Grade our draft

What grade do you give the front office for draft night?


  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .
#61
Dwayne Casey was on NBA radio a day after the draft. He basically said that if the Kings took Ivey the Pistons would take Murray. There seemed to have been two tiers in the top 5. Banchero/Holmgren/Smith in tier 1 and Murray/Ivey in tier 2. Just as Houston took who was left in tier 1 at pick 3, Detroit took who was left in tier 2 at pick 5. There was no trade down scenario for Monte if he wanted Murray.
 
#62
If I were to jump to conclusions after the Hali draft, then I would not have predicted all his skills would translate (specifically his shooting).

That draft netted us an All-Star.

If I were to jump to conclusions after the Davion draft, then I would not have predicted all his skills would translate (specifically his shot creation).

That draft netted us a starting NBA-caliber pg.

I don't think it's wise to jump to conclusions anymore. Monte has done a good job drafting talent and I trust he made the right decision.

As a side-note Ivey seems like a weirdo, and I'm not even talking about the crying like a baby. I posted a pic during the draft where prospects are happy and smiling. Ivey's body language, attitude and remarks don't sit right with me and just seem really 'off' at times.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#64
We'll see soon enough. Summer league is around the corner. I would expect that if Murray is as as good as some think (better than Mikal Bridges and much better than Lyles) and Queta is as good as they think then the Kings should have the best frontcourt of the summer league teams; if their backcourt treads water they should win the summer league championship, accordingly. Too bad Mitchell isn't going to play. It would begin his familiarization with Murray sooner rather than later.
 
#65
I assign the Kings a solid B. I have ZERO issues with us drafting Murray, although I would have personally went with Ivey. Ivey was 1a on my list of who I would most like to have seen the Kings draft, while Murray was 1b.

The only issue I have is with how Monte managed the 2nd round picks. I would have preferred to see him package both in order to move up to either the late first round, or early second round. I understand that he did try to move up to draft someone, but I would have moved up even if I couldn't have gotten my guy. Draft someone. Anyone. If nothing else, he could've potentially been an asset to throw into a larger trade at some point.
 
#66
So i've read a few different things that said basically if the Kings traded down past 5, no chance on Murray.

So if Murray is the guy, and you couple have Mathurin and Duarte for him and in that scenario you don't see that as value you do what they did and just take your guy.

The national media is trying to wrap their heads around it, which is pretty funny right now. We shall see if they were correct.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#67
Here's an example of the type of double standard applied to the Kings in this type of instant analysis...

From nbadraft.net's Situational Analysis of Keegan Murray (pre-draft):
Ideal NBA Ecosystem
Murray is a plug-and-play prospect. Every team needs a flexible, versatile, defensive-minded wing.
The Sacramento Kings, picking fourth, have needed young legs at the wing position for years. They also desperately need a winning player who enjoys playing defense. Murray makes too much sense for them, so look for the Kings to pass on him for another guard.
From the same author, NBA Draft Instant Analysis (the grade was B-):
Murray is a do-it-all wing with practically no holes in his game. On a scale of 1-10, he does everything at around an 8 or a 9. He is the kind of no-nonsense, versatile forward that every team desperately craves to help fill out its roster. Murray stuffed every column on the stat sheet for the University of Iowa and finished fourth in the nation with 23.5 points per game. However, he is significantly older than most prospects in this range (turns 22 in August) and will come into the NBA with less upside. He is also a bit of a late bloomer and we need to see if his 3-point percentage is real (nearly 40% as a sophomore after shooting only 30% from 3 as a freshman). His handle can also get a bit loose if he is trying to create his own shot. He will bring a great deal of maturity and positional versatility for the Sacramento Kings, but he doesn’t have anywhere near the upside of Jaden Ivey.
And from the same website, Western Conference Grades:
Sacramento Kings: C
Additions:
4. Keegan Murray, Iowa
Murray is a solid pick, and makes sense from a team need and immediate production standpoint. And taking Jaden Ivey wouldn’t have really fit their roster all that well. However, with the Kings’ history of botching the draft, I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt, and they passed up a younger, more promising player in Ivey and it just feels like a mistake for a team that isn’t in contention for anything and should be looking to stockpile as much young talent as possible. Murray should be a really good piece for them, but he doesn’t move the needle very much for me on that roster. Then in the second round, they practically stole a promising young guard by stopping the slide of Jaden Hardy, but did so to trade him to Dallas for two future second rounders. The Kings may have out done even themselves this draft. If Ivey ends up a bust, and Murray ends up being an All Star, we may look back in a few years and say they made the right decision, but nothing in the Kings’ recent draft history leads me to believe that will be the case. When you can’t find a way to make a player as talented as Jaden ivey fit into your team, something is clearly broken.
 
#68
Here's an example of the type of double standard applied to the Kings in this type of instant analysis...

From nbadraft.net's Situational Analysis of Keegan Murray (pre-draft):


From the same author, NBA Draft Instant Analysis (the grade was B-):


And from the same website, Western Conference Grades:
The potential stories written about Ivey/Fox drama and lack of fit (Top 5 Landing Spots for Fox, Ivey Already Hates Sacramento, etc.) will just have to be shelved. It's such a no-nonsense move that they can't figure out what to do.
 
#69
#71
If the Spurs had succeeded in trading up to #4 and taken Murray, they would getting nothing but praise.
And that is mostly due to the simple fact that they're, well, the Spurs.
Well run franchises get the benefit of the doubt. The Spurs, Patriots, and Ravens rarely get criticized after the draft because writers don't want to look dumb with their hot takes in their ridiculous grades articles. Even the Grizzlies didn't get much if any grief for trading up in the 1st round to get two guys that most mocks had in the early 2nd round. That's because they've had success targeting their players and getting them and then having them be great fits.

The Kings will be punching bags until they prove they're a competent franchise.
 
#72
Well run franchises get the benefit of the doubt. The Spurs, Patriots, and Ravens rarely get criticized after the draft because writers don't want to look dumb with their hot takes in their ridiculous grades articles. Even the Grizzlies didn't get much if any grief for trading up in the 1st round to get two guys that most mocks had in the early 2nd round. That's because they've had success targeting their players and getting them and then having them be great fits.

The Kings will be punching bags until they prove they're a competent franchise.
Agreed. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000%.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#73
Well run franchises get the benefit of the doubt. The Spurs, Patriots, and Ravens rarely get criticized after the draft because writers don't want to look dumb with their hot takes in their ridiculous grades articles. Even the Grizzlies didn't get much if any grief for trading up in the 1st round to get two guys that most mocks had in the early 2nd round. That's because they've had success targeting their players and getting them and then having them be great fits.

The Kings will be punching bags until they prove they're a competent franchise.
Sure, I get that. But for the same writer to say pre-draft that Keegan Murray is perfect for the Kings and they'll probably do something dumb like pick another guard over him and then also bump them down a few spots for passing on the upside of Jaden Ivey is basically just assuming your own conclusion -- the the Kings will make the wrong move no matter what. And I don't think that's fair or even reasonable. If you think Ivey is the better pick then at least be consistent about that. And the other writer's take was more about penalizing the Kings for their past mistakes than even analyzing this pick. Monte made the right pick with Haliburton and it's too early to say with Mitchell but he doesn't look like a bad pick so far either. I don't think Vlade passing on Bagley is even relevant anymore. That was 4 years ago with a different front office and coaching staff.
 
#74
Sure, I get that. But for the same writer to say pre-draft that Keegan Murray is perfect for the Kings and they'll probably do something dumb like pick another guard over him and then also bump them down a few spots for passing on the upside of Jaden Ivey is basically just assuming your own conclusion -- the the Kings will make the wrong move no matter what. And I don't think that's fair or even reasonable. If you think Ivey is the better pick then at least be consistent about that. And the other writer's take was more about penalizing the Kings for their past mistakes than even analyzing this pick. Monte made the right pick with Haliburton and it's too early to say with Mitchell but he doesn't look like a bad pick so far either. I don't think Vlade passing on Bagley is even relevant anymore. That was 4 years ago with a different front office and coaching staff.
I don't disagree at all. But the flipside of lazy writers treating some teams as if they can do no wrong is to treat teams like the Kings, Knicks etc as if every move they make is somehow the wrong one.

I remember reading that you only have to show up early to a new job for something like 6 or 8 work days for it to cement your reputation as being one of the first employees to arrive each day. Even if you stop doing it it will take weeks or months for people to let go of that perception.

It's the same in sports. Teams get a reputation as a defensive powerhouse and most of the media holds on to that perception long after it's stopped being true.

It doesn't matter that McNair wasn't involved with the Bagley/Doncic draft, or that his first few first round picks have been shown to be good players. Reputations take a long time to build up and a long time to wear down, especially among the national media.
 
#80
Monte's betting his Kings GM career on Murray being levels better than any of the players, who were drafted after Murray. The odds are against Monte.
I see what you’re getting at, but that’s not really the bet, though, is it? No one gets to draft the field.

(For the record, I would have been tempted to take the deal and draft Daniels at 6).
 
#81
"However, he is significantly older than most prospects in this range (turns 22 in August) and will come into the NBA with less upside."

What a line.

What a great line.

Have yet to fail to laugh.
 
#83
If the rumor is true, I'd say the fact that Indiana was winning to give up Duarte as part of a Murray trade when they weren't for Haliburton goes to show how valuable they feel Murray is. To me that just reenforces the idea that Monte made the correct pick.
I agree Monte made correct pick
But Duarte and Mathurin at 6 was probably very tempting If pacers threw in a 2023 1st with some protection Monte might have jumped at two wings and a 1st

Fox Mitchell
DDV, Duarte
Mathurin
Barnes Lyles
Sabonis Holmes

Sounds like a very good 9 man rotation

TD, Holiday, Harkless, Metu, Jones, Len to get to 15
 
#84
I had very similar thoughts when I read the rumor of the Pacers offer, letting my mind run with it as well in this hypothetical…what if we swap 4 for Duarte and 6. Trade 6 and Barnes for Collins and 16 with Hawks. At 16 take Griffin.

Fox / Mitchell
Duarte / DDV
Griffin
Collins / Lyles
Sabonis / Holmes

Being hypothetical I didn’t look in salary too much but I think we’re cooking with gas if all that were to happen.
 
#85
I had very similar thoughts when I read the rumor of the Pacers offer, letting my mind run with it as well in this hypothetical…what if we swap 4 for Duarte and 6. Trade 6 and Barnes for Collins and 16 with Hawks. At 16 take Griffin.

Fox / Mitchell
Duarte / DDV
Griffin
Collins / Lyles
Sabonis / Holmes

Being hypothetical I didn’t look in salary too much but I think we’re cooking with gas if all that were to happen.
Yeah, that’s an interesting alternative. I wonder if ATL was focused on the supposed Murray deal or were asking a lot for Collins. Very curious to see what their price for him ends up being.
 
#87
I see what you’re getting at, but that’s not really the bet, though, is it? No one gets to draft the field.

(For the record, I would have been tempted to take the deal and draft Daniels at 6).
Yes, it’s unfair to assume Murray will be better than everyone else, who was drafted behind him. So I’ll narrow it. Daniels > Murray by the end of their first contract. (Daniels + Duarte) > Murray next year. Push? I win, because Murray needs to be levels better in either scenario to justify the pick.
 
#88
“Keegan Murray is too old for a rookie! We should’ve traded him for a second year player that’s already the same age as De’Aaron Fox and another sophomore!”
I‘ve never cited his age as a reason to not draft him. I think it’s possible to improve at 22 and I hope he does.
 
#89
Early to grade, but - feeling a B. I like what I've seen of his shooting which is "the name of the game". If he can be a great shooter and defender, good pick. I liked Ivey on 1st impressions, but will see - the Kings need a great shooter....and Murray's shot looks to fit the bill- quick release is a bonus.
 
#90
Yes, it’s unfair to assume Murray will be better than everyone else, who was drafted behind him. So I’ll narrow it. Daniels > Murray by the end of their first contract. (Daniels + Duarte) > Murray next year. Push? I win, because Murray needs to be levels better in either scenario to justify the pick.