If the Draft Were Today...
- Thread starter AMR42700
- Start date
Well, first I really have no idea who will be there, and if you look at all the mocks out there, and there are many, I've seen Haliburton go anywhere from 2 to the Warriors, to the Celtics at 14. But if my choice was between Haliburton, Bey, Vassell, Okoro, and Nesmith, I would hands down take Haliburton. He can play two positions, and play them well. As a PG he averaged 6.5 assists a game, and hardly turned the ball over. He shot 42% from the three, and yes, his shot looks funky, but it goes in, and he took a lot of them. He's an excellent defender who averaged 2.5 steals a game, and despite his lack of muscle, he pulled down 6 boards a game. He shot 50% overall, which is outstanding for a jump shooter.
So if he drops to us, I would grab him in a heartbeat. My second choice would be Vassell, my third would be Bey, my fourth Nesmith, and lastly Okoro. I'm sure many would disagree with me on Okoro, but right now, he's simply not a good 3 pt shooter (28.6% 3pp) and he's also not a good free throw shooter (67.4%), which doesn't bode well for the future, which by the way, I don't put as much stock in as many others do. Okoro is an excellent defender. Many think he's the best defender in college, but many also think that Vassell could be the best defender in college, and he can shoot the three (41.5%).
If the Kings want to play at a fast pace spreading the floor and shooting a lot of three's, then you need fast athletic players who can run the floor and shoot the three. So I start there and that narrows the group. Then in that group, who can defend? That narrows the field even more. Nesmith is probably the best 3 pt shooter in college. I mean no one takes over 8 three's a game and shoots 52.5% from behind the arc. Let me put that in perspective. Buddy in his senior year shot 45.7% from the three, and was considered one of, if not the best three point shooter in college that year.
No offense to Buddy, but in college, Nesmith was a better defender than Buddy, He's an inch taller and has a 6'10" wingspan. So he projects to be a better defender in the NBA as well. Pie in the sky right now, but it's all we have. Finally Bey, who I think will be there when we pick doesn't come with a bunch of bells and whistles, but he dots all the I's and crosses all the T's. He's a fundamentally sound player who plays at both ends of the court, and does it well. He shot the three extremely well, matching Buddy's 45%. He guarded all five positions and he's a better passer than his 2.4 assists show. If I have a knock on him its that I think he could grab more rebounds, but they had him playing on the perimeter a lot which may have affected that.
So if he drops to us, I would grab him in a heartbeat. My second choice would be Vassell, my third would be Bey, my fourth Nesmith, and lastly Okoro. I'm sure many would disagree with me on Okoro, but right now, he's simply not a good 3 pt shooter (28.6% 3pp) and he's also not a good free throw shooter (67.4%), which doesn't bode well for the future, which by the way, I don't put as much stock in as many others do. Okoro is an excellent defender. Many think he's the best defender in college, but many also think that Vassell could be the best defender in college, and he can shoot the three (41.5%).
If the Kings want to play at a fast pace spreading the floor and shooting a lot of three's, then you need fast athletic players who can run the floor and shoot the three. So I start there and that narrows the group. Then in that group, who can defend? That narrows the field even more. Nesmith is probably the best 3 pt shooter in college. I mean no one takes over 8 three's a game and shoots 52.5% from behind the arc. Let me put that in perspective. Buddy in his senior year shot 45.7% from the three, and was considered one of, if not the best three point shooter in college that year.
No offense to Buddy, but in college, Nesmith was a better defender than Buddy, He's an inch taller and has a 6'10" wingspan. So he projects to be a better defender in the NBA as well. Pie in the sky right now, but it's all we have. Finally Bey, who I think will be there when we pick doesn't come with a bunch of bells and whistles, but he dots all the I's and crosses all the T's. He's a fundamentally sound player who plays at both ends of the court, and does it well. He shot the three extremely well, matching Buddy's 45%. He guarded all five positions and he's a better passer than his 2.4 assists show. If I have a knock on him its that I think he could grab more rebounds, but they had him playing on the perimeter a lot which may have affected that.
so curious if you go on upside how do you rank them? Looking at what a player could be based on upside projection?
of your list I expect Nesmith and Bey to be on the board. I expect Vassell, Haliburton and Okuro to be gone. I don’t think Haliburton falls past Pheonix who needs a combo guard. Okuro doesn’t fall past the wizards and Vassell doesn’t fall past the Spurs. They could all 3 go higher but I think their floor is before the Kings pick.
of your list I expect Nesmith and Bey to be on the board. I expect Vassell, Haliburton and Okuro to be gone. I don’t think Haliburton falls past Pheonix who needs a combo guard. Okuro doesn’t fall past the wizards and Vassell doesn’t fall past the Spurs. They could all 3 go higher but I think their floor is before the Kings pick.
Last edited:
I agree that Vassell, Haliburton and Okoro will probably be gone before we pick. However, never say never. I'm always a little amused when it comes to upside, or at least how it's perceived. Not really sure how to judge it, but like everyone else, I know some part of my mind is making that assessment. People tend to look at the more finished players as having less upside, and the raw athletic players as having more. Thereby rewarding players for their lack of skills. Of course that's a generalization and it really comes down to each individual and their circumstance.
Lets say you have two players the same age and one is a lights out shooter and the other is below average. The good shooter is an average to a little above average athlete while the other is an elite athlete. So the question should be, why can't the athletic player shoot the ball as well as the other, and there may be very good reasons. But without knowing those reasons, how can you make an educated judgement about that players upside?
Did he come to the game late? Has he been able to dominate athletically to the extent he didn't work on other skills. Donte Green is an example of a player with great upside who didn't put in the work and therefore never reached his projected ceiling. I was a baseball player, and one God given attribute you need in order to be a good hitter, is hand/eye coordination. If you don't have it, you'll never be a good hitter. It can be improved, but in general, you either have it, or you don't. Sort of like, you can either run fast, or you can't.
I firmly believe that hand/eye coordination is just as important when it comes to shooting a basketball, along with depth perception. If you don't have those two things, you'll likely never be a good shooter. You might turn yourself into a decent catch and shoot player through repetition, if you put the work in, but you'll likely never shoot the ball well off the dribble. I think a player like Oladipo falls into that group. Okoro may be a similar player, and if so, that's OK, but at the end of the day, it probably means he never reaches his projected upside.
I've typed a lot of words to answer a simple question, but that's because I don't think it's simple. Upside can be fools gold, or it can be the mother lode. In this draft, if I wanted to take a big gamble that I think has a huge risk attached, I would draft Pokusevski. I think his upside is off the charts, but I also think his chance of reaching that upside is off the charts. But if he does, you likely have a superstar on your hands. Do I think the Kings should take that gamble? No! But it would be fun to watch if they did.
As for ranking those players, I think all of them have upside. In general we tend to rank the player with the most athleticism and the least amount of skills as the one with the most upside. So most would likely have Okoro at number one. I would have Vassell there followed by Haliburton, and then Okoro. Vassell is a terrific athlete who is also a very good shooter. I still think that Haliburton will be the best player out of this draft. Don't run down and place a bet on that.
Lets say you have two players the same age and one is a lights out shooter and the other is below average. The good shooter is an average to a little above average athlete while the other is an elite athlete. So the question should be, why can't the athletic player shoot the ball as well as the other, and there may be very good reasons. But without knowing those reasons, how can you make an educated judgement about that players upside?
Did he come to the game late? Has he been able to dominate athletically to the extent he didn't work on other skills. Donte Green is an example of a player with great upside who didn't put in the work and therefore never reached his projected ceiling. I was a baseball player, and one God given attribute you need in order to be a good hitter, is hand/eye coordination. If you don't have it, you'll never be a good hitter. It can be improved, but in general, you either have it, or you don't. Sort of like, you can either run fast, or you can't.
I firmly believe that hand/eye coordination is just as important when it comes to shooting a basketball, along with depth perception. If you don't have those two things, you'll likely never be a good shooter. You might turn yourself into a decent catch and shoot player through repetition, if you put the work in, but you'll likely never shoot the ball well off the dribble. I think a player like Oladipo falls into that group. Okoro may be a similar player, and if so, that's OK, but at the end of the day, it probably means he never reaches his projected upside.
I've typed a lot of words to answer a simple question, but that's because I don't think it's simple. Upside can be fools gold, or it can be the mother lode. In this draft, if I wanted to take a big gamble that I think has a huge risk attached, I would draft Pokusevski. I think his upside is off the charts, but I also think his chance of reaching that upside is off the charts. But if he does, you likely have a superstar on your hands. Do I think the Kings should take that gamble? No! But it would be fun to watch if they did.
As for ranking those players, I think all of them have upside. In general we tend to rank the player with the most athleticism and the least amount of skills as the one with the most upside. So most would likely have Okoro at number one. I would have Vassell there followed by Haliburton, and then Okoro. Vassell is a terrific athlete who is also a very good shooter. I still think that Haliburton will be the best player out of this draft. Don't run down and place a bet on that.
Wilt doesn’t get his due because there’s not unlimited video highlights for younger fans to watch.
As great as Wilt was, I believe Kareem has a much stronger case for GOAT. He won a lot more. Dunking was outlawed because of him.
If it wasn’t for rules disallowing freshman from playing Varsity, the dude would have led his teams to 10 titles between college and the NBA. Instead he had to settle for 9.
Then, of course, there is a great case to be made for Bill Russell too.
As great as Wilt was, I believe Kareem has a much stronger case for GOAT. He won a lot more. Dunking was outlawed because of him.
If it wasn’t for rules disallowing freshman from playing Varsity, the dude would have led his teams to 10 titles between college and the NBA. Instead he had to settle for 9.
Then, of course, there is a great case to be made for Bill Russell too.
I think context is important when looking at stats from different eras. Not only have rules changed over the decades in terms of what constitutes an assist or a rebound versus a team rebound, but also style of play.
If you look at league averages back in the 60’s, there were lots of dude averaging 15+ rebounds. 20+ rebounds was a lot more common than it is today or even 10, 20, even 30 years ago.
In terms of shooting, the 3 pt line didn’t exist until 1979.
There’s so much context to consider.
If you look at league averages back in the 60’s, there were lots of dude averaging 15+ rebounds. 20+ rebounds was a lot more common than it is today or even 10, 20, even 30 years ago.
In terms of shooting, the 3 pt line didn’t exist until 1979.
There’s so much context to consider.
Last edited:
I agree upside is in the eye of the beholder. Generally for me, upside is things God put in that practice can’t. Items I would include: length, stop/start ability (learned from Luka), first step, size/strength, BBIQ, lateral quickness, depth perception.
to me Williams checks a fair number of those boxes and would be my choice if SA doesn’t grab him.
to me Williams checks a fair number of those boxes and would be my choice if SA doesn’t grab him.
I certainly hope so. Part of the context I’m speaking of was Wilt often playing against much smaller opponents. Kinda like George Mikan too back in the day. It surely is not their fault they were bigger than everyone else back then, but that factor surely helped contributed to their individual dominance. Big men of 80’s, 90’s and new millennium didn’t have that advantage near as often. And they played in more competitive era.
I personally believe Kareem was the better big man. He developed the most indefensible shot in the history of the league. He’s also the league‘s all-time leading scorer.
As dominant as Wilt was his teams didn’t win as often as Kareem‘s teams did.
Jordan averaged over 30, but also led his team to 6 titles along with it. Wilt‘s stats are surely impressive, but they also were more possible to accomplish due to the circumstances of the era he played in.
I’m sure many will disagree, but I firmly believe if Wilt was transported into a much later era, his numbers wouldn’t have been as inflated. And he never produces anything close to a 100 point game.
Again, there is a lot of context to consider when comparing stats and accomplishments from drastically different eras.
I personally believe Kareem was the better big man. He developed the most indefensible shot in the history of the league. He’s also the league‘s all-time leading scorer.
As dominant as Wilt was his teams didn’t win as often as Kareem‘s teams did.
Jordan averaged over 30, but also led his team to 6 titles along with it. Wilt‘s stats are surely impressive, but they also were more possible to accomplish due to the circumstances of the era he played in.
I’m sure many will disagree, but I firmly believe if Wilt was transported into a much later era, his numbers wouldn’t have been as inflated. And he never produces anything close to a 100 point game.
Again, there is a lot of context to consider when comparing stats and accomplishments from drastically different eras.
You mention a different era allowed him to accomplish those feats, yet no one else in that era accomplished them. You give Kareem credit for winning more titles, but he had Magic, Worthy, Baylor, Macado just to name a few HOFers that helped get there. When Wilt had good teams around him, he also won 2 titles. Most of his career he was going up against a Celtics team that was loaded with HOFers and coached by one of the greatest coaches ever.
I’m curious if we can make roster moves before the draft making our draft target a bit more clear.
I saw a proposed trade sending a signed Bogdan to Indiana for Turner. Such a scenario would clear up Buddy’s starting status but would also make pursuing another facilitator in the draft a higher priority.
I saw a proposed trade sending a signed Bogdan to Indiana for Turner. Such a scenario would clear up Buddy’s starting status but would also make pursuing another facilitator in the draft a higher priority.
In 1972 Wilt at the age of 35 went up against Kareem at the age of 24 in the champiohships and dominated him while winning the championship with the Lakers. Wilt may have been the only center during Kareem's career to block his sky hook. If Wilt were to come into the league today, with all the modern training technics and medical advances, how much better do you think he might have been. Shaq was able to bench press 450 Lb's. That's an impressive number. Wilt once bench pressed 600 Lb's. At the age of 52, while working out with the Terminator, Arnold, he bench pressed 475 Lb's. Wilt was 7'1" in his bare feet, and had a 7'6" wingspan. He's reported to have a plus 40 vertical. He also was one of the fastest players in the NBA.
If Wilt would have had the chance to go up against Shaq in his prime, he would have crushed him. Wilt grabbed a lot of rebounds not only because he was tall and could jump high, but because he was stronger than anyone else on the floor. He'd rip the ball right out of your hands. If Wilt had been surrounded by better players during his career he would have won more than two championships.
If Wilt would have had the chance to go up against Shaq in his prime, he would have crushed him. Wilt grabbed a lot of rebounds not only because he was tall and could jump high, but because he was stronger than anyone else on the floor. He'd rip the ball right out of your hands. If Wilt had been surrounded by better players during his career he would have won more than two championships.
No, I mentioned him being twice a big (hyperbole, I know) as most other players that largely allowed him to accomplish those feats. Which is why nobody else accomplished them. Bill Russell was Wilt’s biggest rival. He was barely 215, 220 pounds.
Imagine Shaq in his prime playing against 220 pound center’s every night. Are you kidding me?
If Wilt played in the 90’s against Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, etc. He‘d surely be a star player, but not averaging 25+ rebounds and no chance at scoring 100 in a game. No chance.
Fair point about the loaded Celtics. But if Wilt was as great and dominant as everyone beleives, his teams should have won more. But they didn’t.
Kareem won with a rookie Magic that couldn’t shoot the ball.
BTW, how many center’s have been go to guys at the end of games? Kareem sure was.
Imagine Shaq in his prime playing against 220 pound center’s every night. Are you kidding me?
If Wilt played in the 90’s against Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, etc. He‘d surely be a star player, but not averaging 25+ rebounds and no chance at scoring 100 in a game. No chance.
Fair point about the loaded Celtics. But if Wilt was as great and dominant as everyone beleives, his teams should have won more. But they didn’t.
Kareem won with a rookie Magic that couldn’t shoot the ball.
BTW, how many center’s have been go to guys at the end of games? Kareem sure was.
Last edited:
Yes, I’m aware he blocked Kareem’s skyhook. From both hands in the same sequence. That’s surely impressive. But he didn’t block many of them.
Much of Kareem’s career had him matching up with guys he couldn’t just push around simply because he was stronger and had 100 pounds on them. Kareem was 7’2, but all of about 230 pounds. He had to rely more on skill than brute size and strength.
Just look at the average sizes of the players Wilt had defending him. When you factor in Wilt’s talent and skill, is it really all that amazing that he dominated like he did? Not to me. Same goes for George Mikan.
As I said in the other reply, if Shaq swapped eras with Wilt he would have dominated much smaller players similarly. He wasn’t near as skilled passing it, of course, or even defensively, but nobody would have been able to keep him from the rim. Period.
In his early years, Shaq was easily as athletic as Wilt. And it doesn’t matter whether he could lift as much weight as Wilt. His size, weight and athleticism alone was enough to annihilate the competition of that era. Hell, he bullied every 280 pound center he faced in the 90’s and 2000’s. Of course he’s going to score 100 at some point when guarded by a 220 dude.
Sorry, but I completely disagree that Wilt would have ”crushed“ Shaq. I am more than willing to stipulate that Wilt was the better all-around player (than Shaq). But that doesn’t mean he’d crush him. Shaq would have more than held his own. And got the better of Wilt now and then.
As for Kareem, you mention a time when Wilt got the better of him. But the exact opposite also happened. I’m not going to look it up to double check right now, but IIRC their career head2head was nearly even. Something like 14-13 in favor of Wilt. Not that it matters since they were team matchups and not just head2head.
Plus it’s fair acknowledge that Wilt’s Lakers team’s at that time had more overall talent than the Bucks. And Kareem was in his early year’s lacking the experience Wilt had.
In the end, we all have our own opinion. All of this back and forth is subjective opinion. I acknowledge that.
And to be crystal clear, I’m not suggesting Wilt isn’t among the greatest of all-time. He most definitely is. Anyone arguing that he’s the GOAT has a valid argument. I just happen to disagree with that argument.
As far as centers go, I’m going with Kareem. When both players were in their prime and at their absolute best, I believe Kareem was the better player. And had to go against opponents much more physically able to compete with him.
You clearly disagree, which I respect. And I cannot say that you are wrong. Only that I disagree.
In the end, the main point I was really trying to make has been lost in the shuffle. And that point remains that there’s a ton of context that needs to be considered when viewing career stats, especially across different eras.
Much of Kareem’s career had him matching up with guys he couldn’t just push around simply because he was stronger and had 100 pounds on them. Kareem was 7’2, but all of about 230 pounds. He had to rely more on skill than brute size and strength.
Just look at the average sizes of the players Wilt had defending him. When you factor in Wilt’s talent and skill, is it really all that amazing that he dominated like he did? Not to me. Same goes for George Mikan.
As I said in the other reply, if Shaq swapped eras with Wilt he would have dominated much smaller players similarly. He wasn’t near as skilled passing it, of course, or even defensively, but nobody would have been able to keep him from the rim. Period.
In his early years, Shaq was easily as athletic as Wilt. And it doesn’t matter whether he could lift as much weight as Wilt. His size, weight and athleticism alone was enough to annihilate the competition of that era. Hell, he bullied every 280 pound center he faced in the 90’s and 2000’s. Of course he’s going to score 100 at some point when guarded by a 220 dude.
Sorry, but I completely disagree that Wilt would have ”crushed“ Shaq. I am more than willing to stipulate that Wilt was the better all-around player (than Shaq). But that doesn’t mean he’d crush him. Shaq would have more than held his own. And got the better of Wilt now and then.
As for Kareem, you mention a time when Wilt got the better of him. But the exact opposite also happened. I’m not going to look it up to double check right now, but IIRC their career head2head was nearly even. Something like 14-13 in favor of Wilt. Not that it matters since they were team matchups and not just head2head.
Plus it’s fair acknowledge that Wilt’s Lakers team’s at that time had more overall talent than the Bucks. And Kareem was in his early year’s lacking the experience Wilt had.
In the end, we all have our own opinion. All of this back and forth is subjective opinion. I acknowledge that.
And to be crystal clear, I’m not suggesting Wilt isn’t among the greatest of all-time. He most definitely is. Anyone arguing that he’s the GOAT has a valid argument. I just happen to disagree with that argument.
As far as centers go, I’m going with Kareem. When both players were in their prime and at their absolute best, I believe Kareem was the better player. And had to go against opponents much more physically able to compete with him.
You clearly disagree, which I respect. And I cannot say that you are wrong. Only that I disagree.
In the end, the main point I was really trying to make has been lost in the shuffle. And that point remains that there’s a ton of context that needs to be considered when viewing career stats, especially across different eras.
Last edited:
Pretty certain Turner would require Bogie (S&T) + #12. Or Buddy + #12. Value is fine, but I'm of the belief that the Kings need to be acquiring picks rather than trading picks away. And hell no to taking on salary (i.e, Horford or Harris) unless significant assets (picks, Thybulle/Richardson) are coming with them.
I’ve been thinking along the same lines, especially if we don’t retain Bogdan. However I haven’t warmed up to Cole Anthony yet and I do understand his North Carolina team was bad which didn’t help his cause.
Kira Lewis on the other hand if there at 12 would interest as he can backup Fox and can potentially play along side him. For that matter I’ve seen mocks that have Haliburton fall to 12, in which case thats my pick though it’s unlikely.
Kira Lewis on the other hand if there at 12 would interest as he can backup Fox and can potentially play along side him. For that matter I’ve seen mocks that have Haliburton fall to 12, in which case thats my pick though it’s unlikely.