Who is available as 6th-7th pick
- Thread starter andjel
- Start date
I'm assuming that you think Bullock is a SF. I see him as a shooting guard, and he's more than a willing defender, he's a very good defender. His weakness is creating off the dribble, but he can dribble the ball. He's a very good shooter, and one of the best shooters in the draft. While he's not an elite athlete, he's a good athlete. As far as trading down. If there's a player that you like that much thats projected to go mid to late first round, just make the damm reach and pick him. You can trade down and then have another team thats above you pick the player you want. If you think he's that good, then just take him.
There are players I see every year that are projected lower than I would project them. Its just someone's opinon and its not carved in granite. I thought Chandler Parsons should be a first round pick, and now everyone would agree that he would probably go in the top ten players of that draft if it were done over. You see a player you really like, and you believe in him, then just draft him.
There are players I see every year that are projected lower than I would project them. Its just someone's opinon and its not carved in granite. I thought Chandler Parsons should be a first round pick, and now everyone would agree that he would probably go in the top ten players of that draft if it were done over. You see a player you really like, and you believe in him, then just draft him.
yeah, I'm German. saw Schröder play vs. Würzburg in late March and came away so impressed that I've been on his side ever since. he pretty much dominated that game defensively, making the life of the Würzburg point guards hell, picking up steals and making plays in the open court, while at the same time running the offense. looked like he had at least 5 years more experience than he actually had. it was nice to see him do well at the hoop summit and I do think that he has a real shot of making it in the league. as far as where he stands in comparison to other players in the draft, I honestly don't know, as I don't follow college ball whatsoever and thus can't really tell you anything beyond what draftexpress tells me. seeing how he does in workouts will be key, because, although it's usually difficult to judge point guards in those, his game should be more fitted for those than that of a guy like Rubio.
The more I think about it, the more I believe Carter-Williams could really be what this team needs (assuming Oladipo and Porter are gone). His strenghts are just a perfect fit for us. Great size for a PG, good defender, pass-first mentality, unselfish. He is not a scorer, and maybe this could be a plus for us. I'm sure we need someone willing to make plays for his teammates, able to make them better. He is not a great shooter, but again, I don't see the problem. If we are able to sign a good shooter for the SF spot, and with Tyreke getting better from outside, I think we would be ok. Then we also have great shooters from the bench IT and/or MT, Jimmer, Patterson. Having someone able to create good shots for them would be great, and it could really improve our team.
Now that we have owners who make deals for cash considerations, could we actually see the Kings go out there and "buy" another first round pick from Dallas who are looking to trade it to free up cap hold so they can go after Howard.
http://m.basketball.realgm.com/wire...th-overall-pick-to-clear-cap-space-for-howard
I wouldn't mind us doing that and drafting that French big man who has great lenght and shot blocking ability (name escapes me at the moment)
http://m.basketball.realgm.com/wire...th-overall-pick-to-clear-cap-space-for-howard
I wouldn't mind us doing that and drafting that French big man who has great lenght and shot blocking ability (name escapes me at the moment)
Kings already have guys who can create for others: Cousins, Evans, IT. You surround such guys with role players who finish plays and defend. Problem is most guys Kings have are either bad finishers(or refuse to play as such) or bad defenders. Out of 4 "great" (no, .358 or .372 on mostly open threes are not great) shooters only Patterson can be called an average defender. MCW is really bad at shooting from anywhere, and I guarantee you teams will allow MCW penetrate and dare him to finish - even minimum resistance can cause him trouble.
I guess we have a different way to look at the basketball game. In my opinion, Cousins and Evans are the two guys who need to finish plays. They should be the focus of our offense, not our role players. For sure Evans can create, but he should look for his offense first. DMC just needs to finish inside, I really don't understand why he should create for others. IT... Well, if you really think IT can create for others, we are probably looking at two different sports. IT can create, sure. He can create his own shot. He is not a willing passer, he is a PG who loves to shoot and keep the ball in his hands. He can help our team, but I can see him in a Nate Robinson role. It's definitely not the starting PG I want for this team. Then, you are right. We need role players who play D and hit shots. But they can't be the focus of our offense.
I also would like to point out that we have shooters, and pct doesn't mean anything for our players. What kind of shots have they been taking? It looks to me that most of the shots our players are taking are off the dribble, contested, self created. If you have a PG that can actually create shots, giving the shooter the ball in the right spot, at the right time, you can see the pct going up significantly. Rhythm is vital for a shooter. MCW could be the kind of role player we need. We don't need another player who needs shots to be effective. We need a willing passer, a good defender, with quick hands, and most important thing, SIZE!!!
Sure he is a bad shooter, but so is Rondo. Kidd was awful when he first came into the league. You can improve shooting. You can't improve size and the will to share the ball.
BTW, I'm also not so sure that all of our players are so bad defensively. Sure, Jimmer is the worst defender in the league, but when it comes to guys like Thornton, Patterson and even JT, I think they could be average/decent team defenders. We can't have a good idea because we've never had a defensive minded coach. Do you think Thibs couldn't turn MT or JT into good team defenders? He did it with Korver, Belinelli, Boozer, etc. They are not great defenders, but they are good enough in a concept of team defense.
I also would like to point out that we have shooters, and pct doesn't mean anything for our players. What kind of shots have they been taking? It looks to me that most of the shots our players are taking are off the dribble, contested, self created. If you have a PG that can actually create shots, giving the shooter the ball in the right spot, at the right time, you can see the pct going up significantly. Rhythm is vital for a shooter. MCW could be the kind of role player we need. We don't need another player who needs shots to be effective. We need a willing passer, a good defender, with quick hands, and most important thing, SIZE!!!
Sure he is a bad shooter, but so is Rondo. Kidd was awful when he first came into the league. You can improve shooting. You can't improve size and the will to share the ball.
BTW, I'm also not so sure that all of our players are so bad defensively. Sure, Jimmer is the worst defender in the league, but when it comes to guys like Thornton, Patterson and even JT, I think they could be average/decent team defenders. We can't have a good idea because we've never had a defensive minded coach. Do you think Thibs couldn't turn MT or JT into good team defenders? He did it with Korver, Belinelli, Boozer, etc. They are not great defenders, but they are good enough in a concept of team defense.
That would be a shrewd move, but one that we're unlikely to make given our youth. But it'd be a smart move. Trades are needed - clear out some of our guards and deadwood, buy that pick. Take Oladipo/Burke/Porter if they fall, and if they don't then take Schroeder/Gobert/Len at 7, and Karasev at 13. Muscala/Wolters/Kabongo in the 2nd round. That would be a very successful draft in my opinion.
i'd do what i could to acquire marion if few other adequate SF options were presenting themselves this offseason. he's certainly well past his prime, but he's also an expiring contract, so, at worst, the kings would have a veteran stopgap SF who fills a few needs...
edit: that said, i'm not sure why you brought this up in a thread about draft picks. while i've beaten the "trade our 2013 first rounder for a veteran defensive presence" drum quite a lot, i certainly wouldn't part with my first-rounder for 35-year-old shawn marion on an expiring contract, and the mavs don't really have anything else i'd be interested in trading for with respect to the kings' needs...
edit: that said, i'm not sure why you brought this up in a thread about draft picks. while i've beaten the "trade our 2013 first rounder for a veteran defensive presence" drum quite a lot, i certainly wouldn't part with my first-rounder for 35-year-old shawn marion on an expiring contract, and the mavs don't really have anything else i'd be interested in trading for with respect to the kings' needs...
Last edited:
Trading down makes perfect sense in 2 scenarios. In 1. a team has some very specific needs to fill and no one arrond their pick is likely to fit that need or do not appear quite NBA ready so you trade down to get a couple higher risk guys with greater potential upside. In scenario 2. you trade the pick along with talent you can let go to bring back talent you KNOW will fit your needs and you get the lower pick to balance the deal and again take on a project. I believe we may be in that second situation. IF we can interest a team in the pick along with say MT or Salmons we could bring back a quality SF and late 1st round pick. If this years draft is a iffy and the talent is a tight all the way down as people smarter than me claim it is then the difference between 7 and 18 may not be that much. But again to my mind the Kings need proven experienced players, we have enough kids flying by the seat of their pants already.
I think this is what may happen esp. re: Gobert. At this early stage, teams and the media who print these mock drafts haven't caught up to the fact he needed surgery. Stress fractures don't occur by landing wrong, twisting the knee, stepping on a foot or any thing like that. They occur because someone who weighs a lot simply lands on the floor jumping or something else as simple as that. Dang!
I hope more than Len drops to us. There are actually quite a few players that could help us but none should slide to #7. Let us pray.
Stranger things have happened.
Schroeder is 6'1", I think. We could put him on the shelf with our other short guards.
I hope more than Len drops to us. There are actually quite a few players that could help us but none should slide to #7. Let us pray.
Stranger things have happened.Schroeder is 6'1", I think. We could put him on the shelf with our other short guards.
As far as the smaller pg issue, Chris Paul is 6 foot. Tony Parker is 6'1". Ty Lawson is 5'10". Then you have Toney Douglas at 6'3", Chalmers at 6'4", George Hill at 6'4". Who wants Chalmers, Douglas or Hill over Paul, Parker and Lawson? Then to take it a step further, compare DJ Augustin who is 5'10" tall with Paul, Parker and Lawson. Why isn't he close to being what Paul, Parker and Lawson are? The size variable is overwheighted when it comes to point guards. It's much, much more important of an ingredient with centers. We shouldn't be concerned so much in a pgs size as in his quickness, speed, vision, dribbling, and shooting ability. I don't care if there are five guys on the current roster who are 6 ft and under. If you can get a very good player who happens to be a 6'1" pg, then do it. Especially in a weak draft. The way this draft is looking, if we can just get out of Dodge with a good, not a very good or excellent player, we'll be better than most.
And the biggest problem is that Marion can't be traded until after the July moratorium because he has an ETO for next year, so you can't package him with a draft pick unless it's a delayed trade. And we're really not going to have the cap space to absorb him unless we renounce Tyreke and make our big move for the summer an aging Marion and a #13 pick. Umm, no.
I'll take these one by one. I see some intelligent notes have been written since I went to sleep last night.
I don't think we are speaking the same language. I kind of got lost in this and I'll try to dissect what has been said so we are at least close to being on the same page.
Firstly, simply saying that if two guys are the same height means they will be of similar talent is not true. If it was true, I shoud be on an NBA court right now. I know that isn't your entire argument but let's examine more.
Schroeder has not been rated high in mock drafts. I have seen him as high as 14th (twice), 16th, 18th and 23rd. These mocks seem to be consistent in their evaluation of his talent in a poor draft and this is what bothers me the most. I am more inclined to think that the mock drafts that have him in the lower 1/2 of the first round are of more significance than the fact his height is the same as other great PGs. My guess is that in a poor draft, he is not very good. Being 6'1 may be a factor but not in a good way. If we go along with your argument that height isn't so important for PGs than centers which makes sense, then we have to account for his low ranking in the mock drafts in some other way. Maybe he has significant holes in his game and given we have IT, Jimmer, MT, Douglas, and (maybe) Evans to play the same position already, why get another? There has to be a good reason as with what I know based totally on other people's opinions, Schroeder's game is not good. You are assuming he is a good player and I am assuming he is not a good player. I would not clear the team of some we already have based on what I know of Schroeder. If we pick him in the 1st round, we keep him. There are no options to that.
I don't think we are speaking the same language. I kind of got lost in this and I'll try to dissect what has been said so we are at least close to being on the same page.
Firstly, simply saying that if two guys are the same height means they will be of similar talent is not true. If it was true, I shoud be on an NBA court right now. I know that isn't your entire argument but let's examine more.
Schroeder has not been rated high in mock drafts. I have seen him as high as 14th (twice), 16th, 18th and 23rd. These mocks seem to be consistent in their evaluation of his talent in a poor draft and this is what bothers me the most. I am more inclined to think that the mock drafts that have him in the lower 1/2 of the first round are of more significance than the fact his height is the same as other great PGs. My guess is that in a poor draft, he is not very good. Being 6'1 may be a factor but not in a good way. If we go along with your argument that height isn't so important for PGs than centers which makes sense, then we have to account for his low ranking in the mock drafts in some other way. Maybe he has significant holes in his game and given we have IT, Jimmer, MT, Douglas, and (maybe) Evans to play the same position already, why get another? There has to be a good reason as with what I know based totally on other people's opinions, Schroeder's game is not good. You are assuming he is a good player and I am assuming he is not a good player. I would not clear the team of some we already have based on what I know of Schroeder. If we pick him in the 1st round, we keep him. There are no options to that.
indeed. nicolas batum, while slightly overpaid, is a tremendous asset for portland, and it would take a lot to pry him away from them. you don't trade a growing talent for the potential of talent, unless a) it's a sure thing, a la lebron james, or b) you feel that your existing talent presents a serious locker room problem. and even then, it's not always advisable (as with our own demarcus cousins). as a sidebar, this is why i expect ranadive to re-sign tyreke evans and retain DMC. it's just too hard to find proven talent at their value. right now, demarcus is ridiculously inexpensive considering what he might someday become. and, unless some other team out there is prepared to drop a max deal on tyreke, he's going to be another high value talent worth locking up at cost. you don't just toss those kinds of players aside in the middle of their development because you see something shiny among the draft prospects, particularly when you have a mid-lottery pick in a shallow draft...
I have more problems understanding this. Can we start by assuming that a player picked 17th is less likely to be skilled than one picked 7th, no matter the strength of the draft? Can we agree that if we draft two first rounder instead of one, we must keep the two 1st rounders and pay them something. They are ours. They fill up an extra space that otherwise we might used to pick a FA, as unlikely as that might be, but I would really dislike it if we filled up our last spot with a low first rounder and was unable to sign Daly because there was no room for him. Unlike the NFL, we cannot simply cut first rounders if they don't fit.
By "higher risk" you mean "less skilled" I presume. I would need a specific example to identify a low pick with a high upside.
Scenario 2 isn't classically trading down. If you can interest a team in your #7 pick by throwing in MT, why not be trying to trade up? Use two players that would need to be on the team to pick up one. Perhaps any of the top 6 could be had this way and I'd be very happy with that. None of the top 6 is without flaws so there still is risk in that much less picking a player or players lower than the top 6 who seems more risky. People smarter than me say that people lower than draft pick #7 are not very good. Either Porter or Bennett (that's another discussion) could be a long term solution at SF, Oladipo could be a long term solution as one of the guards and we have made room for him by trading MT. Noel could be a long term solution as a shot blocker although his weight is very striking at 206.
I don't want to add two more kids to this team especially if they are high risk and unlikely to play.
My general rule of thumb is to always be on the side of taking back the 1 player in a 2 for 1 trade as you are most likely adding skill to the team as compared to what you had going into the trade.
I would like to see us package #7 with any of several chuckers to move up in the draft or trade for a veteran who has proven he can contribute instead of moving down in the low 1st round where there are plenty of adventures. I would like to add Daly by convincing him of the error of his ways and let him finish his career with us. Adding Daly eliminates the awkward position of drafting a 206 pound shot blocker and leaves the draft open to find a SF or PG.
By "higher risk" you mean "less skilled" I presume. I would need a specific example to identify a low pick with a high upside.
Scenario 2 isn't classically trading down. If you can interest a team in your #7 pick by throwing in MT, why not be trying to trade up? Use two players that would need to be on the team to pick up one. Perhaps any of the top 6 could be had this way and I'd be very happy with that. None of the top 6 is without flaws so there still is risk in that much less picking a player or players lower than the top 6 who seems more risky. People smarter than me say that people lower than draft pick #7 are not very good. Either Porter or Bennett (that's another discussion) could be a long term solution at SF, Oladipo could be a long term solution as one of the guards and we have made room for him by trading MT. Noel could be a long term solution as a shot blocker although his weight is very striking at 206.
I don't want to add two more kids to this team especially if they are high risk and unlikely to play.
My general rule of thumb is to always be on the side of taking back the 1 player in a 2 for 1 trade as you are most likely adding skill to the team as compared to what you had going into the trade.
I would like to see us package #7 with any of several chuckers to move up in the draft or trade for a veteran who has proven he can contribute instead of moving down in the low 1st round where there are plenty of adventures. I would like to add Daly by convincing him of the error of his ways and let him finish his career with us. Adding Daly eliminates the awkward position of drafting a 206 pound shot blocker and leaves the draft open to find a SF or PG.
Last edited:
NBA FO's let a lot of talent get underrated, and yet you think amateurs making mock drafts (a mock draft is predicting where a player will go, not how good that source personally considers them) are any better at predicting talent? Come on now, that's just lazy and filled with a lot of assumptions. When you add on top of that the fact that Schroeder has only been on the radar for this year's draft since the NHS, and that he's playing in the German league, he's not going to get projected very high. There's going to be a natural bias with most mock drafts towards exposure. DX probably has the best combination of smarts and connections out there in terms of predicting the draft, and yet their mock drafts are way off until practically the day of the draft. When they first put him on their mock for this year, he was early 2nd, now he's late lottery/mid first after they've talked to their NBA sources. This is not a very good draft at the top, but once you get past the top 5 or 6 prospects (and that might be pushing it a little) the degree of separation in talent is not much. The nature of this draft is that it sucks at the top, and gets better for the middle and late first round.
you misinterpreted Kingster quite significantly here. his argument is and always will be that size isn't much of an issue for a point guard, stems from his admiration for IT, whom he'd never in a million years would want to replace, and is fairly misguided (as anyone who has watched Jarett Jack hit midrange jumper after midrange jumper over the diminutive Ty Lawson these playoffs will readily tell you). I don't think he has made any kind of argument for or against Schröder, but going off his position on IT, it's safe to assume that he too would oppose the pick.
as far as Schröder himself and your confusion over why people think he may be a good option, despite what current (sic!) mocks say is concerned: mock drafts at this point have a devil of a time correctly evaluating where Schröder's stock will end up. he hasn't really played at a level of competition comparable to what the NBA would be. when he did, at the hoop summit, he did very, very well. his game and his athletic ability are well suited to play in the NBA and he has the confidence to boot. it bears repeating: the real test will come in the workouts. if he convinces there, you'll see his draft stock rise to the point where it won't seem weird if the Kings end up picking him.
as far as Schröder himself and your confusion over why people think he may be a good option, despite what current (sic!) mocks say is concerned: mock drafts at this point have a devil of a time correctly evaluating where Schröder's stock will end up. he hasn't really played at a level of competition comparable to what the NBA would be. when he did, at the hoop summit, he did very, very well. his game and his athletic ability are well suited to play in the NBA and he has the confidence to boot. it bears repeating: the real test will come in the workouts. if he convinces there, you'll see his draft stock rise to the point where it won't seem weird if the Kings end up picking him.
Um nope. Cuz and Evans are willing passers, but the only time they create for others is when they are doubled or find cutters to the basket. IT lead the team with 4 apg and Evans had 3.5 apg being second. I wouldn't call those stats creating for others. To put it in perspective, Monta Ellis averaged 6 apg while Brandon Jennings averaged 6.5. I think most people around here consider Ellis a shoot first guard.
I've been saying it for over 2 years, this team needs an Andre Miller type facilitator or a PG who can get the ball to players in the right position at the right time. The guards on this team are horrible at pick and roll plays and look for their shot way too much.
I've been saying it for over 2 years, this team needs an Andre Miller type facilitator or a PG who can get the ball to players in the right position at the right time. The guards on this team are horrible at pick and roll plays and look for their shot way too much.
Sorry if you consider me lazy but I have been tied up with making sure we had a team to argue about and was arranging a high school reunion. That's a low shot based on nothing. It smacks of desperation. If calling me lazy is meant to demean my opinions, so be it. I can't discuss basketball with a person who does that.
First and foremost, being double-teamed and getting your teammate open IS creating for other if you can get him the ball and this team showed no understanding of passing angles this past season: if your defender left you looking to double-team, move your feet so your teammate can get you the ball without wondering whether it gets stolen.
Second, do you remember the amount of selfish 1-on-1 plays this team had this season? Those are not producing assists or creating for others.
Third, Bucks have no creativity and little ball-handling in their front-court.
Second, do you remember the amount of selfish 1-on-1 plays this team had this season? Those are not producing assists or creating for others.
Third, Bucks have no creativity and little ball-handling in their front-court.
If this rumor is true at all, this deal cannot happen until July, 1st anyway, because no team has more that $5 million in cap space right now and Marion is owed $9.3 million. Dallas wouldn't want to deal anyway until they know the chance to get Howard is real. If this idea have any truth at all. Dallas will have a tentative agreement to pick a player for the other team. Howard is unlikely to end up in Dallas so it's pretty big contingency as Dallas may not like the player, but ends up stuck with him...I believe it's just Ford's wild imagination.
Scott Howard Cooper intimated that Cousins could be traded. "Hard to win a game before it even starts in the lockeroom (with Cousins)", is roughly what he said. It's tough enough to win when you have everybody together, but when you have dissension in the lockeroom...? is another paraphrase. Seems to think the new owners could cut their losses. After all, per Cooper, GS has great chemistry in the lockeroom. Doesn't seem that Vivek would want something different with the Kings. Bottom line: Nobody knows. Maybe Vivek doesn't know. Vivek has to get his brain trust together soon though. Their personnel decision making process is going to begin with the premise of there being Cousins, or there not being Cousins.