NBA Draft Lottery

[SLAB]

Why? I think Murray is one of the best players in this draft. I have no idea why some people are down on him. He averaged 23 pt's a game. He's an excellent rebounder, a good defender and he shot just a tick under 40% from the three. He's a physical player as well, who rebounds out of his area. He put up stats that were better than Banchero in every single category other than assists. I probably watched Murry play more than any player in this draft, and it's hard to find a bad game, other than his last, when he was doubled and tripled every time he touched the ball, and he still scored 21 pt's. I just don't get it.

I’m a dummy who’s read (and just read, I don’t watch college ball) just enough to be educated enough to make myself look foolish, but everything I see across the board is safe pick. Immediate contributor. Won’t be bad. But doesn’t have quite that star upside. That’s cool at 7… but I’d rather take the upside shot over steady contributor.

 

[The_Jamal]

i don’t like that Murray is the “safe” pick. That means he isn’t gonna be the BPA at 4. We gotta stick to BPA or it’s gonna bite us again I already know it

Why are "safe" and "BPA" not synonymous here?

Murray just got done dominating college basketball on a bad team and carried them to the NCAA tournament. 6'8, 6'11 wingspan, Shot just a hair under 40% from 3 on big volume, while being the main focal point for the defense. Has "grab and go" ability in transition where he can run the break. Can create his own shot from inside or on the wing (although could use a little more creativity with his wing creation). Mind-blowingly good statistical profile and efficiency numbers. And like I said... his team stunk. Defenses knew he was the 1st/2nd and 3rd option and he still put up one of the better offensive college seasons in recent memory.

On defense averaged 1.9 BPG and 1.3 SPG. Defensive playmaker and weak-side shot-blocking should be his best defensive attributes (something we might need eh?). Perhaps a touch slow laterally to defend the quicker 3's and be a great perimeter defender, but I wouldn't rule it out either. The nice thing is we could be real switchable with him and Barnes at the 3/4 and play into match-ups.

Anyone who thinks Murray can't be BPA at 4 are just lying to themselves. He's a damn good prospect with a rare skill-set at a premium position that just happens to perfectly fit our core.

 

[EIM86]

Why are "safe" and "BPA" not synonymous here?

Murray just got done dominating college basketball on a bad team and carried them to the NCAA tournament. 6'8, 6'11 wingspan, Shot just a hair under 40% on big volume, while being the main focal point for the defense. Has "grab and go" ability in transition where he can run the break. Can create his own shot from inside or on the wing (although could use a little more creativity with his wing creation). Mind-blowingly good statistical profile and efficiency numbers. And like I said... his team stunk. Defenses knew he was the 1st/2nd and 3rd option and he still put up one of the better offensive college seasons in recent memory.

On defense averaged 1.9 BPG and 1.3 SPG. Defensive playmaker and weak-side shot-blocking should be his best defensive attributes (something we might need eh?). Perhaps a touch slow laterally to defend the quicker 3's and be a great perimeter defender, but I wouldn't rule it out either. The nice thing is we could be real switchable with him and Barnes at the 3/4 and play into match-ups.

Anyone who thinks Murray can't be BPA at 4 are just lying to themselves. He's a damn good prospect with a rare skill-set at a premium position that just happens to perfectly fit our core.

I disagree. He’s not a #4 IMO but I’m just a couch GM anyway

he’s already 22 I believe, not all that athletic, doesn’t have an alpha dog style of play. Has role player written all over him

 

[captain bill]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1526738549369753600

wow

Joe Dumars did what we sent him to New York to do

 

[kb02]

Banchero at 6'10" 250 is a different type of athlete entirely. I can see an argument to like Murray over Banchero being both are more 4's than 3's. Murray to me is a bit like Barnes. As of now, the Kings do not have a single top prospect at SG. Both would fit IMO.

Banchero is taller, bigger, and more agile than Murray. Neither are elite athletes by NBA standards, but one dude is straight line and a bit of a plodder. The other has the best handles for a big in the draft and has functional agility. Banchero is the better player and the better athlete. But it’s not surprising coming from Bajaden. He loved Toppin, said he was plug and play from day one. Dude was far from plug and play. Toppin is straight line and a bit of plodder…just like Murray. I think, long term, Murray is going to end up being somewhere between Harrison Barnes and Paul Milsap. That’s nice, but you better go for the moon with the number 4 pick.

 

[SacTownKid]

I’m a dummy who’s read (and just read, I don’t watch college ball) just enough to be educated enough to make myself look foolish, but everything I see across the board is safe pick. Immediate contributor. Won’t be bad. But doesn’t have quite that star upside. That’s cool at 7… but I’d rather take the upside shot over steady contributor.

In reality he actually's not a safe pick in a lot of ways, but, that could also be said about more than a few picks. Here's why Murray actually isn't a safe pick. Defensively he has a tendency to allow players around him and rely on length to recover. At 6'8" 220, not a good idea. He's a stretch 4 who might be expected to play the 5 in the NBA if he can't play much 3. That will either be a nightmare for his opponent or not be viable. His rebounding isn't off the charts. And the biggest one, what separates the truly dominant F's today is something he hasn't shown, play making/running an offense. He's probably the best iso scorer available though.

 

[bajaden]

I'm not sure if anyone in this draft at that point of it isn't going to come in and be able to provide something. Sharpe is a beast physically. Murray has a smooth scoring instinct but he's got questions too about beating guys off the dribble, being a stretch 4 who some think needs to play some 5, and his switch capabilities. He's got great length, but he's also far from the best athlete and is going to get caught in pick and rolls on D. For a team to get the max potential out of him he needs to be putting up points. To me he's the biggest risk of getting put into a Marvin Bagley situation since he projects as a PF on a team again, trying to win. Still wouldn't mind him though, just not above Ivey or Sharpe.

First, I don't know of anyone that thinks Murray should play the 5. Murray is a PF who can play some SF. In college he defended the pick and roll beautifully, so I have no idea why you said he would get caught on them. Sometimes I think you just make this crap up. If there's one player that I know in this draft it Murray. I watched over 20 of his games, and several 2 or 3 times. I just finished watching several of his games again to refresh my thoughts on him. Murray isn't an elite athlete, but he's a very good athlete, which I'm sure the combine will show. Also, just how do you know that Sharpe is a beast physically? I've watched a ton of film on him, and some of it is very good, and some it is not so good. He's certainly a gifted athlete who at times reminded me of, and don't take this and run with it, Kobe!

In Sharpe's case I think the individual workouts will determine his future. If he blows Monte away, and he decides on Sharpe, then I just go with his judgement since I have nothing to rebut it with. In Murray's case, I'll admit that I'm biased. He's my favorite player in this draft, just like Haliburton was two years ago. I was right about Haliburton, and I'm right about Murray. I think what frustrates people about Murray is that they can't find anything really bad about him. He does just about everything really well, and somehow, that's bad... Many have called him the safe pick, and immediately people think that means there's no upside. Not true!

 

[EIM86]

In reality he actually's not a safe pick in a lot of ways, but, that could also be said about more than a few picks. Here's why Murray actually isn't a safe pick. Defensively he has a tendency to allow players around him and rely on length to recover. At 6'8" 220, not a good idea. He's a stretch 4 who might be expected to play the 5 in the NBA if he can't play much 3. That will either be a nightmare for his opponent or not be viable. His rebounding isn't off the charts. And the biggest one, what separates the truly dominant F's today is something he hasn't shown, play making/running an offense. He's probably the best iso scorer available though.

Based off this there’s no way he’s BPA over Ivey imo

 

[The_Jamal]

I disagree. He’s not a #4 IMO but I’m just a couch GM anyway

he’s already 22 I believe, not all that athletic, doesn’t have an alpha dog style of play,

He's 21 (until August, so 22 for all his rookie season) and...

HUH??? I could argue Keegan was like the most alpha player in all of college basketball last season. He had no choice but to take on a massive workload and be dominant. If he played bad, the team stunk.

29.7% USG
63.8% TS
14.9% TRB
5.4 FTA/game
39.8% from 3 on 4.7 attempts

31.9 MPG
23.5 PPG
8.7 RPG
1.5 APG
1.3 SPG
1.9BPG

If that's not an "alpha" stat-line, I don't know what is. Add in every single defense knew he was their one and only option (11.0 PPG, 10.5 PPG, 9.7 PPG were the 3 next highest scorers on the team. And no one else played more than 30 MPG) and he still put together one of the most impressive offensive seasons in recent college basketball history.

 

[hrdboild]

I don't think so. Ivey is an elite athlete with more muscle mass than Haliburton will probably ever have. Fox and Ivey would be a nightmare to match up with in terms of speed and their ability to create contact. Have to see the measurements first though.

Even though I kinda see it not working out, a backcourt with Ivey and Fox would be pretty insane for every other team in the league to have to deal with. Both of those guys look like they've got bullet-time engaged when they're driving to the basket through backpedaling defenders. Ivey was able to run off of screens and catch and shoot at Purdue and Fox started to look comfortable spotting up and shooting once Sabonis got here. If you project some kind of motion offense built around Sabonis in the high post, Fox and Ivey would each be a matchup nightmare individually if they catch the ball with a head of steam and the defense scrambling to rotate. If we had both of them out there spinning off of Sabonis all we'd need to do at that point is stick two shooters in the corners and watch the wheels fall off of every other team's defensive game plan. It's sortof like Golden State's offense but inverted with our two "splash bros" attacking the paint on every possession.

So yeah, I can see a scenario where picking Ivey points us in the direction of a strong team identity. I'm more concerned about the fit defensively. The hope there would be that Mike Brown can get both Ivey and Fox to commit to a strategy on screens (switch everything, fight to get over, or drop and recover -- just pick something and do it consistently) and then play their tails off executing that strategy. They both have a maddening tendency to float in space at times when they lose track of their man and we don't currently have wings capable of rotating and covering for them without selling out and opening up holes somewhere else.

 

[SacTownKid]

First, I don't know of anyone that thinks Murray should play the 5. Murray is a PF who can play some SF. In college he defended the pick and roll beautifully, so I have no idea why you said he would get caught on them. Sometimes I think you just make this crap up. If there's one player that I know in this draft it Murray. I watched over 20 of his games, and several 2 or 3 times. I just finished watching several of his games again to refresh my thoughts on him. Murray isn't an elite athlete, but he's a very good athlete, which I'm sure the combine will show. Also, just how do you know that Sharpe is a beast physically? I've watched a ton of film on him, and some of it is very good, and some it is not so good. He's certainly a gifted athlete who at times reminded me of, and don't take this and run with it, Kobe!

In Sharpe's case I think the individual workouts will determine his future. If he blows Monte away, and he decides on Sharpe, then I just go with his judgement since I have nothing to rebut it with. In Murray's case, I'll admit that I'm biased. He's my favorite player in this draft, just like Haliburton was two years ago. I was right about Haliburton, and I'm right about Murray. I think what frustrates people about Murray is that they can't find anything really bad about him. He does just about everything really well, and somehow, that's bad... Many have called him the safe pick, and immediately people think that means there's no upside. Not true!

I didn't say caught on them, I'm saying caught in them, like on switches. Beast because the dude is stacked and a legit G/F. You can see the mass of the guy and his hops. Now whether it translates into play we have to see. I've watched his tape, he certainly uses that ability quite often. And you were right about Haliburton and those who said he wouldn't fit were right, as he's sitting on another team currently. The same issues could be said of Murray if an iso scorer next to Sabonis doesn't work.

 

[EIM86]

He's 21 (until August, so 22 for all his rookie season) and...

HUH??? I could argue Keegan was like the most alpha player in all of college basketball last season. He had no choice but to take on a massive workload and be dominant. If he played bad, the team stunk.

29.7% USG
63.8% TS
14.9% TRB
5.4 FTA/game
39.8% from 3 on 4.7 attempts

31.9 MPG
23.5 PPG
8.7 RPG
1.5 APG
1.3 SPG
1.9BPG

If that's not an "alpha" stat-line, I don't know what is. Add in every single defense knew he was their one and only option (11.0 PPG, 10.5 PPG, 9.7 PPG were the 3 next highest scorers on the team. And no one else played more than 30 MPG) and he still put together one of the most impressive offensive seasons in recent college basketball history.

i just don’t see it. The entire offense was run through him and he got all the shots. His play style doesn’t seem like it’ll translate to me that’s just my opinion. I think he can be a good role player but that’s it. I don’t see star or even all star for him in the future

 

[hrdboild]

I’m a dummy who’s read (and just read, I don’t watch college ball) just enough to be educated enough to make myself look foolish, but everything I see across the board is safe pick. Immediate contributor. Won’t be bad. But doesn’t have quite that star upside. That’s cool at 7… but I’d rather take the upside shot over steady contributor.

Well you've got 4 people in this thread who think Murray is either the best prospect in this draft or one of the top 3 and that includes bajaden who I guarantee you watches more college basketball than everyone who runs a mock draft website. Safe doesn't mean lower ceiling, at least not in the way I'm using it. It just means here is a player who doesn't have many flaws and the way they're playing in college will easily translate to the NBA. I'm pretty sure I've used this line already but I think Keegan Murray is the player in this draft most likely to make multiple All-Star teams in his career. Other guys are better at certain things and maybe have a 1 in 10 chance of being truly special but Murray is an NBA starter at minimum and if he continues to develop he's going to be one of the best players in the league at his position

 

[Sac.Kings]

I don’t know diddly squat about this years prospects, but all I want is a capable young player who has basketball IQ. I am over this “he is long and hyper athletic” fascination. Just want a guy who knows how to play.

Just look at Luka. The guy can’t beat anyone down the court, but his IQ on the court is second to none. He is an extreme example I know, but it’s much easier to reach your ceiling if you know how to play!

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I’m a dummy who’s read (and just read, I don’t watch college ball) just enough to be educated enough to make myself look foolish, but everything I see across the board is safe pick. Immediate contributor. Won’t be bad. But doesn’t have quite that star upside. That’s cool at 7… but I’d rather take the upside shot over steady contributor.

I think that’s the disconnect here. Baja has a fairly deep viewing perspective while you’re only going off what you’ve read others say, of whom you don’t exactly know if they have as much or more 1st person perspective as Baja. Maybe they are like you and form opinions from a collective?

I’m not saying Baja is automatically right about all his player evaluations (he does seem to have a good track record), just that his opinion is seemingly more educated than others.

I used to be fairly educated on draft prospects for many, many years but have gone dark the past couple drafts. I really don’t have the first damned clue about this class. That said, if I’m going to really take someone’s opinion to heart about these prospects and specifically their fit for the KINGS — IMO Baja is about as good as it gets.

 

[hrdboild]

I don’t know diddly squat about this years prospects, but all I want is a capable young player who has basketball IQ. I am over this “he is long and hyper athletic” fascination. Just want a guy who knows how to play.

Just look at Luka. The guy can’t beat anyone down the court, but his IQ on the court is second to none. He is an extreme example I know, but it’s much easier to reach your ceiling if you know how to play!

Bingo! And for what it's worth, I think Monte McNair agrees with you.

 

[SacTownKid]

Well you've got 4 people in this thread who think Murray is either the best prospect in this draft or one of the top 3 and that includes bajaden who I guarantee you watches more college basketball than everyone who runs a mock draft website. Safe doesn't mean lower ceiling, at least not in the way I'm using it. It just means here is a player who doesn't have many flaws and the way they're playing in college will easily translate to the NBA. I'm pretty sure I've used this line already but I think Keegan Murray is the player in this draft most likely to make multiple All-Star teams in his career. Other guys are better at certain things and maybe have a 1 in 10 chance of being truly special but Murray is an NBA starter at minimum and if he continues to develop he's going to be one of the best players in the league at his position

Some of those people also don't realize if he's a scoring 4 at the next level it's a huge gamble if not allowed to be that. Look at Davion last year. "best player in the draft", blah, blah, blah. Yet, look at his swings when not in a position to use that talent. Defensive role player to superstud depending on the time of year. Lack of size and a floor game relative to positional value is an actual thing.

 

[bajaden]

In reality he actually's not a safe pick in a lot of ways, but, that could also be said about more than a few picks. Here's why Murray actually isn't a safe pick. Defensively he has a tendency to allow players around him and rely on length to recover. At 6'8" 220, not a good idea. He's a stretch 4 who might be expected to play the 5 in the NBA if he can't play much 3. That will either be a nightmare for his opponent or not be viable. His rebounding isn't off the charts. And the biggest one, what separates the truly dominant F's today is something he hasn't shown, play making/running an offense. He's probably the best iso scorer available though.

You say that Murray's rebounding isn't off the charts, but he pulled down 8.7 boards a game, and his per 40 numbers are 11.0 boards a game. He also blocked 1.9 shots a game. By the same token Banchero pulled down 7.8 boards a game, and his per 40 numbers are 9.5. He blocked 0.9 shots a game. Murray played SF a lot this year. I grant you that they didn't run the ball through him, but he showed excellent passing ability at times. Lets remember that Murray was the offense on his team for the most part. I think Murray, like Ivey will be a better player in the NBA than he was in college, where he was the number on option on his team. He wouldn't be that on the Kings. He'd likely be the 3rd or 4th option where he would get much easier shots.

 

[iowamcnabb]

As others have said, Keegan doesn’t pop when you watch him but he will have 20 and 10 at the end of the game with top shelf analytics. He would contribute right away and would play off Sabonis really well. His cuts are excellent and he has a really great feel for the game. He plays within the offense but occasionally I would have liked to see him impose his will when the team needed him. He has a little HB passiveness in his game.

 

[SacTownKid]

You say that Murray's rebounding isn't off the charts, but he pulled down 8.7 boards a game, and his per 40 numbers are 11.0 boards a game. He also blocked 1.9 shots a game. By the same token Banchero pulled down 7.8 boards a game, and his per 40 numbers are 9.5. He blocked 0.9 shots a game. Murray played SF a lot this year. I grant you that they didn't run the ball through him, but he showed excellent passing ability at times. Lets remember that Murray was the offense on his team for the most part. I think Murray, like Ivey will be a better player in the NBA than he was in college, where he was the number on option on his team. He wouldn't be that on the Kings. He'd likely be the 3rd or 4th option where he would get much easier shots.

Clearly Banchero wasn't off the charts either. Both show some potential however. If Murray had a play makers floor game he'd be number 1 and there wouldn't be a close 2nd. Maybe he does but we haven't really seen it yet. A legit argument for any prospect in a position that isn't guaranteed to have a superstar there is what teams are left and do they have a player that mirrors that particular one? What player making a dent in the playoffs would you compare Murray to?

 

[steelevt]

#4 for #6 and Ty. Make it happen Monte and finally unveil your master plan. Fox/Ty/Murray/HB/Domas

https://twitter.com/x/status/1526747421552025603

U here KingsMuse?

 

[hrdboild]

last year for example

Some of those people also don't realize if he's a scoring 4 at the next level it's a huge gamble if not allowed to be that. Look at Davion last year. "best player in the draft", blah, blah, blah. Yet, look at his swings when not in a position to use that talent. Defensive role player to superstud depending on the time of year. Lack of size and a floor game relative to positional value is an actual thing.

Well I would argue that anyone who is already among the best individual defenders in the league and consistently put together 20 and 10 level production when we leaned on him as a starter late in the year hit it out of the park as a rookie. The next step is finding a role and putting it all together every night and that probably has as much to do with the coaching staff as the player. I don't think anyone said he was the best player in the draft either, we said he was the best defender in the draft and I stand by that assessment.

Murray is either a small 4 or a swing forward to my eyes. He would be a full-time SF 10 years ago before everybody got shifted down a position to accommodate the obsession with outside shooting and ballhandling. And in the context of this team, we have a center who likes to live in the high post and a guard who loves to get downhill and attack the basket or pull up around the free throw line. There's room in the low post for a forward who excels at offensive rebounding and finishing through contact but can also rotate out to the wing and knock down shots. That's exactly what everyone wanted Chet Holmgren to do for us only Murray can actually defend 3s and 4s on the perimeter too. And while he's not an elite shotblocker, he's pretty damn good for a wing player.

 

[SacTownKid]

As others have said, Keegan doesn’t pop when you watch him but he will have 20 and 10 at the end of the game with top shelf analytics. He would contribute right away and would play off Sabonis really well. His cuts are excellent and he has a really great feel for the game. He plays within the offense but occasionally I would have liked to see him impose his will when the team needed him. He has a little HB passiveness in his game.

He fits in a lot of ways for sure but the question is best fit? Not sure because I don't see any teams right now with a HB/Murray/Sabonis looking frontline. Maybe Denver when MPJ was healthy.

 

[iowamcnabb]

I know this forum loves and trusts Ham and he thinks Keegan Murray is comparable to Marvin Williams

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If Murray can shoot close to 40% from 3 and defend the 4 how can you NOT pick him unless Smith falls?

I guess if you really like Sharpe as a 3 and want to commit Barnes to be the starting 4 go for it? But I'm pretty ok drafting for need within 1/2 spots of the mock.

 

[SacTownKid]

Well I would argue that anyone who is already among the best individual defenders in the league and consistently put together 20 and 10 level production when we leaned on him as a starter late in the year hit it out of the park as a rookie. The next step is finding a role and putting it all together every night and that probably has as much to do with the coaching staff as the player. I don't think anyone said he was the best player in the draft either, we said he was the best defender in the draft and I stand by that assessment.

Murray is either a small 4 or a swing forward to my eyes. He would be a full-time SF 10 years ago before everybody got shifted down a position to accommodate the obsession with outside shooting and ballhandling. And in the context of this team, we have a center who likes to live in the high post and a guard who loves to get downhill and attack the basket or pull up around the free throw line. There's room in the low post for a forward who excels at offensive rebounding and finishing through contact but can also rotate out to the wing and knock down shots. That's exactly what everyone wanted Chet Holmgren to do for us only Murray can actually defend 3s and 4s on the perimeter too. And while he's not an elite shotblocker, he's pretty damn good for a wing player.

That's the thing though, they leaned on him. Behind two other PG's he was putting up 9 and 5 with shaky percentages.

 

[hrdboild]

I know this forum loves and trusts Ham and he thinks Keegan Murray is comparable to Marvin Williams

Damn it, my eyes rolled back so hard that they're stuck there now.

 

[kb02]

Even though I kinda see it not working out, a backcourt with Ivey and Fox would be pretty insane for every other team in the league to have to deal with. Both of those guys look like they've got bullet-time engaged when they're driving to the basket through backpedaling defenders. Ivey was able to run off of screens and catch and shoot at Purdue and Fox started to look comfortable spotting up and shooting once Sabonis got here. If you project some kind of motion offense built around Sabonis in the high post, Fox and Ivey would each be a matchup nightmare individually if they catch the ball with a head of steam and the defense scrambling to rotate. If we had both of them out there spinning off of Sabonis all we'd need to do at that point is stick two shooters in the corners and watch the wheels fall off of every other team's defensive game plan. It's sortof like Golden State's offense but inverted with our two "splash bros" attacking the paint on every possession.

So yeah, I can see a scenario where picking Ivey points us in the direction of a strong team identity. I'm more concerned about the fit defensively. The hope there would be that Mike Brown can get both Ivey and Fox to commit to a strategy on screens (switch everything, fight to get over, or drop and recover -- just pick something and do it consistently) and then play their tails off executing that strategy. They both have a maddening tendency to float in space at times when they lose track of their man and we don't currently have wings capable of rotating and covering for them without selling out and opening up holes somewhere else.

Ivey’s highlights look great, but he looked really awful in the games that I watched. Has a really loose handle and really, really bad defense. If you think Fox is bad at defense, wait until you watch Ivey. Fell on his ass trying to guard a player from that Cinderella team. And he’s probably going to shoot threes at a similar rate to Fox. That backcourt pairing will be a freaking disaster, if it happened. Trade down.

 

[kb02]

I know this forum loves and trusts Ham and he thinks Keegan Murray is comparable to Marvin Williams

Williams is a bad and a lazy comp. Especially so when he watches Harrison Barnes daily.

 

[hrdboild]

That's the thing though, they leaned on him. Behind two other PG's he was putting up 9 and 5 with shaky percentages.

He was a rookie. Most of them look unplayable, a few of them look like studs then never get better, and a rare few are instant stars who turn into super stars. Let's revisit this conversation in a year or two and see where he stands on that continuum.