KINGS PICKING 4TH IN 2022 NBA DRAFT!

[pdxKingsFan]

Who said anything about fit? I think Keegan is better and he plays a premium NBA position. And while you don't draft for fit, you also don't throw it out the window either. Keegan plugs in perfectly with the established core. Ivey creates a lot of the same problems as last year with Hali. A creative coach can make it work, but 85-90% of the time, one of Fox/Mitchell/Ivey is going to be on the block within a few years. Which is the problem when your 3 best players can't play together full-time or even part-time out of gimmicky type LU's.

I honestly don't know who is better/will be better but I don't think the difference is so extreme you neglect team needs on this one. Also agree that Murray fits the modern NBA while I don't know how Ivey fits. I have seen one place claim he is #1 overall (but still going to Detroit), as a pure PG. Also seen him listed a SG. Maybe he's a combo. Neither really fits the modern game where there is a lot more fluidity between the 2-4 spots. 2/3 and 3/4 tweeners used to be the kiss of death but now are the premium spots in the game.

 

[dude12]

I know we can’t win without getting quality wings. I mean, look at the Celtics. A boat load of wings on that team. Of course, stars are also important.

 

[SacTownKid]

Who said anything about fit? I think Keegan is better and he plays a premium NBA position. And while you don't draft for fit, you also don't throw it out the window either. Keegan plugs in perfectly with the established core. Ivey creates a lot of the same problems as last year with Hali. A creative coach can make it work, but 85-90% of the time, one of Fox/Mitchell/Ivey is going to be on the block within a few years. Which is the problem when your 3 best players can't play together full-time or even part-time out of gimmicky type LU's.

The issue is positional value. Who was the last PF drafted in the top 10 that became a star? Do they look anything like Murray? What are the differences? We've obviously already talked about this so we don't have to go down that same path. To me, if Murray had shown legit playmaking skills and the ability actually run pick and roll like some of the comps being thrown around he'd be a no brainer. He's not. And to me, Ivey is nothing like Haliburton in both bad and good ways. And if it becomes an issue that means the team isn't winning. If they are, the issue will hum in the background. Even if they can't play full time they're getting some value in some way and still have a high upside trade piece in Ivey. If Murray is a PF, can't effectively switch, and can't transition enough into the wing spot he better be getting shots up.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

We have the #4 pick in a draft that may only have 1-2 players that would go in a good year's top 5. Possibly none would go in the 2017 or 2018 top 5. I'd argue swinging for the fences is what got us Bagley.

I keep seeing this sentiment, but I don't get it. The top of this draft feels strong to me. I think there's a chance for a lot of special players in the top ten.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I keep seeing this sentiment, but I don't get it. The top of this draft feels strong to me. I think there's a chance for a lot of special players in the top ten.

I think there are a lot of really nice players that can be #2 or #3 pieces. But there is also a sentiment that you should be getting your franchise player at 4. I am not sure if that's realistic. I'm also unsold on two of the consensus top 4 as good fits in the modern game but hey.

My top 3 are Smith, Murray and Mathurin. I think they will all be good players in the league but apparently drafting two of these guys at 4 is nutso.

 

[SacTownKid]

I think there are a lot of really nice players that can be #2 or #3 pieces. But there is also a sentiment that you should be getting your franchise player at 4. I am not sure if that's realistic. I'm also unsold on two of the consensus top 4 as good fits in the modern game but hey.

My top 3 are Smith, Murray and Mathurin. I think they will all be good players in the league but apparently drafting two of these guys at 4 is nutso.

I think the better way of looking at it is that the Kings "could" get that guy at 4 and yes, there is risk but they can afford to take it with Fox/Sabonis on deck as either trade bait or the guys getting where you want to go to now. But there isn't a totally nonrisk player at 4. I think Murray is getting a "safe" tag based on certain criteria that might not translate to the NBA as well some think. They very well could though and he could close the holes in his game (lateral speed aside) and yeah, at his worst he'll be a Hachimura/Morris type of big which would have value for the Kings especially. I think the top 3 are largely the top 3 because teams see less risk when it comes to these players as an overall package. If there were clear franchise guys in the draft there wouldn't be any discussion but these are the cards dealt for this draft like others in the past. For the majority of the year 4 names seemed to make up the 1-4 portion of the draft and now it seems to be settling there in some sort of consensus as that same 4. And as far as drafts go, I have heard more about Banchero/Holmgren than most top two consideration players in years past. Holmgren has been getting the KG tag for awhile now. Neither one ended up disappointing either. They didn't dominate but they didn't fizzle.

I wouldn't be mad at probably 4-5 different names at 4, Murray, Griffin, Mathurin, Sharpe, but I think the mega upside is in the Ivey kid if it's between those names and like Chet, if he busts, he busts. haha. If it were a question between any of the top 3 and Ivey, that's a different story. I'd easily take Chet/Banchero over him. Smith? Maybe. Probably would.

 

[Sac.Kings]

His playoff stats are very good and he has been the #1 for a while on the Jazz. And he’s still young. I get the defensive concerns - but Donovan is clearly better than any King. And apparently off the table, so I won’t bring him up again.

I never said he was worse than a Kings player. He just isn’t a true number one in the sense that he makes those around him better too. Don’t get me wrong, he does pass here and there, but he’s largely focused on his own offense. That could be by design too because no one else on that team is a real scorer. I like Mitchell but he’s not someone that can carry a team. He’s a tier or two below that, but obviously still a great player.
In terms of talent level on the Kings, Fox would be closest but Donovan is better than any King right now, I don’t dispute that.

 

[sactowndog]

I don't think Davion is a starter on that squad and his benefit would be being the best 6th man the Kings have had since BoJax. You can easily run a 3 guard rotation with Ivey/Fox getting 30 plus minutes and Davion getting near 30's as a 6th man. Fox/Ivey/SF/Barnes/Sabonis is plenty of versatility. In the interim you can run Holiday at SF with goals to eventually find a legit long term starter. Maybe even throw a MLE contract at someone like Warren, or wait until next summer. Maybe they can find a starter through Holmes.

If you are running a 3 guard rotation with Fox, Ivey and Davion one of them has to guard 3 and last year proved that wasn’t happening. Monte stating Davion could guard 3 was every bit as dumb as Vlade saying Bagley could play 3.

Pre-all-star break Fox
21.8 points, 5.1 assists, -3.7 +\-

Post-all-star break Fox
29.3 points, 7.5 assists, -1.4 +\-

If you want to guarantee that Fox demands a trade use your 3rd lottery pick in a row drafting a point guard. And once Fox demands a trade Barnes is likely gone also.

On a good note perhaps you might get good odds on Victor.

 

[The_Jamal]

If you are running a 3 guard rotation with Fox, Ivey and Davion one of them has to guard 3 and last year proved that wasn’t happening. Monte stating Davion could guard 3 was every bit as dumb as Vlade saying Bagley could play 3.

Pre-all-star break Fox
21.8 points, 5.1 assists, -3.7 +\-

Post-all-star break Fox
29.3 points, 7.5 assists, -1.4 +\-

If you want to guarantee that Fox demands a trade use your 3rd lottery pick in a row drafting a point guard. And once Fox demands a trade Barnes is likely gone also.

On a good note perhaps you might get good odds on Victor.

He said Davion 6th man, not together.

 

[midtowner]

If you are running a 3 guard rotation with Fox, Ivey and Davion one of them has to guard 3 and last year proved that wasn’t happening. Monte stating Davion could guard 3 was every bit as dumb as Vlade saying Bagley could play 3.

Pre-all-star break Fox
21.8 points, 5.1 assists, -3.7 +\-

Post-all-star break Fox
29.3 points, 7.5 assists, -1.4 +\-

If you want to guarantee that Fox demands a trade use your 3rd lottery pick in a row drafting a point guard. And once Fox demands a trade Barnes is likely gone also.

On a good note perhaps you might get good odds on Victor.

Ivey is not a point guard. He’s 6’4 with a 6’9” wingspan. Want to set the franchise back another 5 years - don’t draft him if he’s available.

 

[SacTownKid]

If you are running a 3 guard rotation with Fox, Ivey and Davion one of them has to guard 3 and last year proved that wasn’t happening. Monte stating Davion could guard 3 was every bit as dumb as Vlade saying Bagley could play 3.

Pre-all-star break Fox
21.8 points, 5.1 assists, -3.7 +\-

Post-all-star break Fox
29.3 points, 7.5 assists, -1.4 +\-

If you want to guarantee that Fox demands a trade use your 3rd lottery pick in a row drafting a point guard. And once Fox demands a trade Barnes is likely gone also.

On a good note perhaps you might get good odds on Victor.

Ivey is a SG/PG, not a PG/SG. And they don't need to run them at the same time unless they want to try it out or need to matchup. Ivey/Fox playing starters minutes still means you can run a 3 G rotation at PG/SG with Davion getting the remaining 28-30 mpg at backup PG/SG for now. With TD able to slide over to SF and out there as a backup that also means they can be extra aggressive on the ball defensively since there is enough depth there when it comes to running the show and in scoring ability.

 

[dude12]

The issue is positional value. Who was the last PF drafted in the top 10 that became a star? Do they look anything like Murray? What are the differences? We've obviously already talked about this so we don't have to go down that same path. To me, if Murray had shown legit playmaking skills and the ability actually run pick and roll like some of the comps being thrown around he'd be a no brainer. He's not. And to me, Ivey is nothing like Haliburton in both bad and good ways. And if it becomes an issue that means the team isn't winning. If they are, the issue will hum in the background. Even if they can't play full time they're getting some value in some way and still have a high upside trade piece in Ivey. If Murray is a PF, can't effectively switch, and can't transition enough into the wing spot he better be getting shots up.

I don’t know if anyone thinks Murray is going to be a star but at some point, we need to get guys who can help us win. Is Mikal Bridges a star? I’d say no but I sure as hell would love him in our team. And he’s just an example, not saying Murray is going to be that. But I think he gets us closer to winning. Does Ivey get us closer to winning? Only if he’s special. We will still be short wings, and Coach Brown is going to have to be some kind of awesome to milk out a solid defensive performance from these guys.

I think there is a real possibility that if Ivey really is special, why the hell wouldn’t he go earlier than 4? There’s a good chance we get Banchero or Holmgren

 

[SacTownKid]

Ivey is not a point guard. He’s 6’4 with a 6’9” wingspan. Want to set the franchise back another 5 years - don’t draft him if he’s available.

I wouldn't say any pick or not will set the franchise back per se, but if he hits his ceiling or anything close it's going to hurt. Especially if the Kings top out at the middle rung of the playoff ladder or have to rebuild. Unless Monte goes out of his way to take some riser like Dyson Daniels (watched him the G-league, solid player, but not with 4). Looking down the line between the Warriors and Pels there could very well be a brick wall of talent and depth that won't be beaten with role players. There's potentially an arms race on the way. Zion's health is the determining factor. Then there's the Thunder. What happens when they stop messing around?

 

[SacTownKid]

I don’t know if anyone thinks Murray is going to be a star but at some point, we need to get guys who can help us win. Is Mikal Bridges a star? I’d say no but I sure as hell would love him in our team. And he’s just an example, not saying Murray is going to be that. But I think he gets us closer to winning. Does Ivey get us closer to winning? Only if he’s special. We will still be short wings, and Coach Brown is going to have to be some kind of awesome to milk out a solid defensive performance from these guys.

I think there is a real possibility that if Ivey really is special, why the hell wouldn’t he go earlier than 4? There’s a good chance we get Banchero or Holmgren

Yeah, but Bridges is valuable because of the position he plays. He's a true 3 and D wing and in a role players role. If Murray were a true 3/4 he'd be in the top 3-4 and probably push Ivey out. We'll see what happens when the Suns ask Mikal to earn that 90 million and he levels out where he's basically at now. They are trying to contend so that will determine how they feel about it in the long term.

I'll say it again, if the Kings need a rookie to come in and get them to where they want to be (play in spot) next year, then Fox and Sabonis clearly isn't enough. Ivey if when developed could get them over the top in a few years though and maybe that combined with max space into one of the real contender spots. Murray could as well, but, it's hard right now to find similar examples that high in the draft that worked. The only players out of the last 4-5 drafts taken in the top 10 that are similar to him are Hachimura, Chriss, and Toppin. Okongwu isn't as skilled but another potential example of pass on that type. He's solid and not in a role to produce but he can play some 5. I think Murray can too TBH. Then you look at the PF players here at the end. PJ Tucker, Finney-Smith, Grant Williams, Draymond Green. The C's run Horford there for minutes but Horford has always been great in switch and is a 4/5, not a 4/3.

 

[midtowner]

This is where I’m at - the Kings need another top 20 ish talent or high level role players that optimize Fox and Sabonis.

At 4 - I would keep Jabari or Chet if they fall.

I would keep Ivey or Banchero unless:

1 - The Pistons offer Bey and 5

2 - The Pacers offer Brogdon and TJ Warren and 6; Harrison Barnes would go to Pacers

3 - the Knicks offer RJ Barrett and 11

4 - the Raptors offer OG or Siakam (another protected 1st would go to Raptors for Siakam + Holmes and filler).

5 - with Fox for Donovan Mitchell

 

[Telemachus]

Yeah, but Bridges is valuable because of the position he plays. He's a true 3 and D wing and in a role players role. If Murray were a true 3/4 he'd be in the top 3-4 and probably push Ivey out. We'll see what happens when the Suns ask Mikal to earn that 90 million and he levels out where he's basically at now. They are trying to contend so that will determine how they feel about it in the long term.

I'll say it again, if the Kings need a rookie to come in and get them to where they want to be (play in spot) next year, then Fox and Sabonis clearly isn't enough. Ivey if when developed could get them over the top in a few years though and maybe that combined with max space into one of the real contender spots. Murray could as well, but, it's hard right now to find similar examples that high in the draft that worked. The only players out of the last 4-5 drafts taken in the top 10 that are similar to him are Hachimura, Chriss, and Toppin. Okongwu isn't as skilled but another potential example of pass on that type. He's solid and not in a role to produce but he can play some 5. I think Murray can too TBH. Then you look at the PF players here at the end. PJ Tucker, Finney-Smith, Grant Williams, Draymond Green. The C's run Horford there for minutes but Horford has always been great in switch and is a 4/5, not a 4/3.

While Murray played primarily the 4 on offense, he guarded 2s, 3s and 4s with no problems. His coach said he thought Murray was a better 3 than 4, but they needed him to play the 4

 

[SacTownKid]

While Murray played primarily the 4 on offense, he guarded 2s, 3s and 4s with no problems. His coach said he thought Murray was a better 3 than 4, but they needed him to play the 4

Well, his coach isn't stupid, the 4 spot right now in the NBA is a death sentence. Iowa ran a lot of defense that allowed him to rove and plenty of zone. The clips I posted above showed some of the good, and the bad on both ends. If he can switch into momentum to his left he's pretty good at containing players but pick and roll in the NBA is a different beast altogether. He's not going to be a terrible defender, but will he be on the level he'll need to be with Sabonis guarding the rim on help and another 4/3 in Barnes next to him? Those are serious questions if this is about fit and win now, and ones that are worth asking if defensive questions are being asked of others.

 

[hrdboild]

If Detroit offers us Bey and #5 that's an amazing deal but I think they see him as part of the core there with Cade. I can only see them doing that if Holmgren falls to 4. I'd still make that deal and take Mathurin at #5, thus filling two wing positions at once but I have a feeling most Kings fans would rather just take Chet at #4.

I get why a lot of people don't think Keegan Murray has enough upside to take at #4. When you watch Ivey or Banchero they've got elite athletic ability even at the NBA level. When you watch Murray he's often finishing through contact against smaller defenders because he lacks the burst to get over or around them. It's hard to argue against his production though -- scoring ugly is still scoring. But I at least see the reason for concern. The thing that confuses me about the conversation around Keegan is why everyone keeps labeling him as a bigman. Offensively he's a wing -- his offense is generated either slashing to the basket off the dribble, spotting up on the perimeter, or with the type of mid-post moves typical of taller NBA wing players like Rudy Gay, Harrison Barnes, Paul George, Kawhi Leonard. Defensively he's also a wing. His blocked shots usually come off the ball when rotating from the weakside. He matched up fine with ball handlers on the perimeter. I don't think he's going to be guarding a lot of PGs one-on-one but checking them for a few seconds until another defender rotates over, sure. Is it simply because he's not an elite athlete that he gets the undersized bigman label?

In any case, I wouldn't be that worried about his fit with Harrison Barnes who is a free agent at the end of next season and with money available for a max free agent, it's quite possible Monte will explore other options before committing to bringing Harrison back on another contract. The core right now is Fox, Sabonis, and Mitchell with other Monte acquisitions like Donte DiVincenco, Terance Davis, Chimezie Metu, and Damian Jones likely to continue their supporting roles for a few more seasons. If we draft Keegan he becomes the only Monte guy currently in the rotation who can handle the SF position for anything more than spot minutes. That is unquestionably our biggest need.

 

[Noble]

Trading back a little is sounding better to me everyday. My favs have been Mathurin, Sochan, Eason, or Johnny Davis, so either getting a player or picks and still getting one of those guys would be a solid draft.

 

[sactowndog]

He said Davion 6th man, not together.

He said a 3 guard with Davion, Fox and Ivey. If Ivey is half as good as advertised Davion gets maybe 6 min unless he is in a 3 Guard.

 

[sactowndog]

Ivey is not a point guard. He’s 6’4 with a 6’9” wingspan. Want to set the franchise back another 5 years - don’t draft him if he’s available.

You may be correct but who are you trading for whom. Fox, Ivey and Mitchell can’t exist and if you draft Ivey you are probably trading Fox for Pennies on the Dollar.

 

[sactowndog]

Ivey is not a point guard. He’s 6’4 with a 6’9” wingspan. Want to set the franchise back another 5 years - don’t draft him if he’s available.

He sure as hell isn’t guarding 3 with those measurements.

 

[sactowndog]

Ivey is a SG/PG, not a PG/SG. And they don't need to run them at the same time unless they want to try it out or need to matchup. Ivey/Fox playing starters minutes still means you can run a 3 G rotation at PG/SG with Davion getting the remaining 28-30 mpg at backup PG/SG for now. With TD able to slide over to SF and out there as a backup that also means they can be extra aggressive on the ball defensively since there is enough depth there when it comes to running the show and in scoring ability.

You don’t have enough minutes at 2 spots with 3 lottery picks that can only guard 2 positions. Your model is the anti Danny Ainge model and the Celtics are in the finals. Ainge reached for Smart and Brown because they can defend multiple positions.

 

[ESP47]

Trading back a little is sounding better to me everyday. My favs have been Mathurin, Sochan, or Johnny Davis, so either getting a player or picks and still getting one of those guys would be a solid draft.

I'm for it as long as we stay top 10 and the player we trade for can shoot. At that point they will have a little leeway with their draft pick since there's a lot of really good defenders with dicey shots in that range. Sochan, Daniels, Davis and Eason.

 

[kingsfan101]

Unless Monte thinks that Ivey (if available) is significantly better than Murray, I would like him to pick Murray. Talent is important, no doubt, and if Ivey is Wade level, you take him and thank your stars. But fit matters too. If we pick Ivey, the league will know we plan to make a deal. We might look to move Davion/DDV too, instead of Ivey, but a move will have to be made. Till such time, the team will be in flux. I hope the team doesn't carry that drama to the start of the season.

If Monte knows the broad contours of the roster, he can make moves in FA/trades to balance out the rest of the roster. Uncertainty over what the trade of a critical piece might yield instead will impact this process and the start of the season.

 

[midtowner]

You don’t have enough minutes at 2 spots with 3 lottery picks that can only guard 2 positions. Your model is the anti Danny Ainge model and the Celtics are in the finals. Ainge reached for Smart and Brown because they can defend multiple positions.

Not a reach

 

[sactowndog]

I'm for it as long as we stay top 10 and the player we trade for can shoot. At that point they will have a little leeway with their draft pick since there's a lot of really good defenders with dicey shots in that range. Sochan, Daniels, Davis and Eason.

Eason shoots over .800 from the line.

 

[sactowndog]

Not a reach

Smart and Brown were considered reaches at the time.

 

[ockingsfan]

Unless Monte thinks that Ivey (if available) is significantly better than Murray, I would like him to pick Murray. Talent is important, no doubt, and if Ivey is Wade level, you take him and thank your stars. But fit matters too. If we pick Ivey, the league will know we plan to make a deal. We might look to move Davion/DDV too, instead of Ivey, but a move will have to be made. Till such time, the team will be in flux. I hope the team doesn't carry that drama to the start of the season.

If Monte knows the broad contours of the roster, he can make moves in FA/trades to balance out the rest of the roster. Uncertainty over what the trade of a critical piece might yield instead will impact this process and the start of the season.

I prefer Murray too, but if Monte feels Ivey is BPA, then go for it. Like I have said before, put Ivey in the starting SG role and he could become a Bradley Beal or Dwayne Wade lite in the future.

I think if we take Ivey, it will be DDV that is traded in a sign and trade and not Fox or Davion. A Fox-Ivey-Davion 3 guard rotation could be a force to be reckoned with. If we did draft Ivey, I would move DDV in a sign and trade for a Small Forward/Stretch 4 and/or sign Otto Porter (who has a strong Mike Brown connection) as a FA to start at SF.

 

[Noble]

Eason shoots over .800 from the line.

I think Eason might be a better prospect than Murray. I don't even see Rudy Gay when I squint and try to project who Murray could turn into, and that's concerning because Rudy didn't get us anywhere. With Tari I can at least see Ron Artest. I think Eason has a better chance of being a two way player at the next level.