2016 NBA Draft Discussion

[funkykingston]

We had the 4th best lineup in the league with Collison, Gay, & Cousins as the primary playmakers. I think you're either overestimating the value of playmaking or underestimating the amount of playmaking we have between them.

The Kings were also 26th in the league in assists that season and that was after Karl took over and the assist numbers went up to end the season. The year before under Malone the Kings were 30th in assists. The Collison/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins was showing some promise under Malone to start the season based on improved team defense (especially against the three), getting to the line often and making free throws. I really wish we could have seen whether that early season success was sustainable or not.

But in any event, that season the Kings were also 28th in the league in 3's both taken and made and 28th in blocked shots.

Point being, just because the starting lineup was effective doesn't mean there weren't things to improve on.

Obviously the biggest issue with that roster (beyond Cousins getting sick and Malone getting fired) was the unbelievably awful bench play. But I don't think anyone would argue that it would have helped to add more playmaking, more shooting and more rim protection.

I think that team was (again, in a small sample size) winning despite the lack of outside shooting and playmaking.

 

[bajaden]

No, a SG definitely doesn't need to be a playmaker. But if Rondo walks then Collison is likely the starting PG and he's not a playmaker. Neither is Rudy Gay. Neither is WCS. Add Hield and you've got a team that would likely struggle with ball movement.

I'm on board with letting Rondo walk. But in that instance I think you want a ball handling/playmaking SG next to him to help pick up some of the slack. I'm a big fan of Hield, but that is a weakness of his. I see him as being a JJ Redick type player and perhaps even more down the road and that type of player benefits a lot from having a PG who can set him up.

You make good points, but I might add that Hield is capable of creating his own shot, so having a Rondo setting him up to score is great, but not absolutely necessary. However, I get your point as to the overall picture. Here's my problem with the Rondo scenario. Vladee has stated he wants more ball movement, and Joerger has said the same thing. So I get where someone can make a case against Hield because he's not known for being a great passer, but you can also make a case against Rondo as a ball stopper. The only time Rondo passes the ball is for an assist. While great, that's not ball movement in the strict sense of the word.

For instance, I doubt that Rondo would be a good fit on the Spurs team, or for that matter, the Warriors team. Truth is, you don't have to be a good passer to move the ball. So I'm sure that Hield is capable of at least moving the ball. What he lacks is the passing skill to acquire assists. If you have a system that uses ball and player movement to get open shots or baskets, then you don't need a Rondo. Mike Bibby played off the ball more than he did on the ball. I could easily see Collison in the Bibby role. I can see Cousins in either the Vlade or Webber role. It's the rest of the pieces that need attention. I think Hield can fit into that type of system.

 

[bajaden]

The Kings were also 26th in the league in assists that season and that was after Karl took over and the assist numbers went up to end the season. The year before under Malone the Kings were 30th in assists. The Collison/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins was showing some promise under Malone to start the season based on improved team defense (especially against the three), getting to the line often and making free throws. I really wish we could have seen whether that early season success was sustainable or not.

But in any event, that season the Kings were also 28th in the league in 3's both taken and made and 28th in blocked shots.

Point being, just because the starting lineup was effective doesn't mean there weren't things to improve on.

Obviously the biggest issue with that roster (beyond Cousins getting sick and Malone getting fired) was the unbelievably awful bench play. But I don't think anyone would argue that it would have helped to add more playmaking, more shooting and more rim protection.

I think that team was (again, in a small sample size) winning despite the lack of outside shooting and playmaking.

Ultimately, the final test is, are you winning games? And the answer is and was no! Doesn't matter what individual stats or team stats say, none if it is adding up to winning, and your points are good one's. We had the assist leader on our team last year, but still ended up at the bottom in assists, so what good did it do? As Newton said, for every action, there's an equal reaction. When you have one or two players handling the ball the majority of the time, your eliminating possible contributions form other sources. There's a trade off to everything. Obviously if those two player happened to be named Durant and Westbrook, it works.

For whatever reason, the Cousins/Rondo duo didn't work. There are a lot of reasons of course, and a lot of them have nothing to do with those two players and have more to do with the poor fits, and the system. So if were in a circle and we start pointing fingers, eventually the pointed finger comes back to us. In short, it's a team thing, and it needs to be corrected. I'm hopeful that Joerger will do just that. Now if Joerger is capable of covering up some liable defense, then trading down and drafting Valentine would fit into your scenario, because he's certainly a playmanker, and he can shoot the ball.

 

[funkykingston]

You make good points, but I might add that Hield is capable of creating his own shot, so having a Rondo setting him up to score is great, but not absolutely necessary. However, I get your point as to the overall picture. Here's my problem with the Rondo scenario. Vladee has stated he wants more ball movement, and Joerger has said the same thing. So I get where someone can make a case against Hield because he's not known for being a great passer, but you can also make a case against Rondo as a ball stopper. The only time Rondo passes the ball is for an assist. While great, that's not ball movement in the strict sense of the word.

For instance, I doubt that Rondo would be a good fit on the Spurs team, or for that matter, the Warriors team. Truth is, you don't have to be a good passer to move the ball. So I'm sure that Hield is capable of at least moving the ball. What he lacks is the passing skill to acquire assists. If you have a system that uses ball and player movement to get open shots or baskets, then you don't need a Rondo. Mike Bibby played off the ball more than he did on the ball. I could easily see Collison in the Bibby role. I can see Cousins in either the Vlade or Webber role. It's the rest of the pieces that need attention. I think Hield can fit into that type of system.

Agreed. A lot of ball movement is going to come down to coaching. With Rondo you're forced into pretty much letting him run the offense. But if the Kings want to run a Hawks/Spurs like system you don't necessarily need a single great playmaker or even a team full of good passers like the heyday Kings team. You just need a willingness to move the ball in an offensive system that works. It isn't as if San Antonio or Atlanta have starting lineups with amazing playmakers. Just smart, unselfish players.

 

[bajaden]

Agreed. A lot of ball movement is going to come down to coaching. With Rondo you're forced into pretty much letting him run the offense. But if the Kings want to run a Hawks/Spurs like system you don't necessarily need a single great playmaker or even a team full of good passers like the heyday Kings team. You just need a willingness to move the ball in an offensive system that works. It isn't as if San Antonio or Atlanta have starting lineups with amazing playmakers. Just smart, unselfish players.

Exactly! Of course I'm making assumptions based on just a couple of statements by Vlade and Joerger. But in my heart of hearts, I do think that's the direction Vlade is leaning toward. He played most of his career in some sort of motion offense, and was successful doing so. Plus its an entertaining and fun game to watch from s spectators point of view. The other plus side, is that it has the appearance of being a bang/bang offense while being played at a slower pace, which would favor Cousins.

 

[funkykingston]

Ultimately, the final test is, are you winning games? And the answer is and was no! Doesn't matter what individual stats or team stats say, none if it is adding up to winning, and your points are good one's. We had the assist leader on our team last year, but still ended up at the bottom in assists, so what good did it do? As Newton said, for every action, there's an equal reaction. When you have one or two players handling the ball the majority of the time, your eliminating possible contributions form other sources. There's a trade off to everything. Obviously if those two player happened to be named Durant and Westbrook, it works.

For whatever reason, the Cousins/Rondo duo didn't work. There are a lot of reasons of course, and a lot of them have nothing to do with those two players and have more to do with the poor fits, and the system. So if were in a circle and we start pointing fingers, eventually the pointed finger comes back to us. In short, it's a team thing, and it needs to be corrected. I'm hopeful that Joerger will do just that. Now if Joerger is capable of covering up some liable defense, then trading down and drafting Valentine would fit into your scenario, because he's certainly a playmanker, and he can shoot the ball.

I don't think the Cousins/Rondo duo didn't work per se. Rondo had a career revival and Cousins had his best statistical season. And the Kings weren't at the bottom of the league in assists. They were fourth best in the league this season. Part of that is due to the pace they played at, but this year's Kings team moved the ball a LOT more than in the previous two seasons.

The questions around potentially re-signing Rondo essentially boil down to:

1) Is he a good fit for what Joerger wants to do offensively?
2) Can he be better defensively or if not, is Joerger okay with him being a liability on that end?
3) Can the Kings get more bang for their buck in free agency than Rondo?

That last one isn't easy to answer for me. Are there free agents I'd rather see the Kings sign than Rondo? Sure. But with pretty much every team having open wallets, will one of those players agree to sign in Sacramento? I don't know. It seems Ryan Anderson might want to come back home. Would he be considered a better use of money than Rajon Rondo?

It's one thing to have cap space but it's another to actually get the guy(s) you want with it. I don't like the idea of overpaying for Rondo, but I really don't like the idea of overpaying for a player less effective than Rondo because the team strikes out on its other FA targets.

 

[jcwkings]

Wade Baldwin reminds me of a bigger stronger version of George Hill potentially. Isn't a great creator but will hit the open three and his length at the PG position is intriguing.

 

[bajaden]

I don't think the Cousins/Rondo duo didn't work per se. Rondo had a career revival and Cousins had his best statistical season. And the Kings weren't at the bottom of the league in assists. They were fourth best in the league this season. Part of that is due to the pace they played at, but this year's Kings team moved the ball a LOT more than in the previous two seasons.

The questions around potentially re-signing Rondo essentially boil down to:

1) Is he a good fit for what Joerger wants to do offensively?
2) Can he be better defensively or if not, is Joerger okay with him being a liability on that end?
3) Can the Kings get more bang for their buck in free agency than Rondo?

That last one isn't easy to answer for me. Are there free agents I'd rather see the Kings sign than Rondo? Sure. But with pretty much every team having open wallets, will one of those players agree to sign in Sacramento? I don't know. It seems Ryan Anderson might want to come back home. Would he be considered a better use of money than Rajon Rondo?

It's one thing to have cap space but it's another to actually get the guy(s) you want with it. I don't like the idea of overpaying for Rondo, but I really don't like the idea of overpaying for a player less effective than Rondo because the team strikes out on its other FA targets.

All good questions, and some that I don't have the answer to. One question might be, would we better off using the money on two or perhaps three good support players that bring different individual skills to the table. Like a Basemore, who can defend, and is a decent three point shooter, who appears to be getting a little better every year in the league. He can probably be gotten for a reasonable price. Maybe take a gamble and make an offer for Terrance Jones instead of anderson. He's not the shooter that Anderson is, but the season before last, he showed signs of becoming a threat from the three shooting around 35% for the season before getting injured. Plus, he's a better defender than Anderson.

Anyway, just some thoughts. As far as to who beings more to the table, Anderson or Rondo? I don't know how you evaluate that. Two entirely different kind of players. Rondo will help get Cousins baskets, while Anderson will help get Cousins more space to create for himself, and a reliable outlet when doubled. Don't know how you weigh those things on a scale other than trying it out and seeing what your results are.

 

[bajaden]

Wade Baldwin reminds me of a bigger stronger version of George Hill potentially. Isn't a great creator but will hit the open three and his length at the PG position is intriguing.

He was a good defender in college. He's more of a combo guard, but that's what's in vogue right now. He has a huge wingspan. I had him as the second best PG in the draft. However, if Whitehead stays in the draft, I might move him up to the second spot.

 

[jcwkings]

I like Valentine too, he is NBA ready, high IQ(which we can certainly use), spaces the floor, can handle the ball and I have always liked Michigan State players, he was a "the guy" there. The intangibles he brings tells me he will work his butt off to work on his defense.

 

[twslam07]

The Kings were also 26th in the league in assists that season and that was after Karl took over and the assist numbers went up to end the season. The year before under Malone the Kings were 30th in assists. The Collison/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins was showing some promise under Malone to start the season based on improved team defense (especially against the three), getting to the line often and making free throws. I really wish we could have seen whether that early season success was sustainable or not.

But in any event, that season the Kings were also 28th in the league in 3's both taken and made and 28th in blocked shots.

Point being, just because the starting lineup was effective doesn't mean there weren't things to improve on.

Obviously the biggest issue with that roster (beyond Cousins getting sick and Malone getting fired) was the unbelievably awful bench play. But I don't think anyone would argue that it would have helped to add more playmaking, more shooting and more rim protection.

I think that team was (again, in a small sample size) winning despite the lack of outside shooting and playmaking.

I think you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that the team wouldn't be better if you added playmaking or that the team in whole couldn't be improved upon. You were making the argument that we wouldn't have much playmaking, and my answer was simply "who cares?" The 4th best lineup featured Collison/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins. There's nothing to suggest that our team would suffer because of a "lack of playmaking." The problem with that team was the bench. We had a top 4 starting unit but our bench continuously gave up leads.

So if you believe the statements below are true...

'16-'17 Cousins >= '14-'15 Cousins
'16-'17 Gay >= '14-'15 Gay
'16-'17 Casspi >= '14-'15 Casspi
'16-'17 McLemore >= '14-'15 McLemore
'16-'17 Collison >= '14-'15 Collison
Joerger >= Malone

...would it not make sense to produce a similar roster knowing that this type of lineup has already proven to be successful? Not only is there a very high likelihood that it will work again, but it would be very easy for the FO to replicate (rather than reconstructing the roster by moving Gay, resigning Rondo, etc.). For instance, you could do a 3 way trade sending out #8, Koufos, & Belinelli while bringing back #31 (Thon Maker), Beverley, & Amir Johnson. With the $23.5 mil in cap space, you sign C. Lee to $14 mil, Aldrich to $4 mil, R. Price to $2 mil, & Acy to $2 mil.

PG - Collison/Beverley/Price
SG - Lee/McLemore/Anderson
SF - Gay/Casspi/Butler
PF - Johnson/Acy/Maker
C - Cousins/Cauley-Stein/Aldrich

Again, if you believe that the '16-'17 version of Cousins/Gay/Collison/Joerger is >= the '14-'15 version of Cousins/Gay/Collison/Malone, you're left comparing the '16-'17 version of Lee/Johnson to the '14-'15 version of McLemore/Thompson which is no doubt heavily favored towards Lee/Johnson. On top of that, I would argue that Johnson & Lee are similar types of players to McLemore & Thompson in the way they play the game. Meaning that their style's don't differ so much that it would cause disruption in chemistry.

So what did you just do? You just improved the 4th best lineup in the league by swapping out McLemore with C. Lee & J. Thompson with A. Johnson. Now the bench...

As I mentioned before, the bench was the reason why we weren't an elite team. Our bench was putrid if you remember, and if you don't, you can find our bench below...

PG - Sessions/McCallum/A. Miller
SG - Stauskas
SF - Casspi/D. Williams
PF - Landry/R. Evans/Moreland
C - Hollins

Other than Casspi, I don't see any players who should be getting minutes on a regular basis. Now compare that to the bench we have today/after thee trade...

PG - Beverley/R. Price
SG - McLemore/J. Anderson
SF - Casspi /Butler
PF - Acy/Maker
C - Cauley-Stein/Aldrich

Is it elite? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than '14-'15. Beverely, McLemore, Casspi, Cauley-Stein is definitely an upgrade over Sessions, Stauskas, Casspi, Landry.

So what have we done here? We have hired a coach in the mold of Malone and who possibly could be better than Malone. We have upgraded the 4th best lineup in the league by improving the SG & PF spots, and our bench is stronger this year which should help maintain leads. And this was all done without adding another playmaker into the mix.

 

[Telemachus]

Kings would need to get lucky and get a top 4 pick to pick Hield.

Don't know about that. Even the guy from Draft Express said he could see Hield going anywhere from 5th to 12th. There will be a lot of movement on draft boards between now and the draft.

 

[Padrino]

It's interesting that intelligence would be seen as a negative. Maybe the assumption is that he won't be as focused on basketball if he has other interests? He said in his media interview that he wants to work in an NBA front office after his career is over which I could see eliciting some eye rolls from execs. I remember there being a similar kind of a stigma with Harrison Barnes when he was drafted -- an exceptional athlete himself though he was seen as too tentative during games. The perception is that you don't want players thinking too much on the court, just reacting instinctively, and maybe a player can be too smart for their own good. The only thing I'm ever worried about mentally though is how hard a player is willing to work and how badly they want to be great. If you get that much, your coaching staff should be able to do the rest.

there were similar concerns raised against willie cauley-stein last draft cycle because of the fact that he considers himself a well-rounded individual with interests that extend beyond basketball. i guess a negative label gets slapped on you if you profess any interest or pursuit that goes beyond the game, and if you fail to demonstrate your worship at the altar of the basketball gods every morning, noon, and night. i don't get it. i just don't get it. every year, nba coaches and execs complain about the lack of basketball IQ in young players, and then a couple of prospects come along that exhibit an intelligence and a thoughtfulness that should be valued and harnessed on the court, and it's stigmatized or dismissed as arrogance in pre-draft evaluations. my guess is it's all a bunch of smoke-screening. there's no reason brown should fall outside of the top-5...

personally, i like jaylen brown a lot, and i'd be rather thrilled if this bogus "red flag" actually helps him slip to the kings at #8, because he happens to tick a lot of the boxes i value in a prospect: he's got an nba-ready body, he's a great athlete, he's a strong rim attacker, he gives an effort on defense, and he also happens to be a really bright kid with a high basketball IQ. i don't know why intelligence, of all things, should scare teams off, and again, i imagine it's all pre-draft smoke-screening. "too smart for their own good"? sure, i guess that could be a legitimate concern in the hands of a sh*tty coaching staff. but what smart 19 year-old kid doesn't think they have all the answers? hell, i was that kid, and i took my lumps along the way when i realized that i didn't have all the answers. it helped me to learn, and it drove me to sponge up everything i could in pursuit of finding those answers. during interviews, jaylen brown strikes me as having a sponge-like mind, as well, and that's what i want from a draft pick. i'm reminded of karl anthony-towns, in that respect. alternatively, you can draft a guy with athleticism off the charts and no head for the game whatsoever, and you're likely to end up with derrick williams...

just listen to steph curry talk about basketball. listen to lebron do the same. nobody's about to knock either of them for their brainy approach to the game. now, i don't necessarily expect jaylen brown to ascend into that mvp-level tier, but i also don't know why anybody should pretend like his intelligence is anything but an asset in a league that's become increasingly nuanced at the level of strategy and in the evaluation of a player's talent...

 

[206Fan]

Scott Pollard on Buddy Hield according to Grant:

Buddy Hield is a more athletic Jimmer Fredette

He told Grant that he's not high on Buddy Hield at the next level.

• Trouble getting his shot off in the NBA.
  
• Game will not translate into the NBA.
• But will be a better pro than Jimmer.

Starts around 17mins of this podcast:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/05/16/the-grant-napear-show-may-16-2016/

 

[ElRey]

Scott Pollard on Buddy Hield according to Grant: He told Grant that he's not high on Buddy Hield at the next level.

• Trouble getting his shot off in the NBA.
  
• Game will not translate into the NBA.
• But will be a better pro than Jimmer.

Starts around 17mins of this podcast:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/05/16/the-grant-napear-show-may-16-2016/

Ouch , and Scot has been pretty much spot on in his prior assessment of our draft picks i.e. Thonas Robinson, Ben Mclemore

 

[Gilles]

Scot stole my line!

Here's another thing to consider: there's an argument often made "well, even if Buddy can't create his own shot, he's still going to come off screens and shoot like Korver or Redick". Well, how many years does it take for this type of player to become positive presence on the floor, when they are not plus defenders?

 

[dude12]

Scott Pollard on Buddy Hield according to Grant: He told Grant that he's not high on Buddy Hield at the next level.

• Trouble getting his shot off in the NBA.
  
• Game will not translate into the NBA.
• But will be a better pro than Jimmer.

Starts around 17mins of this podcast:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/05/16/the-grant-napear-show-may-16-2016/

A more athletic Jimmer is code for stay the hell away from him. In the biggest game of Hield's life, he didnt deliver and in fact was awful. I think there are better options than him for us at 8. And Pollard has been fairly accurate in his observations.

 

[206Fan]

I think Hield will be a lot better than Jimmer, but I guess I could see where Pollard is coming from.

Hield is a solid athlete, but not great. He has decent explosiveness, but nothing that will blow you away. From a physical standpoint, he's just average all around. Doesn't have any elite physical tools.
On offense, his dribbling has improved, but he's still limited. He's not much of a playmaker at this point. For a guy with as high of a usage as Hield, that's a big downfall.

I think it'll really come down to whether or not Hield can get his shot off against NBA defenses.

 

[Tetsujin]

Scot stole my line!

Here's another thing to consider: there's an argument often made "well, even if Buddy can't create his own shot, he's still going to come off screens and shoot like Korver or Redick". Well, how many years does it take for this type of player to become positive presence on the floor, when they are not plus defenders?

I thought the unathletic but supposedly capable of coming off screens role was already filled by Marco

 

[CelticsFan]

Kings having trouble working out top 10 players?

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/05/17...rkouts/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Merdiesel]

"And what is the least desirable team in the NBA right now? It’s the Sacramento Kings."

Chad Ford is such a clueless piece of ****.
If you don't want to play for Vlade, Joerger and the best fans in the league, there is something wrong with you and we definitely don't want you here.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Kings having trouble working out top 10 players?

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/05/17...rkouts/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I don't buy this at all. It's hyperbole. Sure, I get that the Kings have been poorly run for a while and that certainly hurts them. But they are nowhere close to Philly territory and I simply don't believe they are less desirable than the 76ers and a few others that have spent years in the lottery too. The Kings won more games last season (33) than the Sixers have the past two (28). Add in the fact that they have a new GM, head coach and are moving into a state-of-the-art arena and the Kings have much more going for them. I think an argument can be made that Sac could be more desirable than Phoenix, Lakers, and Brooklyn too. And let's not forget that a coveted head coach with a pretty good recent track record chose Sac over Memphis, Houston and some others.

 

[bajaden]

Scott Pollard on Buddy Hield according to Grant: He told Grant that he's not high on Buddy Hield at the next level.

• Trouble getting his shot off in the NBA.
  
• Game will not translate into the NBA.
• But will be a better pro than Jimmer.

Starts around 17mins of this podcast:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/05/16/the-grant-napear-show-may-16-2016/

Well that pretty much settles it. Pollard is the last word apparently. I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut that I've seen Hield play more games than Pollard has.

 

[bajaden]

Here's a very nice article on Kris Dunn, who by the way I would take with the first pick in the draft if I had it. But then what do I know?

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-pm-kris-dunn-excited-for-draft-process/

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Well that pretty much settles it. Pollard is the last word apparently. I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut that I've seen Hield play more games than Pollard has.

Wait, do I get the dollar or do I get the doughnut?

 

[206Fan]

Well that pretty much settles it. Pollard is the last word apparently. I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut that I've seen Hield play more games than Pollard has.

Just thought it was interesting to see what a former King thought about draft prospects.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Just thought it was interesting to see what a former King thought about draft prospects.

Unfortunately, he was right about Robinson and McLemore. Those were guys from his alma mater, of course, so I imagined he watched them pretty closely. Don't know if one could say the same about Hield, who was in the same division.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Unfortunately, he was right about Robinson and McLemore. Those were guys from his alma mater, of course, so I imagined he watched them pretty closely. Don't know if one could say the same about Hield, who was in the same division.

Exactly. I trust his opinion about fellow Jayhawks a lot more than his evaluations of those outside the program. Also, it could be argued that his assessment of perimeter oriented players could be taken with a grain of salt too. But he's certainly qualified to evaluate post players, especially those that played at Kansas.

 

[bajaden]

Wait, do I get the dollar or do I get the doughnut?

For you, two doughnuts for a dollar....Today only!

 

[bajaden]

Unfortunately, he was right about Robinson and McLemore. Those were guys from his alma mater, of course, so I imagined he watched them pretty closely. Don't know if one could say the same about Hield, who was in the same division.

He was right about both McLemore and Robinson, but so was just about everyone else. Everyone knew what their flaws were, and for the most part, a lot of those flaws were overlooked because of their athleticism and supposed upside. It they pan out, you look great, is they don't, then you should have listened to all the scouts. Point is, your not hearing those kind of things being said about Hield. Now if it was the year before last, then I think some of those criticisms would be appropriate. But he made tremendous improvements to his game between his junior and senior seasons. His ballhandling improved as did his ability to create off the dribble.

No he wasn't much of a playmaker, but remember, he wasn't asked to be a playmaker. He was being asked to score. A large majority of his shots were unassisted, and I've posted video's of him creating his own shot. He has a lightning quick release, which helps. Is he perfect? No, of course not, but to listen to some on this thread, he should be wearing a big bust sign. Which is ridiculous. His size has been mentioned, but seldom is McLemore's size brought up.
McLemore: 6'4.5" in shoes, 6'7.75" wingspan, 8'4.5" standing reach, 189 lbs.
Oladipo: 6'4.25" in shoes, 6. 9.25" wingspan, 8'4.5" standing reach, 213 lbs.
McCollum: 6'3.2" in shoes, 6'6.25" wingspan, 8'0.5" standing reach, 197 lbs.
LaVine: 6.5.75" in shoes, 6'8.25" wingspan, 8'4" standing reach, 184 lbs.
Hield: 6'5" in shoes, 6'9.25" wingspan, 8'5" standing reach, 212 lbs.

These are all combine measurements and I chose these players, except for McLemore at random as I stumbled across them. I think Hield is big enough to play in the NBA. I'm not going to predict stardom, or anything like that, but I do think Hield will be a solid NBA player, and most scouts agree with me. Or, I agree with them. I had some idiots a year ago telling me that Towns wasn't going to be that good. I had people tell me that Harden wasn't a good ballhandler and wasn't that athletic. I had people tell me that Blake Griffin wasn't really 6'10"and wasn't athletic enough to play PF in the NBA. I won't even go into some of the things that were said about Cousins.