Amick – Sacramento Kings To Pass On Drummond, Iffy On Kidd-Gilchrist And Barnes?

[roasthawg]

Yea, seriously. Plus, he was able to get John salmons back at a good contract. It helped us round out the roster to make us more balanced so we can put out a good sized lineup and not have to make people play out of position.

Drafting and trading/fa are two different things. Giants fans berated Sabean for the same thing... he was bad at trade/free agency but good in the draft. Trading/free agency are easier things to fix than being bad at the draft. Petrie hasn't gotten many breaks here (bad ownership, a city fa's don't want to come too, bad luck in the lotto, etc.) but he's done a great job in the draft if nothing else.

 

[Bricklayer]

The flip side is that the Thunder took James Harden despite having Sefalosha, Durant and Green as wing players. They stockpiled talent and then balanced their roster by trading some of that talent (Green) for what they needed (Perkins).

Not sure that's a great example, as Harden was a SG, and only Sefalosha, a roelplayer, stood in his way at that positon. Thewm drafting a shooting guard while they had a PG and 2 SFs is no more radical than us drafting a SF while we have a PG and 2 SGs.

Now us drafting a PG/SG while we have a PG and 2 SGs...and another PG/SG we drafted jsut last year...now you have created a mess. Its incompetence.

 

[roasthawg]

You don't want me to recount the other bad moves this GM has made (draft and nondraft). It is exhaustive, has been done before, and is quite frankly, annoying. The montra, in Petrie we trust, is long gone. Usually it is just local blowhards that pull for a GM to be fired over incompetency, but our GM has a number of national media on board. His effectiveness is at least a questioned issue, one is niave or foolish not to notice that.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/draft/gm-ratings
This analysis has Petrie ranked #2 in the entire league in terms of draft success.

 

[Heuge]

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/draft/gm-ratings
This analysis has Petrie ranked #2 in the entire league in terms of draft success.

Buford is in the second half. Sorry, that makes this random sampling of stats invalid.

 

[est.1999]

Everything is moot unless we hire a legitimate coach. That's my biggest qualm with this franchise.

 

[pshn80]

You don't want me to recount the other bad moves this GM has made (draft and nondraft). It is exhaustive, has been done before, and is quite frankly, annoying. The montra, in Petrie we trust, is long gone. Usually it is just local blowhards that pull for a GM to be fired over incompetency, but our GM has a number of national media on board. His effectiveness is at least a questioned issue, one is niave or foolish not to notice that.

The montra that in Petrie we trust is not gone. I trust him completely and willingly. I've read your thoughts and am not impressed or swayed in the least. I want petrie to draft someone he wants.

 

[Heuge]

The montra that in Petrie we trust is not gone. I trust him completely and willingly. I've read your thoughts and am not impressed or swayed in the least. I want petrie to draft someone he wants.

Well, someone has too. Shall we do the math on our combined record over the last 5 seasons with this GM? I know the arguments though. Its not his fault. Rebuilds take time. Bad luck. Blah. Blah. Blah. Everyone can have an opinion, of course. Some I get, others I do not. To each their own.

 

[Gilles]

What does trading him to the warriors have to do with his draft position? nothing. Your comparing apples and oranges.

I'm saying the value of your draft pick plummets if you can't find place for him on your team. The only player who will only need to show inconsistent flashes to not lose much value is Drummond.

 

[gunks]

Everything is moot unless we hire a legitimate coach. That's my biggest qualm with this franchise.

This.

 

[Spike]

Everything is moot unless we hire a legitimate ownership. That's my biggest qualm with this franchise.

Fixed.

Unfortunately, we can't hire new ownership. (I'm with you on the coach, btw.)

 

[Section 101]

I'm saying the value of your draft pick plummets if you can't find place for him on your team. The only player who will only need to show inconsistent flashes to not lose much value is Drummond.

That has nothing to do with how your rate players on your draft board.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Buford is in the second half. Sorry, that makes this random sampling of stats invalid.

Look at Buford's record. (Link, scroll down to Spurs) He hasn't drafted a whole lot of talent. The era of Everything-The-Spurs-Touch-Turns-To-Gold (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Scola) was before Buford was in charge. Since Buford has been in charge the Spurs' drafting hasn't had a ton of star power. Beno, Hill, Blair, and Kawhi are rotation players, but at this point only Kawhi has a chance to be more than that. Middle of the pack seems about right.

 

[bajaden]

Look at Buford's record. (Link, scroll down to Spurs) He hasn't drafted a whole lot of talent. The era of Everything-The-Spurs-Touch-Turns-To-Gold (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Scola) was before Buford was in charge. Since Buford has been in charge the Spurs' drafting hasn't had a ton of star power. Beno, Hill, Blair, and Kawhi are rotation players, but at this point only Kawhi has a chance to be more than that. Middle of the pack seems about right.

I think it needs to be pointed out that although Buford holds the title of GM, someone named Pops, who is the coach, is also the president of the team, and has the final say on just about everything connected to the Spurs.

 

[bajaden]

After reading most of the current posts over the last couple of days, I'm come to the conclusion that the only answer for us, is mass sucide! I think I'll have a couple of cervesa's with Cruzdude first. Adios!

 

[roasthawg]

after reading most of the current posts over the last couple of days, i'm come to the conclusion that the only answer for us, is mass sucide! I think i'll have a couple of cervesa's with cruzdude first. Adios!

=-d

 

[Gilles]

That has nothing to do with how your rate players on your draft board.

Obviously not, but you have to think it through. If your BPA will have only 10 minutes behind your best player or will have to play out of position, you might as well trade down with discount. MKG or Barnes will be given all the chances to seize SF starting spot and Drummond coming with "all potential" tag can be put into 4th big role for some time. Take Lillard and major cleaning job is in the books.

 

[ESP47]

Look at Buford's record. (Link, scroll down to Spurs) He hasn't drafted a whole lot of talent. The era of Everything-The-Spurs-Touch-Turns-To-Gold (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Scola) was before Buford was in charge. Since Buford has been in charge the Spurs' drafting hasn't had a ton of star power. Beno, Hill, Blair, and Kawhi are rotation players, but at this point only Kawhi has a chance to be more than that. Middle of the pack seems about right.

Well yeah its not as easy to draft superstars when you're always picking at the tail end of the 1st round.

 

[Section 101]

Obviously not, but you have to think it through. If your BPA will have only 10 minutes behind your best player or will have to play out of position, you might as well trade down with discount. MKG or Barnes will be given all the chances to seize SF starting spot and Drummond coming with "all potential" tag can be put into 4th big role for some time. Take Lillard and major cleaning job is in the books.

And you keep making assumptions and different scenarios.

Plain and simple when you make your pick take the top rated player on your board. You can't assume there will be a trade waiting for you whenever you want. It may take a few years to iron everything out but that's better then taking a player based on need that you maybe replacing the next year.

 

[hrdboild]

Barnes can't get his own shot, isn't much of an athlete, disappears in games, and can't play D. Other than that he's pretty good. It was interesting that yesterday Grant played a couple of interviews of guys who have seen Barnes play a lot (one was the announcer for NC) and they didn't think very highly of him. One thought he would be a flat out bust. My read is that the Kings just don't think the ceiling of Barnes is very high. Barnes is a guy who people seem to disagree on quite a bit.

If you ever watched Barnes I think it's pretty clear that he can get his own shot. He has trouble getting to the rim, but his go-to move is an escape dribble, step-back jumper that he can get over pretty much any defender whenever he wants. The problem is he isn't making enough of them yet. I think the draft combine already disproved the 'not much of an athlete' criticisms. He's one of the top 5 most athletic players in the draft based on those evaluations. And I don't know where the "can't play D" comment comes from. He's not a physical defender nor does he get a lot of steals but he is a very good on-the-ball defender. He would occasionally get a little lazy there like most college players do, but the majority of the time he keeps his body between his man and the basket and he's long enough to bother shots.

I know a lot of people don't like his game, but he's also being considered for the #2 pick in the draft. His ceiling is as high as anyone. I don't know if he has the killer instinct to be a star in the NBA, but he does seem to have the skillset, physical tools, and work-ethic to at least be a solid starter and we need a solid starter at SF more than just about anything else.

 

[LWP777]

Why is it so quiet today? Where are all the rumors? Let's hope GP isn't finalizing a deal that brings us CRAP back!

 

[Bricklayer]

Why is it so quiet today? Where are all the rumors? Let's hope GP isn't finalizing a deal that brings us CRAP back!

From Hoopsrumormill: Well placed sources suggest that the Kings have narrowed their list of candidates for the #5 pick to Barnes, Drummond, Robinson, Beal, Kidd Gilchrist and Lillard, although Henson, Waiters and several other players loom as darkhorse selections. There is also the chance that the Kings may trade the pick, with sources saying that it is 50/50 they do so.

There ya go.

 

[Dime Dropper]

I replied to that and then realised... Whoosh!

 

[roasthawg]

There ya go.

Lol, our choices have been narrowed down to... pretty much everyone!

 

[sidney]

There ya go.

Hoopsrumormill.com can be registered. You're leaving major money on the table by holding onto hot rumors like that

 

[LWP777]

There ya go.

Thank you. I have a feeling this is going to be a boring day for us Kings fans. They will draft Barnes and that is all. We all go home feeling like we've been punched in the gut...again.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Thank you. I have a feeling this is going to be a boring day for us Kings fans. They will draft Barnes and that is all. We all go home feeling like we've been punched in the gut...again.

Eh. Barnes wouldn't be a 'gut punch' in my opinion. He'd be the boring option. The one that everyone should expect. I mean, he's the 5th player in a 5 player draft .. we pick #5. It would make sense.

Lillard or Waiters would be the gut punch for me. That, or another awful trade. Barnes, Drummond, or Henson would leave me 'satisfied' ... nothing special, but we didn't blow it.

 

[Uncia03]

Eh. Barnes wouldn't be a 'gut punch' in my opinion. He'd be the boring option. The one that everyone should expect. I mean, he's the 5th player in a 5 player draft .. we pick #5. It would make sense.

Lillard or Waiters would be the gut punch for me. That, or another awful trade. Barnes, Drummond, or Henson would leave me 'satisfied' ... nothing special, but we didn't blow it.

I really want MKG. If MKG isn't available then Robinson, then perhaps a good trade.

However, if we just walk away with Barnes because it's between him and Drummond at the 5 spot, I'll be ok with it.

I would have taken Barnes 3rd last year and I'd take him 5th this year.
He'll be a solid SF, and as I've been doing for months, I liken him to a Luol Deng, who can be a starting caliber SF for a championship contending team that will be fringe-All-Star for a lot of years.

Our SF position is hurting so badly, that we'd improve it significantly by drafting Barnes, then Tyreke gets to move back to a guard spot and those two things should really help the team.

 

[SacTownKid]

There ya go.

Being a fan of a team led by Geoff Petrie can be so torturous sometimes. So basically Petrie has narrowed his list down to one of the 60 players expected to be drafted.

 

[funkykingston]

Not sure that's a great example, as Harden was a SG, and only Sefalosha, a roelplayer, stood in his way at that positon. Thewm drafting a shooting guard while they had a PG and 2 SFs is no more radical than us drafting a SF while we have a PG and 2 SGs.

Now us drafting a PG/SG while we have a PG and 2 SGs...and another PG/SG we drafted jsut last year...now you have created a mess. Its incompetence.

Well, to be fair, Sefalosha, a roleplayer, STILL stands in his way at that position. Sure, Durant and Green are SFs. But the Thunder also played them together quite often. Sometimes that meant Green being an undersized PF if matchups allowed it and other times it meant Durant being the world's tallest SG. The reality (and Presti has said as much) is that the Perkins/Green trade has as much to do with getting minutes for Harden as it did bringing in size and defense.

And along those same lines we could say that Isiah Thomas is really the only PG on the Kings roster and that Lillard might represent a major upgrade as a starter there. I like Tyreke at the point but I'm guessing he'll transition to the offguard this year under Smart. Thornton is clearly a SG and unless he gives the team a lot more this season than last, Jimmer's position is inconsequential. I suppose he'd be listed as a PG but only because he'd get killed worse defensively trying to guard SGs.

However you look at it my basic point still stands. This team has a cornerstone in Cousins and possibly another in Evans. Thornton and a (hopefully) resigned Thompson are a couple nice pieces and Thomas has some value as a backup/change of pace PG. But the Kings are still needing additional talent regardless of position. You take the guy who you think will be the best player and you figure the rest out later, regardless of whether it gives you a balanced roster now or not.

Because regardless of how you view the positions of the guys on the Thunder, the undeniable fact is that they had too many wing players and not enough bigs. Having talented trade pieces on your roster let's you fill holes with known commodities rather than drafting for need.

 

[Kingster]

If you ever watched Barnes I think it's pretty clear that he can get his own shot. He has trouble getting to the rim, but his go-to move is an escape dribble, step-back jumper that he can get over pretty much any defender whenever he wants. The problem is he isn't making enough of them yet. I think the draft combine already disproved the 'not much of an athlete' criticisms. He's one of the top 5 most athletic players in the draft based on those evaluations. And I don't know where the "can't play D" comment comes from. He's not a physical defender nor does he get a lot of steals but he is a very good on-the-ball defender. He would occasionally get a little lazy there like most college players do, but the majority of the time he keeps his body between his man and the basket and he's long enough to bother shots.

I know a lot of people don't like his game, but he's also being considered for the #2 pick in the draft. His ceiling is as high as anyone. I don't know if he has the killer instinct to be a star in the NBA, but he does seem to have the skillset, physical tools, and work-ethic to at least be a solid starter and we need a solid starter at SF more than just about anything else.

I've watched him. He has a hard time getting his shot against college guys. He disappears in games because of it. He just doesn't have a quick first step, imo, or very good ballhandling. People disagree about Barnes. That's why they had an entire segment on him last night on ESPN- because he is pretty controversial. The "can't play D" comment comes from people who have watched him play every single game of his career - like the announcer for NC. Do you know that in his entire career he wasn't awarded defensive player of the game by his coach one time? (Then in the newspaper I read that one scout thinks he's a good defensive player. Like I said, people disagree about Barnes). I don't think Barnes is going to be a very good defensive player in the NBA. To be a very good defensive player you've got to have very good athleticism. And Barnes doesn't have it. Doesn't have the fluidity or quickness to stand out in that area, imo. Maybe Barnes perfects the step back jumper you mention, but I don't want to pay up #5 on the promise of his step back jumper. In sum, I just don't see the high ceiling that you do. And I really hope that everything I heard from Napier yesterday holds true: the Kings will not draft Barnes.