HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
well they could film it 20 times until they get the outcome they desire.... 
Ongoing draft/lottery discussion [OPEN SPOILERS]
- Thread starter hrdboild
- Start date
This year it won't be an OR situation; it'll be an AND situation. Stupid Lakers.
I'd flip the tables on Denver...Mudiay for Lawson AND 7th pick. If they say no, we still get MudiayProbably trying to distance himself from PDA. Doesn't want to be hated - wants to be a super-fan.
If Mudiay drops, selling him to Denver looks like a natural idea. Lawson can't turnaround at this point.
FaStRmAn
Starter
well the pick was just about what we all expected.... Mostly because the lottery is rigged. If it aint rigged why do they do it behind closed doors. Everyone in the room is beholden to the NBA. It certainly seems like a rigged scenario. And the fact that big market teams seem to always get great draft picks is a red flag... Lakers score AGAIN ! Kings get butkiss...
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
lawlman91
Starter
I've said it twice and I'll say it a third time: #2peat
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Yes, everybody in the room beholden to the NBA...except the 14 representatives from every lottery team who would have to actively be conspiring against their own franchises.
I'm also going to have to go confirm the part where big markets keep on doing so well in the lottery, given its been about 5 years since the last non-Cleveland/New Orelans/Minnesota got the top pick. 3 of the the 4 worst teams in the league were Philly/New York/the Lakers, they got 3 of the 4 top picks. Pretty shocking.
Last edited:
Iced Espresso
Starter
The envelope was bent in 85 before being placed inside, it was not frozen.
This is the only real suspicious lottery I've seen where I wonder, besides the outcomes, but no evidence.
Darth Divac
Bench
WCS or GTFO
There are a nice sum of mock drafts with Mudiay falling to the Kings. However, in those same ones, WCS gets drafted to Orlando.
If Mudiay fell to the Kings and WCS was still on the board, I'd draft Mudiay at 6 then trade pieces of McLemore+McCallum+filters to the Hornets at 9 for WCS.
or if he wasn't on the board, I'd still look to draft Kaminsky, Turner, or Lyles.
Curious, would anyone oppose the Kings trading a package of McLemore for a 1st round pick?
Assuming we draft WCS at #6 and traded the package for a PG or a SF? (Grant, Payne, Wright, Johnson, Oubre, RHJ)
If Mudiay fell to the Kings and WCS was still on the board, I'd draft Mudiay at 6 then trade pieces of McLemore+McCallum+filters to the Hornets at 9 for WCS.
or if he wasn't on the board, I'd still look to draft Kaminsky, Turner, or Lyles.
Curious, would anyone oppose the Kings trading a package of McLemore for a 1st round pick?
Assuming we draft WCS at #6 and traded the package for a PG or a SF? (Grant, Payne, Wright, Johnson, Oubre, RHJ)
bajaden
Hall of Famer
If one uses logic, the lottery actually went the way the odds suggested it should go. The team with the 14th position didn't jump over everyone to number one. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the lottery system. Obviously it's flawed, but just about any system, other than going with how the teams end the regular season would be flawed as well. Yeah, I realize that under the old system a team can tank their way to the first pick in the draft. But, if a team is willing to undergo the public embarrassment of throwing their entire season away to acquire an unproven player, they deserve whatever they get.
The draft isn't meant to be a cure all. If you go into the draft looking for saviors, your likely to be disappointed. The draft is where you acquire building blocks of the future at a very reasonable price. How big a building block depends on your ability to judge talent, and the talent pool. In a good and deep draft, which I think this one is, your chances of acquiring a very good player increase, but your chances of chasing fools Gold (credit to Gilles) also increase. The rule is, always take the best player available. Right? Unfortunately, that's subjective, not easily discerned, and clouded by your needs. It's easy to convince yourself that the PF you do need, has talent equal to the SF you don't need.
Some will say we need to trade the pick. I'm OK with that, depending on the trade. Logically, the pick itself doesn't have enough value to acquire a player worthy, or equal to the potential of the player you might acquire in the draft. I realize that statement is convoluted, but think of it this way. You bought a lottery ticket for a dollar. The lottery is worth 20 million dollares. So someone offers you two dollars for your ticket. You say no. Then he offers four dollars. Again you say no. At what point will he offer enough to pry that ticket from you, or will he ever offer enough. Dreams have more value to the dreamers than those living in reality. In short, draft picks have more value when included as part of a larger trade, and many times, years later, the team that traded them ended up losing value. If the Bulls had decided that the 30th pick in the draft had little value, they wouldn't have Jimmy Butler today. Were they lucky? Sure, but that's not the point. The point is, the 30th pick is an opportunity that costs the team very little. So rather than throw it in the trash for little return, why not see how it turns out?
Back to the lottery. No, I'm not thrilled that we didn't move up, but at the same time, I'm happy we didn't move down. I guess I'm more upset that the Lakers, a team used to walking among the gods, had fallen to earth, left to rummage through the trash with the rest of us, was once again rewarded by luck or intention, or both. However, I feel a little smug that we do have something they don't have. A giant killer named Cousins.
The draft isn't meant to be a cure all. If you go into the draft looking for saviors, your likely to be disappointed. The draft is where you acquire building blocks of the future at a very reasonable price. How big a building block depends on your ability to judge talent, and the talent pool. In a good and deep draft, which I think this one is, your chances of acquiring a very good player increase, but your chances of chasing fools Gold (credit to Gilles) also increase. The rule is, always take the best player available. Right? Unfortunately, that's subjective, not easily discerned, and clouded by your needs. It's easy to convince yourself that the PF you do need, has talent equal to the SF you don't need.
Some will say we need to trade the pick. I'm OK with that, depending on the trade. Logically, the pick itself doesn't have enough value to acquire a player worthy, or equal to the potential of the player you might acquire in the draft. I realize that statement is convoluted, but think of it this way. You bought a lottery ticket for a dollar. The lottery is worth 20 million dollares. So someone offers you two dollars for your ticket. You say no. Then he offers four dollars. Again you say no. At what point will he offer enough to pry that ticket from you, or will he ever offer enough. Dreams have more value to the dreamers than those living in reality. In short, draft picks have more value when included as part of a larger trade, and many times, years later, the team that traded them ended up losing value. If the Bulls had decided that the 30th pick in the draft had little value, they wouldn't have Jimmy Butler today. Were they lucky? Sure, but that's not the point. The point is, the 30th pick is an opportunity that costs the team very little. So rather than throw it in the trash for little return, why not see how it turns out?
Back to the lottery. No, I'm not thrilled that we didn't move up, but at the same time, I'm happy we didn't move down. I guess I'm more upset that the Lakers, a team used to walking among the gods, had fallen to earth, left to rummage through the trash with the rest of us, was once again rewarded by luck or intention, or both. However, I feel a little smug that we do have something they don't have. A giant killer named Cousins.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Agreed. And for some reason I don't believe Divac has that bias. Maybe because he was one highly skilled Euro. In fact, maybe on the margin, he has a bias toward Euros. Karl has talked about the fact that Euros are generally more skilled than American players, and Karl yearns for highly skilled players. If all other things are equal, why wouldn't you choose a more skilled Euro over a less skilled American player? Also, consider that time is of the essence. There isn't the time to draft a less-skilled American and develop his skills because of the risk of losing Cousins, so why not draft a more skilled Euro who will take less time to develop?
Iced Espresso
Starter
I doubt the Hornets would want McLemore given a shot at WCS, Ray is not much incentive to add either....This would be the equivalent of them saying to us if WCS was on the table and we were picking 9 hey I'll give you Vonleh, some fillers, and a most likely destined to be off the bench role player on a budget deal, you'd laugh and hang up the phone.
Personally I'd rather keep McLemore rather than develop someone else, even if they seem promising, if anything with McLemore I'd target a veteran possibly.
I think if we weren't in a bit of an urgency for playoffs next year, I would've saw Hezonja and Porzingis very high possible chances of being drafted by the Kings. However, I think we will pass on both of them because it's unsure when they'll come over and how long they'll take to adjusts. I think Euro prospects benefit a it more playing overseas. They're more craftier than American players, and I think it might have something to due with how the game is played in Europe.
I think we have our own European-ish Lithuianian-Canadian player in Nik Stauskas. It'll be very interesting to see what Karl will be able to do with Nik. He has all of the skills he said he wants from a player. Scoring and passing without dominating the ball.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Actually that's exactly the argument against Euros in this context. The young ones at least often spend time abroad before coming over, and/or take several years building up their bodies (does nobody in the entire European continent own a weight set??) before they are ready. Its also why WCS has an appeal. Youth does not fit our roster, not if we want to win here. But a 22yr old guy, IF he can do the things you think he can, can step right in. Once upon a time in the bad ole days all rookies came in at 22, and they could walk right into a starting lineup and compete.
Basically we need help now, we can't wait, and we can't come out of this lottery like we did last year with no help coming from maybe our biggest asset this summer. Guy who can contribute now, or trade the pick for a guy who can contribute now. Getting a guy who can contribute in 3 years does nothing for us except give us another kid to watch after we lose Cousins and are on our way to our 15th straight losing season.
It would be a nice attempt. I'd throw any pieces at them to get WCS. Hornets desperately want to compete next year and they're rumored to trading their pick. They need shooting on the team and their floor spacing is terrible. Ben has the same upside as any of those players being drafted 9 and he's already further down the line in development.
I don't see the Hornets taking WCS. They've drafted Biyombo, Zeller, and Vonleh the last few drafts. I think they'll most likely target Johnson, Oubre, and Booker. SG is a desperate need for them especially since the Lance Stephenson experiment didn't work out as planned.
I think a better comparison would be them calling us and offering MKG for our #6 pick.
Since drafting Nik, we have the luxury of expanding either young player in a potential trade.
Iced Espresso
Starter
WCS if he is picked, and he does work out, makes our contract situation with Landry and Thompson a pretty good one actually. Increasing cap, but we'd be solid with depth and they would expire before having to dish out more than WCS rookie deal.
The WCS pick just seems to help in so many ways in theory.
Basically if he works out, and McLemore improves, we just need to get a couple of cheap veteran role players off the bench. Or look to make a move to upgrade our SG at the expense of at least one of our SG prospects.
Dime Dropper
All-Star
TBH Brick I'm very surprised you haven't been more vocal about WCS. Have you watched him play?
You were a big proponent of Drummond who showed significantly less. Of course Drummond had the huge body to go along with the athleticism. But defensively, WCS is far ahead of him, just as tall and long, and probably a better athlete overall. Give WCS a jumper, which I don't think is out of the question at all, and he's pretty much the ideal fit next to Cousins.
You were a big proponent of Drummond who showed significantly less. Of course Drummond had the huge body to go along with the athleticism. But defensively, WCS is far ahead of him, just as tall and long, and probably a better athlete overall. Give WCS a jumper, which I don't think is out of the question at all, and he's pretty much the ideal fit next to Cousins.
This is of course the enduring "the lotto is rigged" example. There's enough there to raise an eyebrow, but perhaps not more than that.
Bottom line: That happened 30 years ago, using a completely different system that did have fairly simple potential avenues for tampering, and if it was in fact fixed it was done by a commissioner who is no longer in office. We can probably safely let that one go at this point. The relevance to the modern lottery is almost zero.
Iced Espresso
Starter
I don't think he even needs a jumper, give me 33% at 12 feet or so, just enough to have to put a hand in his face, and a reliable jump hook that can develop over time. We don't want him shooting more than 5 shots a game that are not put backs or lobs any way. Kid can let the ball dominant guys play and crash the boards or run the floor. All we need.
Iced Espresso
Starter
Oh sure, I have my suspicions, they are not batcrap or insane, enough to call potential bs and want some sort of reform, and we have that now.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
That could be. I think the Kings are in a tough spot. Unless they go a fairly radical roué and trade Gay, they don't have much ammo to get impactful players even with a #6 pick in the draft.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Your description of the "package" is a little vague. Would I trade McLemore? Sure, depending on who I was trading him for. Would I trade him straight up for a draft pick? Maybe, if it was the first or second pick in the draft, but that's about it. McLemore has more value than that. As part of a package? Once again maybe, depending on what the package is. The last thing I want to do is trade McLemore for, lets say the 11th pick in the draft, and a veteran 33 year old SG, and then have McLemore turn into the next Jimmy Butler a couple of years from now.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
The strength issue is a fair point, especially with respect to Porzingas, not so much Hezonja. But it's not like WCS is beefy. Also, WCS is going to help immediately on D in my view, at least with weak side D, (maybe not one-on-one D in the post) but hurt immediately on O because he isn't skilled. WCS is not an offensively skilled college player, so you can use your imagination for what he's going to be like in his rookie year in the NBA.
Dime Dropper
All-Star
He's going to be better offensively than you think because he's so good at moving off the ball, running the floor, catching lobs and cleaning up the offensive glass. You seem to think he's completely inept offensively - not the case. He has excellent hands and is very coordinated. He's definitely not going to hurt any team offensively unless they're relying on him to be a scorer. He'd offer more to us offensively than JT. We alsmot never throw the ball to JT to go to work. He takes the occasional jumper. WCS will bring more than that just by beating his man down the court and cutting to the basket.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
If you look at history around the league where teams have traded their picks, those teams usually come out on the short end of the stick. The truth is, the 6th pick is nothing but subjective potential. Potential, that in most cases takes a couple of years to be realized. So if your a team, and you have a proven player, that maybe is part of a logjam, would you trade that proven player straight up for an unproven one? I wouldn't! Unless he just screams can't miss. You would have to sweeten the pot. A draft pick has more value to the team that owns it, than the team that might want to acquire it. It's all about cost. The sixth pick cost the Kings nothing to acquire, but there would be cost to the team trying to acquire it. What that team is willing to pay, is almost always less than what the seller wants. Typical exchange would be and aging star player on a bad contract for the 6th pick and expiring filler.
If your a team that immediately wants to trade your draft pick, it speaks of desperation. Not saying that you don't listen when people come knocking, or, turn down good offers. But when your name is immediately being waved around the NBA as a team wanting to trade it's pick, you look like a bottom feeder. Desperation breeds mistakes. If I'm the Kings, I keep my mouth shut, and look happy with my pick. I don't go door to door with my hat in my hand hoping some team feels charitable. I sit back and let them come to me with a sign outside my door saying that Cousins will not be a part of any discussion. Everyone else is fair game. If no one comes knocking, then that's the harsh reality of your talent pool. However, I don't think that will happen. Just my humble opinion..
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
If Mudiay falls to us there's no way I'm trading him for Lawson. Star potential on both sides of the ball on a rookie contract for Lawson and his 12-13M/Y contract? No thanks.
I btw agree with the need to get players who can help now, that's a reason why I'm a fan of WCS. If he's not there at 6 though then I'm going with potential although I'm not yet 100% certain I'd pick him either, have to see who else would be on the board when we pick. Have to see how some of these workouts go. Just the situation you have to deal with when picking 6 instead of top 3. I'm not trading high end potential for a decent vet who could help us for a year or two and that's based on looking around and not seeing starter level players I'd want on the trade block currently. That can change of course but I'm not hearing about any intriguing players being available aside maybe Bradley.
This season I wasn't even planning on needing or using the draft to help us. I've been mentally focused on free agency all along. It's a sad state that we're even in position to be picking 6th. So I really don't have much of an issue picking a guy with potential as at 6 there will be a few choices of guys with high end potential(that's a strength of this draft). My attention has been on free agency all along.
Part of my thinking is our starting 5 did pretty damn good at times. It was SG which hurt us most along with our bench. Fixing the SG issue was going to come in free agency anyway so add a Matthews or Afflalo to what we have and that plugs a major weakness. Other major weakness is our bench so even going with a guy who has high potential, he should help our bench next year, whether a Mudiay or Porzingis. Then we've got to get a backup for Cuz either through free agency or a minor trade.
One thing I disagree with some here on is that I also think WCS is a project. He'll help but his feel for the game and offensive acumen isn't at the level I'm certain he can step in and start for us ahead of JT. He also has to get a fair amount stronger. He got pushed around at Kentucky at times. I question his motor. Has great defensive tools but also comes with question marks. Anyone we pick at 6 is going to be a project, including WCS.
I btw agree with the need to get players who can help now, that's a reason why I'm a fan of WCS. If he's not there at 6 though then I'm going with potential although I'm not yet 100% certain I'd pick him either, have to see who else would be on the board when we pick. Have to see how some of these workouts go. Just the situation you have to deal with when picking 6 instead of top 3. I'm not trading high end potential for a decent vet who could help us for a year or two and that's based on looking around and not seeing starter level players I'd want on the trade block currently. That can change of course but I'm not hearing about any intriguing players being available aside maybe Bradley.
This season I wasn't even planning on needing or using the draft to help us. I've been mentally focused on free agency all along. It's a sad state that we're even in position to be picking 6th. So I really don't have much of an issue picking a guy with potential as at 6 there will be a few choices of guys with high end potential(that's a strength of this draft). My attention has been on free agency all along.
Part of my thinking is our starting 5 did pretty damn good at times. It was SG which hurt us most along with our bench. Fixing the SG issue was going to come in free agency anyway so add a Matthews or Afflalo to what we have and that plugs a major weakness. Other major weakness is our bench so even going with a guy who has high potential, he should help our bench next year, whether a Mudiay or Porzingis. Then we've got to get a backup for Cuz either through free agency or a minor trade.
One thing I disagree with some here on is that I also think WCS is a project. He'll help but his feel for the game and offensive acumen isn't at the level I'm certain he can step in and start for us ahead of JT. He also has to get a fair amount stronger. He got pushed around at Kentucky at times. I question his motor. Has great defensive tools but also comes with question marks. Anyone we pick at 6 is going to be a project, including WCS.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
