One set of views of what could happen drafting #7 this year

[Sptsjunkie]

Jason Jones: After his workout Kawhi Leonard said Kings officials told him the would "probably need a three" in this draft. Twitter

I found on http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm its about the fifth or sixth story down.

This might along with ESPN's hideous report on Jimmer might upset the Jimmermania, but you could easily say the Kings are probably going for a one.

I saw this. I wouldn't read too much into it without context. Petrie rarely gives away our draft strategy, so I have a hard time believing he told Leonard we were drafting a 3 with the number sever pick. More likely we are taking a 3 with one of our three picks.

 

[Double-K]

I'd say drafting the best talent available is almost always the best solution and Fredette is most likely to be just that, best talent available at #7.

After seeing him live so many times, I'd have absolutely no problem drafting Fredette as he has the outside shot and the heart to success in the NBA.

 

[Tetsujin]

I'd say drafting the best talent available is almost always the best solution and Fredette is most likely to be just that, best talent available at #7.

After seeing him live so many times, I'd have absolutely no problem drafting Fredette as he has the outside shot and the heart to success in the NBA.

So did this guy:

but then this happened:

 

[bajaden]

So did this guy:

but then this happened:

If you really have knowledge of both players games coming out of college, then you know they're nothing alike. Morrison even had trouble creating his own shot in college at times, and he was never the focus of attention in the same way Fredette was.

For a 6'8" forward, Morrison didn't really rebound the ball very well in college. He didn't handle the ball well enough to get to the basket, and in short, he made the most out of one great year in college. If you look at his freshman and sophmore years, he shot the ball pitifully from behind the 3 pt line, barely over 30%. His junior year everything went in for him and he shot just somewhere over 40%.

So the question I had at the time was, was that one year an actual improvement, or was it an abberation? Because what you get, if its an abberation, is a spot up shooter that can't shoot. And so far, its appears that the one great year was an abberation, because Reggie Miller he's not.

Fredette on the other hand has shot the ball extremely well his entire time in college, and he can create his own shot, and he does handle the ball well enough to get to the basket. I think at the very least, he'll be a productive player. At best, he could very well end up being a star player. But I seriously doubt he'll ever be mentioned in the same breath as Morrison three years from now. For his sake, I sure hope not!

 

[pshn80]

As a side note, I find it funny that some people now consider 21 years old to be old, or old enough to limit potential. (Dime Dropper)

I agree. That comment made me chuckle.

 

[Arco Arena]

Well according to ESPN the Kings draft board for PGs is:
1) Brandon Knight
2) Jimmer Fredette
3) Kemba Walker

Barring an unlikely freefall for Knight, it looks like we will either be drafting Fredette or Leonard.

 

[Vlade4GM]

As a side note, I find it funny that some people now consider 21 years old to be old, or old enough to limit potential. (Dime Dropper)

I agree. That comment made me chuckle.

If you agree with him then you obviously didn't understand the comment either.

 

[bajaden]

If you agree with him then you obviously didn't understand the comment either.

I understand the comment, and I see both points of view. To me, it really depends on which player you talking about. There are players so talented that they can come in at an early age and contribute. In some cases, like a LeBron, they can be major contributers. The other side of the coin are the Donte Greene's of the world. He, and his potential employer would have been better served if he had stayed in college a couple more years. From a drafting point of view, I liked it better when most players came out after 4 years of college. By then, if you did your homework, you had a pretty clear idea of what you were getting.

There's a school of thought that if you draft a player at a young age, you get his services for a longer period of time, while he still retains all of his natural athleticism. I've never done the research to see just how long on average a player stays with his original team, but I bet if I did, it would shoot holes in that theory. When you add in, that in some cases, your paying a player like a Greene more money than he's actually earning for a couple of years, you'd be better off spending that money on a more productive player.

Of course the tricky part is figuring out the Durants from the Greene's and Tyrus Thomas's. And of course, sometimes even when you do it right, bad luck steps in and screws everything up. Such as in Greg Oden's case. Maybe if Oden had stayed all four years in college, the same problems would have reared their ugly head, and maybe you don't make the same decision. But thats an abstract argument, or a 100% hindesight arguement. As my grandmother told me. "If" is for children!

 

[Dime Dropper]

I was only comparing him to a college junior to put his age in a familiar context. I don't think many people would call Kemba Walker "very young" even though he's a month younger than Vesely. You take his exact game and make him a college junior in this draft, and I think you have more people skeptical of his upside.

I think I did give him credit, I said despite the rawness of his offensive game, I think he had a good chance of being an NBA player, and I meant that. I think he'll at least have a role as an energy guy who can move off the ball, finish at basket in transition, move the ball, grab some steals, and perhaps become a decent spot up shooter with work. That's a bench player to me though, since he doesn't really have a defensive position, and there's a reason why you don't see 6'11 guys as SF's in the league for very long (he has a high center of gravity and is going to have a hard time staying in front of the super athletic wings of the NBA), because they grow out of the position. It's a cute novelty, but it hardly ever works for very long and they either become tweener forwards off the bench, or they mature into PF's. Since Vesely is not a good rebounder or a good shot blocker, he'd have a long way to go to ever become a PF, I would not bet on that happening.

Ball handling and an off the dribble game, is very unlikely to develop past a certain stage in their development, and Vesely is pretty far into his development, especially since he started playing professionally so young like a lot of European players. So I don't see him becoming much more than a 1 or 2 dribble drive player.
'
Why would I be biased against him? That claim is starting to become a knee jerk reaction from people when someone doesn't fall in line with draft hype. Why would I have any reason to be against drafting him other than his game? Do you think I have a personal grudge against a guy who lives about 6,000 miles away from me?

The older you get, the more limited your potential becomes. It's not like you hit a certain age and then all of the sudden your potential becomes limited, it's always limited and it becomes more limited the older you get.

Here's the thing - regardless of perception, 21 is still very young. First of all I'd like to say that I've never said Vesely is very young when evaluating him. He is very young for doing what he's doing in Europe, and that can't be denied. So I think that might be where the line becomes blurred. And you can't say "what if he was a junior with the exact same game", because you just don't know how the guy would have done in a completely different system of basketball. He would have been "the man" on college teams and would have gotten used to the star system, which is not in place in Europe at all. So you can't just translate his stats. With his game I think there's a very good chance he'd be every bit as high on draft boards if he was in college in the US. He'd be putting up much better numbers, although that's just my opinion and obviously can't be proven.


Well, Vesely is a freak athlete, and much quicker than the average 6'11'' SF prospect. He's a much better athlete than Kirilenko who can easily play SF at around the same height. They're obviously not a dime a dozen, but that's the whole point. If you can get one that works, it's all the more valuable. Obviously it's not a lock that he will succeed, but that's where the intrigue comes from, and I do think he has the athleticism, talent and potential to just be a great big SF. If he puts on 15-20lbs of muscle he can probably spot some minutes at PF if need be.

I don't think his ball handling will be an issue. In fact, it's not at all bad for a guy his size. It's probably average for an NBA SF. He can work on it, yes, but I wouldn't call it anywhere near a weakness. He's not going to be a wizard, but so what? Not many SFs are known for their handles.

Perhaps you don't have a personal grudge, but it certainly seems like you take a somewhat stubborn stance on some guys and refuse to budge. Just an observation, and maybe I'm wrong. You could end up being right about him, nobody really knows, but I don't think you're giving him enough credit at all. It's not at all about draft hype. I couldn't care less about draft hype, I just try to give people credit for what they're good at. And I think you're struggling to accept that you simply don't get minutes in Europe if you're as unskilled as you think Vesely is. Just ask Brandon Jennings (yes I know it's used a lot, but it's 100% true).

 

[Dime Dropper]

If you agree with him then you obviously didn't understand the comment either.

Disagreeing now equals not understanding? I wouldn't be so condescending. Not everyone thinks being 21 limits your upside more than if you were 19. It depends completely on the player and his skill set.

 

[Bricklayer]

As a side note, I find it funny that some people now consider 21 years old to be old, or old enough to limit potential. (Dime Dropper)

I agree. That comment made me chuckle.

Its fairly simple really as a concept -- at 18yrs old your potential is all ahead of you At 19 a little less is ahead of yhou. At 20 a little less still. etc. Until somewhere around 25 or so it becomes rare for players to make significant jumps. 19 yr olds, as a group, absolutely have more of their potential still to be discovered than 21 yr olds. Of course any given 19yr old may have less potential than any given 21yr old. But that 21yr old himself had more of his potential in front of him at 19 than he does now. You could even just make it a math thing. Player A has 19 years of known acheivement + 6yrs of potential growth left before he hits 25. Player B has 21 years of known acheivement, and only 4 years of potential growth left before he hits 25.

Now I do of course consider it silly to just use the general rule to blanket statement some kid unless you know nothing at all about him. But when somebody drafts a college senior for instance, and then talks about all the room they have to grow...that's a lot dicier a claim to make than if somebody drafts a 19yr old.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Its fairly simple really as a concept -- at 18yrs old your potential is all ahead of you At 19 a little less is ahead of yhou. At 20 a little less still. etc. Until somewhere around 25 or so it becomes rare for players to make significant jumps. 19 yr olds, as a group, absolutely have more of their potential still to be discovered than 21 yr olds. Of course any given 19yr old may have less potential than any given 21yr old. But that 21yr old himself had more of his potential in front of him at 19 than he does now. You could even just make it a math thing. Player A has 19 years of known acheivement + 6yrs of potential growth left before he hits 25. Player B has 21 years of known acheivement, and only 4 years of potential growth left before he hits 25.

Now I do of course consider it silly to just use the general rule to blanket statement some kid unless you know nothing at all about him. But when somebody drafts a college senior for instance, and then talks about all the room they have to grow...that's a lot dicier a claim to make than if somebody drafts a 19yr old.

I don't think anyone has trouble understanding the concept or how it works. The problem, at least for me, is that in reality it means pretty much nothing since the players development usually depends on intangibles such as work-ethic, maturation (physical and mental) etc.. Not everyone grows at the same rate. It's a flawed principle. Obviously it can work if a guy is 24 or older, or if the particular player visibly doesn't have much upside, but it really does depend on the individual player.

The line becomes even more blurred when you're talking about European guys, as it's almost impossible to know how they would perform at collegiate level. Yes, I get the premise that Vesely has more potential at 19 than he does at 21, but so what? It's just words, and does not determine how much upside a guy has regardless of his age (obviously within reason).

 

[Vlade4GM]

Here's the thing - regardless of perception, 21 is still very young. First of all I'd like to say that I've never said Vesely is very young when evaluating him. He is very young for doing what he's doing in Europe, and that can't be denied. So I think that might be where the line becomes blurred. And you can't say "what if he was a junior with the exact same game", because you just don't know how the guy would have done in a completely different system of basketball. He would have been "the man" on college teams and would have gotten used to the star system, which is not in place in Europe at all. So you can't just translate his stats. With his game I think there's a very good chance he'd be every bit as high on draft boards if he was in college in the US. He'd be putting up much better numbers, although that's just my opinion and obviously can't be proven.


Well, Vesely is a freak athlete, and much quicker than the average 6'11'' SF prospect. He's a much better athlete than Kirilenko who can easily play SF at around the same height. They're obviously not a dime a dozen, but that's the whole point. If you can get one that works, it's all the more valuable. Obviously it's not a lock that he will succeed, but that's where the intrigue comes from, and I do think he has the athleticism, talent and potential to just be a great big SF. If he puts on 15-20lbs of muscle he can probably spot some minutes at PF if need be.

I don't think his ball handling will be an issue. In fact, it's not at all bad for a guy his size. It's probably average for an NBA SF. He can work on it, yes, but I wouldn't call it anywhere near a weakness. He's not going to be a wizard, but so what? Not many SFs are known for their handles.

Perhaps you don't have a personal grudge, but it certainly seems like you take a somewhat stubborn stance on some guys and refuse to budge. Just an observation, and maybe I'm wrong. You could end up being right about him, nobody really knows, but I don't think you're giving him enough credit at all. It's not at all about draft hype. I couldn't care less about draft hype, I just try to give people credit for what they're good at. And I think you're struggling to accept that you simply don't get minutes in Europe if you're as unskilled as you think Vesely is. Just ask Brandon Jennings (yes I know it's used a lot, but it's 100% true).

21 is not "very young" in the context of the draft, when compared to other draft prospects, so calling him "very young" in that context is just plain misleading. I know you didn't say it, it was said in the OP, and that's why the comment was directed towards the OP.

I wasn't creating a hypothetical of what he would have done if he was in college, I'm saying if on a list of draft prospects it said "<some college> junior" next to his name instead of "Czech Republic", people would be more wary of him, because I think there's a different perception about the upside of 21 year old international players vs. 21 year old college juniors. Whether you think that perception equals reality or not is an entirely different discussion.

He's a very good athlete, but I don't think he moves well enough on the perimeter to consistently guard SF's because I don't think he's that quick laterally and he doesn't get in a good defensive stance because of his high center of gravity.

I'm not even saying they're not a dime a dozen, I'm saying the ones that come in billed as 6'11-7'0 SF's don't stick there over time because they get too big for the position and/or they wear down because it's too much for their frame to move around so much on the perimeter. He's listed at 6'11 230-240, there is no way he's going to be able to handle the SF position defensively on any consistent long term basis. Kirilenko is listed at 6'9.

If he moves to PF, then there's the problem of a lack of rebounding from your PF.

I don't see why his size should excuse his ball handling all that much, he's not a good post player, he's a face-up 3 offensively with mediocre at best handles. What would offset his handles and off the dribble game would be shooting ability, which he does not have. I have given him credit for his ability to move off the ball though, so there is that.

It's called having an opinion and not encountering a persuasive enough argument to change it, if you want to call that stubborn, then that's fine by me. I don't consider coach decisions infallible, nor do I think all Euro teams value the same thing, so I'm not going to draw big conclusions from that, it would be lazy IMO.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Disagreeing now equals not understanding? I wouldn't be so condescending. Not everyone thinks being 21 limits your upside more than if you were 19. It depends completely on the player and his skill set.

It is when you're disagreeing with a point I wasn't making.

That's silly, of course your potential to improve from where you are is less at 21 than at 19.