Entity
Hall of Famer
Actually they are all in the NBA. Same league as us
Ongoing draft/lottery discussion [OPEN SPOILERS]
- Thread starter hrdboild
- Start date
There's only so many ways I can say the same thing, but it's dumbfounding to me the extant to which people here are willing to gamble on low-ceiling talent year after year that almost never returns good value at the top of the draft and aren't willing to take a no more risky gamble on elite talent that actually has a chance of making us better.
I feel like you're learning the wrong lessons here. When we picked Jimmer people said he was NBA ready because he played 4 years in college and had an NBA ready skIll. Trouble is, he was never an NBA caliber athlete and his defense was non-enon-existent. In actual fact, he never adjusted because he couldn't adjust. He can't get taller or faster or become a better athlete. The guys we could have picked like Brandon Knight or Kawhi Leonard were considered projects with bust potential who would take years to get up to speed. Those were NBA athletes though and they're currently legit NBA players. That's lesson number 1: college stars don't automatically become NBA stars. That's why "upside" and "potential" are actually significant considerations and college production is a lot less important than people make it out to be.
When we picked Thomas Robinson he was a little undersized, a little raw but a great athlete and a beast on the glass. He wasn't a great fit next to Cousins, but he could have been a nice bench big. We passed on "risky" prospects like Harrison Barnes and Andre Drummond who had elite potential and all of them developed faster. Robinson didn't fail here because he's a poor basketball player though, he failed because people expected too much too soon. He may yet develop into a solid NBA big man. Did we get any better by trading him for Patrick Patterson? Not even a little bit. That's lesson number 2: upperclassmen don't develop any faster -- everyone has to adjust to the NBA level. Actually, younger players tend to have a faster growth curve because they're getting world class training earlier in their development cycle. And there's no shortcuts to success, development takes time.
So here we are this year and once again I'm reading about why we need familiar names like Cauley-Stein or Kaminsky because people watched them play in college for 3 years amd win NCAA level accolades and they assume they'll play the same way in the NBA. It almost never works out that way. And people are writing off Emmanuel Mudiay and Stanley Johnson because they struggled a little bit at times this year and didn't play for championship level teams. That's completely missing the point...
The athleticism and court vision that Mudiay has are unteachable and put him in a class of his own compared to every other PG in the draft besides Russell. I hear people say all the time that seeing the floor and picturing passing angles before they even exist is something you're born with. Mudiay has that skillset in a 6'4" frame with an explosive first step, good body control in the air, and good rebounding instincts. His ceiling reaches as high as "best PG in the NBA". Damn right I'll take a chance on that talent before I settle for a guaranteed roleplayer because, as we saw with Jimmer, not even that is a guarantee.
The defensive instincts, nose for the ball, and functional strength that Stanley Johnson displayed this season are elite even at the NBA level. Does it bother me that his shot is a little flat and he struggled to finish inside? Not really. Those are both correctable issues that frankly any person on this planet could improve with sufficient practice. You're telling me you don't want a prospect with the strength to back down most opposing forwards in the post and the lateral quickness and wingspan to stay in front of guards because his shot isn't perfect? Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
I'm only going to say this one more time and then I'll shut up about the draft because it's no fun trying to have a discussion with people who ignore everything you have to say. When you look at prospects don't look at the player they are now because unless they're a once in a generation talent like Lebron, none of them are NBA ready. What you're actually looking for is a glimpse of the player they'll be 3 years from now because that's a much closer comparison to the player they'll be for the rest of their career. Ask yourself if they have room to get any better, if their flaws are correctable ones or biological limitations that can't be overcome. Are they big enough, strong enough, fast enough to keep up with some of the best athletes in the world? Do they demonstrate superior basketball instincts or do they need to be told before they'll do anything (this is usually pretty easy to diagnose, believe it or not)?
On the statistical side, shooting percentages are less important than when, where, and how they shoot. The first one is a symptom not a root cause and fraught with statistical noise for younger players with less of a track record. The when, where, and how is what tells you how well they'll integrate into an NBA offense. Do't let underwhelming physical measurements affect your opinion at all unless they're extreme. 9 out of 10 players who fail do so for other reasons. The college season is short So you're looking for trends more than year end stats. Look at their boxscores throughout the season. What's their peak as a scorer, rebounder, and passer? How often did they get there? Are they trending down or up? You also can't compare freshman stats to upperclassman stats. Start with everyone's freshman year to put them in a more even plane, and then project forward.
If you can answer all of those questions for yourself, and really do consider everybody not just the top 6 players you see in mock drafts, you might actually have an NBA big board that won't get laughed at 5 years from now when we know where everybody stands.
I feel like you're learning the wrong lessons here. When we picked Jimmer people said he was NBA ready because he played 4 years in college and had an NBA ready skIll. Trouble is, he was never an NBA caliber athlete and his defense was non-enon-existent. In actual fact, he never adjusted because he couldn't adjust. He can't get taller or faster or become a better athlete. The guys we could have picked like Brandon Knight or Kawhi Leonard were considered projects with bust potential who would take years to get up to speed. Those were NBA athletes though and they're currently legit NBA players. That's lesson number 1: college stars don't automatically become NBA stars. That's why "upside" and "potential" are actually significant considerations and college production is a lot less important than people make it out to be.
When we picked Thomas Robinson he was a little undersized, a little raw but a great athlete and a beast on the glass. He wasn't a great fit next to Cousins, but he could have been a nice bench big. We passed on "risky" prospects like Harrison Barnes and Andre Drummond who had elite potential and all of them developed faster. Robinson didn't fail here because he's a poor basketball player though, he failed because people expected too much too soon. He may yet develop into a solid NBA big man. Did we get any better by trading him for Patrick Patterson? Not even a little bit. That's lesson number 2: upperclassmen don't develop any faster -- everyone has to adjust to the NBA level. Actually, younger players tend to have a faster growth curve because they're getting world class training earlier in their development cycle. And there's no shortcuts to success, development takes time.
So here we are this year and once again I'm reading about why we need familiar names like Cauley-Stein or Kaminsky because people watched them play in college for 3 years amd win NCAA level accolades and they assume they'll play the same way in the NBA. It almost never works out that way. And people are writing off Emmanuel Mudiay and Stanley Johnson because they struggled a little bit at times this year and didn't play for championship level teams. That's completely missing the point...
The athleticism and court vision that Mudiay has are unteachable and put him in a class of his own compared to every other PG in the draft besides Russell. I hear people say all the time that seeing the floor and picturing passing angles before they even exist is something you're born with. Mudiay has that skillset in a 6'4" frame with an explosive first step, good body control in the air, and good rebounding instincts. His ceiling reaches as high as "best PG in the NBA". Damn right I'll take a chance on that talent before I settle for a guaranteed roleplayer because, as we saw with Jimmer, not even that is a guarantee.
The defensive instincts, nose for the ball, and functional strength that Stanley Johnson displayed this season are elite even at the NBA level. Does it bother me that his shot is a little flat and he struggled to finish inside? Not really. Those are both correctable issues that frankly any person on this planet could improve with sufficient practice. You're telling me you don't want a prospect with the strength to back down most opposing forwards in the post and the lateral quickness and wingspan to stay in front of guards because his shot isn't perfect? Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
I'm only going to say this one more time and then I'll shut up about the draft because it's no fun trying to have a discussion with people who ignore everything you have to say. When you look at prospects don't look at the player they are now because unless they're a once in a generation talent like Lebron, none of them are NBA ready. What you're actually looking for is a glimpse of the player they'll be 3 years from now because that's a much closer comparison to the player they'll be for the rest of their career. Ask yourself if they have room to get any better, if their flaws are correctable ones or biological limitations that can't be overcome. Are they big enough, strong enough, fast enough to keep up with some of the best athletes in the world? Do they demonstrate superior basketball instincts or do they need to be told before they'll do anything (this is usually pretty easy to diagnose, believe it or not)?
On the statistical side, shooting percentages are less important than when, where, and how they shoot. The first one is a symptom not a root cause and fraught with statistical noise for younger players with less of a track record. The when, where, and how is what tells you how well they'll integrate into an NBA offense. Do't let underwhelming physical measurements affect your opinion at all unless they're extreme. 9 out of 10 players who fail do so for other reasons. The college season is short So you're looking for trends more than year end stats. Look at their boxscores throughout the season. What's their peak as a scorer, rebounder, and passer? How often did they get there? Are they trending down or up? You also can't compare freshman stats to upperclassman stats. Start with everyone's freshman year to put them in a more even plane, and then project forward.
If you can answer all of those questions for yourself, and really do consider everybody not just the top 6 players you see in mock drafts, you might actually have an NBA big board that won't get laughed at 5 years from now when we know where everybody stands.
J
jdbraver
Guest
I'm not sure we are NBA quality. At least for the past 6 or so years.
J
jdbraver
Guest
You can't get elite talent for the number 6 pick. We need to trade talent but unfortunately we don't have a ton.
Entity
Hall of Famer
While WCS don't have the upside of Olajuwon. Neither did Tyson chandler. But I'd like to have the chandler from 5-8 years ago on this team. It is a precise team need and WCS can be that player plus an ability to guard on perimeter. Lets say you take muiday or Johnson. That glaring need is still gonna be right in your face. I look at collison and I look at Landry and I ask myself which upgrade is best for the team. WCS instead of Landry or muiday over collison. I gotta go with WCS. Now you wanna talk trades for another pick then I am all ears.
Entity
Hall of Famer
Seriously though saying that Danny green and Wes Matthews are out of our league is a step out. I mean these arent franchise or even second fiddles. I know ppl tend to over value their teams but I think that line of thought is lowering the bar alot.
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
If you don't trade for Webber, sure you draft Dirk, hindsight being 20/20 and all because every decision at that time knew how every player would turn out in the future. You're so smart.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Our window with Cuz looms over everything.
There's maybe a 1 in 20 chance any kid we draft will ever be good enough to sniff Cuz's behind. Cuz is arguably the single best player from his own draft. he's the single best player we have ever drafted in 30 years. Losing such a player for the sake of ANY other kid shy of an acknowledged sure thing like Shaq or Lebron would be insanity.
And so we come to this: we can't miss, with almost anything we do this summer. Aiming low for a sure thing > aiming high swinging, missing, and losing Cuz in the end. Situation is everything. If this was 2009, we were completely cratered, no talent, no coach, no nothing, then absolutely you go with a high ceiling player, even if it was going to take him a few years to begin to realize it. Because when you have nothing, that's what the situation dictates. Nothing to lose, so swing for the fences and try to get something big.
But now we have something, several somethings. Big somethings. We have stars, we have an old 100o win coach. You can't miss now. That's a betrayal of all those guys. And you have a frighteningly short period of time to prove it can all work. One more year of losing might be all it takes to break everything apart again. So, in THIS situation, in our situation, a low ceiling sure thing is entirely appropriate. In 5 years you take getting a good roleplayer in this draft and keeping Cuz over drafting a star and losing him, everytime. Certainly over drafting anything less than drafting a star.
Now quite obviously if you are as sure about a high ceiling guy being able to step right in as you are about a low ceiling guy, you take the high ceiling guy. But if there's any doubt, if there's any waiting period, any chance we could come up empty AGAIN, you bail and take the small step forward you can count on. Including of course trading the pick for proven help. In this draft that #6 pick could get you 1 or 2 really solid guys, and we're about 3-4 really solid guys from having a good winning roster for a winning coach (who also doesn't have many years left).
J
jdbraver
Guest
If you were them and other teams were Contending w the kings for their services what team would you pick? It's not like we are the only team with money this off season.
Livinthedream
All-Star
Ah, but you're missing the whole point. The point is to draft the best player available, regardless of position when you're picking that high. It's not about predicting the future. If the best player is a SG or SF this year, then so be it. Clear the log jam later. The problem we ran into last year was trying to find a specific skill (shooter) and ignored the fact that he wasn't the BPA. If you're picking 6th, you're not one rookie away from taking the leap. So stock up on talent.
This is verifiably not true. Teams draft elite talent at 6 or later almost every year.
I understand what you're saying, but the mistake is in assuming you even know who the sure things are in the draft. People thought Stauskas was a win-now pick and Payton was a project but it was Payton who made the All Rookie team. People thought Drummond was a project and Robinson was a sure thing but Drummond was an elite rebounder and shotblocker in his second season and Robinson is still playing limited minutes. The only certainty with prospects is projectable talent. Use all the data available to predict who these guys will be 3 years from now and pick the best one, regardless of positio. Then allow them time to develop. Your low ceiling talent may take just as long to develop or never develop at all. The risk is the same, so there's no reason to draft a lesser player.
I'm annoyed that the Kings don't have a second round pick and I hope they end up trading for one. There are quite a few guys that I think could be useful roleplayers that will fall to the 2nd round.
Terry Rozier will be a nice defensive PG with the potential to be significantly more in time.
Two seniors that I think are being undervalued and who would be great value if they fall to the 2nd round are Delon Wright and Richaun Holmes.
Tyler Harvey may go undrafted and if so I'd love to see the Kings add him to their SL team. He could be an Eddie House like sparkplug in time.
I'd love to take a flier on Chris McCullough but I think by the time the draft rolls around he'll be taken in the early to mid 2o's.
Terry Rozier will be a nice defensive PG with the potential to be significantly more in time.
Two seniors that I think are being undervalued and who would be great value if they fall to the 2nd round are Delon Wright and Richaun Holmes.
Tyler Harvey may go undrafted and if so I'd love to see the Kings add him to their SL team. He could be an Eddie House like sparkplug in time.
I'd love to take a flier on Chris McCullough but I think by the time the draft rolls around he'll be taken in the early to mid 2o's.
Last edited:
Kings don't have a place for a rookie PG on the roster at the moment: need to have a backup capable of playing as a spot starter, and I much rather ask Dre to return as 3rd string in player-coach capacity to move into coaching staff eventually. If Dre is out, I would still look for some minor vet for a minimum.
Richaun Holmes has great combination of length/hops and looks like he can shoot, but he's not a good passer or ballhandler and lacks mobility for a PF.
Richaun Holmes has great combination of length/hops and looks like he can shoot, but he's not a good passer or ballhandler and lacks mobility for a PF.
I'd absolutely like to have Dre back if the price is right. But I'm also far from sold on McCallum.
There's a reason Holmes is likely to go 2nd round. Ideally you strike gold with a DeAndre Jordan, Draymond Green, Nick Van Exel, Paul Millsap, Ginobili (though it's harder and harder to snipe great international talent even if you have to wait for it) but just getting a functional roleplayer is a huge success and I think Holmes could be that kind of player in time.
It's funny that you mention passing, ballhandling and mobility at the PF position. Obviously those were always good things to have but Draymond Green (and to a lesser extent Boris Diaw before him) has made that swiss army knife or "playmaking 4" the hot new trend. It made me think that Hinkie is in the catbird seat with the rights to Dario Saric. I doubt whether he ever intended to have him suit up for the Sixers - drafting a talent that could develop overseas while "Project SuperTank" was going on was definitely helpful in their race to the top of the lottery - but with Saric's play this season and his blend of skills I think he has a very valuable trade chip on his hands.
McCallum shouldn't see non-garbage time next season, and if Kings need those additional $400,000 for a FA, he should be released. One of my favourite scenarios for this off-season would be signing a big with all the cap space (around $8.5 million), then going after Cory Joseph, if he doesn't want/can't stay with Spurs and it appears to go that way: Kings can offer him starting salary of $4 million by S&Ting 3 non-guaranteed deals.
Saric is Draymond Green on steroids offensively, but defensively he's lacking. Don't think, you can put him between Boogie and Rudy, and he's too good (both in terms of talent and future pay) to come off the bench. Off the top of my head, I think he would do great for Rockets or Jazz.
Saric is Draymond Green on steroids offensively, but defensively he's lacking. Don't think, you can put him between Boogie and Rudy, and he's too good (both in terms of talent and future pay) to come off the bench. Off the top of my head, I think he would do great for Rockets or Jazz.
Agree on both points. And I don't like Saric for the Kings either, I just think he'll be an in demand player based on the current trend.
IfAt1st
Starter
What I never understood is that it seemed obvious to me that Robinson had played as hard as he could to accomplish what he did at the college level.
His tragic past and absolute commitment to succeeding in college so that he could get a payday in the NBA for his sister to have a secure future seemed to me to big signals that his abilities were pretty topped out, as opposed to draftees that didn't have that particular past and motivation that year.
I would never have chosen Thomas Robinson in that draft, if there were equitable prospects that still had lots of room for improvement (physically and mentally).
Kingster
Hall of Famer
The more I read your post, the more I think that transforming this team enough to keep Cousins happy is very unlikely. Where's the ammo to succeed? You have a pick, Gay, Collison, a couple of undefined 2-guards, Landry, and some FA money. Unless someone overpays for Gay in a trade I don't see how you get where you want to go. You can go ahead and devalue the FA money by 25% because this team was lousy last year and not sniffing the playoffs. Now I understand the prior Cousins trade talk - there is such a low probability of transforming this team soon that it's very reasonable to start planning for Cousins' trade scenarios.
One and Done
Bench
Have to agree with Kingster's argument, but the fan in me wants to give this one last shot before pulling the trigger on another rebuild. Can the new regime make enough improvement in one season (with extremely limited assets) to build a promising contender?
I don't think this is quite in Lloyd Christmas territory yet...but we'll know for sure once this summer is over.
I don't think this is quite in Lloyd Christmas territory yet...but we'll know for sure once this summer is over.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Drummond was unique physical specimen with questions about skill level, ability to rebound, motivation and understanding of the game coming from everywhere. Defense was a the only given. In this draft WCS is the single guy, that fits the description.
Actually, the biggest question about Drummond was his desire. No one, including me doubted his talent. I just wasn't sure he was going to use his talent based on how he played in highschool, and his one year in college.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I know you don't want to believe it, but this team last season was better than it's record. When you look at all the things that happened, it's unrealistic to think that any team would have performed up to par, much less above par. Having a great coach that has the ability to squeeze blood out of a turnip will make a huge difference. Add the right kind of support players around Cousins and Gay, draft Cauley-Stein, who will make a difference on the defensive end, and hopefully make a trade or two to improve the bench. I'm not saying we'll contend for a championship, but I do think it's possible to contend for a playoff spot. Why don't we wait and see what the team looks like at the start of the season before we all pull out our razors and slit our wrists.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
some of you guys seriously can't be talking about another rebuild...I mean full rebuild. We have been losing for 8+ seasons....the Kings have been doing nothing else BUT rebuilding. You do everything in your power to keep a steady core in tact and add pieces from there, where ever that may come from. It might have to be a second round pick because the cap is not the Kings' best friend right now with all that salary tied up to about 5-6 players.
Sac.1989
Starter
the draft is massive - we need WCS to tick that defensive box for us. id trade up for him honestly
It was atached to effort questions, but multiple people in national media wondered, whether he becomes a good rebounder. UConn didn't run P&R, so people dissmised the fact, that Drummond was 7 of 9 as a roll man. Instead every media focused on the fact, that he can't score in the post or pass.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I'm going to highlight the holes (unless we inflict more on ourselves) in red:
C1- Demarcus Cousins
C2- Quality Full Sized Defensive Center Capable of 16-25min a night of rock solid play
PF1- Defensive Roleplayer
PF2- Stretch/Mobile Four
PF3- Reggie Evans*
SG/SF1- Rudy Gay
SG/SF2- steady vet who can defend
SG/SF3- steady vet who can shoot
SG/SF4- Ben McLemore
SG/SF5- Omri Casspi
PG1- Darren Collison
PG2- steady vet good enough to fill in as starter
PG3- Andre Miller
* -- could be Jason Thompson, but then that's expensive and costs us a potential trade asset we need to get other things
Assets: #6pick, $10mil cap space, Jason Thompson, Carl Landry, Nik Stauskas, Ray McCallum
Look what I can do without getting within shouting distance of any star player:
1 pick: Draft Willie Cauley-Stein
1 trade: help Denver's rebuild, save them from Faried's contract: Jason, Carl, Nik, Ray ($17.0mil) for Faried, Nelson (if he opts in), Foye ($17.62mil)
split FA money between Kosta Koufos and Aaron Afflalo
And wathc my table:
C1- Demarcus Cousins
C2- Kosta Koufos
PF1- Willie Cauley Stein
PF2- Kenneth Faried
PF3- Reggie Evans
SG/SF1- Rudy Gay
SG/SF2- Aaron Afflalo
SG/SF3- Randy Foye
SG/SF4- Ben McLemore
SG/SF5- Omri Casspi
PG1- Darren Collison
PG2- Jameer Nelson
PG3- Andre Miller
Did I do anything exciting? Is it can;t miss? Can Afflalo still defend? Who knows. But its just an example, and one that makes sense. You rely on Karl's contacts to get Afflalo and Koustos, former players, to come. You go get him Faried as well, along with the sort of veteran guards we need to give us a deep veteran guardline. And its doable. Creating a Golden State roster in one summer is not. But patching and fixing a myriad of holes, vetting up, etc.? That we can do. One good pick. Win one trade (from our perspective) and get 2 guys out of our free agent money.
Well, you signed Koufos and Afflalo for less than $10 million, while convincing Kosta to leave Memphis, where he's a clear 3rd big, to come to Sacramento to get only backup C minutes.
WCS is a rookie, and Faried is not a fit next to Boogie/Rudy (massively overpaid backup PF, would he even come off the bench).
Your premise is absolutely 100% correct though.
WCS is a rookie, and Faried is not a fit next to Boogie/Rudy (massively overpaid backup PF, would he even come off the bench).
Your premise is absolutely 100% correct though.
Last edited:
K
KingMilz
Guest
Randy Foye would be starting if healthy imo, Foye also I think either last season or the one before played a lot of point whenever Ty Lawson kept getting injuries he's def a guy I would want he would be the starting 2 and can fill in as a PG.
I understand where you're coming from and the holes you identified are exactly the same ones I see with our roster. The only way we were going to come close to filling all of them this summer though is if we won a top 3 pick. The problem I have with offseason plans like the one you laid out here is that I give that roster a grade of about B. It's definitely an upgrade since we're at about C- right now but the veterans you've targeted are all likely to decline so you're overpaying for talent in your quest to add experience and limiting your future growth curve. It's a Petrie-esque rebuild strategy that's not without its own risks. Somebody gets injured early in their contract (Shareef), somebody else overestimates their value (Bonzi) and now you're treading water for years while DeMarcus wastes the best part of his career.
What I'd like to see instead is that we maybe fill 2 or 3 holes this summer with A level talent instead of filling all of them with B level talent (sign an elite young bench big, find an elite veteran wing defender or a veteran PG who compliments Darren Collison's skillset, draft a player with star potential). That maybe gets us up to B- range next year because there are still obvious holes, which is not the immediate upgrade you want, but it's a B- with a lot of room to get better. We should always be looking at chunks of time - the next 3 years, the next 5 years, the next 7 years. On average I think my strategy will produce a better quality roster over that entire span of seasons than yours will. It takes a little bit of patience and a lot of longterm planning. We need to already be thinking about which players we're targeting next season and the one after that. But winning a championship requires an A level roster so there's no point planning for anything else.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
