2015 Draft Prospects:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
Apologies if this has been posted, but saw this on another site and thought it was worth a funny rumor mention.
Tweets from Candace Buckner - Reporter Indianapolis Star
"WCS on his meeting w/ #Pacers: "Larry (Bird) told me, ‘I think you’re a $100 million dollar player.’ I hear that and I’m like, ‘Really?!’""
https://twitter.com/CandaceDBuckner/status/599313706007306240
"WCS on #Pacers: "They see me as a player in the five position & put Paul (George) at the four. Now I’ll have a mismatch…""
https://twitter.com/CandaceDBuckner/status/599314119083184128
Looks like the Pacers are very high on WCS. Also insinuates Hibbert's value is at an all time low. really hope Kings don't end up with less than WCS in this draft.
Tweets from Candace Buckner - Reporter Indianapolis Star
"WCS on his meeting w/ #Pacers: "Larry (Bird) told me, ‘I think you’re a $100 million dollar player.’ I hear that and I’m like, ‘Really?!’""
https://twitter.com/CandaceDBuckner/status/599313706007306240
"WCS on #Pacers: "They see me as a player in the five position & put Paul (George) at the four. Now I’ll have a mismatch…""
https://twitter.com/CandaceDBuckner/status/599314119083184128
Looks like the Pacers are very high on WCS. Also insinuates Hibbert's value is at an all time low. really hope Kings don't end up with less than WCS in this draft.
Joseph Young 6'2 182lbs PG/SG: Pac 12 player of the year
37mins: 20.7pts 3.7asts 1.1stls 4.3tos
He'd be great as a spark off the bench. Looks like a late 2nd round pick-UFA.
37mins: 20.7pts 3.7asts 1.1stls 4.3tos
- 50.6% from 2pt
- 36.4% from 3pt
- 93.2% from FT
He'd be great as a spark off the bench. Looks like a late 2nd round pick-UFA.
If the Kings stay at 6, I'm looking at Cauley-Stein, Justise Winslow, or trade.
Defense needs to be a priority. Winslow might be the best wing defender in the draft, and I have little doubt that WCS is the best interior defender. I'd prefer WCS, but if he's gone, Winslow is a decent consolation prize.
I will say this, if Winslow is the guy it would suggest that the Kings are moving forward with Rudy Gay at the 4, and the effectiveness of that strategy is still very much up in the air.
Defense needs to be a priority. Winslow might be the best wing defender in the draft, and I have little doubt that WCS is the best interior defender. I'd prefer WCS, but if he's gone, Winslow is a decent consolation prize.
I will say this, if Winslow is the guy it would suggest that the Kings are moving forward with Rudy Gay at the 4, and the effectiveness of that strategy is still very much up in the air.
Other than decent set jumpshot vs non-existent one what part of Winslow's skillset is better than that of Rondae Hollis-Jefferson?
WCS offers best (value and fit)/(draft pick cost) ratio in this draft for Kings. Get maximum value, while still picking up Caulie-Stein - that's the best outcome of the draft for Kings.
WCS offers best (value and fit)/(draft pick cost) ratio in this draft for Kings. Get maximum value, while still picking up Caulie-Stein - that's the best outcome of the draft for Kings.
Last edited:
I think you hit it, at least in my mind, anyway. I wouldn't count on either player for consistent offensive production, but Winslow is probably closer to something you can use offensively if his spot up shooting translates.
But I'm with you and anyone else who thinks that WCS is the perfect realistic target at 6. He's the one real prospect keeping me against trading the pick altogether. If he's there, make the pick. Don't do anything stupid.
I know this might sound ridiculous, but EVERY doubt people had in Winslow was answered in the tournament.. People said his shooting was a fluke and he couldn't hit jumpers.. he started hitting contested jumpers and 3s in the tournament. People said he wasn't as aggressive as he should be ( was indecisive at times on what to do with the ball)..he started driving towards the rim and finished with contact. He was brilliant with the ball on offense. He can play with and without the ball.
Winslow has Jefferson beat in all offensive categories. Jefferson has a terrible shooting mechanic, it's not just 3pters, he just can't flat out shoot the ball at all. Winslow on the other hand, has shown that he is a capable shooter. Both are good passers, but Jefferson is a poor ball handler compared to Winslow.
Offense is his only real question mark. Right now, all he provides is slashing. He's not a 2 way player and that's why Winslow is the better prospect.
Just for some reason, RHJ and Justin Anderson have role player written on them. Both have the potential to become better players in the NBA, but I think when you include Winslow's age and his progressions on offense, he has a higher ceiling than either player.
Winslow has Jefferson beat in all offensive categories. Jefferson has a terrible shooting mechanic, it's not just 3pters, he just can't flat out shoot the ball at all. Winslow on the other hand, has shown that he is a capable shooter. Both are good passers, but Jefferson is a poor ball handler compared to Winslow.
Offense is his only real question mark. Right now, all he provides is slashing. He's not a 2 way player and that's why Winslow is the better prospect.
Just for some reason, RHJ and Justin Anderson have role player written on them. Both have the potential to become better players in the NBA, but I think when you include Winslow's age and his progressions on offense, he has a higher ceiling than either player.
The more I think of it, the more I get scared of the WCS pick. The reason? The last few years we've been drafting for immediate need and players who are going to contribute as soon as possible. T-Rob was going to be a potential need because JT was a FA. T-Rob was also the most NBA ready player behind AD and he was the consensus #2 pick until he dropped to us. We drafted him assuming he'd be NBA ready, but that wasn't the case.
The next year, we drafted McLemore because we needed shooting and I think the FO probably knew they weren't going to bring back Tyreke. We drafted an immediate replacement at SG hoping he'd be ready to start. McLemore dropped to us and he might've been regarded as the BPA..although again, he was the consensus #2 pick behind Noel(pre-injury).
2014, our biggest need was shooting, defense, IQ, and playmaking. We drafted Stauskas because this team DESPERATELY needed shooting on the team. Stauskas was viewed as a savy cocky high IQ player who was NBA ready. A lot assumed he'd take over Ben's job mid-way through the season. He was regarded as the most NBA ready player and he was going to fill multiple needs. Turns out, he's not as PRO-ready as we thought he'd be.
The jury is still out on McLemore and Stauskas, but the point is we drafted those players because we needed to fill immediate needs.
I feel like WCS fits along those lines when we drafted all 3 players. I think it's just something to think about. Of course, we probably won't have to deal with this problem once we win the lottery.
The next year, we drafted McLemore because we needed shooting and I think the FO probably knew they weren't going to bring back Tyreke. We drafted an immediate replacement at SG hoping he'd be ready to start. McLemore dropped to us and he might've been regarded as the BPA..although again, he was the consensus #2 pick behind Noel(pre-injury).
2014, our biggest need was shooting, defense, IQ, and playmaking. We drafted Stauskas because this team DESPERATELY needed shooting on the team. Stauskas was viewed as a savy cocky high IQ player who was NBA ready. A lot assumed he'd take over Ben's job mid-way through the season. He was regarded as the most NBA ready player and he was going to fill multiple needs. Turns out, he's not as PRO-ready as we thought he'd be.
The jury is still out on McLemore and Stauskas, but the point is we drafted those players because we needed to fill immediate needs.
I feel like WCS fits along those lines when we drafted all 3 players. I think it's just something to think about. Of course, we probably won't have to deal with this problem once we win the lottery.
Duke and Arizona both played 4 teams this year: Stanford, Gonzaga, Utah and Wisconsin.
Don't have Stanford games, but have the other 6 (Arizona and Utah actually played twice, but I only have 1). At some point I'm going to put together similar plays of Winslow, Johnson and RHJ on both ends of the floor as a comparison.
For now I would ask to consider, that Winslow played mostly vs PFs in a spread out offense, while RHJ was defended by SGs/SFs and faced a packed paint, so what you saw wasn't a true representation of their abilitites. Plus
------at the rim FG%--2pt J%--FT%--FTrate
JW-------66.7-----------26.1----64.1---43.8
RHJ------72.3----------32.8----70.7---74.5
As for WCS impending failure you miss the fact, that
T-Rob failed, because his biggest assets were being fast and jumping high with running start. He had only decent length, bad quickness and bad no-step jumping, which sounds like D-Will as well.
Ben was playing as SG for only a couple of years and Stauskas was an average athlete.
The only real comparison could be drawn only to T-Rob and Willie has 7-8 inches more in no-step vertical, including 5 inches standing up with stretched arms, and big advantage in quickness, which is helpful for that defense thingy. Another area, where no-step vertical and quickness/agility helps, is finishing inside. That would be enough to keep WCS on the court at first, while he improves his skillset.
Don't have Stanford games, but have the other 6 (Arizona and Utah actually played twice, but I only have 1). At some point I'm going to put together similar plays of Winslow, Johnson and RHJ on both ends of the floor as a comparison.
For now I would ask to consider, that Winslow played mostly vs PFs in a spread out offense, while RHJ was defended by SGs/SFs and faced a packed paint, so what you saw wasn't a true representation of their abilitites. Plus
------at the rim FG%--2pt J%--FT%--FTrate
JW-------66.7-----------26.1----64.1---43.8
RHJ------72.3----------32.8----70.7---74.5
As for WCS impending failure you miss the fact, that
T-Rob failed, because his biggest assets were being fast and jumping high with running start. He had only decent length, bad quickness and bad no-step jumping, which sounds like D-Will as well.
Ben was playing as SG for only a couple of years and Stauskas was an average athlete.
The only real comparison could be drawn only to T-Rob and Willie has 7-8 inches more in no-step vertical, including 5 inches standing up with stretched arms, and big advantage in quickness, which is helpful for that defense thingy. Another area, where no-step vertical and quickness/agility helps, is finishing inside. That would be enough to keep WCS on the court at first, while he improves his skillset.
I really like Justise Winslow -- his game and his personality. I think he would be a great pick for us. Though I also don't see why a team should pick Winslow if Stanley Johnson is still on the board. Johnson is physically bigger, a better shooter, a better ball-handler, gets to the line more and shoots a better percentage from the line and also a very good defender. And none of that is meant as a knock on Winslow cause I love Winslow, I just don't understand why the consensus opinion ranks Winslow over Johnson. Is it just because of the tournament?
I think it would be more accurate to say that T-Rob failed in Sacramento because he didn't come in with the right attitude (earn it) and was traded midway through his rookie season mostly for financial reasons. It's too soon to say whether he's a bust or not -- he's only been in the league for three years and he was blocked behind a lot of veterans before he got to Philly at the end of this year where he was actually very productive when he was on the floor (17pts, 15rebs, 2asts, 1.4stls per/36 for 22 games).
I agree. I still believe Johnson is the better all around SF, but I think the tournament result was opposite for Johnson.. Unlike Winslow, Johnson assured people of his struggles and weaknesses. In the regular season, he struggled tremendously in attacking and finishing around the rim. In the playoffs, he did little to debunk that concern. In the regular season, he had almost all of his good games against low tier teams.
I'm also kind of bummed that Johnson measured a little under 6'7. I thought he was going to be 6'8. B-ball IQ and lateral quickness are also some concerns around him.
He's been drawing some D-Will comparisons lately.
I think any team in need of a SF should draft Johnson, but I don't think any team in the top 5 is in any real need of a SF aside from the Lakers.
I'm also kind of bummed that Johnson measured a little under 6'7. I thought he was going to be 6'8. B-ball IQ and lateral quickness are also some concerns around him.
He's been drawing some D-Will comparisons lately.
I think any team in need of a SF should draft Johnson, but I don't think any team in the top 5 is in any real need of a SF aside from the Lakers.
I'll go with some unconventional wisdom here and say that Kings should not draft WCS unless there is a sure way to trade JT.
Why? Well JT has been here for years. But for whatever reason he always come back taking that other big guy spot next to Cousins.
I don't know if he eventually gets into some competitions head during practice or whatever mojo he does that always eventually turn him to be the better effective big body with DMC.
Skill set alone, he's not the best fit to DMC because he's to slow to chase smaller forwards, not a rim protector type, nor a stretch four.
But as what many seasons have shown, he will eventually earn the spot next to DMC more than half of the season.
Why? Well JT has been here for years. But for whatever reason he always come back taking that other big guy spot next to Cousins.
I don't know if he eventually gets into some competitions head during practice or whatever mojo he does that always eventually turn him to be the better effective big body with DMC.
Skill set alone, he's not the best fit to DMC because he's to slow to chase smaller forwards, not a rim protector type, nor a stretch four.
But as what many seasons have shown, he will eventually earn the spot next to DMC more than half of the season.
As for Winslow, in my opinion, after the combines result I don't think he's worth the risk.
He maybe tenacious on D and all the energy stuff but at the end of the day he's too small to guard the new generations of SF.
Durant will shoot over him all day. So as Klay Thompson.
You can take away Kawhi comparison because Leonard is 6'6" in socks while Winslow is 6'4".
Even Demarre Caroroll the dog in the East is at least 6'6" without shoes as well.
He maybe tenacious on D and all the energy stuff but at the end of the day he's too small to guard the new generations of SF.
Durant will shoot over him all day. So as Klay Thompson.
You can take away Kawhi comparison because Leonard is 6'6" in socks while Winslow is 6'4".
Even Demarre Caroroll the dog in the East is at least 6'6" without shoes as well.
Look, I like Winslow, but I wouldn't base my total opinion on how he played in the tournament. You don't throw away a years worth of information because of it. Up until the tournament I liked Stanley Johnson slightly better than Winslow. He was a better shooter throughout the season, and he had a little better size. But basically I thought it was a toss up. I call what you sometimes see in the tournament fools gold. Take it into consideration, but keep it in perspective. There was about a 12 game period last season when Booker shot around 70% from the three. I certainly didn't take that as an example of what to expect on a regular basis.
I don't think JT has anything to do with whether we should draft WCS or not. Actually, drafting WCS would allow the Kings to use JT in a role he's best suited for, and that's a backup C/PF off the bench. If there's a big that doesn't fit, it's Landry. But regardless of anyone on the roster, if you have a chance to acquire a top of the line defender and shotblocker, you do it, and figure out the rest later.
Very true, but you don't throw away that 3-4 games in the tournament where Johnson was terrible. In regards to Winslow, he showed small sample sizes of what he could do earlier in the season. He reassured scouts everywhere that he was capable of certain things. In the tournament he played against the best of the best college teams and he dominated almost every game. He didn't have the luxury of playing against Cal, Oregon, UCLA, and etc. And it's not Johnson's fault that the PAC 12 is weak. One could also make the argument that Winslow was stuck as the 3rd-4th option before the tournament where Okafor checked out for a few games. He was much more aggressive in the tournament and received many more opportunities on offense.
I think fool's gold is Devin Booker because he's probably going to be picked in the lottery. Reason why? He's just a shooter. Speaks of how weak the SG position is right now and how much the league has changed into a 3pt setting. I think he's a safe type of player you draft. His floor is very decent. Rotational SG. His height is JJ Reddick/Klay Thompson. I think he has the killer instinct to be a player like Klay, but it really depends on what opportunities he will receive on his new team. Even with that being said, if any team outside of the top 5 needs a SG, they should absolutely grab him. However, I don't think he's worth taking over someone who has more potential and a higher ceiling.
I think fool's gold is Devin Booker because he's probably going to be picked in the lottery. Reason why? He's just a shooter. Speaks of how weak the SG position is right now and how much the league has changed into a 3pt setting. I think he's a safe type of player you draft. His floor is very decent. Rotational SG. His height is JJ Reddick/Klay Thompson. I think he has the killer instinct to be a player like Klay, but it really depends on what opportunities he will receive on his new team. Even with that being said, if any team outside of the top 5 needs a SG, they should absolutely grab him. However, I don't think he's worth taking over someone who has more potential and a higher ceiling.
Agreed. Besides, the guy that I think really needs to be dealt is Landry. Malone got surprising production out of him off the bench to start the season but he's a black hole who really can't play alongside Cousins and whose value is even lower in Karl's system.
The Kings landing the #2 or #3 pick and being able to trade down, get WCS, dump Landry and pick up another asset would be a great scenario IMO.
I will not be watching the lottery tonight. It seems like it just ends up being a frustrating event. And I'm just superstitious enough to think that maybe if I don't watch it for once the Kings will finally catch a break.
The Kings landing the #2 or #3 pick and being able to trade down, get WCS, dump Landry and pick up another asset would be a great scenario IMO.
I will not be watching the lottery tonight. It seems like it just ends up being a frustrating event. And I'm just superstitious enough to think that maybe if I don't watch it for once the Kings will finally catch a break.
I absolutely get where you're coming from. However, in order to alleviate some fear:
1) While development is unsure, WCS will defend going into the NBA. Good fit for our team, especially given the fact that dribble-drives kill us (for example, remember that one Suns game?).
2) Sacramento is a mix of youth and veterans. Cousins at 25, WCS at 22, BMac at 22, Castillo at 21, RayMac at 24. We can and should develop these players, since they are our best hope at winning in the not too distant future. Our veterans are Casspi (please!), Thompson, Collison, and Gay. We can and should use these players to win in the present.
1) While development is unsure, WCS will defend going into the NBA. Good fit for our team, especially given the fact that dribble-drives kill us (for example, remember that one Suns game?).
2) Sacramento is a mix of youth and veterans. Cousins at 25, WCS at 22, BMac at 22, Castillo at 21, RayMac at 24. We can and should develop these players, since they are our best hope at winning in the not too distant future. Our veterans are Casspi (please!), Thompson, Collison, and Gay. We can and should use these players to win in the present.
I had no idea that Robinson would be as bad in the NBA as he has been but I (and a lot of others) saw him as a terrible fit next to Cousins from day 1. Even if Robinson became a good player he was projected to be a athletic rebounder who thrived attacking the rim and would be ideal in a pick-and-roll offense. A poor man's Karl Malone at best. But even then he's not the ideal front court mate for Boogie. I was frustrated by that pick. Doubly so when I found out Petrie really wanted Lillard but didn't think the Maloofs would pay to keep JT and took TRob to fill the presumed PF hole.
I think most people realized McLemore was a project. He came to basketball late and was very young (chronologically, emotionally/maturity wise and in basketball experience) so I think the hope was that he could just be a spot up shooter and get points in transition that first season. In fact I think the assumption was that Thornton would start and McLemore would be groomed behind him but MT just fell off a cliff last season.
I wasn't onboard with the Stauskas pick but I understood it. And I think he may end up being a JJ Redick type player in time. But yeah, he was a disappointment last season. Not all that surprising though. Stauskas is a classic case of a guy who was a good college athlete and a below average NBA athlete having to learn to adapt to playing against stronger, faster, more athletic and sometimes bigger opponents. If he does figure it all out it will take time.
As for Robinson and McLemore let's remember that essentially each of those guys had one good season at Kansas. Robinson played 7 minutes a game as a freshman and 14 per as a sophomore before having a much more productive junior season. He was largely given a pass because he was behind the Morris twins those first two years but no disrespect to Marcus and Markief but if they kept him on the bench and went 13th and 14th in the draft the year before why was Robinson a top 5 level talent? Truth is that if he came out as a freshman or sophomore he would have went in the 2nd round, if at all. And McLemore was a redshirt freshman when he entered the draft. Not only were both guys pretty raw, they only had one season of tape to go on.
Cauley-Stein would have been a lottery pick last year. He'll definitely be a lottery pick this year. He isn't raw and he isn't fool's gold. He may not have the type of ceiling that some of the other guys do but barring injury I don't see a way that he's not (at the very least) a valuable role player in the NBA. And valuable 7 ft role players who defend, block shots and run the floor like a deer are the types of guys getting $10-$12 million per year. We need a Tyson Chandler type player. Let's get one that's a decade younger and costs 1/5th as much.
I think most people realized McLemore was a project. He came to basketball late and was very young (chronologically, emotionally/maturity wise and in basketball experience) so I think the hope was that he could just be a spot up shooter and get points in transition that first season. In fact I think the assumption was that Thornton would start and McLemore would be groomed behind him but MT just fell off a cliff last season.
I wasn't onboard with the Stauskas pick but I understood it. And I think he may end up being a JJ Redick type player in time. But yeah, he was a disappointment last season. Not all that surprising though. Stauskas is a classic case of a guy who was a good college athlete and a below average NBA athlete having to learn to adapt to playing against stronger, faster, more athletic and sometimes bigger opponents. If he does figure it all out it will take time.
As for Robinson and McLemore let's remember that essentially each of those guys had one good season at Kansas. Robinson played 7 minutes a game as a freshman and 14 per as a sophomore before having a much more productive junior season. He was largely given a pass because he was behind the Morris twins those first two years but no disrespect to Marcus and Markief but if they kept him on the bench and went 13th and 14th in the draft the year before why was Robinson a top 5 level talent? Truth is that if he came out as a freshman or sophomore he would have went in the 2nd round, if at all. And McLemore was a redshirt freshman when he entered the draft. Not only were both guys pretty raw, they only had one season of tape to go on.
Cauley-Stein would have been a lottery pick last year. He'll definitely be a lottery pick this year. He isn't raw and he isn't fool's gold. He may not have the type of ceiling that some of the other guys do but barring injury I don't see a way that he's not (at the very least) a valuable role player in the NBA. And valuable 7 ft role players who defend, block shots and run the floor like a deer are the types of guys getting $10-$12 million per year. We need a Tyson Chandler type player. Let's get one that's a decade younger and costs 1/5th as much.
I didn't say throw away those 3 or 4 games, I said keep them in perspective. You know, I'm getting damm tired of people not actually comprehending what I'm writing to the point where I have to come back and re-explain what I stated clearly the first time. I also don't get your using Booker as fools gold, and then actually praising him in the next paragraph. And, by the way, Booker played very good defense throughout the season, and yes, he can shoot, but he's not just a spot up shooter from the corner. He's excellent coming off of screens, and he has a very good mid-range game. Is he perfect? No! But he's also the youngest player in the entire draft. So I think he just might have a tad of upside left to explore.
I never said I based my evaluation of either player solely based on the tournament. You implied that I did to reach my conclusion and I just further explained what I meant by it. no pun intended (Miller).
Booker is fools gold because of how weak this draft class is at SG. He displayed 0 handling skills, 0 dribbling, and 0 driving at Kentucky. I do not believe he is lottery material, but SOME team in desperate need of a SG will draft him because of how much this class lacks shooters. The only thing he's showed at Kentucky is that he can shoot, and yes he can shoot in a variety of ways. Shooting alone is not lottery material. At this point if you need a SG, you're down to a player who had limited shot attempts and made them at a good rate(small sample size), OR a player who had way too many shot attempts and made them at a terrible rate(RJ Hunter).
I'm praising him because I think he has an actual decent ceiling, but it's not a top pick warranted type of player.
He's a high IQ player which helps him on defense
Booker playing at Kentucky benefits him as well. Honestly, is shooting alone warrant a lottery pick? I feel like Booker does little to distinguish himself from other SGs in the NCAA. There are hundreds 10ppg .400% 3pt shooters in the NCAA. There haven't been many SGs that've been drafted in the 1st-late 1st based solely on the fact that they can only shoot. Maybe Rodney Hood(23) from last year? He was the 6th-7th SG taken though.
Booker is fools gold because of how weak this draft class is at SG. He displayed 0 handling skills, 0 dribbling, and 0 driving at Kentucky. I do not believe he is lottery material, but SOME team in desperate need of a SG will draft him because of how much this class lacks shooters. The only thing he's showed at Kentucky is that he can shoot, and yes he can shoot in a variety of ways. Shooting alone is not lottery material. At this point if you need a SG, you're down to a player who had limited shot attempts and made them at a good rate(small sample size), OR a player who had way too many shot attempts and made them at a terrible rate(RJ Hunter).
I'm praising him because I think he has an actual decent ceiling, but it's not a top pick warranted type of player.
He's a high IQ player which helps him on defense
Booker playing at Kentucky benefits him as well. Honestly, is shooting alone warrant a lottery pick? I feel like Booker does little to distinguish himself from other SGs in the NCAA. There are hundreds 10ppg .400% 3pt shooters in the NCAA. There haven't been many SGs that've been drafted in the 1st-late 1st based solely on the fact that they can only shoot. Maybe Rodney Hood(23) from last year? He was the 6th-7th SG taken though.
Booker's handles are just fine, and dribbling and handling skills are the same thing. Like every other Kentucky player, he was asked to play a role, which in some cases didn't allow him to display all his skills. He mentioned as much in an interview. As I have pointed out several times, very few people knew that Cousins had a jumpshot, because at Kentucky he wasn't allowed to use it. Towns suffered the same fate. If you watched enough games, you would have seen Booker drive to the basket. He created his own shot off the dribble countless times. But for the most part, he was asked to use ball screens, or spot up. He's a more rounded player than your giving him credit for. But, its subjective and your opinion, like mine, is worth what you pay for it.