It's early, but anybody have a draft wish list yet?
- Thread starter bluntsnbball
- Start date
not sure if you want a real answer to this, but if you do...
1) you gotta understand that to a North American the Euro soccer-centric sporting culture is just...weird. So much hullabaloo about a single sport, and a boring one at that
(boring to watch -- loved playing it)
2) in America baseball was the first of the major sports to develop. And you have to remember that the industrial/population/wealth core of America was the Northeast. Well, the Northeastern United States has wet, cold winters. VERY cold winters. And baseball is a purely outdoor sport. So for purely practical reasons baseball developed in the Northeast as the "boys of summer" with a season running from April to October and missing all the wet cold winter stuff.
2) next to develop was football. But football developed in a university setting and became wildly popular there long before the pros really got started.. Meaning it was going to be restricted to the school year. And because football is such a brutal impact sport, you can't have long seasons because bodies simply fall apart. So you got a sport with a relatively short 4 month season, roughly coniciding with the first semester of college (rougly Sept to Dec, with championships in Jan, and training camp in Aug).
3) relatively late to the party was basketball. Now I don't know the strategic thinking of the early founders, but I do know basketball is played on a small court, and natrually works as an indoor game. And as the final sport in a sports culture dominated by baseball and football, I do know that the one significant "hole" left in the North American sports schedule, where you could be the top dog, was the late winter/early spring Jan to April slot. And so given that the sport could be played indoors during those cold winters, and given that during the late winter/early spring months it could be THE preeminent sport, that alone may have determined the heart of the basketball schedule. If you extend it too far either way you would have had to directly compete with other very large very popular sports for the sporting dollar.
4) Also note hockey, not as big as the Big Three, but certainly right there in parts of the country (the Northeast again) has a schedule that roughly coincides with basketball's, and again in hockey's case that is because its obviously the ultimate winter sport, so it runs right through winter.
In short, if America were an equatorial nation without any seasons, and if all the sports had come up at the same time, the long gaps might seem odd. As is, they were pretty inevitable. In America sports fans often just switch from one to another as the seasons come and go.
1) you gotta understand that to a North American the Euro soccer-centric sporting culture is just...weird. So much hullabaloo about a single sport, and a boring one at that
(boring to watch -- loved playing it)2) in America baseball was the first of the major sports to develop. And you have to remember that the industrial/population/wealth core of America was the Northeast. Well, the Northeastern United States has wet, cold winters. VERY cold winters. And baseball is a purely outdoor sport. So for purely practical reasons baseball developed in the Northeast as the "boys of summer" with a season running from April to October and missing all the wet cold winter stuff.
2) next to develop was football. But football developed in a university setting and became wildly popular there long before the pros really got started.. Meaning it was going to be restricted to the school year. And because football is such a brutal impact sport, you can't have long seasons because bodies simply fall apart. So you got a sport with a relatively short 4 month season, roughly coniciding with the first semester of college (rougly Sept to Dec, with championships in Jan, and training camp in Aug).
3) relatively late to the party was basketball. Now I don't know the strategic thinking of the early founders, but I do know basketball is played on a small court, and natrually works as an indoor game. And as the final sport in a sports culture dominated by baseball and football, I do know that the one significant "hole" left in the North American sports schedule, where you could be the top dog, was the late winter/early spring Jan to April slot. And so given that the sport could be played indoors during those cold winters, and given that during the late winter/early spring months it could be THE preeminent sport, that alone may have determined the heart of the basketball schedule. If you extend it too far either way you would have had to directly compete with other very large very popular sports for the sporting dollar.
4) Also note hockey, not as big as the Big Three, but certainly right there in parts of the country (the Northeast again) has a schedule that roughly coincides with basketball's, and again in hockey's case that is because its obviously the ultimate winter sport, so it runs right through winter.
In short, if America were an equatorial nation without any seasons, and if all the sports had come up at the same time, the long gaps might seem odd. As is, they were pretty inevitable. In America sports fans often just switch from one to another as the seasons come and go.
Last edited:
Did anyone check out that Euroleague final? What a comeback by Olympiacos (My 'hometown' team) The part of my family that still lives in Greece are stoked.
Kostas Papnikolaou had his coming out party. 21 yr old SF 6'8 225 pound who is draft eligible. 18 points on 3-3 3pt shooting, but was even more impressive was his good defense on AK47. In a year were our roster number is already pretty high, I'm a big fan of drafting a player we can keep in the euroleague for a few seasons. I'd look at him in the second round, possibly late second round if we can secure another pick.
Kostas Papnikolaou had his coming out party. 21 yr old SF 6'8 225 pound who is draft eligible. 18 points on 3-3 3pt shooting, but was even more impressive was his good defense on AK47. In a year were our roster number is already pretty high, I'm a big fan of drafting a player we can keep in the euroleague for a few seasons. I'd look at him in the second round, possibly late second round if we can secure another pick.
I've seen the final, what a game! Great comeback for Olimpiacos, down by 19 with 12 minutes to go. I was thinking the same thing about Papanikolau. He's improved a lot in the last year, especially on offense, he could really be a great pick in the second round. I hope Petrie was watching this game too.
Keep an eye on him, he could be a steal in the second round.
Keep an eye on him, he could be a steal in the second round.
Yep, I watched it, and I agree, Papnikolaou was very impressive. I was more impressed with is defense than anything else. To be honest, I don't watch much european BB, so I didn't know who he was. I was mainly watching to see Kirilenko play, and kept asking myself, who is this guy? Hell, I think he could play for us right now based on just this one game. Which is something I don't do. But he definitely impressed me.
You know, the euro league is actually very entertaining. For years I always compared it to the MLS ... where if I was a real soccer fan, why would I even waste my time on what wasn't even the second best league in the world... but over the past 2-3 years I've realized that there is a big difference between being 'one of the other leagues' like the MLS is, and being THE second best league, like the euro league is. There are a lot of NBA players over there .. guys that could play in the NBA if they wanted to. The top 15 guys aren't there, obviously, but a guy like Juan Carlos Navarro in his prime could absolutely start on a contender. I don't watch a ton of the games either, but I watched the final 4, and I try to watch Olympiakos when I can, but when I'm done watching I almost always come away from it impressed.
And in a lot of ways, I think its better basketball than the college basketball we have. So it's possible Papanikolaou is legit. I mean, being the best player on the floor in their championship game HAS to count for something, and for the most part ... those guys have worked out. Just the fact that AK47 can go over there, play, and NOT dominate (I understand he was never 'dominant' over here, but still) I think that's a good sign for European basketball.
And just a quick note on the two times I watched AK this week... I thought he looked like AK. I'd have no worries if we signed him. If ANYTHING, he looked a bit thin .. thinner than I remember him, but he still had his speed, still had his jumping ability .. just seemed like the AK we would want.
And in a lot of ways, I think its better basketball than the college basketball we have. So it's possible Papanikolaou is legit. I mean, being the best player on the floor in their championship game HAS to count for something, and for the most part ... those guys have worked out. Just the fact that AK47 can go over there, play, and NOT dominate (I understand he was never 'dominant' over here, but still) I think that's a good sign for European basketball.
And just a quick note on the two times I watched AK this week... I thought he looked like AK. I'd have no worries if we signed him. If ANYTHING, he looked a bit thin .. thinner than I remember him, but he still had his speed, still had his jumping ability .. just seemed like the AK we would want.
I didn't mention much about Kirilenko, because I was responding to your post about Panikolaou, but I watched his last three games, and they wouldn't have won one of those games without him. He's played very well, and shot the ball well when needed. Don't know about his being thinner. He's always looked like he needs to eat a couple of dozen big Mac's to me. In short, he's still a very good SF/PF that would be a huge upgrade on our team. Apparently he still has strong emotional ties to the Jazz, and is undecided on whether to return to the NBA or not. Not sure we have much of a chance to aquire him. But never say never!
That's the % to get #2 draft position right? But we also have a 7.6% chance at the #1 position so would that be a 16% chance we get MKG if we wanted him over Davis?
Would anyone be willing to take MKG over Davis? I'm still uncertain about Davis base on his skill level on NBADraft.net (again I don't watch college game so I'm ignorant regarding draft). I mean it stated he got 10 for athleticism/size/defense and potential but he only weighing at 220...freaking MKG a SF weigh almost as him. I can see most of those 10 are huge ?? because he would have to put on a lot more mass/strength in order to compete at the NBA level. With his current size...I can see Griffin owning him easily. And if he does build mass/strength then would his playing change? MKG on the other hand I can see him capable of manning up to NBA level player.
Would anyone be willing to take MKG over Davis? I'm still uncertain about Davis base on his skill level on NBADraft.net (again I don't watch college game so I'm ignorant regarding draft). I mean it stated he got 10 for athleticism/size/defense and potential but he only weighing at 220...freaking MKG a SF weigh almost as him. I can see most of those 10 are huge ?? because he would have to put on a lot more mass/strength in order to compete at the NBA level. With his current size...I can see Griffin owning him easily. And if he does build mass/strength then would his playing change? MKG on the other hand I can see him capable of manning up to NBA level player.
Height, weight, and even season stats, are just numbers on page, and can't even come close to reflecting the impact that Davis has on a game. Davis is such a terrific athlete, and has such a great feel for the game ( basketball IQ ) that none of those other things are revelant. I love MKG, and I've followed him since his sophmore year in highschool, but there is no way I would take any player in this draft, or last years draft over Davis. His hand/eye coordination is exceptional, as are his reflexes. He makes John Henson look like a robot by comparison.
He will have to get stronger, and I'm sure he will. The only time I would use the word struggle with Davis, was when he was up against taller, stronger players. In particular in games against North Carolina, and Indiana. Two of those games coming early in the season. And, in some ways it would depend on your definition of struggling. Against Ty Zeller and Henson he had 7pts, 9 rebounds, 2 blocked shots, and 2 steals. While he only scored 7 pts, he only took 6 shots in the game and made 3 of them.
In his first game against Indiana which immediately followed the North Carolina game, against Cody Zeller, the better of the Zeller brothers, he had 6 pts, 9 rebounds, 3 blocked shots, and 3 steals. Once again, he only took 4 shots in the game, and made 3 of them. In his final matchup with Cody Zeller during the NCAA tournament, he had 9 pts, 12 rebounds, and 3 blocked shots. He only took 5 shots in the game and made 2 of them. Bear in mind, these are the games he struggled in.
Also bear in mind, that he was going up against centers, and in the NBA he'll be a PF, going up against players, that for the most part will be his size or smaller. At least that would be his role on the Kings next to Cuz. He's also a much better offensive player than many realize. He has a solid jumpshot, and has several post moves. He also rebounds out of his area because he's so quick to the ball.
Like Cousins, who was asked to stay in the post, Calapari asked Davis to forgo his offense in favor of defense. And like Cousins, once in the NBA, I think you'll see skills that wern't shown in college.
He will have to get stronger, and I'm sure he will. The only time I would use the word struggle with Davis, was when he was up against taller, stronger players. In particular in games against North Carolina, and Indiana. Two of those games coming early in the season. And, in some ways it would depend on your definition of struggling. Against Ty Zeller and Henson he had 7pts, 9 rebounds, 2 blocked shots, and 2 steals. While he only scored 7 pts, he only took 6 shots in the game and made 3 of them.
In his first game against Indiana which immediately followed the North Carolina game, against Cody Zeller, the better of the Zeller brothers, he had 6 pts, 9 rebounds, 3 blocked shots, and 3 steals. Once again, he only took 4 shots in the game, and made 3 of them. In his final matchup with Cody Zeller during the NCAA tournament, he had 9 pts, 12 rebounds, and 3 blocked shots. He only took 5 shots in the game and made 2 of them. Bear in mind, these are the games he struggled in.
Also bear in mind, that he was going up against centers, and in the NBA he'll be a PF, going up against players, that for the most part will be his size or smaller. At least that would be his role on the Kings next to Cuz. He's also a much better offensive player than many realize. He has a solid jumpshot, and has several post moves. He also rebounds out of his area because he's so quick to the ball.
Like Cousins, who was asked to stay in the post, Calapari asked Davis to forgo his offense in favor of defense. And like Cousins, once in the NBA, I think you'll see skills that wern't shown in college.
Last edited:
My only problem with your player analysis Baja:
You get me all super psyched for the top prospects that we have no hope of getting, so then I'm all bummed when we end up stumbling in the draft!
I should just stay away from these threads until after the lotto. Then, when we drop to 8th, I can read your great rundowns of the lower tier prospects and try to get excited again.
You get me all super psyched for the top prospects that we have no hope of getting, so then I'm all bummed when we end up stumbling in the draft!
I should just stay away from these threads until after the lotto. Then, when we drop to 8th, I can read your great rundowns of the lower tier prospects and try to get excited again.
My only problem with your player analysis Baja:
You get me all super psyched for the top prospects that we have no hope of getting, so then I'm all bummed when we end up stumbling in the draft!
I should just stay away from these threads until after the lotto. Then, when we drop to 8th, I can read your great rundowns of the lower tier prospects and try to get excited again.
You get me all super psyched for the top prospects that we have no hope of getting, so then I'm all bummed when we end up stumbling in the draft!
I should just stay away from these threads until after the lotto. Then, when we drop to 8th, I can read your great rundowns of the lower tier prospects and try to get excited again.
My only problem with your player analysis Baja:
You get me all super psyched for the top prospects that we have no hope of getting, so then I'm all bummed when we end up stumbling in the draft!
I should just stay away from these threads until after the lotto. Then, when we drop to 8th, I can read your great rundowns of the lower tier prospects and try to get excited again.
You get me all super psyched for the top prospects that we have no hope of getting, so then I'm all bummed when we end up stumbling in the draft!
I should just stay away from these threads until after the lotto. Then, when we drop to 8th, I can read your great rundowns of the lower tier prospects and try to get excited again.
Last year you'd watch and knowing the Kings were going to be a lottery pick, you could envision some of the top prospects being available for the Kings.
The issue is that two of the top prospects didn't get many games (Irving due to injury, and Kanter due to ineligibility) and there were a ton of international prospects, which you have to go by other scouting reports unless you're able to catch some international games.
For instance, I saw a ton of Jimmer last year, but felt that if we ended up drafting him it would be a disappointment due solely to the fact that I expected that we'd get a good enough pick that he would be out of our drafting range.
When we lost the lottery and got bumped to 7th, then made the trade to move Beno and took on the 10th pick, then I was sure we'd end up with Fredette as he made sense at that spot.
This year I was hoping for a play-off push and ending up in the 12-15 range for draft selection, so I'm watching all the great talent knowing that we won't be able to pick any of them up. But we end up having a miserable season, and all-of-a-sudden there is a small chance we could end up with a Davis or MKG.
But as Bajaden pointed out, you do get attached to certain prospects.
For instance I loved Faried last year.
I even kept a game of his and when my aunt/uncle-in-law, who are Spurs fans, visited, I sat them down and said, "You have to watch this guy play."
So even though he measured out small, which was the concern, he showed what sort of heart and hustle he has the latter-half of the season.
Another player I saw a ton of was Jordan Hamilton who really fell in the draft and also ended up with the Nuggets. He didn't get much of any playing time to justify the enormous amount of time I spent watching him at Texas.
This year it basically impossible not to root for and fall in love with MKG. If you watched Kentucky all year long you'd be a fan. I wasn't impressed with him, the first game I watched, and didn't see what was so special, but after watching game after game, it's just impossible not to want him on your team.
But I'm always going to root for players who I enjoyed watching while in college even if they never make it onto a Kings team.
Kids like Evan Turner, Epke Udoh, Kenneth Faried, and Derrick Williams.
But it can be a real downer to invest so much time watching these kids and then watch them succeed (hopefully) on another team.
Yeah, we share the same favorite players, which probably says more about the players than it does us. another of my favorites last year that I didn't talk about very much was Chandler Parsons. I really liked him, but didn't think he would be revelant because I figured he'd go somewhere in the bottom of the first round. But Wa La, there he was in the second round when we picked along with Honeycutt. People are surprised how good a defender he is, but if you know anything about Florida, you know they emphasis defense.
Brewer, Horford, Noah, all came out of Florida. All good defenders.
Brewer, Horford, Noah, all came out of Florida. All good defenders.
I had a hard time watching Florida last year because of their two guard chuckers, just didn't make it fun to watch them play, though if I recall Parsons was one of those guys who was leading the conference in a bunch of stats for much of his last year there.
It seems that every year there are teams that I enjoy watching and teams I find it a chore to watch.
Because I don't have any college team I 'have' to root for, I typically end up rooting against the teams that I don't enjoy watching. (Only during the regular season, in the tournament I want them all to go as far as possible to give me more time to see the prospects play)
Last year I had problems watching Duke, Kansas, and Florida and was rooting for them to lose.
This year I had problems watching Duke, Kansas, UCONN, and Syracuse and was rooting for them to lose. I really like Jeremy Lamb from UCONN and Robinson proved himself to me in the play-offs, so I'll be rooting for those players, but I was typically rooting for their teams to lose because I didn't enjoy watching them play.
Last year I really wanted Arizona to shock the world and win the tournament, and I was delighted when they beat Duke. I was rooting for them because of Derrick Williams.
This year was all about Kentucky, and I really liked that team and their players, so I was hoping they would win it all.
The upcoming year I'm going to be forced to watch UCLA, and hopefully I'll enjoy watching them play. I don't know who I'll be rooting for to win it all, but I'll probably have a good idea by mid-way through the college season, as players and teams emerge.
It seems that every year there are teams that I enjoy watching and teams I find it a chore to watch.
Because I don't have any college team I 'have' to root for, I typically end up rooting against the teams that I don't enjoy watching. (Only during the regular season, in the tournament I want them all to go as far as possible to give me more time to see the prospects play)
Last year I had problems watching Duke, Kansas, and Florida and was rooting for them to lose.
This year I had problems watching Duke, Kansas, UCONN, and Syracuse and was rooting for them to lose. I really like Jeremy Lamb from UCONN and Robinson proved himself to me in the play-offs, so I'll be rooting for those players, but I was typically rooting for their teams to lose because I didn't enjoy watching them play.
Last year I really wanted Arizona to shock the world and win the tournament, and I was delighted when they beat Duke. I was rooting for them because of Derrick Williams.
This year was all about Kentucky, and I really liked that team and their players, so I was hoping they would win it all.
The upcoming year I'm going to be forced to watch UCLA, and hopefully I'll enjoy watching them play. I don't know who I'll be rooting for to win it all, but I'll probably have a good idea by mid-way through the college season, as players and teams emerge.
I think this might be a make or break year for Howland. He certainly has the talent this time around, so hopefully he'll use it properly. Trying to watch UCLA last season was like watching paint dry. They were just terrible. Washington, a team I usually like to watch, was a team in disaray last season for some reason. And they had talent on the team with Wroten, Ross, and Gaddy. Texas, usually a fun team to watch, just had a down year losing just about everyone, and not really replacing them. I thought going in that UCONN would be at the top of my list, but they turned out to just be a methodical, at times boring team to watch. To a large extent, I blame Shabazz Napier for some of the woes suffered by Drummond and Lamb. He was just too selfish to suit me, and would rather shoot than pass.
I would have to put Syracuse at the top of my list of teams I hate to watch. You can switch from year to year like a slide show, and it just looks like the same team with the same uni's playing the same way. Credit to the coach in some respects I guess, because they always have winning seasons. But I don't enjoy watching them. Definitely Kentucky is my top team to watch. Calapari plays an uptempo game and man defense. North Carolina was a fun team to watch. I really enjoyed watching Vandy this season. Missouri was fun as well. Already I can't wait for next years college season to start. I guess I need a life...
I would have to put Syracuse at the top of my list of teams I hate to watch. You can switch from year to year like a slide show, and it just looks like the same team with the same uni's playing the same way. Credit to the coach in some respects I guess, because they always have winning seasons. But I don't enjoy watching them. Definitely Kentucky is my top team to watch. Calapari plays an uptempo game and man defense. North Carolina was a fun team to watch. I really enjoyed watching Vandy this season. Missouri was fun as well. Already I can't wait for next years college season to start. I guess I need a life...
I'm of the opinion that we have enough talent, that with the right coach, we could make the playoffs. Some of it is redundit, or misplaced, but talent non the less. However, we certainly don't have enough talent to pretend for a championship. Davis, would put us very close to that. Davis might get us into the playoffs despite not having a good coach. Getting him isn't likely, but then just about every team that leapfroged into number one felt that way. So I'll continue lighting candles at the altar of the basketball god until I'm disappointed again.
Stern is pissed at Maloofs but we don't know what his plans are! I don't think this thing is rigged BUT lets for arguments sake say that it is.
If Stern plans to take over the team and exercise the "In interest of the league" clause, then would it not make sense that the Kings win the lottery, Stern/NBA takes over the Kings and finds a buyer.
A young team with Cousins and Evans at the helm, a lot of cap space and a #1 pick in one of the stronger NBA drafts in recent years would make one heck of an attractive team to buy into!
Just putting the other side of the argument forward!
If Stern plans to take over the team and exercise the "In interest of the league" clause, then would it not make sense that the Kings win the lottery, Stern/NBA takes over the Kings and finds a buyer.
A young team with Cousins and Evans at the helm, a lot of cap space and a #1 pick in one of the stronger NBA drafts in recent years would make one heck of an attractive team to buy into!
Just putting the other side of the argument forward!