Do we still have debate?

sactowndog

sactowndog

Hall of Famer
Curious if we still have debate around drafting the BPA even if it’s a guard?

I think we have proven the challenges in working it out later…. Trading small for big is really really hard.

Which leads to my next question. Do we still have debate around tanking?

If you want to draft a large wing you either have to be in the top 6 or you have to reach for one in the draft.

The roster construction of the Kings is the result of a) not tanking and b) drafting best player available.

Do we still have debate around each point and anyone still holding on to both?
 
Vlade seemed to think that Bagley was a big wing and that PapaG was a good fit. Was Justin Jackson or Davion Mitchell really the best NBA prospects available?

Unfortunately there have been selections that were neither a really good fit or even the best prospect. If the best player had truly been selected most times, they would be in a much better spot
 
ShastaKingsFan said:
Vlade seemed to think that Bagley was a big wing and that PapaG was a good fit. Was Justin Jackson or Davion Mitchell really the best NBA prospects available?

Unfortunately there have been selections that were neither a really good fit or even the best prospect. If the best player had truly been selected most times, they would be in a much better spot
Click to expand...
Nice way to ignore the point. We aren’t talking about Vlade’s drafting.

Perhaps the guard picks didn’t develop because the position was impacted and the young picks had no chance to develop and the others were too hard to trade. Kind of like Monk.
 
sactowndog said:
Curious if we still have debate around drafting the BPA even if it’s a guard?

I think we have proven the challenges in working it out later…. Trading small for big is really really hard.

Which leads to my next question. Do we still have debate around tanking?

If you want to draft a large wing you either have to be in the top 6 or you have to reach for one in the draft.

The roster construction of the Kings is the result of a) not tanking and b) drafting best player available.

Do we still have debate around each point and anyone still holding on to both?
Click to expand...

I still think the Kings are in a position where you have to prioritize BPA regardless of position. I recognize that length/size is important, but this franchise needs legit all star/ all NBA level talent whether it’s a guard, wing or big.
 
BPA. Always. But honestly, if the Kings were engaging in a proper rebuild, it shouldn't matter. If you strip things down to the studs, there's no fit issues. The only pieces worth keeping are Murray, Ellis, Carter, Nique, and Raynaud. And while I'm a fan of all of those guys, particularly the defensive upside of the first four, none of them are clear stars. If you draft a guard who's a franchise-level talent, it means Carter or Nique are first off the bench. But you go with the guy you believe is the franchise-level star, especially if you're picking in the top 5. BPA. Don't settle for less.
 
Padrino said:
BPA. Always. But honestly, if the Kings were engaging in a proper rebuild, it shouldn't matter. If you strip things down to the studs, there's no fit issues. The only pieces worth keeping are Murray, Ellis, Carter, Nique, and Raynaud. And while I'm a fan of all of those guys, particularly the defensive upside of the first four, none of them are clear stars. If you draft a guard who's a franchise-level talent, it means Carter or Nique are first off the bench. But you go with the guy you believe is the franchise-level star, especially if you're picking in the top 5. BPA. Don't settle for less.
Click to expand...
If you have a top 5 pick the BPA is likely a big wing. If you are picking 9-14 it will always be a guard because they will always slide.

It’s the combination of not tanking and insisting on BPA that results in the roster construction we see now.
 
Padrino said:
BPA. Always. But honestly, if the Kings were engaging in a proper rebuild, it shouldn't matter. If you strip things down to the studs, there's no fit issues. The only pieces worth keeping are Murray, Ellis, Carter, Nique, and Raynaud. And while I'm a fan of all of those guys, particularly the defensive upside of the first four, none of them are clear stars. If you draft a guard who's a franchise-level talent, it means Carter or Nique are first off the bench. But you go with the guy you believe is the franchise-level star, especially if you're picking in the top 5. BPA. Don't settle for less.
Click to expand...

Again, this suggests we should have passed on Hali, for Precious Achiuwa because we had Fox, Buddy, and Bogdan RFA rights.

You take the BPA, always. We can talk about our lack of development here, but I'm never passing on a guy I have ranked 6th in the draft over the guy I have ranked 14th because of need.

We're probably the best example of "always BPA" in the last 20 years. Taking Bagley over Luka because Luka of "fit" with Fox and Bagley was a bigger "need"

And selecting Hali, when we already had a crowded backcourt and where all 3 of those guys were among our top 5 players.

Blows my mind theres some who think otherwise
 
sactowndog said:
Nice way to ignore the point. We aren’t talking about Vlade’s drafting.

Perhaps the guard picks didn’t develop because the position was impacted and the young picks had no chance to develop and the others were too hard to trade. Kind of like Monk.
Click to expand...

What is your point? Don't draft guards with higher draft picks, even if they are the consensus best prospect available?
 
sactowndog said:
Curious if we still have debate around drafting the BPA even if it’s a guard?

I think we have proven the challenges in working it out later…. Trading small for big is really really hard.

Which leads to my next question. Do we still have debate around tanking?

If you want to draft a large wing you either have to be in the top 6 or you have to reach for one in the draft.

The roster construction of the Kings is the result of a) not tanking and b) drafting best player available.

Do we still have debate around each point and anyone still holding on to both?
Click to expand...
Drafting BPA only ever made sense if you are also actively trading. If you’re not, you’re just the NBA equivalent of a crazy cat lady.
 
sactowndog said:
Curious if we still have debate around drafting the BPA even if it’s a guard?

I think we have proven the challenges in working it out later…. Trading small for big is really really hard.

Which leads to my next question. Do we still have debate around tanking?

If you want to draft a large wing you either have to be in the top 6 or you have to reach for one in the draft.

The roster construction of the Kings is the result of a) not tanking and b) drafting best player available.

Do we still have debate around each point and anyone still holding on to both?
Click to expand...
Not drafting Luka hurts.
 
sactowndog said:
If you have a top 5 pick the BPA is likely a big wing. If you are picking 9-14 it will always be a guard because they will always slide.

It’s the combination of not tanking and insisting on BPA that results in the roster construction we see now.
Click to expand...

I've not done any deep dives on the 2026 draft, but the early consensus top 3 kind of run the gamut. Cam Boozer is a big man. Darryn Peterson is a big guard. And AJ Dybantsa is the only one you'd consider a big wing. So... you pick Dybantsa if he's BPA, but as of right now, both Boozer and Peterson are the picks if Dybantsa is off the board or if you just think they're going to be better than Dybantsa.
 
The_Jamal said:
Again, this suggests we should have passed on Hali, for Precious Achiuwa because we had Fox, Buddy, and Bogdan RFA rights.

You take the BPA, always. We can talk about our lack of development here, but I'm never passing on a guy I have ranked 6th in the draft over the guy I have ranked 14th because of need.

We're probably the best example of "always BPA" in the last 20 years. Taking Bagley over Luka because Luka of "fit" with Fox and Bagley was a bigger "need"

And selecting Hali, when we already had a crowded backcourt and where all 3 of those guys were among our top 5 players.

Blows my mind theres some who think otherwise
Click to expand...

Exactly. And regardless of the fact that the Haliburton trade has no longer aged well, given the subsequent roster decisions that have alienated Sabonis' role as the Kings' central offensive hub, drafting Hali as BPA while Fox was on the roster allowed for the trade that brought Sabonis to Sacramento in the first place and ended their extreme playoff drought.
 
ShastaKingsFan said:
What is your point? Don't draft guards with higher draft picks, even if they are the consensus best prospect available?
Click to expand...

Dylan Harper is the most recent example. He looks absolutely incredible; should the Spurs have passed on him because of Fox and Castle?

Peterson looks to be a similar blue-chip prospect. If he's #1 on your valuation, why would you pass on him for Boozer or Dybantsa?
 
sactowndog said:
Curious if we still have debate around drafting the BPA even if it’s a guard?

I think we have proven the challenges in working it out later…. Trading small for big is really really hard.

Which leads to my next question. Do we still have debate around tanking?

If you want to draft a large wing you either have to be in the top 6 or you have to reach for one in the draft.

The roster construction of the Kings is the result of a) not tanking and b) drafting best player available.

Do we still have debate around each point and anyone still holding on to both?
Click to expand...
Large wings enhance best player available. So yes.
 
If we win a top 4 pick in the lottery, it has to be BPA all day. We need high level talent at every position. After that, in the range where we tend to find ourselves drafting I think there's usually 3 or 4 players who are roughly equivalent in "talent" on the board and at that point fit is a factor. And also style of play...

One of them might be a high level defender who can't shoot. One of them might be a raw big man whose best attributes are "size and projectability". One might be a senior wing who is solid at everything but has no standout skill. And one might be a ball handling blur who is guaranteed to give you 20 ppg with enough touches but he plays selfish and is a work in progress on defense. What's the right call there?

This is where I think you need to have a system in place and know what you're looking for and which type of player is going to thrive on your team. I guess you could call that fit -- but to me it's not about filling a hole on next year's roster so much as it's about maximizing your chances of developing a player who will stick in the league and become either a valuable part of your team's rotation or a commodity that can be used to trade for another player who will be a valuable part of your rotation. Teams don't trade anyone worthwhile for prospects who haven't panned out.
 
gunks said:
BPA every time figure it out later.

It's the figuring it out later part that our GM's and Vivek don't seem to understand.

I am pro-tank though. Decades of sucking just enough to miss out on both top prospects and the playoffs isn't it.
Click to expand...

The problem with “figure it out later” that one would think is clear by now ….. is that trading small for big is really really hard.

At best your are taking a discount. More likely as we have seen with Davion, Monk, Carter etc you can’t make the trade at all. It doesn’t really matter who the GM is. It is the philosophy that is wrong in this instance not the GM.
 
sactowndog said:
The problem with “figure it out later” that one would think is clear by now ….. is that trading small for big is really really hard.

At best your are taking a discount. More likely as we have seen with Davion, Monk, Carter etc you can’t make the trade at all. It doesn’t really matter who the GM is. It is the philosophy that is wrong in this instance not the GM.
Click to expand...

Hali for Domas?
Buddy for Cousins (lol)?

I'm sure we could have gotten a big prospect for Fox if he didn't **** over the franchise by demanding SA.

Are you counting wings as bigs btw? I feel they are a more important player archetype in today's NBA vs guards and 6'10+ traditional bigmen, you said as much over and over again during Monte's tenure (you weren't wrong).
 
gunks said:
Hali for Domas?
Buddy for Cousins (lol)?

I'm sure we could have gotten a big prospect for Fox if he didn't **** over the franchise by demanding SA.

Are you counting wings as bigs btw? I feel they are a more important player archetype in today's NBA vs guards and 6'10+ traditional bigmen, you said as much over and over again during Monte's tenure (you weren't wrong).
Click to expand...
Yeah I mean 6’8” plus wings and Domas was an undersized Center. And yes you can trade an all NBA guard for a good wing but again not getting like for like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top