Pre-draft workout schedules (merged)

[funkykingston]

Very interesting that Burke didn't want to work out against MCW and McCollum.

Understandable though, since (1) the current consensus seems to be that he's the best PG in the draft which means a much greater potential to hurt his stock than elevate it and (2) head-to-head matchups always favor bigger, stronger and more offensive minded players. Tyreke was a wrecking ball against Flynn, Curry and Mills in his workout.

 

[King of Nowhere]

Not really. His agent said not to. This sort of thing happens every year with kids who have safe, high draft position. Noel, Len, and Bennett are hurt and can't work out anyway, but I doubt you'll see McLemore, Porter, or Oladipo do competitive workouts either. The agent's thought process, whether right or wrong, is that the player is far enough ahead of his positional competition that a head-to-head workout can't help and a bad or unlucky day could hurt.

Think of it this way - let's say you're a really good free throw shooter, say 90%. Then one day somebody makes you an offer: 1) You can take $1000 no questions asked, or 2) You can shoot one free throw. If you hit it you get $1000, if you miss it you get nothing. Do you take option 1 or option 2? Most people would probably just take option 1. Even if you "man up" and take option 2, everybody else is probably going to look at you funny wondering why you didn't take option 1.

I was not aware of his agent telling him not to. Personally, I think it can only hurt him in this draft. Maybe if he were cemented as the top PG in the draft it would be worth it, but his stock didn't really rise until the NCAA tournament. Up until that point MCW, McCollum and Marcus Smart all were considered as the top PG in the draft at one point or another. Not saying that Burke is going to take a drastic tumble in the next two weeks but knowing that Malone has already said he wants to see draft prospects working out with each other to get a feel for their games it might be detrimental to his chances with the Kings. Of course, he could be off the board before our pick is up anyway.

 

[Gary]

Well, that will be an interesting day here if the Kings take MCW over Burke. Bring back the Maloofs! Bring back Petrie!

Personally I like MCW. If his draft stock is rising then you either know he's done something well or maybe he's being overvalued?

If we aren't going to re-sign Reke and put MT at SG this year along with a scorer at SF then our PG won't need to shoot much anyway. I will be OK with it as long as we have offensive efficiency and if our defense improves from last year.

 

[Gilles]

Well, that will be an interesting day here if the Kings take MCW over Burke. Bring back the Maloofs! Bring back Petrie!

Actually MCW is not a Petrie pick - can't shoot, but it doesn't make it any better. MCW just can't play off the ball at all right now and that time may never come. Might as well just get Terrence Williams back. At least you know he and Tyreke make defense look dominate.

 

[Gary]

I don't think our defense has been consistently "dominate" over the last 5 or so years, if not more. We might have some individual defenders on the team right now, but as a team we are terrible, and have been for many years.

 

[Telemachus]

I was not aware of his agent telling him not to. Personally, I think it can only hurt him in this draft. Maybe if he were cemented as the top PG in the draft it would be worth it, but his stock didn't really rise until the NCAA tournament. Up until that point MCW, McCollum and Marcus Smart all were considered as the top PG in the draft at one point or another. Not saying that Burke is going to take a drastic tumble in the next two weeks but knowing that Malone has already said he wants to see draft prospects working out with each other to get a feel for their games it might be detrimental to his chances with the Kings. Of course, he could be off the board before our pick is up anyway.

Going into the tournament, the only PG I saw rated above Burke was Marcus Smart (and he decided to stay in school). When you are considered the top prospect coming to the draft at your position, it is fairly normal not to give your competition a chance to out play you heads up. It happens every year. It is the same reason many top prospects only work out for the top 3 or 5 teams picking in the draft.

 

[Gilles]

I don't think our defense has been consistently "dominate" over the last 5 or so years, if not more. We might have some individual defenders on the team right now, but as a team we are terrible, and have been for many years.

Well, dominate by Kings standards. I don't think anyone can grade Kings team defense as anything but F- the last couple of years though. But offense was brutal, no questions about that, and by the looks of it that's what is going to happen if you try to put MCW and Tyreke next to each other.
People don't understand just how bad MCW looked this season offensively. Syracuse got into the Final Four only on the strength of their defense(they were a close second defensively in the nation behind Louisville). If you dissect his game, he looks to share this company: [video]http://cbbref.com/tiny/FFkpV[/video]. He has skills, but his decision-making is really bad and he can't play off the ball.

 

[Gilles]

Noguiera is too weak and Len is slow - stick him with PFs and you will have a few possessions where you play 3-on-5 defense because Boogie is arguing with a ref and Len just can't keep up with his opponent. There's reason I always mention Adams - he's the only guy in the draft with enough lower body strength to compete with big centers and fast and quick enough to stay with forwards.

Have to admit, I could be wrong, as it seems latest rise of Noguiera is linked to slightly more favourable comparison (as prospects obviously) to this guy(#21):

Obviously Sanders made huge improvements in his strength and defensive fundamentals, so it's not a guarantee by any means that Nogueira follows his steps, but his best case is a very effective player, given that Nogueira probably have more skills right now than 3-years veteran.

 

[Gary]

Well, dominate by Kings standards. I don't think anyone can grade Kings team defense as anything but F- the last couple of years though. But offense was brutal, no questions about that, and by the looks of it that's what is going to happen if you try to put MCW and Tyreke next to each other.
People don't understand just how bad MCW looked this season offensively. Syracuse got into the Final Four only on the strength of their defense(they were a close second defensively in the nation behind Louisville). If you dissect his game, he looks to share this company: [video]http://cbbref.com/tiny/FFkpV[/video]. He has skills, but his decision-making is really bad and he can't play off the ball.

Oh yes totally agree trying to put MCW next to Evans. I don't want MCW next to Evans.. It wont work. The whole MCW is contingent that we don't resign Reke and go after a SF that can shoot (because we already know MT is a scorer).

I kind of disagree on the MCW take though. I think he can be a much better player than people give him credit for. I have only watched about 10 or so games this year (including tournament games) but from what I saw it looked pretty good. Sure his offense is almost non existent, but a player that makes others around him better is a rare thing now. It seems everyone is in it to showcase their own game with the team coming second. Not trying to compare him to Rubio or Rondo but their offensive games were lacking and they have certainly made up for it in other areas, also Kidd had offense problems early on. It's definitely a gamble to draft MCW but it's one I would be willing to take, especially in a weak draft and if Burke is gone.

 

[funkykingston]

I know you said you aren't trying to compare them but when you mention Rubio and Kidd it makes it hard not to point out that those two have elite level court vision. They make/made passes that amaze because they see things that others don't. I didn't see any of that with MCW. He sees the court well and makes good passes (some poor decisions too) but I wouldn't put him in the same category as the great passers I've seen in college. To me it's the difference between a college quarterback who knows the system well and hits open receivers vs the NFL quaterback who throws a guy open - who has the confidence to throw with the receiver just starting his break.

Personally I think the Kings would be better off resigning Tyreke and trading Thornton than letting Tyreke walk for nothing and starting MT. Still, I can't say with confidence that MCW/Thornton would be any better or worse than IT/Evans or even Evans/Thornton as a starting backcourt.

This roster is a mess at the moment and the hard part about MCW to me is that he would create/exacerbate more issues than he'd fix. If the Kings braintrust thinks he can be a start that's one thing. But if not, he adds yet another player with definite skills but very obvious flaws to a team already full of those types of players.

 

[Bricklayer]

I know you said you aren't trying to compare them but when you mention Rubio and Kidd it makes it hard not to point out that those two have elite level court vision. They make/made passes that amaze because they see things that others don't. I didn't see any of that with MCW. He sees the court well and makes good passes (some poor decisions too) but I wouldn't put him in the same category as the great passers I've seen in college. To me it's the difference between a college quarterback who knows the system well and hits open receivers vs the NFL quaterback who throws a guy open - who has the confidence to throw with the receiver just starting his break.

Personally I think the Kings would be better off resigning Tyreke and trading Thornton than letting Tyreke walk for nothing and starting MT. Still, I can't say with confidence that MCW/Thornton would be any better or worse than IT/Evans or even Evans/Thornton as a starting backcourt.

This roster is a mess at the moment and the hard part about MCW to me is that he would create/exacerbate more issues than he'd fix. If the Kings braintrust thinks he can be a start that's one thing. But if not, he adds yet another player with definite skills but very obvious flaws to a team already full of those types of players.

One thing that has occurred to me with MCW, is that if he were the pick it would be an intentional yin to IT's yang. IT becomes the change of pace guard, we clean up our PG mess by decisively stepping away from the mini-chucker age, instead have one little dart, and one oversized floor general type. A PG for all occasions, and then dump the rest.

 

[Mass]

We are bringing Zeller in for an individual workout...

http://www.nba.com/kings/news/prospects-announced-kings-pre-draft-workouts

 

[Gary]

I know you said you aren't trying to compare them but when you mention Rubio and Kidd it makes it hard not to point out that those two have elite level court vision. They make/made passes that amaze because they see things that others don't. I didn't see any of that with MCW. He sees the court well and makes good passes (some poor decisions too) but I wouldn't put him in the same category as the great passers I've seen in college. To me it's the difference between a college quarterback who knows the system well and hits open receivers vs the NFL quaterback who throws a guy open - who has the confidence to throw with the receiver just starting his break.

Personally I think the Kings would be better off resigning Tyreke and trading Thornton than letting Tyreke walk for nothing and starting MT. Still, I can't say with confidence that MCW/Thornton would be any better or worse than IT/Evans or even Evans/Thornton as a starting backcourt.

This roster is a mess at the moment and the hard part about MCW to me is that he would create/exacerbate more issues than he'd fix. If the Kings braintrust thinks he can be a start that's one thing. But if not, he adds yet another player with definite skills but very obvious flaws to a team already full of those types of players.

That's why I feel that if we did draft him then Evans would be gone. If not then you are right, it would be a huge mess. MT plays SG, and IT comes off the bench, like Brick said, as a change of pace guard. As for Jimmer and Douglas they are the bench fodder, and Salmons is Amnestied.

Now, can the team get better? There will be growing pains as MCW syncs his game to the others and gets to know their style, but I feel that in a year or two they could accomplish more than the previous regime did in 4 years.

You either like MCW or you are kind of "meh". I would still take Burke over him, but I wouldn't be upset if things went the way I mentioned above.

 

[LPKingsFan]

MCW would be a great backcourt fit with Monta Ellis /runs and hides

 

[Vlade4GM]

MCW would be a great backcourt fit with Monta Ellis /runs and hides

Nope.

 

[Gary]

We are bringing Zeller in for an individual workout...

http://www.nba.com/kings/news/prospects-announced-kings-pre-draft-workouts

Another guy I wouldn't touch.

 

[Glenn]

I am having trouble with the fascination with MCW. He can't shoot and comes from a school that did not play man to man defense. So outside of the fact he is a big question as a shooter and defender, he is good for what that means we should dump Tyreke? If the fact he is tall is fascinating, let's keep Tyreke and draft someone else that fills a position of need; not that there ARE any, BTW. Let's not hamstring the team in the hopes that the poor fits available at #7 will somehow fit. Let's live with the facts and perhaps trade the pick. Either trade the pick or draft the most tradable player. We are not going to get someone who helps the team in any significant way.

 

[Kingster]

I am having trouble with the fascination with MCW. He can't shoot and comes from a school that did not play man to man defense. So outside of the fact he is a big question as a shooter and defender, he is good for what that means we should dump Tyreke? If the fact he is tall is fascinating, let's keep Tyreke and draft someone else that fills a position of need; not that there ARE any, BTW. Let's not hamstring the team in the hopes that the poor fits available at #7 will somehow fit. Let's live with the facts and perhaps trade the pick. Either trade the pick or draft the most tradable player. We are not going to get someone who helps the team in any significant way.

If we just swopped the Kings #1 this year for the #1 (unprotected) of cellar dweller next year I'd be ok with that, as long as it was some team like the Bobs or Washington who doesn't look like they are going to rocket up the charts anytime soon. Next year's draft is supposed to be a lot better than this year's.

 

[hrdboild]

I am having trouble with the fascination with MCW. He can't shoot and comes from a school that did not play man to man defense. So outside of the fact he is a big question as a shooter and defender, he is good for what that means we should dump Tyreke? If the fact he is tall is fascinating, let's keep Tyreke and draft someone else that fills a position of need; not that there ARE any, BTW. Let's not hamstring the team in the hopes that the poor fits available at #7 will somehow fit. Let's live with the facts and perhaps trade the pick. Either trade the pick or draft the most tradable player. We are not going to get someone who helps the team in any significant way.

By no means would I say that MCW is a replacement for Tyreke. I don't think anyone in this draft would be. The fascination with MCW isn't because of his dimensions or stats, it comes from watching the guy play and seeing a lot of potential there. I think I've said this before, but when I saw him play early in the season he reminded me of a young Penny Hardaway the way that he is able to smoothly distribute the ball from a wing position. Doug Christie late in his career when he started to initiate the offense for us would be another comparison. I think it's reductive to label him as a PG anyway. He's a wing player with a pass-first style of game. He isn't even that ball dominant from what I've seen. He's more of a guy who sees the floor and quickly gets the ball where it needs to be and gets out of the way. But then as the season went on, he was so dominant the first 6 weeks or so that other teams started to game plan around him and they played off him and covered the passing lanes and he was unable to make them pay by scoring the ball. And as we've seen with Tyreke, when a player lacks confidence in his jumpshot and the other team is daring him to score, the results can be frustrating to watch -- driving into the teeth of the defense, forcing passes that aren't there, throwing up desperation shots.

Until he learns how to score the ball, his utility as a lead guard is questionable. We're only talking about him at all because sitting at #7 in the draft there aren't a lot of appealing options on the board for us. Obviously if someone like Porter or Oladipo falls to us that would be a lot better. And when I said I prefer MCW to Burke that's more of a reflection of my dislike for Burke than a fascination with MCW. Now best case scenario you could say that having 4 NBA level players on the floor is going to take a lot of pressure off of MCW to be a scorer. He can do what he does best distributing the ball, hopefully continue to bother guards with his length on defense, and take whatever scoring opportunities come to him. Sortof like what Rubio does for Minnesota, though with considerably lower expectations. It allows us to move Tyreke back to PG and regain that size advantage without relying on Tyreke alone to be the primary playmaker. This is all wishful thinking of course, but the same can be said for everyone else in this draft. They're all support types who could be star players if they keep working on their weaknesses and get better. Fit is going to be a factor, even if the front office won't admit it.

 

[funkykingston]

If we just swopped the Kings #1 this year for the #1 (unprotected) of cellar dweller next year I'd be ok with that, as long as it was some team like the Bobs or Washington who doesn't look like they are going to rocket up the charts anytime soon. Next year's draft is supposed to be a lot better than this year's.

I'm not sure we can trade this year's pick since we already owe a pick to the Cavs for the Casspi/Hickson debacle.

 

[Gilles]

We can in theory draft for the other team and swap picks immediately, but I wouldn't be seeking Wizards' pick: if they are healthy they are borderline PO team in the East. And Bobs/Hornets already owe future pick just like Kings and can't trade it.
Next year is deemed filled up-top, but there's mostly offensive types that Kings don't particularly need. This year you can find defensive role players with some offensive potential, so given the state of the team just pick the biggest talent and move on to prepare for the season.
P.S. For #7 this year you can probably get next year's first-rounder only from the team that might miss PO.

 

[bajaden]

If we just swopped the Kings #1 this year for the #1 (unprotected) of cellar dweller next year I'd be ok with that, as long as it was some team like the Bobs or Washington who doesn't look like they are going to rocket up the charts anytime soon. Next year's draft is supposed to be a lot better than this year's.

Don't think you can do that because of the deal we made with Cleveland. You can't trade your first round pick two years in a row. If we trade out pick this year, and Cleveland is able to claim our pick next season because of our improvement, that would be two years in a row. You may be able to get around it by drafting a player the other team wants, and then trading that player for their 1st round pick next year. Not sure, but it might work.

I might add, that any team with a GM worth his salt isn't going to trade away next years pick. Not with it being one of the best drafts in the last ten years.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Don't think you can do that because of the deal we made with Cleveland. You can't trade your first round pick two years in a row.

Actually, in this case I think that would be OK. The specifics of the rule say that you can't make any trades that leave you (or might leave you) with no first round picks in two consecutive future years. It's not necessarily about trading away your own picks, you just have to have a pick when all is said and done. If we were to do as proposed and trade #7 in 2013 for an unprotected pick in 2014, then we would guaranteed have a 2014 first rounder regardless of the outstanding Cleveland trade, and we would be OK.

 

[bajaden]

I am having trouble with the fascination with MCW. He can't shoot and comes from a school that did not play man to man defense. So outside of the fact he is a big question as a shooter and defender, he is good for what that means we should dump Tyreke? If the fact he is tall is fascinating, let's keep Tyreke and draft someone else that fills a position of need; not that there ARE any, BTW. Let's not hamstring the team in the hopes that the poor fits available at #7 will somehow fit. Let's live with the facts and perhaps trade the pick. Either trade the pick or draft the most tradable player. We are not going to get someone who helps the team in any significant way.

The only thing I might dispute is about finding a player at number 7 that fits. First of all, draft picks are going to become more valuable, with all the new rules in the CBA. The draft permits you to add, hopefully a productive player at a very reasonable salary for four years. Who you pick is up to you, and if you do your homework, you should be able to get a player that will contribute. Finding one at number 7 isn't a problem as long as you don't get locked into whose a reach or not. Thats always someone else's opinion. If you really like a player that most mock drafts have ranked at 12 or 13, then take that player if you truely believe he's the best fit for your team. If your right, you'll prove everyone else wrong. To limit yourself to such a small group of players because someone has them ranked that way in a mock draft is just stupid. You either trust your scouting dept or you don't.

It doesn't make any sense to draft a player to, lets say play the PF position, for a salary of around 2.5 mil a year, and then trade that player away so you can go into freeagency and sign a similiar player for 3 mil a year or more. The draft is an economic decision as well as a talent decision. Thats why hanging on to IT for at least another year is such a good idea. He only makes 850 thousand or so a year. There's no way you could replace what he does for that amount of money in the open market. Thats why we should carefully select in the 2nd round. We should be able to get a decent to good player where were picking. Muscala, Wolters, Snell, Hardaway Jr. etc. all could be available when we choose in the second round. Good players at a very reasonable price. The more money you save, the more money to resign Cuz when the time comes.

 

[Glenn]

I'm not sure we can trade this year's pick since we already owe a pick to the Cavs for the Casspi/Hickson debacle.

Forgot this.

So what is the best use of the #7 pick? That's what we are discussing but we are getting far to creative to even make sense to me. In another note I said we should pick the most tradable player and try to develop him for the purpose of trade or trade him immediately. That could be Zeller, for one. I think we are just throwing words about in almost a delusional manner in thinking we are going to get a good PG, a good SF, or a good shot blocker. Now, there are some players who in several years MIGHT amount to something that we could use like Karasev, Gobert, Adams and perhaps a PG (Schroder, for example) if we have the patience to develop them. I am getting tired of all the developing but I don't think we have too many options. I've already said I wouldn't weep tears if we drafted Karasev. He could mature into something special or with our team, at the minimum a starting SF.

I wouldn't be surprised if Malone wanted Gobert or Adams as interesting defensive projects. Gobert now is a mass of arms and legs but, dang, those arms are long. Adams might be better as an athlete but as a one trick pony, Gobert could have a great trick ...... someday. Schroder looks like he could be a pretty darn fine defender and maybe as a backcourt mate to Tyreke, he would look good someday. I am thinking like a coach who likes defense.

I don't know who posted the note about MCW but the intimation was that the only way he could fit our team is if we let Tyreke walk. I may have interpreted it wrong but it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. (It really did ) That would be an irresponsible act by our team if that is what happened. If we combine a few thoughts the way the thinking goes, I presume, is that if we can sign Tyreke for $9-10 mil a year, that's fine but if it's $11-12 mil, he has to walk and somehow spending $3 mil on MCW will make that OK. If MCW is a bad example, plug in the player of your choice. Just trying to make a point.

Here's my bias: we have a franchise that is looked upon as part of hell by many people. Despite our elation at what is going on, I doubt if the rest of the NBA has caught on yet. To develop a great team here we are going to need to do some things that might not seem like good business and that is over pay. I would over pay for Tyreke and this is an urgent issue. Hey, he's developing an outside shot and a lot of people are unwilling to acknowledge that. His 3 pt % is very close to IT. He needs the confidence to bomb away and I sure didn't expect him in one year to develop the shot and then develop the mind set to use it. I sure as heck would want to continue with the development with Tyreke than letting him walk only to develop someone else.

I would over pay for a GM as the face of the franchise right now is a rookie coach and a little Indian (sorry Vivek but I'm making a point) and that may not impress anybody. We need a good GM but also a well known GM and I am saddened Bird came to his wits and decided to stay home in Indiana.

The good part is that we will be better than last year and despite my negativity about where the discussion is going, I am looking forward to next year.

 

[Glenn]

What limits what we can spend on Cuz? I thought Bird rights let us spend what we wished. This assumes an ownership with unlimited money. I didn't think there was anything we could do now that would put the resigning of Cuz at risk.

 

[Gary]

I am having trouble with the fascination with MCW. He can't shoot and comes from a school that did not play man to man defense. So outside of the fact he is a big question as a shooter and defender, he is good for what that means we should dump Tyreke? If the fact he is tall is fascinating, let's keep Tyreke and draft someone else that fills a position of need; not that there ARE any, BTW. Let's not hamstring the team in the hopes that the poor fits available at #7 will somehow fit. Let's live with the facts and perhaps trade the pick. Either trade the pick or draft the most tradable player. We are not going to get someone who helps the team in any significant way.

This draft is all about potential rather than filling needs. There really aren't any players at 7 that we should take to fill a need. As for Evans , if we were to draft MCW we would need shooters at the 2 and 3, and Evans does not fill that role. If we planned on getting a big, or a SF in the draft then we probably keep Evans. MCW is a more traditional PG which goes against Evans skillset, so I am just assuming that the front office would know that they clash and probably would elect to let Evans sign somewhere else and go in a different direction. Just my opinion.

 

[Gary]

I don't know who posted the note about MCW but the intimation was that the only way he could fit our team is if we let Tyreke walk. I may have interpreted it wrong but it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. (It really did ) That would be an irresponsible act by our team if that is what happened. If we combine a few thoughts the way the thinking goes, I presume, is that if we can sign Tyreke for $9-10 mil a year, that's fine but if it's $11-12 mil, he has to walk and somehow spending $3 mil on MCW will make that OK. If MCW is a bad example, plug in the player of your choice. Just trying to make a point.

I think I said that. I didn't say that as a way to get rid of Evans or anything, I just think if we went the MCW direction then Evans would probably be walking. A traditional PG and a player that holds the ball doesn't really mix. It was just an assumption as to what the front office would do if we went that direction. Would the team be better? Not sure, but I know we wouldn't be any worse off. Over the years we have played .500 ball without Evans so I assume it will get others more looks who are capable.

As for overpaying to keep Evans here, I wouldn't do that. 7-9mil max is probably what he's worth. I might be undervaluing a bit but I wouldn't go more than 4 years 36mil.

 

[VF21]

What limits what we can spend on Cuz? I thought Bird rights let us spend what we wished. This assumes an ownership with unlimited money. I didn't think there was anything we could do now that would put the resigning of Cuz at risk.

You are correct, sir. (With the proviso "up to a player's maximum salary," per Larry Coon's CBA FAQ)

 

[Kingsfan23]

I think I said that. I didn't say that as a way to get rid of Evans or anything, I just think if we went the MCW direction then Evans would probably be walking. A traditional PG and a player that holds the ball doesn't really mix. It was just an assumption as to what the front office would do if we went that direction. Would the team be better? Not sure, but I know we wouldn't be any worse off. Over the years we have played .500 ball without Evans so I assume it will get others more looks who are capable.

As for overpaying to keep Evans here, I wouldn't do that. 7-9mil max is probably what he's worth. I might be undervaluing a bit but I wouldn't go more than 4 years 36mil.

Your not undervalueing, I'd highly doubt there is an outside team willing to pay him 10+