Possible lottery picks in the 2022 draft:

[SacTownKid]

I also believe that Johnny Davis has great upside, but I don't think we should be team to try and figure it out. 3pt shooting is one of our biggest weaknesses on the team, and it's also Davis'. The 3pt shot doesn't even appear to be part of his game anymore for whatever reason. Looking at some of his more recent games, the amount of FG to 3pt attempts is not good.

• MSU: 19 FGA, 5 threes
• Purdue: 12 FGA, 1 three
• Rutgers: 19 FGA, 3 threes
• Michigan: 17 FGA, 1 three
• Indiana: 15 FGA, 1 three

That's an alarming trend for a modern day SG. He's also only shooting the 3 at 31.7%.

in regards to TyTy, I don't like the backcourt fit with Fox. They don't really mesh offensively, and their defense would be poor due to the lack of size and strength. We need a legit wing size next to Fox.

I think as time goes by we are seeing that the Kings need talent above all. Sabonis/Fox isn't enough scoring ability and Barnes is starting to become the "system guy". There are better fits for sure, and the Kings will have way more options than last draft so they should be able to find both talent and fit unless they overthink this. I think Davis will get a 3 point shot down. The stroke is there but overall, he's a gamer. Yeah, TyTy isn't a perfect fit but I think his ability to peak around screens in pick and roll would be a great fit with Domantas.

 

[kb02]

Totally forgot about Casey Jacobsen. If he was coming out today, he’d be a late lotto pick. Wing, shooting.

 

[ESP47]

He's just flat out good. A lot of really nice things on defense too, with real potential to be an excellent 4-man defender. I still don't know if I trust him check 3's yet, but I wouldn't say he won't be able to do it. Seems very similar to Barnes on D where he's better at the 4, but can defend 3's if absolutely needed.

I still don't see what you see on defense. His lateral quickness is really slow. He's going to get torched off the dribble in the NBA. He got blown by multiple times today. I don't think there's any way he can defend the 3 in the NBA and he'll more than likely be below average at defending the 4.

 

[kb02]

AZ just too long for UCLA. I think Mathurin is a better prospect than Murray.

 

[SacTownKid]

I still don't see what you see on defense. His lateral quickness is really slow. He's going to get torched off the dribble in the NBA. He got blown by multiple times today. I don't think there's any way he can defend the 3 in the NBA and he'll more than likely be below average at defending the 4.

I agree. The thing he's got going for him is that he appears to be a smart positional defender though. If you draft him, you're drafting for production no doubt. He and Sabonis up front is a lot of talent so that would be hard to pass up.

 

[ESP47]

AZ just too long for UCLA. I think Mathurin is a better prospect than Murray.

Going to be difficult to pass on Mathurin if he's available and the Kings are picking outside the top 4. He checks a lot of boxes.

 

[kb02]

Going to be difficult to pass on Mathurin if he's available and the Kings are picking outside the top 4. He checks a lot of boxes.

I like Murray and think he would be plug and play from day one. His stroke from three is smooth. But I don’t see an advanced handle or plus creation. And I don’t see much more of a ceiling then where he already is. He’s smart, makes the right plays, and the right runs. But I think he’s more of a 4 defensively than a 3. And would be undersized as a 4, which brings his value down.

Mathurin is raw. But what he flashes, the upside is enormous. I think it’ll be a rough transition for him initially. Will likely take him half a yr to get consistent minutes. He flashes three level scoring, but is not really smooth at any level. He flashes handles and facilitation, but is not really efficient looking. It’s almost like he produces, because athletically the game is easy for him. What happens when the IQ catches up with the athleticism? The ceiling is crazy high. If the Kings take him, don’t expect much defense until yr two or three. The tools are there, but he’s not quite beastly enough to compensate for fundamental mistakes. Got beat off the dribble n lost UCLA’s offensive wings (Juzang, Bernard, and Jacquez) far too easily last night. While all three will be NBA pros, none of them are elite drivers, jumbo bully wings, or Kyrie like zigzagging attackers.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Mathurin is still my top choice if we don't get a top 3 pick for Smith, Holmgren or Ivey.

Murray is interesting and is obviously helping his stock, but there is something about him that I am unsure about. I know he is highly productive and is skilled all-round. I can't decide whether he is going to a great glue guy and possibly more, or if his lack of burst and elite skill is going to limit him to a mediocre career. I need to think about him more.

 

[kb02]

Mathurin is still my top choice if we don't get a top 3 pick for Smith, Holmgren or Ivey.

Murray is interesting and is obviously helping his stock, but there is something about him that I am unsure about. I know he is highly productive and is skilled all-round. I can't decide whether he is going to a great glue guy and possibly more, or if his lack of burst and elite skill is going to limit him to a mediocre career. I need to think about him more.

I have Mathurin higher than Griffen. I’ve watched Griffen a number of times and he’s failed to pop each time. The only area where I would rate Griffen above Mathurin is shooting. Though I don’t think the delta is that big. Neither project as plus shooters.

I’m not sold on Ivey. Sometimes, I see a bigger Morant. Other times, I see Kris Dunn.

I have Banchero solidly in my top 3. I wish he would rise and pop from three. He’s not sold on his three point shot and actively avoids it. Without it, I don’t think he’ll fit the Kings, but he’s my early fave for ROTY. Should be 18/10/5 from day one. Really wish Banchero had a three point shot. I’d take him #1 if he did.

Smith has that rare KD rise and pop above anyone ability. But those points that he’s scoring by backing down guards, turning, and shooting isn’t gong to be there in the NBA in yr one. He’s going to look goofy (like Bags in summer league) trying to do so and not getting the defender to budge. The upside is the highest in the draft, but I think it’ll take a while for him to transition. Mainly because I don’t see an advanced handle. Push comes to shove, i think I bet on the upside, but I’m not entirely certain yet.

Chet reminds me of a modern day Pau Gasol. He’s what I think Gasol would’ve been had there been more handling and shooting for bigs during his era. People trip out over Chet’s weight. They should take a look at Pau when he was 18.

 

[Kingster]

Ivey is not Chris Dunn. Much faster and quicker. If anything, he's a fairly close comp to Fox, although he has a better 3 pt% than Fox did at Kentucky. It will be a McNair dilemma if Ivey is sitting on the board as the best player available. Take him, and you essentially have a Fox-Fox backcourt. Not take him, and you might miss out on an All Star ceiling talent. The choice will be much easier if Griffin is bpa, as his outside shot is buttery (46.7% from 3) and fits in nicely with what the Kings need.

 

[The_Jamal]

Gotta say, that Ben Mathurin vs UCLA game was mightily impressive on O. Started drawing contact and was crazy effective from the FT line (13-15). He becomes way more intriguing if that becomes a more consistent part of his game. Had 7 assists, but I didn't really see anything overtly special with the playmaking. Just him finding the open shooter, which is fine for a guy who's going to be primarily off-ball/secondary. The handle needs to tighten, but it's gotten a lot better as the season has gone on. He's a lot more comfortable with his on-ball creation moves.

Push comes to shove, I'm still drafting Johnny Davis at 5, but I would not be mad at all if the pick was Mathurin, Murray or Griffin. All guys have real valuable tool-kits and I think would be plug and play starters with Fox/Barnes/Sabonis. I think the Davis shot is going to be fine, especially in a reduced USG role where he'll get more open looks and I think his scoring creation is the most elite skill that any of the 4 have.

 

[Kingster]

Mathurin did not make much impact in the UCLA game. He looked very green and gave me a Ben McLemore vibe. Doesn't have anything to hang his hat on other than his athleticism: Not an excellent 3 point shooter, not an excellent passer or ball handler. He seemed small out on the court. His larger team mates made the difference in this game, not him.

 

[kb02]

Mathurin did not make much impact in the UCLA game. He looked very green and gave me a Ben McLemore vibe. Doesn't have anything to hang his hat on other than his athleticism: Not an excellent 3 point shooter, not an excellent passer or ball handler. He seemed small out on the court. His larger team mates made the difference in this game, not him.

I agree with you that UA won because of other players, mainly the two 7 footers, who had 10 blocks combined against UCLA. If they matchup in the tourney, UCLA needs to drill their threes or they’ll lose again. The one thing that I came away certain of is, I wouldn’t expect much D from Mathurin until he’s late in his first contract or his second contract.

He’s not 6’6. Jaylen Clark is listed at 6’5 and 210 and Clark was taller and bigger than Mathurin, who is listed at 6’6 and 210. Clark deserves more time, but I think Cronin is going with the upper classmen wings, who are all more offense then defense.

While I agree with you that Mathurin is raw and that there’s a Benny Mac floor, I think there’s a lot of Demar Derozan in his profile. Derozan was raw and inefficient like him at USC and has turned into one of the most efficient players in the league.

 

[Kingster]

I agree with you that UA won because of other players, mainly the two 7 footers, who had 10 blocks combined against UCLA. If they matchup in the tourney, UCLA needs to drill their threes or they’ll lose again. The one thing that I came away certain of is, I wouldn’t expect much D from Mathurin until he’s late in his first contract or his second contract.

He’s not 6’6. Jaylen Clark is listed at 6’5 and 210 and Clark was taller and bigger than Mathurin, who is listed at 6’6 and 210. Clark deserves more time, but I think Cronin is going with the upper classmen wings, who are all more offense then defense.

While I agree with you that Mathurin is raw and that there’s a Benny Mac floor, I think there’s a lot of Demar Derozan in his profile. Derozan was raw and inefficient like him at USC and has turned into one of the most efficient players in the league.

It's interesting you mention Derozan. I distinctly remember watching Derozan when he was at USC and I think I even mentioned on this board about his athletic fluidity as a player. I don't see that with Mathurin. Mathurin is also not as big as Derozan. So I don't see a Derozan ceiling for Mathurin. I'd be gun shy about taking him.

 

[kb02]

It's interesting you mention Derozan. I distinctly remember watching Derozan when he was at USC and I think I even mentioned on this board about his athletic fluidity as a player. I don't see that with Mathurin. Mathurin is also not as big as Derozan. So I don't see a Derozan ceiling for Mathurin. I'd be gun shy about taking him.

I had a lower rating on Derozan than I do for Mathurin. I watched a ton of SC games back then and had serious doubts about his transition to the league, because he his handle was subpar. While I agree that Derozan is taller, I rate their functional athleticism about the same.

 

[Tetsujin]

The lateral quickness remains a concern on defense but Keegan's feel for the game on defense and on the boards in particular is super impressive.

 

[Tetsujin]

Ivey winds up on the floor more than any other recent guard prospect I can remember.

 

[ockingsfan]

The lateral quickness remains a concern on defense but Keegan's feel for the game on defense and on the boards in particular is super impressive.

Yes, Keegan seems to always be around the ball on offense and defense. He's one of those players that do all the little things that help you win. If we're sitting at pick number 3 or 4 and Holmgren and Jabrari Smith are off the board, I'd take Keegan over the other guys.

Ivey winds up on the floor more than any other recent guard prospect I can remember.

Ivey didn't impress me much in today's game. Seemed to disappear unless he's taking the ball to the hole.

 

[bajaden]

Mathurin is still my top choice if we don't get a top 3 pick for Smith, Holmgren or Ivey.

Murray is interesting and is obviously helping his stock, but there is something about him that I am unsure about. I know he is highly productive and is skilled all-round. I can't decide whether he is going to a great glue guy and possibly more, or if his lack of burst and elite skill is going to limit him to a mediocre career. I need to think about him more.

Funny, I heard similar remarks about Haliburton prior to the draft, just for different reasons. Heard the same criticism about Tatum. I could go on and on. Here we have a player that goes out and puts up 20 plus points and 8 boards a game, and does all the little things you need to win a game, and yet, I get, there's someone about him that doesn't feel right. Would be easier to just accept the fact that he's a dam good basketball player who will likely be at minimum, a borderline star in the NBA.

This is why Haliburton dropped down to us in the draft, and now those teams are kicking themselves for passing on him. I just don't get it.

 

[bajaden]

Yes, Keegan seems to always be around the ball on offense and defense. He's one of those players that do all the little things that help you win. If we're sitting at pick number 3 or 4 and Holmgren and Jabrari Smith are off the board, I'd take Keegan over the other guys.



Ivey didn't impress me much in today's game. Seemed to disappear unless he's taking the ball to the hole.

I think Ivey is going to be a very good player, but Iowa played great defense on him, similar to what happened to Johnny Davis in his game, and Ivey had no answer. On the other hand, Purdue was playing very good defense on Murray, and he still managed to impact the game. A steal here, a saving a ball from going out of bounds at a critical time of the game giving Iowa an extra possession. Flying in for rebounds out of his area. Setting good screens. He's just a smart basketball player. Ivey will get there. Athleticism will only take you so far, particularly in the NBA.

 

[bajaden]

Mathurin did not make much impact in the UCLA game. He looked very green and gave me a Ben McLemore vibe. Doesn't have anything to hang his hat on other than his athleticism: Not an excellent 3 point shooter, not an excellent passer or ball handler. He seemed small out on the court. His larger team mates made the difference in this game, not him.

OK, lets clarify a couple of things that can be clarified. First, Mathurin is shooting just a tick under 38% from three his season on 6 attempts a game. His freshman year he shot 41% on about 4 attempts a game. So at least in college, he's good 3 pt shooter. At the combine DeRozan measured out at 6'6". Mathurin is listed at 6'7" and 195 lb's. DeRozan's current weight is listed at 220 lb's. So you would be correct that DeRozan is at least heavier at present than Maturin. But I suspect that by the time Mathurin gets to be DeRozans age he'll weigh more than his current weight.

Also, Arizona is a very tall team, so when Mathurin is on the floor with them, it may make him seem smaller than he is. Christian Koloko is listed at 7'1". Tubelis is 6'11", etc. Also, Mathurin is considered by many NBA scouts to be one of the better defenders in college with great upside both on defense and offense. I've seen some games where his stat line belied what he actually did in the game to help win. He's for sure a different kind of player who goes about his business quietly but gets the job done.

 

[bajaden]

I think we're in trouble if we have DDV as our starting SG next year. I started out as a big fan of his... but he's probably one of the most frustrating offensive players to watch

I think you need to cut him a little slack. He's obviously not playing back to his former self, and the season is almost over. I think we need to give him the offseason, training camp, and next years pre-season, and then see what he looks like. He's always gambled a bit on defense, and once in a while it burns him, but the good things he does far outweigh the couple of mistakes. I watched him play at Villanova and he never missed shots as badly as he misses some of them this season. Last season with the Bucks he shot 38% from the three, and at Villanova he shot 40.1% from there. So I feel confident he'll return to form..

 

[Dime Dropper]

Funny, I heard similar remarks about Haliburton prior to the draft, just for different reasons. Heard the same criticism about Tatum. I could go on and on. Here we have a player that goes out and puts up 20 plus points and 8 boards a game, and does all the little things you need to win a game, and yet, I get, there's someone about him that doesn't feel right. Would be easier to just accept the fact that he's a dam good basketball player who will likely be at minimum, a borderline star in the NBA.

This is why Haliburton dropped down to us in the draft, and now those teams are kicking themselves for passing on him. I just don't get it.

With all due respect, you know as well as I do that being highly productive in college doesn't guarantee anything in the NBA. Case in point, Obi Toppin, who you were a massive fan of coming out and who is struggling to make an impact so far.

I respect your opinion on college players but throwing out Haliburton/Tatum in a response to my post insinuates that I did not rank them highly as prospects coming out, which is not true. My reasons for being iffy on Murray are entirely different. I'm not even saying that I don't value him, I'm saying I'm unsure as of this point. Hardly a controversial opinion. Murray has valid question marks as does every prospect.

 

[hrdboild]

The thing you have to remember about Ivey is that the NBA game is a lot more spaced out than the college game. Guards who can create off the dribble like he can are feasting on NBA defenses who have to decide whether to send help and leave a shooter wide open or take their chances that they can be contained without fouling. Ivey is a better shooter than he showed today too. I'm a little concerned that he's hit a bit of a rough patch toward the end of the season while other prospects are ascending to new heights, but only a little. I still have him in my top 3.

There's a wide range of opinions about Mathurin but the times I've watched him he's been the best player on the floor and it wasn't even close. His statistical impact may not be as huge as it is with some other players because he's on a deep team but what really impresses me with him is that he rarely makes mistakes. A lot of prospects with top 10 hype around them will try to put their stamp on the game to make sure scouts notice them. Mathurin just quietly makes his team better on both sides of the floor. I also saw him make some phenomenal passes against SC a couple weeks ago so I have to disagree with those who say he's average at best as a playmaker. He's not flashy, he doesn't hunt assists, but he's effective. I think that makes him an ideal complimentary player on pretty much any team.

I'm trying to calm my hype train with Keegan Murray. He's my favorite prospect in the draft this year but to temper my own hyperbole a bit -- there are some small areas of concern. He scores a lot of his points under the basket but at 6'8" a lot of those shots are not going to be there for him in the NBA. He's got a good enough handle to create in the open floor but he will sometimes dribble into trouble in half court sets and he's not been great at quickly reading the floor and finding the open man when double teams come. I'd feel better about drafting him at #6 than I would at #1 considering the quality of the players we'd be passing up at those slots to take him. But if you told me one player in this draft was going to be an All Star and I had to guess which one, he'd be my pick. A lot of these guys are super talented but as of this moment I think Murray is the best basketball player in the class.

 

[sactowndog]

I think you need to cut him a little slack. He's obviously not playing back to his former self, and the season is almost over. I think we need to give him the offseason, training camp, and next years pre-season, and then see what he looks like. He's always gambled a bit on defense, and once in a while it burns him, but the good things he does far outweigh the couple of mistakes. I watched him play at Villanova and he never missed shots as badly as he misses some of them this season. Last season with the Bucks he shot 38% from the three, and at Villanova he shot 40.1% from there. So I feel confident he'll return to form..

I’m curious if you like Murray enough that if you land 3 and OKC is 5-6 do you trade down and take Murray?

 

[iowamcnabb]

Good older article on the Murray brother’s road to college

https://www.si.com/college/iowa/basketball/murrays-recruit-041320

 

[ESP47]

Mathurin did not make much impact in the UCLA game. He looked very green and gave me a Ben McLemore vibe. Doesn't have anything to hang his hat on other than his athleticism: Not an excellent 3 point shooter, not an excellent passer or ball handler. He seemed small out on the court. His larger team mates made the difference in this game, not him.

I'm surprised to hear you say this. 27, 4 and 7 stood out to me. Take away free throw time at the end and he winds up with 23pts on 14 shots.

I can see what you're saying about McLemore but BMac wasn't technically a bad pick in the same way Jimmer or Stauskas were. He was by many accounts the BPA when the Kings picked. Just didn't pan out.

Mathurin's 3pt shot is the same or as good as any of the other prospects in the 5-10 range. AJ Griffin's is the only one that looks to be better at it but his overall skills are much more limited in comparison.

 

[Kingster]

OK, lets clarify a couple of things that can be clarified. First, Mathurin is shooting just a tick under 38% from three his season on 6 attempts a game. His freshman year he shot 41% on about 4 attempts a game. So at least in college, he's good 3 pt shooter. At the combine DeRozan measured out at 6'6". Mathurin is listed at 6'7" and 195 lb's. DeRozan's current weight is listed at 220 lb's. So you would be correct that DeRozan is at least heavier at present than Maturin. But I suspect that by the time Mathurin gets to be DeRozans age he'll weigh more than his current weight.

Also, Arizona is a very tall team, so when Mathurin is on the floor with them, it may make him seem smaller than he is. Christian Koloko is listed at 7'1". Tubelis is 6'11", etc. Also, Mathurin is considered by many NBA scouts to be one of the better defenders in college with great upside both on defense and offense. I've seen some games where his stat line belied what he actually did in the game to help win. He's for sure a different kind of player who goes about his business quietly but gets the job done.

Is 37.6% from three "excellent"? A college 3? I'm looking at the top 50 college players in 3 point percentage and the 50th ranked player has 38.7% 3 pt average, and of course it goes up from there to the mid 40s. (https://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/individual/143). Sorry, there is no reason to pull the trigger on Mathurin as the Kings next shooting guard because of his outside shooting.

I'm skeptical of what Mathurin is listed at and what he actually is. I'm not looking at his size relative to his team mates at the center position. I'm looking at his size relative to the players he was playing against - Juzang and Jaquez. Mathurin is absolutely not going to be a physical presence in the NBA next season. I can see him getting bounced around like a rubber ball. Will he get run outs on the fast break? Yes. Will he be successful on some back-door cuts like what we saw against UCLA? Yes. Will he be a feared outside 3 point shooter? Highly doubtful, imo. Will he make plays for others? Not so much. So what does he hang his hat on as an NBA 2-guard? His "upside potential"? Sorry, I'll pass.

And be totally honest, baja, doesn't Mathurin give you a McLemore vibe? Ben McLemore shot 42% from 3 in college as a freshman. He was very athletic. If the Kings would pick Mathurin wouldn't you be praying he's not a Ben McLemore? Come on, isn't there be a gnawing doubt in the back of your mind about Mathurin's bust potential?

 

[PurpleHaze]

Bennedict Richard Felder Mathurin is his name but everyone calls him simply "Ben." Like that other Ben. And like that other Ben his initials the same, "BM." I don't know if Mathurin is the same kind of "talent" for better or worse as BenMac but I do know that coming out of Kansas University listed 6'3." All the UofA talk I hear is Mathurin while shown 6'7" is 6'5" in his bare feet and one place I saw said 6'5 1/4." Of course, for what it's worth Michael Jordan always shown as 6'6."

 

[Capt. Factorial]

And be totally honest, baja, doesn't Mathurin give you a McLemore vibe? Ben McLemore shot 42% from 3 in college as a freshman. He was very athletic. If the Kings would pick Mathurin wouldn't you be praying he's not a Ben McLemore? Come on, isn't there be a gnawing doubt in the back of your mind about Mathurin's bust potential?

Mathurin does not give me a McLemore vibe. The big difference is their aggression level/involvement on court. At Kansas, Ben spent a ton of time just parked in the corner waiting for something to happen. Mathurin makes things happen almost every possession. I never quite got Ben at Kansas, but everybody said he was #1 so when he dropped to #7 I was like, "I guess..." but I would not have any qualms with Mathurin in the 5-7 range in this draft.