If you're a smart seller, you know your market. Location, location, location. We have to be buyers more than we have to be sellers, and it's a lot tougher for us to buy, so we need to hold on to our favorable assets, and Collison is a very favorable asset. If we're to upgrade the PG position (which I don't think is an issue for us right now), he needs to be our primary backup, or we will have the same issue we had this past year.
Ongoing draft/lottery discussion [OPEN SPOILERS]
- Thread starter hrdboild
- Start date
No I'm not. Bajaden is. I don't need stats to know JT is superior offensively to WCS. Simple observation does that. Is JT's outside shot >>> WCS outside shot? Yes. Is JT's inside game superior. Definitely. The years of off-season work has produced results for JT in that regard. Lastly, using stats for JT last year is absurd. I would never posit his stats last year for any argument: He was jerked around more than any other player last year by because of the coaching carousel that he experienced.
These generalities are true, but there are exceptions to every general rule. I'm not going to summarily dismiss any suggestion of selling Collison when I don't have specific concrete knowledge of what I'm getting in return.
PS On further consideration, I think your argument applies more to FA as opposed to a trade situation. But there are trade situations in which a player might only have one year left on his contract and Sacto might not be his destination of choice, making the risk of him bolting to another more promising team very real. All that said, if I'm Divac I'm not hanging up the phone if another GM calls about Collison. Would you?
PS On further consideration, I think your argument applies more to FA as opposed to a trade situation. But there are trade situations in which a player might only have one year left on his contract and Sacto might not be his destination of choice, making the risk of him bolting to another more promising team very real. All that said, if I'm Divac I'm not hanging up the phone if another GM calls about Collison. Would you?
Last edited:
Honestly? I think we only need a defensive stalwart at the PF position and a 3&D guy at the SG position (at the bare minimum) to get us sniffing at the playoffs. And that's probably where we want to be heading into the new arena.
Getting someone like WCS gives us a good rotation in our post players, and it moves JT to the bench where he can backup both positions effectively. I'd feel that our biggest area of weakness in terms of team play would be taken care of. An aggressive defender who controls the paint combined with Cousins's ability to be a good defender helps the team tremendously on the defensive side. You can't ask Cousins to be both a good man defender but also protect the paint, and then all of the stuff he does on the other side of the court, which, he's apparently pretty good at.
As far as our biggest individual weakness, it was at the SG position. We were so inconsistent there, and getting someone who will be predictable, even if unspectacular, will go a long ways. Do I hope that Ben grows into that by next season? Yeah, but I can't afford that luxury, so his slot is the one that needs to be filled. If he comes into camp and shows that he's "that guy", then we have a decent backup at SG, and now we won't have much of a dropoff at two positions on our bench.
Collison/Improved SG/Gay/WCS/Cousins is a very good starting five. WCS isn't being asked to do anything more than what he already does.
Now for "more than the minimum":
Add in Casspi, and all of a sudden the bench has three solid players: (Ben/Casspi/JT)
Can Miller give us 10-15 minutes a game? Solid. (Miller/Ben/Stauskas/Casspi/JT) if Karl goes whole bench subs. Can Stauskas run the point? Even more flexibility. What will Moreland bring?
Then we have a 9 player rotation. It's about where I'd like it to be. Stauskas/Ben can flip around, depending on growth/minutes. That's a competitive team, given an off-season of "Karl"ing. Malone was competitive with less. There's not too much drop off when the bench comes on, given that you've got 4 players with starting experience, and, depending on rotations, either WCS or Cousins in the post. I'm OK with that. I predict many here would be.
WCS can be had in the draft. If not, we need to use that pick via trade for an impact player at either PF or SG. Going for a PG solves no issues, and if you throw in Collison, then you've mostly rearranged the chairs on the Titanic.
Overall, if we're smart, we can make simple moves that make us more effective.
Getting someone like WCS gives us a good rotation in our post players, and it moves JT to the bench where he can backup both positions effectively. I'd feel that our biggest area of weakness in terms of team play would be taken care of. An aggressive defender who controls the paint combined with Cousins's ability to be a good defender helps the team tremendously on the defensive side. You can't ask Cousins to be both a good man defender but also protect the paint, and then all of the stuff he does on the other side of the court, which, he's apparently pretty good at.
As far as our biggest individual weakness, it was at the SG position. We were so inconsistent there, and getting someone who will be predictable, even if unspectacular, will go a long ways. Do I hope that Ben grows into that by next season? Yeah, but I can't afford that luxury, so his slot is the one that needs to be filled. If he comes into camp and shows that he's "that guy", then we have a decent backup at SG, and now we won't have much of a dropoff at two positions on our bench.
Collison/Improved SG/Gay/WCS/Cousins is a very good starting five. WCS isn't being asked to do anything more than what he already does.
Now for "more than the minimum":
Add in Casspi, and all of a sudden the bench has three solid players: (Ben/Casspi/JT)
Can Miller give us 10-15 minutes a game? Solid. (Miller/Ben/Stauskas/Casspi/JT) if Karl goes whole bench subs. Can Stauskas run the point? Even more flexibility. What will Moreland bring?
Then we have a 9 player rotation. It's about where I'd like it to be. Stauskas/Ben can flip around, depending on growth/minutes. That's a competitive team, given an off-season of "Karl"ing. Malone was competitive with less. There's not too much drop off when the bench comes on, given that you've got 4 players with starting experience, and, depending on rotations, either WCS or Cousins in the post. I'm OK with that. I predict many here would be.
WCS can be had in the draft. If not, we need to use that pick via trade for an impact player at either PF or SG. Going for a PG solves no issues, and if you throw in Collison, then you've mostly rearranged the chairs on the Titanic.
Overall, if we're smart, we can make simple moves that make us more effective.
Fair enough, but (for example), sending Collison & our pick (or Stauskas) for Lawson for me would be a net loss in both team play and talent. Sending Collison and Stauskas for Lawson and the #7? Mayyyyybe, but I'd prefer another vet over the #7 pick. We're boxed into that corner right now. It does depend, but given our history, especially recent history, we usually get the short end of the stick.
If you include Collison in the trade, then you are only getting a middling upgrade.
If you preserve Collison and somehow get this PG (Lawson is the obvious name, small and defenseless as he may be), then you are getting a HUGE upgrade from McCallum --> Lawson, and have gone from 3 strong players to 4. Get me to 6 and you have the talent to win, hands down.
If you preserve Collison and somehow get this PG (Lawson is the obvious name, small and defenseless as he may be), then you are getting a HUGE upgrade from McCallum --> Lawson, and have gone from 3 strong players to 4. Get me to 6 and you have the talent to win, hands down.
We're always shy one asset, but if Denver is looking to liquidate:
#6 + Stauskas + McCallum +Landry is just about there salarywise.
resign Miller to a vet min, and your PG position is suddenly a 3rd very strong position with Lawson/Collison (as with Clippers spending some time at the SG too) and Miller.
But then you've got to fix both your PF spot and your SG spot with just FA.
#6 + Stauskas + McCallum +Landry is just about there salarywise.
resign Miller to a vet min, and your PG position is suddenly a 3rd very strong position with Lawson/Collison (as with Clippers spending some time at the SG too) and Miller.
But then you've got to fix both your PF spot and your SG spot with just FA.
I don't think you necessarily start with the amount of roster turnover or which players need to be replaced so much as looking at the areas where the Kings were weak and how to address those. The personnel changes will flow from that determination.
And the way I see it here were the biggest issues for the Kings last season - in order of importance.
The second can't be understated either and really the third and fourth points are largely part of this issue too. Tom Ziller wrote a solid article in February (link) about this issue and that trend carried through the entire season. Here's a look at five man lineups sorted by +/- courtesy of NBA stats:
http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups...US_MINUS*E*&sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=1&PlusMinus=Y
The Clippers starting five is first which makes sense - they were a contending team whose biggest issue often was bench play. Also in the top 10 are the normal starting lineups of (in order) the Cavs, the Warriors, the Trailblazers, and the Spurs. There's also a Hawks lineup that was only featured in 8 games with Teague, Sefalosha, Korver, Milsap and Antic. The big outliers are the T'Wolves presumed starting lineup (Rubio, Martin, Wiggins, Young, Vucevic) which only played 8 games together due to injuries, and two Kings lineups. One is the normal starting five and the other (with a very small 4 game sample size) is the normal lineup with Casspi replacing Gay.
I don't think these numbers are flukes. I think the Kings starting lineup generally played very good basketball this season. But the bench (outside of Casspi) was godawful. Stauskas contributed nothing, Sessions had one of the worst stretches of his career in Sacramento and was a big net negative practically every time he was in the game, Landry played decently under Malone but wasn't a factor under Corbin or Karl, Evans provided rebounds and nothing else, Williams was inconsistent offensively and awful defensively and the rest of the bench (McCallum, Hollins, Moreland, Quincy Miller) didn't contribute anything of note. Andre Miller was a nice steadying presence backing up McCallum who had no business starting except that there weren't any other options. And beyond their individual contributions the other problem is that they didn't play together as a cohesive unit. The Kings absolutely have to upgrade their reserve unit this offseason.
The third and fourth points are obvious statistically. The Kings were 27th in points allowed and 28th in defensive rating. They were 20th in 3pt% but just 28th in 3pt attempts. And that's despite being 8th in pace. The Kings could definitely use more shooting in the starting lineup but even more crucially they need bench shooting. The Kings were a poor defensive club but weren't bad in terms of 3pt defense particularly under both Malone and Karl. Which goes along with what my eyes told me - the Kings closed out well but were slow on defensive rotations inside the arc and were especially porous against the P&R.
Finally the Kings were 26th in assists and 27th in turnovers. In the early season this was partly attributable to Malone's plodding and iso heavy offense. Not enough ball movement/player movement and too many instances of guys trying to create on their own. And Cousins is the biggest culprit in terms of turnovers per possession. So what changes need to be made? This post is long enough, I'll start a new one to answer that.
And the way I see it here were the biggest issues for the Kings last season - in order of importance.
- Too much upheaval and a lack of consistency
- An awful bench
- Poor defense
- Not enough outside shooting
The second can't be understated either and really the third and fourth points are largely part of this issue too. Tom Ziller wrote a solid article in February (link) about this issue and that trend carried through the entire season. Here's a look at five man lineups sorted by +/- courtesy of NBA stats:
http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups...US_MINUS*E*&sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=1&PlusMinus=Y
The Clippers starting five is first which makes sense - they were a contending team whose biggest issue often was bench play. Also in the top 10 are the normal starting lineups of (in order) the Cavs, the Warriors, the Trailblazers, and the Spurs. There's also a Hawks lineup that was only featured in 8 games with Teague, Sefalosha, Korver, Milsap and Antic. The big outliers are the T'Wolves presumed starting lineup (Rubio, Martin, Wiggins, Young, Vucevic) which only played 8 games together due to injuries, and two Kings lineups. One is the normal starting five and the other (with a very small 4 game sample size) is the normal lineup with Casspi replacing Gay.
I don't think these numbers are flukes. I think the Kings starting lineup generally played very good basketball this season. But the bench (outside of Casspi) was godawful. Stauskas contributed nothing, Sessions had one of the worst stretches of his career in Sacramento and was a big net negative practically every time he was in the game, Landry played decently under Malone but wasn't a factor under Corbin or Karl, Evans provided rebounds and nothing else, Williams was inconsistent offensively and awful defensively and the rest of the bench (McCallum, Hollins, Moreland, Quincy Miller) didn't contribute anything of note. Andre Miller was a nice steadying presence backing up McCallum who had no business starting except that there weren't any other options. And beyond their individual contributions the other problem is that they didn't play together as a cohesive unit. The Kings absolutely have to upgrade their reserve unit this offseason.
The third and fourth points are obvious statistically. The Kings were 27th in points allowed and 28th in defensive rating. They were 20th in 3pt% but just 28th in 3pt attempts. And that's despite being 8th in pace. The Kings could definitely use more shooting in the starting lineup but even more crucially they need bench shooting. The Kings were a poor defensive club but weren't bad in terms of 3pt defense particularly under both Malone and Karl. Which goes along with what my eyes told me - the Kings closed out well but were slow on defensive rotations inside the arc and were especially porous against the P&R.
Finally the Kings were 26th in assists and 27th in turnovers. In the early season this was partly attributable to Malone's plodding and iso heavy offense. Not enough ball movement/player movement and too many instances of guys trying to create on their own. And Cousins is the biggest culprit in terms of turnovers per possession. So what changes need to be made? This post is long enough, I'll start a new one to answer that.
In that situation, I'd dangle McLemore before Stauskas - I think Stauskas brings more versatility. I think he's potentially capable of playing 3 positions, dependent on matchups, obviously, where as McLemore gives us just one. That said, I haven't seen Stauskas explode in a game like McLemore, soo...
I don't see us filling all the holes during this offseason.
I think the Kings realistically will have to do it by winning.
Once they start winning, those hole(s) can magically be fixed by vets wanting to come here (via trades, waiver acquisitions, etc).
Remember, we had a playoff-proven vet SG 3-and D specialist who was on the Kings last season, and not only did he refuse to play for us, but we had to give away assets to trade him. That boggles my mind!
Now we're looking for someone like Jason Terry to fill our SG hole?
Until the Kings start winning (like they were at the start of last season), even if we have the right players to fill the holes, they won't play for us much less want to come here.
I think the Kings realistically will have to do it by winning.
Once they start winning, those hole(s) can magically be fixed by vets wanting to come here (via trades, waiver acquisitions, etc).
Remember, we had a playoff-proven vet SG 3-and D specialist who was on the Kings last season, and not only did he refuse to play for us, but we had to give away assets to trade him. That boggles my mind!
Now we're looking for someone like Jason Terry to fill our SG hole?
Until the Kings start winning (like they were at the start of last season), even if we have the right players to fill the holes, they won't play for us much less want to come here.
So what can/should the Kings do this offseason?
I want to start by talking about assists and turnovers. To me, these are a scheme issue more than a personnel issue. It's also part of why I don't want to see a trade for Lawson. Some will look and figure that Lawson averaged four more assists per game and that would bolster the Kings assist totals but I just don't see it happening any more than starting Greivis Vasquez (who averaged 9 apg the season before joining the Kings) did. Partly because those assists are inflated due to the scheme but mostly because TEAMS that average a lot of assists rarely do it by having a PG who averages a ton of assists. It's about having good overall ball movement and offense, not a ball dominant PG constantly driving and kicking. Also it seems like the assumption is that Lawson would be an offensive upgrade but other than assists Collison put up equal or better numbers in EVERY category. And that's despite DC playing slightly less per game and being the third option vs Lawson who was the first or second option for the Nuggets. Darren shot better percentages, especially from three, was a better defender and played a style that meshed better with Gay and Cousins being ball dominant options. But I digress. Assists and turnovers should improve with a full training camp under Karl but will also require significant changes from Gay and Cousins.
So how do the Kings upgrade their bench? Ideally they'd move Landry as he clearly doesn't fit Karl's plans. And since I don't see any players at #6 that would be immediate starters, drafting well will help upgrade the bench. WCS would definitely improve the team's defense. Mudiay doesn't really address team defense or outside shooting but could be a good bench scorer as he adjusts to the league and could eventually be a nice weapon as a starting PG. Winslow or Johnson would also benefit the bench and help with the defense but not the outside shooting. Porzingis or Hezonja likely wouldn't contribute much of anything early on but could eventually help both the team's defense and outside shooting. But that's a big if, especially in Porzingis' case. Trading down to grab Kaminsky would potentially give the Kings a very strong stretch 4. Cameron Payne is a good prospect to groom as a PG who would also add some outside shooting. Devin Booker and RJ Hunter are other outside shooting options but honestly I'd rather see if Stauskas comes around and Ben continues to improve than go that route. If the Kings could pick up a mid to late first then RHJ is the type of bench defender I'd love to have and who could possibly become a 3&D guy down the road.
There are plenty of players in this draft that can help the Kings and while I'm okay with them trading down I don't want to see the Kings trade away the pick outright barring a fantastic deal. The value generally just isn't there for it. And if the Kings don't trade their pick they have very few major assets to trade. Unless he demands a trade or a ridiculous Godfather offer is on the table Cousins shouldn't be dealt. And beyond Boogie and the draft pick the only piece that could net something major in return is Rudy. And quite honestly I'd be willing to explore those trades. Gay is a good player but he's ideally the third best player on a good team. And quite honestly Casspi often looked better at SF under Karl than Gay did. I'm not saying the Kings SHOULD trade Gay, but you at least have to listen. If Gay is back then I think one of Karl's main tasks needs to be developing the two man game between he and DeMarcus.
In free agency the Kings will need to go bargain shopping for team oriented role players who either defend, shoot from outside or ideally both.
How much turnover do I expect this offseason? Unless Rudy is dealt I'd say not much.
But based on how the starting five played last season only a few tweaks are needed for the Kings to actually be competitive next season. But unfortunately I think a lot more change is needed to make them contenders. It'll be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
I could see the Kings being a 7th or 8th seed next season or I could see another lottery season that has Cousins forcing his way out of town. But with Karl at the helm I think the former is MUCH more likely than the latter.
I want to start by talking about assists and turnovers. To me, these are a scheme issue more than a personnel issue. It's also part of why I don't want to see a trade for Lawson. Some will look and figure that Lawson averaged four more assists per game and that would bolster the Kings assist totals but I just don't see it happening any more than starting Greivis Vasquez (who averaged 9 apg the season before joining the Kings) did. Partly because those assists are inflated due to the scheme but mostly because TEAMS that average a lot of assists rarely do it by having a PG who averages a ton of assists. It's about having good overall ball movement and offense, not a ball dominant PG constantly driving and kicking. Also it seems like the assumption is that Lawson would be an offensive upgrade but other than assists Collison put up equal or better numbers in EVERY category. And that's despite DC playing slightly less per game and being the third option vs Lawson who was the first or second option for the Nuggets. Darren shot better percentages, especially from three, was a better defender and played a style that meshed better with Gay and Cousins being ball dominant options. But I digress. Assists and turnovers should improve with a full training camp under Karl but will also require significant changes from Gay and Cousins.
So how do the Kings upgrade their bench? Ideally they'd move Landry as he clearly doesn't fit Karl's plans. And since I don't see any players at #6 that would be immediate starters, drafting well will help upgrade the bench. WCS would definitely improve the team's defense. Mudiay doesn't really address team defense or outside shooting but could be a good bench scorer as he adjusts to the league and could eventually be a nice weapon as a starting PG. Winslow or Johnson would also benefit the bench and help with the defense but not the outside shooting. Porzingis or Hezonja likely wouldn't contribute much of anything early on but could eventually help both the team's defense and outside shooting. But that's a big if, especially in Porzingis' case. Trading down to grab Kaminsky would potentially give the Kings a very strong stretch 4. Cameron Payne is a good prospect to groom as a PG who would also add some outside shooting. Devin Booker and RJ Hunter are other outside shooting options but honestly I'd rather see if Stauskas comes around and Ben continues to improve than go that route. If the Kings could pick up a mid to late first then RHJ is the type of bench defender I'd love to have and who could possibly become a 3&D guy down the road.
There are plenty of players in this draft that can help the Kings and while I'm okay with them trading down I don't want to see the Kings trade away the pick outright barring a fantastic deal. The value generally just isn't there for it. And if the Kings don't trade their pick they have very few major assets to trade. Unless he demands a trade or a ridiculous Godfather offer is on the table Cousins shouldn't be dealt. And beyond Boogie and the draft pick the only piece that could net something major in return is Rudy. And quite honestly I'd be willing to explore those trades. Gay is a good player but he's ideally the third best player on a good team. And quite honestly Casspi often looked better at SF under Karl than Gay did. I'm not saying the Kings SHOULD trade Gay, but you at least have to listen. If Gay is back then I think one of Karl's main tasks needs to be developing the two man game between he and DeMarcus.
In free agency the Kings will need to go bargain shopping for team oriented role players who either defend, shoot from outside or ideally both.
How much turnover do I expect this offseason? Unless Rudy is dealt I'd say not much.
But based on how the starting five played last season only a few tweaks are needed for the Kings to actually be competitive next season. But unfortunately I think a lot more change is needed to make them contenders. It'll be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
I could see the Kings being a 7th or 8th seed next season or I could see another lottery season that has Cousins forcing his way out of town. But with Karl at the helm I think the former is MUCH more likely than the latter.
Last edited:
I think that's an overpay on Lawson. He's a fine player, but I don't see him as being particularly close to $7M/year better than Collison. I'm also not convinced that having Collison as a backup to a guy you intend to use say 35 min/g is the best use of assets.
If we were to go this route, I'd say that #6 + Collison + Landry for Lawson would make more sense. In that scenario McCallum (and perhaps Miller) are the depth at PG and at least SG hasn't been downgraded (experience added should make it some sort of upgrade from last year).
But I'm still not sure I like giving up a pick for a guy Denver looks like they want to just flat out dump due to his salary. The #6 pick would be a dream come true for them. If it were the #18 pick or so, I'm game (barring better opportunities than Lawson arising) but that #6 pick could be nice. What is better, Collison/WCS or Lawson/scrap FA PF? I lean towards the former. And with the rumblings that the Knicks might pass on Mudiay (and there's no room for him in Orlando) there's a chance for a potential game-changer PG at that slot as well.
If we were to go this route, I'd say that #6 + Collison + Landry for Lawson would make more sense. In that scenario McCallum (and perhaps Miller) are the depth at PG and at least SG hasn't been downgraded (experience added should make it some sort of upgrade from last year).
But I'm still not sure I like giving up a pick for a guy Denver looks like they want to just flat out dump due to his salary. The #6 pick would be a dream come true for them. If it were the #18 pick or so, I'm game (barring better opportunities than Lawson arising) but that #6 pick could be nice. What is better, Collison/WCS or Lawson/scrap FA PF? I lean towards the former. And with the rumblings that the Knicks might pass on Mudiay (and there's no room for him in Orlando) there's a chance for a potential game-changer PG at that slot as well.
Well Collison as a backup to a star PG worked well for the Clippers, and half the appeal is it half solves our SG issues as well.
Lawson instead of Collison is an upgrade, but not an over the top one. And it still leaves the same problems that if Lawson ever gets hurt, the season is over because its back to old guys and loser kids.
We just can't lose this season. If we have to dump every thing younger than 25 in the entire franchise, including the dance team, and go with Go-Go Grannies as timeout entertainment, then so be it. We need quality depth more than we need to add elites at the top.
Obviously if we could get Lawson somehow without giving up Collison or the #6, it would be a Christmas miracle. Ben/Landry/McCallum? I don't know. Then you need multiple SG hits in the offseason. As I said, an asset short.
Lawson instead of Collison is an upgrade, but not an over the top one. And it still leaves the same problems that if Lawson ever gets hurt, the season is over because its back to old guys and loser kids.
We just can't lose this season. If we have to dump every thing younger than 25 in the entire franchise, including the dance team, and go with Go-Go Grannies as timeout entertainment, then so be it. We need quality depth more than we need to add elites at the top.
Obviously if we could get Lawson somehow without giving up Collison or the #6, it would be a Christmas miracle. Ben/Landry/McCallum? I don't know. Then you need multiple SG hits in the offseason. As I said, an asset short.
I'm not even sure Lawson's an upgrade at all. Now if for some reason Denver wanted to deal him for Landry I'd welcome him with open arms but I don't see any value in giving up useful assets (especially Collison and/or the 6th pick) to get him. And while CP3 & Collison worked in stretches for the Clips, Lawson is smaller and a significantly worse defender than Paul. Also not as good working without the ball or in a half court offense. It'd have to be jailbreak offense all the time if those two are the backcourt.
I really like the idea of getting a PG good enough to push Collison to the bench (where he's a first rate backup and upgrades the second unit considerably) but I'd prefer to have a bigger, more athletic starter in front of him rather than another waterbug PG. Mudiay would make a lot of sense in that scenario. And if he's available at #6 how far does WCS slide and what would it take for the Kings to trade into that slot? Those two additions could potentially fill a LOT of holes for the Kings.
I really like the idea of getting a PG good enough to push Collison to the bench (where he's a first rate backup and upgrades the second unit considerably) but I'd prefer to have a bigger, more athletic starter in front of him rather than another waterbug PG. Mudiay would make a lot of sense in that scenario. And if he's available at #6 how far does WCS slide and what would it take for the Kings to trade into that slot? Those two additions could potentially fill a LOT of holes for the Kings.
Mudiay is a rookie PG. You can't win with those. And I don't know what we could trade for a lottery pick other than our own lottery pick or Ben, which of course leaves another hole.
part of WCS's appeal is he is old and limited, might know his game and be ready to make his modest contributions from the start.
part of WCS's appeal is he is old and limited, might know his game and be ready to make his modest contributions from the start.
Neither WCS or Mudiay would likely start for the Kings when next season begins. WCS has a chance to become a starter midway through the season. Mudiay would likely back up Collison all year. But the Kings will likely be better next season just with a full training camp under Karl, growth from Ben and/or Nik and modest improvements to the bench.
But if the goal is to make Cousins want to stay long term and build a winner in Sacramento I think you can't simply focus on being a bit better next season. I haven't seen enough real footage of Mudiay to feel fully confident in saying he's a stud, but if the FO thinks he is and he slips to #6 I'm not sure you can pass on him for WCS. Which is why I'm wondering what it might take to get them both.
And even if you can't I think you have to really be sure Mudiay isn't the real deal before taking WCS over him. Cousins wants to win but he's smart enough to see the big picture.
But if the goal is to make Cousins want to stay long term and build a winner in Sacramento I think you can't simply focus on being a bit better next season. I haven't seen enough real footage of Mudiay to feel fully confident in saying he's a stud, but if the FO thinks he is and he slips to #6 I'm not sure you can pass on him for WCS. Which is why I'm wondering what it might take to get them both.
And even if you can't I think you have to really be sure Mudiay isn't the real deal before taking WCS over him. Cousins wants to win but he's smart enough to see the big picture.
I'm not so sure on WCS not being able to start "shortly" after the season starts. I see a platoon situation with him and Thompson likely early on. Depends on who we are playing, like Thompson would start vs the Grizzlies for example most likely, and WCS on some of the "softer" and perimeter teams.
I'd expect to see that "platoon" setup within 15-20 games at the most.
I'd expect to see that "platoon" setup within 15-20 games at the most.
I don't think Mudiay is in that first tier of players in this draft. Well, to be honest the top tier (IMO) is just Towns. But the second tier is Russell and Okafor.
Beyond that I'm not sure you can say that Mudiay is clearly a better prospect than Justice Winslow or Stanley Johnson. I'm also wondering if Myles Turner really did improve his running mechanics and he doesn't start climbing up draft boards. Maybe the Knicks love WCS. Or maybe the Magic gamble on Porzingis.
I don't think it's that far fetched the Mudiay slides. I remember when the 2009 draft was being touted as a two player draft with just Griffin and Rubio as the blue chips. And then I remember the Kings passing on Rubio at #4.
Despite what seems like an early consensus on mock drafts I think teams' big boards are a lot more fluid than we're being led to believe.
Beyond that I'm not sure you can say that Mudiay is clearly a better prospect than Justice Winslow or Stanley Johnson. I'm also wondering if Myles Turner really did improve his running mechanics and he doesn't start climbing up draft boards. Maybe the Knicks love WCS. Or maybe the Magic gamble on Porzingis.
I don't think it's that far fetched the Mudiay slides. I remember when the 2009 draft was being touted as a two player draft with just Griffin and Rubio as the blue chips. And then I remember the Kings passing on Rubio at #4.
Despite what seems like an early consensus on mock drafts I think teams' big boards are a lot more fluid than we're being led to believe.
Well, the chatter around the Knicks is that it's not a sure-fire thing they go after him at #4. The assumption right now is that Towns/Okafor/Russell will be top-three, probably in that order but almost certainly in some order. That would mean that if the Knicks do pass on Mudiay (as opposed to drafting and trading him) that the only other team is Orlando - who has put draft investments in Oladipo and Payton two years in a row and doesn't really have room to stack up lead guards, so they likely pass. Drafts are weird. I still think #4 is his most likely spot, but we have to consider the possibility that he'll be there at #6.
I think after all the posturing Knicks trade #4 with Calderon to Nuggets for Lawson and Chandler (framework, other pieces might be added) - too much sense for both teams, given that Monroe signing looks like almost done deal, and Mudiay goes at #4.
After that what the order will be, no one knows. Apparently Magic FO thought, that they would be in Boston's place as an up and coming #8 seed, so trading #5 for good veteran help is apparently very much in play. I think, we won't hear, what will happen with #5, until very close to the draft.
I don't think any team among Denver, Detroit or Charlotte will have WCS very high on their list of targets, since most teams view him as a center, while Kings can put him at PF next to Boogie, though Boston might be a threat to acquire Denver's pick, if WCS starts sliding. Denver will still have Faried and Gallinari, so Hezonja probably makes most sense for them at #7, unless they can find a taker for Galinari, which would make Johnson/Winslow possible targets for them as well. Detroit is likely zeroing in on whoever among SFs is left, though they might bite on Porzingis to put next to Drummond. Charlotte would like a wing, who can shoot. Too many possibilities, if Mudiay is not taken at #4.
I would think, if all of Hezonja, Winslow and Johnson are on board at #6, Charlotte might be willing to trade up to get the guy, they want most. Getting Marvin Williams contract, small asset and $3 million in cash (all moving to Sixers) for Landry is good enough to drop to #9, if WCS is still going to be there.
After that what the order will be, no one knows. Apparently Magic FO thought, that they would be in Boston's place as an up and coming #8 seed, so trading #5 for good veteran help is apparently very much in play. I think, we won't hear, what will happen with #5, until very close to the draft.
I don't think any team among Denver, Detroit or Charlotte will have WCS very high on their list of targets, since most teams view him as a center, while Kings can put him at PF next to Boogie, though Boston might be a threat to acquire Denver's pick, if WCS starts sliding. Denver will still have Faried and Gallinari, so Hezonja probably makes most sense for them at #7, unless they can find a taker for Galinari, which would make Johnson/Winslow possible targets for them as well. Detroit is likely zeroing in on whoever among SFs is left, though they might bite on Porzingis to put next to Drummond. Charlotte would like a wing, who can shoot. Too many possibilities, if Mudiay is not taken at #4.
I would think, if all of Hezonja, Winslow and Johnson are on board at #6, Charlotte might be willing to trade up to get the guy, they want most. Getting Marvin Williams contract, small asset and $3 million in cash (all moving to Sixers) for Landry is good enough to drop to #9, if WCS is still going to be there.
I would LOVE for us to get another pick in the 7-10 range. I just dont know how we'd go about doing that with our limited assets.
While the top 3 guys are all looking like locks to be all stars, I agree with the notion that there are a few prospects in the 7-10 range with much higher ceilings (and bust potential)....
My dream draft would have us grabbing WCS and one of Winslow or Johnson. We get our defensive big, and if we hit it out of the park on the rookie SF, Gay suddenly becomes a valuable trade asset. Hell, I'd even trade Gay for #7 with that in mind if Denver can give us a worthy throw in (disclaimer: yes, I know that's crazy. I'm not a fan of Rudy's game, he wilts under pressure). Karl is the SF whisperer. If anyone can maximize the potential of Winslow or Johnson, it's George.
While the top 3 guys are all looking like locks to be all stars, I agree with the notion that there are a few prospects in the 7-10 range with much higher ceilings (and bust potential)....
My dream draft would have us grabbing WCS and one of Winslow or Johnson. We get our defensive big, and if we hit it out of the park on the rookie SF, Gay suddenly becomes a valuable trade asset. Hell, I'd even trade Gay for #7 with that in mind if Denver can give us a worthy throw in (disclaimer: yes, I know that's crazy. I'm not a fan of Rudy's game, he wilts under pressure). Karl is the SF whisperer. If anyone can maximize the potential of Winslow or Johnson, it's George.
Last edited:
Towns, Okafor, and Russell seem like locks for the first 3 spots right now. All of them are good fits for what those teams are trying to build. There is at least one article hinting at the Knicks taking Cauley-Stein with the 4th pick, which makes sense to me. They need to replace Tyson Chandler and they have a very small window to compete while Carmelo Anthony is still a max player. Solving the PG issue in free agency also makes sense for them if they want to accelerate the rebuild process and get back to being a playoff team without losing Carmelo. Justise Winslow feels like an Orlando Magic pick to me. He also played on the U-19 team with Elfrid Payton and Aaron Gordon two summers ago so they have some history playing together. He's maybe not the best fit for them, but he's a two-way talent and that front office loves those types of players so I can see them taking him anyway and making him a super-sub if Tobias Harris comes back.
So, this is my best guess right now for the first five picks:
1) Minnesota picks Karl Towns
2) LA picks Jahlil Okafor
3) Philly picks D'Angelo Russell
4) New York picks Willie Cauley-Stein
5) Orlando picks Justise Winslow
This could change a lot before the draft, but I feel like this is a solid guess because players who win National Championships always get a bump (both Okafor and Winslow in the top 5), size, athleticism, and easily translatable skills are always at a premium (Cauley-Stein potentially cracking the top 5), defensive studs have gone much higher in recent drafts than they were previously projected (Kidd-Gilchrist 2nd overall in 2012, Oladipo 2nd overall in 2013), and the short history of players skipping college to play overseas has not been kind to their draft stock (Jennings falling to 10th overall in 2009, Jeremy Tyler falling to 39th overall in 2011). If it does shake out this way, that leaves us with a tough choice of Mudiay, Johnson, or Turner -- the three players I identified as having the highest ceiling in the draft. If we get that decsion right, we're a playoff contender for the next 10 years. No pressure. Turner is a lot riskier but he's also the best fit of the three with our current roster. I would lean toward Mudiay or Johnson because they might be able to contribute right away while Turner will not and I really want to find a way to draft both of them.
So, this is my best guess right now for the first five picks:
1) Minnesota picks Karl Towns
2) LA picks Jahlil Okafor
3) Philly picks D'Angelo Russell
4) New York picks Willie Cauley-Stein
5) Orlando picks Justise Winslow
This could change a lot before the draft, but I feel like this is a solid guess because players who win National Championships always get a bump (both Okafor and Winslow in the top 5), size, athleticism, and easily translatable skills are always at a premium (Cauley-Stein potentially cracking the top 5), defensive studs have gone much higher in recent drafts than they were previously projected (Kidd-Gilchrist 2nd overall in 2012, Oladipo 2nd overall in 2013), and the short history of players skipping college to play overseas has not been kind to their draft stock (Jennings falling to 10th overall in 2009, Jeremy Tyler falling to 39th overall in 2011). If it does shake out this way, that leaves us with a tough choice of Mudiay, Johnson, or Turner -- the three players I identified as having the highest ceiling in the draft. If we get that decsion right, we're a playoff contender for the next 10 years. No pressure. Turner is a lot riskier but he's also the best fit of the three with our current roster. I would lean toward Mudiay or Johnson because they might be able to contribute right away while Turner will not and I really want to find a way to draft both of them.