Bajaden's early 2022 Mock Draft: Don't bet money on it!
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
I think my mock (no intel) changed to:
1 - Paolo (best chance of being the Man In Orlando.
2 - Ivey (with more space in the NBA, I think his shot at being a star is higher than Chet and Jabari).
3 - Jabari - his shooting will open up the floor for others and he’s the most flexible piece.
4 - Chet - the Kings need “length and shooting”. He’s a stretch 4, not a center. And you can’t pass on this upside.
5 - Keegan Murray - I’m more of a believer in his upside than others.
6 - Sochan - the kind of guy who stays on the floor in the playoffs.
7 - Dyson Daniels - BB IQ and playmaking at that height plus defense.
8 - Johnny Davis - he’s a Dude
9 - Mathurin - some risk, lots of reward.
10 - Sharpe - upside bet.
1 - Paolo (best chance of being the Man In Orlando.
2 - Ivey (with more space in the NBA, I think his shot at being a star is higher than Chet and Jabari).
3 - Jabari - his shooting will open up the floor for others and he’s the most flexible piece.
4 - Chet - the Kings need “length and shooting”. He’s a stretch 4, not a center. And you can’t pass on this upside.
5 - Keegan Murray - I’m more of a believer in his upside than others.
6 - Sochan - the kind of guy who stays on the floor in the playoffs.
7 - Dyson Daniels - BB IQ and playmaking at that height plus defense.
8 - Johnny Davis - he’s a Dude
9 - Mathurin - some risk, lots of reward.
10 - Sharpe - upside bet.
Well, I know who I would take, but you'll have to wait till my mock draft to find out. But here's a question I would like someone to answer to my satisfaction. How do you determine who is the best player available? Do you go on current information and stats to decide, or do you go with what you think the player is capable of becoming in the future? I ask that question because if you were to look at almost every relevant college player last season, and decide on who was the best college player, based solely on what they accomplished, that player would be Keegan Murray.
His overall statistics are better than any other college player last season. But somehow, there are players that are looked at as being better. If you compare him to Banchero, Banchero is significantly better at only one thing, assists, and while that's a part of Murrays game that he needs to improve, he had a usage rate of 29.8% (one of the highest in college) but only turned the ball over less than twice a game. That folks, if your not aware, is a border line miracle. He's also a better shooter than Banchero, a better rebounder than Banchero, a better defender than Banchero, and so on and so on. And yet, Banchero is considered a better player. Explanation please!
Someone pointed out that in the Purdue/Iowa game, when Murray put a winning explanation point on the game with a dunk on a break away, he didn't pose, or let out some victorious primal scream, he simply ran back down to the other end of the floor to play defense. And I think that's the problem people have with him. He's not flashy! He doesn't create spectacle like Jaden Ivey, and as a result, some people think he lacks something. Sort of like some other players who everyone liked, but in college at least, didn't have that flash, that spectacle, that to be honest, is entertaining, but also somewhat deceiving. Players like Tim Duncan, Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, etc.
Am I saying that Keegan Murray is the next Leonard or George? No, but I'am saying don't deceived by a players demeanor. Judge him on results and by what you see on the floor. Because the truth is, we don't know what any players future holds. Personally, I used to bet heavily on what I thought a player could turn into, and I was wrong a lot. Not that they turned out to be busts, but they didn't live up to my expectations. As a scout for the Heat said, if you swing for a double, you'll get the occasional double, but you'll also get a lot of hits. But when you swing for the fences, you strike out a lot. That's from an organization that's been fairly successful.
His overall statistics are better than any other college player last season. But somehow, there are players that are looked at as being better. If you compare him to Banchero, Banchero is significantly better at only one thing, assists, and while that's a part of Murrays game that he needs to improve, he had a usage rate of 29.8% (one of the highest in college) but only turned the ball over less than twice a game. That folks, if your not aware, is a border line miracle. He's also a better shooter than Banchero, a better rebounder than Banchero, a better defender than Banchero, and so on and so on. And yet, Banchero is considered a better player. Explanation please!
Someone pointed out that in the Purdue/Iowa game, when Murray put a winning explanation point on the game with a dunk on a break away, he didn't pose, or let out some victorious primal scream, he simply ran back down to the other end of the floor to play defense. And I think that's the problem people have with him. He's not flashy! He doesn't create spectacle like Jaden Ivey, and as a result, some people think he lacks something. Sort of like some other players who everyone liked, but in college at least, didn't have that flash, that spectacle, that to be honest, is entertaining, but also somewhat deceiving. Players like Tim Duncan, Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, etc.
Am I saying that Keegan Murray is the next Leonard or George? No, but I'am saying don't deceived by a players demeanor. Judge him on results and by what you see on the floor. Because the truth is, we don't know what any players future holds. Personally, I used to bet heavily on what I thought a player could turn into, and I was wrong a lot. Not that they turned out to be busts, but they didn't live up to my expectations. As a scout for the Heat said, if you swing for a double, you'll get the occasional double, but you'll also get a lot of hits. But when you swing for the fences, you strike out a lot. That's from an organization that's been fairly successful.
Well not sure if you are asking me but I would put it as who will be the best player in 5 years for your organization. Of course everyone has an opinion on that question which is why basketball is more art than science.
I added for your organization because I think fit has to be weighed. Not to the extent Vlade did in passing on Luka but not zero either. The organization also has to take into account scarcity. Good guards and centers can and are found in the 2nd round. For good wings that becomes less true…. If you don’t get good wings when you have a chance you may never get them.
I added for your organization because I think fit has to be weighed. Not to the extent Vlade did in passing on Luka but not zero either. The organization also has to take into account scarcity. Good guards and centers can and are found in the 2nd round. For good wings that becomes less true…. If you don’t get good wings when you have a chance you may never get them.
For me I'm trying to predict who will have the best NBA career -- so an average of their production from year 1 to whenever they retire. Some of it is current production, some of it is my speculation about the differences between the college (or HS or International) game compared to the NBA. Then there are other factors which are very difficult to predict such as who their teammates will be, who their coach will be, will they be put in a situation which helps them grow. Ultimately what comes out of that is just my intuition about which are the best players to take a chance on.
I've observed over the years that the prospects who stand out the most to me often don't excel right away. They might even be below average for their first 2 or 3 years in the league before growing into above-average players. So I guess I'm aiming for year 4 or so and I like guys who (I hope) are going to keep getting better for the first half of their career at least. And like you said, when a prediction involves a fair amount of future development that may or may not happen, sometimes I wind up swinging and missing badly. And when I do miss badly I wonder if it was just that they wound up in a bad situation or if I overestimated their potential. I don't think I ever know the answer to that question.
You made a good point a few years back about Jayson Tatum that can be applied to anyone. If all you're focusing on is what a player can't do you're probably going to come to the wrong conclusion. He can't shoot, he can't play defense, he can't pass -- a lot of these are skill areas that can be improved. Where I see that negative impulse most strongly is with player comparisons. As in: "this player reminds me of that player and I don't like that player". Now you're not even looking at a player's relative merits, you're just dismissing them outright for superficial reasons that are outside of their control. It's better to focus on which skills will translate to the NBA instead of whether a player fits a current archetype that is successful in the NBA.
And lastly I think it's important not to fixate on immediate team needs -- especially on a losing team where those immediate needs are likely to change dramatically in the next few years as you churn through personnel. Over the last few years I've switched to a strategy that also accounts for player personalities. More than any one player type it probably makes sense to target a certain organizational philosophy and lean toward players who synergize the best with that core philosophy. That way even if you overestimate a player's growth curve you at least have a rotation player who can help to elevate the team because you're building a consistent team culture.
I've observed over the years that the prospects who stand out the most to me often don't excel right away. They might even be below average for their first 2 or 3 years in the league before growing into above-average players. So I guess I'm aiming for year 4 or so and I like guys who (I hope) are going to keep getting better for the first half of their career at least. And like you said, when a prediction involves a fair amount of future development that may or may not happen, sometimes I wind up swinging and missing badly. And when I do miss badly I wonder if it was just that they wound up in a bad situation or if I overestimated their potential. I don't think I ever know the answer to that question.
You made a good point a few years back about Jayson Tatum that can be applied to anyone. If all you're focusing on is what a player can't do you're probably going to come to the wrong conclusion. He can't shoot, he can't play defense, he can't pass -- a lot of these are skill areas that can be improved. Where I see that negative impulse most strongly is with player comparisons. As in: "this player reminds me of that player and I don't like that player". Now you're not even looking at a player's relative merits, you're just dismissing them outright for superficial reasons that are outside of their control. It's better to focus on which skills will translate to the NBA instead of whether a player fits a current archetype that is successful in the NBA.
And lastly I think it's important not to fixate on immediate team needs -- especially on a losing team where those immediate needs are likely to change dramatically in the next few years as you churn through personnel. Over the last few years I've switched to a strategy that also accounts for player personalities. More than any one player type it probably makes sense to target a certain organizational philosophy and lean toward players who synergize the best with that core philosophy. That way even if you overestimate a player's growth curve you at least have a rotation player who can help to elevate the team because you're building a consistent team culture.
Last edited:
Paolo does look solid, not concerned about fit issues with Sabonis and Barnes but recently surprised how i’m leaning Holmgren. Shiit I used to be pretty skinny myself and I filled out.
I really don’t think there’s anything Monte can do that will pee me off in this draft. Plenty of good options, no obvious star potential that will make me question a small trade down and would be fine with trading up sacrificing a future 1st.
I really don’t think there’s anything Monte can do that will pee me off in this draft. Plenty of good options, no obvious star potential that will make me question a small trade down and would be fine with trading up sacrificing a future 1st.
I think my order of operations of what I would want in an ideal world and be like "Ok, I'm good with this" :
-Take any of the Chet-Jabari-Paolo in that order if they fall to 4. If OKC loses Ivey trade chicken, could happen.
-Trade up to 2, take Chet Holmgren. I'd pay a 2023 unprotected FRP, would not trade Davion
-Trade down a spot or 2, draft Keegan Murray at 5 or 6
-Draft Keegan at 4.
-Draft Ivey at 4
-Trade down further to the 9-13 range for a mega-haul. Something like the 9+20+Vassell fake trade we've thrown out. Focus in on Daniels, Griffin, Davis, Eason
-Draft Sharpe at 4 (Means FO is incredibly confident in his workouts, future and their OWN future to take that sort of gamble).
Anything else would be a disappointment. I actually really do like Daniels too, but I just don't see how you could justify it at 4 and not find a trade partner to come take Ivey and get more assets. Same with the rest of that tier 2.
-Take any of the Chet-Jabari-Paolo in that order if they fall to 4. If OKC loses Ivey trade chicken, could happen.
-Trade up to 2, take Chet Holmgren. I'd pay a 2023 unprotected FRP, would not trade Davion
-Trade down a spot or 2, draft Keegan Murray at 5 or 6
-Draft Keegan at 4.
-Draft Ivey at 4
-Trade down further to the 9-13 range for a mega-haul. Something like the 9+20+Vassell fake trade we've thrown out. Focus in on Daniels, Griffin, Davis, Eason
-Draft Sharpe at 4 (Means FO is incredibly confident in his workouts, future and their OWN future to take that sort of gamble).
Anything else would be a disappointment. I actually really do like Daniels too, but I just don't see how you could justify it at 4 and not find a trade partner to come take Ivey and get more assets. Same with the rest of that tier 2.
That’s it, plenty of intriguing options. Nothing is screaming at me in this draft and I’m pretty content with Monte at the helm making the decision. The more I read, even now good with Brown as the coach.
The Vassell and SA picks is interesting, if we believe enough in Fox and Sabonis then great opportunity to add complimentary players though maybe not star potential. But more than anything you said, do not trade Davion. Hope he’s okay off the bench because his mentality is impressive. Just watched him with Deuce and Mo and would hate to see him on any other team.
The Vassell and SA picks is interesting, if we believe enough in Fox and Sabonis then great opportunity to add complimentary players though maybe not star potential. But more than anything you said, do not trade Davion. Hope he’s okay off the bench because his mentality is impressive. Just watched him with Deuce and Mo and would hate to see him on any other team.
Last edited:
I agree with most of this but I'm on the other side of the fence when it comes to what a player can't do. I've got to see something there before I can believe that they can improve in an area they're bad in. Players can improve in some areas more than others but people tend to kind of wish these things into existence. To me, there's gotta be some evidence and it has to be stronger than a few plays over the course of a season that you can string together in a highlight reel.
That's a fair point. I will say that defensively I want to see willingness to defend and at least average awareness of angles and help assignments. If I don't see that I'm not confident in projecting even average results on that end even if the physical tools are elite. And willingness is really the big one as it's hard to coach up a player who just doesn't care enough to try. I'll make more allowances for shooting numbers though since I've seen guys I wrote off completely as non-shooters transform themselves into pretty good ones.
That's a pretty decent list. Hits about all of it, but maybe not quite in my preferred order. I think I would lean more towards a list like this (copying a lot of what you wrote):
-Take any of Paolo-Jabari-Chet in that order if they fall to 4. I highly doubt two fall to four.
-Trade up to 2, take Paolo-Jabari in that order. I'd pay a 2023 unprotected FRP, would not trade Davion
-Trade down a spot or 2, draft Sharpe at 5 or 6; barring a reasonable trade draft Sharpe at 4 (I know Sharpe is a swing-for-the-fences move, but this team needs star power, so take the swing!)
-Trade down a spot or 2, draft Keegan Murray at 5 or 6; barring a reasonable trade draft Murray at 4
-Draft Ivey at 4 (I'm assuming any trade down will result in Ivey going at #4, so no trade-down scenario with us drafting him)
-Trade down further to the 7-13 range for a mega-haul. Focus in on Daniels, Griffin, Mathurin, Eason, and Duren. Dieng if he pops.
Anything else, I think I would have to squint and ask what we were doing.
-Take any of Paolo-Jabari-Chet in that order if they fall to 4. I highly doubt two fall to four.
-Trade up to 2, take Paolo-Jabari in that order. I'd pay a 2023 unprotected FRP, would not trade Davion
-Trade down a spot or 2, draft Sharpe at 5 or 6; barring a reasonable trade draft Sharpe at 4 (I know Sharpe is a swing-for-the-fences move, but this team needs star power, so take the swing!)
-Trade down a spot or 2, draft Keegan Murray at 5 or 6; barring a reasonable trade draft Murray at 4
-Draft Ivey at 4 (I'm assuming any trade down will result in Ivey going at #4, so no trade-down scenario with us drafting him)
-Trade down further to the 7-13 range for a mega-haul. Focus in on Daniels, Griffin, Mathurin, Eason, and Duren. Dieng if he pops.
Anything else, I think I would have to squint and ask what we were doing.
It's your last paragraph I want to discuss, because I agree with everything else you said. First you stated that it's important to not fixate on immediate team needs. Then at the end, you talk about selecting players that fits the philosophy and culture of the team your trying to build. I think to some degree both those things are very similar. When I talk about team needs, yes, it can pertain to a positional need, but it can also pertain to finding a player that fits the culture and overall philosophy of the team, and it can also be both.
I think it's better to take a player that fits the culture, and hopefully the positional need of a team over perhaps a more physically talented player, that could eventually be a star, but doesn't fit the culture the team your trying to build. While the gifted player might end up being a star, that doesn't always equate to wins, and winning is what it's about. Sometimes, and I like to think most times, the player that perfectly fits what the team needs, the culture the team is trying to build, is the player that makes the difference between winning and losing. Plus, sometimes the perceived best player available, isn't the best player available.
Over the years I've become more of a results guy. So one hand, I have a player who has put up great numbers, and has gotten results. But he's not flashy. He doesn't do muscle flexing after a dunk. He business like on the court, and as a result of his demeanor, he's perceived as a player with little growth left. But he checks every box the team needs checked. On the other hand, you have a player that just drips charisma, and who emits primal screams every time he makes a highlight reel dunk, but if selected, will likely cause some conflict with an already established PG, and doesn't really fill a need positionally. To me, the question is, who will help you win right now, because to me, winning is what it's all about.
How many stars does the Memphis team have? I'm not sure how the league defines a star, but it would appear that Ja Morant is the only star on that team. Don't get me wrong, they have some very good players, but other than Morant, they have Jackson, Bane, Brooks and Adams. None of which are considered stars, but they made a lot of noise in the playoffs, and with just a touch of luck, they might be playing in the finals. How? Why? Because of team culture. Every player fits on that team, and it's not an accident. But it took a while. It didn't happen overnight. Right now, in this draft, the Kings need to take the player that fit's the plan that McNair has for the team. We've already had the team with the all star (Cousins) that couldn't win. It's time to build a team with an identity!
I think it's better to take a player that fits the culture, and hopefully the positional need of a team over perhaps a more physically talented player, that could eventually be a star, but doesn't fit the culture the team your trying to build. While the gifted player might end up being a star, that doesn't always equate to wins, and winning is what it's about. Sometimes, and I like to think most times, the player that perfectly fits what the team needs, the culture the team is trying to build, is the player that makes the difference between winning and losing. Plus, sometimes the perceived best player available, isn't the best player available.
Over the years I've become more of a results guy. So one hand, I have a player who has put up great numbers, and has gotten results. But he's not flashy. He doesn't do muscle flexing after a dunk. He business like on the court, and as a result of his demeanor, he's perceived as a player with little growth left. But he checks every box the team needs checked. On the other hand, you have a player that just drips charisma, and who emits primal screams every time he makes a highlight reel dunk, but if selected, will likely cause some conflict with an already established PG, and doesn't really fill a need positionally. To me, the question is, who will help you win right now, because to me, winning is what it's all about.
How many stars does the Memphis team have? I'm not sure how the league defines a star, but it would appear that Ja Morant is the only star on that team. Don't get me wrong, they have some very good players, but other than Morant, they have Jackson, Bane, Brooks and Adams. None of which are considered stars, but they made a lot of noise in the playoffs, and with just a touch of luck, they might be playing in the finals. How? Why? Because of team culture. Every player fits on that team, and it's not an accident. But it took a while. It didn't happen overnight. Right now, in this draft, the Kings need to take the player that fit's the plan that McNair has for the team. We've already had the team with the all star (Cousins) that couldn't win. It's time to build a team with an identity!
Yeah shooting can be tough to gauge. I've still got to see some sort of evidence there in the form of 3pt%, FT%, form, attempts, whether or not they can shoot off the dribble, have a step back and how quick they get their shot off.
There's lots of 35% 3pt shooters in college that can't shoot worth a lick in the NBA but we've also seen players like Brook Lopez who couldn't shoot 3s until 8 or 9 years into his NBA career. He was always a well above average FT shooter for a center but did not shoot from 3 much at all before then. People can point to Lopez as an example of not writing off a player's shot but there are a hundred guys who don't develop their shot for every 1 Brook Lopez that is out there. The G League is full of solid defenders who hustle....but they just can't get the ball in the hoop efficiently enough.
Take Tari Eason, 36% from 3 and 80% from the line. I'm not a huge fan of his shot but I believe it'll translate due to his FT%. Looking at the list of NBA 80% FT shooters, you are much more likely to be average or above average from the 3pt line than below average. He might not be a volume shooter but he should be good enough to spread the floor for whatever team he's on.
A guy like Sochan has to defy the odds to become a good shooter. If you're drafting him and you're dependent on his shot in order for him to work for your team, then you're taking a pretty big risk there.
There's lots of 35% 3pt shooters in college that can't shoot worth a lick in the NBA but we've also seen players like Brook Lopez who couldn't shoot 3s until 8 or 9 years into his NBA career. He was always a well above average FT shooter for a center but did not shoot from 3 much at all before then. People can point to Lopez as an example of not writing off a player's shot but there are a hundred guys who don't develop their shot for every 1 Brook Lopez that is out there. The G League is full of solid defenders who hustle....but they just can't get the ball in the hoop efficiently enough.
Take Tari Eason, 36% from 3 and 80% from the line. I'm not a huge fan of his shot but I believe it'll translate due to his FT%. Looking at the list of NBA 80% FT shooters, you are much more likely to be average or above average from the 3pt line than below average. He might not be a volume shooter but he should be good enough to spread the floor for whatever team he's on.
A guy like Sochan has to defy the odds to become a good shooter. If you're drafting him and you're dependent on his shot in order for him to work for your team, then you're taking a pretty big risk there.
You left out De'Anthony Melton! He's been my dude since he first got to USC. He's another one of the unsung heroes on that Memphis team who's impact on winning is a lot more impressive than his stats or highlights. It's hard to respond directly to this comment -- like me you tend to meander around a bit (which I don't think is a bad thing). 
But generally speaking, I think we're in agreement about the big picture. It is a little hard to square both impulses here... On the one hand you don't want to pass on a franchise-changing talent for any reason but then if you draft someone who is that talented but they don't really fit the team culture you're trying to build are you really going to be in position to take advantage of their talent?
We saw how that played out with DeMarcus. I don't think that all falls on his shoulders -- it was a feedback loop of team dysfunction pushing an already volatile player in an increasingly disruptive direction (imo). I don't know if the personality fit is more or less important than the talent, it's always going to be a judgement call. But it's clear that you can't just ignore it and expect good results and like you I'm starting to feel like it needs to be given a lot more weight than I gave it in the past.
I also think that most franchises do look at personality and team culture fit more than the fans do. After all, they're not just bringing in a basketball player, they're also bringing in a co-worker and someone who they've chosen to invest a lot of money on (and even more opportunity cost in all the players they didn't use that pick on). Certain teams have been lottery staples for the last decade like we are and I can usually tell who they're going to like. Charlotte and Orlando like defensive specialists. New York (the Knicks) likes top-tier athletes who produced at big college programs. I think most NBA fans would probably predict that the Kings will take a jump shooter with questionable defensive prowess. These patterns develop over the years based on front office preferences.
And I fully agree with you about leaning more heavily on results than potential. How much is the player impacting winning at their current level? That should speak more loudly than their perceived tools. I don't really care how much emotion a player shows on the court (unless they're unable to control it) but I don't think I'm ready to say you can't draft a player with a positional conflict yet. I do think there's always a lot more gray area involved in finding the Best Player Available than is seen with the fan consensus. And I do hope Monte drafts a player who fits into what he's already building with Fox, Sabonis, and Mitchell. They need to be able to score off the ball and they need to have a defensive role. If they can't do that I would have to question if they are really the most talented player available at #4 anyway.
But generally speaking, I think we're in agreement about the big picture. It is a little hard to square both impulses here... On the one hand you don't want to pass on a franchise-changing talent for any reason but then if you draft someone who is that talented but they don't really fit the team culture you're trying to build are you really going to be in position to take advantage of their talent?We saw how that played out with DeMarcus. I don't think that all falls on his shoulders -- it was a feedback loop of team dysfunction pushing an already volatile player in an increasingly disruptive direction (imo). I don't know if the personality fit is more or less important than the talent, it's always going to be a judgement call. But it's clear that you can't just ignore it and expect good results and like you I'm starting to feel like it needs to be given a lot more weight than I gave it in the past.
I also think that most franchises do look at personality and team culture fit more than the fans do. After all, they're not just bringing in a basketball player, they're also bringing in a co-worker and someone who they've chosen to invest a lot of money on (and even more opportunity cost in all the players they didn't use that pick on). Certain teams have been lottery staples for the last decade like we are and I can usually tell who they're going to like. Charlotte and Orlando like defensive specialists. New York (the Knicks) likes top-tier athletes who produced at big college programs. I think most NBA fans would probably predict that the Kings will take a jump shooter with questionable defensive prowess. These patterns develop over the years based on front office preferences.
And I fully agree with you about leaning more heavily on results than potential. How much is the player impacting winning at their current level? That should speak more loudly than their perceived tools. I don't really care how much emotion a player shows on the court (unless they're unable to control it) but I don't think I'm ready to say you can't draft a player with a positional conflict yet. I do think there's always a lot more gray area involved in finding the Best Player Available than is seen with the fan consensus. And I do hope Monte drafts a player who fits into what he's already building with Fox, Sabonis, and Mitchell. They need to be able to score off the ball and they need to have a defensive role. If they can't do that I would have to question if they are really the most talented player available at #4 anyway.
Last edited:
Side note. I was listening to the Kings Herald podcast where they were discussing the draft with Jerry Reynolds. Jerry mentioned that he used to have discussions with Petrie about how when you are picking in the top 5 your goal is always to get a star. Nothing revelatory there, but he went on to mention how they thought they had a star in Tyreke Evans, and that he should have been one but didn't develop into one as hoped.
Then he said that DeMarcus Cousins had the talent to be a star but "he was a d***head".
Just JR's opinion of course, but since I've never listened to the KH podcast before it just struck me as hilarious to hear Jerry be so open about it.
As much as I defended Boogie (and loved watching him when he was playing well) I'm not sure he would have been much different in another situation. I think best case he's a slightly more volatile Rasheed Wallace. I used to use the false comparison of Draymond and DMC, and that Cousins would be looked at as a fiery competitor like Green rather than a malcontent if the Kings were a better team. And in hindsight I just don't think that would have been the case. Boogie was always more "me-centric" than Draymond.
I don't see any bad culture fits or malcontents at the top of this draft, but I would also say I've started looking at guys being good culture fits as being more important than I used to believe it was.
Then he said that DeMarcus Cousins had the talent to be a star but "he was a d***head".
Just JR's opinion of course, but since I've never listened to the KH podcast before it just struck me as hilarious to hear Jerry be so open about it.
As much as I defended Boogie (and loved watching him when he was playing well) I'm not sure he would have been much different in another situation. I think best case he's a slightly more volatile Rasheed Wallace. I used to use the false comparison of Draymond and DMC, and that Cousins would be looked at as a fiery competitor like Green rather than a malcontent if the Kings were a better team. And in hindsight I just don't think that would have been the case. Boogie was always more "me-centric" than Draymond.
I don't see any bad culture fits or malcontents at the top of this draft, but I would also say I've started looking at guys being good culture fits as being more important than I used to believe it was.
I think this is the next "code" to crack in terms of prospects. Whoever figures out how to quantify chemistry/work ethic/personality is going to print.
Chet on the Magic makes all the sense in the world to me for that reason and their investment in Jalen Suggs. They've been best friends since high school, won state championships together, I think Chet went to Gonzaga because of Suggs endorsement. You can't buy that already built in chemistry with 2 guys you hope are your franchise cornerstones. Assuming you have Chet/Jabari/Paolo relatively close, I'm taking the guy with built-in chemistry with my building block PG and #5 pick from last season.
Chet on the Magic makes all the sense in the world to me for that reason and their investment in Jalen Suggs. They've been best friends since high school, won state championships together, I think Chet went to Gonzaga because of Suggs endorsement. You can't buy that already built in chemistry with 2 guys you hope are your franchise cornerstones. Assuming you have Chet/Jabari/Paolo relatively close, I'm taking the guy with built-in chemistry with my building block PG and #5 pick from last season.
Last edited:
Yeah I've been confused why there is no smoke on Chet to the Magic when you have the Suggs-Chet connection. Maybe they are gunshy because Bamba didn't develop so they want a ready made guy in Jabari? But it seems like they are also letting him go. They are also the team I see in the top 4 other than the Kings that won't start 2022/23 with the goal of securing odds for 2023 lotto, so maybe that's what it's about. Still it seems like Chet and Paolo represent potential homeruns and while I think both are coinflips, the odds seem to be about 75% that if you pick Jabari one of those guys ends up a bigger star while the other busts.
almost every "sensible" mock hinges on Jabari being first overall, because I think OKC pick Chet without hesitation if he's there but if he isn't Banchero and Ivey seem the most likely picks between OKC and HOU who are going high risk/high reward with more treasures waiting in 2023 anyways.
almost every "sensible" mock hinges on Jabari being first overall, because I think OKC pick Chet without hesitation if he's there but if he isn't Banchero and Ivey seem the most likely picks between OKC and HOU who are going high risk/high reward with more treasures waiting in 2023 anyways.
I'm sure the Magic are still hoping for big things from Suggs, but he had an absolutely dreadful season on offense last year. He was pretty consistently good on defense, but he may have been the worst outside shooter in the NBA last year. He also looked like a PG/SG tweener as he doesn't have great size or shooting/scoring to be a SG but struggled as a ballhandler and playmaker.
All that to say, the Magic may like the idea of pairing two young players who have been friends and teammates since AAU/middle school but I don't think they are making major personnel decisions based on Suggs. At least not right now.
All that to say, the Magic may like the idea of pairing two young players who have been friends and teammates since AAU/middle school but I don't think they are making major personnel decisions based on Suggs. At least not right now.
Last edited:
Based on everything you said in both quotes, adding Monte McNair's draft record so far (lean BBIQ, competitiveness instinct over rotational fit), maybe there is a chance we take Keegan Murray at #4?
(I'd at least guess that's your pick, Baja. )
(I'd at least guess that's your pick, Baja.
)
I agree that Suggs didn't light the league on fire and was perhaps the biggest flop in the top 10 right now so you're either doubling down on a mistake with the chance that you'll get two guys that were at the top of their classes who have played together and may have that certain chemistry that unlocks both to the best of their ability.
Or you go 0-2 with top 5 picks back to back
Or you go 0-2 with top 5 picks back to back