KINGS PICKING 4TH IN 2022 NBA DRAFT!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kings FO should let everyone know, the entire basketball world, they are absolutely gaga over Shaedon Sharpe. Get him a first class ticket out to Sac (if he'll come) and wine and dine the kid like they did for Ricky Rubio many moons ago - of course ended up not selecting the Euro star. That way even if someone drafts Sharpe ahead of the Kings they miraculously end up with one of the "Big 3." But it is not out of the question if Sactown gets Sharpe they might just have the steal of 2022 draft like was said when Haliburton landed in their lap last year.
 
I'm of the mindset that it's perfectly fine to go for a double, rather than swing for the fences and greatly increase the likelihood of striking out altogether. It honestly doesn't pain me that the Kings missed out on generational talent Doncic. It pains me that w/the #2 pick they couldn't even land a long-term building block.

As for "Paul Pierce," Hall-of-Famer, top-50-All-Timer Paul Pierce - his like probably won't be drafted at 4 or beyond.
And it pains me that even when healthy they acted like they had 10 years to let him develop rather than letting him put up the only thing he was ever going to give a team, 20 and 10. That was it. No Giannis, just a solid 20 and 10.
 
Not hearing much about Banchero on these boards. What if he’s the one that is sitting there at 4. Somehow I think that more likely than Holmgren or Smith being squeezed out of the top three.
 
Not hearing much about Banchero on these boards. What if he’s the one that is sitting there at 4. Somehow I think that more likely than Holmgren or Smith being squeezed out of the top three.
Then he's the guy. If Monte stays at 4 and lightning bolts didn't fly out of either Sharpe or Murrays butts during a workout then Monte simply takes the dude who dropped again this year IMO. Now whether that's to trade down is another story.
 
Then he's the guy. If Monte stays at 4 and lightning bolts didn't fly out of either Sharpe or Murrays butts during a workout then Monte simply takes the dude who dropped again this year IMO. Now whether that's to trade down is another story.
Okay, I wasn’t sure if my perceived lack of discussion on Banchero was related to fit with Sabonis or what.
 
Okay, I wasn’t sure if my perceived lack of discussion on Banchero was related to fit with Sabonis or what.
To me, I don't see any truly bad fits next to Sabonis that are in discussion up to pick 6. Banchero might be not the best because of his defense concerns but as a talent at PF, you'd have one of the most rugged and best passing duos on the league at PF/C. Banchero has been compared to C Webb on some reports I've seen. I don't agree, but he's got playmaking skills for sure.
 
I’m so confused by all the “we need to swing for the fences” posts I’m reading on this forum…

Sure, if someone pans out, it might be a game changer. But can this franchise afford another Bagley? What happens if we shoot for the stars and fail, once again?

let’s just say we draft someone solid and miss on someone spectacular. Let’s say that solid guy is Murray. In that scenario, the team improves. Maybe not drastically, but it gets us one step closer to being competitive, and could potentially help balance out the roster and push the team closer to the playoffs.

on the other side, we draft a high risk high reward player who ends up not panning out. In that scenario, we end up continuing to be the laughing stock of the nba, and are even further from ending our playoff drought.

i get the desire to swing for a potential superstar, but I’d argue that we’re probably better off drafting safer than riskier at this point, just considering where the franchise is at. We’ve whiffed SO many times…another one would be BRUTAL.

I just want to see competitive, solid, intelligent basketball players on the court at this point. I don’t know if I can stomach another big swing and a miss, and I’d argue that another miss might set the franchise back really, really far.
Yeah, I think now that we have (hopefully) a solid long term coach, along with 2 cornerstone players in Fox and Ox, we can afford to play it safe on somebody like Murray. I won't be overly excited, but I don't think I'll be upset or feel like we whiffed it.

I feel like this is a tricky draft either way. No slam dunk players and fit issues where we're picking. I don't envy McNair but so far he's 2/2, I'll "trust the process" and thank the basketball gods it's not Vlade on the clock this June.
 
Not hearing much about Banchero on these boards. What if he’s the one that is sitting there at 4. Somehow I think that more likely than Holmgren or Smith being squeezed out of the top three.
Admittedly not the biggest fan but I'm not sure he's the one that falls simply because of the "it/wow" factor he brings and OKC and HOU being more inclined to gamble at this stage of their rebuilds.
 
To me, I don't see any truly bad fits next to Sabonis that are in discussion up to pick 6. Banchero might be not the best because of his defense concerns but as a talent at PF, you'd have one of the most rugged and best passing duos on the league at PF/C. Banchero has been compared to C Webb on some reports I've seen. I don't agree, but he's got playmaking skills for sure.
I feel like with Brown here and Monte already showing that defense matters, if we pick one of the questionable D guys, Brown believes he can coach it into them.
 
We also went with "potential" and athleticism. I'm hearing a lot of that with the Sharpe and Ivey talk, that the tools they are missing can all be taught. How many people come into the NBA allergic to defense and get taught it?

A lot of people thought Doncic was a finished product, Bagley was raw and could be some new type of player we'd not seen before. That's what I'm talking about here. Oh, Murray is a finished product and lacks the lateral quickness or raw potential that you "can't teach". But he has all the skills ready to succeed immediately too like shooting and defense.
Yeah, I'm pretty firmly on this page. Call it PTSD from the Bagley pick, but right now I just can't get on board with prospects who are all raw physical materials and athleticism but have serious holes in their games that you have to pray they can patch once an NBA coaching staff gets their hands on them. Ivey is that kind of player to me, and as much as I love Fox and Mitchell, I'm kind of done with the Kings drafting guards who can't shoot, given the contours of the modern game.

As for Shaedon Sharpe, I have no idea what to make of him. He's just a grab bag of question marks and the reality is that there will be no satisfying answers before the draft. Selecting Sharpe is basically taking a seat at a craps table. If the Kings were stripping their roster for parts and starting at zero, I could be convinced to "swing for the fences" with a guy like that. But with the Fox, the Ox, Mike Brown, and a playoff mandate? Nah. Give me a day-one contributor like Keegan Murray, the kind of skilled two-way forward who winning teams regularly stock on their rosters but the Kings have been allergic to for a decade.

The 4th pick is not a historical bastion of franchise-altering talent, and the top of this draft is already lacking in high-wattage, superstar prospects, exciting though their potential may be. Each of the consensus top-4 have notable deficiencies, and Ivey's got some pretty glaring ones. I honestly don't see a great deal of separation between his talent level and Murray's. If Ivey had a stronger outside shot, I'd give him the edge. But since the Kings already have a lightning quick guard in their starting lineup who feasts at the rim but has a shaky three-ball and isn't a particularly natural playmaker, I really don't know what the point of drafting Ivey would be unless you are absolutely convinced he's a surefire all-star rather than a fringe all-star level talent like Fox has been to this point.

In short, I take Murray and the winning archetype his skill set represents over the hope that Ivey grows into something more than another hyper athletic guard who can't shoot.
 
I don't recall Paul Pierce being known for his playmaking when he first entered the NBA, he developed that over time. Keegan Murray was that Iowa offense this season and with the rate at which he was knocking down shots, why would you want him passing to someone else? Commanding a double team in the post and shooting well enough that defenders need to respect him on the perimeter and close out quickly in the triple threat position should present him with opportunities to be a playmaker with guys like Fox, Barnes, and Sabonis playing next to him. Jayson Tatum is actually a good comparison for him too. I was way off in my assessment of Tatum as a prospect because I was overly focused on what I thought he couldn't do. Murray is coming into the league older but even if he's 80 or 90% of who Tatum is now, that's still worthy of a #4 pick.
Yes, some might forget or be too young to remember - Paul Pierce had a chip on his shoulder (supposedly) the first few years as many teams including the Kings passed him over - Kings did pass him over for Jason Williams. Pierce was a determined and strong scorer, but average playmaker earlier.
 
Last edited:
To be clear, I am making no direct comparison between Doncic and Keegan Murray. I do not think Murray has MVP-level potential..
The problem I’ve always had with “MVP” in most leagues is the the award is too offensive friendly. In many cases the player that wins the award should be winning “most outstanding offensive player”.

Many of those that win the award are only outstanding on one side of the ball thus don’t win championships.

Unless something drastically changes, I don’t rue missing out on the likes of #77 as I once did — or even the Trae Young types — because they likely aren’t ever going to win a title let alone titles plural.
 
as much as I love Fox and Mitchell, I'm kind of done with the Kings drafting guards who can't shoot, given the contours of the modern game.
“Can’t shoot” is hyperbole. It’s not accurate or even close to it.

I get it, you’d prefer a deadeye shooter. An elite shooter (didn’t we have that in Buddy Hield whom seemingly everyone wanted to dump every season?) And Fox and Mitchell aren’t Steph and Klay. Or Lillard.

But to say they can’t shoot is just flat wrong. Those players also do things other player that shoot slightly higher percentages can’t do. So there’s that too.
 
The player that Keegan Murray reminds me of is a bigger Paul Pierce. Both were not elite athletes, but smart, heady player who can score the ball in bunches. I think Murray can be an alpha 20+ pts per game scorer in time. He's not flashy, but he's very active and smart player that will get you 20+pts and 7+ reb a game once he hits his stride.
I’ve always wondered how different the KINGS would have been had they drafted Paul Pierce instead of Jason Williams.

Vlade-CWebb-Peja-Pierce-Bjax could have been a ridiculous starting 5 (assuming they still acquire Bobby).
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
I believe that one of the 3 of Holmgren, Smith or Banchero drops to 4. Between Ivey and or Sharpe, one, maybe both will jump up in the draft.

Out of the current universal top 3, I don’t believe Jabari Smith will drop from top 3 but I do believe that Holmgren will fall in the draft. Great length and skills, I think his frame and defense from some of the videos I’ve seen, can’t stay with quicker perimeter guys, may give pause to teams. I would pass on him.

I think we will have a choice between both Banchero and Murray potentially.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
The other thing to consider when picking at 4 is we should be able to draft a guy who plays both sides of the ball. If the Ivey defense isn’t any good, the Kings have to pass on him.

For the forum guys who follow the prospects all year, who at the top plays both sides of the ball?
That is what we need. Not a one dimensional guy.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty firmly on this page. Call it PTSD from the Bagley pick, but right now I just can't get on board with prospects who are all raw physical materials and athleticism but have serious holes in their games that you have to pray they can patch once an NBA coaching staff gets their hands on them. Ivey is that kind of player to me, and as much as I love Fox and Mitchell, I'm kind of done with the Kings drafting guards who can't shoot, given the contours of the modern game.

As for Shaedon Sharpe, I have no idea what to make of him. He's just a grab bag of question marks and the reality is that there will be no satisfying answers before the draft. Selecting Sharpe is basically taking a seat at a craps table. If the Kings were stripping their roster for parts and starting at zero, I could be convinced to "swing for the fences" with a guy like that. But with the Fox, the Ox, Mike Brown, and a playoff mandate? Nah. Give me a day-one contributor like Keegan Murray, the kind of skilled two-way forward who winning teams regularly stock on their rosters but the Kings have been allergic to for a decade.

The 4th pick is not a historical bastion of franchise-altering talent, and the top of this draft is already lacking in high-wattage, superstar prospects, exciting though their potential may be. Each of the consensus top-4 have notable deficiencies, and Ivey's got some pretty glaring ones. I honestly don't see a great deal of separation between his talent level and Murray's. If Ivey had a stronger outside shot, I'd give him the edge. But since the Kings already have a lightning quick guard in their starting lineup who feasts at the rim but has a shaky three-ball and isn't a particularly natural playmaker, I really don't know what the point of drafting Ivey would be unless you are absolutely convinced he's a surefire all-star rather than a fringe all-star level talent like Fox has been to this point.

In short, I take Murray and the winning archetype his skill set represents over the hope that Ivey grows into something more than another hyper athletic guard who can't shoot.
It all depends on what you make of our current crop of players, especially the star players. I don’t believe Fox is good enough to lead us anywhere and Sabonis really isn’t “that guy” either, as he is best suited to be the 2nd star or even 3rd just based on his game.

I think the Kings need to swing for “that guy” someone that oozes potential even with question marks. For me it isn’t Ivey as he comes with the same concerns as Fox has now, which are too many. Give me the guy that has a chance to turn into a superstar because we don’t have that. Last one we had was Cousins but we completely mismanaged that and he was a bit of a loose canon himself. I have a feeling Sharpe goes top 3 so the point is moot to me, but if anyone has all the skills necessary to be a superstar, it’s him, grab bag of question marks and all. The only question I have about him is how great do you want to be? Tools are there, what’s in his head?

Kings need something and what we need is someone to breathe life into us. I wouldn’t blame anyone if we selected Sharpe and it fizzled, at least we tried. I wouldn’t compare it to a Bagley situation either because no one was saying he could be a superstar (that was supposed to be Fox). Doncic, if you knew basketball, had many more tools in his toolbox than Bagley ever did. Sharpe has more tools and ability than Murray, can he put it all together? How risky do the Kings want to get? They don’t view Fox that highly either since they tried to trade him first. So you need a star. Go for the star I say.
 
The other thing to consider when picking at 4 is we should be able to draft a guy who plays both sides of the ball. If the Ivey defense isn’t any good, the Kings have to pass on him.

For the forum guys who follow the prospects all year, who at the top plays both sides of the ball?
That is what we need. Not a one dimensional guy.
Holmgren, Smith and Murray all play both sides of the court. Banchero puts forth effort, but has limitations holding him back. Ivey played good defense at times and almost no defense at other times. Sharpe is a mystery at this point.
 
I believe that one of the 3 of Holmgren, Smith or Banchero drops to 4. Between Ivey and or Sharpe, one, maybe both will jump up in the draft.

Out of the current universal top 3, I don’t believe Jabari Smith will drop from top 3 but I do believe that Holmgren will fall in the draft. Great length and skills, I think his frame and defense from some of the videos I’ve seen, can’t stay with quicker perimeter guys, may give pause to teams. I would pass on him.

I think we will have a choice between both Banchero and Murray potentially.
I get the same feeling that Banchero will be the one that drops to #4. But, I'm starting to get worried that it will be Murray, not Ivey or Sharpe, that jumps into the top 3. That would leave us with Bachero, Ivey or Sharpe or trade down.

I'm hoping that if Murray goes top 3, then it would be Holmgren or Smith that drops to us, but I doubt it. If Murray is gone at #4 and it's between Banchero, Ivey or Sharpe available, I might be inclined to try to trade down and get additional assets.
 
I get the same feeling that Banchero will be the one that drops to #4. But, I'm starting to get worried that it will be Murray, not Ivey or Sharpe, that jumps into the top 3. That would leave us with Bachero, Ivey or Sharpe or trade down.

I'm hoping that if Murray goes top 3, then it would be Holmgren or Smith that drops to us, but I doubt it. If Murray is gone at #4 and it's between Banchero, Ivey or Sharpe available, I might be inclined to try to trade down and get additional assets.
I’m not huge in Banchero to the Kings - but after ready Mussleman’s assessment of him, I’m intrigued. I also wonder if Jay Triano (new coach) has good intel on Sharpe due to his prior experience with the Canadian National team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.