It's early, but anybody have a draft wish list yet?

RichieInRocklin

RichieInRocklin

G-League
#271
#271
bajaden said:
To touch on some results from college B ball yesterday, Anthony Davis was a one man wrecking crew for Kentucky. He had 28 pts on 10 of 11 shooting, 11 rebounds, 2 steal, and 6 blocked shots. And he scored in a variety of ways. 15 foot jumpers, a left handed hook shot, and many offensive put backs. One other note about Davis is that he seldom gets into foul trouble despite his aggressiveness on defense. And blieve me, the other team is doing everything they can to get him in foul trouble.

Jeffery Taylor had a nice game in a losing effort to Kentucky. He had 19 pts on 8 of 16 shooting and was 2 of 5 from beyond the stripe. He also added 9 boards, 1 steal, and 1 blocked shot. Taylor is shooting lights out this season, and still playing great defense. He's a terrific athlete.

Drummond is starting to look like the player everyone thought he would be. He had 17 pt's for UCONN on 8 of 14 shooting to go along with 14 boards and 3 blocked shots. Unfortuantely in a loss.

And finally, my boy Thomas Robinson, Davis only real competition for college player of the year, had 28 pts on 10 of 21 shooting, 12 boards, 1 steal and 1 blocked shot.
Click to expand...
Baja: Anthony Davis is head and shoulders above the rest of the draft prospects and he'd be the best fit for the Kings. Imagine Davis and Boogie as our front line for the next 15 years !!! The amazing thing about Davis is he does all of his shot blocking with only 1 or 2 fouls per game. His defense will make him an allstar, but his offense (as he learns to shoot sky hooks and mid-range jumpers with real consistency) will make him a super star a la Tim Duncan.

Just watched Jeffrey Taylor for Vandy against KY, and he looked smooth as silk, so smooth you forget what an athlete he is. His defense looked good also. I was impressed.

Watched Thomas Robinson (for about the 10th time this year) against Texas A&M where he didn't shoot very well (3-10 for 10 pts) but did get 13 boards, 4 assists, 1 block, but fouled out. Haven't watched the Kan-Missou game yet where you said he was a monster. I really like Robinson.
 
MANoICE

MANoICE

G-League
#274
#274
So Let's change the angle of this discussion a little bit. Lets say the draft order (up to the Kings #6 pick) falls the way draft express predicts:

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2012/

Would you trade with a team like Utah, who has very good depth, but is in need of a star. Something like Jimmer (marketing) + #6 (More likely to be a star player), for #'s 10 & 12 plus filler (if necessary.) I know it sounds silly to trade last years #10 and this years # 6 for a 10 & a 12, but what if it turned out to be something like J. Henson and either K. Marshall, T. Ross or J. Taylor. Any of those 4 players being a probable solution to 2 of the 3 major lineup problems (PG, SF & PF.)

Thoughts?
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#275
#275
MANoICE said:
So Let's change the angle of this discussion a little bit. Lets say the draft order (up to the Kings #6 pick) falls the way draft express predicts:

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2012/

Would you trade with a team like Utah, who has very good depth, but is in need of a star. Something like Jimmer (marketing) + #6 (More likely to be a star player), for #'s 10 & 12 plus filler (if necessary.) I know it sounds silly to trade last years #10 and this years # 6 for a 10 & a 12, but what if it turned out to be something like J. Henson and either K. Marshall, T. Ross or J. Taylor. Any of those 4 players being a probable solution to 2 of the 3 major lineup problems (PG, SF & PF.)

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Interesting proposal... I'll have to think about it for a bit. Right off hand, I'd be more inclined to just trade Jimmer for Utah's number 10. Thats a 10 for a 10, and there's little doubt that Jimmer would be a huge draw in Utah. I do happen to think that this years number 10 has more value than last years, no disrespect to Jimmer, and might give us chance to fill one of our needs at either SF (think Jeffery Taylor) or PF (think John Henson). Which ever need we didn't fill with our number 6.

We would be accomplishing the same thing without giving up our number 6 pick. Which has mor value this year than last.
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

ceterum censeo delendum esse Argentum
Staff member
#277
#277
bajaden said:
I do happen to think that this years number 10 has more value than last years, no disrespect to Jimmer, and might give us chance to fill one of our needs at either SF (think Jeffery Taylor) or PF (think John Henson).
Click to expand...
Baja - at #10 if given the choice between Jeff Taylor and Quincy Miller (let's say we decide on drafting a SF) do you lean Taylor? I know that Miller is higher variance but he seems to have a bigger upside. What do you think?
 
rainmaker

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#278
#278
My vote is for no more trading down, and getting two younger players instead of one.

My preference, even though it doesn't mean much without knowing where the pick will be, is to package it with a player or two, possibly MT, for a vet who'll help(ex. #6 + MT for Rondo). I don't want to get any younger unless it's clear star talent at the top. I could agree with trading to move up for exceptional talent at the top of the draft, but in no way do I want to trade down for lesser talent which isn't as ready, including two youngsters instead of one.

IMO, big difference between drafting a top 5 pick in this draft who'll step in and start, if a pf or sf, compared to getting two lesser talents who need to be brought along. I'm done with bringing along young talent. Already have enough young talent we're developing. That ship has sailed.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#279
#279
Capt. Factorial said:
Baja - at #10 if given the choice between Jeff Taylor and Quincy Miller (let's say we decide on drafting a SF) do you lean Taylor? I know that Miller is higher variance but he seems to have a bigger upside. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Thats a tough one. Miller is taller at 6'9" and a good athlete. But if you want someone that can come in and play right now, then it has to be Taylor. Great shooter, tough, also a good athlete, and an outstanding defender. Not many holes in his game. As you said, Miller has the bigger upside, but there are no guarantee's, so I think I might go against conventional wisdom and pick Taylor.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#280
#280
rainmaker said:
My vote is for no more trading down, and getting two younger players instead of one.

My preference, even though it doesn't mean much without knowing where the pick will be, is to package it with a player or two, possibly MT, for a vet who'll help(ex. #6 + MT for Rondo). I don't want to get any younger unless it's clear star talent at the top. I could agree with trading to move up for exceptional talent at the top of the draft, but in no way do I want to trade down for lesser talent which isn't as ready, including two youngsters instead of one.

IMO, big difference between drafting a top 5 pick in this draft who'll step in and start, if a pf or sf, compared to getting two lesser talents who need to be brought along. I'm done with bringing along young talent. Already have enough young talent we're developing. That ship has sailed.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you understand that I'm a huge college, and draft fan. So obviously I'm going to disagree with you. But I understand where your coming from. The last deal I signed on for wasn't a trade down, but a trade for another first round pick. I know you may be sick of waiting, but this is the one draft you don't want to trade out of. There are a few very special players, and around 8 players that might have been the first pick in last years draft. And Irving isn't too bad is he.

Now I'll admit that I've never been in love with Rondo. I understand those that are, but I'm not in that group. And I won't argue about it. But if I had Irving, I wouldn't trade him straight up for Rondo right now. And thats because I think Irving is going to be a better player than Rondo. And guess what, he was in last years draft. I also think its a moot point because I don't think we can trade our pick because of the Hickson trade. There may be some way of getting around that rule, such as drafting the player Boston wants, and then trading him after July 1st. I just don't see it happening. So I'm going to plod on with my expectations of the draft.

So the ship may have sailed for you, but it hasn't for me. If you get tired of swimming, your welcome aboard.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#281
#281
I think rainmaker rightfully hedged his bets by saying there were some people in the draft he would like. He didn't use those words but the intent was clear.
 
Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#284
#284
bajaden said:
Interesting proposal... I'll have to think about it for a bit. Right off hand, I'd be more inclined to just trade Jimmer for Utah's number 10. Thats a 10 for a 10, and there's little doubt that Jimmer would be a huge draw in Utah. I do happen to think that this years number 10 has more value than last years, no disrespect to Jimmer, and might give us chance to fill one of our needs at either SF (think Jeffery Taylor) or PF (think John Henson). Which ever need we didn't fill with our number 6.

We would be accomplishing the same thing without giving up our number 6 pick. Which has mor value this year than last.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#285
#285
bajaden said:
Interesting proposal... I'll have to think about it for a bit. Right off hand, I'd be more inclined to just trade Jimmer for Utah's number 10. Thats a 10 for a 10, and there's little doubt that Jimmer would be a huge draw in Utah. I do happen to think that this years number 10 has more value than last years, no disrespect to Jimmer, and might give us chance to fill one of our needs at either SF (think Jeffery Taylor) or PF (think John Henson). Which ever need we didn't fill with our number 6.

We would be accomplishing the same thing without giving up our number 6 pick. Which has mor value this year than last.
Click to expand...
Do you really think Utah would do it? It doesn't seem wise for them and would be a bargain for us.
 
bluntsnbball

bluntsnbball

G-League
#286
#286
i just read on hoopshype that sac is getting tons of calls because we have so much cap space. "Teams want them to take contracts for draft picks so they can maneuver." Does that mean they want to trade us bad contracts and include their draft pick or they want to take our pick for our bad contracts?
 
MANoICE

MANoICE

G-League
#287
#287
Glenn said:
Do you really think Utah would do it? It doesn't seem wise for them and would be a bargain for us.
Click to expand...
My reasoning in thinking Utah might do this trade was two-fold-

1. Utah is a deep team, but they do not have a superstar or a guy with superstar potential. With the depth of this years draft, there is more potential for that at # 6, than there is at #10.
2. The marketing of Jimmer. In Utah. Nuff said.
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

ceterum censeo delendum esse Argentum
Staff member
#288
#288
bluntsnbball said:
i just read on hoopshype that sac is getting tons of calls because we have so much cap space. "Teams want them to take contracts for draft picks so they can maneuver." Does that mean they want to trade us bad contracts and include their draft pick or they want to take our pick for our bad contracts?
Click to expand...
Most likely they want to give us their draft picks for us to take their bad contracts. When you consider that those draft picks are likely in the 20s and that Petrie is not known for swallowing bad contracts to get first-round picks (though he has done small maneuvers for second round picks - Thanks, Chicago, for IT!) it would seem a bit unlikely. Not impossible by any means, but even in a deep draft I'm not sure how much good a pick in the 20s does.
 
rainmaker

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#290
#290
bajaden said:
I'm sure you understand that I'm a huge college, and draft fan. So obviously I'm going to disagree with you. But I understand where your coming from. The last deal I signed on for wasn't a trade down, but a trade for another first round pick. I know you may be sick of waiting, but this is the one draft you don't want to trade out of. There are a few very special players, and around 8 players that might have been the first pick in last years draft. And Irving isn't too bad is he.

Now I'll admit that I've never been in love with Rondo. I understand those that are, but I'm not in that group. And I won't argue about it. But if I had Irving, I wouldn't trade him straight up for Rondo right now. And thats because I think Irving is going to be a better player than Rondo. And guess what, he was in last years draft. I also think its a moot point because I don't think we can trade our pick because of the Hickson trade. There may be some way of getting around that rule, such as drafting the player Boston wants, and then trading him after July 1st. I just don't see it happening. So I'm going to plod on with my expectations of the draft.

So the ship may have sailed for you, but it hasn't for me. If you get tired of swimming, your welcome aboard.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I wouldn't use the pick. If we get a high enough pick where we can get a can't miss prospect who will step in and help us immediately, I'm for it. You said there might be 8 players in this draft who could go #1 in most drafts. I'd strongly consider using our pick if it's high enough to get one of those can't miss prospects.

However, I still don't want to trade down to 10 and 12. That's a different range of talent, and talent which usually requires more patience to develop. In short, I'm of the opinion to either use our pick to draft the best player possible, or to trade it on draft day, which I'm pretty sure we can do. But moving down in the draft is the opposite direction I would take, and is obviously sacrificing the best player we can get for two lesser talents.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#291
#291
rainmaker said:
I'm not saying I wouldn't use the pick. If we get a high enough pick where we can get a can't miss prospect who will step in and help us immediately, I'm for it. You said there might be 8 players in this draft who could go #1 in most drafts. I'd strongly consider using our pick if it's high enough to get one of those can't miss prospects.

However, I still don't want to trade down to 10 and 12. That's a different range of talent, and talent which usually requires more patience to develop. In short, I'm of the opinion to either use our pick to draft the best player possible, or to trade it on draft day, which I'm pretty sure we can do. But moving down in the draft is the opposite direction I would take, and is obviously sacrificing the best player we can get for two lesser talents.
Click to expand...
Who said we should move down in the draft? To me it goes against all basketball common sense. It may have its place in football but not basketball.
 
rainmaker

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#292
#292
Glenn said:
Who said we should move down in the draft? To me it goes against all basketball common sense. It may have its place in football but not basketball.
Click to expand...
A poster on the previous page bringing up a hypothetical trade, where we trade down and gets Utah's 10 and 12. I'm just saying I personally wouldn't trade down.

Either get the best possible player with our pick, trade up, or package it for a vet.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#293
#293
rainmaker said:
A poster on the previous page bringing up a hypothetical trade, where we trade down and gets Utah's 10 and 12. I'm just saying I personally wouldn't trade down.

Either get the best possible player with our pick, trade up, or package it for a vet.
Click to expand...
Quality beats quantity. Always be on the higher number side in an uneven trade.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#294
#294
rainmaker said:
A poster on the previous page bringing up a hypothetical trade, where we trade down and gets Utah's 10 and 12. I'm just saying I personally wouldn't trade down.

Either get the best possible player with our pick, trade up, or package it for a vet.
Click to expand...
I agree thats what he proposed, but I proposed only trading Jimmer for their number 10 pick and keeping our number 6 pick. Of course all this is moot since we don't really know where we'll pick. My dream scenario would be to do the trade of Jimmer for their number 10, and then in the lottery, we move from number 10 to number 1, and still have our pick at number 6. Only a dream of course, but it'll do until the real thing comes around.
 
gunks

gunks

Hall of Famer
#297
#297
I think Utah would do it if we threw in a second rounder or something.

Jimmer would net them some major sales. And I'd be happy to watch him bust out somewhere else rather than here.

10th pick could actually get us a decent player in this draft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.