I wouldn't call him very good.
He's a career 33% 3point shooter, and career 42 FG%.
Last 2 years he was an ok shooter at 37% - but calling him a very good shooter from 3 is a major stretch. that's been his weakness throughout his career, and he's been up and down with it - with his up not being that great anyways.
Defensively though, he's amazing.
I think he's overrated, and I don't think personally that he's worth him + 14 for the #5. that's overrating him and undervaluing the #5 pick.
I am looking at his last 2 years where he has been consistently a good 3pt shooter. 37% from long range is nothing to sneeze at. That is better than Marcus Thornton over the last 2 seasons or even since entering the league.
Lowry has obviously worked on his shot and has been consistently good from 3 for the last two seasons. A 37% shooter from 3 is very good, it is not an easy thing to do.
Pick 5 in this year's draft likely does not get you an all-star type player. Drummond could be that guy but he could just as easily bust.
Never say never. If a guy has the work ethic (which he does) he can develop a good enough jumpshot. Guys like Gerald Wallace and Iggy don't shoot that well either, but they're stars are they not?
And to answer your other question, yes, that IS all I want from my 5th pick - an outstanding defender and a super glue guy, who can hit some open shots. We don't need an offensive star player, we've already got 2-4 of them.
For a pick 5 in the draft you better well get more than a outstanding perimeter defender and a glue guy and as much as I love MKG, he is no where near as athletic as Wallace and Iggy. He is also no where near the ball handler or creator that Iggy is. Those comparisons are widely exaggerated. And since we are comparing shooting mechanics, I can't remember the last time I have seen a player with as ugly shot as MKG. That little hitch he has is going to be be difficult to correct. He also shoots in on the way down, with the hitch and elbow already pointing outwards.
If I can get potentially a more complete player lower in the draft and pick up other assets along the way, then I would rather do that.
The bottom line for me is, I want us to get the most bang for buck with that pick 5. Whether that means we draft the player who makes us significantly better straight away, or a player who is a long term prospect or I trade it for a veteran who will help me straight away and pick up a kid that has a chance to be a very good player in the league in a couple of years time.
There have been many #5 picks who have busted over the years. This team needs to start producing now. As you said we don't need a star but we need a lot of other things and if I can use pick 5 to get as many of those other things as I can, then I would do it.
Lets say I can trade pick 5, Hayes or Salmons (both terrible contracts) for Lowry, Dalembert and pick 14 then I can address more needs than I could with pick 5.
With pick 5 I get a good young player who fits OK (MKG) or does not fit well without follow up moves (Barnes, Robinson or Beal).
With the trade above I get the following:
1. One of the best defensive PGs in the league who has also shot 37% from 3 for the last 2 seasons. A player who also rebounds well for his position and is 25 or 26 years of age at a pretty good contract
2. I get some length, shot blocking and rebounding in Dalembert. I also know his production and I know he played very well with my main guy (Cousins) a couple of seasons ago when they got paired in the line up. He also gives me production right way and gives me more time to see if Whiteside is my guy long term
3. I get rid of one ugly long term deal and even if I don't like Dalembert, I can waive him and pay $1.5 million of his contract, or I can pick up his option and roll out a big front court next season.
4. With pick 14 I can pick up a kid who will be productive player in the league. Its still a lottery pick and there will be some good players still available. Will I pick Harkless who many say would be a top 10 pick next year if he stayed in college. A 6'9" SF with great potential. Or do I go Terrance Jones or any other player in that range.
I cover more weaknesses, for similar money and I don't sacrifice the long term outlook for the team. I improve my team significantly for next season by getting in 2 very good defenders in the starting line up. If my owners are willing to spend some money I can shop for a SF in free agency, or I have the flexibility of trading one of IT (Lowry is an upgrade at PG) or MT to get my SF or I could just throw my pick 14 to the wolves and develop him that way.
The way I look at it, I am getting more value from trade than picking up a player. I also need to look at the long term finances for the team. I know I am going to have to max out Cousins soon. I also know if Evans gets a consistent jump shot and re-discovers his form from rookie season I am going to have to max him out as well (or close to it). That chews up a lot of my capspace. Thornton is on a reasonable contract but I got so many holes to fill for the rest of the roster and only so much money to spend.
If you get too many stars you end up in position that Chicago is in at the moment and where OKC will be when it comes time to extend Harden and Ibaka. Unless of course you get your stars signing for less money or you have super rich owners happy to play luxury tax (win at any cost), both of which are unrealistic expectations.
