Probable Lottery picks in the 2021 Draft:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
There is enough there for the Kobe comps you see on him to make sense. Will he pan out? Like anyone who knows but the athletic tools there are beyond any of the Kings guards outside of Fox right now for sure. If Green were to somehow miraculously drop I think he's a take him and don't look back player for sure. The other smallish combo G's in that range are iffy though. Suggs is a really good player obviously but he, Fox, and Haliburton won't work. They cross over way too much and the expectations on all 3 are too high that you are guaranteeing that one or maybe two of them diminish in value big time.
Here is another take on Kuminga - link. This one is more balanced than the podcast I shared and acknowledges his physical gifts but still highlights his flaws.
I'm not pretending to know how he will pan out. He could develop into a great player. He has the tools and in the right system that could work. But the limitations identified should at least question his standing as the fifth best prospect.
I'm not pretending to know how he will pan out. He could develop into a great player. He has the tools and in the right system that could work. But the limitations identified should at least question his standing as the fifth best prospect.
From what you've written, you seem to be explicitly relying on what others are saying without giving your own impressions, which leads me to believe you may not have had an opportunity to see Kuminga in game film. I managed to watch about 10 of his full games with the Ignite and I came away with a different impression than some of his detractors that you've read. He certainly has his flaws, but I think some are overemphasizing his flaws and giving the impression that they're not fixable.
In my opinion, his flaws are:
1) Jump shot. He's not reliable outside 15-18 feet right now. But on the bright side, his form is very nice and he shoots with confidence. He goes up without any hesitation and believes he's going to hit every jumper. With his form, repetition should make him into an acceptable shooter (say .330-.350 from three).
2) Team defense. Frankly, I'm not sure that the Ignite team had any extensive defensive schemes. But Kuminga seemed to have trouble working defensively with his teammates. Now, that's probably to be expected because none of them had ever played together, so I can really list this as an incomplete rather than a bad grade. On the bright side, he was an engaged defender, he didn't take plays off on the defensive end, and as a man defender or when he recognized the help he used his length and athleticism well. I think once he gets into an instructive system he'll turn into a good team defender, and he's already a good man defender.
3) Conditioning. Kuminga seemed to wear down as the G-League season carried forward in a way that Green didn't. Of course, I think Green has superstar athleticism. The G-League season was super compressed because they were doing it in the bubble and I think they were playing close to 5 games a week, so this was way more than Kuminga was ever used to playing. This is something to keep an eye on. Kuminga is athletic, but he's not slim, he carries a lot of muscle weight, and we'll have to see whether he can shoulder a 35+ MPG workload at the NBA level. That might eat into his ceiling.
4) Hero ball. As some of the folks you refer to mention, Kuminga did play some hero ball on the Ignite team. Then again, that's kind of the point, it was a showcase and he was showcasing to some extent. I think the hero ball looks worse when you miss shots - if he had hit 30% from distance his hero ball would have looked a lot better. At the same time I disagree with the idea that his hero ball in a showcase situation means he's not a team player. He actually was a VERY good passer and made the right pass - usually made it well - more frequently than I'd ask for in a situation like the Ignite situation. So I'm not worried about that.
I think that you've got a pretty good rundown of his strengths, with the exception being that I don't see anybody really acknowledging how good he is at seeing the floor and reacting on offense. He made several jaw-dropping plays, some for his own offense, probably more for assists, that I didn't expect someone of his age and basketball experience to be able to do.
He's young and he's got such a great foundation to build on. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be as high as the #2 player in the class. Kuminga probably has the most bust potential out of the top 5, so I can see why people are pushing him down a bit, but his ceiling is so high and all the markers seem to be there. Also he's a 3-4 swing, which is a position in high demand in today's NBA. If a team needs a dynamic guard then Suggs over Kuminga is probably a no-brainer because I think Suggs' floor is a good deal higher. But for a team like the Kings with a wealth of guards (If we don't trade Buddy, we've basically already got the top three in the rotation set with 30+ MPG players and have Wright and potentially Davis for lesser minutes off the bench) Kuminga would make a lot of sense if we jumped into the top 4.
In my opinion, his flaws are:
1) Jump shot. He's not reliable outside 15-18 feet right now. But on the bright side, his form is very nice and he shoots with confidence. He goes up without any hesitation and believes he's going to hit every jumper. With his form, repetition should make him into an acceptable shooter (say .330-.350 from three).
2) Team defense. Frankly, I'm not sure that the Ignite team had any extensive defensive schemes. But Kuminga seemed to have trouble working defensively with his teammates. Now, that's probably to be expected because none of them had ever played together, so I can really list this as an incomplete rather than a bad grade. On the bright side, he was an engaged defender, he didn't take plays off on the defensive end, and as a man defender or when he recognized the help he used his length and athleticism well. I think once he gets into an instructive system he'll turn into a good team defender, and he's already a good man defender.
3) Conditioning. Kuminga seemed to wear down as the G-League season carried forward in a way that Green didn't. Of course, I think Green has superstar athleticism. The G-League season was super compressed because they were doing it in the bubble and I think they were playing close to 5 games a week, so this was way more than Kuminga was ever used to playing. This is something to keep an eye on. Kuminga is athletic, but he's not slim, he carries a lot of muscle weight, and we'll have to see whether he can shoulder a 35+ MPG workload at the NBA level. That might eat into his ceiling.
4) Hero ball. As some of the folks you refer to mention, Kuminga did play some hero ball on the Ignite team. Then again, that's kind of the point, it was a showcase and he was showcasing to some extent. I think the hero ball looks worse when you miss shots - if he had hit 30% from distance his hero ball would have looked a lot better. At the same time I disagree with the idea that his hero ball in a showcase situation means he's not a team player. He actually was a VERY good passer and made the right pass - usually made it well - more frequently than I'd ask for in a situation like the Ignite situation. So I'm not worried about that.
I think that you've got a pretty good rundown of his strengths, with the exception being that I don't see anybody really acknowledging how good he is at seeing the floor and reacting on offense. He made several jaw-dropping plays, some for his own offense, probably more for assists, that I didn't expect someone of his age and basketball experience to be able to do.
He's young and he's got such a great foundation to build on. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be as high as the #2 player in the class. Kuminga probably has the most bust potential out of the top 5, so I can see why people are pushing him down a bit, but his ceiling is so high and all the markers seem to be there. Also he's a 3-4 swing, which is a position in high demand in today's NBA. If a team needs a dynamic guard then Suggs over Kuminga is probably a no-brainer because I think Suggs' floor is a good deal higher. But for a team like the Kings with a wealth of guards (If we don't trade Buddy, we've basically already got the top three in the rotation set with 30+ MPG players and have Wright and potentially Davis for lesser minutes off the bench) Kuminga would make a lot of sense if we jumped into the top 4.
I echo these sentiments.
I have him higher on my board than others for a lot of the reasons you mentioned. The guy does have a lower floor than some of the other prospects but his ceiling is best player in the draft IMO.
-he plays what many consider the most important position in the league
-fantastic size and athleticism. Only Green is a better athlete but Kuminga is LONG. 7’2 wingspan at 6’8 or better and takes long strides.
If he shoots 33-34 percent from three like you say and refines his offense a bit I think he has a real chance to be a superstar. The court vision could play a big part in that as well.
and of course I like him because he is a great fit with Fox and Haliburton.
I have him higher on my board than others for a lot of the reasons you mentioned. The guy does have a lower floor than some of the other prospects but his ceiling is best player in the draft IMO.
-he plays what many consider the most important position in the league
-fantastic size and athleticism. Only Green is a better athlete but Kuminga is LONG. 7’2 wingspan at 6’8 or better and takes long strides.
If he shoots 33-34 percent from three like you say and refines his offense a bit I think he has a real chance to be a superstar. The court vision could play a big part in that as well.
and of course I like him because he is a great fit with Fox and Haliburton.
I would agree with most of this. I'm not as worried about conditioning because I don't think most 18 year olds know how to get into that type of shape very well. It is a big reason that rookies hit the rookie wall. Kuminga has the talent and athleticism to be a star, it will boil down to how hard he works on developing his game.
I definitely would.
Kuminga is way too much of a gamble. We have little data that tells us how 18 year olds out of high school fare in the G League without any college experience. His efficiency was very poor compared to Green's and they played against the exact same competition. I see him having a similar impact as Mudiay did in the NBA. Just the SF version. I could be wrong but I simply don't understand why he's mocked so high.
It could be a normal thing in the future for these kids to struggle badly in the G League and that would mean they are less of a risk at that point but at this point in time with the data we have, I wouldn't risk it.
Kuminga is way too much of a gamble. We have little data that tells us how 18 year olds out of high school fare in the G League without any college experience. His efficiency was very poor compared to Green's and they played against the exact same competition. I see him having a similar impact as Mudiay did in the NBA. Just the SF version. I could be wrong but I simply don't understand why he's mocked so high.
It could be a normal thing in the future for these kids to struggle badly in the G League and that would mean they are less of a risk at that point but at this point in time with the data we have, I wouldn't risk it.
Yes – aside from Josh Giddey – I haven’t watched more than highlights of anyone. I’ve never watched a g-league game and it’s been years since I’ve watched an NCAA game. I am simply looking for and sharing perspectives of others. I may have some bias towards perspectives that could be considered cynical but don’t think that is necessarily negative. People can engage with the secondary information presented as they wish.
With Kuminga, I am not making a prediction as to how he will go or saying the Kings should not draft him. If they do, I’ll happily find the positives to support. But – I do think the general philosophy of how high a guy like him should be considered is interesting. Your own take – he could become the second-best player in the draft but there is also a reasonable chance (or at least more reasonable than the other ‘top 5’ guys) that he could be a bust. So, there is a wide range of outcomes and no real precision with his projections. If you have a choice between him and a basketball player you are confident will have a very good NBA career – e.g., starter on a regular playoff team – but perhaps won’t ever be more than a fringe all-star – why not take the pick you have more confidence in? And beyond the questions of promise vs potential I think – granted – based on secondary information – I think there is merit in questioning the value given different skill sets. Sometimes you hear “physically gifted with some bright spots” and you forget “inefficient from all areas of the floor”. Perhaps you weigh up all of this and decide the potential and fit is still greater than anything Moody, Barnes, Wagner, Giddey, Garuba, or whoever else is worth mentioning has to offer. But – I guess my original point – if you’re picking four or five the choice is not binary. There are many prospects that offer unique skill sets who will be on the board to consider.
With Kuminga, I am not making a prediction as to how he will go or saying the Kings should not draft him. If they do, I’ll happily find the positives to support. But – I do think the general philosophy of how high a guy like him should be considered is interesting. Your own take – he could become the second-best player in the draft but there is also a reasonable chance (or at least more reasonable than the other ‘top 5’ guys) that he could be a bust. So, there is a wide range of outcomes and no real precision with his projections. If you have a choice between him and a basketball player you are confident will have a very good NBA career – e.g., starter on a regular playoff team – but perhaps won’t ever be more than a fringe all-star – why not take the pick you have more confidence in? And beyond the questions of promise vs potential I think – granted – based on secondary information – I think there is merit in questioning the value given different skill sets. Sometimes you hear “physically gifted with some bright spots” and you forget “inefficient from all areas of the floor”. Perhaps you weigh up all of this and decide the potential and fit is still greater than anything Moody, Barnes, Wagner, Giddey, Garuba, or whoever else is worth mentioning has to offer. But – I guess my original point – if you’re picking four or five the choice is not binary. There are many prospects that offer unique skill sets who will be on the board to consider.
And my hatred for them would continue. It seems like throughout the years they get everyone I want to see on the Kings, lol. I still see them setting that pick up for a trade though. They have the chips to get someone like KAT potentially. They probably have to wait until the deadline and re-sign someone like Oubre to a bloated deal but it can happen for them.
He could and who is to say he won't as it is. I think long term the Kings are set on playing small anyway. I think when you are talking about the boom potential of someone like Green you pull off the "figure it out later" in a worst case and do just that. I don't think that's smart if you're impossibly small though. Like 3 pure PG's is just stupid and won't work but Green isn't that and neither are Fox or Haliburton. Fox showed some ability to match up with some 3's as well. While small, Fox, Hali, and Green would be an interesting combo of length, speed, athletic ability, etc. so it could be a mismatch that works for you most of the time. If Green weren't the athlete he is it would probably give you pause but dudes insane. Kobe level for sure.
I'll take the low risk/high potential flexibility any day of the week rather than going all in at a lower odds attempt at a perfect fit.
We don't always have to fit these players into the same lineups or even the same roster. If Green winds up being Jaylen Brown on offense while being a plus defender, that gives you the flexibility to try multiple things. They can try running a Fox/Hali/Green lineup and see if Green can hang on defense. If he can't, then they can have Hali in a Manu role like you said. If that doesn't work, you have multiple trade options to be able to find your fit.
We don't always have to fit these players into the same lineups or even the same roster. If Green winds up being Jaylen Brown on offense while being a plus defender, that gives you the flexibility to try multiple things. They can try running a Fox/Hali/Green lineup and see if Green can hang on defense. If he can't, then they can have Hali in a Manu role like you said. If that doesn't work, you have multiple trade options to be able to find your fit.
I think your spot on. I think Kuminga is a player that will frustrate the fans for a couple of years when he launches a 35 foot three with a hand in his face, or drives into a crowded lane. But he has a very high ceiling. He's like a huge uncut diamond. There's certainly risk there, but the reward could be huge. Are the Kings in a position to take that kind of risk? I'll leave that decision up to McNair.
In a normal draft you'd grab him and be happy. But in this draft, where there are so many talented players you can choose from, it's a more difficult choice. Like you, I've watched quite a few of his games, and there are moments when you question his thought process, and other moments when he blows you away. I doubt the Kings get the chance to draft him, but if so, he could be a game changer. Remember, he's one of the youngest players in the draft. He's an explosive athlete with great natural talent. You don't get a combination of length, athleticism, and strength in one player very often. (Lebron James, Zion Williamson, etc.) OK, I'm teasing you, but I think the kid can be a star in the league.
By the way, wingspan is measured with the arms straight out from tip to tip, which means that yes, the distance between the shoulders enters into the measurement. To me, standing reach is the more important measurement. You can have two players with the identical wingspan, but one will have a two inch advantage in the standing reach. As Jerry Reynolds said many times. It's not the height that matters, but the standing reach. You don't rebound with the top of your head.
In a normal draft you'd grab him and be happy. But in this draft, where there are so many talented players you can choose from, it's a more difficult choice. Like you, I've watched quite a few of his games, and there are moments when you question his thought process, and other moments when he blows you away. I doubt the Kings get the chance to draft him, but if so, he could be a game changer. Remember, he's one of the youngest players in the draft. He's an explosive athlete with great natural talent. You don't get a combination of length, athleticism, and strength in one player very often. (Lebron James, Zion Williamson, etc.) OK, I'm teasing you, but I think the kid can be a star in the league.
By the way, wingspan is measured with the arms straight out from tip to tip, which means that yes, the distance between the shoulders enters into the measurement. To me, standing reach is the more important measurement. You can have two players with the identical wingspan, but one will have a two inch advantage in the standing reach. As Jerry Reynolds said many times. It's not the height that matters, but the standing reach. You don't rebound with the top of your head.
Well sure, but that's not what I'm asking. I know Green is an incredible prospect. My question is do people feel he's on a different tier over a guy like Kuminga, or even Barnes that it's worth potential fit problems down the line with our 2 franchise cornerstones being guards?
The consensus so far seems to be yes.
The consensus so far seems to be yes.