2013 Draft Prospects

Status
Not open for further replies.
People seem to think CJ McCollum is a bad fit for us. Not the case at all. The problem with Isaiah, Brooks, and Jimmer isn't that they are all scorers, which is fine, or that they're not good enough passers, which is also fine. The problem with them is that they'll all dominate a possession to get a stat. McCollum will score quickly and efficiently, unlike the aforementioned. He'd put up far better assist numbers in most cases, but really, name one other player at Lehigh. I think he'll do fine as a PG in the NBA.
 
I don't want any part of McCollum. We drafted him two years ago. Sure, he may be better than Jimmer, still don't want him. He's not like Lillard and the comparisons are only made because Lillard is fresh in people memories. Lillard was a better PG in college with the same problems, and is far more athletic. There'll be better players than McCollum available that fill bigger needs, it's just finding them that's the problem. I'd take Schroeder over McCollum and I wouldn't even have to think about it. That's all I'll say on that.
 
I think you could make the case that McCollum is the best shot creator in the draft, but I'm not convinced of his ability to play the PG position, and he hasn't exactly proven himself to be the shooter that Curry was. I think he's definitely better than Fredette, but we don't need a player like McCollum. At a certain point, you have to ignore arguments of BPA (not necessarily saying he'd be BPA) when your roster is filled with so many redundant players. If we're getting a guard, I'd really prefer that guard to be a facilitator, or at the very least, an off-ball defensive guard. We can't keep loading up on shot first players, we need some unselfish players that look to get teammates involved, whether that's a Schroeder, or whether that's a Karasev, or whether we just go with a big.
 
Last edited:

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I don't want any part of McCollum. We drafted him two years ago. Sure, he may be better than Jimmer, still don't want him. He's not like Lillard and the comparisons are only made because Lillard is fresh in people memories. Lillard was a better PG in college with the same problems, and is far more athletic. There'll be better players than McCollum available that fill bigger needs, it's just finding them that's the problem. I'd take Schroeder over McCollum and I wouldn't even have to think about it. That's all I'll say on that.
Neither one is on my list of players I lust after, but if I had to choose between them, I'd take Schroeder over McCullum. Schroeder is a PG, and I'm not sure that McCullum is. There is no comparision between Lilliard and McCullum. Anyone that watched Lilliard play knew he had PG skills, and was not only a very good athlete, but a very good passer, and what I would call, a very relaxed shooter. Every time I saw Lilliard play, he looked like he was in control, and he just had this very cool demeanor to him. I've always looked at McCullum as a scorer, and that his future was at SG, or at best, a combo guard. So I just went a long way to say that I agree with you.
 
Last edited:
So are we going to talk about Mike Muscala? I really want him on the Kings, I think he's perhaps the most underrated prospect in this draft. I think he's going to get into the 1st round, but it'd be awesome if he was available at our 2nd, if not, then we need to trade up for him.
 
Thing about a guy like McCollum is he fits in today's NBA. His PnR stats are really good, something NBA teams covet right now. He has good size/length to play D against PGs, and he is a triple threat on O. I like him a lot - it's just up to a teams GM to gauge whether he's NBA caliber and if he's better than a guy like Jimmer. The Jimmer effect will certainly hurt is chances of being drafted by the Kings.

He fits perfectly alongside Tyreke as a starter and they would compliment each others skills, imo.

I'm warming up to MCW as well, but not alongside Tyreke, more of a guy who if he pans out you may have to change the dynamics of your team.
 
So are we going to talk about Mike Muscala? I really want him on the Kings, I think he's perhaps the most underrated prospect in this draft. I think he's going to get into the 1st round, but it'd be awesome if he was available at our 2nd, if not, then we need to trade up for him.
Most people think he'll go no higher than around 45th overall. Not much talk of him outside Kfans. I, too am intrigued by him, but I'm scared of his lack of athleticism and strength.
 
Thing about a guy like McCollum is he fits in today's NBA. His PnR stats are really good, something NBA teams covet right now. He has good size/length to play D against PGs, and he is a triple threat on O. I like him a lot - it's just up to a teams GM to gauge whether he's NBA caliber and if he's better than a guy like Jimmer. The Jimmer effect will certainly hurt is chances of being drafted by the Kings.

He fits perfectly alongside Tyreke as a starter and they would compliment each others skills, imo.
McCollum has athleticism that Jimmer can only dream of.
 
Most people think he'll go no higher than around 45th overall. Not much talk of him outside Kfans. I, too am intrigued by him, but I'm scared of his lack of athleticism and strength.
He seems to have solid athleticism for a C to me. His strength is definitely an issue, and whether he was tested well enough with his competition. He's got better length than Cody Zeller, but still a 9' standing reach doesn't give him great length in the NBA, I suspect his shot blocking will go down significantly. Still, his triple threat skills, low post skills, and rebounding are very impressive for someone mentioned in the 2nd round.
 
Last edited:
So are we going to talk about Mike Muscala? I really want him on the Kings, I think he's perhaps the most underrated prospect in this draft. I think he's going to get into the 1st round, but it'd be awesome if he was available at our 2nd, if not, then we need to trade up for him.
Chad Ford ‏@chadfordinsider 3h
Muscala had one of the best workouts I've EVER seen for a big man. Literally missed just 2 shots entire workout. Crazy skills for big.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
So are we going to talk about Mike Muscala? I really want him on the Kings, I think he's perhaps the most underrated prospect in this draft. I think he's going to get into the 1st round, but it'd be awesome if he was available at our 2nd, if not, then we need to trade up for him.
As you know, Mike Muscala is one of my favorite players, and what is likely to happen is that when its time for the Spurs, or another team at the bottom of the first round to pick, they'll take Muscala, and they'll end up getting a steal, even though some may think its a reach. He's a very skilled big man that only lacks a little more muscle. He rebounds, and he defends. His offensive game reminds me of Kevin McHale's quite a bit. He can score inside or outside. Not sure why he ranked as low as he is other than maybe his age. I'd love to have him on the Kings. I just don't think he'll last to our pick in the second round.

Someone that may last is another favorite of mine and thats Nate Wolters. But if we end up picking a PG in the first round, I don't see the Kings picking another in the second round.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Most people think he'll go no higher than around 45th overall. Not much talk of him outside Kfans. I, too am intrigued by him, but I'm scared of his lack of athleticism and strength.
Nothing wrong with Muscala's athleticism. He's very good at keeping his man in front of him, but better yet, he's great at rotating and defending the pick and roll. He also sets very good picks. Strength is his only problem, and he has a very large frame, so he could easily carry another 20 or 25 pounds of muscle. He can score with either hand in the post, and has a deadly midrange jumpshot. The fact that he played against lesser competition at Bucknell is probably the only thing holding down his being higher in the draft. I'll be stunned if he lasts to number 45. I won't be stunned if someone at the bottom of the first round picks him.
 
Muscala reminds me a lot of Michael Bradley, same sort of pedigree, college career. Muscala is a little more fluid, but he may have a hard time in the NBA like Bradley did. As a 2nd round pick, it's worth a risk.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
Haven't seen any information, but if new FO and possibly HC are indeed lined up, it's possible that workouts will start shortly after July, 1st.
I assume you mean June.

We haven't had any word on workouts yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they start before the Ranadivé group assumes ownership - Petrie has already been conducting the draft as if he were going to stay in his position, and while that would seem unlikely at this point, he is under contract until a few days after the draft and I would guess he will remain involved up through the draft, even if he is not the final say anymore.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Muscala reminds me a lot of Michael Bradley, same sort of pedigree, college career. Muscala is a little more fluid, but he may have a hard time in the NBA like Bradley did. As a 2nd round pick, it's worth a risk.
It always amazes me how someone will pick out a negative instead of a positive. You could have picked out any one of 500 players that over the years would fit Muscala's prototype, but you pick out a failure. Well done there! There is nothing in Michael Bradleys game that resembles Muscala's game, including toughness.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I assume you mean June.

We haven't had any word on workouts yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they start before the Ranadivé group assumes ownership - Petrie has already been conducting the draft as if he were going to stay in his position, and while that would seem unlikely at this point, he is under contract until a few days after the draft and I would guess he will remain involved up through the draft, even if he is not the final say anymore.
I'm very curious to see who they bring in. I know that sometimes its meant as deception, but in general, they do draft someone that they've brought in for an individual workout..
 
It always amazes me how someone will pick out a negative instead of a positive. You could have picked out any one of 500 players that over the years would fit Muscala's prototype, but you pick out a failure. Well done there! There is nothing in Michael Bradleys game that resembles Muscala's game, including toughness.
http://www.ibiblio.org/craig/draft/2001_draft/Players/bradley.shtml

Strengths:Has a wide array of post moves and excellent footwork that make him a very hard player to play against when he is in the lane .... Can shot the hook shot with either hand when 8 feet and in from the basket ... Can score facing the basket or with his back to it ... Good rebounder who gets very good position under the glass .... Has a great feel for the game rarely takes bad shots knows his limits offensively ... Unlike many young players Bradley has been very consistent night in and night out... Runs the floor well often beat opposing players down the court .... Wonderful work ethic and on top of that is a very coach-able player .... Has started to develop a more consistent outside game including 3-point range to compliment his inside game ... Great attitude and a willing passer who will give up the ball to open teammates ...

Weakness: Not what one would call a phenomenal athlete this could pose some problems in the NBA ... Not really comfortable creating scoring opportunities for himself needs to be feed the ball ... Lacks some upper body strength .... Not very quick on his feet this really hurts him defensively as his lack of lateral quickness presents defensive problems for him ... Has a lot chances to draw fouls and get to the free throw line thanks to his inside ability but it really doesn't help due in part to his poor free throw shooting ...
It's not that horrible of a comparison based on this scouting report, but I never watched Bradley play.

He's a lot like Hawes offensively and athletically, and as much people dislike him here, Hawes is a starting quality center.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
http://www.ibiblio.org/craig/draft/2001_draft/Players/bradley.shtml



It's not that horrible of a comparison based on this scouting report, but I never watched Bradley play.

He's a lot like Hawes offensively and athletically, and as much people dislike him here, Hawes is a starting quality center.
If all were talking about is skill level etc. then I can see some of the comparisons, but I could also compare him to very successful players that had similar skill level. One thing Muscala has that Hawes lacked, is toughness. Despite his lack of muscle, Muscala got in banged in the paint with anyone. Heart and desire don't show up in a stat chart, but they do show up on the court. The reason I like Muscala so much, is the same reason I like Wolters, and Oladipo, and Gilchrist, and Porter. Its because they bust their butt out there all the time and they play with toughness and desire to win. I can't say the same thing about Bradley or Hawes.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Agreed, but getting a player as good as Hawes in the late 1st/2nd round is hard to complain about, don't you think?
I agree completely. In the second round Hawes would have been a steal. Unfortunately, we didn't draft him late first or in the second round. To be honest, I thought he was the best choice at the time since Noah was gone.

If Muscala slides to us in the second round and we don't take him I'll be very disappointed. I guess I should qualify that by saying it would depend on who we did take.
 
I've been trying to get myself excited about McCollum over the past two days, kind of like what Baja was saying about Bennett a few pages back.

Suddenly, McCollum is looking a little better. Let me be clear - I've only seen McCollum play one full game - the 2012 NCAA Tournament game against Duke. Like I said before, I've been reading and watching about McCollum for the past two days, and Im starting to see 'it'. I'm starting to see why people are excited about him. I'm starting to see how he could fit with Tyreke. For starters, the numbers speak for themselves. He can shoot the 3 just as good if not better than anyone in this draft. He also plays for freaking Lehigh. Tell me every defense was focused 100% on shutting him down? How did this effect him? Well, he shot 50% from the floor so .. he clearly overcame that. So what makes him more like Curry and Lillard and less like Jimmer and Douby?

I like CJ McCollum the person. One thing I like to do is go on youtube and look up interviews of that player. I feel like it tells you more about the person/player than a highlight real. I like how McCollum talks. I like his demeanor. I like his style. He doesn't sound like a chucker. He doesn't sound like a guy that would take shots away from the better player. He doesn't sound like a ball hog.

I previously worried about how McCollum and his 16 shots would work with Tyreke. Hell, I still do worry about it, just a little bit less. I mean, offensively most of us love the Idea of Jimmer Fredette as the offense pairing with Evans. Spread the floor like very few players can. What if I told you McCollum can do that AND actually play some defense, and contribute on the glass? McCollum isn't a point guard. Neither is Thomas, Fredette, or Evans. This would work as a disadvantage to any other team, but he seems to have passable PG skills and a good enough handle to share PG duties with Evans, much like Thomas did this year, just better. Better offense, better shooting, better defense, and better basketball IQ. That's another thing. By listening to McCollum speak you can tell he is a very smart player. Sometimes you just know.

I'm not all in with him, but he's starting to gain some momentum in my head. For those of you who saw him more than I did, please correct anything I've said that appears to be wrong. The player I just spent 15 minutes typing about is the one I made up in my head after reading and watching. I'm going to try and get a hold of a few Lehigh games.

One other thing - I'm calling it now, McCollum is going to be a great workout guy. We heard the rumors after the Lillard Workout .. how great he shot the ball, how much the Kings loved him, how Petrie would have taken him if Robinson didn't drop .. I bet we'll hear the same things after people get a close look at McCollum. A guy who can shoot like that, and is that good at selling himself? High IQ? He was made for these.
 
...One other thing - I'm calling it now, McCollum is going to be a great workout guy. We heard the rumors after the Lillard Workout .. how great he shot the ball, how much the Kings loved him, how Petrie would have taken him if Robinson didn't drop .. I bet we'll hear the same things after people get a close look at McCollum. A guy who can shoot like that, and is that good at selling himself? High IQ? He was made for these.
Well, one thing we know, and Quincy Douby is a witness, Geoff likes anybody who can shoot and forgets to miss.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
MassachusettsKingsFan said:
Suddenly, McCollum is looking a little better. Let me be clear - I've only seen McCollum play one full game - the 2012 NCAA Tournament game against Duke. Like I said before, I've been reading and watching about McCollum for the past two days, and Im starting to see 'it'. I'm starting to see why people are excited about him. I'm starting to see how he could fit with Tyreke. For starters, the numbers speak for themselves. He can shoot the 3 just as good if not better than anyone in this draft. He also plays for freaking Lehigh. Tell me every defense was focused 100% on shutting him down? How did this effect him? Well, he shot 50% from the floor so .. he clearly overcame that. So what makes him more like Curry and Lillard and less like Jimmer and Douby?
I think he's a better athlete than either Jimmer or Curry. Douby was a pretty good athlete, but never had any PG skills. Of the four you mentioned, Lillard is the only one coming out of college that I thought was hands down, a legit PG. Of course Curry has made a believer out of me. Anyway, I'm rambling here. I loved watching McCullum play at LeHigh, just as I loved watching Lillard play. Both players could take over a game when needed, and McCullum was needed all the time. Its a shame his season was cut short by injury. I have no doubts that if he hadn't been injuried LeHigh would have made the tourney. They almost made it without him, but Bucknell and Muscala did them in.

I honestly don't know if he can become a legit PG or not. He wasn't asked to be a PG, although he handled the ball a lot, and he's a very good ballhandler. If he could convert to the PG position, you'd have someone special. He would go from being a slightly undersized SG to an above average sized PG with a nice wingspan. He's not a bad defender, but I think he could be better than he is. There are certain players in this draft that in my mind are can't miss players in the NBA. And I don't necessarily mean stars, but players that will have a solid if not notable career in the NBA. There are others that could go either way. Strangely enough, some of the one's that scare me are players in the lottery, like McLemore. I see him as a boom or bust player. Zeller is another one I wouldn't put much money on. On the other hand, I don't have many doubts about Porter, Oladipo, Burke, McCullum, or even Len. Once again, I'm not saying they'll be stars. They could be, but I believe all those guys will be solid contributers to a team, either as a starter or as a first player off the bench.
 
Last edited:
It always amazes me how someone will pick out a negative instead of a positive. You could have picked out any one of 500 players that over the years would fit Muscala's prototype, but you pick out a failure. Well done there! There is nothing in Michael Bradleys game that resembles Muscala's game, including toughness.
Didn't actually mean it as a negative, lol. I mean Bradley did PLAY in the NBA coming from a lesser NCAA school. Petrie was really high on him! Just saying the odds of a big man coming out of those divisions has never been great for determining success, and I thought Bradley was a no-brainer 10 year NBA'er. I was wrong. Hopefully I'm wrong about Muscala too, for the opposite reasons.

I like his motor and hustle for a big, he really does a nice job at closing out on shooters in the 10-15 foot range. He blocks out, which is a rare skill these days. My biggest concern is his little jump hooks, which worked great in college, but I have my doubts they will work as well in the NBA because of his release point. He didn't really shoot a great % either for a dominate big.

His best chance to make it is as a system player and finding the right fit. If he can develop a NBA 3 point shot that will help a ton too. As we've heard in workouts, he can really shoot it, but it will have to translate to live game situations (see Douby, Q).
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Didn't actually mean it as a negative, lol. I mean Bradley did PLAY in the NBA coming from a lesser NCAA school. Petrie was really high on him! Just saying the odds of a big man coming out of those divisions has never been great for determining success, and I thought Bradley was a no-brainer 10 year NBA'er. I was wrong. Hopefully I'm wrong about Muscala too, for the opposite reasons.

I like his motor and hustle for a big, he really does a nice job at closing out on shooters in the 10-15 foot range. He blocks out, which is a rare skill these days. My biggest concern is his little jump hooks, which worked great in college, but I have my doubts they will work as well in the NBA because of his release point. He didn't really shoot a great % either for a dominate big.

His best chance to make it is as a system player and finding the right fit. If he can develop a NBA 3 point shot that will help a ton too. As we've heard in workouts, he can really shoot it, but it will have to translate to live game situations (see Douby, Q).
I actually mean't my post to be a little humorous, but I forgot to put the little smiley face. Your concern about his little hookshots, which he shoots with either hand is legit. But just about every player coming into the NBA has to make adjustments to his game. Muscala has been a good shooter throughout his college career, and he showed range all the way out to just inside the three point line, so I feel confident he'll be able to extend his range a bit futher. But even if not, you have to guard him. As you pointed out, he's an excellent rebounder and some of that is that he's fundamentally sound. He battles for position and blocks out. He needs to get stronger, but he's legit size, and we need more size on this team.

You got me thinking about players that came from mid-level conferences and were successful. So I did a little digging and came up with a few that were notable. By notable, I don't necessarily mean stars, but players that had solid NBA careers. I only included forwards and centers. The list would have been much longer had I included guards with players like Steve Nash, John Stockton and Walt Frazier heading the list.

Theo Ratliff: University of Wyoming
Willis Reed: Grambling
Truck Robinson: Tennessee St.
Jeff Ruland: Iona
Bill Russell: USF
Dennis Rodman: Southeastern Oklahoma St.
Robery Parish: Centenary College
Scottie Pippin: University of Central Arkansas
John Saley: Georgia Institute of Technology
Purvis Short: Jackson St.
Paul Sillas: Creighton
Jack Sikma: Illinois Wesleyan University
Rik Smits: Marist College
Maurice Stokes: Saint Francis University
Nate Thurmond: Bowling Green
Ben Wallace: Virginia Union
Kermit Washington: American University
Mark West: Old Dominion
Charles Oakley: Virginia Union
Hakeem Olajuwon: University of Houston
Jawann Oldham: Seattle University
Michael Olowokandi: UOP
Bo Outlaw: University of Houston
Greg Foster: University of Texas at El Paso
Jeff Foster: Southwestern Texas St.
Adonal Foyle: Colgate
Chris Gatling: Old Dominion
Artis Gilmore: Jacksonville University
Mike Farmer: USF
Kenneth Faried: Moorehead St.
Stephen Jackson: Butler County community college
Popeye Jones: Murray St.

Believe me, there are more, but I got tired of looking for them. I don't know what the percentage of failure rate is compared to the major conferences, but it wouldn't surpirse me if it was a better success rate than the majors Nothing to back it up though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.