[Rumor] Dave: “Kings looking hard at Kingston Flemings”
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
To be fair, we had a fairly clear idea what was going to happen the one year that the Kings had a high lotto pick.Well yeah, obviously.
I guess it's encouraging that we are looking at more than one player. And I already miss the days of "no one has any idea what the Kings are going to do because [middle-manager] Monte McNair isn't talking".
Was that the Keegan Murray year? Did we? I remember hoping he would be the pick and speculating based on the numbers that an analytics-focused guy like Monte must like him but not knowing until the day if the Kings were even interested.
Kingz19
Hall of Famer
Going out on a limb there @carmichaeldave
I’ll wait for James Ham to confirm just to be safe
I’m not enamored with Flemings. He looks so small in his highlight packages.
His first step and speed definitely stands out beyond the other guards. It is definitely special.
However, he doesn’t look actually 6’3’ to me(though I guess he must be). He looks undersized and light even before we get into his T-rex wingspan.
I think he slips out of the top 10 tbh and is possibly why Acuff won’t be there for the Kings.
Kings shouldn’t be married to drafting a guard. If they think that’s the best pick but they shouldn’t consider their current “needs”. The ultimate need is talent
I’ll wait for James Ham to confirm just to be safe
I’m not enamored with Flemings. He looks so small in his highlight packages.
His first step and speed definitely stands out beyond the other guards. It is definitely special.
However, he doesn’t look actually 6’3’ to me(though I guess he must be). He looks undersized and light even before we get into his T-rex wingspan.
I think he slips out of the top 10 tbh and is possibly why Acuff won’t be there for the Kings.
Kings shouldn’t be married to drafting a guard. If they think that’s the best pick but they shouldn’t consider their current “needs”. The ultimate need is talent
Kinda dumb to be hyping up a player that might not be available. It's like telling all of the other front offices "hey, maybe we should take another look at this guy." I'm not convinced of any scenario where the Kings don't pick Acuff if he's available. I just don't see anyone in the top 4 falling that far, and although I worry about Peterson being this year's McLemore, I just don't think we're dumb enough to pass on him if he falls.
I know Flemings is a draft darling, but I think I would take Philon over him.
Somewhat interesting thought process, as that is the one thread that is mostly restored.
But it is an unwieldy thread at this point I've spent the morning moving posts that are two weeks old (and definitely not worth revisiting).
Who at 7 (barring a miracle drop from a Wilson or Boozer) would be BPA that isn't a guard?
TaxMan
Starter
This just feels like a narrative to get someone below the kings to trade up to 7 if Acuff is gone. Of course the Kings could ultimately really love Flemmings, but it seems more like a "leak" to build up the value of the 7th pick.
I still like Flemings as my #5. And I still think if Acuff or Flemings is on the board at 7 the other certainly won't be. I would not trade to move up from one to the other either.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
Nate Ament!
LPKingsFan
All-Star
I have no idea if these numbers being posted on Reddit are legit, but if so, I have some concerns that Flemings’s ability to finish at the rim will translate. I’ve seen comparisons to Fox, but one reason I was high on Fox pre draft was that his speed seemed likely to translate, and his at the rim FG percentage (which was 65% I think) showed he could finish. Flemings, by these numbers at least, is at 58% at rim, and his lack of length is not going to help at the next level.
Of course, Flemings’s shooting numbers are better than Fox’s in college and indications (especially the 84.5 percentage on free throws) are that this will translate, so he has his relative strengths as well.
Here’s the Reddit source for the at rim numbers.
Brown and Philon both are at 65%.
(And for the record, I don’t really watch games and have no favorite, just hoping for some good insights from those who know more!)
Of course, Flemings’s shooting numbers are better than Fox’s in college and indications (especially the 84.5 percentage on free throws) are that this will translate, so he has his relative strengths as well.
Here’s the Reddit source for the at rim numbers.
Brown and Philon both are at 65%.
(And for the record, I don’t really watch games and have no favorite, just hoping for some good insights from those who know more!)
There is a post in that thread that mentions this stat needs to be adjusted for age for it to have any merit. I don't know how true that is or isn't.
And there is also the fact these teams don't play anything resembling similar schedules, the top players we are expected to be choosing from were all in different conferences with differing playstyles and levels of physicality.
Which is why my bias is towards Flemings, he was the guy that scared me when we played. And up until the penultimate game of the season I thought I was rooting for the best team in the NCAA.
This is a big part of why I don't understand Philon consistently being ranked 5-6 spots lower than the other top PGs. You want a lead guard who can get to the basket and finish, get to the FT line and control the pace of the game, set up teammates for easy baskets, and knock down open threes and he does all of that either better or just as well as the others. He's being knocked down a peg for being a year older but if you go across the board and add up strengths and weaknesses I think there's a case for him being the best of the PGs this year.
Acuff Jr. pops more on tape, Wagler's team was better, Flemings got a big boost for looking great earlier in the year when opinions tend to be more mutable. But this is where I think the group-think tends to miss the ball on prospects. There is an assumption of flat learning curves when really we should be weighing more heavily who appears to be improving the most. And then once opinions get codified (Philon is the #10-12 guy in this class and Acuff Jr. is the #5-7 guy in this class, for instance) no one wants to break away from the pack.
Kingz19
Hall of Famer
It’s just a general rule of thumb. I wasn’t suggesting anybody. If you’re awful and untalented, don’t draft based on the way your roster is currently constructed. And BPA doesn’t mean the most NBA ready to me. It means who you think has the best chance to develop into a high impact player.
So I think these guards are projected to be the better players immediately, for good reason, but we know some forwards taken between 10-30 will end up being better players than some of these guards slated in the top 10
I’ve warmed up a lot to Acuff. So much so that I don’t see how he’s there at 7
I think we’re certainly counting on one or both of the Nets and Clippers to think drafting a forward or Center before any of the guards isn’t so crazy. Because if it’s true it’s all guards 5-9, then I don’t see why Acuff would fall to 7. He’s clearly the best of the lot. I don’t even think it’s particularly close.
And if Acuff is gone, I really don’t see a massive tier gulf between the group of forwards and guys like Mara, Landeborg(I know), Johnson, Ament, Perez, Steinbach, etc.
I’d probably still go Brown in that event but I’d probably not be confused if they took a forward or traded down to do so.
It can just be lingering sour grapes due to our position but I was lamenting in the main thread that I wasn’t that impressed with the board considering how people are talking about.
And I’ve definitely not been a Flemings guy during my highlight and breakdown watching.
I think there's a lot of variability with Flemings. I can see him really excelling in the NBA because he has the mentality to lead a team -- similar to Tyrese Haliburton. These are guys you fall in love with because of how they think the game. But I can also see him struggling in a league where his physical tools no longer separate him from the pack. I trust the shooting. I trust the defense to be at least average because he works hard. The real deciding factor I think with him is if he can develop some more advanced ball-handling counter-moves to get himself open. Though if he plays with smart bigs who know how to set screens that may not be as important.
None of these guys should be expected to transform a team on their own. I don't think we're going to miss by picking one of the guards -- it's more a matter of who we get to play with them over the following years which will determine their overall success. And sure we could also target a wing or a big. There's some big upside swings to be made if we want to go that route.
Last edited:
ShastaKingsFan
Hall of Famer
Actually, it's Mara. If he's still available beyond 4 or 5
Flemings just has that something that doesn't jump off the screen but it's still there for me. I believe Flemings will stick to a program to fill in any gaps he may have to keep improving. I think he can be better than Fox, especially if he isn't too proud to draw fouls.
I get the argument with Acuff that guys like Dame and at the generationally transformative level Steph are winners without defense but I feel that's like trying to go down the path of chasing the next Jordan, which was a laughable draft concept for anyone old enough to remember it throughout the 90s.
I'm absolutely certain there might be a star player in a position of need drafted in the teens but if Flemings is there I take him (same with Acuff, both won't be) and figure out how to get a second or even third pick in the top 22 or so.
I get the argument with Acuff that guys like Dame and at the generationally transformative level Steph are winners without defense but I feel that's like trying to go down the path of chasing the next Jordan, which was a laughable draft concept for anyone old enough to remember it throughout the 90s.
I'm absolutely certain there might be a star player in a position of need drafted in the teens but if Flemings is there I take him (same with Acuff, both won't be) and figure out how to get a second or even third pick in the top 22 or so.
Honestly as I've been putting the Pick 7 thread back together I am just hopeful one of Acuff or Flemings is there. There has been little said about Wagler and MBJ as of late, unless someone does reach for Mara I won't be shocked if those are the two of the presumed top 8 we are left to choose from. Both remain interesting prospects but I'm a little more sold on Flemings being the engine of our offense or Acuff being an unstoppable scoring machine than I am that the others will be more than competent two way starters (still worse problems to have, but if these new lottery rules pass we're probably doomed to pick 7th or worse for the next decade).
KainLear
Starter
We also failed at capturing that lightning in the bottle and profit from selling his puffy vest in the Kings™ Store.Well yeah, obviously.
I guess it's encouraging that we are looking at more than one player. And I already miss the days of "no one has any idea what the Kings are going to do because [middle-manager] Monte McNair isn't talking".
Ah damn, they could have put a little "Executive of the Year" badge on there too!
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
And Perry pushes back against the Acuff or bust stuff, lol. Nobody's buying this bro.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
I think Flemings is the easiest pick in terms of fit and thus the most easy to watch Bball next season. He won't kill the offense. He can fit in perfectly with ALL the Kings youth and vets, the only question is when the Kings need an alpha, who is stepping up? The most selfish, instant gratification part of me wants him but knows this team isn't just one year away and if they are, they need a vet. Typical Kings position, lol.
The thing is he wasn't supposed to be the alpha at Houston and yet at times he took over that role.
Now the Kings need an alpha, so that's a problem if he can't always be that guy. But aside from Acuff (who likely won't be there if Flemings is and vice-versa) who is going to be that guy at 7? You can make some pretty interesting fit arguments with other players in the draft but it's harder to argue their star potential, and that's where you ask yourself if trading down for OKC's two picks + Topic is a better answer (in which case I'm still drafting Flemings or Acuff and making it contingent on someone being there for us at 12, but I don't know who OKC wants in a top 10 pick).
This report seems like a direct response to the reports yesterday that "everyone knows the Kings want Acuff at #7, so the Clippers and Nets should try to leverage their picks to get the Kings to give up assets to move up." This seems like us trying to get it out there that we aren't totally obsessed with Acuff, and are happy to consider other options.
Similar threads
- ClutchPoints | Sacramento Kings News
- Personnel moves
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Personnel moves