Players that I would target with the 9th pick:

[kb02]

All that to make room for a player in that crop of next 5 bpa or maybe even not? That would have had to have been one heck of a workout. Maybe even one that beats out Quincy Douby's.

Let’s revisit this in a year, after Bouknight shows he’s levels above Buddy.

 

[SacTownKid]

Let’s revisit this in a year, after Bouknight shows he’s levels above Buddy.

Well he better go to the right team then. Not one where he's somewhere in the middle of the rotation fighting for minutes let alone shots, because if his usage ain't up to snuff, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[iowamcnabb]

I'm curious what path the Kings would take if we draft a guard? Let's say we draft Bouknight and he turns into Zach Lavine. You can run a Fox Haliburton Bouknight rotation for maybe a year or so before you need to trade one of them to free up a spot in the starting lineup. You wouldn't trade Haliburton because he is more complementary to either guy. If Bouk is better than Fox you could trade Deaaron for plenty of assets but they are likely to be lesser players and picks. That also pushes the rebuild further down the road. I'd rather commit to Fox and Haliburton being at the very least two of the top 3 players on a playoff squad and build around them.

 

[SacTownKid]

I'm curious what path the Kings would take if we draft a guard? Let's say we draft Bouknight and he turns into Zach Lavine. You can run a Fox Haliburton Bouknight rotation for maybe a year or so before you need to trade one of them to free up a spot in the starting lineup. You wouldn't trade Haliburton because he is more complementary to either guy. If Bouk is better than Fox you could trade Deaaron for plenty of assets but they are likely to be lesser players and picks. That also pushes the rebuild further down the road. I'd rather commit to Fox and Haliburton being at the very least two of the top 3 players on a playoff squad and build around them.

Yeah, and in that year what kind of value was retained? And we know where it ends, with a talented player diminished in terms of value and Luke Walton scrambling to find any way possible to put a Harkless level player in their place, lol. If these SG's projected around the Kings pick were guaranteed can't miss prospects maybe you take them and indeed, "figure it out later", but in this draft, they aren't that as a consensus. One team might think Keon is the next Jordan, or Bouknight is the next Rip Hamilton and they might be, who knows but as a 3rd/4th guard you'll never find out. The team that signs them next will. And you know what, that's a great comparison there situation wise with Lavine you make. Harden is a another good one too. They were always that player talent wise but look what being 3rd can do to obscure it. They'll show just enough to entice a team to give them money you can't and a role you can't and they are GONE.

 

[kb02]

Yeah, and in that year what kind of value was retained? And we know where it ends, with a talented player diminished in terms of value and Luke Walton scrambling to find any way possible to put a Harkless level player in their place, lol. If these SG's projected around the Kings pick were guaranteed can't miss prospects maybe you take them and indeed, "figure it out later", but in this draft, they aren't that as a consensus. One team might think Keon is the next Jordan, or Bouknight is the next Rip Hamilton and they might be, who knows but as a 3rd/4th guard you'll never find out. The team that signs them next will. And you know what, that's a great comparison there situation wise with Lavine you make. Harden is a another good one too. They were always that player talent wise but look what being 3rd can do to obscure it. They'll show just enough to entice a team to give them money you can't and a role you can't and they are GONE.

On a team that hasn’t made the playoffs in like 15 years, has, at best, two long term pieces, yhall worried about having too many talented guards? Take BPA, even if it’s someone like Davion Mitchell, sort the rest out later. This team isn’t good enough to draft for fit. Draft for fit and you increase your chance of making another mistake. Draft for fit and this team treadmills for another 5 years.

The only player on this team that I wouldn’t trade is Hali. Everyone else is fair game, if I can up the talent level.

 

[sactowndog]

Let’s revisit this in a year, after Bouknight shows he’s levels above Buddy.

right but is he levels above Haliburton and Fox?

Yes you want to lean towards BPA and therefore getting Haliburton was fine over Bey. But at some point it becomes a ridiculous extreme especially since trading for good swing forwards is nearly impossible.

 

[kb02]

right but is he levels above Haliburton and Fox?

Yes you want to lean towards BPA and therefore getting Haliburton was fine over Bey. But at some point it becomes a ridiculous extreme especially since trading for good swing forwards is nearly impossible.

Potentially, I think he can be better than both. Three core long term players is a good problem to have. Buddy is the low hanging fruit that will be obvious by midyear.

 

[sactowndog]

Potentially, I think he can be better than both. Three core long term players is a good problem to have. Buddy is the low hanging fruit that will be obvious by midyear.

not when you potentially have 1 legit starter in the front court.

 

[kb02]

not when you potentially have 1 legit starter in the front court.

Assets can be traded for other assets. Busts become sunk cost.

 

[steelevt]

On a team that hasn’t made the playoffs in like 15 years, has, at best, two long term pieces, yhall worried about having too many talented guards? Take BPA, even if it’s someone like Davion Mitchell, sort the rest out later. This team isn’t good enough to draft for fit. Draft for fit and you increase your chance of making another mistake. Draft for fit and this team treadmills for another 5 years.

The only player on this team that I wouldn’t trade is Hali. Everyone else is fair game, if I can up the talent level.

Drafting bpa is easy to do with like a top 5 pick. If we had the #1 pick, yes you pick Cade even though he’s a guard and figure it out. Even if we were 4 and left with Suggs. But at 9, there isn’t a clear bpa unless a projected top 4 slides to us like with Ty. Later in the draft it gets dicey when determining bpa. Just cuz you say someone’s bpa doesn’t mean monte thinks he is. If they keep the 9 and draft a wing or a big, it’s cuz he was the bpa. If Suggs falls and they don’t draft him, then I would agree they drafted for fit which might be a mistake.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Drafting bpa is easy to do with like a top 5 pick. If we had the #1 pick, yes you pick Cade even though he’s a guard and figure it out. Even if we were 4 and left with Suggs. But at 9, there isn’t a clear bpa unless a projected top 4 slides to us like with Ty. Later in the draft it gets dicey when determining bpa. Just cuz you say someone’s bpa doesn’t mean monte thinks he is. If they keep the 9 and draft a wing or a big, it’s cuz he was the bpa. If Suggs falls and they don’t draft him, then I would agree they drafted for fit which might be a mistake.

and BPA is pretty complicated in general. Even though we have a pretty solid consensus on the top 5, there is a good chance they won’t end up the best 5 players in the draft

 

[kb02]

Drafting bpa is easy to do with like a top 5 pick. If we had the #1 pick, yes you pick Cade even though he’s a guard and figure it out. Even if we were 4 and left with Suggs. But at 9, there isn’t a clear bpa unless a projected top 4 slides to us like with Ty. Later in the draft it gets dicey when determining bpa. Just cuz you say someone’s bpa doesn’t mean monte thinks he is. If they keep the 9 and draft a wing or a big, it’s cuz he was the bpa. If Suggs falls and they don’t draft him, then I would agree they drafted for fit which might be a mistake.

Implied: “…Take BPA, even if it’s someone like Davion Mitchell, sort the rest out later…”

 

[Dime Dropper]

Drafting bpa is easy to do with like a top 5 pick. If we had the #1 pick, yes you pick Cade even though he’s a guard and figure it out. Even if we were 4 and left with Suggs. But at 9, there isn’t a clear bpa unless a projected top 4 slides to us like with Ty. Later in the draft it gets dicey when determining bpa. Just cuz you say someone’s bpa doesn’t mean monte thinks he is. If they keep the 9 and draft a wing or a big, it’s cuz he was the bpa. If Suggs falls and they don’t draft him, then I would agree they drafted for fit which might be a mistake.

I think he's speaking philosophically. Take whoever you believe the biggest talent is (obviously that will differ from person to person).

Taking the best player available is always the best outcome. Figuring out which player fits that is clearly the difficult part, though. But if you start getting cute and drafting for fit, you end up with Bagley over Luka.

Fit should only come into it if all else is equal.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Taking the best player available is always the best outcome. Figuring out which player fits that is clearly the difficult part, though.

BPA is just too unpredictable to not factor in fit. Every year people’s draft boards are turned upside down when we actually see them on the court. If two players are ranked similarly by our scouts and Gm I don’t think it’s always wise to take the slightly higher rated player. I’m talking say an 87 over an 85. I’m not drafting an 87 with no clear path for them on the roster. For me there has to be a more substantial difference in the rating.

on Doncic/Bagley I agree that they factored in fit with Fox but Vlade said himself they thought Bags was the better player. Vlade is if nothing else a straight shooter and open to a fault.

 

[The_Jamal]

I think he's speaking philosophically. Take whoever you believe the biggest talent is (obviously that will differ from person to person).

Taking the best player available is always the best outcome. Figuring out which player fits that is clearly the difficult part, though. But if you start getting cute and drafting for fit, you end up with Bagley over Luka.

Fit should only come into it if all else is equal.

Right. I think the only situation that applies in this draft is if you had a 3 or 4 pick. You take Suggs/Green over the Kuminga/Barnes tier because they're on a different talent level.

Bouknight is not on a different tier level than the wings. If anything, he's at the bottom of that tier 3 or even a tier below. I'd be furious if we had a chance to draft the most valuable archetype in the NBA (3/4 flex wing, or Moody) and we passed on them for a non-defending, non-shooting score-first guard.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

on Doncic/Bagley I agree that they factored in fit with Fox but Vlade said himself they thought Bags was the better player. Vlade is if nothing else a straight shooter and open to a fault.

I mean, on the one hand, like every other GM Vlade would say every year that we picked exactly the player we wanted and we were glad he fell to us. On the other hand, there are literally zero other GMs who would ever have told the "better offer last week" story.

 

[Woot!]

I think he's speaking philosophically. Take whoever you believe the biggest talent is (obviously that will differ from person to person).

Taking the best player available is always the best outcome. Figuring out which player fits that is clearly the difficult part, though. But if you start getting cute and drafting for fit, you end up with Bagley over Luka.

Fit should only come into it if all else is equal.

Take Luka out of it for a moment. Trae Young is pretty clearly the second-best player in that draft at this point. Given Fox, would you have advocated Young over any and all of the other (apparently) lottery-caliber players who didn't play Fox's position?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Bouknight is not on a different tier level than the wings. If anything, he's at the bottom of that tier 3 or even a tier below. I'd be furious if we had a chance to draft the most valuable archetype in the NBA (3/4 flex wing, or Moody) and we passed on them for a non-defending, non-shooting score-first guard.

I also kind of fail to see where the excitement over Bouknight is coming from. To be honest, given the potential red-flag health issues that Jared Butler may be looking at, there are not any guards in the #9 range that stand out enough from the other players available to make me particularly interested in them given our current roster construction.

Right now, the way I figure it there are six guys that will definitely be taken before #9: Cunningham, Mobley, Green, Suggs, Kuminga, Barnes.

That means that we will be able to choose from at least one of the three non-guards in my in-#9-range tier: Jalen Johnson, Sengun, Wagner.

If we decided not to go with one of those guys, there are three risk-reward picks that I'd also feel OK about at #9, though at this point none seem to be quite in the #9 range: Ziaire Williams, Greg Brown, Isaiah Todd. Todd is the outlier here in that I feel he is being mocked very far below his talent level. Obviously I'd love him at #39, and if you believe mocks he might fall to #39, but he darn well shouldn't. Williams and Brown are both second half of the first round guys with a lot of room for growth that I'd gladly roll the dice on.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Right. I think the only situation that applies in this draft is if you had a 3 or 4 pick. You take Suggs/Green over the Kuminga/Barnes tier because they're on a different talent level.

Bouknight is not on a different tier level than the wings. If anything, he's at the bottom of that tier 3 or even a tier below. I'd be furious if we had a chance to draft the most valuable archetype in the NBA (3/4 flex wing, or Moody) and we passed on them for a non-defending, non-shooting score-first guard.

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, but the whole point is that it's subjective. Mock rankings don't really factor into a person's personal opinion on who is the best prospect. So if you're Monte and you believe Bouknight is the best talent available, then you shouldn't pass on him for fit. I'm not saying that's my position.

Take Luka out of it for a moment. Trae Young is pretty clearly the second-best player in that draft at this point. Given Fox, would you have advocated Young over any and all of the other (apparently) lottery-caliber players who didn't play Fox's position?

That's not really the question though. The question is if you had Young as 1a and Bagley as 1b at the time (Trae ranked slightly above), would it have been a wise choice to draft Bagley because we had Fox? I'm sure we both agree on the answer to that given what we know now. Your question, unless I'm misinterpreting (and maybe I am), is asking about an ability to scout/rank, not the philosophical idea of drafting BPA (which I admit is difficult). Or are you asking if in a re-draft, I would take Trae over Jaren Jackson, Gilgeous-Alexander etc?

 

[kb02]

Bouknight is not on a different tier level than the wings. If anything, he's at the bottom of that tier 3 or even a tier below. I'd be furious if we had a chance to draft the most valuable archetype in the NBA (3/4 flex wing, or Moody) and we passed on them for a non-defending, non-shooting score-first guard.

BPA is BPA. Drafting for archetype disregards BPA, which just leads to a ton of trouble.

And Moody is just a pure head scratcher. Dude is going to drop in this draft. If the Kings want him, trade down and get another pick in the teens.

 

[steelevt]

Implied: “…Take BPA, even if it’s someone like Davion Mitchell, sort the rest out later…”

I think he's speaking philosophically. Take whoever you believe the biggest talent is (obviously that will differ from person to person).

Taking the best player available is always the best outcome. Figuring out which player fits that is clearly the difficult part, though. But if you start getting cute and drafting for fit, you end up with Bagley over Luka.

Fit should only come into it if all else is equal.

I was just following the thread and names that were coming up as bpa were guards like bouknight / k. Johnson/ davion Mitchell etc. I’m saying based on those names there is no clear bpa. So to say we should draft them over a moody/j. Johnson or other big wing that we need abs are in in the same tier is incorrect cuz they’re aren’t considering better players based on consensus.

 

[Dime Dropper]

I was just following the thread and names that were coming up as bpa were guards like bouknight / k. Johnson/ davion Mitchell etc. I’m saying based on those names there is no clear bpa. So to say we should draft them over a moody/j. Johnson or other big wing that we need abs are in in the same tier is incorrect cuz they’re aren’t considering better players based on consensus.

Right, and my point is that you are basing BPA off consensus rather than personal opinion. GMs are not drafting based on mock drafts or so-called consensus (or at least shouldn't be). We are not really disagreeing, I think we are just defining BPA differently.

 

[hrdboild]

Right. I think the only situation that applies in this draft is if you had a 3 or 4 pick. You take Suggs/Green over the Kuminga/Barnes tier because they're on a different talent level.

Bouknight is not on a different tier level than the wings. If anything, he's at the bottom of that tier 3 or even a tier below. I'd be furious if we had a chance to draft the most valuable archetype in the NBA (3/4 flex wing, or Moody) and we passed on them for a non-defending, non-shooting score-first guard.

This is where I'm at too. When talking about BPA and how any player is going to fit on our current roster the question shouldn't be "should we draft another guard" it should be "should we draft another scoring oriented guard". I don't think we can afford to get tunnel vision here and only consider the wing players but skill sets are relevant, probably more so than either position or size. For instance, based on everything we know now, the odds that Jonathan Kuminga becomes a better perimeter defender in the NBA than Davion Mitchell are very small. I don't want to see us pass on a player like Davion Mitchell because of fit and then take someone like Kuminga simply because he's 7 inches taller. The fit here is that we suck horribly on defense. Who is going to do a better job stopping the other team's leading scorer? 9 times out of 10 it's Mitchell in that comparison unless the other player is a post scoring big which is maybe 5% of the league right now. There are advantages to having a taller defender and we do need a lot of help on the boards and a decent screen setter to free up some better shots but if I'm looking in that direction I'd take Usman Garuba. Or Jalen Johnson who was strong on the boards in college and would likely play PF in the NBA.

It probably seems like I'm picking on Kuming a lot here but that's only because he fits an archetype. Every year around this time the measurements come out and people get all excited talking about length and reach and athleticism and potential and we forget that we're talking about basketball players. I think the most important factor for any of these guys should be watching how they're playing right now not how they might play in a perfect world where the tallest, fastest, strongest athletes are also the most skilled and the most perceptive. I'm looking for someone who is already strong in the areas that we need the most help. I'm also looking for players who have elite skills because those players have proven to me that they know how to work and they're much more likely to add additional elite skills in time than a player who still hasn't shown that they can rise to that level.

 

[SacTownKid]

On a team that hasn’t made the playoffs in like 15 years, has, at best, two long term pieces, yhall worried about having too many talented guards? Take BPA, even if it’s someone like Davion Mitchell, sort the rest out later. This team isn’t good enough to draft for fit. Draft for fit and you increase your chance of making another mistake. Draft for fit and this team treadmills for another 5 years.

The only player on this team that I wouldn’t trade is Hali. Everyone else is fair game, if I can up the talent level.

Again, there are differences between the "BPA's" mentioned. If someone like Suggs or Green drops it's totally different than a will be 23 year old 6' PG or another 190 pound SG that isn't in consideration at the top of the draft unless a team wants to reach. And we've heard this same BPA thing before and watched it burn. Also, Mitchell is a bit different than the SG's being discussed. The Kings don't have a true backup PG per se although he still isn't completely workable with Fox and Haliburton. With him he's not necessarily fighting for the same minutes as a Keon or Bouknight since he can play some PG so he provides more immediate need. Still a backup though. This team has a core of talent they are building around with Fox and Haliburton so not considering fit is just throwing crap at the wall and hoping you didn't just draft the next Lavine or Harden who get a big offer from another team to be a star.

 

[SacTownKid]

I think he's speaking philosophically. Take whoever you believe the biggest talent is (obviously that will differ from person to person).

Taking the best player available is always the best outcome. Figuring out which player fits that is clearly the difficult part, though. But if you start getting cute and drafting for fit, you end up with Bagley over Luka.

Fit should only come into it if all else is equal.

Everything you believe should also be put side by side with what other GM's/teams think since it's all relative and value has to be a consideration since anything you have on your roster should be thought of as an asset just passing through.

And at pick 9 in almost any draft is where equality and fit starts creeping in unless you have the historical fall of a top prospect or a historically deep draft.

 

[Telemachus]

BPA is BPA. Drafting for archetype disregards BPA, which just leads to a ton of trouble.

And Moody is just a pure head scratcher. Dude is going to drop in this draft. If the Kings want him, trade down and get another pick in the teens.

BPA is very much subjective the the scouting of each team. For instance, let's look at Luka. There is no doubt now that he was the best player in that draft. At the time, his ranking was all over the place when it came to NBA teams. Obviously, Dallas had him #1 (they were the only one I know of who did). The majority of NBA teams (according to guys at the Ringer right after the draft) didn't have Luka in their top 10. If we were able to look at every team's big board after the draft, there would be a lot of players who vary a great from board to board.

There is another aspect to consider as well. When you rank players, you have to consider where they are currently & where you think they can be in a few years. While we all like looking at potential, sometimes it is better totake the player who has already shown some of their potential.

 

[SacTownKid]

BPA is just too unpredictable to not factor in fit. Every year people’s draft boards are turned upside down when we actually see them on the court. If two players are ranked similarly by our scouts and Gm I don’t think it’s always wise to take the slightly higher rated player. I’m talking say an 87 over an 85. I’m not drafting an 87 with no clear path for them on the roster. For me there has to be a more substantial difference in the rating.

on Doncic/Bagley I agree that they factored in fit with Fox but Vlade said himself they thought Bags was the better player. Vlade is if nothing else a straight shooter and open to a fault.

And Bagley was far from a reach when it came to just about any mock. He wasn't an Anthony Bennett type of pick.

 

[hrdboild]

BPA is very much subjective the the scouting of each team. For instance, let's look at Luka. There is no doubt now that he was the best player in that draft. At the time, his ranking was all over the place when it came to NBA teams. Obviously, Dallas had him #1 (they were the only one I know of who did). The majority of NBA teams (according to guys at the Ringer right after the draft) didn't have Luka in their top 10. If we were able to look at every team's big board after the draft, there would be a lot of players who vary a great from board to board.

There is another aspect to consider as well. When you rank players, you have to consider where they are currently & where you think they can be in a few years. While we all like looking at potential, sometimes it is better totake the player who has already shown some of their potential.

Any GM who didn't have Luka in the top 10 of that draft needs to be fired because they're bad at their job. Yes talent evaluation is subjective but there also comes a point where it's fair to question if you even understand what you're looking at.

 

[SacTownKid]

This is where I'm at too. When talking about BPA and how any player is going to fit on our current roster the question shouldn't be "should we draft another guard" it should be "should we draft another scoring oriented guard". I don't think we can afford to get tunnel vision here and only consider the wing players but skill sets are relevant. For instance, based on everything we know now, the odds that Jonathan Kuminga becomes a better perimeter defender in the NBA than Davion Mitchell are very small. I don't want to see us pass on a player like Davion Mitchell because of fit and then take someone like Kuminga simply because he's 7 inches taller. The fit here is that we suck horribly on defense. Who is going to do a better job stopping the other team's leading scorer? 9 times out of 10 it's Mitchell in that comparison unless the other player is a post scoring big which is maybe 5% of the league right now. There are advantages to having a taller defender and we do need a lot of help on the boards and a decent screen setter to free up some better shots but if I'm looking in that direction I'd take Usman Garuba. Or Jalen Johnson who was strong on the boards in college and would likely play PF in the NBA.

It probably seems like I'm picking on Kuming a lot here but that's only because he fits an archetype. Every year around this time the measurements come out and people get all excited talking about length and reach and athleticism and potential and we forget that we're talking about basketball players. I think the most important factor for any of these guys should be watching how they're playing right now not how they might play in a perfect world where the tallest, fastest, strongest athletes are also the most skilled and the most perceptive. I'm looking for someone who is already strong in the areas that we need the most help. I'm also looking for players who have elite skills because those players have proven to me that they know how to work and they're much more likely to add additional elite skills in time than a player who still hasn't shown that they can rise to that level.

Kuminga has size and as they say, you can't teach size and size does matter defensively depending on what is asked of you. Mitchell has guts and plays with tenacity but he's not the size of a Marcus Smart. Mitchell measuring out where he did means a lot in terms of his defensive versatility at the next level and as it is, the Kings don't have a ton of versatility when it comes to the defensive side of the floor even though they would have an incredible crop of on ball defenders in theory with Fox, Haliburton, and Mitchell. The reality comes when they to go up against a Kawhi, PG13, LeBron, Luka, Harden, Durant, Klay, Cade, Tatum, etc. You can't throw out two 190 pound combo guards and a 6' PG to match that and not expect to get dominated. If they don't it's pure luck and magic. That's a tough thing to gamble on at the NBA casino IMO.

 

[kb02]

Again, there are differences between the "BPA's" mentioned. If someone like Suggs or Green drops it's totally different than a will be 23 year old 6' PG or another 190 pound SG that isn't in consideration at the top of the draft unless a team wants to reach. And we've heard this same BPA thing before and watched it burn. Also, Mitchell is a bit different than the SG's being discussed. The Kings don't have a true backup PG per se although he still isn't completely workable with Fox and Haliburton. With him he's not necessarily fighting for the same minutes as a Keon or Bouknight since he can play some PG so he provides more immediate need. Still a backup though. This team has a core of talent they are building around with Fox and Haliburton so not considering fit is just throwing crap at the wall and hoping you didn't just draft the next Lavine or Harden who get a big offer from another team to be a star.

Harden, Dwade, Benny Mac, Throb...

Harden was drafted the year directly after Russ, another ball dominant combo guard. Presti didn't care, took Harden higher than most assumed. BPA.

Dwade would fit what you describe Mitchell to be. Older, undersized, flew up draft boards, because of his performance in the tourney. Miami didn't care that he was undersized or older. BPA.

Benny Mac fell to the Kings at 7 and Throb fell to the Kings at 5. Both were projected to be higher. Kings never saw either player in person. Prior to both players falling, Dame and McCollum were the rumored highest players on the Kings board. Instead of going for the BPA in their eyes, they went with the consensus. Portland has been thanking the Kings organization for the last 7/8 years.