2014 Draft Prospects:

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
And Jimmer posted a 33"... neither are explosive athletes, verts don't tell us much unfortunately.
33" by a 6 footer and 36.5" by a 6'8" are considerably different things. Don't want to come off as "Blindly defends Player X" guy (especially since McDermott isn't even in my top three of players I'd take at that spot) but I feel like some of us are so embittered by the Jimmer Fredette Experience that we're translating those latent feelings to another guy.
 
How is he much more multi-faceted? Jimmer was a stud offensive prospect coming out of college... same as McD. Jimmer's problems were athleticism, size, and his inability to defend a position in the nba. Does McD not have all of those same concerns?
Simply in that he doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, he can basically get his shot off in any way you want him too. Spotting up, off the bounce, step backs, fade aways, off screens, trail man, can get his shot off in the post some, super savvy high IQ player, noted hard worker on D, and he's a completely different specimen physically, could be used in in the pick and roll some with his skillset.

He just allows you to do so much more than Jimmer, who was really only effective with the ball.

I'm not a huge Doug fan or anything but I don't really get the Jimmer comparison, well I do, he's a white shooter.

I had to laugh at the cowbell kingdom podcast the other day they said something like (paraphrasing) "we don't want to just compare him to other white players thats lazy" "no you're right.. he's a bit like Adam Morrison though" :p
 
And Jimmer posted a 33"... neither are explosive athletes, verts don't tell us much unfortunately.
I find it amusing how people will use a good vertical when its to their advantage, but poo poo it when its not. While I agree that having a good vertical doesn't tell me how good a player someone is, its still a reflection on that players athletic ability. If someone wants to question his ability to play passable defense in the NBA, that's a legit concern, but I don't think he'll have any trouble scoring. He's not a one dimensional scorer. He has an entire bag of tricks, and unlike Jimmer, he doesn't have to bring the ball and distribute.
 
Two 38 inch verticals are not the same, which is why the combine doesn't tell close to the full story for athletic markers. Vonleh posted a better max vert than Blake, but he's not near the athlete. That's just one example off the top of my head. Explosiveness can't really be measured. 36 inches is good for a SF, no doubt, but he can't use that vertical during a game. He's just not explosive. His defense will be pourous in the NBA and when you consider that he doesn't really have a position, I just want no part of him. Let someone else take the risk. No more sieves please.
 
Obviously it's not all about athleticism. McDermott falls short at multiple aspects of the game though. BTW, Larry wasn't a bad athlete and played in a very different era.
Larry wasn't any better an athlete than McDermott. I remember Scotty Sterling, then a scout for the Warriors saying that there was no way the Warriors would draft Bird. He can't jump, he can't run and he won't be able to defend. All he can do is shoot. Its easy to look back now and say, well, I would have drafted Bird, and if you were smart you would have. But there were many GM's that had concerns about Birds lack of athleticism.

I certainly don't want to be put in the position of defending McDermott, but lets be fair about it. None of us know how good or bad he's going to be. We all have an image of what we want, and obviously McDermott doesn't fit that image to many. And that's fine! He's certainly not my first choice either. But I can't tell you he'll be a bad player unable to play defense. I have questions about it, but then I heard his father when questioned about that very thing, say that he told his son to play a little soft on defense so as not to pick up fouls. Now I heard that same thing about Jimmer, and it turned out that he struggled. Defense isn't as much about athleticism as it is commitment, and having good anticipation. There have been average athlete's that have been very good defenders, and great athlete's that have been poor defenders.
 
Well we have Jason Terry on the roster but it remains to be seen what he can bring to the table at this stage of his career if he even returns at all. There are so many variables this off-season it's difficult to commit oneself to any individual prospect.
I'll be shocked if Terry ever puts on a Kings uniform. I guess it could happen, but my bet is that he's either traded, or they buy him out. Who knows, he might retire. I just don't think Terry wants to go out on a rebuilding team.
 
Larry wasn't any better an athlete than McDermott. I remember Scotty Sterling, then a scout for the Warriors saying that there was no way the Warriors would draft Bird. He can't jump, he can't run and he won't be able to defend. All he can do is shoot. Its easy to look back now and say, well, I would have drafted Bird, and if you were smart you would have. But there were many GM's that had concerns about Birds lack of athleticism.

I certainly don't want to be put in the position of defending McDermott, but lets be fair about it. None of us know how good or bad he's going to be. We all have an image of what we want, and obviously McDermott doesn't fit that image to many. And that's fine! He's certainly not my first choice either. But I can't tell you he'll be a bad player unable to play defense. I have questions about it, but then I heard his father when questioned about that very thing, say that he told his son to play a little soft on defense so as not to pick up fouls. Now I heard that same thing about Jimmer, and it turned out that he struggled. Defense isn't as much about athleticism as it is commitment, and having good anticipation. There have been average athlete's that have been very good defenders, and great athlete's that have been poor defenders.
I'll defer to you on Larry's athleticism as I wasn't around to see him play. From the footage I've seen though he looks to be a better athlete, even if marginally, than McDermott. Anyway, that's really not that important as we can say with near certainty that Doug is not going to reach even close to those levels. You may not want to say it, but I have no problem putting a cap on McDermott's potential :p

Of course none of us know the future, but we all have opinions on how a player will do. I personally don't like him as a prospect. To be a big time player in the NBA you have to do more than score, and though he's an alright rebounder, he doesn't really do much else. Especially not on defense. I'm not going to go there with the comment about him not wanting to pick up fouls. It's an excuse that terrible defenders use, IMO. Who doesn't want to take pride in their defense, or at least put in legitimate effort? His lack of foot speed and lateral quickness, and poor anticipation on that side of the ball, will make him a very weak defender. I'm very confident in saying that. I don't know it, but it's a reasonable prediction given the evidence of what we do know about him.

I don't want to get into an argument about McDermott. I'll just leave it at this: I may just break my laptop if we take him. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. High scoring senior tweeners who can't defend do not make it in the NBA. I'm yet to see an exception.

EDIT: Just to clarify, by "make it", I mean as a strong starter level player. He may well carve out a niche as a specialist shooter, but that's not what I'm looking for out of this draft.
 
I find it amusing how people will use a good vertical when its to their advantage, but poo poo it when its not. While I agree that having a good vertical doesn't tell me how good a player someone is, its still a reflection on that players athletic ability. If someone wants to question his ability to play passable defense in the NBA, that's a legit concern, but I don't think he'll have any trouble scoring. He's not a one dimensional scorer. He has an entire bag of tricks, and unlike Jimmer, he doesn't have to bring the ball and distribute.
There's no question he'll be a plus offensive player... the problem is what position will he defend? With Jimmer (whom I'm a big fan of mind you and wanted us to draft all along) the problem was he can't guard the 2 and can't handle the rock well enough to play point. Can't get him on the floor without him being a liability on at least one end of the court. What about Doug will be different? Can he guard a position? If he's a legit small forward then great... just not sure he is. Stauskas at least is a legit 2, should be able to guard the position. That's why I like him over Doug.
 
33" by a 6 footer and 36.5" by a 6'8" are considerably different things. Don't want to come off as "Blindly defends Player X" guy (especially since McDermott isn't even in my top three of players I'd take at that spot) but I feel like some of us are so embittered by the Jimmer Fredette Experience that we're translating those latent feelings to another guy.
For the record Doug is 6'6.25" w/out shoes and Jimmer is 6'.75" w/out shoes. So a 5.5" discrepancy rather than 8". The only reason I mention it is Doug's height is part of the reason I'm not big on him at #8... not when Stauskas is a similar shooter with legit size for his position.
 
I appreciate that these types of comparisons are usually stupid and based on what you're suggesting. In this case, however, it's a solid comparison. Obviously they both play different positions, but they face very similar problems. Both are unathletic, don't have a position, struggle hugely defensively. Their transferable skill is shooting, but it remains to be seen whether they'll be able to create for themselves at the next level (Jimmer can't, I doubt McDermott can). Both four year seniors.

Every year people get sucked into liking prospects like these because they're great college scorers. Making it in the NBA is about much more than that. I'll scream if we take McDermott.
LOL! Well I hope you don't have to scream. Of the four players I mentioned, McDermott is at the bottom of my list, but, if he's chosen, I'll live with it and support him just like I would Smart, who I don't like for the Kings. But that aside, there seems to almost be an obsession with defense on this forum. To the point, where it doesn't seem to matter what other skills a player might have, if you don't think, with emphasis on the word think, he can play defense, then you (not meaning you) don't want him. Using that analogy no one one would have drafted a lot of HOF players, who ended up being good defenders, but that part of their game was questioned coming out of college.

If you took a hundred percent of all college players in the draft and picked out the one's with the reputation of being good defenders in college, it would probably be a fairly small percentage. The rest your simply making educated guesses about. And naturally, athleticism comes into play when your making that guess. And in my opinion, too much emphasis is put on that. Aaron Craft, the PG from Ohio St. is at best an average athlete, maybe slightly above average, maybe. But he was one of the best defenders at his position in college for the last three years. Craft wasn't blessed with the tools others had, so he used what he had to be the best at something. More than anything, he had great anticipation. He seemed to know where his opponent was going before they did.

Most players that start playing at a young age have one thing on their mind, scoring!!! And if they become good at it, defense begins to take a backseat. Thus, most college players, unless they go to a school like Florida where they emphasis defense, come out average on the defensive side of the ball, at best, and in some cases like Jimmer, downright terrible, because he was never asked to play defense. Point is, that doesn't mean they can't learn. And the majority have to learn. If a player commits to learning and puts in the time, he can become at worse passable, and at best, damm good. there are limitations of course. Having great BBIQ helps. Having that thing you can't buy, anticipation, may be the most important element. If you don't have that, you'll probable never be a good defender. The great defenders also study their opponents, which helps with the anticipation. Great reflexes don't hurt either.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I can't pass judgement on how good or bad a defender a player is going to be, until I see the results of his efforts to become a good defender. Bird was a very good defender and rebounder, and was probably a much better defender than anyone thought he would be. I certainly don't blame anyone for questioning whether a player will be able to defend or not, and I think its fair to weigh that against others your considering. What you hope doesn't happen, is that you pass on a player that ends up being an all star. Naw!
 
I'll be shocked if Terry ever puts on a Kings uniform. I guess it could happen, but my bet is that he's either traded, or they buy him out. Who knows, he might retire. I just don't think Terry wants to go out on a rebuilding team.
He's owed 5.8M next season retirement or a buyout seems unlikely.
 
Two 38 inch verticals are not the same, which is why the combine doesn't tell close to the full story for athletic markers. Vonleh posted a better max vert than Blake, but he's not near the athlete. That's just one example off the top of my head. Explosiveness can't really be measured. 36 inches is good for a SF, no doubt, but he can't use that vertical during a game. He's just not explosive. His defense will be pourous in the NBA and when you consider that he doesn't really have a position, I just want no part of him. Let someone else take the risk. No more sieves please.
The no step vertical is the one that measures explosiveness not the vertical with steps that a lot of people refer too. Also nba should use the broad jump to measure ecplosivness and athletisicm. Broad jump has shown which athletes are quicker and more explosive.
 
LOL! Well I hope you don't have to scream. Of the four players I mentioned, McDermott is at the bottom of my list, but, if he's chosen, I'll live with it and support him just like I would Smart, who I don't like for the Kings. But that aside, there seems to almost be an obsession with defense on this forum.
Personally I'm not obsessed with defense at all... I want Stauskas at #8 (assuming Gordon is long gone). I just feel less confident with McD's ability to guard a position than I do with Stauskas's ability to guard the 2. Plus offensively I think Stauskas compares favorably to a Klay Thompson who I'm a big fan of.
 
I'll defer to you on Larry's athleticism as I wasn't around to see him play. From the footage I've seen though he looks to be a better athlete, even if marginally, than McDermott. Anyway, that's really not that important as we can say with near certainty that Doug is not going to reach even close to those levels. You may not want to say it, but I have no problem putting a cap on McDermott's potential :p

Of course none of us know the future, but we all have opinions on how a player will do. I personally don't like him as a prospect. To be a big time player in the NBA you have to do more than score, and though he's an alright rebounder, he doesn't really do much else. Especially not on defense. I'm not going to go there with the comment about him not wanting to pick up fouls. It's an excuse that terrible defenders use, IMO. Who doesn't want to take pride in their defense, or at least put in legitimate effort? His lack of foot speed and lateral quickness, and poor anticipation on that side of the ball, will make him a very weak defender. I'm very confident in saying that. I don't know it, but it's a reasonable prediction given the evidence of what we do know about him.

I don't want to get into an argument about McDermott. I'll just leave it at this: I may just break my laptop if we take him. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. High scoring senior tweeners who can't defend do not make it in the NBA. I'm yet to see an exception.

EDIT: Just to clarify, by "make it", I mean as a strong starter level player. He may well carve out a niche as a specialist shooter, but that's not what I'm looking for out of this draft.
Look, in many ways I'm not disagreeing with you. I have the same questions about his ability to defend that you do. The difference between you and me, is that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise..That however doesn't mean I would draft him if I have other good choices. And, by the way, in fairness to Doug McDermott, he never said he was asked not play defense. The interview I listened to was with his father, who happens to be the head coach. He also said that he was harder on his son than any of the other players on the team. I'm not so quick to call his father, who is very respected, a liar. He didn't say he told his son not to play defense, but to try and avoid fouls, because he was too valuable to be sitting on the bench. I saw McDermott play a lot. And I never once saw him not play defense. Actually, he appeared to me to be putting out the effort, which in retrospect, looks worse if he was actually trying. Hey, at some point in time we'll find out.

Anyway, I doubt Gordon will be there when we pick, so it will probably come down to Payton or Stauskas. I could go either way depending on what I think is the biggest need. I think Payton has a lot of potential as a PG. And, he is a pass first PG, and he is a terrific defender, and he has great size for the position. Stauskas on the other hand is a terrific shooter either as spot up shooter, or off the dribble. He's also not afraid to attack the basket. He's a very good passer and a very good ballhandler. Defensively, I think he can become a good defender, but who really knows for sure. The problem of course is that we already have McLemore. But as I posted before, Even if you were to make Stauskas Ben's backup, Stauskas can also play a little PG, and a little SF because of his size. So he could easily get minutes. My hope is the Gordon drops to us and we have a good choice to make.
 
The no step vertical is the one that measures explosiveness not the vertical with steps that a lot of people refer too. Also nba should use the broad jump to measure ecplosivness and athletisicm. Broad jump has shown which athletes are quicker and more explosive.
I think a lot of so called explosiveness has to do with reflex action. There are players that are noted as good second jumpers. Explosiveness doesn't have to do with how high you can jump, but how quick you can jump. It's like a running back. Some they refer to as fast, and others they refer to as quick. Its sort of like the racehorse against the quarter horse. The quick running back is up to full speed with one or two steps, while the faster back takes 4 to 5 steps to hit full speed. Therefore the quick running back is referred to as explosive, or that he exploded through the hole. In reality, one just has quicker reflex action than the other. Just my opinion. I was pretty quick by the way. Seems like a thousand years ago.
 

Capt. Factorial

Hope heaves the worries!
Staff member
Anyway, I doubt Gordon will be there when we pick, so it will probably come down to Payton or Stauskas.
Don't forget that if Gordon isn't there at #8, then either Randle or Smart or Vonleh (or perhaps Exum) will be. So if we're thinking Payton/Stauskas at #8, we're probably trading down to do it. There would appear to be enough interest in the top-8 of this draft that it would be silly not to leverage it.
 
Don't forget that if Gordon isn't there at #8, then either Randle or Smart or Vonleh (or perhaps Exum) will be. So if we're thinking Payton/Stauskas at #8, we're probably trading down to do it. There would appear to be enough interest in the top-8 of this draft that it would be silly not to leverage it.
I agree with Capt. Fart. Don't draft Stauskas or Payton at #8. Trade down and get some assets in return for #8.
That's why I like the rumors on PDA's interest with Atlanta. Not particularly Schroeder but the whole Atlanta interest.
 
Don't forget that if Gordon isn't there at #8, then either Randle or Smart or Vonleh (or perhaps Exum) will be. So if we're thinking Payton/Stauskas at #8, we're probably trading down to do it. There would appear to be enough interest in the top-8 of this draft that it would be silly not to leverage it.
Hmmm, 1. Embiid, 2. Wiggins, 3. Parker, 4. Exum, 5. Vonleh, 6. Gordon, 7. Smart, 8. Randle, Stauskas, Payton, McDermott.
I already mentioned earlier that I thought it was possible that Randle might slide to us, and frankly, that's who I would take. I'd take any of those that slide except Smart. Other than the so called foot issue, I'm not sure why Randle would slide. He may never be a prolific shotblocker, but I think he can be a good defender. He's an excellent athlete, and although he didn't show it much in college, he has a nice jumpshot all the way out to three point range.
 
I agree with Capt. Fart. Don't draft Stauskas or Payton at #8. Trade down and get some assets in return for #8.
That's why I like the rumors on PDA's interest with Atlanta. Not particularly Schroeder but the whole Atlanta interest.
It's easy to say trade down, but going down to the precise spot, where the players you've targeted are still available is not that easy. You drop a couple of spots, and the teams right below you might have no encentive to move up just a spot or two, and if you drop down 3 or 4 spots, the player you want might be taken before you choose. I've never understood this mentality anyway. If the player you really like is there when you pick, you take him and go home happy, regardless of where some dumb mock draft had him slotted. If you really really like a player, why would you think no one else would like him as well?
 
It's easy to say trade down, but going down to the precise spot, where the players you've targeted are still available is not that easy. You drop a couple of spots, and the teams right below you might have no encentive to move up just a spot or two, and if you drop down 3 or 4 spots, the player you want might be taken before you choose. I've never understood this mentality anyway. If the player you really like is there when you pick, you take him and go home happy, regardless of where some dumb mock draft had him slotted. If you really really like a player, why would you think no one else would like him as well?
We don't have crystal balls to really know the future. But in my opinion, our team is not 1 good rookie away from being a serious playoff team. We have holes all around DMC and Rudy. So why not check-out who's interested in our pick?

Let's say Atlanta finally realize that Millsap will be a better cornerstone at PF than the pricey and recently injured Horford. Then we could finally have a real thread front court next to DMC. Once we got that type of player, we can pick any rookie left on this draft that could fill the wing spot. Be it Payton or that PG from UConn.

Well anyway, I don't see the FO just trading down without knowing which player falls to the other team first. Or if they will be able to net that vet they hope to bring the Kings back to the playoffs.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
We don't have crystal balls to really know the future. But in my opinion, our team is not 1 good rookie away from being a serious playoff team. We have holes all around DMC and Rudy. So why not check-out who's interested in our pick?

Let's say Atlanta finally realize that Millsap will be a better cornerstone at PF than the pricey and recently injured Horford. Then we could finally have a real thread front court next to DMC. Once we got that type of player, we can pick any rookie left on this draft that could fill the wing spot. Be it Payton or that PG from UConn.

Well anyway, I don't see the FO just trading down without knowing which player falls to the other team first. Or if they will be able to net that vet they hope to bring the Kings back to the playoffs.
I'm assuming this realization would come immediately after the guys in their front office drop a massive amount of acid and lose their freaking minds.
 
Would I do Ben + 8 for Young and 10? Yep. Though maybe not if we expect Gay to be back. But if we knew Gay was leaving, it'd be a good way to replace Gay and possibly upgrade the SG position as well.

It's just a shame that we won't know for sure what will happen with Gay and IT before the draft.
I don't know if Philly would do that but I wonder if they like someone enough at 8, if they'd trade 10, a second rounder and Jason Richardson for 8, Landry. We'd still have mostly the same options at 10 and would trim 2 years off of Landry.

Jrich is just about done as a player but he could help mentor Ben as they had similar games and he could be another vet to hold down the team for a year. Would also add more expiring contracts to use as assets.
 
We don't have crystal balls to really know the future. But in my opinion, our team is not 1 good rookie away from being a serious playoff team. We have holes all around DMC and Rudy. So why not check-out who's interested in our pick?

Let's say Atlanta finally realize that Millsap will be a better cornerstone at PF than the pricey and recently injured Horford. Then we could finally have a real thread front court next to DMC. Once we got that type of player, we can pick any rookie left on this draft that could fill the wing spot. Be it Payton or that PG from UConn.

Well anyway, I don't see the FO just trading down without knowing which player falls to the other team first. Or if they will be able to net that vet they hope to bring the Kings back to the playoffs.
What you proposed is an entirely different scenario than what I was addressing. I don't have an issue with trading down, or trading entirely out of the draft if its the right deal. I was merely saying that to trade down three or four spots, and assume that the player you like is still going to be there is a foolish assumption. Now if your targeting Napier, then your likely to get him. But I think Payton will be gone by the 10th pick in the draft. Ditto Stauskas. Now that's just my opinion, but if those two players are your targets, I think it would be a gamble, without some other incentive, to move down more than a couple of spots.

As for a rookie making an immediate difference, I agree with you. It's unlikely that anyone we pick at the 8th spot or below is going to catapult us into the playoffs. But while your thinking in the immediate, I'm thinking long term, and its very possible that that pick might play a large part in the future of the team. I seriously doubt we'll make the playoffs next year. If we were in the east, maybe, but in the west, its going to be very difficult. I've said before, I think the teams goal is to make the playoffs in 2016 to coincide with the opening of the new arena. Plus, if your truly building a team, then target the players that you think fit, and don't settle for what you can get by moving down to acquire a short term fix.
 
I don't know if Philly would do that but I wonder if they like someone enough at 8, if they'd trade 10, a second rounder and Jason Richardson for 8, Landry. We'd still have mostly the same options at 10 and would trim 2 years off of Landry.

Jrich is just about done as a player but he could help mentor Ben as they had similar games and he could be another vet to hold down the team for a year. Would also add more expiring contracts to use as assets.
Hmmm, interesting proposal. I think I would do that deal. Moving down just two spots is doable, because I think the Kings would still be able to acquire one of the players they like at 8. Although Richardson is just a few steps away from crutches, we would rid outselves of Landry's contract and pick up a second rounder. Not sure Philly would do it, but I know they really like Stauskas, and they know we do as well, so maybe they would. Interesting!
 
I could also see our FO interested in dealing with Philly in other respects, sending JT (since they seem to want to trade him more than Landry) for Richardson and #32. Would send JT back "home", and give the Kings $6.4 million more in cap space in 2015 as well as an early second rounder, which they've apparently been coveting.
 
It'll likely go like this: 1. Wiggins 2. Parker 3. Exum.

I think Smart could go fourth. Embiid's floor should be 5th but who the hell knows. We all know how dumb many GMs are. He won't drop to 8, that's madness. You obviously take him if he does. I'd throw the sink at Utah if he slips to 5 and take the risk for greatness. 8/Ben/D-Will whatever hell else they want.