Kings Select in the 2008 NBA DRAFT??

[gunks]

I'd actually be alright with Alexander.

Sure we got a lot of depth at the 3, but honestly the only guy who plays that position I want on the Kings long term is Garcia. Salmons is pouty like KT and Ron is, well, Ron..

Kids a project thought, but all the draft sites are saying he's a workoholic. Would much rather take on a project with some work ethic then say, Jorden.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Just what we need, another defensive liability. Granted we do need a PG, but if you're drafting Augustin then you're hoping to lock him into the starting lineup for a long time. So that gives us a back court duo of Augustin and Kevin Martin? It's hard for me to picture that ever being a good defensive team.

Eh, defenses today are more about team defense and being able to stop penetration with your froncourt. So I don't think having a poor-mediocre defensive backcourt really dooms our defensive potential, but with below avg-to average at three of the 5 spots with dj, martin, and hawes it would be worrisome. Hawes I think if he adds enough strength he can become a solid contributor on defense in the way Vlade was.

PG is really the least significant defensive position in the NBA today because of all the new rules.

I don't really see us getting some above average defender at our pick regardless unless we took a 3 or Westbrook who would weaken us offensively if he's forced to play the 1. Neither Speights or McGee are proven defenders at all, sure they have some tools, but with Hawes in the frontcourt we're going to need quite the game changer on the defensive end to make up for it and I don't think they're game changers.

 

[bajaden]

I'd actually be alright with Alexander.

Sure we got a lot of depth at the 3, but honestly the only guy who plays that position I want on the Kings long term is Garcia. Salmons is pouty like KT and Ron is, well, Ron..

Kids a project thought, but all the draft sites are saying he's a workoholic. Would much rather take on a project with some work ethic then say, Jorden.

As I stated in an earlier post. Your talking about a guy that slept in the locker room three times a week so he could get up in the middle of the night and practice. When he asked his coach for a key to the gym, his coach said I'll give it to you on one condition. Stop dribbling that basketball everywhere you go.

 

[bajaden]

Eh, defenses today are more about team defense and being able to stop penetration with your froncourt. So I don't think having a poor-mediocre defensive backcourt really dooms our defensive potential, but with below avg-to average at three of the 5 spots with dj, martin, and hawes it would be worrisome. Hawes I think if he adds enough strength he can become a solid contributor on defense in the way Vlade was.

PG is really the least significant defensive position in the NBA today because of all the new rules.

I don't really see us getting some above average defender at our pick regardless unless we took a 3 or Westbrook who would weaken us offensively if he's forced to play the 1. Neither Speights or McGee are proven defenders at all, sure they have some tools, but with Hawes in the frontcourt we're going to need quite the game changer on the defensive end to make up for it and I don't think they're game changers.

There's really no reason Martin can't develop into a decent defensive player. He's certainly athletic enough. All he needs is the desire to do it, or perhaps a cattle prod for inspiration.

 

[hrdboild]

There's really no reason Martin can't develop into a decent defensive player. He's certainly athletic enough. All he needs is the desire to do it, or perhaps a cattle prod for inspiration.

I've been saying that for three years, but so far I've seen little evidence of it actually happening. I'm starting to wonder why I was so sure in the first place. There's actually a lot more to playing defense than just length and athleticism. We know Kevin can move his feet. The problem is more a matter of basketball IQ. Some players seem to be born defenders -- they know what their opponent is going to do at all times and make them uncomfortable. They aren't necessarily more athletic than everyone else, they just have an instinct and a work ethic for playing defense. Kevin has certainly put in the work to improve his offensive game but to date he hasn't shown the same commitment to defense. I haven't even seen Kevin get into a defensive stance on a regular basis, which certainly doesn't speak well of his desire to be a good defender. At this point, I haven't seen anything to indicate that Kevin is ever going to be anything more than average as a defender.

 

[gunks]

As I stated in an earlier post. Your talking about a guy that slept in the locker room three times a week so he could get up in the middle of the night and practice. When he asked his coach for a key to the gym, his coach said I'll give it to you on one condition. Stop dribbling that basketball everywhere you go.

Wow really? Guys got desire haha.

I say pick him, and trade both Ron AND Salmons. Let Garcia start and Alexander come off the bench. What the heck, we're rebuilding.

 

[beb0p]

As I stated in an earlier post. Your talking about a guy that slept in the locker room three times a week so he could get up in the middle of the night and practice. When he asked his coach for a key to the gym, his coach said I'll give it to you on one condition. Stop dribbling that basketball everywhere you go.

I'm intrigued by Alexander, but I wonder what kind of pro is he going to be? His is a SF but he's at his best in the post. He mid-range J is good but anything beyond he's not dependable. I think many look at him and see Corliss Williamson as a worse-case scenario and the next Marion if he reaches his ceiling. My question is: do we really need a SF who plays in the post? For my taste, I'd rather the PF plays in the post and the SF stretch the defense. But I'm a traditionalist.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I'm intrigued by Alexander, but I wonder what kind of pro is he going to be? His is a SF but he's at his best in the post. He mid-range J is good but anything beyond he's not dependable. I think many look at him and see Corliss Williamson as a worse-case scenario and the next Marion if he reaches his ceiling. My question is: do we really need a SF who plays in the post? For my taste, I'd rather the PF plays in the post and the SF stretch the defense. But I'm a traditionalist.

As long as he can hit a midrange jumper with consistency it wouldn't bother me too much, but if we were going to take a SF I'd rather it be Batum.

 

[ParniValjak]

Draftexpress has us taking Anthony Randolph @ 12, Malik Hairstorm @ 42 and Nathan Jawai @ 43.

Would be pretty happy with Randolph. High bust potential no doubt but also a really high star potential as well.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Draftexpress has us taking Anthony Randolph @ 12, Malik Hairstorm @ 42 and Nathan Jawai @ 43.

Would be pretty happy with Randolph. High bust potential no doubt but also a really high star potential as well.

Would be nice, but I doubt it.

 

[BMiller52]

Agreed. He won't be able to guard anybody, and he's going to have trouble with the length in the NBA. He's tiny and not very athletic. Oh boy, I'd be thrilled to get him...He had major trouble against Memphis, and he's going to see a lot better than Memphis in the NBA.

Wow 1 bad game undoes a great college career. How can you say he's not athletic? He has a 35'' vert and he had pretty fast 3/4 court sprint times and stuff. He's not Mayo or Rose, but he's a pretty damn good athlete.

 

[SacKings7]

Draftexpress has us taking Anthony Randolph @ 12, Malik Hairstorm @ 42 and Nathan Jawai @ 43.

Would be pretty happy with Randolph. High bust potential no doubt but also a really high star potential as well.

We'd be very lucky to get Randolph at 12, I think he'll be a good player. But he's going in the top 10 for sure

 

[dmj]

We'd be very lucky to get Randolph at 12, I think he'll be a good player. But he's going in the top 10 for sure

I'm wouldn't be so sure about that. There is a pretty good chance that Alexander will jump into the top 10, and if that happens than he will push down someone else. I feel reasonably sure that Lopez is going to ahead of us, as their isn't really any other center with lottery talent available. So at least one of Augustin, Westbrook, Galinari, Randolph, or Alexander will almost certainly be available to us at 12.

The great thing about this draft, though, is that there is parity among the picks outside of the top 4 or 5 players.

 

[SacKings7]

I'm wouldn't be so sure about that. There is a pretty good chance that Alexander will jump into the top 10, and if that happens than he will push down someone else. I feel reasonably sure that Lopez is going to ahead of us, as their isn't really any other center with lottery talent available. So at least one of Augustin, Westbrook, Galinari, Randolph, or Alexander will almost certainly be available to us at 12.

The great thing about this draft, though, is that there is parity among the picks outside of the top 4 or 5 players.

Yeah I guess so. Not to mention Jordan and Greene, who is my personal pick for the steal of the draft. I'm crossing my fingers for Westbrook, Randolph or Augustin.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Yeah, DX's recent update is crazy considering they'd been so consistent up until now. A number of factors at work here:

1. They, too, are finally jumping on the Brook Lopez sliding bandwagon, with Mayo going to Minny. I guess that's fair.

2. Augustin moving up all the way to the Knicks at #6. That's pretty high, but not shocking if D'Antoni wants a PG like him to build around.

3. Alexander cracking the top 10. Not suprising either, because the Bucks for so long seemed ready to get Gallinari, who now is saying he'll only play for NY or NJ. Thus...

4. NJ takes Gallinari. Which is great, because I'm not much of a fan but I could see Petrie liking him.

5. The only sure thing at this point is that Indy's taking either Augustin or Westbrook if available.

I'm not completely sold on Randolph, but it would be a coup to get him at 12. Is he even working out for us?

 

[hrdboild]

5. The only sure thing at this point is that Indy's taking either Augustin or Westbrook if available.

I'm not completely sold on Randolph, but it would be a coup to get him at 12. Is he even working out for us?

I don't know that that's a sure thing either. Pretty much every mock so far has them taking a PG, assuming Tinsley is going to be either benched or traded, but Indiana only really has one dependable future starter on their roster (Danny Granger) so they need a lot of positions. They could take Anthony Randolph or DeAndre Jordan if they like their potential. Indiana has been pretty consistent the past few years with taking BPA not drafting for position. Westbrook or Augustin could likely be the BPA at that spot though. I rank Westbrook above Randolph, then Augustin, then Jordan but it's all a matter of opinion.

If you watch the videos on Anthony Randolph, what stands out to me is that he's a lot closer to a long, athletic SF like Tayshaun Prince than a skinny post-oriented PF like Chris Bosh. The way he moves with the ball in the open floor he looks like a guard. He really likes the outside jump shot and he gets a lot of his rebounds and tip-ins because he's got long arms and he beats everyone else to the ball. I'm really impressed with his NBA potential, but only when I readjust my expectations a bit. He absolutely is a SF. He does have the size to post up and score inside, but I'd be worried if he had to guard the other team's PF.

 

[bajaden]

We have two area's of need. Point guard and Power forward. I'm all for taking the BPA, but I have a hard time beleiving that we can't fill an area of need at number 12. Rebounding and interior defense is what we need more than anything else. Will Randoff or Greene fill those needs. I don't think so. If I had to choose between the two, I would take Randoff. Greene is too in love with the outside shot.

I watch a lot of college basketball. I have the time and the resources to do so. Here's what an old sucker like me can't understand. How does Jordan, who I watched play quite a few times, and who didn't show me anything at any time to convince me that I wanted him on my team, get ranked ahead of someone like Ryan Anderson? Anderson had a double double almost everytime he walked on the floor. He played in the tough Pac 10 against some of the best players in college basketball. I guarantee you that if Jordan played a game of one on one against Anderson. Anderson would kill him.
If Anderson goes back to Cal. He will likely be a lottery pick next year. So why not promise him a pick this year. Whats the difference. A good player is a good player. Oh well, just the rantings of someone in Mexico who's probably drank one too many cervesa's..

Who ever we pick I'll light a few candles for him, and hope he doesn't increase my drinking..

 

[Vlade4GM]

We have two area's of need. Point guard and Power forward. I'm all for taking the BPA, but I have a hard time beleiving that we can't fill an area of need at number 12. Rebounding and interior defense is what we need more than anything else. Will Randoff or Greene fill those needs. I don't think so. If I had to choose between the two, I would take Randoff. Greene is too in love with the outside shot.

I watch a lot of college basketball. I have the time and the resources to do so. Here's what an old sucker like me can't understand. How does Jordan, who I watched play quite a few times, and who didn't show me anything at any time to convince me that I wanted him on my team, get ranked ahead of someone like Ryan Anderson? Anderson had a double double almost everytime he walked on the floor. He played in the tough Pac 10 against some of the best players in college basketball. I guarantee you that if Jordan played a game of one on one against Anderson. Anderson would kill him.
If Anderson goes back to Cal. He will likely be a lottery pick next year. So why not promise him a pick this year. Whats the difference. A good player is a good player. Oh well, just the rantings of someone in Mexico who's probably drank one too many cervesa's..

Who ever we pick I'll light a few candles for him, and hope he doesn't increase my drinking..

Potential.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

i havent posted in this thread for a few days now but i have some comparisons ive been thinking about ..

joe alexander - i see him as a hedo turkoglu - linas kleiza type of player .. which is fine but personally i want the kings to get away from that style of play and build something more along the lines of what the hawks have .. a more physical slasher / defensive type of player ( a non ball hog ron artest ) at the SF position.

Eric Gordon - monta ellis .. probly even better .. i want this guy, only 'problem' is that we have kev ..

randolph - to be honest i dont know much about this guy, and i have a hard time getting pumped up for him .. much like jordan and mcgee .. just to much potential rather than skill for my liking.. i dont really see bosh in him though, maybe a lamar odom .. dont see him as a PF, which goes back to out log jam at sf ..

Still my number 1 pick for the kings is westbrook followed by augustin and then not resigning beno and saving the money... we need our young players to play and PG is the only position we can draft an guarentee consistent minutes ..


one more note - i think most of us agree that hawes is out center for the future ..which im fine with but he will never be a great defensive player or athlete .. we cant draft a soft big man .. i dont care if its love ..

 

[hrdboild]

We have two area's of need. Point guard and Power forward. I'm all for taking the BPA, but I have a hard time beleiving that we can't fill an area of need at number 12. Rebounding and interior defense is what we need more than anything else. Will Randoff or Greene fill those needs. I don't think so. If I had to choose between the two, I would take Randoff. Greene is too in love with the outside shot.

I watch a lot of college basketball. I have the time and the resources to do so. Here's what an old sucker like me can't understand. How does Jordan, who I watched play quite a few times, and who didn't show me anything at any time to convince me that I wanted him on my team, get ranked ahead of someone like Ryan Anderson? Anderson had a double double almost everytime he walked on the floor. He played in the tough Pac 10 against some of the best players in college basketball. I guarantee you that if Jordan played a game of one on one against Anderson. Anderson would kill him.
If Anderson goes back to Cal. He will likely be a lottery pick next year. So why not promise him a pick this year. Whats the difference. A good player is a good player. Oh well, just the rantings of someone in Mexico who's probably drank one too many cervesa's..

Who ever we pick I'll light a few candles for him, and hope he doesn't increase my drinking..

If college performance were an accurate predictor of NBA success than Tyler Hansbrough would be a lottery pick. Sean May would be an All Star. But it doesn't work that way. The guys who put up numbers in college sometimes have reached the ceiling of their development already and while it's enough to dominate in college, dominating the NBA is something else entirely. That's why you see a lot of great college players get passed up in the first round while 7 foot guys from Senegal who've barely even learned the game (just for example) get drafted in the top 10. The goal is to select the best NBA player available at your pick. Sometimes that might be a relatively unproven player with a good body and a good work ethic who could become a dominant player in a few years. It's all a guessing game, but there's a lot of examples of college MVPs flopping in the NBA and also a lot of examples of guys most teams took a pass on turning into All Stars. You could just as easily end up with another Olowokandi or Kwame Brown while someone like Boozer goes in the second round.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Randolph at 12 would be highway robbery for us. I'm just hoping that it happens.

I'm also starting to warm up on Tywon Lawson. I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal to nab a mid first rounder to grab him.

 

[LPKingsFan]

If Anderson goes back to Cal. He will likely be a lottery pick next year. So why not promise him a pick this year.

I'm not so sure. While I agree Anderson's a good player, what more could he do next season that he didn't do this year? He averaged 21 and 10.

 

[BMiller52]

So when do we find out how Westbrook, Arthur, Alexander, Batum, etc. did in their workouts?

 

[bajaden]

If college performance were an accurate predictor of NBA success than Tyler Hansbrough would be a lottery pick. Sean May would be an All Star. But it doesn't work that way. The guys who put up numbers in college sometimes have reached the ceiling of their development already and while it's enough to dominate in college, dominating the NBA is something else entirely. That's why you see a lot of great college players get passed up in the first round while 7 foot guys from Senegal who've barely even learned the game (just for example) get drafted in the top 10. The goal is to select the best NBA player available at your pick. Sometimes that might be a relatively unproven player with a good body and a good work ethic who could become a dominant player in a few years. It's all a guessing game, but there's a lot of examples of college MVPs flopping in the NBA and also a lot of examples of guys most teams took a pass on turning into All Stars. You could just as easily end up with another Olowokandi or Kwame Brown while someone like Boozer goes in the second round.

Trust me, I know all the answers to the questions I raised. That dreaded word, Potential. Vince Lombardi said it best. " Potential means you haven't done anything yet ".

Here's the part that frustrates me. You have two guys entering college. Both have that so called potential based on what they did in highschool etc. Now both have now played two years in college. One has proved to be what everyone thought he would be and perhaps even exceeded expections. The other has been a disappointment for the most part and certainly underachieved. So what are we going to do. Lets pick the one thats disappointed us, because he's perhaps a little taller and can jump a little higher. Yep, I'm on board for that one.

Bird couldn't jump very high, and he wasn't the fastest guy on the court. But he knew how to play. Of course he was surrounded by those great athlete's McHale and Parrish to help make up for his defiences. Opp's, I forgot, they knew how to play the game too, didn't they?

I'm not trying to be a smart ***. I understand why things are done the way they are. That doesn't mean it makes sense all the time.

 

[hrdboild]

Here's the part that frustrates me. You have two guys entering college. Both have that so called potential based on what they did in highschool etc. Now both have now played two years in college. One has proved to be what everyone thought he would be and perhaps even exceeded expections. The other has been a disappointment for the most part and certainly underachieved. So what are we going to do. Lets pick the one thats disappointed us, because he's perhaps a little taller and can jump a little higher. Yep, I'm on board for that one.

But you were comparing DeAndre Jordan and Ryan Anderson weren't you? Jordan only played one year of college. Also Jordan was ranked 8th in last years high school class by Rivals.com while Anderson was ranked 98 the year before. Obviously a low profile guy is going to have to work a lot harder to get the same attention as a high profile guy. Then on top of that, 7 footers are always highly coveted prospects, even unskilled ones, because, as they say, you can't teach size. And to a certain extent that expression rings true. DeAndre Jordan didn't do a lot in his one year at Texas A&M, that's why his stock is slipping. But on size and potential alone he's going to be a top 20 pick regardless unless he totally bombs his workouts or gets arrested stealing a car or something. He has underachieved, but really only for half a season if you look at the stats and Texas A&M doesn't exactly have a sterling record for developing young prospects. This is probably a guy who a few years ago would have gone straight to the draft and sat on someone's bench for four years like Jermaine O'Neal. There's a good enough chance that he can turn it around to risk the pick on him.

I understand your argument and I agree with you in spirit. A lot of supposedly undersized guys have been drafted late in the first or in the second round the last few years and then been awesome in the NBA. Ryan Gomes, Craig Smith, Carl Landry to bring up some recent examples. It's just in this specific case, I agree with the consensus. I'd rather take a chance on DeAndre Jordan living up to his potential with my lottery pick than Ryan Anderson giving me a consistent 15 and 8 every night. Because everyone wants to get that franchise changing talent and the lottery is generally how you do it. You can pick up a Ryan Anderson in free agency down the line once you've already got your franchise player.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Trust me, I know all the answers to the questions I raised. That dreaded word, Potential. Vince Lombardi said it best. " Potential means you haven't done anything yet ".

Here's the part that frustrates me. You have two guys entering college. Both have that so called potential based on what they did in highschool etc. Now both have now played two years in college. One has proved to be what everyone thought he would be and perhaps even exceeded expections. The other has been a disappointment for the most part and certainly underachieved. So what are we going to do. Lets pick the one thats disappointed us, because he's perhaps a little taller and can jump a little higher. Yep, I'm on board for that one.

Bird couldn't jump very high, and he wasn't the fastest guy on the court. But he knew how to play. Of course he was surrounded by those great athlete's McHale and Parrish to help make up for his defiences. Opp's, I forgot, they knew how to play the game too, didn't they?

I'm not trying to be a smart ***. I understand why things are done the way they are. That doesn't mean it makes sense all the time.

Anderson may or may not be underrated, I don't know enough about him to have an opinion. However the thought process that leads to Jordan being ranked higher isn't without merit. Skills oriented players can make it in this league, but they generally have to be pretty damn skilled to make it as a top player and even then their ceiling is pretty limited as far as star play goes. You can point to a guy like Okur as someone who has made it to near all-star (depends on your standards I guess) level with a ton of skills, but with Okur's lack of length and athleticism he's a pee poor defender. While you can point to McHale and Bird, not only were they uber-skilled but they played in a much less athletic era than we do now. Now the stars of the league generally have either superior length or athleticism to go along with elite skills. That's why Jordan has a certain ceiling and Anderson doesn't. Does that mean Jordan will be a better player? No, in fact it means he has bigger bust potential, however some teams need that home run pick, someone who has the physical tools to be a star and then can be potentially taught the game with good coaching and/or experience.

 

[rhythmless]

Because everyone wants to get that franchise changing talent and the lottery is generally how you do it. You can pick up a Ryan Anderson in free agency down the line once you've already got your franchise player.

And this is what it's really about. You build around stars, and while you have a higher bust potential this way, you don't attract tier one/tier two stars with a good set of role players; you attract good role players by having that coveted star.

 

[bajaden]

But you were comparing DeAndre Jordan and Ryan Anderson weren't you? Jordan only played one year of college. Also Jordan was ranked 8th in last years high school class by Rivals.com while Anderson was ranked 98 the year before. Obviously a low profile guy is going to have to work a lot harder to get the same attention as a high profile guy. Then on top of that, 7 footers are always highly coveted prospects, even unskilled ones, because, as they say, you can't teach size. And to a certain extent that expression rings true. DeAndre Jordan didn't do a lot in his one year at Texas A&M, that's why his stock is slipping. But on size and potential alone he's going to be a top 20 pick regardless unless he totally bombs his workouts or gets arrested stealing a car or something. He has underachieved, but really only for half a season if you look at the stats and Texas A&M doesn't exactly have a sterling record for developing young prospects. This is probably a guy who a few years ago would have gone straight to the draft and sat on someone's bench for four years like Jermaine O'Neal. There's a good enough chance that he can turn it around to risk the pick on him.

I understand your argument and I agree with you in spirit. A lot of supposedly undersized guys have been drafted late in the first or in the second round the last few years and then been awesome in the NBA. Ryan Gomes, Craig Smith, Carl Landry to bring up some recent examples. It's just in this specific case, I agree with the consensus. I'd rather take a chance on DeAndre Jordan living up to his potential with my lottery pick than Ryan Anderson giving me a consistent 15 and 8 every night. Because everyone wants to get that franchise changing talent and the lottery is generally how you do it. You can pick up a Ryan Anderson in free agency down the line once you've already got your franchise player.

Actually, I was speaking in general with that statement, but about Jordan and Anderson in spirit. Anyway, we are in agreement in some ways. I've made judgement on players for a long time, and beleive me, I've made my share of mistakes. However, I've been wrong more times with potential than I have on players that already had the skills to play. And by wrong, I mean players that didn't live up to my expectations. I will admit though, that its easier to hit a home run with a so called "potential" player.

Just for fun, we ought to write down all the potential players, track them and meet 3 or 4 yr's from now on this same subject. Just to see how many lived up to thier potential.

 

[Kingster]

He's too skinny... I dunno he's a project for sure. I like his skills, size, and athleticism though. I think the 2nd best player is going to be Rose. IMO Beasley winds up being the best player. I think KLove/Mayo will be the 3rd/4th best players though, but Bayless could find himself there too.

I want Jordan or McGee. I really am higher on Speights and Westbrook than anyone else though too so I dunno. DJ Augustin's height deficiency is overrated though, he actually has a taller standing reach than Chris Paul and he is WAY more athletic than anyone gives him credit for. He has a 35 inch vertacle leap and one of the fastest players too. So those are probably my top 5 guys that I want right now but maybe I'm reading way too much into the combine.

If Augustin is so great, why was he dwarfed (pun intended) by Memphis? It wasn't just Rose that bothered him. It was a long athletic team that gave him fits. He's going to see that every single night in the NBA (maybe with the possible exception of the Kings). And on D he's going to be terrible.

 

[bajaden]

If Augustin is so great, why was he dwarfed (pun intended) by Memphis? It wasn't just Rose that bothered him. It was a long athletic team that gave him fits. He's going to see that every single night in the NBA (maybe with the possible exception of the Kings). And on D he's going to be terrible.

Gosh, players seem to either suck with you, or they're great. On another thread you say that Alexander has no game at all and would be a disaster on our team, which I take umbrage with, and now Augustin has one bad game, and I emphasize, one bad game, and he's a bust. Come on. If I judged every player on one selective game I would have no idea who that player really is as a player. And, by the way, it was Rose that bothered him. The same Rose that bothered Westbrook, a player that everyone is sold on being a great player.
Have you actually watched Augustin play all year? Let me say this. I'm not one of those that wants to draft Augustin. I have other preferences. All I'm saying is to be fair. The guy can play, and I think he will do just fine in the NBA. I wouldn't bet money on him being a star, but I wouldn't bet against it either.