If Kings end up with 6th overall pick (most likely), what would you want GP to do?

[Gary]

If Petrie is in love with Marshall, I think that's fine, but please for the love of God trade back a bit before taking him. New Orleans is going to have two picks in the lottery, we could probably trade back with them. I'd think they be desperate to get two top 5 or top 6 guys, and would be willing to trade their second choice away (probably around 10th or 11th overall). We could give them our 2nd round pick as well (we don't need a ton of rookies right now), and end up with a top 7 protected future 1st round pick from them. Even in a worse case scenario in which Marshall has already been snagged, there will be a decent player for us at #10 or #11 that we can get.

Why would we want a future draft pick from the Hornets if we don't need any more rookies? well, eventually that pick will come in handy for us. Remember, we are going to be giving our 1st rounder to Cleveland at some point. The Hornets could have it Top 7 protected for say 3 or 4 years, but after that we get the pick regardless. Who knows how long the Hornets could suck... heh.


I'm not that high on Marshall, actually, but I'm just saying if he's GP's guy, that's fine, but trade back and get something else out of it, because taking Marshall at 5 overall or 6 overall is a bit unnecessary. He will still be there at 10, and if he isn't, it just means that somebody else slipped into our laps.

The ONLY thing I would take is another draft pick.. Either a 2nd or 1st. I would NOT take a player and a pick. The reason behind taking a pick is because I would love to get my hands on Teague in the late first round and/or Melo in the late 1st early 2nd.

I am not sure there is a team we would be able to trade with unless a 3rd team is involved. Or if the Warriors keep their pick we could switch places and take their #30 pick as well and nab Teague or Melo with that pick. but if that was the case then the Warriors would pick 8th and give the pick up wouldn't they? (If we picked 6th we would have moved back 1 space, and the Warriors would have too and had to give up the pick).

Maybe a 3 team deal where we get Detroit's 10th pick (if we are 6th they should be 10th). Detroit trades some player to a 3rd team (with a late 1st round pick) and Detroit gets back our pick, the 3rd team gives up their late late 1st round pick and gets a player and an early second round pick from the Kings.

So in essence it would have to work like this.... (using Detroit as an example and the 3rd team is a team with a 25-30 pick)

We trade: 6th pick and 36th pick
We receive: Detroit's 10th pick and a 3rd teams late 1st round pick 25-30..

NOTE: Use the first pick to grab Marshall and the second pick to grab Fab Melo. We get a defensive big who is a great weakside defender, and a good man defender, and a PG who can actually play PG and has the size to guard a SG if there is a switch defensively.

Detroit would give up the 10th pick, and a player and get back the 6th pick

The 3rd team would give up a late first round pick (25-30), and receive pick 36 from the Kings, and a player from Detroit.

Basically a team on the cusp of the Championship use the late first rounders as trade bait if they want to add a veteran, or if they are over the lux tax they sell the pick because they don't want to pay double for the rookie for 3 years.

 

[Sac.1989]

if were really moving forward with Boogie and Reke being the cornerstones of our offense then a pass first floor general such as Marshall is a no brainer.

alot of us would love to see us take a SF this draft and slot him right in but a floor general is a real need for us, taking the ball out of rekes hands whilst not needing to get his own shots in - a real selling point with marshall

If we could move IT and MT to the bench wow we'd have some firepower.

 

[Padrino]

I remain intriqgued by Drummond until I hear he sucks in workouts (and I know your premise said he was gone). If he's there, I take him (again, assuming no sucking in workouts). Otherwise I am serious when I say we should give major consideratiuon to trading the pick. Another kid is not ideal for us anyway. A huge talent? Obviously you always take that. But if you are forced down inot the next tier, then look for the steady vet. Cousins and Reke alreayd ARE huge talents. We can't fail to get them support, and teaching another 2nd tier kid the NBA ropes for another season may not be the best way to go about supporting the main guys we alreayd have. We ned a shotblockign PF type, and a strong SF, hopefully defenisve, definitely not shot munching. We don't jsut need random "talent". We have lots of talent. Problem is it does not fit. Time to get some pieces that fit.

i'll go a step further and say that i would consider shopping any pick outside of the #1 slot. anthony davis would be useful to the kings immediately as a defensive anchor alongside demarcus cousins (and i willingly admit that my initial skepticism of davis was faulty). everybody else i could do without, if it meant acquiring veteran talent(s), through trading our lottery pick, who can help us win now...

i think people really underestimate the urgency of this team to start winning very soon. talented young players don't just hang around forever if you don't provide them with the veteran additions that carry teams into the playoffs. and this kings team is desperate for those kinds of additions. they truly are. the boston celtics are a perfect example of a team that kept cycling through young talent year after year, spinning their wheels, never stabilizing their roster with any quality veteran help, outside of paul pierce. eventually, danny ainge had enough of the lottery, and boldly rejected the notion of returning to the basement of the league without first attempting a legitimate playoff run. he dealt picks and young players to satisfy that hunger for the playoffs, and his gambit yielded a championship. even if he's forced to blow up the clown this offseason and start over again with rondo at their team's center, don't you think celtics' ownership, danny ainge, and their fans consider it worth it? i certainly do...

in the nba, you have to gamble sometimes to get to that next level. the kings don't have to trade away the farm to build a winner the same way boston did, but top 5 lottery picks are often safe bets, and "safe" isn't always enough to elevate a team beyond their lottery status, especially if picking in your assigned slot just amounts to the spinning of wheels...

 

[Vlade4GM]

I'm thinking either Beal or Jones, but I'm not really crazy about either. If we don't get a top 2 pick, I don't know if I'm going to care all that much who we take.

 

[bajaden]

This may very well be trading two starters to get one starter and two very good bench players. We already have a boatload of very good bench players. We need starters. In my way of thinking, any trade that involves taking back more volume than we give means we give up quality and in basketball, given only 5 people can be on the court at once, quality is far more important than quantity.

I agree that we don't need to take back more players than we offer, but I would disagree that we already have good bench players. Unless you want to say that Hayes, Greene, Outlaw, Garcia, Honeycutt, Whiteside and Jimmer, match up with the benches of any of the contending teams. I grant you that Honeycutt, Jimmer and Whiteside all have upside, but lack experience, and I certainly wouldn't want any of them on the floor at the end of a playoff game. At least right now. To me Hayes has been a disappointment, but mostly he's just a bad fit. Greene is, well , Greene, and will the real Outlaw please stand up!

We have no Jason Terry type player on our bench. Now if we were to end up drafting Davis, which would move JT to the bench, and move Tyreke to the SG position, which would move Thornton to the bench, then our bench would improve considerably.

 

[Glenn]

I agree that we don't need to take back more players than we offer, but I would disagree that we already have good bench players. Unless you want to say that Hayes, Greene, Outlaw, Garcia, Honeycutt, Whiteside and Jimmer, match up with the benches of any of the contending teams. I grant you that Honeycutt, Jimmer and Whiteside all have upside, but lack experience, and I certainly wouldn't want any of them on the floor at the end of a playoff game. At least right now. To me Hayes has been a disappointment, but mostly he's just a bad fit. Greene is, well , Greene, and will the real Outlaw please stand up!

We have no Jason Terry type player on our bench. Now if we were to end up drafting Davis, which would move JT to the bench, and move Tyreke to the SG position, which would move Thornton to the bench, then our bench would improve considerably.

We have three starters that should be bench players but are starters. I explained that above and won't again. Said a different way, we have two bonafied starters and don't need to pile on more bodies who would be bench players on other teams. I guess I was trying to be too cute. In other words, also said above, I think IT, JT, and our starting SF are simply very good bench players and woudn't be starters on a good team.

 

[bajaden]

Drummond is going to be terrible. He's my bust of the lottery and usually I am not wrong on these things

I'm not a fan of Drummond's, as I'm sure you know, but I won't go so far as to say he'll be a bust, as in Thabeet. But he does scare me to death. If I was to gamble, I would gamble on P. Jones before Drummond. And I don't much like Jones either. Its just that I saw games with Jones where he displayed all his talents. Enough so, that you knew it wasn't an accident. You knew he knew how to play. He just didn't do it enough to convince me that he had the desire to be as good as he could be.

Drummond on the other hand, just looked confused at times, disinterested at times, and was just outplayed by inferior talent at times. I'm just not sure how much Drummond likes playing basketball. But there were games that his talent reared its beautiful head and he looked for the moment, like a man amongst boys. If I'm picking at number 2 or 3, I'd have to pass on him. If I'm picking at number 6 or 7, I'd seriously have to consider him. If I'm picking at number 5, and someone with two first round picks want to trade both those picks for the rights to Drummond, I make that trade.

 

[bajaden]

The ONLY thing I would take is another draft pick.. Either a 2nd or 1st. I would NOT take a player and a pick. The reason behind taking a pick is because I would love to get my hands on Teague in the late first round and/or Melo in the late 1st early 2nd.

I am not sure there is a team we would be able to trade with unless a 3rd team is involved. Or if the Warriors keep their pick we could switch places and take their #30 pick as well and nab Teague or Melo with that pick. but if that was the case then the Warriors would pick 8th and give the pick up wouldn't they? (If we picked 6th we would have moved back 1 space, and the Warriors would have too and had to give up the pick).

Maybe a 3 team deal where we get Detroit's 10th pick (if we are 6th they should be 10th). Detroit trades some player to a 3rd team (with a late 1st round pick) and Detroit gets back our pick, the 3rd team gives up their late late 1st round pick and gets a player and an early second round pick from the Kings.

So in essence it would have to work like this.... (using Detroit as an example and the 3rd team is a team with a 25-30 pick)

We trade: 6th pick and 36th pick
We receive: Detroit's 10th pick and a 3rd teams late 1st round pick 25-30..

NOTE: Use the first pick to grab Marshall and the second pick to grab Fab Melo. We get a defensive big who is a great weakside defender, and a good man defender, and a PG who can actually play PG and has the size to guard a SG if there is a switch defensively.

Detroit would give up the 10th pick, and a player and get back the 6th pick

The 3rd team would give up a late first round pick (25-30), and receive pick 36 from the Kings, and a player from Detroit.

Basically a team on the cusp of the Championship use the late first rounders as trade bait if they want to add a veteran, or if they are over the lux tax they sell the pick because they don't want to pay double for the rookie for 3 years.

I would take either Ezeli or Moultrie over Melo. Not that I don't like Melo, its just that I think both Ezeli and Moultrie are good defensive players with more upside overall. I love Marshall, but with IT and Jimmer already on the team, and Tyreke's ability to play the PG position, I think I would take Jeffery Taylor, who plays a position of need, and is another player thats ready to step in and play right now.

 

[bajaden]

We have three starters that should be bench players but are starters. I explained that above and won't again. Said a different way, we have two bonafied starters and don't need to pile on more bodies who would be bench players on other teams. I guess I was trying to be too cute. In other words, also said above, I think IT, JT, and our starting SF are simply very good bench players and woudn't be starters on a good team.

I was simply responding to the current team, and how the players are currently being played. Not what should be! At the moment JT, Thornton, and IT are starters, and our bench is our bench. Now if that changes, then my response changes.

 

[bajaden]

I'm thinking either Beal or Jones, but I'm not really crazy about either. If we don't get a top 2 pick, I don't know if I'm going to care all that much who we take.

I think Jones is going to be better as a pro than he was a college player. He's a good defensive player, and is capable of playing two positions. Beal will be a very good player, but he doesn't fill a position of need and adds another player under 6'6" to the team. Now if were trading Thornton for a position of need, then Beal would make more sense.

 

[Glenn]

I was simply responding to the current team, and how the players are currently being played. Not what should be! At the moment JT, Thornton, and IT are starters, and our bench is our bench. Now if that changes, then my response changes.

I'll try to be more straightforward and put away any attempt at what often is too obscure humor.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I think Jones is going to be better as a pro than he was a college player. He's a good defensive player, and is capable of playing two positions. Beal will be a very good player, but he doesn't fill a position of need and adds another player under 6'6" to the team. Now if were trading Thornton for a position of need, then Beal would make more sense.

I agree about Jones, that's a big reason why I still like him, despite questioning his motor a bit.

I'm so irritated by how this team is constructed, I think that Cousins would be the only player I'd be upset over if traded. So I couldn't care less if they shipped out Thornton, but is Petrie capable of actually getting good value for him in return?

I think Beal actually has a chance to be a decent lead guard if need be, but that's probably just me. We need to take BPA in a draft like this, even if it means trading away the redundancies. The draft is for BPA, free agency and trades are for needs.

 

[Anthony1]

if were really moving forward with Boogie and Reke being the cornerstones of our offense then a pass first floor general such as Marshall is a no brainer.

alot of us would love to see us take a SF this draft and slot him right in but a floor general is a real need for us, taking the ball out of rekes hands whilst not needing to get his own shots in - a real selling point with marshall

If we could move IT and MT to the bench wow we'd have some firepower.

If Reke is one of our cornerstones, then that means that he would have to be playing at an extremely high level to be considered a "cornerstone". We know that for Tyreke to play at a high level, he needs the ball in his hands. So, if Tyreke has the ball in his hands the majority of the time, they why would we need Marshall?

Basically, what I'm trying to illustrate is that if Tyreke is part of the Kings long-term future, then we need to be "all-in" with him. That means putting him back at point guard and having the ball in his hands 90 percent of the time. In such a scenario, a player like Marshall would be totally wasted.

 

[bajaden]

I'll try to be more straightforward and put away any attempt at what often is too obscure humor.

I've had the same problem with obscure humor. I've learned to put a little smiley face at the end, so there's no confusion as to what I'm saying.

 

[bajaden]

I agree about Jones, that's a big reason why I still like him, despite questioning his motor a bit.

I'm so irritated by how this team is constructed, I think that Cousins would be the only player I'd be upset over if traded. So I couldn't care less if they shipped out Thornton, but is Petrie capable of actually getting good value for him in return?

I think Beal actually has a chance to be a decent lead guard if need be, but that's probably just me. We need to take BPA in a draft like this, even if it means trading away the redundancies. The draft is for BPA, free agency and trades are for needs.

I agree on BPA, the problem is, that sometimes who that is, can be a little vague by definition. For instance, one could make a case that after Davis, Gilchrist, and Robinson, that the best player available talent wise is P. Jones. Especially if you betting on the future. By the same token, I could make a case that one of the best players available might be Jeffery Taylor, if your betting on the present. My point is, that it becomes subjective, and its hard to make a clear cut case at times. I can give my opinion, but it might differ completely with another persons opinion. Glad I cleared that up!

Yeah, the one knock on Jones is that he has a tendecy to disappear at times. It happened less this season than last, and its amazing that it happens at all because he plays with such intensity most of the time. I think he just gets caught up in being a spectator at times, if he's not involved in the play that was called. Of course Calapari always had the cattle prod handy when it happened. All I know is that Jones has a lot going for him. He has good size and length. He's a very good athlete. He has very good handles for a big man. He's a good passer, and he's a very good defender. He doesn't have a picture perfect jump shot by any means, but if you leave him open, your making a mistake.

In short, he has some rough edges, but he can probably contribute right away, especially on defense. I'm not sure about Beal being a lead guard, but its possible. Frankly I'm a little tired of expermenting with remaking a player into something he's not. Especially at the PG position. However, he does have the tools to be a lead guard. He's a good passer and ballhandler. But mostly, he's a good scorer. He also showed he can defend. Being a terrific athlete doesn't hurt. I see him more as an Eric Gordon type with more explosiveness around the basket. But in the end, he's Bradley Beal. Certainly sounds like a stars name.

 

[bajaden]

If Reke is one of our cornerstones, then that means that he would have to be playing at an extremely high level to be considered a "cornerstone". We know that for Tyreke to play at a high level, he needs the ball in his hands. So, if Tyreke has the ball in his hands the majority of the time, they why would we need Marshall?

Basically, what I'm trying to illustrate is that if Tyreke is part of the Kings long-term future, then we need to be "all-in" with him. That means putting him back at point guard and having the ball in his hands 90 percent of the time. In such a scenario, a player like Marshall would be totally wasted.

I think being all in with Tyreke would be putting him at the SG position. He'd still have his touches, and he's still have a strength and size advantage over most of his opponets. I'am dead set agains any player having the ball in his hands 90% of the time. Basketball is a team game and you win as a team. Ask Michael Jordan how well he did until he finally embraced the team concept. In fairness to him though, it took a while before he had anyone around him worth embracing.

My point is, I'm not a fan of Iso basketball, and I think Tyreke is coming around in that area. I'm not saying you can't run a lot of the offense through Tyreke, but your going to run some of it through Cuz and others as well. Otherwise your just a one trick pony.

 

[Hoovtrain]

We have three starters that should be bench players but are starters. I explained that above and won't again. Said a different way, we have two bonafied starters and don't need to pile on more bodies who would be bench players on other teams. I guess I was trying to be too cute. In other words, also said above, I think IT, JT, and our starting SF are simply very good bench players and woudn't be starters on a good team.

Its good to see you boys getting along again.

 

[Amory]

Drummond is going to be terrible. He's my bust of the lottery and usually I am not wrong on these things

I've been feeling the same way.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I agree on BPA, the problem is, that sometimes who that is, can be a little vague by definition. For instance, one could make a case that after Davis, Gilchrist, and Robinson, that the best player available talent wise is P. Jones. Especially if you betting on the future. By the same token, I could make a case that one of the best players available might be Jeffery Taylor, if your betting on the present. My point is, that it becomes subjective, and its hard to make a clear cut case at times. I can give my opinion, but it might differ completely with another persons opinion. Glad I cleared that up!

Yeah, the one knock on Jones is that he has a tendecy to disappear at times. It happened less this season than last, and its amazing that it happens at all because he plays with such intensity most of the time. I think he just gets caught up in being a spectator at times, if he's not involved in the play that was called. Of course Calapari always had the cattle prod handy when it happened. All I know is that Jones has a lot going for him. He has good size and length. He's a very good athlete. He has very good handles for a big man. He's a good passer, and he's a very good defender. He doesn't have a picture perfect jump shot by any means, but if you leave him open, your making a mistake.

In short, he has some rough edges, but he can probably contribute right away, especially on defense. I'm not sure about Beal being a lead guard, but its possible. Frankly I'm a little tired of expermenting with remaking a player into something he's not. Especially at the PG position. However, he does have the tools to be a lead guard. He's a good passer and ballhandler. But mostly, he's a good scorer. He also showed he can defend. Being a terrific athlete doesn't hurt. I see him more as an Eric Gordon type with more explosiveness around the basket. But in the end, he's Bradley Beal. Certainly sounds like a stars name.

Of course it's very subjective, but the criteria you use to determine the BPA is another discussion. As subjective as BPA is though, when you're saying "don't pick this guy because his talent is redundant with our roster," then you're definitely not talking about BPA, you're talking about need/fit.

I agree 100% about Jones.

Obviously not a traditional lead guard, but someone who can take care of the ball, make good decisions, and control the offense. You don't need a high-volume passer at the PG position if you have other creators. Having him at the point is not preferable, but it's an option. I'm tired of the position confusion and one-on-one ball, but you have to work with what you have in the draft, not what you wish you had. As far as Beal's athleticism, I think body-wise he's very similar to Gordon, but I would say that Gordon is the more explosive one around the rim, quicker riser.

 

[Kingster]

We have three starters that should be bench players but are starters. I explained that above and won't again. Said a different way, we have two bonafied starters and don't need to pile on more bodies who would be bench players on other teams. I guess I was trying to be too cute. In other words, also said above, I think IT, JT, and our starting SF are simply very good bench players and woudn't be starters on a good team.

With due respect, I don't know what you've been watching this year with IT. He's played better than many of the opposition and head to head with the rest. I'm really baffled about this IT benchwarmer stuff when he's outplayed guys like Connelly and Parker and Rondo. When you can explain it to me, let me know.

 

[Gary]

I would take either Ezeli or Moultrie over Melo. Not that I don't like Melo, its just that I think both Ezeli and Moultrie are good defensive players with more upside overall. I love Marshall, but with IT and Jimmer already on the team, and Tyreke's ability to play the PG position, I think I would take Jeffery Taylor, who plays a position of need, and is another player thats ready to step in and play right now.

eeehhh.. Ezeli would be fine, but we would become weaker on rebounding, and although he had a decent season statistically I still think he would be one of those players that could come in and get a block here and there and man defense but nothing else. Meaning nothing outside of the man D and a block here and there. No intangibles. I wouldn't be mad if we took him but it's kind of those blah picks.

As for Moultrie, I didn't really have much stock in drafting him because I figured he was going to move up into the teens and be too low to use out 1st round pick on and way out of reach of our second rounder. He's a player I would take in a heartbeat over Melo if he were available at 25-30 though, but I don't thin he's going to be there.

My whole deal with Marshall is an insurance policy against whether or not Evans works at SG. Marshall is the best playmaker in the draft imo and one of those guys that comes around only every 5-6 years in terms of someone who can see the floor and run an offense. His shooting might get him into a bit of trouble on an NBA roster, but if we had guys that could score around Marshall then I don't think it would be a big deal. He could turn into a Rondo for us.

As for Taylor, this was another guy I didn't think we would have a chance to draft. I think he moves into the upper teens when draft day arrives. He reminds me of an athletic Jordan Hamilton (Who I still think will do well in Denver if given the chance). No qualms about Taylor though.

 

[Mass]

With due respect, I don't know what you've been watching this year with IT. He's played better than many of the opposition and head to head with the rest. I'm really baffled about this IT benchwarmer stuff when he's outplayed guys like Connelly and Parker and Rondo. When you can explain it to me, let me know.

Many of us don't see IT as an ideal starting PG for a good Kings team. It's ok now, but if you look at a possible playoff Kings team, IT should come from the bench. We are too weak defensively with him and MT in the backcourt, and you don't go very far with this kind of problem. I'm not saying that Thomas isn't good or hasn't been playing very well. But I'm one of those who don't see him as an ideal starter. He could be part of a great second unit, with more opportunities when Cousins and Reke are on the bench resting.

BTW: who is Connelly?

 

[Gary]

Many of us don't see IT as an ideal starting PG for a good Kings team. It's ok now, but if you look at a possible playoff Kings team, IT should come from the bench. We are too weak defensively with him and MT in the backcourt, and you don't go very far with this kind of problem. I'm not saying that Thomas isn't good or hasn't been playing very well. But I'm one of those who don't see him as an ideal starter. He could be part of a great second unit, with more opportunities when Cousins and Reke are on the bench resting.

BTW: who is Connelly?

I think the D would be fine if we just moved MT to the bench and started IT and Evans. The only issue I would have is that if the PG is a strong offensive player and we were to put Evans on him I would worry about IT guarding the SG. But man D IT isn't bad at all if he's on the PG.

I had always wanted to know from someone who says he's not a starter or is an ideal bench player, why do you think this is the case? What is your reason on why you think IT is better suited for coming off the bench?

 

[Mass]

I think the D would be fine if we just moved MT to the bench and started IT and Evans. The only issue I would have is that if the PG is a strong offensive player and we were to put Evans on him I would worry about IT guarding the SG. But man D IT isn't bad at all if he's on the PG.

I agree. One between IT and Thornton should start from the bench. If Petrie and Smart want to go with Thomas, that's fine, but then MT has to be convinced to start from the bench. We can't keep having IT, MT and Reke all in the starting 5. Reke is a SG who needs the ball in his hand, I hope he will play in this role starting from next season. Stop with the SF experiment. Let's see if in the draft we can fix some problems.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I agree. One between IT and Thornton should start from the bench. If Petrie and Smart want to go with Thomas, that's fine, but then MT has to be convinced to start from the bench. We can't keep having IT, MT and Reke all in the starting 5. Reke is a SG who needs the ball in his hand, I hope he will play in this role starting from next season. Stop with the SF experiment. Let's see if in the draft we can fix some problems.

I would imagine Thornton should be fine coming off of the bench as long as his role was well defined for him. Who starts typically isn't the biggest deal. Especially since Thornton just got a big contract (might be different if he was in a contract year).

Still, let Thornton know he's going to be in the Manu type role - running and leading the second string. He will still be playing 30+ minutes per game. And he will still be closing as many games as he does now - depending on the match up and who is hot. Closing the games is much more important than starting them.

And I agree. I have always seen Thornton in the BoJax role long term. Instant offense. His hair trigger is better suited to providing that spark. And an IT/Evans back court paired with an actual SF would be ideal for the team as well.

 

[Gary]

I agree. One between IT and Thornton should start from the bench. If Petrie and Smart want to go with Thomas, that's fine, but then MT has to be convinced to start from the bench. We can't keep having IT, MT and Reke all in the starting 5. Reke is a SG who needs the ball in his hand, I hope he will play in this role starting from next season. Stop with the SF experiment. Let's see if in the draft we can fix some problems.

We did try that MT/Evans thing at the start of last season and before they made the change the team was not good at all offensively. They were last in the league in almost every offensive category.

Defensive it would have made sense but we were also last or next to last in all the major defensive categories in the league as well.

I actually wouldn't mind moving both MT, and IT to the bench. I have problems with IT being able to guard bigger players. Now his 1 on 1 defense might be good but when they have to switch I get worried. Usually they will send a help defender which leaves another player open and they end up scoring anyway, so it's not technically a negative stat against IT it's still a score for the opposing team. IT/MT would be small off the bench but it's not a big deal as long as they don't stay in the whole game. If Smart tried to go back to his old ways I say we trade one of the three players he's trying to play together in order to make him stop.

It kind of worries me that drafting a PG that Smart will go back to his old ways of smallball but I really like Marshall. So maybe we should package our 2nd rounder with IT/MT and try to get a mid/late 1st rounder and go big with either Moultrie or Melo depending on where the pick is.

 

[VF21]

We did try that MT/Evans thing at the start of last season and before they made the change the team was not good at all offensively. They were last in the league in almost every offensive category.

Defensive it would have made sense but we were also last or next to last in all the major defensive categories in the league as well.

I actually wouldn't mind moving both MT, and IT to the bench. I have problems with IT being able to guard bigger players. Now his 1 on 1 defense might be good but when they have to switch I get worried. Usually they will send a help defender which leaves another player open and they end up scoring anyway, so it's not technically a negative stat against IT it's still a score for the opposing team. IT/MT would be small off the bench but it's not a big deal as long as they don't stay in the whole game. If Smart tried to go back to his old ways I say we trade one of the three players he's trying to play together in order to make him stop.

It kind of worries me that drafting a PG that Smart will go back to his old ways of smallball but I really like Marshall. So maybe we should package our 2nd rounder with IT/MT and try to get a mid/late 1st rounder and go big with either Moultrie or Melo depending on where the pick is.

IT, MT and a draft pick for a late first round pick? That's delusional.

 

[bajaden]

IT, MT and a draft pick for a late first round pick? That's delusional.

Not sure, but I think he meant IT or MT, not both. Don't know if that makes it more palatable for you or not?

 

[Mass]

Not sure, but I think he meant IT or MT, not both. Don't know if that makes it more palatable for you or not?

Not really, I believe they have a little more value right now, especially MT.

 

[gunks]

Heres a thought.

Say the Lolcats end up at #2. Do they really want to draft MKG? Who is going to be a stud down the road, but probably wont do anything to add wins right away...

Or would they like to get our pick (who could be a really good guard or a decent big in Sullinger) + Thornton, who could easily put up 20ppg for them next season (fg% be damned!).

I'd say thats looking like a pretty good deal for them. They add a lot more talent than just drafting MKG. Meanwhile here in Sac, we just got our defensive captain (sorry Hayes)/super duper roleplayer of the future.

If that went down we'd just have to pray that Jimmer improves enough in the offseason to be a major rotation guy, cause our shooting will be caca.