2018 draft fits with this team
- Thread starter sactowndog
- Start date
It's really hard to give him an NBA comparison because I don't think he plays like any specific player. However, he draws the Steph Curry comparisons because of his cockyness and ability to shoot off the dribble from 30ft out. Aside from that, they have nothing else in common. In terms of playmaking, it's harder to judge because of how much he plays hero-ball. When you dominate most of your entire team's touches..you're bound to end up with assists just like how Westbrook does. It's hard to judge his playmaking abilities because he's inconsistent. Imagine if we gave created our entire offense around Fox..and imagine if we gave him the greenlight do whatever the hell he wants with the ball.
Your best bit is to just watch 1 full game of him. You'll get a good feel for him.
Your best bit is to just watch 1 full game of him. You'll get a good feel for him.
I watched 1 full game of Trae Young and he had 10 TO's.......some of them very bad. I get the ability to see the floor, passing skills, quick shot, Curry comparisons, etc.....I'm just not ready to anoint him a 10x all-star in the NBA....kind of goes for the other prospects truth be told.....doesn't mean I don't like them.
Doncic, Ayton, Bagley, and I guess I'd have to see Porter but haven't seen him play, just going by rave reviews on him.
Doncic, Ayton, Bagley, and I guess I'd have to see Porter but haven't seen him play, just going by rave reviews on him.
OR if Young is BPA when we draft and we pass on him because of team need, that would be KANGZ.
Ask Portland how well that turned out for them passing on Michael Jordan for sam Bowie because of team need. Or how we passed on Donovan miitchell because we had "too many" guards. Or how the Kings bypassed Damian Lillard for Thomas Robinson because we had drafted Jimmer the year before and we needed a PF because JT was a free agent.
I'm not saying that Trae Young is my favorite player in the draft, but if we are drafting number 5 and he is BPA, you take him.
You don't bypass BPA for team need when you have a 13 win team. Every position should be open for debate and competition.
If BPA is a guard where we draft, I have no problem with the Kings taking a guard.
The Kings need to take BPA with their lottery pick, regardless of position.
Ask Portland how well that turned out for them passing on Michael Jordan for sam Bowie because of team need. Or how we passed on Donovan miitchell because we had "too many" guards. Or how the Kings bypassed Damian Lillard for Thomas Robinson because we had drafted Jimmer the year before and we needed a PF because JT was a free agent.
I'm not saying that Trae Young is my favorite player in the draft, but if we are drafting number 5 and he is BPA, you take him.
You don't bypass BPA for team need when you have a 13 win team. Every position should be open for debate and competition.
If BPA is a guard where we draft, I have no problem with the Kings taking a guard.
The Kings need to take BPA with their lottery pick, regardless of position.
Last edited:
Jimmer avereged 7pts a game in his freshman season. I don't think it is very fair to compare a freshman to a senior in terms of development.
I do think that Young's game will translate to the next level tbh. He is a better athlete than people think, he has fantastic range paired with a very very quick release, and he also has a good floater. Yes he still makes many mistakes (e.g. turnovers, defense), but I do think that he is trying to do too much. Oklahoma was not ranked at the beginning of the season, and look where they are now, mostly thanks to Young.
I do get the question about draft strategy though. Do you pick BPA, or do you incorporate team need in your decision-making? IMO at the point, where we are right now, you have to strictly pick BPA, unless it's very close between 2 players. You figure the rest out later. At the end of the day, the question just will be where we will rank him compared to the other players available.
I do think that Young's game will translate to the next level tbh. He is a better athlete than people think, he has fantastic range paired with a very very quick release, and he also has a good floater. Yes he still makes many mistakes (e.g. turnovers, defense), but I do think that he is trying to do too much. Oklahoma was not ranked at the beginning of the season, and look where they are now, mostly thanks to Young.
I do get the question about draft strategy though. Do you pick BPA, or do you incorporate team need in your decision-making? IMO at the point, where we are right now, you have to strictly pick BPA, unless it's very close between 2 players. You figure the rest out later. At the end of the day, the question just will be where we will rank him compared to the other players available.
Only if there is a clear, defined difference in the tiers of the prospects would you consider making redundant choices when the team has clear holes. I’m not sure that exists here, and despite the hindsight I’m not sure most felt Mitchell warranted that last draft over Hield/Bogdan
I think we need a SF/Big the most, and luckily they look abundant up top. I trust Skal/Giles future at this point over WCS, or maybe WCS can refine himself enough to make the PF move. For the team to consider drafting another player at their best prospects position (Young), the prospect better be damn generational IMO, which I’m not sure I see
I think we need a SF/Big the most, and luckily they look abundant up top. I trust Skal/Giles future at this point over WCS, or maybe WCS can refine himself enough to make the PF move. For the team to consider drafting another player at their best prospects position (Young), the prospect better be damn generational IMO, which I’m not sure I see
Last edited:
The Kings had brought in Mitchell for 2 workouts, but chose to trade the #10 pick because of the perception that we had too many shooting guards.
Mitchell may wind up being the best player from this draft and we had an eye on him, yet passed on him because of perceived team need, so we traded down for SF Justin Jackson, a team need (and Giles, but there was no guarantees he would even be there at #20.)
I think that if we took PG Fox at #5 and SG Mitchell at #10, we wouldn't had looked back now and said damn, why we draft another shooting guard.
That being said, if we drafted Mitchell at #10 and he showed what he is showing now, we would had figured out a way to get the others playing time, like moving Bogie over to play Small Forward and Buddy backs up the SG. Or if we are so inclined, trade one of them later for a small forward.
Again, I'm not saying that Young is the best player in this draft, but if Vlade feels he is the BPA where the Kings pick, you don't pass on him because of team need. If Vlade feels that BPA was Young and "player B" and they are rated equal, then he can pick "Player B".
But, the Kings are in no position to pick for need, when what this team needs is talent, that is BPA, regardless of position, period.
Mitchell may wind up being the best player from this draft and we had an eye on him, yet passed on him because of perceived team need, so we traded down for SF Justin Jackson, a team need (and Giles, but there was no guarantees he would even be there at #20.)
I think that if we took PG Fox at #5 and SG Mitchell at #10, we wouldn't had looked back now and said damn, why we draft another shooting guard.
That being said, if we drafted Mitchell at #10 and he showed what he is showing now, we would had figured out a way to get the others playing time, like moving Bogie over to play Small Forward and Buddy backs up the SG. Or if we are so inclined, trade one of them later for a small forward.
Again, I'm not saying that Young is the best player in this draft, but if Vlade feels he is the BPA where the Kings pick, you don't pass on him because of team need. If Vlade feels that BPA was Young and "player B" and they are rated equal, then he can pick "Player B".
But, the Kings are in no position to pick for need, when what this team needs is talent, that is BPA, regardless of position, period.
Last edited:
In other Trae Young news - his USG% has hit 40.0!
This is the literal highest USG% of any player in college basketball (minimum 500 minutes) since the stat has been kept. Granted, that's only since 2009-2010, but still, this is counting all the minor conference schools too. Nine years, about 300 schools, nobody has touched 40 before.
In fact, if you look at major conferences, nobody who has had a realistic shot at contributing in the NBA has passed Doug McDermott's 36.2. Two players over 35. Eight players over 32. 19 players over 30. Trae Young is literally the tail of the tail of the distribution, for whatever that is worth.
This is the literal highest USG% of any player in college basketball (minimum 500 minutes) since the stat has been kept. Granted, that's only since 2009-2010, but still, this is counting all the minor conference schools too. Nine years, about 300 schools, nobody has touched 40 before.
In fact, if you look at major conferences, nobody who has had a realistic shot at contributing in the NBA has passed Doug McDermott's 36.2. Two players over 35. Eight players over 32. 19 players over 30. Trae Young is literally the tail of the tail of the distribution, for whatever that is worth.
OK, a lot of misconceptions going on with Young. First, if you had watched him from the beginning of the year, he was guarded one on one, and he put up huge numbers and was efficient doing it. About 12 games in, teams started doubling him almost every time he touched the ball. To be honest, I can't remember another college PG that got doubled like their doubling Young. As a result, his shooting efficiency has dropped, and his turnovers have increased, as one might expect. Bear in mind, there isn't another player on the Oklahoma team that's going to be a first round pick other than maybe Brady Manek, and that's if he were to wait and come out next year. This year he would probably be a high 2nd rd pick. Manek is the only reliable outlet that Young has. In one game I counted 9 passes that Young made to his teammates right under the basket, 7 of which were uncontested, that were missed. In that same game, I counted 11 passes to players on the perimeter that missed open shots. The only player in that game that shot the ball well was Manek.
So, to think that Young is somehow a selfish player who takes most of the shots, and handles the ball in almost every possession means that you've (not you, a generalization) never seen him play, or you don't understand basketball. Young has no choice but take on most of the scoring responsibility. To think that another PG could put up similar numbers if he had the green light that Young has, means you must be blind. Young has incredible court vision and makes bullet passes with either hand off the dribble. He makes passes that other PG's can't see. Every team that plays Oklahoma is game planning for Young. They know that if they can stop, or at least make him less efficient, they have a chance to beat him.
Someone mentioned that he might be the next Jimmer. If I remember correctly, Jimmer struggled with his ballhandling, not his shooting. Plus Jimmer was never regarded as great passer. The only thing resembling Jimmer might be Young's shooting, but that's about it. Young is a terrific ballhandler. At times it appears that he has the ball attached to a string. And Young is a far superior passer than Jimmer. After watching him play in god knows how many games, I'd say that Young is a better overall athlete as well. I see the Curry comparison, but I also see a Steve Nash comparison with how Young gets into the paint and you never know what the hell he's going to do once there.
I figured that once Oklahoma got into conference play that the competition would get better and some of his numbers would fall, but his true shooting percentage has hung in there, and I'm curious to see how well he adjusts as we get closer to March Maddness. All that said, there are other players in the draft that I would take first, but there is a point, depending on who is left and where were drafting, that I think I would take Young. But make no mistake, Young is doing things that haven't been done before. They've compared his stats with just about every PG that has preceded him, and his numbers are better, and yes, that includes Curry. He is the real deal! When asked in an interview what his goals were, he said to be one of the greatest that ever played the game. You have to love that he's setting the bar high..
So, to think that Young is somehow a selfish player who takes most of the shots, and handles the ball in almost every possession means that you've (not you, a generalization) never seen him play, or you don't understand basketball. Young has no choice but take on most of the scoring responsibility. To think that another PG could put up similar numbers if he had the green light that Young has, means you must be blind. Young has incredible court vision and makes bullet passes with either hand off the dribble. He makes passes that other PG's can't see. Every team that plays Oklahoma is game planning for Young. They know that if they can stop, or at least make him less efficient, they have a chance to beat him.
Someone mentioned that he might be the next Jimmer. If I remember correctly, Jimmer struggled with his ballhandling, not his shooting. Plus Jimmer was never regarded as great passer. The only thing resembling Jimmer might be Young's shooting, but that's about it. Young is a terrific ballhandler. At times it appears that he has the ball attached to a string. And Young is a far superior passer than Jimmer. After watching him play in god knows how many games, I'd say that Young is a better overall athlete as well. I see the Curry comparison, but I also see a Steve Nash comparison with how Young gets into the paint and you never know what the hell he's going to do once there.
I figured that once Oklahoma got into conference play that the competition would get better and some of his numbers would fall, but his true shooting percentage has hung in there, and I'm curious to see how well he adjusts as we get closer to March Maddness. All that said, there are other players in the draft that I would take first, but there is a point, depending on who is left and where were drafting, that I think I would take Young. But make no mistake, Young is doing things that haven't been done before. They've compared his stats with just about every PG that has preceded him, and his numbers are better, and yes, that includes Curry. He is the real deal! When asked in an interview what his goals were, he said to be one of the greatest that ever played the game. You have to love that he's setting the bar high..
I think part of the reason his usage rate, which was already high, went up is because of conference play. Better competition overall is having a greater affect on Young's teammates than it is on him. None of them can make a shot, other than Manek, and at times he's struggled as well. Teams are doubling Young, and doing a good job of denying the ball to Manek. Young will usually try and get his teammates going in the first half, but lately Oklahoma has found itself in a whole at the half. So in the second half, Young usually takes over the game. Put Young on a good team with players that can score the ball, like Duke for instance, and I would bet my life that all his efficiency numbers would go up, and his usage would probably go down. The fact is, despite Oklahoma being ranked number 4 (prior to their loss to Oklahoma St.) they're a bad team, and without Young, wouldn't even sniff the tournament.
One last thing. The minute Young goes to the bench, the team starts falling apart. As a result he's playing aroung 38 minutes of every game. In one recent game he played 40 minutes. I think that's starting to take it's toll on him. Tired legs usually means missed shots. Think about this, I don't have the exact stats in front of me, but a few games ago, not one of his 3 pt attempts this year was assisted, and something like 95% of all his shots are unassisted. That's just mind boggling, along with that 40% usage rate.
One last thing. The minute Young goes to the bench, the team starts falling apart. As a result he's playing aroung 38 minutes of every game. In one recent game he played 40 minutes. I think that's starting to take it's toll on him. Tired legs usually means missed shots. Think about this, I don't have the exact stats in front of me, but a few games ago, not one of his 3 pt attempts this year was assisted, and something like 95% of all his shots are unassisted. That's just mind boggling, along with that 40% usage rate.
They didn't draft for need when they took Stauskas. They didn't draft for need when they took Willie. They didn't draft for need when they took TRob. The idea that you can draft someone and "figure it out later" doesn't jive with reality because if it doesn't work for you on the floor you lose immediate value and the chance to make a trade of any worth. If the Kings just simply committed to playing players like Ben, Stauskas, TRob, heck even Jimmer the Kings wouldn't have won more games probably (they didn't win much anyway) but those players would have produced and certainly had more value than the walk away/dumps they ended up becoming.
The Kings have way too much investment in the last two drafts to take BPA and sit. It never makes any sense. Look at Philly and their center drafts. They killed the value of Okafor, they watched the value seep out of Noel, etc. If there is a player in this draft who is can't miss and they play the same position and can't work with a player you just invested a high pick in in the prior draft you need to retrieve value sooner than later in some way.
The Kings have way too much investment in the last two drafts to take BPA and sit. It never makes any sense. Look at Philly and their center drafts. They killed the value of Okafor, they watched the value seep out of Noel, etc. If there is a player in this draft who is can't miss and they play the same position and can't work with a player you just invested a high pick in in the prior draft you need to retrieve value sooner than later in some way.
I also saw a game where the other team switched screen and roll and put size on him and it effected him greatly. Those are all concerns about him at the next level because it's a different game physically. Also, as evidenced while he's doing things that have never been done it's also while in a role that's never been given to anyone else either. I'm not doubting his ability to produce at the next level, but I do question the impact in all aspects when not in a similar role. Like I said, Allen Iverson. Great player, but winning at the highest level for him was very much tied to a very finite situation.
The problem with Philly is that they sat on Okafor and Noel too long, before they traded them.
If they would had traded Okafor after his rookie season (his best season), they probably would had got a high lottery pick for him.
What philly did was make it clear to everyone that they did not value Okafor and Noel and then they tried to trade them, which was 2 seasons too late, after their trade value was nil.
If they would had traded Okafor after his rookie season (his best season), they probably would had got a high lottery pick for him.
What philly did was make it clear to everyone that they did not value Okafor and Noel and then they tried to trade them, which was 2 seasons too late, after their trade value was nil.
I've watched him play in 10 or 11 games so far, and I can't remember one game where anyone, regardless of size affected him playing one on one, especially any big man. Now what they have been doing on the P&R is switching the big on to Young, but with the other teams PG also staying on Young to try and trap him. It's been an effective way of causing some turnovers at worse, or slowing down Oklahoma's offense at best. Causing Young to throw up some poor, last minute shots as result. I've also seen Young make almost full court, one handed passes for an assist out of that same situation. The only player I've seen that gave Young his moneys worth on defense is Jevon Carter, the PG for W. Virginia, and he's probably the best defensive PG in college today.
The best players play PG/SG. The team has holes at SF/big. The team only has certain avenues to fill those holes as an undesired FA destination.
I agree that if Young shows himself on a tier of his own, as I said, than I understand the argument. But the team can’t pick as if it has a blank canvas. Young is going to have to meet a different standard of proof than a player who plays a position of need. Do you agree?
Mitchell is one incident. It’s not going to stop teams from granting favoritism to players who fill a position of need. Experts either liked the trade down or didn’t like the Kings passing on Monk, and he’s been garbage. I don’t remember than reaction to them passing on Mitchell
I agree that if Young shows himself on a tier of his own, as I said, than I understand the argument. But the team can’t pick as if it has a blank canvas. Young is going to have to meet a different standard of proof than a player who plays a position of need. Do you agree?
Mitchell is one incident. It’s not going to stop teams from granting favoritism to players who fill a position of need. Experts either liked the trade down or didn’t like the Kings passing on Monk, and he’s been garbage. I don’t remember than reaction to them passing on Mitchell
I know there have been a couple people here that are worried about having too many ball handlers but I'm not one of them with the caveat that they need to be unselfish and have a high IQ. The Warriors have a lot of players that are best with the ball in their hands (Curry, Durant, Draymond) but they are also good at playing off each other. I don't see why it can't be the same here.
I totally believe a Fox/Bogdanovic/Doncic perimeter would work and work rather well. Having so many players that can run the pick & roll effectively is a good thing. It allows us to expose weaknesses in the defense. If we only have one guy who is effective in the pick & roll, teams could potentially put their best defender on the ball handler to help limit it's effectiveness, but then we would have another guy who can run it very effectively who may be guarded by an average or below average defender. Then we all of a sudden are collapsing the defense and finding easy shots.
We already have seen Bogdanovic's ability in the pick and roll, how he doesn't force the issue, and makes the correct read. Doncic is supposed to be even better in the pick & roll. Joerger has praised Fox's IQ and I could see him becoming effective in the pick & roll as well (especially with his speed and explosiveness). I just envision a very smart perimeter across these three guys who will play for each other, will put their own stats aside, and make the correct plays.
To give you a sense for how Doncic's Euroleague stats look this year compared to Bogdanovic's last year...
Bogdan: 24 Years Old / .655 TS% / .500 FG% / .430 3PT% / .855 FT% / 4.0 FTA / 18.8 PPG / 4.9 RPG / 4.7 APG / 1.5 SPG / 0.4 BPG / 3.0 TOPG / 3.2 FPG
Bogdan: 20 Years Old / .402 TS% / .303 FG% / .200 3PT% / .800 FT% / 3.4 FTA / 10.3 PPG / 3.8 RPG / 2.1 APG / 1.3 SPG / 0.0 BPG / 1.4 TOPG / 3.4 FPG
Doncic: 18 Years Old / .639 TS% / .471 FG% / .337 3PT% / .864 FT% / 8.4 FTA / 24.4 PPG / 7.6 RPG / 6.5 APG / 1.5 SPG / 0.6 BPG / 3.3 TOPG / 1.5 FPG
*stats are all per36 min
The first thing that obviously jumps off the page is the age difference. Bogdan's 20 year old season was the first one in the Euroleague where as Doncic has been playing in the Euroleague since 16 years old.
When comparing Doncic's 18 year old season (& current season) to Bogdan's 24 year old season, their scoring efficiency is very similar (.639% vs. .655%) despite the fact that his usage was higher and was averaging about 5.5 more points per game. Not only is that impressive but just looking at the TS% outright (63.9% in the 2nd best league in the world as an 18 year old is pretty darn impressive).
His rebounding is obviously higher which isn't a surprise considering he is taller, bigger, and projected as a better athlete than Bogdan but his assists are higher as well despite them averaging about the same amount of turnovers per minute. Doncic has about a 2/1 AST/TO while Bogdan had a 1.5/1 ST/TO. So again, higher usage but better results.
His fouls per game were interesting to me as well. only 1.5 fouls per 36 minutes vs. Bogdan's 3.2. Is this an indication of high IQ (great at avoiding fouls) or that he is soft (lets his man go untouched on defense, allows player to score without making the earn it)? However, his FTA (8.4 this year vs. Bogdan's at 4.0) makes me think it's probably not him being soft as he doesn't seem to avoid contact on that side of the ball. But narrowing in on the FTA, 8.4 is great and something that I think can translate in the NBA.
Last thing I wanted to touch on was the 3PT%. It's obviously much worse than Bogdan's, but Doncic was shooting 37% from three the year prior ad Bogdan shot 37%, 36%, & 37% from three in his prior three seasons so I'm not too worried about his shooting.
Bottom line is that Bogdan has looked like a high IQ, unselfish player who makes the correct reads/plays. I think when it's all said and done, Doncic will have the same description. I'm hopeful for Fox too as he has a team first mentality, has gotten praise by the coaching staff for his IQ, and you never really see him make any plays that scratch your head and say "what the h*** was that?"
If we're lucky enough to grab Doncic, I think we have to do it. If Giles turns out to be as advertised (Temple said he was probably our best big man passer too), Fox/Bogdan/Doncic/Giles could be a very dynamic team.
I totally believe a Fox/Bogdanovic/Doncic perimeter would work and work rather well. Having so many players that can run the pick & roll effectively is a good thing. It allows us to expose weaknesses in the defense. If we only have one guy who is effective in the pick & roll, teams could potentially put their best defender on the ball handler to help limit it's effectiveness, but then we would have another guy who can run it very effectively who may be guarded by an average or below average defender. Then we all of a sudden are collapsing the defense and finding easy shots.
We already have seen Bogdanovic's ability in the pick and roll, how he doesn't force the issue, and makes the correct read. Doncic is supposed to be even better in the pick & roll. Joerger has praised Fox's IQ and I could see him becoming effective in the pick & roll as well (especially with his speed and explosiveness). I just envision a very smart perimeter across these three guys who will play for each other, will put their own stats aside, and make the correct plays.
To give you a sense for how Doncic's Euroleague stats look this year compared to Bogdanovic's last year...
Bogdan: 24 Years Old / .655 TS% / .500 FG% / .430 3PT% / .855 FT% / 4.0 FTA / 18.8 PPG / 4.9 RPG / 4.7 APG / 1.5 SPG / 0.4 BPG / 3.0 TOPG / 3.2 FPG
Bogdan: 20 Years Old / .402 TS% / .303 FG% / .200 3PT% / .800 FT% / 3.4 FTA / 10.3 PPG / 3.8 RPG / 2.1 APG / 1.3 SPG / 0.0 BPG / 1.4 TOPG / 3.4 FPG
Doncic: 18 Years Old / .639 TS% / .471 FG% / .337 3PT% / .864 FT% / 8.4 FTA / 24.4 PPG / 7.6 RPG / 6.5 APG / 1.5 SPG / 0.6 BPG / 3.3 TOPG / 1.5 FPG
*stats are all per36 min
The first thing that obviously jumps off the page is the age difference. Bogdan's 20 year old season was the first one in the Euroleague where as Doncic has been playing in the Euroleague since 16 years old.
When comparing Doncic's 18 year old season (& current season) to Bogdan's 24 year old season, their scoring efficiency is very similar (.639% vs. .655%) despite the fact that his usage was higher and was averaging about 5.5 more points per game. Not only is that impressive but just looking at the TS% outright (63.9% in the 2nd best league in the world as an 18 year old is pretty darn impressive).
His rebounding is obviously higher which isn't a surprise considering he is taller, bigger, and projected as a better athlete than Bogdan but his assists are higher as well despite them averaging about the same amount of turnovers per minute. Doncic has about a 2/1 AST/TO while Bogdan had a 1.5/1 ST/TO. So again, higher usage but better results.
His fouls per game were interesting to me as well. only 1.5 fouls per 36 minutes vs. Bogdan's 3.2. Is this an indication of high IQ (great at avoiding fouls) or that he is soft (lets his man go untouched on defense, allows player to score without making the earn it)? However, his FTA (8.4 this year vs. Bogdan's at 4.0) makes me think it's probably not him being soft as he doesn't seem to avoid contact on that side of the ball. But narrowing in on the FTA, 8.4 is great and something that I think can translate in the NBA.
Last thing I wanted to touch on was the 3PT%. It's obviously much worse than Bogdan's, but Doncic was shooting 37% from three the year prior ad Bogdan shot 37%, 36%, & 37% from three in his prior three seasons so I'm not too worried about his shooting.
Bottom line is that Bogdan has looked like a high IQ, unselfish player who makes the correct reads/plays. I think when it's all said and done, Doncic will have the same description. I'm hopeful for Fox too as he has a team first mentality, has gotten praise by the coaching staff for his IQ, and you never really see him make any plays that scratch your head and say "what the h*** was that?"
If we're lucky enough to grab Doncic, I think we have to do it. If Giles turns out to be as advertised (Temple said he was probably our best big man passer too), Fox/Bogdan/Doncic/Giles could be a very dynamic team.
They most certainly did.
When they drafted Willie, they had a "need" for an athletic shot blocking big to pair with DeMarcus. When they drafted Stauskas, they had a "need" for perimeter/3pt shooting. While Willie has turned out to be a decent pick, they botched every single pick between him and Cousins.
Perhaps a better way to state it is that they can't afford to pass on the most talented player by worrying about what they already have on the roster.
They shouldn't have passed on Damien Lillard simply because they already had Tyreke Evans and Jimmer Fredette. That's the point.
Prove it.
I'll give you a hint .. you can't.
If the Kings had drafted better, they would have been able to get value for any redundant talent they might have had.
You can't convince me that had they drafted Steph Curry in 2009 then Damien Lilliard 3 years later that they couldn't have moved one for significant value a few seasons later if they needed to. The problem is, the players the Kings drafted instead weren't any good and had no value later on.
When they drafted Willie, they had a "need" for an athletic shot blocking big to pair with DeMarcus. When they drafted Stauskas, they had a "need" for perimeter/3pt shooting. While Willie has turned out to be a decent pick, they botched every single pick between him and Cousins.
Perhaps a better way to state it is that they can't afford to pass on the most talented player by worrying about what they already have on the roster.
They shouldn't have passed on Damien Lillard simply because they already had Tyreke Evans and Jimmer Fredette. That's the point.
Prove it.
I'll give you a hint .. you can't.
If the Kings had drafted better, they would have been able to get value for any redundant talent they might have had.
You can't convince me that had they drafted Steph Curry in 2009 then Damien Lilliard 3 years later that they couldn't have moved one for significant value a few seasons later if they needed to. The problem is, the players the Kings drafted instead weren't any good and had no value later on.
It was chance that the redundant players ended up better.
Most of the time prospects come in general tiers and it’s a pure lottery who ends up better. And logically, teams will gravitate to who fits the cornerstones of their current roster
If players are in the same tier then you select for fit. And as of now, in this upcoming draft, nobody of redundant fit has established themselves as a tier above the players who do fit
Most of the time prospects come in general tiers and it’s a pure lottery who ends up better. And logically, teams will gravitate to who fits the cornerstones of their current roster
If players are in the same tier then you select for fit. And as of now, in this upcoming draft, nobody of redundant fit has established themselves as a tier above the players who do fit
I think we as fans sometimes get so caught up in the idea of drafting the "instant game changer" who we think will change a loser into a contender overnight that we forget that you draft guys based on where they'll be three or four years down the road.
Trae has had an absolutely monster season but as a long term prospect I still have him rated below DeFox because he has some legitimate size and athleticism concerns and I'm fairly concerned about his defense at the next level. It's the same reason that I have Ayton and Bagley higher on my wishlist than Doncic. You can teach an athletic beast more skills but you can't teach a skilled player more athleticism.
Trae has had an absolutely monster season but as a long term prospect I still have him rated below DeFox because he has some legitimate size and athleticism concerns and I'm fairly concerned about his defense at the next level. It's the same reason that I have Ayton and Bagley higher on my wishlist than Doncic. You can teach an athletic beast more skills but you can't teach a skilled player more athleticism.
Like you, I'm not too big on Young for this team. He has a high usage rate, chucks a lot and is undersized as you said. He can get away with that in college. In the NBA he won't be doing this I believe. I read posters saying how no freshman has put up the type of numbers he has, let's remember one thing....different times, different philosophies. The head coach for Oklahoma is obviously giving him the green light to shoot the ball as he pleases with no consequences.
I get the "Draft BPA and worry about it later" take, but at some point, especially a team that's chalk full of 1st round picks, you have to take a stand and start building around a core. With Trae, I feel like teams are going to be so concerned about passing on "the next Steph", that they're going to overlook a lot of the concerns you pointed out above. Steph might be the most unique talent ever; it's really freaking hard to find the "next" him.
Now if this was a 1 or 2 prospect draft where Trae stood above the rest, then I'd get the BPA angle and just draft him. But there's legitimately 4 other potential "franchise" guys with a bunch of other quality prospects in the mid-late lottery. This isn't the draft to get cute and draft another PG after spending a #5 pick on one the previous year.
Now if this was a 1 or 2 prospect draft where Trae stood above the rest, then I'd get the BPA angle and just draft him. But there's legitimately 4 other potential "franchise" guys with a bunch of other quality prospects in the mid-late lottery. This isn't the draft to get cute and draft another PG after spending a #5 pick on one the previous year.
Why oh Why? Young is far from a chucker. Some of you post like you have seen Young play a full game. Let's make that games. I have personally seen more than 10 Oklahoma Games. I love College ball a lot more than Pro. The guy is carrying the team. Literally. There is no one else to facilitate scoring on that team. Sure, Young takes 19 shots a game. But, 45 percent is not so terrible. He shoots 40 from 3, which is excellent. 10 assists and even 4 boards a game. He's asked to do it all.
Rating Fox above Trae Young just means you have not watched either player in college for an extensive look. Instead of watching youtube's biased info, Sit down and watch a few games of college ball. It's amazing how you will look at things a little differently. Especially, when judging talent. I remember all the scouts down on Curry for this lack of Athleticism. Seems like he turned out ok. Young will come into the NBA and light it up immediately. Fox is still a project.
Rating Fox above Trae Young just means you have not watched either player in college for an extensive look. Instead of watching youtube's biased info, Sit down and watch a few games of college ball. It's amazing how you will look at things a little differently. Especially, when judging talent. I remember all the scouts down on Curry for this lack of Athleticism. Seems like he turned out ok. Young will come into the NBA and light it up immediately. Fox is still a project.
So, you are telling me that if the Kings are drafting #4 and they have Trae Young ranked #2 on their big board and say Porter ranked #4 and they have a chance at both, then they should draft the #4 player on their talent board, because of team need?
That kind of mentality gets you into the lottery year after year.
You don't pick a player ranked lower on your draft board, simply because of team need.
Simply put, you should always draft the highest rated player (your ranked BPA) that is left on your draft board when your teams name is called.
That kind of mentality gets you into the lottery year after year.
You don't pick a player ranked lower on your draft board, simply because of team need.
Simply put, you should always draft the highest rated player (your ranked BPA) that is left on your draft board when your teams name is called.