm dead wrong about Salmons not being a good passer, or won't pass? You say he's excellent, yet he has a career ast average of 2.5 apg, and an ast/to ratio of 1.71. My eyes tell me he's not a great passer, and his numbers back that up.
He didn't just dominate the ball here. His playing style is to dominate the ball. He pounds the ball, and is better with the ball in his hands then he is playing off the ball. How can I be dead wrong about something which is subjective, and many have witnessed? The pounding the ball complaints have followed him from Philly, to Sac, to Chi, to Mil. I'm not the only one who see's it.
You don't think he signing affects our ability to use cap space. I do. Of course the cap space is still there. But we no longer have a gaping hole at sf, we have Salmons and his contract, along with 4 other sf's. You think that's attractive for an AK or Prince? You don't think that would have any bearing on them coming here? Of course we could sign AK, but then we have Salmons contract coming off the bench? You may like that, but I don't.
Judging by your response to me, having Omri/Donte/Cisco/Honeycutt/Salmons at sf is not a deterent in any way for AK or Prince or Battier to sign with us, and you'd be more than comfortable with Salmons contract coming off the bench. I disagree. It's either that, or you're comfortable with Salmons being our major upgrade at sf for the next 3 years. I'm not.
He didn't just dominate the ball here. His playing style is to dominate the ball. He pounds the ball, and is better with the ball in his hands then he is playing off the ball. How can I be dead wrong about something which is subjective, and many have witnessed? The pounding the ball complaints have followed him from Philly, to Sac, to Chi, to Mil. I'm not the only one who see's it.
You don't think he signing affects our ability to use cap space. I do. Of course the cap space is still there. But we no longer have a gaping hole at sf, we have Salmons and his contract, along with 4 other sf's. You think that's attractive for an AK or Prince? You don't think that would have any bearing on them coming here? Of course we could sign AK, but then we have Salmons contract coming off the bench? You may like that, but I don't.
Judging by your response to me, having Omri/Donte/Cisco/Honeycutt/Salmons at sf is not a deterent in any way for AK or Prince or Battier to sign with us, and you'd be more than comfortable with Salmons contract coming off the bench. I disagree. It's either that, or you're comfortable with Salmons being our major upgrade at sf for the next 3 years. I'm not.
Yeah but this is a team without enough shooters in the first place, whose 2 best players operate in the paint and need a reliable shooter on the perimeter. Jimmer is a great fit for the Kings. I'm kinda surprised at all the whining about Knight and Walker. They are good players but it's not like they are sure things either.
Someone...almost everyone...eh, why split hairs. 
But now I'm just trolling so I'll stop. I know I've set myself up to be wrong, but that's better than asserting nothing and claiming victory after the fact so I'm fine with that. I liked Knight a lot so can you blame me for being bummed that the Kings did everything possible to ensure that we did not draft him?
But now I'm just trolling so I'll stop. I know I've set myself up to be wrong, but that's better than asserting nothing and claiming victory after the fact so I'm fine with that. I liked Knight a lot so can you blame me for being bummed that the Kings did everything possible to ensure that we did not draft him?
Not necessarily. Joe Maloof commented on that not long after they "decided" to stay in Sacramento. He said they don't know what will happen next year until they get there. Basically, they'll cross that bridge when they get to it. As long as things are moving forward with an arena plan and no major obstacles come up, they'll be here for the 2012/2013 season as well. It's not like shovels have to be in the ground by next March.
Still the same tired old saw, and still the front office doesn't agree and isn't giving up the Reke PG experiment yet.
I felt more comfortable with Beno back there than Jimmer, but loading up the team with a variety of guys who can create for themselves or others is another way to approach thigns and compensate for Reke not being a pure PG. Out of our entire starting linuep who needs Reke to create their offense for them now? Basically just Daly. Also suspect we plan on running a lot of offense through Cousins in the future.
I felt more comfortable with Beno back there than Jimmer, but loading up the team with a variety of guys who can create for themselves or others is another way to approach thigns and compensate for Reke not being a pure PG. Out of our entire starting linuep who needs Reke to create their offense for them now? Basically just Daly. Also suspect we plan on running a lot of offense through Cousins in the future.