If the Draft Were Today...
- Thread starter AMR42700
- Start date
. Bottom line is some people want to make a panicked, knee jerk reaction and deal Hield for pennies on the dollar. Terrible idea.
Many of the same people talking about trading Buddy are those that trashed Walton all season for misusing players.
If the latter is true, then why on earth would anybody want to trade a player proven to be among the very best at a skill that’s become so very important in today’s game? Makes no sense.
Can’t have it both ways either. Either Walton can’t coach and Buddy’s down season was largely caused by that factor or it’s all the player’s fault and Walton isn’t to blame. Which is it? Lol.
If the latter is true, then why on earth would anybody want to trade a player proven to be among the very best at a skill that’s become so very important in today’s game? Makes no sense.
Can’t have it both ways either. Either Walton can’t coach and Buddy’s down season was largely caused by that factor or it’s all the player’s fault and Walton isn’t to blame. Which is it? Lol.
I agree! You have to get more value for Buddy than a 1st rd pick in this draft. As to who you would want where were picking, not many players would fit your description. The main two that leap to mind, other than Vassell who is likely to be gone by our pick, are Saddiq Bey, and Patrick Williams. Both players are good defensive players but Bey gets the nod on his jumpshot hitting 45.1% of his three's. Williams is more of a freak athlete than Bey, and although he only shot around 32% from the three, his form looks pretty good, and he's an above 80% free throw shooter.
I think Bey is more ready to step in and play right now, but Williams may have the most long term potential. Plus, both are likely to be there when we pick. I'm still enticed by Kira Lewis. Must be something I ate.
I think Bey is more ready to step in and play right now, but Williams may have the most long term potential. Plus, both are likely to be there when we pick. I'm still enticed by Kira Lewis. Must be something I ate.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Buddy appears to be unhappy with coming off the bench, which could be a problem. Can we afford to have two shooting guards on the team making big money, and if not, who do you want to keep? How do you keep Buddy on the floor in the last few moments of a crucial close game when he tends to make defensive mistakes, and turn the ball over at important moments of the game. Something you could live with if the player was a role player making 10 mil a year, but perhaps not when that player is making 26 mil a year.
The Kings over payed for Buddy, and then realized that they needed to get more out of him for that price. Problem is, Buddy isn't a good ball handler, he isn't a good defender, he isn't a good passer. He doesn't get to the free throw line with regularity, something great players do when their shot isn't falling. Fact is, I'd be happy with Buddy for 15 mil a year, maybe 17 mil a year, but not for 26 mil a year.
The Kings over payed for Buddy, and then realized that they needed to get more out of him for that price. Problem is, Buddy isn't a good ball handler, he isn't a good defender, he isn't a good passer. He doesn't get to the free throw line with regularity, something great players do when their shot isn't falling. Fact is, I'd be happy with Buddy for 15 mil a year, maybe 17 mil a year, but not for 26 mil a year.
Is that the most logical argument though?
If we are going back and looking at past drafts with the 6th pick in our hand, that means we can pick anyone in those drafts other than the top 5. So that doesn't mean we can only look at the 6th pick in the past drafts and compare them to Buddy. You have free range to basically pick any guy in the vicinity of the 6th pick, as long as they aren't in the top 5. Because each GM is going to value players differently.
The odds that they are going to be better than Buddy are probably less than 50%. Is it a gamble? Absolutely. I'm not saying Buddy for the 6th pick in the draft is the best solution but the Kings have to gamble or they're just going to spin their wheels.
My question for you guys that are against big changes is how do you expect the team to improve? Are you going to put your money on Fox, Hield, Bogdan, Barnes and Bagley getting this team into the playoffs? Me personally, I don't see it. I think it's a waste of time at this point. Patching this current core with scrap heap veterans and the 12th pick is like a decade long version of deja vu for me.
Trading solid players for draft picks can certainly lead to the Kings being in a worse spot than they are now but the one positive that comes out of that is you get a higher pick in the draft which means you have higher odds of landing a star. But nothing is worse for the team than finishing 10th every year because you don't win, it's not very fun to watch and you don't get a good draft pick. Running in place like the team has always done.
If we are going back and looking at past drafts with the 6th pick in our hand, that means we can pick anyone in those drafts other than the top 5. So that doesn't mean we can only look at the 6th pick in the past drafts and compare them to Buddy. You have free range to basically pick any guy in the vicinity of the 6th pick, as long as they aren't in the top 5. Because each GM is going to value players differently.
The odds that they are going to be better than Buddy are probably less than 50%. Is it a gamble? Absolutely. I'm not saying Buddy for the 6th pick in the draft is the best solution but the Kings have to gamble or they're just going to spin their wheels.
My question for you guys that are against big changes is how do you expect the team to improve? Are you going to put your money on Fox, Hield, Bogdan, Barnes and Bagley getting this team into the playoffs? Me personally, I don't see it. I think it's a waste of time at this point. Patching this current core with scrap heap veterans and the 12th pick is like a decade long version of deja vu for me.
Trading solid players for draft picks can certainly lead to the Kings being in a worse spot than they are now but the one positive that comes out of that is you get a higher pick in the draft which means you have higher odds of landing a star. But nothing is worse for the team than finishing 10th every year because you don't win, it's not very fun to watch and you don't get a good draft pick. Running in place like the team has always done.
Back to the basic question is the pick at 6 for Buddy a good deal? No. Would the Kings be getting fair value back In this deal? No.
Another idea might be trading Hield for fair value for a player that plays SF and allows us to move Barnes to PF. Bagley comes back healthy. Not having Bagley is kind of a big thing. How do we get better? Hire a GM that can identify talent where we pick and in the second round and undrafted rookie free agents.
Im also of the opinion that Walton has mismanaged the roster. I think he’s really bad. Hire a GM and coach who have a clear system in place. I’m watching Miami. They sure seem to have found a way. That is how I would like to see the Kings become
Another idea might be trading Hield for fair value for a player that plays SF and allows us to move Barnes to PF. Bagley comes back healthy. Not having Bagley is kind of a big thing. How do we get better? Hire a GM that can identify talent where we pick and in the second round and undrafted rookie free agents.
Im also of the opinion that Walton has mismanaged the roster. I think he’s really bad. Hire a GM and coach who have a clear system in place. I’m watching Miami. They sure seem to have found a way. That is how I would like to see the Kings become
You're saying that as if it's an absolute. We have no clue. A Bradley Beal level player could be selected at 6. We have no way of knowing right now. Odds aren't great. We know that.
We differ on the Bagley thing because the stats show that players will his skill set have a very minimal impact on the game. Throw in his defense and I think the Kings would be better off with a standard defensive C than Bagley at the C with his offensive potential. Either way, best case scenario you're looking at Fox, Bogie, SF equal to Hield, Barnes and Bagley with the bench consisting of the usual rotation of average to below average veterans and young guys. Personally, I don't see it working.
I wouldn't hold your breath on second rounders turning out to be any good. Now those are some low odds right there. I agree that Walton mismanaged the roster and I think he's yet another waste of our time. Even if we had Joerger, the problem is that a few teams have potentially gotten better than us, while we have held course talent wise.
Miami has drafted some players that I really like but they are another product of the Jimmy Butler effect. They are 6-9 without him this year.
We differ on the Bagley thing because the stats show that players will his skill set have a very minimal impact on the game. Throw in his defense and I think the Kings would be better off with a standard defensive C than Bagley at the C with his offensive potential. Either way, best case scenario you're looking at Fox, Bogie, SF equal to Hield, Barnes and Bagley with the bench consisting of the usual rotation of average to below average veterans and young guys. Personally, I don't see it working.
I wouldn't hold your breath on second rounders turning out to be any good. Now those are some low odds right there. I agree that Walton mismanaged the roster and I think he's yet another waste of our time. Even if we had Joerger, the problem is that a few teams have potentially gotten better than us, while we have held course talent wise.
Miami has drafted some players that I really like but they are another product of the Jimmy Butler effect. They are 6-9 without him this year.
See that’s the problem with building around Fox/Bagley we literally can’t draft another non shooting player to start.
I’m catching up on prospects right now the big wings that defend don’t look to be there where we pick.
I guy I’m liking a lot right now is Aaron Nesmith. Good size 6’6 - 6’10 wingspan and is a deadeye shooter being described as the best shooter in the draft. At his size he can play SG/SF and small ball PF potentially also he’s not a bad defender some teams would go out of there way to target him. He’s also a smart player who consistently moves which is great that’s Steph/Klay like and he has a very good basketball IQ which we need. Weakness, he can’t create for himself or others and he’s not explosive.
https://www.thestepien.com/2020/01/31/aaron-nesmith-scouting-report/
I’m catching up on prospects right now the big wings that defend don’t look to be there where we pick.
I guy I’m liking a lot right now is Aaron Nesmith. Good size 6’6 - 6’10 wingspan and is a deadeye shooter being described as the best shooter in the draft. At his size he can play SG/SF and small ball PF potentially also he’s not a bad defender some teams would go out of there way to target him. He’s also a smart player who consistently moves which is great that’s Steph/Klay like and he has a very good basketball IQ which we need. Weakness, he can’t create for himself or others and he’s not explosive.
https://www.thestepien.com/2020/01/31/aaron-nesmith-scouting-report/
It’s gonna Harding than we think to trade Buddy most teams view him as a 6th man which he hates and his contract is bad. I’d say trade him for Spencer Dinwiddie but the salaries are too far off to match. The only team we match up with is Philadelphia, but what can we possibly want from them. The best scenario would be buddy, 12, and Holmes for Myles Turner, Jermey Lamb, and Pacers 1st
As another poster said, Buddy can’t pass, handle the ball, or defend. Then we still have a coach in place that doesn’t work well with him. Then the point made, how far can we go with this current squad and a twelfth pick, maybe far enough to keep us a low lottery pick.
Trading Buddy for the 12th is a gamble in what some call a weak draft, while I see some interesting players, good fits, likely available at 6.
If we don’t trade him for a higher pick and considerations other trade options for a young established player could be explored, but I’m curious how high Vivek is on Buddy now, and if our new GM will be ready to make such moves straight out of the gate.
Trading Buddy for the 12th is a gamble in what some call a weak draft, while I see some interesting players, good fits, likely available at 6.
If we don’t trade him for a higher pick and considerations other trade options for a young established player could be explored, but I’m curious how high Vivek is on Buddy now, and if our new GM will be ready to make such moves straight out of the gate.
Last edited:
Doncic was still a legit F. He can run point but he's still a wing in the end. We're talking apples and oranges here. This is a PG through and through and one that tends to look better running the offense with the time to do it. Fox is a certain type of player who can be elite with space, but there are areas where you will stretch his versatility. For better or worse. Maybe Fox can transition to be more of a SG but is that best for the franchise and his game?
The Kings weren't surprised about who Buddy was after they signed him to an extension. The issue is the Kings changed coaches and signed Corey Joseph who can't run this offense. With Fox getting hurt and Corey not being worth HIS contract, the team put the playmaking responsibilities on Buddy. Now it looks like Buddy is faltering, when in reality the GM mismanaged the roster.
Back to the original question, Hield is worth more than just the 6th. Just my opinion. As far as Miami, I think they have a system that works on all fronts. From the front office, to the coach, to the talent that fits their system. Get the front office and the coach on the same wave length, add players that fit.
Id love to see that.
Id love to see that.
1. I really think this board is overrating Buddy's current value with the new contract.
2. I'm in the if the Kings can get #6 for him, do so and run category.
3. Pretty certain if Haliburton was available at 6 and if the price was Buddy, Baja would drive Buddy to the airport. Haliburton, to me, has the potential to be Doug Christie 2.0.
2. I'm in the if the Kings can get #6 for him, do so and run category.
3. Pretty certain if Haliburton was available at 6 and if the price was Buddy, Baja would drive Buddy to the airport. Haliburton, to me, has the potential to be Doug Christie 2.0.
Last edited:
If I were the Kings GM, my preference in order would be:
1. Patrick Williams - His defense looks really good. His offense will take some time, but he seems to be the smoothest athlete in this group. I think he has the highest ceiling of the 3, but the lowest floor. If I were looking to try and hit a home run on this pick, for a potential star 2-way player, I think I would take Williams. It will probably take 2-3 years for him to hit his potential.
2. Aaron Nesmith - Reminds me of a scorer in the Glen Rice mold, with a chance to be a better defender. He will be a scorer in the league and will have a role either as a future starter or 6th man scorer type. Nesmith is a safer choice here.
3. Saddiq Bey - He has an NBA body and scoring ability from day one. Problem is his athleticism doesn't seem to be very good. His body and athleticism looks more PF than SF to me. He seems like he may be more a stretch 4, unless he can keep his weight in check. He will be a solid scoring forward in the league. He seems to have that bull dog scorer mentality, ala Donovan Mitchel. He's a safe pick here.
1. Patrick Williams - His defense looks really good. His offense will take some time, but he seems to be the smoothest athlete in this group. I think he has the highest ceiling of the 3, but the lowest floor. If I were looking to try and hit a home run on this pick, for a potential star 2-way player, I think I would take Williams. It will probably take 2-3 years for him to hit his potential.
2. Aaron Nesmith - Reminds me of a scorer in the Glen Rice mold, with a chance to be a better defender. He will be a scorer in the league and will have a role either as a future starter or 6th man scorer type. Nesmith is a safer choice here.
3. Saddiq Bey - He has an NBA body and scoring ability from day one. Problem is his athleticism doesn't seem to be very good. His body and athleticism looks more PF than SF to me. He seems like he may be more a stretch 4, unless he can keep his weight in check. He will be a solid scoring forward in the league. He seems to have that bull dog scorer mentality, ala Donovan Mitchel. He's a safe pick here.
Last edited:
I'm sure there's a more in-depth computation and analysis out there, but I think you can follow the simple argument. Looking at just the #6 pick gives you a reasonable sense of the expected outcome. Sure, we could have picked Devin Booker or Turner over WCS at #6; but we did not. Expanding it past the 6th makes it really complicated, because first of all you could also be picking Mudiay and Kaminski and Stanley Johnson, but by extension you could also pick Hezonja since you have to assume that the "top 5" could also be picking Booker.
It's possible the odds look even worse if you start expanding the selection.
What I'm trying to say is - if the assumption is that we are going to make the optimal pick, then that assumption has to carry to teams picking before us too. And if it's not an assumption, then it's a huge gamble like you said, a gamble where the odds are not close to 50% (a fact which a certain poster keeps masking).
To your question of how to not spin our wheels, I would see what a coach that plays to the strengths of Fox/Bagley/Hield can do. That is also largely predicated on Bagley being healthy. Fact is, we haven't had that, and I don't feel a need to break up this core just yet, especially selling low in a weak draft. You need to get a good sense of that and you need to establish whether the problem is just Buddy or is it also Fox and Bagley. Only then can you truly decide whether you need to blow it up, or just make tweaks to build around Fox or Bagley etc.
It's possible the odds look even worse if you start expanding the selection.
What I'm trying to say is - if the assumption is that we are going to make the optimal pick, then that assumption has to carry to teams picking before us too. And if it's not an assumption, then it's a huge gamble like you said, a gamble where the odds are not close to 50% (a fact which a certain poster keeps masking).
To your question of how to not spin our wheels, I would see what a coach that plays to the strengths of Fox/Bagley/Hield can do. That is also largely predicated on Bagley being healthy. Fact is, we haven't had that, and I don't feel a need to break up this core just yet, especially selling low in a weak draft. You need to get a good sense of that and you need to establish whether the problem is just Buddy or is it also Fox and Bagley. Only then can you truly decide whether you need to blow it up, or just make tweaks to build around Fox or Bagley etc.
Well first of all, you can be as confident as you'd like - doesn't make it fact. Care to back up why Smart and Isaac are definitively better than Hield? With the respective # of seasons in the league, please. Don't act like Buddy Hield as maxed out as a player.
Like I said, I see where you're coming from if the timeline is 4-6 years down the road rather than 2-3. Though if that's the case I don't think it's a given we should hold on to Fox and Bagley. Fox though a lot younger is only going to be signed for a year longer than Hield before becoming a UFA. Your timeline to be good isn't that different.
This is where we just can't see eye to eye. You keep saying "potential to be better (and worse)", as if the odds are 50%. They're not. I'm not even sure why I need to keep explaining this. The odds matter. The #1 pick also has the potential to better and worse. The #30 pick also has potential to be better and worse. Odds matter. You say to keep in mind that some of these better players are much better, but you don't seem to be considering that the odds are even more likely they could be absolute busts as well.
I don't deny that it gives us flexibility, but the question time and time again is flexibility for what? This comes back to my point about the scenarios you come up with. They're great. They work in theory. But they don't happen.
The same paragraph included an example about being a defensive grit-and-grind team. Can you just learn to pick up on broad ideas that people are making (you know like they do in every day conversation) and not treat every forum post like a doctoral thesis where you need to rebut every line? Even then, whether or not this counts as "style of play" the point stands. Coaches dictate responsibilities on the floor, which dictates value you get from your player, and we don't have a long-term coach in place.
Ultimately, you and I disagree because you place a lot of positive assumptions and probability on all the outcomes you are hoping for. But you're not admitting that, and instead masking the odds and presenting outcomes as if they were a lot more certain than they are. If that were not true, you would not be so confident and ready to say that trading Buddy for #6 in a weak draft is so so so much clearly better than keeping him. Other posters have said that it's a gamble, that it's worth trying because we would be spinning wheels otherwise. I may not agree with them, but I respect the fact that they recognize it's a gamble. You are not saying it's a gamble, you are saying it's an obvious win and we would be laughed at for such a proposal.
With that, I'm going to bow out of this one.
Like I said, I see where you're coming from if the timeline is 4-6 years down the road rather than 2-3. Though if that's the case I don't think it's a given we should hold on to Fox and Bagley. Fox though a lot younger is only going to be signed for a year longer than Hield before becoming a UFA. Your timeline to be good isn't that different.
This is where we just can't see eye to eye. You keep saying "potential to be better (and worse)", as if the odds are 50%. They're not. I'm not even sure why I need to keep explaining this. The odds matter. The #1 pick also has the potential to better and worse. The #30 pick also has potential to be better and worse. Odds matter. You say to keep in mind that some of these better players are much better, but you don't seem to be considering that the odds are even more likely they could be absolute busts as well.
I don't deny that it gives us flexibility, but the question time and time again is flexibility for what? This comes back to my point about the scenarios you come up with. They're great. They work in theory. But they don't happen.
The same paragraph included an example about being a defensive grit-and-grind team. Can you just learn to pick up on broad ideas that people are making (you know like they do in every day conversation) and not treat every forum post like a doctoral thesis where you need to rebut every line? Even then, whether or not this counts as "style of play" the point stands. Coaches dictate responsibilities on the floor, which dictates value you get from your player, and we don't have a long-term coach in place.
Ultimately, you and I disagree because you place a lot of positive assumptions and probability on all the outcomes you are hoping for. But you're not admitting that, and instead masking the odds and presenting outcomes as if they were a lot more certain than they are. If that were not true, you would not be so confident and ready to say that trading Buddy for #6 in a weak draft is so so so much clearly better than keeping him. Other posters have said that it's a gamble, that it's worth trying because we would be spinning wheels otherwise. I may not agree with them, but I respect the fact that they recognize it's a gamble. You are not saying it's a gamble, you are saying it's an obvious win and we would be laughed at for such a proposal.
With that, I'm going to bow out of this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean it's pretty apparent when watching them play. However, there's a lot of impact stats that we can reference:
Fox would have two more years on a 5 year extension. Fox would be 26 at the end of Hield's contract (and just entering his prime), and Hield would be 31 at the end of his contract.
Who said the odds don't matter? I said the pick has the potential to be a better player than Hield and it has the potential to be a worse player. That doesn't mean it's a coin flip. That's just you putting words in my mouth.
I think you're putting a lot of weight in that less than 50% of the picks are better than Hield. The potential to draft a star with that pick is something that should be heavily considered in these types of trades. This league is a stars league. You're going nowhere fast if you don't have star talent. Is Buddy Hield a star? No, not at all. Does the 6th pick give you a chance at finding a star player? Yes, it does. Lillard and Roy made All NBA teams, Isaac is already a very impactful player and has the potential to be a star (he'll at least make some All-Defensive teams), Bamba has All-Defensive team potential, & Smart has been on the All-Defensive team.
I've answered this question already. The extra cap space can be used to take on bad contracts for young assets/picks.
Do you see a problem with drafting based on fitting a style of play? Is a team passing on Dirk Nowitzki a good idea because they want to play a "grit & grind" style? Of course not. You draft the best available talent, and let trades & a coach figure out how to mesh that talent together to build a team.
As a reminder, you brought this argument up because you basically said we shouldn't trade Buddy for the 6th pick because the new GM won't know what play style he wants. And I'm saying drafting with a certain play style in mind is just another term for drafting for fit, and drafting for fit usually results in you passing on the better talent.
It's obviously a gamble. Never said it wasn't, but the gamble is well worth the price (and then some).
Fox would have two more years on a 5 year extension. Fox would be 26 at the end of Hield's contract (and just entering his prime), and Hield would be 31 at the end of his contract.
Who said the odds don't matter? I said the pick has the potential to be a better player than Hield and it has the potential to be a worse player. That doesn't mean it's a coin flip. That's just you putting words in my mouth.
I think you're putting a lot of weight in that less than 50% of the picks are better than Hield. The potential to draft a star with that pick is something that should be heavily considered in these types of trades. This league is a stars league. You're going nowhere fast if you don't have star talent. Is Buddy Hield a star? No, not at all. Does the 6th pick give you a chance at finding a star player? Yes, it does. Lillard and Roy made All NBA teams, Isaac is already a very impactful player and has the potential to be a star (he'll at least make some All-Defensive teams), Bamba has All-Defensive team potential, & Smart has been on the All-Defensive team.
I've answered this question already. The extra cap space can be used to take on bad contracts for young assets/picks.
Do you see a problem with drafting based on fitting a style of play? Is a team passing on Dirk Nowitzki a good idea because they want to play a "grit & grind" style? Of course not. You draft the best available talent, and let trades & a coach figure out how to mesh that talent together to build a team.
As a reminder, you brought this argument up because you basically said we shouldn't trade Buddy for the 6th pick because the new GM won't know what play style he wants. And I'm saying drafting with a certain play style in mind is just another term for drafting for fit, and drafting for fit usually results in you passing on the better talent.
It's obviously a gamble. Never said it wasn't, but the gamble is well worth the price (and then some).
Last edited by a moderator: