Kings draft Spencer Hawes: Discussion
- Thread starter ReinadelosReys
- Start date
- Status
But instincts develop just like anything else. The guy has only had one year at the collegiate level.
Strength can (and will) be improved. Were you the strongest you've ever been at 19 years old? If you were, then you aren't an athelete, let alone a professional athlete.
Leaping ability likely will not be improved. But a 29" vertical for a guy who is 7', with a 7' wingspan, a 9'1 standing reach seems to me to be a decent core of which to work with.
Good hands? Isn't he one of the best passing big men in the draft?
Ability to read the ball off the rim? Comes with experience.
Physicality? For a guy that pounds it down your throat in the post doesn't have physicality?
Look, how many guys go through one year of college and have a "strong core" of those things? Very few. And the only ones who were born with those abilites do not fall to the #10 pick. I think we got a steal, because if Hawes stayed in college and improved on all of those areas, he would easily be a top 3 pick. Funny, because your negative perspective has actually made me more excited about my positive perspective. Thanks.
Strength can (and will) be improved. Were you the strongest you've ever been at 19 years old? If you were, then you aren't an athelete, let alone a professional athlete.
Leaping ability likely will not be improved. But a 29" vertical for a guy who is 7', with a 7' wingspan, a 9'1 standing reach seems to me to be a decent core of which to work with.
Good hands? Isn't he one of the best passing big men in the draft?
Ability to read the ball off the rim? Comes with experience.
Physicality? For a guy that pounds it down your throat in the post doesn't have physicality?
Look, how many guys go through one year of college and have a "strong core" of those things? Very few. And the only ones who were born with those abilites do not fall to the #10 pick. I think we got a steal, because if Hawes stayed in college and improved on all of those areas, he would easily be a top 3 pick. Funny, because your negative perspective has actually made me more excited about my positive perspective. Thanks.
Last edited:
And unfortunately someone "totally totally agreeing" forces me to respond to this.
First of all, last line = can it. No more.
Secondly, unatheltic guys are drafted in the Top 10 all the time. Many fail. Joe Kleine was drafted in the Top 10. Andrew Bogut was drafted in the Top 10. Shelden Williams. Rafael Araujo. Michael Sweetney. Chris Kaman. Skita. Yao. Furthermore, having a poist game has little to do with athleticism. Sneaky post moves are the great edge of 40yr old playground warriors the world over. And in high level basketball they might be MORE often attached to guys lacking athleticism than to great athletes. Skill developed specifically as a counter to superior athleticism. Vlade was a great post player. Was he an athlete? Kevin McHale was one of the best of all time. Our own franchise lived with a good one in Tizzy for years. Corliss is a good one today. So is Yao. So is Duncan. And there is this: Spenser Hawes could be the 360th best athlete on the entire planet, and if the 359 better ones were all in the NBA, he would still be a poor athlete. Its all relative.
Third, suggesting he is going to be a defsivce liability is nowehere NEAR as "preposterous" as suggesting he's going to be the next Tim Duncan. We do not exist in a vacuum here. We have seen hi play, seen him move. Seen him fail to be a dominant defender/rebounder at a much lower level of competition. Seen him test out as one of the worst athletes at the combine. We KNOW he's not going to be the next Tim Duncan. While we do NOT know that he will be a defensive liability, or rather just how much of adefensive liability he will be, there is certainly far more evidence to support that concern than there is a stars in the eyes Duncan comparson.
First of all, last line = can it. No more.
Secondly, unatheltic guys are drafted in the Top 10 all the time. Many fail. Joe Kleine was drafted in the Top 10. Andrew Bogut was drafted in the Top 10. Shelden Williams. Rafael Araujo. Michael Sweetney. Chris Kaman. Skita. Yao. Furthermore, having a poist game has little to do with athleticism. Sneaky post moves are the great edge of 40yr old playground warriors the world over. And in high level basketball they might be MORE often attached to guys lacking athleticism than to great athletes. Skill developed specifically as a counter to superior athleticism. Vlade was a great post player. Was he an athlete? Kevin McHale was one of the best of all time. Our own franchise lived with a good one in Tizzy for years. Corliss is a good one today. So is Yao. So is Duncan. And there is this: Spenser Hawes could be the 360th best athlete on the entire planet, and if the 359 better ones were all in the NBA, he would still be a poor athlete. Its all relative.
Third, suggesting he is going to be a defsivce liability is nowehere NEAR as "preposterous" as suggesting he's going to be the next Tim Duncan. We do not exist in a vacuum here. We have seen hi play, seen him move. Seen him fail to be a dominant defender/rebounder at a much lower level of competition. Seen him test out as one of the worst athletes at the combine. We KNOW he's not going to be the next Tim Duncan. While we do NOT know that he will be a defensive liability, or rather just how much of adefensive liability he will be, there is certainly far more evidence to support that concern than there is a stars in the eyes Duncan comparson.
Look, how many guys go through one year of college and have a "strong core" of those things? Very few. And the only ones who were born with those abilites do not fall to the #10 pick. I think we got a steal, because if Hawes stayed in college and improved on all of those areas, he would easily be a top 3 pick. Funny, because your negative perspective has actually made me more excited about my positive perspective. Thanks.
Secondly, largely because of that acumen issue, the entire premise of your above post is simply wrong. Beyond the strength part -- if Hawes' problem was that he was too skinny, ala a Brandon Wright, that would be something you could wait on. But basketball players either have instincts, timing, ability to read the ball, or they don't. Ditto for shotblocking. These are skills every bit as innate as anything else. You either have the knack, or you don't. It can be refined, but not created from wholecloth.
When Tim Duncan was a frosh he averaged 9.6rebs and 3.8blks.
When Chris Webber was a frosh he averaged 10.0rebs and 2.5blks.
Wehn Shaquille O'neal was a frosh he averaged 12.0rebs and 3.6blks.
When Emeka Okafor was a frosh he averaged 4.1blks (could not find rebs).
Greg Oden was a frosh too, with a damaged wrist, and averaged 9.6rbes and 3.3blks.
and so on (it actually gets difficult to find modern examples because so few of the top bigs have even been going to college before the new rule)
Meanwhile Spenser Hawes: 6.4reb 1.7blk.
Spenser Hawes is a young player. He should still have plenty of improvement ahead. He'd better if he's even going to be adequate in those areas (I continue to think his post moves are more than NBA ready). A step forward for him is from weakness to adequacy. But this is not some young kid from Africa who only first bounced a ball a couple of years ago after a life spent playing soccer. This is a kid from a family of NBAers. He's probably been bouncing a ball since it was bigger than he was. That is largely a good thing for the understanding of the game. But it also means that he's unlikely to suddenly discover any new vistas at this, for him, very late date. Any revelations where he goes, "oh, THAT'S how that works".
He's cocky, competitive. I'm still holding out hope he learns to scrap well enough to get maybe 8.0rpg. Which is still inadequate and something we've been lambasting our current crappers for, but at least would be enough to be able to keep him on the floor to take advantage of the post game (as opposed to 6.0 where he's virtually unplayable). But I'm holding out hope based on knowing the hsitory of such players, not because I refuse to admit any alternative.
Last edited:
Yeah, it's kind of getting old to be called negative for not liking this selection. I'm not ruling out, and Brick's not ruling out, that Hawes could potentially become a competent NBA player someday, even a good one. A lack of post scoring just got some teams bounced right out of the playoffs. If Hawes can be an inside/outside scorer/passer, great.
But as I've said before, my problem with the pick is that even in the best case scenario, Hawes is not going to be a defensive/rebounding monster. He's just not. He was one of the worst athletes in the pre-draft combine in recent history. He can't jump. He might get stronger, but he's not going to learn how to jump higher. He might gain some savvy and be a good team defender with time, but even in the best case scenario he's just not going to be a great defensive player.
And so we're back to the same square one that we've been at for god knows how long -- trying to cover for our bigs' defensive deficiencies. This CAN be done -- if you plugged Hawes into Chicago's Ben Wallace/Tyrus Thomas frontcourt, Hawes' lack of defense wouldn't be worrisome. But now in the rebuild there's no more room in the front court -- at all -- for someone who isn't a defensive monster.
So even if Hawes turns into a good player, it's just going to be essential to have a PF/C rebounder/shotblocking monster who can protect the rim and make up for Hawes' shortcomings, preferably one coming off the bench too. And I don't mean a role player like Reggie Evans, I'm talking someone like Ben Wallace or Tyson Chandler, who is good at post defense, help defense, shotblocking and rebounding. And as we've seen, those don't exactly grow on trees. If anything, they are much harder to acquire than "skilled" bigs, who really do seem to grow on trees.
And that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that he's not athletic enough to stay on the floor, isn't strong enough to hold his position in the post and can't rebound to save his life. But you probably don't want to hear about that one.
But as I've said before, my problem with the pick is that even in the best case scenario, Hawes is not going to be a defensive/rebounding monster. He's just not. He was one of the worst athletes in the pre-draft combine in recent history. He can't jump. He might get stronger, but he's not going to learn how to jump higher. He might gain some savvy and be a good team defender with time, but even in the best case scenario he's just not going to be a great defensive player.
And so we're back to the same square one that we've been at for god knows how long -- trying to cover for our bigs' defensive deficiencies. This CAN be done -- if you plugged Hawes into Chicago's Ben Wallace/Tyrus Thomas frontcourt, Hawes' lack of defense wouldn't be worrisome. But now in the rebuild there's no more room in the front court -- at all -- for someone who isn't a defensive monster.
So even if Hawes turns into a good player, it's just going to be essential to have a PF/C rebounder/shotblocking monster who can protect the rim and make up for Hawes' shortcomings, preferably one coming off the bench too. And I don't mean a role player like Reggie Evans, I'm talking someone like Ben Wallace or Tyson Chandler, who is good at post defense, help defense, shotblocking and rebounding. And as we've seen, those don't exactly grow on trees. If anything, they are much harder to acquire than "skilled" bigs, who really do seem to grow on trees.
And that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that he's not athletic enough to stay on the floor, isn't strong enough to hold his position in the post and can't rebound to save his life. But you probably don't want to hear about that one.
Last edited:
How does trading for a draft position work? When you normally trade two players, their salaries must be very similar, or you must throw in filler bench players to make it work out.
If the Kings wanted to trade up to the 8th pick, say, did they need to give up salaries equal to the expected pay of the draft position? Or could they have shipped out a high priced player (Bibby) without getting a similar player in return?
If the Kings wanted to trade up to the 8th pick, say, did they need to give up salaries equal to the expected pay of the draft position? Or could they have shipped out a high priced player (Bibby) without getting a similar player in return?
Aren't you acting as though this is the only personnel change we're going to make before the rebuild is over? We didn't get Oden, we didn't get Durant, we didn't get Yi, and we didn't get Noah. We got Hawes who does meet one of the criteria everyone was whining about. He's NOT 6'8" tall.
What is irritating to me and I assume a number of others is that every time one of us makes a comment of hope or anticipation about how good Hawes MIGHT BE, it ends up being shot down as what he's not. We know what he hasn't been. We truly have no way of knowing for sure what he will be.
Yes, you and Brick and some others are disappointed. We get it. The "negativity" people are complaining about is that it just never ends. As much as people complain about rose-colored glasses, does it always have to be the exact opposite?
If people want to make a hopeful comment, does it really have to shot down every single time?
What is irritating to me and I assume a number of others is that every time one of us makes a comment of hope or anticipation about how good Hawes MIGHT BE, it ends up being shot down as what he's not. We know what he hasn't been. We truly have no way of knowing for sure what he will be.
Yes, you and Brick and some others are disappointed. We get it. The "negativity" people are complaining about is that it just never ends. As much as people complain about rose-colored glasses, does it always have to be the exact opposite?
If people want to make a hopeful comment, does it really have to shot down every single time?
Look, I'm tired of getting lectured about this. I'm entitled to my opinion, you're entitled to yours. I haven't been excessively negative. I hope he's good. You just quoted a post where I simply laid out what the future is going to need to be going forward. If I can't post something like that without getting lectured then we might as well all just pack up and go home.
nbrans - I'm just trying to keep the peace ... and apparently failing. I'm not trying to lecture anyone.
I love this board...but lately it just seems way too antagonistic. That's all I was trying to point out, nbrans. It seems like everyone is so quick to jump at each other.
I guess my point has been totally missed. In your post above, you just seemed to completely disregard the fact that he's just one player.
If you feel it was a lecture, I apologize. I just wish people could post both sides without feeling lectured or picked on. The board isn't much fun when everyone is hostile.
Peace.
I love this board...but lately it just seems way too antagonistic. That's all I was trying to point out, nbrans. It seems like everyone is so quick to jump at each other.
I guess my point has been totally missed. In your post above, you just seemed to completely disregard the fact that he's just one player.
If you feel it was a lecture, I apologize. I just wish people could post both sides without feeling lectured or picked on. The board isn't much fun when everyone is hostile.
Peace.
Bricklayer:
1. Last time I checked, Spencer Hawes is not Joe Kline, he is not Andrew Bogut, he is not Tim Duncan, he is not Shaquile O'Neal. He is Spencer Hawes, and he hasn't even got 1 minute of professional NBA basketball under his belt. So before you try to turn him into someone else, why don't you just let him be his own man. This whole thing is much like the LeBron/Jordan comparisons. Everyone wants to say that LeBron is or isn't Michael Jordan. While all the talk was going on I was thinking, can't people just let LeBron be LeBron? That is precisely my entire premise throughout this whole thing.
2. You made freshman stat comparisons to guys who were all-stars yet all the comparisons you think Hawes will be like were to guys that were busts. You didn't bother to list any statistics of guys who have higher rebounding averages in the NBA than they did in 1 year of college. But why would you right? That wouldn't support your speculation. Similarly, you picked guys that were all recognized as very athletic to make comparisons to. You say it is all relative, but is it only relative to all-stars, or is it relative to everyone? I've never said or suggested he is going to be an all-star. I don't think he will be a rebounding freak. But I think he will be good enough to not concern myself with it yet. Plus there is always room to improve.
3. You have obviously spent more than enough time to try to prove an unprovable point. If you want to search throughout history to try and make comparison after comparison to prove whatever point you want then you can. Doesn't necessarily convince me. Instead of making comparisons to guys that were either all-stars or busts, make some to guys that were middle of the road. Because when it comes to rebounding, I see Hawes as at least a middle of the road guy. Shotblocking is not his forte, but I've stated earlier in the thread that we need a PF that is a shotblocking freak. And if Hawes can even get to 1 shotblock per game, I will consider him a very nice surprise.
Don't get me wrong, you make great points. But to me, all you are doing is stereotyping.
1. Last time I checked, Spencer Hawes is not Joe Kline, he is not Andrew Bogut, he is not Tim Duncan, he is not Shaquile O'Neal. He is Spencer Hawes, and he hasn't even got 1 minute of professional NBA basketball under his belt. So before you try to turn him into someone else, why don't you just let him be his own man. This whole thing is much like the LeBron/Jordan comparisons. Everyone wants to say that LeBron is or isn't Michael Jordan. While all the talk was going on I was thinking, can't people just let LeBron be LeBron? That is precisely my entire premise throughout this whole thing.
2. You made freshman stat comparisons to guys who were all-stars yet all the comparisons you think Hawes will be like were to guys that were busts. You didn't bother to list any statistics of guys who have higher rebounding averages in the NBA than they did in 1 year of college. But why would you right? That wouldn't support your speculation. Similarly, you picked guys that were all recognized as very athletic to make comparisons to. You say it is all relative, but is it only relative to all-stars, or is it relative to everyone? I've never said or suggested he is going to be an all-star. I don't think he will be a rebounding freak. But I think he will be good enough to not concern myself with it yet. Plus there is always room to improve.
3. You have obviously spent more than enough time to try to prove an unprovable point. If you want to search throughout history to try and make comparison after comparison to prove whatever point you want then you can. Doesn't necessarily convince me. Instead of making comparisons to guys that were either all-stars or busts, make some to guys that were middle of the road. Because when it comes to rebounding, I see Hawes as at least a middle of the road guy. Shotblocking is not his forte, but I've stated earlier in the thread that we need a PF that is a shotblocking freak. And if Hawes can even get to 1 shotblock per game, I will consider him a very nice surprise.
Don't get me wrong, you make great points. But to me, all you are doing is stereotyping.
STOP!!!!!
I do not understand why we have to fight and throw barbs, taunts, & insults at each other. No one knows what will happen with young Hawes.
This board (until recently) was the best Kings fans cite around. This is partly due to the fact that we could disagree without making things personal.
You want to believe Hawes will be the demise of this franchise, go right ahead.
You want to believe that everything is wonderful about the franchise, be my guest.
You want to believe that, no matter what happens, with Hawes or anyone else, you will still love the game of basketball and especially the Kings, good for you.
But, dangit, stop fighting about it. More importantly, stop putting the other side down because they disagree.
I do not understand why we have to fight and throw barbs, taunts, & insults at each other. No one knows what will happen with young Hawes.
This board (until recently) was the best Kings fans cite around. This is partly due to the fact that we could disagree without making things personal.
You want to believe Hawes will be the demise of this franchise, go right ahead.
You want to believe that everything is wonderful about the franchise, be my guest.
You want to believe that, no matter what happens, with Hawes or anyone else, you will still love the game of basketball and especially the Kings, good for you.
But, dangit, stop fighting about it. More importantly, stop putting the other side down because they disagree.
- Status