Hope for the highest pick possible outside of #1 because then of course the options are much bigger and try to get two lotto picks we could possibly pick up both Marshall and T. Jones. IM glad some people are starting to view Marshall in the same light I do the kid is a TRUE PG not flashy but gets the job done.
It's early, but anybody have a draft wish list yet?
- Thread starter bluntsnbball
- Start date
No, he's not. The only thing Barnes does clearly better is shooting the ball. MKG is a better ballhandler, passer, rebounder and defender. So as far as all-aroundness goes it's the other way around. Also MKG was the youngest guy in college basketball this season.
Melo is springy but he's not mobile so 'Cuse zone was perfect for him. Melo has weight issues though it seems he worked really hard last summer to improve conditioning. Still if you can get him in the second round you take him and run but the problem is he won't be.
Two years ago all he could do was run and dunk. Now there seems to be signs of versatile offensive game that has both power and finesse. Versatile defender as well, just not a paing protector. Always draft BPA. If Kings have #8 and he's there you take him without any thought.
Melo is springy but he's not mobile so 'Cuse zone was perfect for him. Melo has weight issues though it seems he worked really hard last summer to improve conditioning. Still if you can get him in the second round you take him and run but the problem is he won't be.
Two years ago all he could do was run and dunk. Now there seems to be signs of versatile offensive game that has both power and finesse. Versatile defender as well, just not a paing protector. Always draft BPA. If Kings have #8 and he's there you take him without any thought.
I think we are due for the #1 pick!
Draft Davis and trade Thornton for a SF (Batum), sign a veteran PG who can play both PG and SG position and is a good defender (Kirk Hinrich), re-sign JT and we would be set.
C: Cousins
PF: Davis
SF: Batum
SG: Evans
PG: Hinrich
6th: Thomas
7th: Thompson
8th: Salmons (he has been good off the bench and if we give him a prominent role as a primary option off the bench we could flog him off to a contender by trade deadline)
9th: Hayes
10th: Garcia
and would like to keep Greene (on the cheap), Whiteside, Jimmer (give him a bit of time to develop), Honeycutt and maybe even Williams. Whiteside, Honeycutt and Jimmer would be just about certainties to keep for me and Greene is a good chemistry guy who the right coach might user properly.
Oh and sack Smart and sign McMillan to a multi-year deal.
Draft Davis and trade Thornton for a SF (Batum), sign a veteran PG who can play both PG and SG position and is a good defender (Kirk Hinrich), re-sign JT and we would be set.
C: Cousins
PF: Davis
SF: Batum
SG: Evans
PG: Hinrich
6th: Thomas
7th: Thompson
8th: Salmons (he has been good off the bench and if we give him a prominent role as a primary option off the bench we could flog him off to a contender by trade deadline)
9th: Hayes
10th: Garcia
and would like to keep Greene (on the cheap), Whiteside, Jimmer (give him a bit of time to develop), Honeycutt and maybe even Williams. Whiteside, Honeycutt and Jimmer would be just about certainties to keep for me and Greene is a good chemistry guy who the right coach might user properly.
Oh and sack Smart and sign McMillan to a multi-year deal.
Oh, my, my, my aren't we on the same path? Exactly as a matter of fact. The goals could be reached in a variety of ways but we are as like minded as any two could possibly be.
Edit: I realize as do you that getting Davis is a wish and not a certainty as is a trade to get Batum but the general ideas are in place. I suspect that if we don't have a shot at #1, we would come darn close in agreeing on who to draft and how that might effect who we trade for. Thornton can be traded for a variety of pieces to the puzzle. The wonderful part of this deal is that it doesn't rely on a major FA signing.
Edit: I realize as do you that getting Davis is a wish and not a certainty as is a trade to get Batum but the general ideas are in place. I suspect that if we don't have a shot at #1, we would come darn close in agreeing on who to draft and how that might effect who we trade for. Thornton can be traded for a variety of pieces to the puzzle. The wonderful part of this deal is that it doesn't rely on a major FA signing.
Last edited:
Pretty much dead on. I'd be more inclined to take Festus Ezeli in the second round before Fab Melo. Better athlete, and bigger upside. Robinson at number 8 would be the steal of the draft. Wouldn't count on that happening. Totally agree on MKG. He has the handles of a PG, and is great passer. But the biggest thing that separates him from Barnes, is his motor and aggression. Give this kid a consistent longrange jumpshot, and your looking at a future superstar.
Exactly the point! We don't need a big name FA. We just need the right type of FAs or just plain recruits. To me Thornton for someone like Batum is a no brainer and arguably a win win for both teams. We just get better balanced both offensively and defensively.
The PG is also more of a combo guard who can play on and off the ball and defend both guard positions. In other words re-claiming Beno with hopefully more defense. It needs to be a veteran that can stabilize the team when it needs it. Hinrich is the obvious choice and I think Jack from NO would also be a great get for us and our needs at that position. I know Jack has a "history" with Sacramento while he was still with Toronto but he is the type of player we should be looking for.
The most troublesome position would be that ever elusive defensive anchor at PF/C and this is where we need a bit of luck in getting Davis as there is nothing in FA that fits the bill and players that would fit the bill just flat out will not be traded by their team (eg. Ibaka)
It's no rocket science. All we need is a clear direction and willingness to trade and/or spend money on quality players and coaches. Which brings us to our main problem...the top...fish always stinks from the head!
The PG is also more of a combo guard who can play on and off the ball and defend both guard positions. In other words re-claiming Beno with hopefully more defense. It needs to be a veteran that can stabilize the team when it needs it. Hinrich is the obvious choice and I think Jack from NO would also be a great get for us and our needs at that position. I know Jack has a "history" with Sacramento while he was still with Toronto but he is the type of player we should be looking for.
The most troublesome position would be that ever elusive defensive anchor at PF/C and this is where we need a bit of luck in getting Davis as there is nothing in FA that fits the bill and players that would fit the bill just flat out will not be traded by their team (eg. Ibaka)
It's no rocket science. All we need is a clear direction and willingness to trade and/or spend money on quality players and coaches. Which brings us to our main problem...the top...fish always stinks from the head!
I hope anyone that had doubts about Anthony Davis watched yesterday's game. 18 pts, 14 rebounds, 5 blocked shots, and only 2 personal fouls. He showed off his entire weapons cabinent. This is one very skilled young man. As Calapari put it. You have a 6'2" talented guard, inside a 6'10" athletic body. He is such a composed young man to the point of being amazing. I know it would take a miracle for us to get him, but if there was ever a time for a miracle, this is the time. Put him along side Cousins, and you'll come the closest to a Duncan/Robinson frontcourt that we've ever seen since them. I can only dream!
I was looking back at a few of the past drafts and I can't get over how similar Harrison Barnes' situation is to Rudy Gay. Both had huge hype going into college, solid but unspectacular Freshman years, and both were considered contenders for the #1 pick going into their Sophomore years, and neither delivered on expectations. Both guys are about the same size and had the same skill level in college, Barnes may not have the freak athleticism that Gay had, but he is still above average. The same criticisms that we are hearing about Barnes were all applied to Gay- passiveness, lack of ball handling, lack of ability to create his shot, overall poor production in college and inability to take over games- which lead to Gay falling to the 8th pick (and traded).
Looking back at the 06 draft, Gay should have been at worst the 4th pick, with Aldridge, Roy (although his knee issues were known at the draft, so in hindsight he should probably fall) and possibly Bargnani being picked ahead of him (I excluded Rondo as no one considered him a lottery pick).
So why did Gay fall to 8th in a very weak draft?
GMs put way too much emphasis on his lack of college production, and opted for more proven college guys even though they may have trouble translating their games to the pros. For example, the guys drafted ahead of Gay:
Adam Morrison- no real comparison to anyone in this draft, but had widespread criticism that his game wouldn't translate to the pros.
Tyrus Thomas- Explosive athlete who could dominate the college game with his size and athleticism, but slightly undersized and not that skilled, so his advantages in college didn't translate. (Thomas Robinson)
Sheldon Williams- Great production in college but was doomed in the NBA by his lack of height and mobility (Sullinger)
Randy Foye- Great college scorer with a good all around game but his lack of size as a SG keeps him as a bench player/fringe starter (Beal)
Coincidentally, Draft Express has Robinson, Sullinger, and Beal all ranked ahead of Barnes on their mock, along with Drummond, who has just as much bust potential as Morrison did.
Maybe we shouldn't write off Barnes so quickly.
Looking back at the 06 draft, Gay should have been at worst the 4th pick, with Aldridge, Roy (although his knee issues were known at the draft, so in hindsight he should probably fall) and possibly Bargnani being picked ahead of him (I excluded Rondo as no one considered him a lottery pick).
So why did Gay fall to 8th in a very weak draft?
GMs put way too much emphasis on his lack of college production, and opted for more proven college guys even though they may have trouble translating their games to the pros. For example, the guys drafted ahead of Gay:
Adam Morrison- no real comparison to anyone in this draft, but had widespread criticism that his game wouldn't translate to the pros.
Tyrus Thomas- Explosive athlete who could dominate the college game with his size and athleticism, but slightly undersized and not that skilled, so his advantages in college didn't translate. (Thomas Robinson)
Sheldon Williams- Great production in college but was doomed in the NBA by his lack of height and mobility (Sullinger)
Randy Foye- Great college scorer with a good all around game but his lack of size as a SG keeps him as a bench player/fringe starter (Beal)
Coincidentally, Draft Express has Robinson, Sullinger, and Beal all ranked ahead of Barnes on their mock, along with Drummond, who has just as much bust potential as Morrison did.
Maybe we shouldn't write off Barnes so quickly.
At no point was Barnes considered #1 pick. After his decision to return he was projected as a top-5 pick but ever since Drummond reclassified he was a lock for #1 until Davis moved into that role in the middle of this season.
Gay has nice first step and handles, Barnes - not so nice. If he can improve that, yes, he can be compared to Gay. But those things are really hard to improve and more importantly there doesn't seem to be any improvement while Gay showed slight expansion of his game inhis sophomore year.
Freshman Thomas Robinson was actually comparable to Tyrus Thomas, well, minus blocking plus rebounding. But right now Robinson is showing signs of a versatile offensive player and considering he's improved a lot in two years there seems to be more to come. If you want, Robinson is Tyrus Thomas with work ethic and a chip on his shoulders.
Williams' game was based solely on power, Sullinger is so much better offensive player it's not close though defensively Shelden will always be better.
Beal is already as good as Foye and he's freshman in college.
Drummond's worst case scenario is Kwame Brown with good hands and blocking. Yes, if you draft him at #3 and only get that player it's not very good but it won't be as bad as 2-time NBA champion either.
Gay has nice first step and handles, Barnes - not so nice. If he can improve that, yes, he can be compared to Gay. But those things are really hard to improve and more importantly there doesn't seem to be any improvement while Gay showed slight expansion of his game inhis sophomore year.
Freshman Thomas Robinson was actually comparable to Tyrus Thomas, well, minus blocking plus rebounding. But right now Robinson is showing signs of a versatile offensive player and considering he's improved a lot in two years there seems to be more to come. If you want, Robinson is Tyrus Thomas with work ethic and a chip on his shoulders.
Williams' game was based solely on power, Sullinger is so much better offensive player it's not close though defensively Shelden will always be better.
Beal is already as good as Foye and he's freshman in college.
Drummond's worst case scenario is Kwame Brown with good hands and blocking. Yes, if you draft him at #3 and only get that player it's not very good but it won't be as bad as 2-time NBA champion either.
I'll be honest, I've been watching basketball a long time, and when I watch Barnes, never has the image of Rudy Gay sprang into my mind. Barnes isn't nearly as athletic as Gay, and can't come close to being the defender he is. I've always looked at Gay as a streach 4, capable of playing both PF and SF. I can't ever envision Barnes playing at the PF position. I think one of the reasons Gay fell from grace a little his sophmore year, is that his outside shot was extremely inconsistent. And still is to some extent. He's always been a streaky shooter.
Until we really know Robinson's true height, I'm not going to call him undersized. As I've previously stated, I had this exact conversation about Blake Griffin, and he turned out to be the size that was advertized. You just can't tell on television. That aside, Robinson is an entirely different player than Thomas, who I didn't like coming out of college, and I still don't like.
Comparing Sullinger to Williams comes the closest to ridiculous. I hated Williams coming out of college. He was totally earthbound, had little to no mobility, and just wasn't very skilled overall. Sullinger may be a below the rim player, but he's a very skilled post player, and far more mobile than Sheldon. I personally wouldn't take Sullinger in the top five, and maybe not in the top ten, depending on whose there. But I think he'll be a good player in the NBA on the right team. Now if he measures out at the combine at 6'7", then I'll change my mind.
I predict right here and now, that Bradley Beal will be a star in the NBA. He's a better player right now than Foye ever thought of being. If lack of size was the determining factor, then Eric Gordon would be a fringe player, and so would Marcus Thornton. Beal is a terrific athlete, he's listed at 6'4" in shoes, and he has a huge wingspan for his size. And as Jerry Reynolds said, you don't rebound with the top of your head.
However, if it makes you feel any better, I have Barnes ranked at number 5, and thats ahead of Sullinger, and Beal. I happen to like Barnes, and think he'll be a better NBA player than he was a college player. Hey, its just everyone's opinion, and its not an exact science. Well, it is when the name is Anthony Davis.
Until we really know Robinson's true height, I'm not going to call him undersized. As I've previously stated, I had this exact conversation about Blake Griffin, and he turned out to be the size that was advertized. You just can't tell on television. That aside, Robinson is an entirely different player than Thomas, who I didn't like coming out of college, and I still don't like.
Comparing Sullinger to Williams comes the closest to ridiculous. I hated Williams coming out of college. He was totally earthbound, had little to no mobility, and just wasn't very skilled overall. Sullinger may be a below the rim player, but he's a very skilled post player, and far more mobile than Sheldon. I personally wouldn't take Sullinger in the top five, and maybe not in the top ten, depending on whose there. But I think he'll be a good player in the NBA on the right team. Now if he measures out at the combine at 6'7", then I'll change my mind.
I predict right here and now, that Bradley Beal will be a star in the NBA. He's a better player right now than Foye ever thought of being. If lack of size was the determining factor, then Eric Gordon would be a fringe player, and so would Marcus Thornton. Beal is a terrific athlete, he's listed at 6'4" in shoes, and he has a huge wingspan for his size. And as Jerry Reynolds said, you don't rebound with the top of your head.
However, if it makes you feel any better, I have Barnes ranked at number 5, and thats ahead of Sullinger, and Beal. I happen to like Barnes, and think he'll be a better NBA player than he was a college player. Hey, its just everyone's opinion, and its not an exact science. Well, it is when the name is Anthony Davis.
Actually Barnes was the consensus number 1 pick and a pre-season all-american before he played a game of college basketball. He's been on a slow downhill slide ever since, but I continue to defend him as a top 5 prospect because I think the draft is about finding the player with the best longterm potential, not the player with the best production to-date.
If I were to rank this year's class in terms of who the best players are today, it would be Davis, Gilchrist, and Robinson at the top of the list. It gets a little trickier after that but everyone knows who the other top guys are, in some order. But if I were to instead rank them on who will have the best NBA career, I would put Drummond and Barnes at the top of the list. And there are all sorts of reasons for that which are difficult for me to explain. Some if it is intuition, some of it is personality, some of it is high school performance. Some of it has to do with the physical differences between college athletes and pro athletes. I love Davis, Gilchrist, and Robinson as players and I think they'll all have success in the NBA. In fact, it would be hard to pass on any of them because the guaranteed production is there. But I'd say that Drummond and Barnes have the best chance at being NBA All-Stars.
In general I think a lot of teams miss on the draft because they overemphasize college production and pre-draft workouts. Winning in college has a lot to do with coaches, teammates, team environment, and so on. We have no way of knowing how Barnes' performance would have changed if you put him in Calipari's system, for instance. You could overreact to his past two games and call Barnes a fraud as a first option, but I think if you look at his overall career it's pretty clear that he has strengths and limitations and parts of his game that he will probably improve and others he might not. The biggest question for every prospect coming in is always how much do they want to improve and how hard will they work to get there. With Barnes I really believe he's going to continue to improve his skillset every season for quite awhile. He doesn't have freak athleticism like a Rudy Gay, but he has ideal size and length for a wing player and a very well-rounded and developing set of basketball skills.
If I were to rank this year's class in terms of who the best players are today, it would be Davis, Gilchrist, and Robinson at the top of the list. It gets a little trickier after that but everyone knows who the other top guys are, in some order. But if I were to instead rank them on who will have the best NBA career, I would put Drummond and Barnes at the top of the list. And there are all sorts of reasons for that which are difficult for me to explain. Some if it is intuition, some of it is personality, some of it is high school performance. Some of it has to do with the physical differences between college athletes and pro athletes. I love Davis, Gilchrist, and Robinson as players and I think they'll all have success in the NBA. In fact, it would be hard to pass on any of them because the guaranteed production is there. But I'd say that Drummond and Barnes have the best chance at being NBA All-Stars.
In general I think a lot of teams miss on the draft because they overemphasize college production and pre-draft workouts. Winning in college has a lot to do with coaches, teammates, team environment, and so on. We have no way of knowing how Barnes' performance would have changed if you put him in Calipari's system, for instance. You could overreact to his past two games and call Barnes a fraud as a first option, but I think if you look at his overall career it's pretty clear that he has strengths and limitations and parts of his game that he will probably improve and others he might not. The biggest question for every prospect coming in is always how much do they want to improve and how hard will they work to get there. With Barnes I really believe he's going to continue to improve his skillset every season for quite awhile. He doesn't have freak athleticism like a Rudy Gay, but he has ideal size and length for a wing player and a very well-rounded and developing set of basketball skills.
I just love these kind of discussions. Everyone has a different view of the same scene, and I find that interesting. Of course the longer you study a scene, the more likely you are, to see more than just what meets the eye on first glance. As I said, I have Barnes at number 5. I had him at number 3 earlier in the year, and his downward movement had more to do with other people moving up, than bad play by him. His last two games didn't affect my opinion of him at all. You draft on a players overall talent, and his overall play throughout the year. And since I saw him play around 25 times, I'm certainly not going to let a couple of games change my mind.
I agree and disagree on who will or might be an all star. I agree, that both Drummond and Barnes have the potential to be all stars, but as Vince Lombardi said, the word potential means, "You haven't done anything yet". Thats especially true of Drummond. When you consider the hype attached to both him and Davis, and if you use Davis as a measuring stick, Drummond was extremely disappointiing. And this wasn't a similar situation as Derrick Favors faced at Georgia Tech, where the guard play was horrible. He simply undercheived.
Now defensively, he did improve as the year went on, as did his rebounding. But he never entered the rare air of Anthony Davis. But unlike P. Jones III, Drummond seemed to be feeling his way, as opposed to just not being aggressive. Here's the thing. I watched Drummond play in highschool as well as the Adidas nations, and Jordan Brand games. The knock on him there, and still, was that he tends to disappear at times. Thats my worry with him. I agree with Smart. I'd rather have a player thats full of fire, and emotional, than someone you have to light a fire under. Regardless of the talent.
So I have mixed emotions about the kid. He's loaded with talent, and even if he never reaches his potential, your going to have a good player. But as for who will be an all star. I would bet my life on both Gilchrist and Davis. They're both loaded with talent, and the fire that makes a player into an all star. So barring injury, I think both of them are shue in's at some point in their careers.
As far as evaluating players goes, I mostly go with what my eyes tell me. I also take into account the level of competition, and in many cases, the system he plays in. If he's a big, how good are the guards on the team, and how well do they get him the ball in the proper place at the proper time? If he's a PG, how good is the talent around him? Hard to get assists when no one can make a shot. So in that case, how good were his passes that should have been assists.
While I think stats serve their purpose, they can also be misleading. If your the best, and the only good player on a college team, and you get double teamed every time down the floor, your stats are likely to lower than a good player loaded with other good players. The bottom line is, you may well have lower stats, and be a better player than someone with better stats.
Anyway, I've gone on too long about this. This is my favorite time of the year going forward. The hard part is that there's always a couple of players that I lust for, and no there's no way we'll end up with them. Other than a miracle.
I agree and disagree on who will or might be an all star. I agree, that both Drummond and Barnes have the potential to be all stars, but as Vince Lombardi said, the word potential means, "You haven't done anything yet". Thats especially true of Drummond. When you consider the hype attached to both him and Davis, and if you use Davis as a measuring stick, Drummond was extremely disappointiing. And this wasn't a similar situation as Derrick Favors faced at Georgia Tech, where the guard play was horrible. He simply undercheived.
Now defensively, he did improve as the year went on, as did his rebounding. But he never entered the rare air of Anthony Davis. But unlike P. Jones III, Drummond seemed to be feeling his way, as opposed to just not being aggressive. Here's the thing. I watched Drummond play in highschool as well as the Adidas nations, and Jordan Brand games. The knock on him there, and still, was that he tends to disappear at times. Thats my worry with him. I agree with Smart. I'd rather have a player thats full of fire, and emotional, than someone you have to light a fire under. Regardless of the talent.
So I have mixed emotions about the kid. He's loaded with talent, and even if he never reaches his potential, your going to have a good player. But as for who will be an all star. I would bet my life on both Gilchrist and Davis. They're both loaded with talent, and the fire that makes a player into an all star. So barring injury, I think both of them are shue in's at some point in their careers.
As far as evaluating players goes, I mostly go with what my eyes tell me. I also take into account the level of competition, and in many cases, the system he plays in. If he's a big, how good are the guards on the team, and how well do they get him the ball in the proper place at the proper time? If he's a PG, how good is the talent around him? Hard to get assists when no one can make a shot. So in that case, how good were his passes that should have been assists.
While I think stats serve their purpose, they can also be misleading. If your the best, and the only good player on a college team, and you get double teamed every time down the floor, your stats are likely to lower than a good player loaded with other good players. The bottom line is, you may well have lower stats, and be a better player than someone with better stats.
Anyway, I've gone on too long about this. This is my favorite time of the year going forward. The hard part is that there's always a couple of players that I lust for, and no there's no way we'll end up with them. Other than a miracle.
Last edited:
ehhh.. I am a Kentucky guy and I am not totally sold on MKG yet. I think Barnes is better all around (by a VERY slim margin). I am looking at the whole year though and not just the tourney. One of the bog reasons I go with Barnes is because of the projected starting lineup next year. IT/Evans/Barnes/JT/DMC would be a better team imo than IT/Evans/MKG/JT/DMC. Opens up the offense a bit more. We need our SF to hit 3s if we start Evans at 2 or they could just clog the middle and take away drives. But I do agree MKG has a higher ceiling than Barnes and MKG would fit better with our current lineup if Evans was on the bench. It's just my pick based on who I think will be starting next year.
I am not worried about Melo because he's going to come cheap as either a late first rounder or an early second rounder. He's worth the look, and could provide a HUGE boost in interior D.
As for Robinson I would do it if we were up to pick and he was still on the board. Probably because we need depth in the front court more than anything.
I am not worried about Melo because he's going to come cheap as either a late first rounder or an early second rounder. He's worth the look, and could provide a HUGE boost in interior D.
As for Robinson I would do it if we were up to pick and he was still on the board. Probably because we need depth in the front court more than anything.
Last edited:
keep in mind that Barnes is also a sophomore and MKG is still a rook. The edge MKG has is his intensity, which i believe would mean A LOT for a kings team that seems to slack off quite a bit. I too am very concerned with the 3pt shooters with him as the starting 3 however. we would definitely need to stack the bench with guys that can defend and shoot 3's, the problem is, we've been looking for those guys for years now!
I really think so many guys in this draft look like they could be studs so what im looking for is energy, intensity, effort, and leadership. Barnes may be the better player than MKG right now, but i just dont see the intensity or leadership in him.
So then my question becomes, which guys in this draft have the greatest amounts of leadership and work ethic? Seems like MKG is an obvious choice, Davis seems to have the energy and effort as well as robinson and maybe sullinger (who i dont really want next to cousins), but after that i think those intangibles drop off and we'll have to settle for another guy with a high ceiling but wont necessarily help out the team in the short term.
I think its the shooting ability that Barnes has that he's referring to. My take on it, is not to think in the short term, but which player will be the best player in one year, two years etc. I've heard scouts compare MKG to Scotty Pippen. Some to Michael Jordan when he came out of college. Thats high praise for what its worth. Point is, MKG's potential is off the charts, and Barnes isn't. I think its short sighted to pick and choose, based on who we have on the roster right now. If we draft Barnes, and he's automaticly the second best player on the roster, who cares how he fits with an inferior player.
I've seen Kentucky play around 30 times this year, and in just about all of those games, even games when MKG only scored 6 or 8 pts, he still impacted the game. The only way Barnes can impact a game is by scoring. And I'm not knocking that. You have to score to win. But he doesn't have all the other intangibles that MKG has. I'll admit that I'm very very biased. I got hooked on this kid when I saw him play in an all star game his junior year of highschool. I've followed him ever since. Look up the word winner, and you'll find his picture over it. But hey, I know I'm singing to the choir here.
I've seen Kentucky play around 30 times this year, and in just about all of those games, even games when MKG only scored 6 or 8 pts, he still impacted the game. The only way Barnes can impact a game is by scoring. And I'm not knocking that. You have to score to win. But he doesn't have all the other intangibles that MKG has. I'll admit that I'm very very biased. I got hooked on this kid when I saw him play in an all star game his junior year of highschool. I've followed him ever since. Look up the word winner, and you'll find his picture over it. But hey, I know I'm singing to the choir here.
I think you're seriously underrating his offensive talent. What Barnes has that MKG doesn't right now is true triple threat potential. In the college game he doesn't have the ball control or the first step to attack one-on-one and get to the rim when he wants to-- but if you open the floor up for the wider three point arc and you put him with teammates who might pull a double team, his offensive skillset becomes much more dangerous. He's got a smooth set jump shot out to NBA three point range but he can also put the ball on the floor. For whatever reason he doesn't appear to have the lateral quickness or explosiveness to get around defenders but if you give him a step, such as a late-rotating defender, he can take the ball at you and create contact. He averaged 5 free throw attempts per game this year. He can also pull up off the dribble and shoot from midrange with accuracy. And he's also looked very comfortable scoring on fast break opportunities. It's an NBA-ready offensive skillset.
I realize that there's not a lot to be gained by watching only Youtube highlight reels but remember this is still the guy who put up games like this last year:
40 Points Against Clemson
26 Points Against Texas
Look at how many different ways he scores in those videos. He's struggled with his shot at times over the last two seasons, but his overall percentages are respectable. And if he continues to work on consistency he could eventually be one of the best shooters in the NBA. He's got that high release point which is hard to block and he seems equally comfortable shooting from anywhere on the floor which is not that common at the college level. When he takes one escape dribble to set up his jumper he's particularly deadly. I struggle to make good comparisons, but I liken his offensive game to Paul Pierce. It often looks sloppy but he gets results. If he can tighten up his ball handling and continue to improve his jump shot consistency the sky is the limit for him offensively. These are skills he already has in his arsenal, he just has to refine them.
For all the talk about his offensive skills, you really can't discount his defense either. He works hard on the defensive end, and although he doesn't rack up a lot of blocks or steals, he stays in front of his man and makes it difficult for them to get to the rim. That's the fundamental skill every defender has to have and Barnes has shown that since his freshman season. Again, it's not about jaw dropping individual performance with him. But you watch what he's doing and you put it in a team context and he's doing everything he needs to do on the defensive end. If he never gets better than he is right now, he's already a solid do-it-all third option on a good team. He's been criticized the most for not having a desire to take over games, but that might actually make him a good fit on a team which already has established scorers on the perimeter and in the paint.
I brought up MKG earlier because the only criticism I have with his game, and he's been my favorite player in college this year by a wide margin, is that his offense is limited right now to put backs, cuts to the basket, and taking defenders off the dribble. As bajaden said, he does so many other things so well that I would happily live with his limitations if he's still on the board, but it is a concern particularly on a team like ours which is starved for outside shooters. As we've seen with Tyreke, defenses can adjust to take away the drive or the outside shot but it's very hard to take away both. I'm a sucker for tough-minded defensive players so there's no contest I'd prefer Gilchrist to Barnes but he's going to have to grow and adapt as well to be a two-way player. It's really his intangibles that distinguish him from everyone else (MKG that is), but in terms of pure skill level I think Barnes is closer to being that coveted two-way difference maker than MKG is right now.
I realize that there's not a lot to be gained by watching only Youtube highlight reels but remember this is still the guy who put up games like this last year:
40 Points Against Clemson
26 Points Against Texas
Look at how many different ways he scores in those videos. He's struggled with his shot at times over the last two seasons, but his overall percentages are respectable. And if he continues to work on consistency he could eventually be one of the best shooters in the NBA. He's got that high release point which is hard to block and he seems equally comfortable shooting from anywhere on the floor which is not that common at the college level. When he takes one escape dribble to set up his jumper he's particularly deadly. I struggle to make good comparisons, but I liken his offensive game to Paul Pierce. It often looks sloppy but he gets results. If he can tighten up his ball handling and continue to improve his jump shot consistency the sky is the limit for him offensively. These are skills he already has in his arsenal, he just has to refine them.
For all the talk about his offensive skills, you really can't discount his defense either. He works hard on the defensive end, and although he doesn't rack up a lot of blocks or steals, he stays in front of his man and makes it difficult for them to get to the rim. That's the fundamental skill every defender has to have and Barnes has shown that since his freshman season. Again, it's not about jaw dropping individual performance with him. But you watch what he's doing and you put it in a team context and he's doing everything he needs to do on the defensive end. If he never gets better than he is right now, he's already a solid do-it-all third option on a good team. He's been criticized the most for not having a desire to take over games, but that might actually make him a good fit on a team which already has established scorers on the perimeter and in the paint.
I brought up MKG earlier because the only criticism I have with his game, and he's been my favorite player in college this year by a wide margin, is that his offense is limited right now to put backs, cuts to the basket, and taking defenders off the dribble. As bajaden said, he does so many other things so well that I would happily live with his limitations if he's still on the board, but it is a concern particularly on a team like ours which is starved for outside shooters. As we've seen with Tyreke, defenses can adjust to take away the drive or the outside shot but it's very hard to take away both. I'm a sucker for tough-minded defensive players so there's no contest I'd prefer Gilchrist to Barnes but he's going to have to grow and adapt as well to be a two-way player. It's really his intangibles that distinguish him from everyone else (MKG that is), but in terms of pure skill level I think Barnes is closer to being that coveted two-way difference maker than MKG is right now.
Last edited:
I would LOVE to get Davis or MKG. I wouldn't even think twice if either were on the board and it was our turn to pick. But it seems like a long-shot unless we seriously suck in April.
Barnes' shooting would be HUGE for this team. My only question would be can he become a good-great defender? I meen hes pretty athletic with a 6'11 wingspan and good size, i really dont see why not?... Picking up T-Will might make picking Barnes a little easier because of his great defense/passing/rebounding.
I have this wierd feeling in my gut that Barnes will be a King next year, I dont know why?
I'm really intrigued by Terrance Jones, He's got great size and athelticism. 16 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 1.9 bpg.. Looks really good too me. But can he play SF consistenly at the NBA level? Can he fix his jumpshot? He seems like he has the potential to be a dynamic defensive player with his size/athelitcism/length.. I think the Kings need to take a hard look at this kid.. He may not be getting as much recognition as he deserves beccause hes sorrounded by two future nba stars on his team...
Barnes' shooting would be HUGE for this team. My only question would be can he become a good-great defender? I meen hes pretty athletic with a 6'11 wingspan and good size, i really dont see why not?... Picking up T-Will might make picking Barnes a little easier because of his great defense/passing/rebounding.
I have this wierd feeling in my gut that Barnes will be a King next year, I dont know why?
I'm really intrigued by Terrance Jones, He's got great size and athelticism. 16 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 1.9 bpg.. Looks really good too me. But can he play SF consistenly at the NBA level? Can he fix his jumpshot? He seems like he has the potential to be a dynamic defensive player with his size/athelitcism/length.. I think the Kings need to take a hard look at this kid.. He may not be getting as much recognition as he deserves beccause hes sorrounded by two future nba stars on his team...
Last edited:
Do you guys think that the Jazz might be willing to trade one of their 1st round pick for Jimmer? If you could take one between Jimmer and Marshall, who would you pick? I think I would go with Marshall, and if he is still available when the Jazz are picking with their second 1st rounder, I would try to do this trade.