Draft pick wish list

[6th]

yep Meant to say that 2nd rounders are pretty easy to get via trade. We should trade a future 2nd round pick (2007-2010) for a 2nd round pick in this years draft, and use it to get Novak.

Ahhh! Thanks for the clarification. I would like to have a 2nd round pick this year.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Relying on a rookie PG, late pick at that, isn't the answer either. If that scenario occurs our best option would be Hart/Price.

And the list you made proves that championship teams are built around franchise big men. With the exception of Detroit, but their combo of big man is franchise quality.

We don't have that luxury. Whomever we draft we will have to develop, it might as well be a big. Stockpiling players will only lead to players not playing and there is no value in that. Essentially a wasted pick, since they'll end up leaving or be throw-ins (won't make or break a deal).

First, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but the post about having a backup for Bibby wasn't implying that the player would be a rookie PG. I was responding to another post about signing a backup PG. Obviously no one we sign would be able to lead us to a championship if Bibby got hurt for the playoffs. However, if Bibby misses 40 games with an injury, having a vereran PG would help us to secure a better playoff spot.

Second, and this addresses WG's point as well, why can't we trade for a big man. Petrie's done it before. He acquired Chris Webber for Richmond and Thorpe and Miller for Hedo and Pollard. Having depth makes these trades possible. Imagine if the Kings take another swing man who has talent and could play immediately (like Garcia). This would allow us to use Bonzi, K-Mart, or Garcia as part of a trade and still have depth.

As you mentioned having great bigs is important to winning a championship (even the Bulls had Grant and Rodman during their various runs). So as much as people love Bonzi and K-mart right now, if they could be traded for a legitimate big we would have to do it. Situations change very quickly in this league in terms of who can contribute and who is available in a trade. Talented assets make that possible. Drafting a project who is going to take 4-5 years to develop is essentially conceding we are not going to win a championship with our current core. I really believe that based upon the list in the previous post and Petrie's own history of acquiring our core of big men (Webber, Vlade, Miller, Pollard, and Clark) that free agent signings and trades are the best avenue, barring us trading for a top 10 pick.

Here's why I think that is true. Once you have watched a player play in the NBA, it becomes much easier to assess their potential. Petrie can watch this footage and know exactly how their skills will translate or who is likely to develop. However, there is such a high failure rate with college big men transitioning to the pros that drafting one outside of the top ten, or even the lottery, becomes a much higher gamble than drafting a SG/SF. There is such a premium on talented big men that outside of those top picks, every PF/C is either a 4-5 year project, unathletic and slow, undersized for the NBA, or naturally talented but a consistent underachiever.

 

[Gilles]

While I agree with you that this is the year we are most likely to draft a big, I still think Hilton would be a terrible pick. From what I've read, he consistently underachieved his first three years at UConn before having his best year by far this last season. However, look at the actual statistics:
9.7 pts 6.6 rbs .7 asts 2.3 tos 3.1 blks
First off, with the exception of blocks, these numbers are very poor for college. 6.6 rebounds per game in college does not bode well for his NBA potential. Also, he had 3 turnovers per assist. Essentially, he might become a shot blocking PF/C who can't rebound, score anything other than a dunk, or handle the ball. Don't we already have Jamal Sampson? Sampson averaged 6.5 pts and 6.4 rbs a game as a freshman before he declared for the draft.
Another important indicator of a players abilities is how he performed against teams with potential NBA players at his position. In other words, did a player like Armstrong pad his stats dominating weak competition or was he still able to perform playing aganst the types of players he would face nightly in the NBA.
Again Armstrong fails this test. Armstrong had some great games against no name teams. For example:
Stony Brook - 11 pts, 11 rbs, 8 blks
Quinnipiac - 26 pts, 10 rbs, 2 blks
Providence - 16 pts, 12 rbs, 3 blks
So against UConn's weakest competition he averaged:
17 pts, 11 rbs, 4.3 blks
In fact, all of his double doubles came against weak competion.
So how did he do against real competition:
Gonzaga - 5 pts, 7 rbs, 5 blks (Batista had 19 and 8)
LSU - 11 pts, 3 rbs, 4 blks (Thomas had 15 and 13)
Pitt - 5 pts, 7 rbs, 3 blks (and Gray put up 23 and 12)
West Vir. - 15 pts, 3 rbs, 1 blk (Pittsnogle has 15 and 3)
George Mason - 8 pts, 5 rbs, 4 blks (Thomas has 19 and 12 and UConn is eliminated from tourney)
So against Centers who might get drafted and in UConn's elimination game he averaged:
8.8 pts, 5 rbs, 5 blks
While the players he was guarding averaged:
18.2 pts, 9.6 rbs (and only one of them is a likely 1st round pick)
Factor in all the times he dissapeared againts poor competition as well and I'll have to say "pass" on Armstrong. I understand his appeal, since this draft is very weak for big men. However, in most seasons he would be a very late first round pick or more likely a second round pick. I don't think his one mediocre season justifies the selection. Petrie is going to have to use free agency and trades to get us the big men we need.
If you want to double check my statistics:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/gamelog?playerId=11222

Great work with stats but here's some ideas: Hilton was spreading the floor on offense scoring from paint only on the breaks that's why he had so few offensive rebounds. On defense he was asked to rotate and help with his shot-blocking and his teammates were responsible for securing defensive rebounds in such situations.
Nobody expects Hilton to be a defensive stud but he will be a solid defender and rebounder. He is rated high because he has nice ofeense with his shooting and passing and get playing time only in his senior year, is 21 years old so he can still improve a lot.

 

[Kings113]

Great work with stats but here's some ideas: Hilton was spreading the floor on offense scoring from paint only on the breaks that's why he had so few offensive rebounds. On defense he was asked to rotate and help with his shot-blocking and his teammates were responsible for securing defensive rebounds in such situations.
Nobody expects Hilton to be a defensive stud but he will be a solid defender and rebounder. He is rated high because he has nice ofeense with his shooting and passing and get playing time only in his senior year, is 21 years old so he can still improve a lot.

Indeed, and what I was saying... he was limited in the UConn system and by the teams when he was there. He's a good prospect.

 

[chaps]

If we get another 2-3 i'm gonna scream

 

[Big Cuz 15]

i trust in petrie will pick the best player available, even if it means a swing.
i agree with the previous post of stockpiling talent for trade.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Great work with stats but here's some ideas: Hilton was spreading the floor on offense scoring from paint only on the breaks that's why he had so few offensive rebounds. On defense he was asked to rotate and help with his shot-blocking and his teammates were responsible for securing defensive rebounds in such situations.
Nobody expects Hilton to be a defensive stud but he will be a solid defender and rebounder. He is rated high because he has nice ofeense with his shooting and passing and get playing time only in his senior year, is 21 years old so he can still improve a lot.

Giles, that's very reasonable and may very well be the case. If Petrie takes Armstrong, I will do a complete 180, because I trust his judgement. Since I'm a much bigger fan of pro basketball than college, I only saw a couple of UConn games and wasn't particularly watching for Armstrong, so if Petrie takes him I will believe exactly what you are saying.

That said, I still have a hard time getting over the fact that he dissapeared every time he faced a quasi-legitimate prospect. Pitt's Gray is a late first or early second round pick and he quadrupled HA's points and nearly doubled his rebounds. Unless UConn was playing zone D all game, that's HA's responsibility. Even if they are playing a zone, I imagine HA would be playing in the bottom part of it. Against George Mason, HA played 37 out of the 40 minutes and GM's center Thomas, who won't even sniff the NBDL, more than doubled his points and rebounds.

Yes, HA might have been asked to rotate on D, but so is every other center in the league. I guarentee you that other coaches are not telling their center's to always stay with their man and never rotate. Besides, HA was on one of the best teams in the country. While I agree that spreading the floor on offense could have cut down on his O-boards (a la Brad Miller), having 3 teammates who constantly draw double teams would also inflate his points.

Again, yes he could develop. However, I feel as if it would be a longshot. From the statistics, he appears to be a one deminsional player. Hopefully for his sake, you are right about the rebounds and shooting. However, he got absolutely abused on defense by players worse than those he will be facing in the NBA. And his passing is not a strength, he averaged .7 ast a game versus 3.2 tos, that is not a good sign.

Summed up, it would scare me as a GM to have a scouring report where Armstrong's best-case projections are something along the lines of:

A poor man's Duane Causewell
Samuel Dalembert with less rebounds and more turnovers
Keon Clark with no man D and worse hands

 

[Gilles]

Giles, that's very reasonable and may very well be the case. If Petrie takes Armstrong, I will do a complete 180, because I trust his judgement. Since I'm a much bigger fan of pro basketball than college, I only saw a couple of UConn games and wasn't particularly watching for Armstrong, so if Petrie takes him I will believe exactly what you are saying.

That said, I still have a hard time getting over the fact that he dissapeared every time he faced a quasi-legitimate prospect. Pitt's Gray is a late first or early second round pick and he quadrupled HA's points and nearly doubled his rebounds. Unless UConn was playing zone D all game, that's HA's responsibility. Even if they are playing a zone, I imagine HA would be playing in the bottom part of it. Against George Mason, HA played 37 out of the 40 minutes and GM's center Thomas, who won't even sniff the NBDL, more than doubled his points and rebounds.

Yes, HA might have been asked to rotate on D, but so is every other center in the league. I guarentee you that other coaches are not telling their center's to always stay with their man and never rotate. Besides, HA was on one of the best teams in the country. While I agree that spreading the floor on offense could have cut down on his O-boards (a la Brad Miller), having 3 teammates who constantly draw double teams would also inflate his points.

Again, yes he could develop. However, I feel as if it would be a longshot. From the statistics, he appears to be a one deminsional player. Hopefully for his sake, you are right about the rebounds and shooting. However, he got absolutely abused on defense by players worse than those he will be facing in the NBA. And his passing is not a strength, he averaged .7 ast a game versus 3.2 tos, that is not a good sign.

Summed up, it would scare me as a GM to have a scouring report where Armstrong's best-case projections are something along the lines of:

A poor man's Duane Causewell
Samuel Dalembert with less rebounds and more turnovers
Keon Clark with no man D and worse hands

You wrote about five specific games against true or borderline draft prospects and here's my comments on each of them:
Gonzaga: Hilton had 7 rebounds, Batista had 8 - good to me cause Batista is an excellent rebounder, he just doesn't have a body for NBA;
LSU: Hilton got into foul trouble and played only 20 minutes, Thomas got most of rebounds playing against Boone, Adrien and Nelson. Hilton was actually a hero scoring 6 points in the final four minutes to help UConn rally from 14 points down;
Pittsburgh: Boone was on Gray when Josh was on the floor so Hilton spend only 6 minutes on Gray and you cannot blame Josh and Hilton for struggling against much bigger (35 pounds) opponent;
West Virginia: Pittsnogle and Armstrong both play on perimeter on offense so when exactly Hilton should have get many rebounds since he spent the whole game on perimeter on both ends of the floor? UConn won rebounding battle 39-19 so it's not like Hilton hurt his team with only 3 rebounds;
George Mason: well, this is the game where I probably agree Hilton lost his match-up but every UConn player looked pretty bad in that game.

Hilton was asked ALWAYS to rotate so his block numbers are probably inflated. He needs to add strength badly and yes, he sometimes mentally soft. That's his two biggest weaknesses.
As to his hands they are good he just tried too many times to drive from perimeter and his ball-handling is just average at this moment.

 

[Kings113]

Interesting points, Gilles.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

You wrote about five specific games against true or borderline draft prospects and here's my comments on each of them:
Gonzaga: Hilton had 7 rebounds, Batista had 8 - good to me cause Batista is an excellent rebounder, he just doesn't have a body for NBA;
LSU: Hilton got into foul trouble and played only 20 minutes, Thomas got most of rebounds playing against Boone, Adrien and Nelson. Hilton was actually a hero scoring 6 points in the final four minutes to help UConn rally from 14 points down;
Pittsburgh: Boone was on Gray when Josh was on the floor so Hilton spend only 6 minutes on Gray and you cannot blame Josh and Hilton for struggling against much bigger (35 pounds) opponent;
West Virginia: Pittsnogle and Armstrong both play on perimeter on offense so when exactly Hilton should have get many rebounds since he spent the whole game on perimeter on both ends of the floor? UConn won rebounding battle 39-19 so it's not like Hilton hurt his team with only 3 rebounds;
George Mason: well, this is the game where I probably agree Hilton lost his match-up but every UConn player looked pretty bad in that game.

Hilton was asked ALWAYS to rotate so his block numbers are probably inflated. He needs to add strength badly and yes, he sometimes mentally soft. That's his two biggest weaknesses.
As to his hands they are good he just tried too many times to drive from perimeter and his ball-handling is just average at this moment.

Again, some very valid points; however, still a tough sell. Even if we cut him slack against some of the better players. I'm very scared by players who dissapear as much as Armstrong. Check out these games against mediocre to very poor big men.

Umass - 16 min 3 pts 3 rbs 3blk
Syracuse - 29 min 2 pts 4 rbs 8 blk
Louisville - 23 min 6 pts 3 rbs 3 blk
St. John's - 34 min 4 pts 6 rbs 3 blk
Villanova - 29 min 9 pts 2 rbs 8 blk
S. Florida - 18 min 2 pts 3 rbs 1blk
Albany - 29 min 3 pts 7 rbs 1 blk
Average - 25 min 4 pts 4 reb 4 blk (against poor competition)

And aside from these statistics, look at the various scouring reports. Putting aside all comments about skills, I do not like the number of comments about inconsistency and focus. If scouting reports said "tireless worker," "improved considerably every year at UConn," "known for being extremely coachable," then I would feel much better about his chances to develop. However, here is what they actually say.

ESPN:

- "Consistency will be the biggest issue. Can he stay focused enough to play this hard every night?"
- "After being virtually a non-factor for UConn the past three years, scouts were shocked to see Armstrong break out this season"


NBADraft.net:

- "Plays inconsistent on the offensive end, his confidence seems to get shaken if he's not making his shots"
- "Plays timid at times, lacks the killer edge, consistency"
- " Mental toughness has been a question for him in the past "


DraftExpress.com

- "Armstrong had a small role in Connecticut's offense, indicating that he's not a very coachable player"
- "Armstrong has a tendency to be very tentative on the defensive end, sometimes watching opposing players go by, or not going out of his way to contest shots that are within his range. He often looks complacent, and rarely shows the aggressiveness needed to have the impact he is capable of. Armstrong also sometimes loses focus and fails to make all of the rotations, sometimes even looking completely lost on the defensive end. To fully make use of his abilities, he needs to play with greater tenacity and focus for every second he’s on the floor."
- "Armstrong’s lack of tenacity carries over to rebounding, where he is often reluctant to mix it up, many times standing and watching as others battle for rebounds."
- "He sometimes looks sluggish running the floor and going through the motions on either end of the court, so his conditioning may need a little work. But that could also be attributed to the lack of consistent focus and concentration."


Here are some players from NBADraft.net the last few years with similar comparisons. These are all center prospects who were hailed as having good-great potential based upon their nuclear athleticism (thanks sports guy!) but who also had questionable consistency, aggressiveness, or desire. I started from 2002, cause while there are some examples after that, it is too early to really judge them:


Melvin Ely - Can block shots and has very good explosiveness and leaping ability. Desire and intensity are question marks for Ely. Must develop more intensity on the floor to maximize his talents.

Dan Gadzuric - Has the most athleticism of any center in the draft,. . Jaw dropping quickness and leaping abaility from a 7 footer. Can really make some spectacular plays at times. Lacks consistency and can lose his confidence easily, tends to be too hard on himself

Jamal Sampson - 7 footers with his athleticism ...Has long arms and very good shot blocking ability. Has the potential to be among the game's elite centers,.. Desire is still under question. Doesn't appear to be the most disciplined player.

Brendan Haywood - Can be the most dominant player on the floor (in college) virtually anytime he puts his mind to it... Questionable desire... Doesn't always play with intensity... Must show more consistency and heart...

Loren Woods - Great size and athleticism. Very smooth... struggled mightily with his game and living up to his own expectations... Loren crushed any questions about that with his stellar play throughout his junior season [he entered the draft after his Jr. year]... Needs more strength and aggressiveness

Jerome Moiso - NBA Comparison: Kevin Garnett...[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Super agility and offensive touch. Borderline freak. Shys away from contact. Unconsistent at times.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]



Now Armstrong could be the exception that proves the rule. But there really aren't any counter-examples (especially outside of the top 10 picks). Most big men who succeded combined natural skills with desire. Most big men do not gain more desire in the NBA after they become millionaires. We all want to see Armstrong's improved senior season as the beggining of great achievements; however, there's a lot to be said that it's no different than a mediocre NBA center who plays "big" in a contract year. We all wanted to believe in Olowokandi and Dampier as well.

I know people who really want to believe in Armstrong are probably rembering the last "raw" prospect the Kings drafted. Gerald Wallace has turned into a good NBA player with the potential to become great. However, not only is SF/SG an easier position to learn, but check out what's in his NBADraft.net profile:

"Great motor. Will not be outhustled.... will be successful because of his amazing work ethic.Country tough. Has an amazing combination of athleticism, quickness, and discipline to become a special talent..out-competes the opposition. He wants it. Hustles at all times."

That's the description I want to see on a player labeled with "potential." I have drueled over too many "potential stars" who were inconsistent, lacked desire, or were unaggressive and watched them nearly consistently flame out of the league (any league, this applies beyond basketball). History tends to repeat itself and despite every great argument that shows why Armstrong could succeed, I see little to no historical precedent to back this up.

 

[BibityBobtyBoom]

i have felling we won't be going sg or sf because of the youth that we have at the position and skill too. Pg would be a great idea because we don't really have a reliable source at back up pg. But i would prefer a veteran back up pg to a rookie. The only choice to go with would be a big man. then there is the predicament about kenny thomas and shareef at pf. unless one is traded i would hope no pf is drafted unless he is an over sized pf at 7'0 ft. So that leaves a center which we need horrendously. I have heard that they think Saer Sene is gonna be a bust because he isn't really proven because of his lack of experience. Many mock drafts have many of the big men going early because of the abundance of guards in the draft. So i am not sure. But i think i would be fine if the kings drafted Sene because at least that would show that Petrie is trying to get big men. But i the guy i would like the most is Tiago Splitter for his jumper and size. But nick fazekas wouldn't be bad either. or paul davis. Davis is explosive.

 

[Kings113]

We already have a young PG in Price that Petrie likes and is on our VSL roster already. So, I think it'll be a guy with some experience. Splitter's gonna pull outta the draft because of his contract buy out.

Sene's a hard worker, has a long wing-span, is athletic, solid defensively already, raw offensively, but has a working jumpshot, good rebounder. Inexperienced, but already a R1 pick in the NBA, and intriguing as hell. He's gonna work out for us, I'm not sure if we take him if Hilton's gone, but would probably take a combo/spark guard if Armstrong's not rather than Sene. I'd be fine if we did any though.

 

[Gilles]

2Sptsjunkie:
I don't know where on DX you found "Armstrong had a small role in Connecticut's offense, indicating that he's not a very coachable player" cause it's just not true: Calhoun likes his work ethic most out of all UConn's potential draftees.
Everything else is true and just reassures that he's physically weak and sometimes mentally soft which I've already written. BTW check Aldridge's stats while remembering that 3 differs from 9 much more than from 6.6. You may check Kenny's stats as well. I guess they show the same inconsistency.
You made a good list of NBA players who were a bit similar to Hilton mentally but I think you should look at some of personnel threads to see that names of Gadzuric, Ely and Haywood pop up quite often.
Who Kings can get via trade and tell me they are significantly better than Hilton skillwise?

BTW I will go out on a limb and say that Petrie will be very interested in Paul Davis: rumors claim that he did very well against Shelden Williams in both workouts he went against Williams "impressing with his toughness, work ethic, shooting and basketball IQ"; "since working out with Tim Grover, Davis has added weight(bulked up to 270 pounds), strength and explosiveness"; "he's quick for a big man, he's measuring out at 6' 10 1/2" in bare feet"; a couple of scouts called him " 6'11" PG" (apparently Izzo's offensive system was hiding him).

 

[Kings113]

Wow at that stuff about Davis, I didn't think he was that much, but seemed okay and not quite what we'd be looking for. But that sounds better.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

2Sptsjunkie:

You made a good list of NBA players who were a bit similar to Hilton mentally but I think you should look at some of personnel threads to see that names of Gadzuric, Ely and Haywood pop up quite often.
Who Kings can get via trade and tell me they are significantly better than Hilton skillwise?

Gilles, I think that this is the ultimate point. Gadz, Ely, and Haywood have been in the league for several years and we are just now willing to acquire them as role players. We also have a very good shot at acquiring all three. This is one of the good arguments for not drafting Hilton, why waste a draft pick on someone who will likely develop into a Gadz/Ely/Haywood when we can acquire one of those and use the draft pick on someone who is more likely to be great and could make a more imediate impact.

In those same drafts, but passing on the current role players teams could have had:

2002 - Fred Jones, Tayshon Prince, Carlos Boozer, Flip Murray
2001 - Gerald Wallace, Jamal Tinsley, Tony Parker, Trenton Hassel, Gilbert Arenas, Earl Watson, Bobby Simmons
2000 - Hedo, Q-Ball, Mo-Pete, Michael Redd, Edjuardo Najera

* These lists do not include other centers, even though they don't fit the above description
** Players on this list did not start until after the first Center from the above list was selected

If you started including Centers who do not quality as athletic underachievers, the three year list includes:

- Sam Dalembert (athletic, but consistency and work ethic was not questioned, he was just unpolished, more of a Sene), Mehmet Okur, Nenad Kristic

Point being: Sign / trade for Elston, Gadz, Haywood, Ely, Wilcox, Hunter, etc. And let's use our pick on a player who could be an impact player and a future starter or valuable trade bait. Petrie has a keen eye for swingmen. While Moneyball type analysis is not as applicable in basketball, where matchups and measurements have more value, proven values and historical lessons still have a lot to teach us.

I really would like to hear at least one historically similar example to Hilton that would justify the pick.

 

[Gilles]

The problem is that big men who can do well on both ends of the floor or dominate on one end are long gone when you pick at #19. There you can get only defensive (Dalembert, whose game I don't like at all, especially at that price, Gadzuric, Pollard and others) or offensive (Okur, Boozer) specialists with question marks or just energy guys. This team needs big men who can defend and not kill offensive flow at the same time like Skinner. In my opinion Hilton fits this need.
Speaking of impact players after #19, well, there were Arenas, Redd and Boozerbut there were much more busts as well and those guys who made an impact despite being picked in second round were very special. Everybody thought that Sweetney will be able to control his weight just like Boozer and I think right now Knicks regret they drafted him. Everybody speaking about Douby, Diaz and Brown like they are next Arenases are just flat out wrong: Gilbert was an excellent ball-handler coming out of Arizona and all these guys are no even close to him. Shooting is probably the easiest thing to improve in basketball but Redd shocked everybody with his work ethic that helped him become one of the best shooters in the NBA.

 

[BMiller52]

Here are some players I'd be interested in drafting:

1. Shawne Williams! This guy is gonna be GOOD watch. He'll be able to play both forward spots and he's really athletic. Apparently he can shoot the NBA 3. He averaged 13 points and 6 rebounds as a freshman. He was a key contributor for Memphis. He has TALENT. If we are drafting on talent and he's around when we pick I think he would be a perfect pick. He averaged 1.4 blocks as a freshman. In their freshmen year that's right up there with Shelden Williams, Josh Boone, Al Horford, etc. Right now Shawne only weighs 225 but I see no reason why he can't add weight, all NBA players do. He will be able to play PF and he will be damn good at it and you can quote me in your sig on this. If we have the opportunity to draft this guy and we don't we will be sorry.

2. Hilton Armstrong/Saer Sene

3. Paul Davis

 

[Kings113]

I really like Shawne Williams as well, for us and in general. Even if we have a bunch of swingmen, could still be available at #19.

 

[BMiller52]

I don't even see him as a swingmen I see him becoming a PF/SF that can defend, block shots, and hit the 3. Think like Clifford Robinson. He weighs about the same as Tyrus Thomas(like 225) so if he puts on 10-15 more pounds of muscle he'll definitely be able to play PF. IIRC he played PF in college. He got 6 boards and 1 and a half blocks a game. I'd even say move up if you have to so you can draft him. This guy is A TALENT and if he had spent another year in college so his stats will go up and maybe learned a little more about the game he'd be a lottery pick easy.

 

[Kings113]

Well, I mean at first, but yeah possibly could develop into a PF/SF.

 

[squirrelballer]

shelden williams, rodney carney,(probably can't get him at 19 though), guillermo diaz, mike gansey,james augestine would be ok too if we had a 2nd rounder.i'd really like us to get andrea barganani, but i don't think it'll happen. j.j redick would be a good fit at 19 to be our backup pg.

 

[BK_KingsFan7]

For a PG/combo guard, I would like Quincy Douby. I could see him becoming a Bobby Jackson type for us. Great shooter, quick, can slash to the basket, good defender. For a big man, Hilton Armstrong. Either of those two would be fine with me. Preferably Armstrong because we need a shotblocker badly.

 

[Kings113]

Diaz will be a first rounder with his work-outs recently, and his stock is rising.

JJ Redick is not a PG, he's purely an undrsized SG. He wasn't a PG in college. He'll be gone by 19 anyways. Why would we have a rookie for our back-up PG? Especially a player like Redick. We'll have a vet there, and Price will be groomed for the future back-up spot.

 

[nbrans]

That's the description I want to see on a player labeled with "potential." I have drueled over too many "potential stars" who were inconsistent, lacked desire, or were unaggressive and watched them nearly consistently flame out of the league (any league, this applies beyond basketball). History tends to repeat itself and despite every great argument that shows why Armstrong could succeed, I see little to no historical precedent to back this up.

I agree with you for the most part about players who lack desire busting when they come to the pros, and I admit I have that same concern about Hilton Armstrong. I'm skeptical of him. But don't overlook the Jim Calhoun effect. For some reason players from UConn look average/ok in college, but they're awesome in the pros. People raised similar questions about the heart of Charlie Villanueva and Ben Gordon, look how well they've turned out.

Maybe the players are surrounded by so much talent they don't have the usual benefit of looking like "the man" on their team. Who knows. But I'd hesitate to write off Rudy Gay and Hilton Armstrong because of guys like Charlie Villanueva and Ben Gordon, who make prognosticators look very foolish.

 

[Gary]

If I had a choice on who to "take a chance" on, (big men) it would be in this order ;

These are guys that are projected late first early second round so notable names wont be in here.

1. Saer Sene (If it was him or Armstrong, I would take Sene. This guy has more passion than Armstrong)
2. Hilton Armstrong (He underacheived for 3 years. I think he peaked his senior year)
3. Aaron Gray (A big body that can rebound. If lucky he can turn into a rebounding big man off the bench)
4. Ryan Hollins (Definitely not a 1st rounder, but can develop into a defensive rebounding big man)
5. Nick Fazekas (I like this guy. Always have. Wonder how things will turn out for him)

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I agree with you for the most part about players who lack desire busting when they come to the pros, and I admit I have that same concern about Hilton Armstrong. I'm skeptical of him. But don't overlook the Jim Calhoun effect. For some reason players from UConn look average/ok in college, but they're awesome in the pros. People raised similar questions about the heart of Charlie Villanueva and Ben Gordon, look how well they've turned out.

Maybe the players are surrounded by so much talent they don't have the usual benefit of looking like "the man" on their team. Who knows. But I'd hesitate to write off Rudy Gay and Hilton Armstrong because of guys like Charlie Villanueva and Ben Gordon, who make prognosticators look very foolish.

You make some great points, this is the most fact-based response favoring HA yet. There are some good examples in there. Looking back at the history of UConn players selected in the first round, they have produced very well. Caron Butler, Rip, Okafor and Ray Allen were all from UConn. There's a small part of me that got very intrigued by HA after reading this.

However, Villanueava is the only other player from UConn who's consistancy and desire were questions. Talent and basketball-wise he was also much further along than Hilton is. Villanueva would have been drafted out of high school. He's also a SF/PF as opposed to a true big man.

Also, all of the players on the list were top 10 picks - including Gordon, Villanueva, Okafor, Butler, Hamilton, and Allen. They were purposely excluded from the analysis, because top 10 picks often have extreme talent or perfect physical attributes, so they have a better chance at succedding should they overcome their potential deficiencies or still looking solid, even if they never fully tap into their potential. The last UConn first rounder, not taken in the top 10..... Travis Knight (ugh!).

Finally, I would agree with you a lot more if the reasons for not liking HA were strictly statistical. Players like Jordan himself were held back statistically in college by playing in a particular system with a talented team. However, charecteristics like dissapearing in big games, inconsistency, and a lack of toughness and effort should not the the result of one's team.

 

[Kings113]

Inconsistency can be, based on playing time. Players need to play.

 

[SoupIsGood]

I don't even see him as a swingmen I see him becoming a PF/SF that can defend, block shots, and hit the 3. Think like Clifford Robinson. He weighs about the same as Tyrus Thomas(like 225) so if he puts on 10-15 more pounds of muscle he'll definitely be able to play PF. IIRC he played PF in college. He got 6 boards and 1 and a half blocks a game. I'd even say move up if you have to so you can draft him. This guy is A TALENT and if he had spent another year in college so his stats will go up and maybe learned a little more about the game he'd be a lottery pick easy.

B52, thanks for these posts in this thread. I've been searching for more opinions on Shawne lately, I hardly know anything about him.