Lets talk about past drafts.

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't buy that Petrie prefers SG/SF shooters. If that's the case, he'd have drafted Paul Pierce instead of JWill, Hassell instead of Gerald Wallace, and Al Thornton instead of Hawes. Although in hindsight, maybe he should have drafted Pierce instead of JWill, but the point is, Petrie's only preference seems to be best player available.

This is fallacious reasoning on multiple levels:

1. Petrie didn't draft Pierce because he was banking on his boy Stojakovic to be the SG/SF of the future for the Kings. Either that, or he severely miscalculated on Olivier St. Jean. Plus, I think that you could make the case that Williams was the last time that Petrie actually drafted based on need. As in, at the time, we needed a point guard more than we needed a swingman and, for better or worse, Williams was the best point guard available.

2. Trenton Hassell? Seriously?

3. You really think that Petrie would have taken a jumpshooting "power forward" who shot .528 in college over a jumpshooting center who shot .532?

 

[Kevin's Good Feet]

And it's not that it was a bad pick, but if you look at the guys that were picked after that who've been comparatively succesful in the NBA so far -- Jason Maxiell, David Lee, Ronny Turiaf, Andray Blatche, Ryan Gomes -- a pattern emerges. They're hard nosed players who use their strength to get rebounds and score down low.

How many of the players listed above play more than 25 MPG, much less start for their team? Don't get me wrong, I like the players listed above and they definitely could help us where we need it. But some people seem to be over exaggerating whatever effect they could have on us. Milsap and Turiaf are good contributors for their team and can pull off a good spot-start or two, but Bynum and Boozer are the reason why their teams control the boards night in and night out.

Also, they were picked where they were because they have some glaring deficiencies and their ability to transition to the NBA was not written in stone. Let's not forget that for every Paul Millsap we passed up, we also passed on a Wayne Simien as well. Undersized PFs are typically a risky pick, which is why they are found where they are. While I wasn't a fan of the Douby pick, I don't see the need to tar and feather Petrie because he decided to pass on these types of players in a couple of drafts. If you want to get on his case for not pursuing these players through other avenues, well then that's a different topic

I don't get why Ryan Gomes is on that list though, he's a prototypical "Petrie-PF" (undersized jump shooter)

 

[beb0p]

This is fallacious reasoning on multiple levels:

1. Petrie didn't draft Pierce because he was banking on his boy Stojakovic to be the SG/SF of the future for the Kings. Either that, or he severely miscalculated on Olivier St. Jean. Plus, I think that you could make the case that Williams was the last time that Petrie actually drafted based on need. As in, at the time, we needed a point guard more than we needed a swingman and, for better or worse, Williams was the best point guard available.

2. Trenton Hassell? Seriously?

3. You really think that Petrie would have taken a jumpshooting "power forward" who shot .528 in college over a jumpshooting center who shot .532?

1. You basically made the case for me. Whether it was a draft for need or not, GP took the PG over the more heralded SG/SF. End of story unless you have something more valid than just refuting me by agreeing with me.
Aslo, speaking of Olivier St. Jean, another player who wasn't a shooter.

2. You obviously didn't know the history of that draft. GP was going to draft Tony Parker, but a draft-day trade brought in Bibby and GP didn't want another PG. It was down to Hassell or Gerald Wallace. In the end, GP took Wallace even though he never worked him out. Case in point again that GP doesn't always go for the shooter.
You apparently didn't know that Hassell was a big time scorer in college.

3. Al Thornton is projected to be a SF. Didn't you know?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

1. You basically made the case for me. Whether it was a draft for need or not, GP took the PG over the more heralded SG/SF. End of story unless you have something more valid than just refuting me by agreeing with me.
Aslo, speaking of Olivier St. Jean, another player who wasn't a shooter.

Not end of story: Petrie has taken a G/F in six out of ten times he's had a first round pick, and four out of his last six. There's no question that he's partial to a certain kind of player.

2. You obviously didn't know the history of that draft. GP was going to draft Tony Parker, but a draft-day trade brought in Bibby and GP didn't want another PG. It was down to Hassell or Gerald Wallace. In the end, GP took Wallace even though he never worked him out. Case in point again that GP doesn't always go for the shooter.
You apparently didn't know that Hassell was a big time scorer in college.

There's no such thing as a "big time" scorer from Austin Peay.

3. Al Thornton is projected to be a SF. Didn't you know?

Cite?

 

[dude12]

Cite?

Have you seen him play...he's a SF. The only way he's considered a PF is if the team plays small ball and then he's a PF like Pietrus is considered a SF.

 

[Smills91]

Well put hrdboild. Petrie constantly goes back to his comfort zone SG/SF player and rarely takes a chances on players that complement what we already have. If he drafts another swingman this year, he should be fired.

He's also had exactly TWO lottery picks the past decade. Top notch big men go early. He takes the best available and that's typically 2/3.

I'd rather have a roster full of solid 1-2-3's and have a tradeable commodity than take a shot at 5/100 big men that have actually panned out in the late first/second round. Not good odds if you ask me.

 

[Gary]

He's also had exactly TWO lottery picks the past decade. Top notch big men go early. He takes the best available and that's typically 2/3.

I'd rather have a roster full of solid 1-2-3's and have a tradeable commodity than take a shot at 5/100 big men that have actually panned out in the late first/second round. Not good odds if you ask me.

If we are stocked at those positions than we probably wont get anythig for them because they will not get enough playing time to showcase.. Look what happened to Wallace. We let him go in the expansion draft of all places.

 

[bajaden]

Well I might as well add my two cents. I think Petrie drafts, who In his mind, is the best player available. Like it or not, that happens to be a SG or a SF most of the time. There was a time before Petrie that the Kings drafted for need, regardless of the talent. Joe Kleine is an a example of that.could have had Malone. Sometimes they got lucky and got a decent player anyway. Kenny Smith is an example of that. However, even with that pick they could have had Kevin Johnson. My memory may be faulty, but I believe that Petrie drafted Brian Grant and Michael Smith, and in a later draft in the second round he drafted Funderburke. Although Corliss played SF in the NBA, he was a PF/C in college.
The draft is a tricky business and its easy to make mistakes. I'm not a big Douby fan, but he still has time to prove me wrong.

 

[hrdboild]

How many of the players listed above play more than 25 MPG, much less start for their team? Don't get me wrong, I like the players listed above and they definitely could help us where we need it. But some people seem to be over exaggerating whatever effect they could have on us. Milsap and Turiaf are good contributors for their team and can pull off a good spot-start or two, but Bynum and Boozer are the reason why their teams control the boards night in and night out.

Also, they were picked where they were because they have some glaring deficiencies and their ability to transition to the NBA was not written in stone. Let's not forget that for every Paul Millsap we passed up, we also passed on a Wayne Simien as well. Undersized PFs are typically a risky pick, which is why they are found where they are. While I wasn't a fan of the Douby pick, I don't see the need to tar and feather Petrie because he decided to pass on these types of players in a couple of drafts. If you want to get on his case for not pursuing these players through other avenues, well then that's a different topic

I don't get why Ryan Gomes is on that list though, he's a prototypical "Petrie-PF" (undersized jump shooter)

I wasn't "tar and feathering" Petrie, I was merely pointing out one area in which I think he could be critisized. If you read my post again you should note that I did refer to him as a good GM and I did say that he's done a good job of maximizing his picks. The criticism I was pointing out is that he consistently overlooks players who's best attributes are strength and rebounding. Not all of those players work out, but not all the shooters drafted work out either (I think there's just as many misses on wing players and point guards as there are on big men -- at least once you get past all the lottery 'upside' picks) -- and some GMs tend to favor rolling the dice on one type or the other. That alone isn't necessarily a criticism, but I think when you look at our roster and see a notable absence of those types of players on our team, it maybe suggests that Petrie just doesn't evaluate that type of player well enough to acquire them when they're still acquirable.

 

[kingsfan101]

If we are stocked at those positions than we probably wont get anythig for them because they will not get enough playing time to showcase.. Look what happened to Wallace. We let him go in the expansion draft of all places.

Late in the draft, getting the best player available is usually the best strategy, unless an almost equally good player at the required position is available.

As for playing time, it can be a problem, but depending on the maturity of the player, and the level of the person he is backing up, it can be created. For example, suppose the coaching staff and Petrie were confident of Cisco backing up the 2/3 position, but were unable to find time for him behind Ron, Kevin and Salmons. In such a case, they could think of trading Ron for some help up front (no, I am not suggesting that Cisco is as good as Ron, or that we should trade Ron. Just a hypothetical example).

GW's example is slightly extreme. He was very young when he entered the league, and we were very talented at that time, and trying for a championship. Could Rick still have found time for him? Probably yes, but can't blame Geoff for picking him.

Ironically, when we let him go, he was ready to contribute, and would have had opportunities too. And while we might never know if loosing him was extemely bad planning by Geoff, or a decision arrived at by mutual consensus, my suspicion tilts towards the latter.

 

[Gary]

Late in the draft, getting the best player available is usually the best strategy, unless an almost equally good player at the required position is available.

As for playing time, it can be a problem, but depending on the maturity of the player, and the level of the person he is backing up, it can be created. For example, suppose the coaching staff and Petrie were confident of Cisco backing up the 2/3 position, but were unable to find time for him behind Ron, Kevin and Salmons. In such a case, they could think of trading Ron for some help up front (no, I am not suggesting that Cisco is as good as Ron, or that we should trade Ron. Just a hypothetical example).

GW's example is slightly extreme. He was very young when he entered the league, and we were very talented at that time, and trying for a championship. Could Rick still have found time for him? Probably yes, but can't blame Geoff for picking him.

Ironically, when we let him go, he was ready to contribute, and would have had opportunities too. And while we might never know if loosing him was extemely bad planning by Geoff, or a decision arrived at by mutual consensus, my suspicion tilts towards the latter.

The only thing I can imagine if we had too many swings, and picked near the end of the first round is that we would be drafting for another team i.e. the Hawks in 2002 Dan Dickau. I f I am not mistaken that did save our butts in 2004, or 2005 right? If we didn't trade that pick to ATL, and then used the first rounder they owed us than we would have been w/o a 2004, or 05 pick right? I forgot how that all worked out.

 

[Kingster]

I know someone would say that. But yeah, he gets canned. You put Jordan on this team and we win 40 games at best. The great Bulls teams had Grant and Rodman, while not superstars they played an integral role in their championship runs by providing interior defense and rebounding.

What the team needs is post players and interior defense, but Petrie seems reluctant to draft/trade/sign these players for whatever reason. If Petrie's rolling the dice on the "next Jordan" than he's not doing what the Maloofs pay him for, which is build a team.

What this team needs is a superstar. He could be a 6 ft point guard or a 7 ft center. You can always trade for mediocre to good "need" players, but not for the star player, unless the star player has some major baggage.