I don't get how Stauskas was this great prospect coming out of college all of a sudden. Remember when everyone erupted over the Kings picking him? It was this big joke that the Kings would reach for him at 8.
Compared to Dunn, who was the best point guard prospect in his draft, and Hield, who I saw as high as 3 on some draft boards and lit up college basketball his senior year, there's no comparison. (And I don't even like Hield as a prospect, by the way). Stauskas was a joke of a lottery selection and was trash his rookie year (and now). That's why people don't treat giving him away as losing something of real value.
I didn't erupt when the Kings picked him at 8.
Stauskas was a great prospect coming out of college. If you don't think so, I'd like to know why.
Stauskas won Big Ten POY award. Stauskas was an amazingly confident player who rose up to the occasion when no one knew who would take over Michigan after the departure of Trey Burke. Stauskas was a really vocal leader on the floor. He improved tremendously in his sophomore year and legitimately became a ball handler. Stauskas had the ability to play off the ball, or with the ball. He excelled in 3pt shooting, and shot 44.2% from 3pt. On ball, Stauskas was able to exploit teams in PnR, he had a good understanding of it. His ball handling was good for a SG. He looked extremely comfortable running Michigan's offense as a primary ball handler when he needed to. Stauskas was solid at attacking the rim and finishing. His ball handling and decent amount of moves helped him get to the rim. He was really good at drawing contact and getting to the foul line. Even though Stauskas was able to play good as an off-ball player, he was good at creating his own shots. On top of showing a lot of scoring moves with an elite jumpshot, Stauskas was a had a high bball IQ, and was a really good passer. Stauskas has solid athleticism. The biggest knock on him was his lack of lateral quickness. He did not have quick foot-speed and this could became a major problem against NBA offenses. There's nothing wrong with his size and frame. 6'6 with a 6'7.5 wingspan at 207lbs (draft combine, official numbers). Look at his raw stats: 17.5pts 3.3asts 2.9rebs on 47/42/82.
So you have a 6'6 SG who can shoot the 3pt, handle the ball, pass the ball, has exceptionally high ball IQ, and is a proven leader. Only real concerns were his lateral quickness and footspeed.
Stauskas was a
VERY good prospect coming out of college. I was shocked when I saw how much Stauskas struggled, but how much do you think that was on his mental level because of the Kings? Guy gets drafted into the Kings. 20 games into the season, and they fire their HC. They hire the assistant coach. 20 games after that, they fire the assistant coach, and hire George Karl.
THEN, they fire the guy who drafted him, and hired a new GM. There was big rumblings of
a lot of tension in the locker room, but now we know, those rumblings were actually true. How do you think a dysfunctional organization affected a 20/21yearold rookie SG? He played under 3 headcoaches in 1 year, went through 2 GMs, and battled through a crap-ton of internal problems between players, coaches, and FO.
and we wonder why the Kings can't develop players.
Stauskas wasn't "a joke of a lottery selection." That's straight-up insulting. He was a legitimately good NBA prospect. Whether or not he panned on, has no barring on that. I don't want to sound narrow-minded, but for you to say that he was a pee-poor prospect makes me think you didn't watch enough of him at college, or read too much of what others wrote. There's a gigantic reason why some considered 2014 to be the
best lotto prospects in a long time.