Alright, we got the 8th pick, options...

[dude12]

if for some reason embiid slides to 8, do we take him with all his injuries???

Initially, I was leaning to taking him as my stance has always been if your able to draft a star, based on the NBA is a league where you win with stars, but the more I read on his foot and others with this injury (Walton, Yao, Z) , the more I'm looking at passing on him because I think the draft is deep enough that a star is there at 8. Doesn't have to be a superstar but a borderline all-star at minimum works for me.

You would have to absolutely know how bad that break is in that bone......how many pins are they putting in that thing? If I'm a team with 2 picks....such as Orlando, I'm taking him with that 2nd pick.

 

[Jerichoholic]

if for some reason embiid slides to 8, do we take him with all his injuries???

It's all about the risk, no one knows how this is going to turn out. Will the injuries destroy his whole career or even if it limits what he can do then that is a loss. If healthy he can be a superstar and I believe he would be. Not a good sign that indications now are that he had back problems in high school, now back problems in his first year of college, and a foot injury most likely keeps him out next year.

I don't think the Kings take him at #8 if he was available, they are in a more win now mode, not for a championship, but for dramatic improvement in the win column. I don't think they want to wait a year for their new rookie to play.

 

[Cecil]

Stress Fracture in the foot and a back injury at such a young age is scary. I'm interested for more info to be released. I read hoopshype stating it was serious, although it's just a tweet from some reporter.

 

[Letsgokings13]

if for some reason embiid slides to 8, do we take him with all his injuries???

No doubt, but risky

 

[Hoovtrain]

If Embiid's injuries are determined to not be long lasting past this year, i say the Kings take a page from the 49ers draft playbook and draft him and essentially redshirt him this year and let him heal.

 

[hrdboild]

Your changing your argument here. You compared his FG% to Aaron Gordon's FG% like it was an apples to apples comparison. All I did was disprove your point. Then you go on about comparing him to other players who have averaged double doubles while getting constantly double teamed. That's not the argument we were having, but it's natural to backpedal and start down a new path when you have nowhere to go.

Where do you people come from with this nonsense? I'm not changing my argument, that comparison wasn't even an argument to begin with. Aaron Gordon is constantly criticized for being such a poor shooter in college this year that it might not matter how good he is defensively. Randle didn't have nearly the same impact defensively and he shot .006% better from the floor. I was merely pointing out that the rap on these two players doesn't match the results. Maybe if you weren't so interested in proving me wrong you could take a step back and understand nuance?

 

[twslam07]

Where do you people come from with this nonsense? I'm not changing my argument, that comparison wasn't even an argument to begin with. Aaron Gordon is constantly criticized for being such a poor shooter in college this year that it might not matter how good he is defensively. Randle didn't have nearly the same impact defensively and he shot .006% better from the floor. I was merely pointing out that the rap on these two players doesn't match the results. Maybe if you weren't so interested in proving me wrong you could take a step back and understand nuance?

You made a comparison that was nonsense, so I wanted to correct it for you and all the people that read these forums. Simple as that.

If you want to argue that Randle isn't going to live up to the hype, I'm fine with that. However, when you compare Gordon's and Randle's FG% in a vacuum as evidence to Randle not being the player people seem to believe, I'm going to call you out on it.

 

[Hoovtrain]

Someone in a W's forum was saying that the W's were looking to trade Barnes for a 1st round pick. Not sure where exactly they want that 1st round pick. But if Gay opts out, i would be inclined to give up #8 for Barnes and then use Gay's $ to beef up some other positions of need (i.e. PF/SG/PG)

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Someone in a W's forum was saying that the W's were looking to trade Barnes for a 1st round pick. Not sure where exactly they want that 1st round pick. But if Gay opts out, i would be inclined to give up #8 for Barnes and then use Gay's $ to beef up some other positions of need (i.e. PF/SG/PG)

if gay passes, gordan hayward or chandler parsons agents are getting a phone call. nab payton with the 8th and roll with that roster.

cuz
jt
parsons
mclemore
payton

its a decent line up. not great but more balanced with 2 wings that can spread the floor, pg that can play some d, great center and a solid pf.

 

[Hoovtrain]

if gay passes, gordan hayward or chandler parsons agents are getting a phone call. nab payton with the 8th and roll with that roster.

cuz
jt
parsons
mclemore
payton

its a decent line up. not great but more balanced with 2 wings that can spread the floor, pg that can play some d, great center and a solid pf.

That would def be more balanced, but just not something that blows me away. i really don't want JT or Ben in the starting lineup. My ideal scenario (and by ideal i mean pipe dream) would be for Gay to opt out, use his $ to sign Pau and Deng or Parsons/etc, trade #8/JT to ORL for Affalo/#12, flip #12/Ben/Expiring's for Teague. LOL. i am sure none of this is feasible, both financially or just in general, hence pipe dream.

C-Cousins
PF-Gasol
SF-Deng
SG-Affalo
PG-Teague

 

[hrdboild]

You made a comparison that was nonsense, so I wanted to correct it for you and all the people that read these forums. Simple as that.

If you want to argue that Randle isn't going to live up to the hype, I'm fine with that. However, when you compare Gordon's and Randle's FG% in a vacuum as evidence to Randle not being the player people seem to believe, I'm going to call you out on it.

You're absolutely right, FG% bears no relation to FG% and it's nonsense to say .501 is only slightly better than .495. No comparison at all. Nobody here is familiar with either of these players after watching both of them play a full year in NCAA division 1 so it's unfair to mention their names without giving the full scouting report in every post.

This seems like nitpicking in the extreme to me.

Context or not, a guy with a reputation for beasting in the paint who averages only 50% from the floor is maybe not a polished product yet. And when the same player isn't contributing much in other areas (2.7 combined assists, blocks, and steals) his scoring efficiency or lack thereof deserves some special attention.

Look, the Aaron Gordon comment was more of an aside and you seem to have made it your personal crusade to show how wrong I am. It's irrelevant really. Pretend I never said it if you like. It's distracting from the point rather than reinforcing it in any case. Let me put it another way. These are the guys Randle is expected to hopefully emulate in some way in the NBA as a nightly double-double threat and their FG% in their final season before the draft:

Zach Randolph .587
Kevin Love .559
Blake Griffin .654
Paul Millsap .571
JJ Hickson .591
Carlos Boozer .665
Al Horford .608
Kenneth Faried .623
Carl Landry .597
--------------------
Julius Randle .501

It makes you go "huh". Somebody is going to jump all over me now for cherry picking data or misusing stats which have little value (the horror, my god the horror) or choosing poor comparisons to NBA players (I looked at the list of double-double leaders in the NBA and picked the ones who play the same position and have similar measurements) but I have no agenda here, I'm not getting paid to pump up some guys at the expense of others. I'm not trying to intentionally deceive anyone. I think it was a mistake to overlook Thomas Robinson's .505 FG% in retrospect and it's relevant I think when we're talking about choosing one guy (who coincidentally happens to be a PF on a media darling division 1 team) over another guy (who coincidentally happens to be a little known PG from a mid-major conference) to take a more critical look at those numbers.

 

[twslam07]

You're absolutely right, FG% bears no relation to FG% and it's nonsense to say .501 is only slightly better than .495. No comparison at all. Nobody here is familiar with either of these players after watching both of them play a full year in NCAA division 1 so it's unfair to mention their names without giving the full scouting report in every post.

This seems like nitpicking in the extreme to me.

Context or not, a guy with a reputation for beasting in the paint who averages only 50% from the floor is maybe not a polished product yet. And when the same player isn't contributing much in other areas (2.7 combined assists, blocks, and steals) his scoring efficiency or lack thereof deserves some special attention.

Look, the Aaron Gordon comment was more of an aside and you seem to have made it your personal crusade to show how wrong I am. It's irrelevant really. Pretend I never said it if you like. It's distracting from the point rather than reinforcing it in any case. Let me put it another way. These are the guys Randle is expected to hopefully emulate in some way in the NBA as a nightly double-double threat and their FG% in their final season before the draft:

Zach Randolph .587
Kevin Love .559
Blake Griffin .654
Paul Millsap .571
JJ Hickson .591
Carlos Boozer .665
Al Horford .608
Kenneth Faried .623
Carl Landry .597
--------------------
Julius Randle .501

It makes you go "huh". Somebody is going to jump all over me now for cherry picking data or misusing stats which have little value (the horror, my god the horror) or choosing poor comparisons to NBA players (I looked at the list of double-double leaders in the NBA and picked the ones who play the same position and have similar measurements) but I have no agenda here, I'm not getting paid to pump up some guys at the expense of others. I'm not trying to intentionally deceive anyone. I think it was a mistake to overlook Thomas Robinson's .505 FG% in retrospect and it's relevant I think when we're talking about choosing one guy (who coincidentally happens to be a PF on a media darling division 1 team) over another guy (who coincidentally happens to be a little known PG from a mid-major conference) to take a more critical look at those numbers.

It just comes down to how these players get their points, and that is why I called out your comparison to Gordon's FG%. It's like looking at Cousins FG% versus D. Jordan's FG%. They get their points differently. One of them is the focal point of the offense and another gets his points by putbacks and garbage buckets. They too have very similar measurements and Jordan consistently averages 60% from the floor (even in college) while Cousins averaged 56% in college and below 50% in all of his seasons in the NBA. It's just not a good comparison to judge a player by.

Context is everything. Without it, you are lost.

 

[hrdboild]

It just comes down to how these players get their points, and that is why I called out your comparison to Gordon's FG%. It's like looking at Cousins FG% versus D. Jordan's FG%. They get their points differently. One of them is the focal point of the offense and another gets his points by putbacks and garbage buckets. They too have very similar measurements and Jordan consistently averages 60% from the floor (even in college) while Cousins averaged 56% in college and below 50% in all of his seasons in the NBA. It's just not a good comparison to judge a player by.

Context is everything. Without it, you are lost.

Okay lets elaborate on this a bit. If Randle scores his points mostly by demanding double-doubles in the post and makes about 50% of them in college and we already have Cousins who scores his points mostly by demanding double-doubles in the post and makes about 50% of them in the NBA, where do we fit Randle into the offense? If Gordon scores his points mostly off hustle plays, put backs, alley-oops and the occasional spot-up three and makes about 50% of them in college isn't he actually a better fit offensively on our team?

The results are the same, but the context is different. This is true. Guys who create their own shots in the post are typically going to have lower percentages overall. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm arguing against is the idea that Randle dominated college competition in the post this year. He didn't. And that matters when considering fit, projectability, and everything else that goes into choosing a draft pick.

(ex. 1) We should pick Randle over Gordon, so the argument goes, because he's a dominant offensive player who's a good bet to get you nightly double-doubles. Even though he's redundant with Cousins, the magnitude of his talent is such that fit is less important.

(ex. 2) We should pick Gordon over Randle, so the argument goes, because he's a crafty defender who can check perimeter threats and some post threats while his elite athleticism makes him a target to finish plays on the fast break and generate extra possessions with his hustle. Also our team needs plus defenders at any position.

Looking at these two arguments, I think it matters that Randle and Gordon shot the same percentage from the floor. It calls into question the part of the Randle argument (ex. 1) which involves his overwhelming talent as a scorer. Compared to PFs who have succeeded in the NBA primarily as post scorers, his shooting efficiency is suspect.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Someone in a W's forum was saying that the W's were looking to trade Barnes for a 1st round pick. Not sure where exactly they want that 1st round pick. But if Gay opts out, i would be inclined to give up #8 for Barnes and then use Gay's $ to beef up some other positions of need (i.e. PF/SG/PG)

I'd rather gamble on one of the guys available at 8 than pick up Barnes, who's been somewhat disappointing in his two seasons so far.

 

[Hoovtrain]

I'd rather gamble on one of the guys available at 8 than pick up Barnes, who's been somewhat disappointing in his two seasons so far.

True, although i thought he was pretty solid his rookie year. I am hoping last year was just a fluke. To me, it all depends on who is on the board at #8, unless there is a too good to pass up offer on the table.

 

[pshn80]

The material above on this page and the 20 or so other pagesx since the thread began, it tends to impress the hell out of me on the complexity involved with some one thing withour No. 8 pick. What a job the
FO has. We have pointed out at least 197 ways to go and they can only pick one. I don't think it suffices for the FO to smart, experienced, hard working and very intelligent and basketball-wise, they're going to have to be lucky as well, and then lucky again. Did I mention flexible?

Also, if everything goes their way I we the possibility making a "wrong" move is always there. And whatever they do and however I think about it, it will PO somebody.

I'm confident and looking forward to the next chapter of building a winning Kings team which happens next week.

 

[twslam07]

Okay lets elaborate on this a bit. If Randle scores his points mostly by demanding double-doubles in the post and makes about 50% of them in college and we already have Cousins who scores his points mostly by demanding double-doubles in the post and makes about 50% of them in the NBA, where do we fit Randle into the offense? If Gordon scores his points mostly off hustle plays, put backs, alley-oops and the occasional spot-up three and makes about 50% of them in college isn't he actually a better fit offensively on our team?

We're not arguing which player fits better with our team. We're arguing trying to use Gordon's FG% as a barometer for Randle. The argument can be made that Gordon would be a better offensive fit with Cousins due to his role player mentality, but the argument can be made that Randle would be a better fit offensively since both aren't very strong jump shooters and Randle has a better post game. It could put teams who have a weak defensive big man in a bit of a pickle. They would have to pick their poison.

The results are the same, but the context is different. This is true. Guys who create their own shots in the post are typically going to have lower percentages overall. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm arguing against is the idea that Randle dominated college competition in the post this year. He didn't. And that matters when considering fit, projectability, and everything else that goes into choosing a draft pick.

And I'm not arguing against that, but when you brought it up, you posted Randle's and Gordon's FG% as evidence to your claim which doesn't fly.

I think it matters that Randle and Gordon shot the same percentage from the floor. It calls into question the part of the Randle argument which involves his overwhelming talent as a scorer. Compared to PFs who have succeeded in the NBA primarily as post scorers, his shooting efficiency is suspect.

These two sentences are interesting to me. You said something earlier in your post that contradicts this statement...

Guys who create their own shots in the post are typically going to have lower percentages overall. I'm not arguing against that.

With this quote in mind, shouldn't Gordon have a higher FG%? Is Gordon's and/or Randle's FG% lower than what it should be? Do you see how this can be confusing? You essentially give people who create their shot in the post (Randle) a pass, but then you go on to knock Randle's FG%. If guys like Gordon should have a higher percentage, shouldn't he be well over 50%? Why is he not being critiqued as well?

 

[hrdboild]

I give up. You've made the same statement 3 times in a row now. If you can't understand what I'm saying at this point, there's no reason to continue this any further.

PS - I edited my previous post slightly to make it more clear when I was speaking hypothetically and when I was speaking in my own voice. The contradicting statements were intentional.

 

[roasthawg]

Of the guys we have an outside shot at I'd go Gordon, Randle, Vonleh.

I'm still trying to decide on Smart... looks to be very similar to Tyreke was when he came out. Not a bad thing as Tyreke is a good nba player, would be better if he could stay healthy and would be great if he could stay healthy and develop a jumper. Just because Tyreke can't shoot doesn't mean Smart won't ever be able too. All that said it's a tough fit on this team I think as we're built around a post player, we need more jump shooters not less.

If it's none of those guys then it's definitely Stauskas for me... he's an ideal fit and I think he's gonna be a solid nba player.

 

[Letsgokings13]

Kings showing "strong interest" in Doug McDermott and Marcus Smart?


http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2014/...to-kings-interest-doug-mcdermott-marcus-smart

 

[HereWeBoogie]

Embiid's recovery from surgery is supposed to keep him out 4-6 months. Which is 0-2 months of the season. Which isn't that much, no way he drops to 8

 

[Bricklayer]

Kings showing "strong interest" in Doug McDermott and Marcus Smart?


http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2014/...to-kings-interest-doug-mcdermott-marcus-smart

A rather dubious recap of dubious Chad Ford ESPN Insider reports that may or may not be relying on draftexpress mock drafts, but I mean given our draft position how could we not? Showing "srong interest" in Wiggins isn't going to get us very far. so of the 4-5 names most often mentioned at about #8, we're strong interesting half of them.

This was a funny picture though.

Zach LaVine, about whom I know very little, apparently dropped a 45.5" vert at our workout today:

 

[roasthawg]

This was a funny picture though.

Zach LaVine, about whom I know very little, apparently dropped a 45.5" vert at our workout today:

Draft him!!

 

[Letsgokings13]

A rather dubious recap of dubious Chad Ford ESPN Insider reports that may or may not be relying on draftexpress mock drafts, but I mean given our draft position how could we not? Showing "srong interest" in Wiggins isn't going to get us very far. so of the 4-5 names most often mentioned at about #8, we're strong interesting half of them.

This was a funny picture though.

Zach LaVine, about whom I know very little, apparently dropped a 45.5" vert at our workout today:

Gotcha

 

[twslam07]

I give up. You've made the same statement 3 times in a row now. If you can't understand what I'm saying at this point, there's no reason to continue this any further.

PS - I edited my previous post slightly to make it more clear when I was speaking hypothetically and when I was speaking in my own voice. The contradicting statements were intentional.

I think you're getting too far down in the weeds. My premise is very simple. Let me bring up your original quote one last time.

I actually like Payton more than Randle at this point.

Fine.

The 50% from the floor that Randle shot this year is a little worrying for a guy who scores so many of his points from the post.

I'm fine with this statement as long as it is backed up with evidence to support your claim.

Everyone talks about how Aaron Gordon can't shoot, but his .495 mark is awfully close to Randle's .501. Funny how perception sometimes obscures the results.

You're right. Gordon is not the best of shooters. The reason his FG% is so high is because he knows his limitations and takes high percentage shots on put-backs, alley-oops, and garbage buckets. Randle, on the other hand, is a very talented scorer. Who has many ways to score on his opponents. He has good post moves and is very strong. This caused teams to constantly double and sometimes triple team in order for him not to get an easy close range shot.

By comparing Gordon's FG% with Randle's FG%, it is not a clean comparison. If you wanted to draw a viable comparison, look at a past college player who was as big of threat on the block as Randle as a 1st year player. If you brought up a legitimate comparison in the first place, we would not be having this conversation.

It's also not in his favor that he averaged nearly as many TOs (2.5) as assists, blocks, and steals combined (2.7).

Interesting observation.

I still think he's a solid pick in the top 10, I'm just not as high on him as some others are.

Fair enough.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Zach LaVine, about whom I know very little, apparently dropped a 45.5" vert at our workout today:

10-second scouting report on LaVine:

Pros:
Supreme athlete
Has great form on jumper

Cons:
Terrible defender with low effort
Jumper doesn't seem to go in
Can't get to basket
Iffy handle, not a great passer, but thinks he's a PG
Not remotely close to ready to contribute

 

[Bricklayer]

10-second scouting report on LaVine:

Pros:
Supreme athlete
Has great form on jumper

Cons:
Terrible defender with low effort
Jumper doesn't seem to go in
Can't get to basket
Iffy handle, not a great passer, but thinks he's a PG
Not remotely close to ready to contribute

Wait, I was looking for a scouting report on LaVine, not Ben.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Wait, I was looking for a scouting report on LaVine, not Ben.

Yowch!

The similarities are there, though. I'd say Ben puts out a LOT more effort on defense (effort, not results), and I never thought Ben saw himself as a PG. Otherwise, the comparison is apt.

 

[Albatros]

Had absolutely no interest in Lavine before but I just watched his interview and he said he compares himself to Jamaal Crawford. Now I'm really really not interested.

 

[randymoss1881]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/laker...thompson-kevin-love-trade-20140620-story.html

Hopefully we could use our connections and snag Klay Thompson instead. I'd even throw in our 1st but we would need like a 2nd in return. I know Malone/PDA have bern rumored to b in love with him.