Has anyone been watching the playoffs and seen what happens when teams don't have guys who can spread the floor on offense? It's not pretty. Iggy, Tyreke and Dalembert is not even close to being doable. Not remotely, not possibly, not conceivably. The only offense that would happen would be on fast breaks. The set-up offense would be a farcicle adventure in which teams would play "how many players can be in the paint at one time" game. Cousins would be forced that much more to be an outside player rather than inside because only he and Thornton could provide anything to remotely balance this team's offense. I love defense. I have harped on having two-way players instead of the one-way offensive players of old. But there is something to be said that too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
Keep it or trade it?
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
The question is, how many young players with potential is too many? The Kings need veteran leadership and some better play from the PG position. If they can get one of the young gun PG's like Walker, it would be nice to have a real pointguard. (if there is a real point guard worth the 7th pick, which is in doubt)
Last edited:
True. And Evans is as much a PG as Derrick Rose is. Are people going to argue that Rubio on the Bulls would have won more games? Ultimately, you find a collection of five guys that work together as a unit, because they know each other's strengths and weaknesses. Why, dear sweet 8lb 6oz baby Jesus, oh why do people STILL need to create labels for the players we have?
Evans? Not a "pure" PG
Thornton? Beno? Other "hybrids"
Cousins? I dunno, I thought he was drafted as a C, but it looks like he'll play more as a PF if Daly stays.
Just get the best five that complement each other's skill sets. Let them wreak havoc.
Evans? Not a "pure" PG
Thornton? Beno? Other "hybrids"
Cousins? I dunno, I thought he was drafted as a C, but it looks like he'll play more as a PF if Daly stays.
Just get the best five that complement each other's skill sets. Let them wreak havoc.
I think the "need a vet" card is a bit overplayed. Yes the team could benefit from adding some veteran experience but they can take care of that through free agency. Don't give up a high drat pick just to bring in some middle of the road vet. You don't want to take the risk of trading the pick and then have to sit there three or four years down the road and watch Jimmer, Walker, or Leaonard playing all-star level ball somewhere else and know that the Kings gave that up for Steve Blake or something. If it was part of a deal that could bring back a Danny Granger caliber player then yes, otherwise, no.
That draft was a pretty bad draft, looking back. A lot of role players, (ok, many not in the league), in addition to Aldrige, Roy, and Gay. Oh yeah, and Rondo at #21.
I could see the logic of trading away at that time. That's where I see some similarities here. There are quite a few Freshman/Sophomores that might pan out to something more than decent, some Seniors who may (or may not) have peaked, and a whole bunch of unknowns.
Someone is going to strike it rich, but you don't know where. Unless you're one of the posters that has predicted that every single top 15 player in the draft is awesome, of course, then you can ignore being wrong about the other 14.
We're not as desperate to "win now" as Houston was, but I'm positive we'd move that pick if the right player was offered up.
I could see the logic of trading away at that time. That's where I see some similarities here. There are quite a few Freshman/Sophomores that might pan out to something more than decent, some Seniors who may (or may not) have peaked, and a whole bunch of unknowns.
Someone is going to strike it rich, but you don't know where. Unless you're one of the posters that has predicted that every single top 15 player in the draft is awesome, of course, then you can ignore being wrong about the other 14.
We're not as desperate to "win now" as Houston was, but I'm positive we'd move that pick if the right player was offered up.
Williams has a high bust potential -- tweener forwards..well, generally suck. But as I have metioned before, the bigger problem is that even if he were there at #7 he's completely wrong for what we need out of that position. With Reke/Thornton/Cousins there simply are no shots, and adding in another offensive player can only further muddy the waters and mess up everybody, while denying us the best chance on our roster to dramatically improve one of the league's worst defenses. A lumbering volume shooter/scorer who can't defend or handle is not what the doctor ordered.
Imho the only reason he's considered a tweener is bc he played the 4 alot due to his teams lack of height. I saw no indication he can't play defense and sure his handles do need some improvement but it's not like he can't dribble drive to the rack. I don't thinks Williams has a higher bust potential than Leonard, Vesely, Fredette, or Walker and we will likely take one of them at 7. To say that Williams falling to 7 would be a problem for the Kings is crazy! GP would send our pick in within 5 seconds!
I understand your concern w the potential lack of shots to go around but I would say the Mavs proved you can never have enough shooters/scorers. This guy is super athletic, can knock down a jumper, plays decent-to-good defense, and carried his team all year. To top it all off he plays the 3 and I think most would agree that's our biggest need.
I hope I don't come off cross and def am not trying to attack you, but to say Williams wouldn't fit our team doesn't make any sense to me.
I understand your concern w the potential lack of shots to go around but I would say the Mavs proved you can never have enough shooters/scorers. This guy is super athletic, can knock down a jumper, plays decent-to-good defense, and carried his team all year. To top it all off he plays the 3 and I think most would agree that's our biggest need.
I hope I don't come off cross and def am not trying to attack you, but to say Williams wouldn't fit our team doesn't make any sense to me.
er....the Mavs proved WHAT?
They had perhaps the most punchless starting lineup in recent NBA history. A lineup entirely cleared out to feature 1 main scorer. A second weapon who gives about 12 a night. 2 main bench scorers. We already have more weapons than they do.
And Williams is pretty much the single worst fit you could come across for our needs at that position. He might be a SF...maybe. He says he is. He played 4 in college and spent most of his time inside. He didn't pass. He can't bring the ball up, and his ability to create from the perimeter against NBA defenders is very much in question. Then there's his defense, which wasn't very good even in college, against slower PFs. And here we come along, and what do we need? Well an elite defender, not just good, but ELITE would be great. A 3pt bomber, NBA three. A guy who might pass or bring the ball up to take pressure off Reke. And a guy who can play a role on offense and not fight with the potentially THREE 20pt scorers already in the starting lineup (I should note no team has had three since the 1980s, let alone more).
And then along comes Derrick Williams, who even best case is pretty much none of the above. There just comes a point when you don't have room for any more stars/could be stars, and you begin to need guys who are great at the things the stars normally leave to the peons. Its not about overall talent level, its just the obvious fact we've got a lot of what Williams brings, and not enough of the things Williams doesn't bring.
They had perhaps the most punchless starting lineup in recent NBA history. A lineup entirely cleared out to feature 1 main scorer. A second weapon who gives about 12 a night. 2 main bench scorers. We already have more weapons than they do.
And Williams is pretty much the single worst fit you could come across for our needs at that position. He might be a SF...maybe. He says he is. He played 4 in college and spent most of his time inside. He didn't pass. He can't bring the ball up, and his ability to create from the perimeter against NBA defenders is very much in question. Then there's his defense, which wasn't very good even in college, against slower PFs. And here we come along, and what do we need? Well an elite defender, not just good, but ELITE would be great. A 3pt bomber, NBA three. A guy who might pass or bring the ball up to take pressure off Reke. And a guy who can play a role on offense and not fight with the potentially THREE 20pt scorers already in the starting lineup (I should note no team has had three since the 1980s, let alone more).
And then along comes Derrick Williams, who even best case is pretty much none of the above. There just comes a point when you don't have room for any more stars/could be stars, and you begin to need guys who are great at the things the stars normally leave to the peons. Its not about overall talent level, its just the obvious fact we've got a lot of what Williams brings, and not enough of the things Williams doesn't bring.
Last edited:
Looks like the Cavs are open to dealing the fourth pick. http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/214211/Report_Cavs_Settle_On_Irving_Open_To_Dealing_No_4_Pick
Wonder if we could put together a package to move up 3 spots and potentially draft one of Brandon Knight/Enes Kanter?
What do you think would get it done? Maybe 7th + Omri for the 4th? Cavs would probably want more than that, though.
Wonder if we could put together a package to move up 3 spots and potentially draft one of Brandon Knight/Enes Kanter?
What do you think would get it done? Maybe 7th + Omri for the 4th? Cavs would probably want more than that, though.
Well, I agree with the comment, but I'm also biased.
And, anyway, the comment says "The Kings have been struggling to find a suitable small forward since they let Gerald Wallace go." They had Stojakovic and Turkoglu before they let Wallace go, so they didn't need to "find" them. They, in fact, let Turkoglu go before they let Wallace go. And since I, personally, also consider Wallace to be a better player than Artest, I don't see anything particularly egregious in the remark.
And, anyway, the comment says "The Kings have been struggling to find a suitable small forward since they let Gerald Wallace go." They had Stojakovic and Turkoglu before they let Wallace go, so they didn't need to "find" them. They, in fact, let Turkoglu go before they let Wallace go. And since I, personally, also consider Wallace to be a better player than Artest, I don't see anything particularly egregious in the remark.