Best shooting guard prospects the Kings should look at
- Thread starter ElRey
- Start date
The gem in that deal is Mitrovic. He's the one I want to see playing in summer league this summer. He's a very skilled player that can play inside or outside. He's a deadly shooter from the three, but he's equally skilled in the post. I don't know how realistic it is to expect him here this summer, but I'm hopeful..
I personally want no part of Murray. I think the draw is that he's a big PG in some people's eyes but to me I see an undersized SG. And an undersized SG who is a terrible defender.
Hield is the better athlete of the two. And he's plenty athletic for the NBA, but he's not the type of athlete where his physical tools make up for what he lacks in height. He's not powerfully built or particularly explosive, but he's also not a guy who is going to struggle with the speed of the game. When I say he can be a Redick-like player I don't mean that he'll have a rough adjustment like JJ did. I think he'll figure things out much faster and contribute sooner, but in a similar way. Possibly with better defense too.
For the Kings especially I would take Hield over Murray 10 times out of 10. But I'm just looking at what GMs tend to think and how they like to project guys to the NBA. Hield can be a Redick type player. But could Murray be a Jazz era Deron Williams type player? I don't think so but it's the type of logic that overlooks a senior who can come in and make an impact for the freshman that you can convince yourself can become much more.
Hield is the better athlete of the two. And he's plenty athletic for the NBA, but he's not the type of athlete where his physical tools make up for what he lacks in height. He's not powerfully built or particularly explosive, but he's also not a guy who is going to struggle with the speed of the game. When I say he can be a Redick-like player I don't mean that he'll have a rough adjustment like JJ did. I think he'll figure things out much faster and contribute sooner, but in a similar way. Possibly with better defense too.
For the Kings especially I would take Hield over Murray 10 times out of 10. But I'm just looking at what GMs tend to think and how they like to project guys to the NBA. Hield can be a Redick type player. But could Murray be a Jazz era Deron Williams type player? I don't think so but it's the type of logic that overlooks a senior who can come in and make an impact for the freshman that you can convince yourself can become much more.
Last edited:
I think were pretty much on the same page. I guess the question would be, if Hield and Dunn are both taken when we pick, what then? Are we that desperate for a SG that we take either Murray or Valentine, or do we take whoever we think is the best player available, regardless of position. We need a center like we need a hole in the head, but Jakob Poeltl is going to be a very good player in the league. Defensively he reminds me a bit of Bogut. If you take him, then do you trade Koufos? I saw where Thon Maker declared for the draft, skipping college altogether. He was projected as a top ten pick next year. Not even a one and done.
Edit: I guess I should clarify. Maker still has to be given the OK by the NBA. He was going to play in college next season, but he's already 19 years old, and technically falls into the one year removed from highschool. It's possible that the NBA will refuse his request. For those that aren't familiar with Maker, he's a 7'1" SF/PF, He's of Sudanize and Australian decent.
Edit: I guess I should clarify. Maker still has to be given the OK by the NBA. He was going to play in college next season, but he's already 19 years old, and technically falls into the one year removed from highschool. It's possible that the NBA will refuse his request. For those that aren't familiar with Maker, he's a 7'1" SF/PF, He's of Sudanize and Australian decent.
Last edited:
I think it's very possible that Dunn & Hield are gone when the Kings pick. Along with Bender, Ingram & Simmons and 1-3 other players.
If so I don't see any need to reach on a SG. I'm not a huge Ellenson fan but maybe the Kings nab him as a stretch four project. Or gamble on a kid like Chriss fulfilling his potential.
There's also always the ability to trade the pick, either for a veteran or to trade back in the draft. Maybe to a team like Boston with multiple first rounders. There are some guys I like in the mid to late first. Baldwin, Luwawu, Prince, Beasley, Levert, Dejounte Murray & Zubic are all intriguing pieces.
If so I don't see any need to reach on a SG. I'm not a huge Ellenson fan but maybe the Kings nab him as a stretch four project. Or gamble on a kid like Chriss fulfilling his potential.
There's also always the ability to trade the pick, either for a veteran or to trade back in the draft. Maybe to a team like Boston with multiple first rounders. There are some guys I like in the mid to late first. Baldwin, Luwawu, Prince, Beasley, Levert, Dejounte Murray & Zubic are all intriguing pieces.
It wouldn't surprise me if Mitrovic skips out on SL. I think Mitrovic is ready to contribute in the NBA right now, but I don't see why he would leave Serbia to come here.. Right now in Serbia, he's their captain and 2nd leading scorer. He's not their go-to player, but he's their main player. If he comes here, I don't think he gets more than 10mpg his 1st year as a rookie off the bench with very limited touches.
Just reading a few pieces(translated) about his relationship with his team, I don't think he'll make that jump until the Kings promise him real PT...
Just reading a few pieces(translated) about his relationship with his team, I don't think he'll make that jump until the Kings promise him real PT...
He's certainly a project, and you take him with that knowledge. For that reason, I doubt the Kings would take a flyer on him. But a team like the Spurs would happily grab him and develop him. This is how the rich get richer. They have the luxury of drafting risky players with upside. Maker is athletic, and has that one thing you can't teach, size and length. The question with him right now is what is he? Will he be the next Donte Greene, or will he be the next Kevin Garnet? I wish he had decided to go to college for at least one year. It's possible that the NBA will reject his entry and send him back to college.
I think it depends on how badly Mitrocic wants to play in the NBA. I'm not a mind reader, so I have no idea what his thoughts are. Very few players come into the NBA for the first time with promised minutes. It's the best league in the world with the best players in the world, and you have to prove you deserve the minutes. The best Vlade can promise him is a fair shot at earning those minutes. If he's afraid of the competition, then stay in europe!.
Obviously Labissiere hasn't shown that he's ready for the NBA yet, but not every prospect needs to. We're projecting who he's going to be as a player in 3 or 4 years and for a prospect who knows their future career is the NBA, working with a training staff full-time is probably going to benefit him more than staying in college provided he's interested in getting better more than getting paid. When we talk about Free Agency targets, we're always talking about stretch bigs or shotblockers. Labissiere may not be the physical speciman that Andre Drummond was/is but he's already got a very good jumpshot for a 20 year old 7 footer. He's going to have to get stronger in the NBA but that's true of most 20 year olds. He's already got 20lbs on Nerlens Noel as a freshman and the role he's going to play -- stretch big and weak-side shotblocker -- is more about quickness, skill level, and anticipation than physicality.
Something to keep in mind with this draft in particular, unless we're drafting top 3 we're not going to get a player who should have a big impact next season. Expecting to plug somebody into the starting lineup or even play big minutes off the bench from day 1 is almost always a mistake. We need to be looking at long-term potential and overall skillset not perceived "NBA readiness". We've already seen over and over again that drafting "NBA ready players" in the lottery is fool's gold. Just forget about the idea of getting an immediate contributor and try to find the best talent we can. An athletic and mobile 7 footer with a smooth jumpshot and good shotblocking instincts belongs in the conversation for a top 10 pick regardless of how ready he may or may not be right now.
Something to keep in mind with this draft in particular, unless we're drafting top 3 we're not going to get a player who should have a big impact next season. Expecting to plug somebody into the starting lineup or even play big minutes off the bench from day 1 is almost always a mistake. We need to be looking at long-term potential and overall skillset not perceived "NBA readiness". We've already seen over and over again that drafting "NBA ready players" in the lottery is fool's gold. Just forget about the idea of getting an immediate contributor and try to find the best talent we can. An athletic and mobile 7 footer with a smooth jumpshot and good shotblocking instincts belongs in the conversation for a top 10 pick regardless of how ready he may or may not be right now.
Which so called NBA ready players have we drafted in the lottery? Surely your not counting Jimmer. Yes, he was a four year player, and that's usually attributed to NBA ready players. But in Jimmer's case, there were a lot of question marks that the Maloofs decided to ignore. I wouldn't have called either McLemore or Thomas Robinson NBA ready players. Of late the only NBA ready player the Kings have drafted is Willie, and I think he's proved that he's ready to play in the NBA. Maybe your wern't referring to the Kings, but speaking in general.
Where Labissiere is concerned, I can see your point about drafting for the future, and I personally don't have a problem with that. However that doesn't fit the current scenario of winning now. My problem is that I'm not sure I see a future with Labissiere. I saw him have one good game, and almost every other game he was downright terrible. Calapari couldn't find a way to keep him on the floor. Yes, he's a very capable weak side shot blocker, but in man defense he got pushed around by guys that were 6'5". I don't think he weighs 200 pounds. I'd rather bet my money on Damian Jones, Henry Ellenson, or Jakob Poeltl. If for some reason the Kings decide to trade Cuz, then I would definitely grab Poeltl.
Not suggesting we trade Cuz, just covering my bases.
Where Labissiere is concerned, I can see your point about drafting for the future, and I personally don't have a problem with that. However that doesn't fit the current scenario of winning now. My problem is that I'm not sure I see a future with Labissiere. I saw him have one good game, and almost every other game he was downright terrible. Calapari couldn't find a way to keep him on the floor. Yes, he's a very capable weak side shot blocker, but in man defense he got pushed around by guys that were 6'5". I don't think he weighs 200 pounds. I'd rather bet my money on Damian Jones, Henry Ellenson, or Jakob Poeltl. If for some reason the Kings decide to trade Cuz, then I would definitely grab Poeltl.
Not suggesting we trade Cuz, just covering my bases.
I think in our case, I would list "NBA Ready" players we've drafted as: Quincy Douby, Jason Thompson, Jimmer Fredette, Thomas Robinson, and Willie Cauley-Stein. All of them were upper classmen who put up impressive stats in their last college season. That doesn't mean they were NBA ready of course, just that there was a perception pre-draft that they were safer picks because they had spent 3 or more years in college, had already developed their bodies, and already had NBA skills that theoretically should translate into rookie year production. McLemore, Evans, and Cousins were all one year wonders and you expect to spend some more time developing them but this is where the dividing line shows between elite talent and average talent because age didn't really matter for Tyreke or DeMarcus. It's a much bigger adjustment I think for a player with average NBA talent but a great college resume to adjust to playing with NBA players than it is for a younger player who's always been at the top of their class to adjust. The elite talent guys have exceptional physical attributes or preternatural instincts for the game that translate immediately. The college stars may have already maxed out their ability playing against much weaker competition and just aren't capable of competing on the same level against the best players in the world.
And with Jimmer specifically, I know for a fact he was a guy with "NBA ready" stamps all over him pre-draft because I raised my concerns about his ability to play PG, his lack of defensive aptitude, and his average at-best athleticism at the time we drafted him and I got all kinds of flack for it. The same kinds of flack I got for raising concerns about Willie Cauley-Stein -- though fortunately, those have mostly been proven false. Even Nik Stauskas -- in the context of the infamous Stuaskas or Payton debate -- was branded as the more NBA ready player and thus the "correct" choice for a team that wanted to get out of lottery hell and into the playoffs. Which player will have the better NBA career is still unknown, but Payton ended up having the better rookie year.
Ultimately this is just about how prospects are evaluated for me. A whole lot of star players have come with associated risks pre-draft and if you eliminate those types of prospects from consideration, your chances of drafting a star with a mid-lotto pick are approaching zero. And there's really no reason for us to think "win-now" with the draft. The only "win-now" solution with draft picks is to trade your high lottery picks to a team with an unhappy star they're looking to unload. If you're actually going to keep the pick you need to be picking the best talent available regardless of position. None of the upperclassmen we drafted came in and immediately tore up the league. None of them propelled us to playoff success. It's counter intuitive, but I think the success rate is much higher with one-and-done freshmen because of the talent gap involved. The college production may not be impressive but it's the physical tools, basketball IQ, work-ethic, and love of the game which propel prospects into becoming elite NBA players and college stats don't do enough to measure those qualities. That's why you see the combine measurements, player interviews, and individual workouts changing the outlook at the top of the draft so much every year.
To illustrate, look at all the success OKC had with the draft early on and the risks associated with their best picks:
Kevin Durant -- 2nd overall pick, pretty much a guaranteed star but he was a bone skinny one-and-done freshman and a tweener forward who took a few years to grow into his natural SF position
Russell Westbrook -- an uber-athletic sophomore whose tools were more impressive than his production at UCLA. Also he was considered by most to be an under-sized SG who would struggle if he was moved to PG
James Harden -- another one-and-done freshman, tested out very well but didn't look athletically impressive on game-tape. gifted scorer but does he do enough to be a star?
Eric Bledsoe -- one and done freshman who came off the bench behind John Wall. Impressive athlete but he's a PG who averaged more TOs than assists in his one season at Kentucky.
Serge Ibaka -- a 19 year shot blocking phenom playing in the Spanish League, didn't have a back to the basket game, quality of competition was considered questionable, limited game tape.
It's not really fair to call KD a risky pick, but they mined an awful lot of gold out of those other picks and none of them were considered can't miss players. Yeah there's always bust potential when you're looking for projects but there's a reason they call them boom or bust players. If you're not willing to take on a little bit of risk, you're unlikely to be drafting a star outside the top 3. And I want DeMarcus to stay too, but we should be covering our bases in case Cousins decides to move on, not putting all our eggs in the "keep Cousins, win now" basket.
And with Jimmer specifically, I know for a fact he was a guy with "NBA ready" stamps all over him pre-draft because I raised my concerns about his ability to play PG, his lack of defensive aptitude, and his average at-best athleticism at the time we drafted him and I got all kinds of flack for it. The same kinds of flack I got for raising concerns about Willie Cauley-Stein -- though fortunately, those have mostly been proven false. Even Nik Stauskas -- in the context of the infamous Stuaskas or Payton debate -- was branded as the more NBA ready player and thus the "correct" choice for a team that wanted to get out of lottery hell and into the playoffs. Which player will have the better NBA career is still unknown, but Payton ended up having the better rookie year.
Ultimately this is just about how prospects are evaluated for me. A whole lot of star players have come with associated risks pre-draft and if you eliminate those types of prospects from consideration, your chances of drafting a star with a mid-lotto pick are approaching zero. And there's really no reason for us to think "win-now" with the draft. The only "win-now" solution with draft picks is to trade your high lottery picks to a team with an unhappy star they're looking to unload. If you're actually going to keep the pick you need to be picking the best talent available regardless of position. None of the upperclassmen we drafted came in and immediately tore up the league. None of them propelled us to playoff success. It's counter intuitive, but I think the success rate is much higher with one-and-done freshmen because of the talent gap involved. The college production may not be impressive but it's the physical tools, basketball IQ, work-ethic, and love of the game which propel prospects into becoming elite NBA players and college stats don't do enough to measure those qualities. That's why you see the combine measurements, player interviews, and individual workouts changing the outlook at the top of the draft so much every year.
To illustrate, look at all the success OKC had with the draft early on and the risks associated with their best picks:
Kevin Durant -- 2nd overall pick, pretty much a guaranteed star but he was a bone skinny one-and-done freshman and a tweener forward who took a few years to grow into his natural SF position
Russell Westbrook -- an uber-athletic sophomore whose tools were more impressive than his production at UCLA. Also he was considered by most to be an under-sized SG who would struggle if he was moved to PG
James Harden -- another one-and-done freshman, tested out very well but didn't look athletically impressive on game-tape. gifted scorer but does he do enough to be a star?
Eric Bledsoe -- one and done freshman who came off the bench behind John Wall. Impressive athlete but he's a PG who averaged more TOs than assists in his one season at Kentucky.
Serge Ibaka -- a 19 year shot blocking phenom playing in the Spanish League, didn't have a back to the basket game, quality of competition was considered questionable, limited game tape.
It's not really fair to call KD a risky pick, but they mined an awful lot of gold out of those other picks and none of them were considered can't miss players. Yeah there's always bust potential when you're looking for projects but there's a reason they call them boom or bust players. If you're not willing to take on a little bit of risk, you're unlikely to be drafting a star outside the top 3. And I want DeMarcus to stay too, but we should be covering our bases in case Cousins decides to move on, not putting all our eggs in the "keep Cousins, win now" basket.
Last edited:
While it's true he might weight a little more than Noel, he has nowhere the strength. There are honestly only a total of 2 things Labissiere does well right now... 1) Helping weakside 2) Jumpshot.
I can't name a single other thing. I give WCS crap about his terrible rebounding... I honestly can't even imagine Skal here.
I see him having a limited future in the NBA if the Kings draft him. He's one of the rawest players in this draft who doesn't excel in anything. Our developmental team is terrible, and I don't see how we'd even be able to make him a border-line NBA player. You put him on the Bucks or Spurs? I think they'd be able to develop him. Kings? No way.
I can't name a single other thing. I give WCS crap about his terrible rebounding... I honestly can't even imagine Skal here.
I see him having a limited future in the NBA if the Kings draft him. He's one of the rawest players in this draft who doesn't excel in anything. Our developmental team is terrible, and I don't see how we'd even be able to make him a border-line NBA player. You put him on the Bucks or Spurs? I think they'd be able to develop him. Kings? No way.
Were not that far apart when it comes to looking at prospects. We just do it from different angles. You tend to look at what a player can't do, and emphasize that. I tend to look at what a player can do, and emphasize that. We seem to arrive at the same conclusion about most players, but our descriptions appear different because of our approach. When if comes to Fredette, I think a lot of scouts had reservations, but those reservations ended up being greater than expected. It was no secret that Jimmer wasn't the greatest athlete in the world, and most scouts projected him more as a SG than a PG. Personally I always felt that if he was going to make it, it had to be a PG, and he ended up not having good enough handles for that position.
The players you brought up are interesting. I had reservations about Durant coming out of Texas. I thought he was a little too much of a chucker and that he took too many bad shots. That said, I had no problem with him being drafted as high as he was. I think everyone was impressed with Westbrook's athleticism, but no one knew for sure what he was. Because of Collison he was forced to play SG, so it was hard to get a read on him. In a way, Bledsoe suffered from the same affliction as Westbrook. Was he a PG, or a SG? Not sure that question has been totally answered yet. I never understood the criticism of Harden. I had countless arguments with people on this forum that said he wasn't athletic enough, and I wondered just what the hell they were watching. I predicted that Harden would be a star. To me, he was a no brainer.
I never made any predictions about Ibaka. To me, he was an unknown enity. I saw him play in two international high school all star games and that was it. In one of those games he grabbed a ton of boards and blocked more shots than I could count. In the other game, he was just so so. Hard to come to any conclusions based on two games that tend to be less organized than normal.
I think when you come up with a star like Butler with the 30th pick in the draft, you did your homework, and you had a lot of luck. Sometimes it's just little things that you pick up on that attract you to a player. For some strange reason I really, really liked Chandler Parsons at Florida, and was thrilled when he was sitting there in the second round when we were ready to pick, and then disappointed when we passed on him. I think whether your picking first, or somewhere toward the bottom of the draft, you need an element of luck. You have to remember your dealing with human beings, and not robots. Difficult to know how hard a player will work once he has a few million dollars in his bank account. Donte Greene anyone?
The players you brought up are interesting. I had reservations about Durant coming out of Texas. I thought he was a little too much of a chucker and that he took too many bad shots. That said, I had no problem with him being drafted as high as he was. I think everyone was impressed with Westbrook's athleticism, but no one knew for sure what he was. Because of Collison he was forced to play SG, so it was hard to get a read on him. In a way, Bledsoe suffered from the same affliction as Westbrook. Was he a PG, or a SG? Not sure that question has been totally answered yet. I never understood the criticism of Harden. I had countless arguments with people on this forum that said he wasn't athletic enough, and I wondered just what the hell they were watching. I predicted that Harden would be a star. To me, he was a no brainer.
I never made any predictions about Ibaka. To me, he was an unknown enity. I saw him play in two international high school all star games and that was it. In one of those games he grabbed a ton of boards and blocked more shots than I could count. In the other game, he was just so so. Hard to come to any conclusions based on two games that tend to be less organized than normal.
I think when you come up with a star like Butler with the 30th pick in the draft, you did your homework, and you had a lot of luck. Sometimes it's just little things that you pick up on that attract you to a player. For some strange reason I really, really liked Chandler Parsons at Florida, and was thrilled when he was sitting there in the second round when we were ready to pick, and then disappointed when we passed on him. I think whether your picking first, or somewhere toward the bottom of the draft, you need an element of luck. You have to remember your dealing with human beings, and not robots. Difficult to know how hard a player will work once he has a few million dollars in his bank account. Donte Greene anyone?
Confucious says that he who lives in the past, has no future...Probably misspelled his name, but it's true. Because our developmental dept has sucked in the past, that doesn't mean Vlade isn't going to improve that area. Vlade is only responsible for what Vlade has done, or not done. I'm assuming that area is now Peja's responsiblilty. I know one of the things that Vlade has said, is that he's going to bring our international scouting back up to snuff. Having said that, I certainly hope we don't draft Skal. Hey, I'd use a second round pick on him if we had one and he fell that far.
Haha that's a very ironic quote considering how many Kings fans are stuck in 2003...
I think Skal has all the tools to be a very good PF, but he doesn't have anything else. I know this sounds strange, but I could see Cuz being a mentor for Skal.
Agree with you. Kings can't afford to draft Skal. His skillset is just way too limited at the moment. Extremely low bustable floor, with good upside. If we're drafting a player with this low of a floor, then they need a great ceiling like Bender. If Dragen is there at our pick, I think Vlade drafts him 100%. I doubt he'll be there.
I think Skal has all the tools to be a very good PF, but he doesn't have anything else. I know this sounds strange, but I could see Cuz being a mentor for Skal.
Agree with you. Kings can't afford to draft Skal. His skillset is just way too limited at the moment. Extremely low bustable floor, with good upside. If we're drafting a player with this low of a floor, then they need a great ceiling like Bender. If Dragen is there at our pick, I think Vlade drafts him 100%. I doubt he'll be there.
It looks like the best we can do in the draft, barring winning the lottery, is stay in the seventh spot, and that's not a given. Even there, I'd be shocked if Bender is still there. Every year it seems as though someone projected in the top five slides down to the seventh or eigth spot. My guess is that Jamal Brown is the most likely candidate. But, you never know. I haven't taken a hard look at all the team needs above us since it could change with the lottery. It's probably a safe bet that Simmons and Ingram go 1/2, and in no particular order. I could see Bender and Dunn going 3/4. Again in no particular order. After that, it gets tricky. You have three guys that should go in the next three slots, but in what order is the question. Hield, Murray, and Brown.
If I'm choosing, I would take Hield out of that group. But someone will be enticed with Browns potential, and someone will think that Murray can be a terrific combo guard because of his passing ability. Probably depends on who is doing the picking. I see Skal going somewhere between 15 and 25. He'll probably get drafted by either the Spurs or the Warriors, and turn into a superstar. All of a sudden I'm not feeling well.....
If I'm choosing, I would take Hield out of that group. But someone will be enticed with Browns potential, and someone will think that Murray can be a terrific combo guard because of his passing ability. Probably depends on who is doing the picking. I see Skal going somewhere between 15 and 25. He'll probably get drafted by either the Spurs or the Warriors, and turn into a superstar. All of a sudden I'm not feeling well.....
After 1/2, the draft is a crapshoot. I can see Hield going as high as 3, and as low as 12ish. I think if the Kings are in a position to draft Hield, they probably do so..especially since we knew that they were interested in Hezonja and Matthews.
If it makes you feel better, the Spurs still call Kyle Anderson slo-moo. Let's see how the Warriors develop Looney. My biggest guess is that a playoff team will probably draft Skal. He'd be a low-risk, high reward type of player in the 20s.
A bit off topic, but bringing up Looney reminded me of Christian Wood. I have no clue why he wasn't on an NBA roster this year(on and off with 76ers). John-Henson type player with a potential jumpshot? There's a few rumors that he did extremely poor in private interviews mixed with maturity and motor concerns. I thought he was going in the 1st round. What do you think of him now? Could he be someone the Kings look at this summer? 4 years younger than Moreland, with more upside. (Might have a young Whiteside problem)
If it makes you feel better, the Spurs still call Kyle Anderson slo-moo. Let's see how the Warriors develop Looney. My biggest guess is that a playoff team will probably draft Skal. He'd be a low-risk, high reward type of player in the 20s.
A bit off topic, but bringing up Looney reminded me of Christian Wood. I have no clue why he wasn't on an NBA roster this year(on and off with 76ers). John-Henson type player with a potential jumpshot? There's a few rumors that he did extremely poor in private interviews mixed with maturity and motor concerns. I thought he was going in the 1st round. What do you think of him now? Could he be someone the Kings look at this summer? 4 years younger than Moreland, with more upside. (Might have a young Whiteside problem)
K
If the Kings decide to trade Cousins you have to offer him to the Suns in return for Booker and there picks (I think one is top 5 or could be) we would probably throw in Ben as well which is fine, they will probably want to get rid of Tyson's contract which I would accept with the picks since he's a perfect mentor (I'm sure would be willing to come off the bench) for WCS and I would than use the picks and Rudy Gay and offer them to the Bulls in return for Jimmy Butler so for Cousins and Rudy/Ben we would get back Booker (future)/Jimmy (play as SF next to Book) and Tyson as the OG. We would still have cap space for a stretch 4/PG I think.
PG:?/DC
SG: Booker/?
SF: Butler/Casspi/
PF ?/Chandler/Acy
C: WCS/Chandler
D-Book is the best SG prospect in or out of the NBA
PG:?/DC
SG: Booker/?
SF: Butler/Casspi/
PF ?/Chandler/Acy
C: WCS/Chandler
D-Book is the best SG prospect in or out of the NBA
I'd never like to see Cousins traded, but if it's out of our hands, Booker, #3, & #13 would be a pretty nice return. I'd take J. Brown, Hield, & Rabb with our picks and roll with a Booker/Hield/Brown/Rabb/Cauley-Stein core going forward. I don't think Phoenix is going to move Booker for anyone though so this argument is moot looking at it from both sides.
This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. No one here wanted to draft Booker with our pick a year ago and now we're going to trade Cousins and possibly McLemore too to get him? The time to trade for Booker was draft day last year. You don't buy the lottery ticket after its worth a million dollars, you buy it when it's $3 and hope you picked right.
Alternatively, I think Stanley Johnson may still be a good buy low candidate cause he hit the rookie wall hard this month and Detroit is committed to Tobias Harris at SF now. His jumpshot is lagging behind where I thought it would be right now, but that just makes him cheaper to acquire. I'm confident it will come around eventually. I wanted Moe Harkless for years and he's just starting to reward Portland for believing in his talent this year. Sometimes it takes awhile but finding undervalued talent and developing it is the name of the game. Guys like Booker, Turner, and Towns are effectively off the market now that their teams consider them important building blocks. We've got to dig a little deeper.
Another guy I would go out of my way to acquire this summer is Bismack Biyombo. He's got one more year at $3 million left for Toronto but his block and rebounding numbers in limited minutes this season are eye popping. If you want to substantially improve the defense next year, you'll need to bring in some defensive specialists. Shumpert is another good target-- he looks to be out of favor in Cleveland so he's acquirable, reasonably priced, and a sure-fire upgrade defensively from any SG we've had since Doug Christie.
Alternatively, I think Stanley Johnson may still be a good buy low candidate cause he hit the rookie wall hard this month and Detroit is committed to Tobias Harris at SF now. His jumpshot is lagging behind where I thought it would be right now, but that just makes him cheaper to acquire. I'm confident it will come around eventually. I wanted Moe Harkless for years and he's just starting to reward Portland for believing in his talent this year. Sometimes it takes awhile but finding undervalued talent and developing it is the name of the game. Guys like Booker, Turner, and Towns are effectively off the market now that their teams consider them important building blocks. We've got to dig a little deeper.
Another guy I would go out of my way to acquire this summer is Bismack Biyombo. He's got one more year at $3 million left for Toronto but his block and rebounding numbers in limited minutes this season are eye popping. If you want to substantially improve the defense next year, you'll need to bring in some defensive specialists. Shumpert is another good target-- he looks to be out of favor in Cleveland so he's acquirable, reasonably priced, and a sure-fire upgrade defensively from any SG we've had since Doug Christie.
K
I slightly disagree I actually think Marcus Morris will be the odd man out Stanley has to much potential and Harris will be way harder to move and Harris is actually there PF atm but I know they were interested in a stretch 4 which imo only leaves Morris as the one you move and a guy I wanted here (I sadly wanted Markief as well) at the start of the year.
You may be right. It's hard for me to figure what Stan Van is going to do. They'll have to shell out a ton of money on Andre Drummund this summer and they still need a backup Pg, a reliable bench shooter, and another rotation big. I'm hoping they'll lose patience with Stanley if he keeps throwing up bricks. I was just using him as an example though of a player who I think may be undervalued. Those are the types of players we should be targeting, not young studs who'll cost us an arm and a leg. Rookie sensations like Booker and Porzingis are the most overvalued commodity in the league. Remember how we felt about Tyreke Evans after his rookie season. He was going to be better than Westbrook right? Maybe a slight exaggeration, but he certainly wasn't available for anything short of a young All-Star. That's the way these other teams feel about their young studs right now. We'll see if reality sets in next year or they continue getting better and justify the hyperbole.
I get your point about how the value of a player can change over a short period of time, but there's a distinct difference between not wanting to draft Booker with the sixth pick in the draft, and not wanting to draft him at all. I loved Booker, but I wasn't about to draft him at number six when we had drafted Stauskas the pervious year, and at the time he was still on the roster, and we had drafted McLemore the year before that, and, we were in need of a defensive big man. There are details in the Pudding.
By the way, I have never liked Biyombo. He has the BBIQ of a rock, and is a one trick pony. Not saying he couldn't be helpful defensively in the right situations, but I wouldn't go out of my way to acquire him.
By the way, I have never liked Biyombo. He has the BBIQ of a rock, and is a one trick pony. Not saying he couldn't be helpful defensively in the right situations, but I wouldn't go out of my way to acquire him.