And with the #23 pick in the 2009 Draft, the Kings select....

KingsCitizen said:
If we're drafting Rubio, I don't think we need to pick another PG at either of the next 2 picks that we will have.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure about that. I wouldn't mind at all draft two point guards in this draft, assuming they both can be good. No doubt in my mind, Bobby Jackson is leaving for greener pastures. That leaves Beno, who is guaranteed to get "injured" sometime during the year. That leaves you with one younger point guard. Of course, we might get a FA for that third point guard, but you can't count on that. If we could wangle a Rubio and a Mills, why not?
 
Kingster said:
I'm really not sure about that. I wouldn't mind at all draft two point guards in this draft, assuming they both can be good. No doubt in my mind, Bobby Jackson is leaving for greener pastures. That leaves Beno, who is guaranteed to get "injured" sometime during the year. That leaves you with one younger point guard. Of course, we might get a FA for that third point guard, but you can't count on that. If we could wangle a Rubio and a Mills, why not?
Click to expand...

IMO, having two rookies as your main and backup PG will more likely expose your team to a lot of rookie miscues. Therefore if we can pick already the best PG in the draft its better to pick bigs after that. And next year is a year where a lot of vet PG will also be available in the market, Felton, Bibby, Sessions, Marbury, Lindsey Hunter, Kidd, A. Carter, Nate Robinson, Andre Miller and the list can go on.

And that's not even considering that we already have Beno, who I think will be a solid backup PG if we hand Rubio the starting spot while keeping Beno.
 
KingsCitizen said:
IMO, having two rookies as your main and backup PG will more likely expose your team to a lot of rookie miscues. Therefore if we can pick already the best PG in the draft its better to pick bigs after that. And next year is a year where a lot of vet PG will also be available in the market, Felton, Bibby, Sessions, Marbury, Lindsey Hunter, Kidd, A. Carter, Nate Robinson, Andre Miller and the list can go on.

And that's not even considering that we already have Beno, who I think will be a solid backup PG if we hand Rubio the starting spot while keeping Beno.
Click to expand...

If we choose Rubio, we darn better play him and "expose" the team to his miscues in order to "develop" him. If we choose, say a Mills with our second #1 or 2nd rounder, then he would probably get some playing time during the year, but not a lot, unless Beno is injured the entire year. I'm all for total exposure.:p Play the young guys a lot so they can develop, have another lottery pick, and in 2011 we are off and running...
 
LPKingsFan said:
Too bad, as he would have been a great pick at #23 if he fell.

Link.
Click to expand...

Probably good for him and maybe bad for us. I really liked Brackins. But, its probably the right choice for him. He'll probably be a lottery choice next year, and if Iowa St. can put some decent players around him they might actually play in the tourney next year.
 
dejuan blair intrigues me just because of his ridiculous wingspan (7'3")
lawal looks like he could have some promise
Mullins looks like he could help fill our roster being that outside of hawes we dont have a true center
and if someone like curry maynor or flynn slips we have to take him
 
Good--thought Brackins needed to go back to school. In fact, I would almost call him overrated. I know some will laud his inside-outside game, and his ability to post up, take bigger players off the dribble or hit a mid-range J, but look deeper and you'll see weaknesses--he's still too weak to consistently finish around the basket, but more importantly, his shot selection is terrible and he tends to fall in love with the jumper way too much, which explains why he didn't shoot particularly well for a big man (only 47%). I actually think his jumpshot as currently comprised is overrated (he shot 29% from college three and <70% from the line) so while there's potential, it's definitely not worth overdrafting him for it. And while he can rebound well, I still have questions about his mental and physical toughness, so I'm not sure if that will translate as well because he's been called "soft" before--and he's not going to be too athletic for the next level. And then we get to his inability to defend, his black hole tendencies on offense, questions about toughness, his average athleticism on top of what I think is an inconsistent jumpshot, I'm just not sure about him. What actually worries me is his inability to steal the ball or block many shots at 6'10"--it's not like he plays against the best of competition, so if he can't even block a shot a game, how will this look at the next level? I guess some will call him a really really poor man's David West, but West developed toughness over time and really refined his offensive game for the NBA--Brackins is still a question mark. He'll have to bank on potential, but because he's not that athletic and his toughness has been questioned, it's hard to see whether he'll reach that potential. Good looking out by going back to school on his part.

Blair I'm a bit skeptical as well. I'm not really a fan (mostly because we've had so many undersized guys here at Sac and I'm tired of them) but he's a really great rebounder and space carver who knows how to get scoring opportunities in the low post by making quick moves and establishing position well. He's highly efficient and plays with a mean streak and competitive edge, so that can only help him. But I have tons of questions--he's not a shotblocker, and he's not exactly athletic or mobile enough to defend smaller players or tall enough to guard PFs, so I have to wonder about that. He's intense and gets in passing lanes, though, so I think he'll fill a role defensively in some capacity, but he's lacking in certain defensive fundamentals and doesn't seem to go all-out at times. So the defense is a concern. On his part, I can see a Reggie Evans-like ability to get on the boards, and I think that will translate. I don't quite think he deserves to go in the mid-1st round, as due to his height/athletic limitations, doesn't have much perimeter game to speak of, and his defense isn't exactly up to par to make up for it. Undersized bigs are en vogue in the NBA, but Craig Smith was a wonderful offensive inside-outside space-carver, Maxiell had great athleticism and defensive punch, and Powe, Bass, and Millsap had underrated athleticism as well as an underrated offensive game. To me, Blair just seems...like a rebounder who will get hustle points off put-backs, but the athleticism may limit him. Great competitor who maximized himself as a college player, but for the NBA..have to wonder a bit. He may be a Reggie Evans type role player initially, but how much beyond that is up in the air. I honestly think #22-27 is a solid range for him to be drafted based on his skills, but he'll be overdrafted because of his college production.
 
Last edited:
Suprised by Brackins -- probably making a mistake. In this draft with a good workout or two he could have even snuck up into the lottery.
 
Arby's Roast Beef said:
Good--thought Brackins needed to go back to school. In fact, I would almost call him overrated. I know some will laud his inside-outside game, and his ability to post up, take bigger players off the dribble or hit a mid-range J, but look deeper and you'll see weaknesses--he's still too weak to consistently finish around the basket, but more importantly, his shot selection is terrible and he tends to fall in love with the jumper way too much, which explains why he didn't shoot particularly well for a big man (only 47%). I actually think his jumpshot as currently comprised is overrated (he shot 29% from college three and <70% from the line) so while there's potential, it's definitely not worth overdrafting him for it. And while he can rebound well, I still have questions about his mental and physical toughness, so I'm not sure if that will translate as well because he's been called "soft" before--and he's not going to be too athletic for the next level. And then we get to his inability to defend, his black hole tendencies on offense, questions about toughness, his average athleticism on top of what I think is an inconsistent jumpshot, I'm just not sure about him. What actually worries me is his inability to steal the ball or block many shots at 6'10"--it's not like he plays against the best of competition, so if he can't even block a shot a game, how will this look at the next level? I guess some will call him a really really poor man's David West, but West developed toughness over time and really refined his offensive game for the NBA--Brackins is still a question mark. He'll have to bank on potential, but because he's not that athletic and his toughness has been questioned, it's hard to see whether he'll reach that potential. Good looking out by going back to school on his part.

Blair I'm a bit skeptical as well. I'm not really a fan (mostly because we've had so many undersized guys here at Sac and I'm tired of them) but he's a really great rebounder and space carver who knows how to get scoring opportunities in the low post by making quick moves and establishing position well. He's highly efficient and plays with a mean streak and competitive edge, so that can only help him. But I have tons of questions--he's not a shotblocker, and he's not exactly athletic or mobile enough to defend smaller players or tall enough to guard PFs, so I have to wonder about that. He's intense and gets in passing lanes, though, so I think he'll fill a role defensively in some capacity, but he's lacking in certain defensive fundamentals and doesn't seem to go all-out at times. So the defense is a concern. On his part, I can see a Reggie Evans-like ability to get on the boards, and I think that will translate. I don't quite think he deserves to go in the mid-1st round, as due to his height/athletic limitations, doesn't have much perimeter game to speak of, and his defense isn't exactly up to par to make up for it. Undersized bigs are en vogue in the NBA, but Craig Smith was a wonderful offensive inside-outside space-carver, Maxiell had great athleticism and defensive punch, and Powe, Bass, and Millsap had underrated athleticism as well as an underrated offensive game. To me, Blair just seems...like a rebounder who will get hustle points off put-backs, but the athleticism may limit him. Great competitor who maximized himself as a college player, but for the NBA..have to wonder a bit. He may be a Reggie Evans type role player initially, but how much beyond that is up in the air. I honestly think #22-27 is a solid range for him to be drafted based on his skills, but he'll be overdrafted because of his college production.
Click to expand...

Man Arby, I think you were a little tough on Brackins. If I had never seen him play, and all I had to go on was your report, I wouldn't draft him to clean my toilet. There's no doubt that in his freshman year he wasn't in the best shape, but he came into his sophmore year looking a lot more chiseled. I use the word loosely.

Can you name one player from his team? He was the team, and I think that accounts for some of his bad stats. His post ups would sometimes start 15 feet away from the basket. There was no one on his team that could get him the ball in the right position. I can't even remember him involved in a pick and roll. I just think he has a higher skill level than your giving him credit for, and if he could have played with someone like Flynn he would have looked a lot better. Too many times in the few times I was able to see him play, he was forced to take a last second shot, which didn't help his field goal percentage.

At any rate, he'll in all likelyhood be a top ten player next year, and if so, he made the right decision.
 
bajaden said:
Man Arby, I think you were a little tough on Brackins. If I had never seen him play, and all I had to go on was your report, I wouldn't draft him to clean my toilet. There's no doubt that in his freshman year he wasn't in the best shape, but he came into his sophmore year looking a lot more chiseled. I use the word loosely.

Can you name one player from his team? He was the team, and I think that accounts for some of his bad stats. His post ups would sometimes start 15 feet away from the basket. There was no one on his team that could get him the ball in the right position. I can't even remember him involved in a pick and roll. I just think he has a higher skill level than your giving him credit for, and if he could have played with someone like Flynn he would have looked a lot better. Too many times in the few times I was able to see him play, he was forced to take a last second shot, which didn't help his field goal percentage.

At any rate, he'll in all likelyhood be a top ten player next year, and if so, he made the right decision.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I was being too harsh on Brackins--I watched his 42 pt game against Memphis where he literally was the only guy on the court doing anything for Iowa State--and he's definitely going to get his shot in the NBA just by virtue of being a triple threat offensive big man--those aren't exactly common. I'll give him credit for carrying his team and his team not being able to run an offense properly, and he appears to be good at scoring off isolations, but his poor efficiency makes me pause a bit. I do think someone will draft him high solely based on his foundation of versatile offensive skills, even though I don't believe they're that polished, however. He's a skill player, however, so in order to live up to that potential he's going to have to be like David West--take it inside and outside, and not get overly obsessed with the jumper like he is wont to do at times.

....Granted he was playing on a bad team where he got tons of bad looks, so if he starts showing stuff in private workouts obviously you can throw everything I said about him--offensively--out the window. But I want to see his college efficiency go up before he declares--I know someone will draft him in the 1st round, again, based on his offensive game, but I don't know if he'll live up to his potential based on the various flaws I pointed out above. Again, I could be wrong because I like athletic players more...and skilled players tend to prove me wrong.
 
Arby's Roast Beef said:
....Granted he was playing on a bad team where he got tons of bad looks, so if he starts showing stuff in private workouts obviously you can throw everything I said about him--offensively--out the window. But I want to see his college efficiency go up before he declares--I know someone will draft him in the 1st round, again, based on his offensive game, but I don't know if he'll live up to his potential based on the various flaws I pointed out above. Again, I could be wrong because I like athletic players more...and skilled players tend to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Very easy to caught up in the " I'll only draft athletic players " mentality. Don't get me wrong. If I can draft an athletic player thats skilled, I'm jumping on it. Where it gets difficult is when you have a very athletic player that has some skills, but still needs more development vrs an average athlete who is very skilled.

Actually sort of like the difference between Griffin and Rubio, although they play different positions. Perhaps Hardin and DeRozan would be a better comparison. Larry Bird is in the hall of fame and no one would have called him a great athlete. One thing thats deceptive is the difference between seeing a player live, and on TV. There are players that don't look that quick on TV, but in person, its like, wow, that dude is quicker than I thought.

I guess the thing with me is, I just don't think you can discount someone just because their an inch too short. Or can't jump as high, or run as fast. What a person has between his ears has to be taken into account. I guess all of those things should be taken into account. But if you can play, well, then you can play. Or as Rogers Hornsby told a young player who was asking advice on a bat change. " Son, you can either hit a baseball or you can't. And if you can't, changing bats ain't going to help."
 
One player that I wouldn't mind is Dionte Christmas. I used to like Hansbrough but he is going to be available throughout his career, so why waste a 1st round pick? Jeff Adrien and Donte Cunningham are both solid picks at the 23, but who knows what might fall into the 23rd pick. Ideally, we should move up from the 23 to the 15, because Jennings is going to be there and so might Derozan and Blair...After that its going to be a crap shoot as to whether the guy we draft is actually servicable. If we stay pat and the draft board doesn't lie, i would pick Christmas.
 
HighTopKicks said:
There's a high probability that if Teague or Holiday fall into the 20's, that they both withdraw and return to college.
Click to expand...


That's only if they know its going to happen -- but with all the uncertainty and flawed products out there this year, there are probably going to be multiple guys who slip on draft day itself, and by that time its too late to get out.
 
Holliday to me seems like a weird case--to me, it seems like he almost he's being drafted high in spite of his paltry college production. He just has one of those rare, weird combinations of being a guy who's not ready to contribute immediately in the NBA, but also has limited upside (he's not ready to contribute because he didn't show much so far in college, and he has limited upside due to his lack of assertiveness in combination with his lack of athleticism). Normally a player with that combination won't even make it to the league, but what Holliday has is versatility and defensive potential, which are two of the more valued traits in perimeter players (because scoring is easy to attain), so I guess that might make him intriguing. But at the end of the day, we're still talking about his niche role player potential, as opposed to any star quality potential. It's like he's riding his hype into the draft--because a player with his production shouldn't even be talking about the draft right now.

Of course there are other variables--he may been repressed by UCLA's system, didn't get to play the point enough due to Collison being around, and he was a consensus All American who was hyped to the heavens out of high school with Dwyane Wade comparisons bandied about--so those comparisons may have played a role in his current late first round draft pick status. He's clearly not that, and I have questions about how well he can score in the league (he might actually be an offensive liability), which will definitely limit the upside. But his other skills definitely make him valuable, and I have to say that he's better than another Bruin Arron Afflalo, who was also drafted in the 1st round. So while I think he's a highly intelligent player, I think he'll initially struggle because he lacks assertiveness and primacy, but he can eventually round out to form as a solid role player with defensive and passing--he's likely to reach that ceiling. We can definitely use the defense he provides, so he's not a completely bad choice, but we have to live with his weaknesses as well. I think #23 can be okay for him, but I think his real value lies somewhere in the late 1st/early 2nd, but since every team's overhyping him, it would be safer to get him here if we want him.
 
Chase Budinger

for some reason i have a feeling that he is GP type of player. skilled, can shoot, athletic, but soft. maybe a poor mans peja.

he has #23 written all over him, especially if we get a PG with the #4 pick.
 
Yeah, he's who I'm looking at at #23... if we get a PG at #4 I think Budinger would be great at the SF spot. He's got a good shot, he's physical, and he's a decent rebounder. Reminds me of Andres Nocioni actually which is a good thing. I wouldn't mind just having Nocioni around if he wasn't as old as he is...
 
I think Budinger will do okay as a role player--he's an extremely diversified player who can shoots the ball at a high percentage and hits the three ball at a solid clip, and he can stat the stuff sheet--he's an okay rebounder, good passer for a SF and has shown some ability to steal the ball. I'm a little skeptical about his success, so at the end of the day (not to mention that with KMart, Garcia and Noc we have too many swings) he's not really a need at all for us.

There are definite red flags which limit Budinger from becoming anything more than a role player--he basically didn't improve at all from his freshman year (very similar PERs all three years), and his lack of ball skills will probably prevent him from slashing to the basket as much as he did in college and prevent him from greater playmaking duties. In order to succeed in the league, he's probably going to use his shooting ability as a starting point, and once defenses respect it he could hopefully improve his ballhandling skills to a point where he can make himself better in other areas--he's just a little too mechanical to me, and why I don't think he's another Brent Barry (when Barry was in his prime). Honestly, I think his athleticism is his saving grace--I don't think he excels in any one area of the game at all, but at least the athleticism gives him something to fall back on. But he just doesn't maximize the athleticism, so that's why I'm still skeptical.

I just remember there was a prospect named Luke Jackson who in a draft three years ago--the guy was a way better ballhandler, better scorer, better rebounder, better passer, better shooter (shot 44% on threes), and got to the line at a better rate than Budinger did--basically he was better than Budinger in everything, and he had a PER of 30 in his last year of college. A guy far less athletic than Budinger had better athletic markers in college than him. But it was just the lack of athleticism and footspeed that did him--a guy who is basically better than Budinger in everything skill-wise is not even in the league anymore. So I think Budinger will get a chance to prove himself and I think he could show something when the athleticism is added to the equation, but with his lack of assertiveness and leadership skills I think his career can go either way, but maybe if he finds the right team where he can function as spot-up shooter who can move the ball around he'll do fine. He's not a sure thing at all.
 
Last edited:
Budinger scares me because even if he can jump really high he's really not that quick, and there have just been way too many rumors that he doesn't care about playing basketball all that much. He has some good raw abilities, but combine the lack of quickness with the possible lack of heart, and he's just not someone I'd want to take a chance on.

There are other 2/3s in this draft who project as the type of roleplayer the Kings could use, whether that's an athletic ace/glue guy like Terence Wililams, an all-around scorer like Sam Young, or a gunner like Dionte Christmas.

The thing is, though, no one we draft as a 2/3 is going to get any playing time at all for the foreseeable future.
 
My choice is Wayne Ellington we need a smooth pure shooter like him off the bench and he plays great defense. If he's there are 23 you pick him in my opinion he's 6 ft 4 6ft 5 I like him alot but i'm a UNC fan haha.
 
Ellington is fool's gold to me. If you want a scorer, sure, the guy shoots very well from the perimeter and has a 60% TS, but scoring and sharpshooting out of guards are things that are easily attained in the league and can be gotten via free agency. But the guy just cannot get to the free throw line, a fact proven after three years of college ball--if the guy can't get to the basket in the college level, how will this look in the NBA? I think he's trying to hide the inability to slash by taking nearly half his attempts from three point land, but I'm not convinced that he's a sharpshooter as he is a scorer. I know UNC's offense structures him as designated shooter so he didn't pass much, but I don't think he's much of a passer--he has shown little ability in this area, although to his credit he also keeps his turnovers down.

End of the day, he's just a real gunner, and has been good at it in the college level--the guy has the one of the highest rates of field goal attempts/possession, and is also among the top in points/possession. But considering that he can't get to the line, and scoring is easy to find in the NBA, it's not too valued a skill at all. He just doesn't have a diversified game--he can't pass the ball or get to the basket--and his athletic markers (rebounds, steals, free throws/field goal) are very underwhelming. So he's just very one-dimensional, and really, if we wanted him it should be in the 2nd round. He's not a 1st round talent.

To his credit, his college stats are very similar to current King and former UNC Tarheel Rashad McCants in almost every aspect of the game--although McCants IMO has better athleticism and a mean streak that I don't really see in Ellington. I think Ellington might succeed on a team that really needs a sparkplug off the bench, but due to his all-around limitations I don't see him sticking with a particular team for long.

P.S. That being said, if Budinger is around at 31st, despite all the question marks around him, we should take a fair look at him--after all, despite all his question marks, he still has a diversified game, and that's always worth a flyer on as an early 2nd rounder. But with that pick we're in a position to draft any talent that may have fallen--Mills, Collison, Thornton, and Calathes are important than Budinger in my book. I don't think Ellington's worth the 31st even in a draft like this, and his comparative talent level should be somewhere within #35-42.
 
Last edited:
Arby's Roast Beef said:
Ellington is fool's gold to me. If you want a scorer, sure, the guy shoots very well from the perimeter and has a 60% TS, but scoring and sharpshooting out of guards are things that are easily attained in the league and can be gotten via free agency. But the guy just cannot get to the free throw line, a fact proven after three years of college ball--if the guy can't get to the basket in the college level, how will this look in the NBA? I think he's trying to hide the inability to slash by taking nearly half his attempts from three point land, but I'm not convinced that he's a sharpshooter as he is a scorer. I know UNC's offense structures him as designated shooter so he didn't pass much, but I don't think he's much of a passer--he has shown little ability in this area, although to his credit he also keeps his turnovers down.

End of the day, he's just a real gunner, and has been good at it in the college level--the guy has the one of the highest rates of field goal attempts/possession, and is also among the top in points/possession. But considering that he can't get to the line, and scoring is easy to find in the NBA, it's not too valued a skill at all. He just doesn't have a diversified game--he can't pass the ball or get to the basket--and his athletic markers (rebounds, steals, free throws/field goal) are very underwhelming. So he's just very one-dimensional, and really, if we wanted him it should be in the 2nd round. He's not a 1st round talent.

To his credit, his college stats are very similar to current King and former UNC Tarheel Rashad McCants in almost every aspect of the game--although McCants IMO has better athleticism and a mean streak that I don't really see in Ellington. I think Ellington might succeed on a team that really needs a sparkplug off the bench, but due to his all-around limitations I don't see him sticking with a particular team for long.

P.S. That being said, if Budinger is around at 31st, despite all the question marks around him, we should take a fair look at him--after all, despite all his question marks, he still has a diversified game, and that's always worth a flyer on as an early 2nd rounder. But with that pick we're in a position to draft any talent that may have fallen--Mills, Collison, Thornton, and Calathes are important than Budinger in my book. I don't think Ellington's worth the 31st even in a draft like this, and his comparative talent level should be somewhere within #35-42.
Click to expand...

So basically what you are implying is garbage Buddinger is better than Ellington? Buddinger is trash no athleticism soft as cookies left in the car on a hot summer day. I'd much rather have someone like Ellington on our team if we take Buddinger I'll throw up in my mouth he should be taken by someone like the nets or someone not us. Even if we don't take Ellington someone like him is needed at the 23 pick. With the 31 i'm going with a Danny Green another UNC player that plays lock down D
 
Ive recently jumped on the Austin Daye bandwagon, and if we can get him i'd be pumped. He is basically a 20 yr old 6'10 sf From Gonzaga, kind of dissapointed this year, but he has loads of potential ... You figure either him or Greene can figure it out eventually, He's a piece of work, but he has talent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
NBA GMs Vote Kings Rookie 'Biggest Steal' in 2024 Draft
Replies
0
Views
204
Sacramento Kings On SI
S
Ozymandias
A few words on (a)the Jaden Hardy trade (b)the Kings multi-year draft outlook
Replies
3
Views
687
Ozymandias
Ozymandias
Capt. Factorial
Can we get a quality player in the 2023 draft?
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
206Fan
2
twslam07
  • Poll Poll
Kings Go All-In (w/ IND & TOR)
Replies
10
Views
1K
SacTownKid
SacTownKid
twslam07
  • Poll Poll
Shooting for Playoffs with an Eye on the Future...
Replies
4
Views
871
mac
M
Back
Top