Lottery Do-over series - 2011

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I intend to do one of these for each of the drafts through to 2012. That's as far as I plan to go, because I think you need at least two full seasons before you can properly assess how a draft turned out. I will, however, only be doing this one tonight, because it's after midnight, my time, and I have to work in the morning.

I was motivated to do this after a week of listening to a consistent theme from callers on Grant Napear's show, as well as Napear himself, regarding how many draft picks we got wrong. The thing that always strikes me as funny about these sorts of comments is the notion that, if we had the draft to do over, that the Kings would be the only team getting to do it over: why wouldn't the other teams ahead of us also get to do the draft over?

So, I'm going to start with the 2008 draft. The lottery looked like this:

1. CHI - Derrick Rose
2. MIA - Michael Beasley
3. MIN - O.J. Mayo
4. SEA -Russell Westbrook
5. MEM - Kevin Love
6. NYK - Danillo Gallinari
7. LAC - Eric Gordon
8. MIL - Joe Alexander
9. CHA - D.J. Augustin
10. NJN - Brook Lopez
11. IND - Jerryd Bayless
12. SAC - Jason Thompson
13. POR - Brandon Rush
14. GSW - Anthony Randolph

While there are a lot of those players appear to have been taken much higher than they should have been, the only "true" bust in that lottery is Joe Alexander, although you can also argue for Anthony Randolph. Knowing in 2008 what we know now, I'd argue that the correct draft order would be:

1. Rose
2. Westbrook (+2)
3. Love (+2)
4. Lopez, B. (+6)
5. Serge Ibaka (+19)
6. Roy Hibbert (+11)
7. Goran Dragic (+38)
8. Nicolas Batum (+17)
9. Gordon (-2)
10. DeAndre Jordan (+21)
11. Ryan Anderson (+10)
12. Kings select: Michael Beasley (-10)
13. George Hill (+13)
14. Javale McGee (+4)

Why do I think that we would have taken Beasley? Even knowing what we know now, I think that Petrie would have seen Beasley as the BPA, in terms of upside, and would have liked him for whatever passed for a "system" that we were running at the time. This was the draft to have a lottery pick in if you needed a big man: not a centerpiece big man, mind you, but if you needed a quality role-playing big man, this draft was full of them.

Where would Thompson have gone, instead? I don't see Thompson falling all the way out of the first round. In fact, my gut tells me that Memphis takes him with the 28th pick, and he becomes the primary backup to Marc Gasol.

So, there you have it. The 2008 lottery, redone, as I see it. I'll do 2009 tomorrow. Probably during the Jazz game, especially if it loses my interest.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Tell me why I'm wrong.

Well, I won't nit-pick by jumping a guy a spot or two, but I'd disagree relatively strongly on a few here.

I'll start with Beasley. Knowing what we know now, I can't see a chance in the world that he goes #12 to us. "Upside" doesn't play in a re-imagining of the draft. On upside, he would still be a top-5 pick, but the idea here is to get around upside and get down to actual production. Beasley is completely out of the league at this point, and has had so much trouble (on and off court) that he hardly seems worth it. In terms of win shares, he is now the 28th-best player in that draft and will likely drop to 30 by the time all is said and done. There are far better options - in terms of actual production - than Beasley at 12.

To some extent I'd be leery of taking Rose #1. Rose at his peak was worth it, but I worry that he won't ever get near peak-Rose again, and he has missed a ton of time. Right now Westbrook/Love look like much better plays - because we know that Rose got hurt.

Eric Gordon's injuries and on-again-off-again production would dump him out of my lottery.

Jason Thompson would go well before #28 in my opinion. He's #18 in terms of win shares, and he's both healthy and much of what he brings in defense doesn't really show up in box score stats. I'd take him over several guys who are above him in terms of win shares (Gallinari, Courtney Lee, Augustin, and an argument could easily be made to take him in front of Chalmers and Mayo) so I'd say he's about in the 14-16 range.

Finally, assuming that the top-11 went the way you had it, in retrospect my pick at #12 (and the guy I think is the best talent on the board there) is Robin Lopez.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Well, I won't nit-pick by jumping a guy a spot or two, but I'd disagree relatively strongly on a few here.

I'll start with Beasley. Knowing what we know now, I can't see a chance in the world that he goes #12 to us. "Upside" doesn't play in a re-imagining of the draft. On upside, he would still be a top-5 pick, but the idea here is to get around upside and get down to actual production. Beasley is completely out of the league at this point, and has had so much trouble (on and off court) that he hardly seems worth it. In terms of win shares, he is now the 28th-best player in that draft and will likely drop to 30 by the time all is said and done. There are far better options - in terms of actual production - than Beasley at 12.

I'm going to push back on this: Beasley has talent, and Petrie had a reputation for bringing in talented players on reclamation projects. We're not talking about a Derrick Williams type. Beasley has averaged double figures on multiple playoff teams. Williams is a bust, who has flashes of adequacy; Beasley is a talented player who had flashes of greatness.

Beasley is just talented enough that I can totally believe that Petrie would look at a guy like Beasley and think, "I can make him a productive player." He's just talented enough that a guy like Petrie might think, "Maybe it was just coaching?" He is, without question (IMO), more talented than Robin Lopez, when his head is screwed on straight, and I think that Petrie had ultimate confidence in his ability to get guys' heads screwed on straight.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

This is the one that inspired me to do this do-over series in the first place: I've heard so many Kings Fans call into Napear's show in the past week and lament the fact that we drafted Evans, when we could have had Stephen Curry. These remarks led me to think two things: first, Evans wasn't a bad pick, he was a perfectly cromulent pick. The second thing I thought, as I mentioned in the 2008 do-over, why are the Kings the only team that gets a do-over? You think, if Memphis had the draft to do over again, that Curry would have even made it to our pick?

The 2009 NBA Draft had these lottery picks:

1. LAC - Blake Griffin
2. MEM - Hasheem Thabeet
3. OKC - James Harden
4. SAC - Tyreke Evans
5. MIN - Ricky Rubio
6. MIN - Jonny Flynn
7. GSW - Stephen Curry
8. NYK - Jordan Hill
9. TOR - DeMar DeRozan
10. MIL - Brandon Jennings
11. NJN - Terrence Williams
12. CHA - Gerald Henderson
13. IND - Tyler Hansbrough
14. PHO - Earl Clark

This was a strong draft overall. Several players have been named All-Stars, a couple other players might have been All-Stars, had they played in the other conference, and vice versa. Still, three lottery picks that could reasonably be classified as "true" busts.

Now, one thing I want to make clear is that all of these do-overs are stand alone drafts. They are not cumulative. This do-over is being contemplated as if everything leading up to the 2009 Draft happened exactly as it actually happened in real life. So, with that said:

1. Griffin
2. Curry (+5)
3. Harden
4. Kings select: Tyreke Evans
5. DeRozan (+4)
6. Taj Gibson (+20)
7. Jeff Teague (+12)
8. Jrue Holiday (+9)
9. Hill (-1)
10. Ty Lawson (+8)
11. Marcus Thornton (+32)
12. Patrick Beverley (+30)
13. Clark (+1)
14. DeMarre Carroll (+13)

Why do I think that we would have taken Evans? Well, like I said, if this draft were done over, then that means that Memphis gets to do it over, too. And guess what, they wouldn't pass over Curry again, either. Statistically speaking, Evans was the fourth-best player to come out of that draft, which indicates to me that he was taken exactly where he should be. It's only hindsight that makes it look like a bad move. At the time, it seemed like the right pick and, with Curry already off the board in a do-over, it still would have been the right pick.

Where would Evans have gone instead? N/A

Where would Casspi have gone? I'm not entirely sure. I could see Casspi going as high as 18, if the draft were redone, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he were still on the board at 23 again.

 

[kingsboi]

I loved the Tyreke pick back in 2009....I was not an advocate of Curry and I thought he would bust in the league so you just never know, it's about work ethic and adjusting to the pros.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'm going to push back on this: Beasley has talent, and Petrie had a reputation for bringing in talented players on reclamation projects. ... Beasley is just talented enough that I can totally believe that Petrie would look at a guy like Beasley and think, "I can make him a productive player."

I guess I just don't quite understand the rules of the exercise, then. I was under the assumption that Petrie would have known what we know now - that Beasley, talent and all, would wash out of the league in relatively short order. I have a hard time thinking that many GMs would pick a talented guy whom they know isn't going to help them over a much-less-talented guy whom they know actually will help them.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I guess I just don't quite understand the rules of the exercise, then. I was under the assumption that Petrie would have known what we know now - that Beasley, talent and all, would wash out of the league in relatively short order. I have a hard time thinking that many GMs would pick a talented guy whom they know isn't going to help them over a much-less-talented guy whom they know actually will help them.

As it pertains to Beasley, I am operating under the premise that Petrie would not believe that it was destined that Beasley would wash out. Some guys wash out because they just flat out stink, and some guys wash out because they simply never find the right situation. I believe that Petrie would believe that Beasley is more a case of the latter than the former.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

As it pertains to Beasley, I am operating under the premise that Petrie would not believe that it was destined that Beasley would wash out. Some guys wash out because they just flat out stink, and some guys wash out because they simply never find the right situation. I believe that Petrie would believe that Beasley is more a case of the latter than the former.

OK, so we were definitely operating under different premises. But if it weren't predestined that Beasley would wash out, I think he goes in that 5-6-7 range.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And, see, I still don't. I could maybe see the Knicks taking him at #6 because, Knicks. But I don't see the other teams taking him. Even if it wasn't predestined that Beasley would wash out, I think that he had enough of a reputation coming out of college, as it is, that most GM's would have passed on him, anyway. Most GM's don't seem to have Petrie's "plucky optimisim" about rehabilitation projects.

 

[beb0p]

I'm going to push back on this: Beasley has talent, and Petrie had a reputation for bringing in talented players on reclamation projects. We're not talking about a Derrick Williams type. Beasley has averaged double figures on multiple playoff teams. Williams is a bust, who has flashes of adequacy; Beasley is a talented player who had flashes of greatness.

Beasley is just talented enough that I can totally believe that Petrie would look at a guy like Beasley and think, "I can make him a productive player." He's just talented enough that a guy like Petrie might think, "Maybe it was just coaching?" He is, without question (IMO), more talented than Robin Lopez, when his head is screwed on straight, and I think that Petrie had ultimate confidence in his ability to get guys' heads screwed on straight.

Knowing what we know now, the #12 pick is most definitely George Hill. Recall that during the 2008 draft, it was open secret that Kings were going to draft either Bayless or Augustin. They needed a PG desperately. George Hill is arguably the best PG after Dragic.

There is no chance Petrie touches Beasley. Reason: 1) Petrie was trying to toughen up the team. 2) He wanted rebounder/defender. 3) Petrie apparently liked JJ Hickson heck of a lot more than Beasley since he made a very bad trade to get Hickson, all when Beasley was very much available for a song. 4) In hindsight no way any team would pick Beasley in the lottery, and may not even be in the first round. 5) Beasley is actually not that talented unless you consider one-dimensional player talented. His hype steamed from the impression that people thought he could be a 20-10 PF or an oversized SF who can carry a team offensively. Once we know that he sucks at rebounding, can't guard SF, and he cannot be the #1 option, his value goes down, way down. Like fringe player type down.

If you insist on Petrie drafting a talented but mis-coached player, that player would be Bayless. Because 1) obviously the Kings were looking for a PG. 2) Bayless is about as dynamic a scoring guard as you're going to find coming out of college. He never figured out the PG position but I guess that's where the coaching would come in.
.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I have a hard time believing the Kings would take Evans over Lawson, Holiday, or even Teague in a do-over.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Also surprised you have Jennings falling so far. He's been a gunner, yes, but one that's been fairly effective at times. In terms of gunnerdom, certainly take him over someone like Thornton, unless you are really a position formalist.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I have a hard time believing the Kings would take Evans over Lawson, Holiday, or even Teague in a do-over.

Evans is better than all three of those guys; he's not as efficient, but he's more effective. I'm also intrigued by your usage of "even Teague," as though Ty Lawson and Jrue Holiday are better than Jeff Teague.

Also surprised you have Jennings falling so far. He's been a gunner, yes, but one that's been fairly effective at times. In terms of gunnerdom, certainly take him over someone like Thornton, unless you are really a position formalist.

I've seen enough of Brandon Jennings to have a not-very-high opinion of Brandon Jennings. I'd probably have him just outside the lottery, around 15-16. I don't really think that's falling all that far, in light of how many better players were drafted after him.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'll do 2010 tomorrow. Not like this stuff is time-sensitive, anyway.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And now for 2010. Unlike the other drafts that I'm going to re-visit, there is no player the Kings could end up with who isn't going to be a step down. The 2010 NBA Draft lottery picks were:

1. WAS - John Wall
2. PHI - Evan Turner
3. NJN - Derrick Favors
4. MIN - Wesley Johnson
5. SAC - DeMarcus Cousins
6. GSW - Ekpe Udoh
7. DET - Greg Monroe
8. LAC - Al-Farouq Aminu
9. UTA - Gordon Hayward
10. IND - Paul George
11. NOH - Cole Aldrich
12. MEM - Xavier Henry
13. TOR - Ed Davis
14. HOU - Patrick Patterson

Unlike 2009, this wasn't a super-deep draft. While there was plenty of talent at the top, it gets real thin after that. As a reminder, these fantasy do-overs are not cumulative with each other, they are standalone. This redo is being conducted as if all rosters and staffs were exactly the same as they were on draft night:

1. Cousins (+4)
2. George (+8)
3. Wall (-2)
4. Hayward (+5)
5. Kings select: Greg Monroe (+2)
6. Eric Bledsoe (+12)
7. Favors (-4)
8. Turner (-6)
9. Avery Bradley (+9)
10. Patterson (+4)
11. Udoh (-5)
12. Lance Stephenson (+28)
13. Larry Sanders (+2)
14. Johnson (-10)

Why do I think that we would have taken Monroe? Short answer, because Cousins would have been off the board. I think, with cousins off the board, we would have taken the best big available, and that's Monroe.

Where would Cousins have gone instead? The homer in me says that he was the best player in the 2010 NBA Draft. There's no chance he falls out of the top three.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

So, I've got some pretty heavy **** going on in my personal life right now, and I'm in desperate need of something to distract myself, so I've decided to pick this back up for the 2011 draft. The lottery picks that year were:

1. CLE - Kyrie Irving
2. MIN - Derrick Williams
3. UTA - Enes Kanter
4. CLE - Tristan Thompson
5. TOR - Jonas Valanciunas
6. WAS - Jan Vesely
7. SAC - Bismack Biyombo
8. DET - Brandon Knight
9. CHA - Kemba Walker
10. MIL - Jimmer Fredette
11. GSW - Klay Thompson
12. UTA - Alec Burks
13. PHO - Markieff Morris
14. HOU - Marcus Morris

This was a draft in which the non-lottery portion of the first round looks a lot better than the lottery portion. Lot of GM's looking real dumb that year. I attempted to put slightly more thought into this re-do, giving consideration to the position that team actually drafted, as well as just straight talent. As a reminder, this re-do series is not cumulative:

1. Irving
2. Kawhi Leonard (+12)
3. Nikola Vucevic (+12)
4. K. Thompson (+7)
5. Valanciunas
6. Jimmy Butler (+24)
7. Kings select: Markieff Morris (+6)
8. Walker (+1)
9. Kenneth Faried (+13)
10. Knight (-2)
11. Chandler Parsons (+27)
12. Isaiah Thomas (+48)
13. Tobias Harris (+6)
14. Reggie Jackson (+10)

Why do I think that we would have taken Morris? 'Keef' seems to be a pretty weak rebounder statistically, but most "stretch fours" not named Kevin Love usually are. Offensively, he seems like the ideal space-the-floor guy to put in the starting lineup, with Cousins and Evans running a beast-like pick and roll. Send Morris over to the weak side, and watch the wins pile up. Obviously we would have kept our pick, in this circumstance.

Where would Biyombo have gone instead? Biyombo seems to be a serviceable backup big; he probably would have gone late first round, early second.

Where would Fredette have gone? This was actually a pretty decent draft for getting quality role players, so I can't see Fredette being drafted before the mid second round. There were five guys taken in that draft who haven't played a minute in the NBA, so he obviously wouldn't have gone last. And he's better than guys like Malcolm Lee, Vernon Macklin and E'Twaun Moore, even if it's not by much. I see him going in the late thirties/early forties.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Why do I think that we would have taken Morris? 'Keef' seems to be a pretty weak rebounder statistically, but most "stretch fours" not named Kevin Love usually are. Offensively, he seems like the ideal space-the-floor guy to put in the starting lineup, with Cousins and Evans running a beast-like pick and roll. Send Morris over to the weak side, and watch the wins pile up. Obviously we would have kept our pick, in this circumstance.

I'll disagree on this one. This was an era when we were terribly desperate to get a SF, in a draft that was thought to be pretty weak for SFs. Keep in mind that we traded down to get John Salmons to man the SF, and we shortly thereafter went with the big overpay on the amnestied Outlaw...our list of possible SFs when we were done with everything was Salmons/Cisco/Outlaw/Honeycutt. With the desperate need we had at SF I can't imagine that we wouldn't have gone SF had there been one that was known to be strong on the board. Obviously Kawhi and Klay aren't lasting to #7, but Chandler Parsons would have in your analysis. I think we'd have gone with Parsons.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I think that Cousins/Evans/Parsons gives us too many guys who need the ball in their hands; a good team can only afford two of those guys, and we already had two. Unless you're making that pick knowing in advance that we would eventually let Evans walk...

 

[Tetsujin]

I think that Cousins/Evans/Parsons gives us too many guys who need the ball in their hands; a good team can only afford two of those guys, and we already had two. Unless you're making that pick knowing in advance that we would eventually let Evans walk...

Well, going off the disarray in the franchise at the time, there's a good chance we'd have taken Parsons anyways and just tried to figure it out on the fly.