So 10th pick or worse, who do you pick? (merged)
- Thread starter gunks
- Start date
Tiago Splitter
at #10, GP always wants guys that are skilled players... the two bigs that fits the bill, considering everbody, including the maloofs, wants a big... #1) Spencer Hawes and #2) Tiago Splitter...
i have a sneaking suspicion that hawes is gp's type of player... but i don't want to see another brad miller #2 on the kings...
i hope gp picks splitter, because i think he could develop into an andres beidrens type big man... 12 pts/game, 10 reb/game player... he will be a solid defensive big, something the kings need... and he is mature, having played professionally in europe...
at #10, GP always wants guys that are skilled players... the two bigs that fits the bill, considering everbody, including the maloofs, wants a big... #1) Spencer Hawes and #2) Tiago Splitter...
i have a sneaking suspicion that hawes is gp's type of player... but i don't want to see another brad miller #2 on the kings...
i hope gp picks splitter, because i think he could develop into an andres beidrens type big man... 12 pts/game, 10 reb/game player... he will be a solid defensive big, something the kings need... and he is mature, having played professionally in europe...
Well he's not going to block shots like biedrens. He's a good man defender and he rotates well on D. high bb IQ, moves without the ball well, not a great rebounder, not very aggressive, not a very good finisher, doesn't have much of a face up game, pretty good athleticism, small hands, and a soft touch. Needs good coaching. I would only like Splitter as a second first round pick, not our only lottery pick. Would rather pick Conley if that was the case.
No, we're not disagreeing. I think we got lost in our own semantics.
You mention "vision". And I agree that a GM needs to have a vision. I've been waiting it seems like forever to hear that vision from Petrie. I wrote a post on the subject, entitled, "The Vision Thing." That is something that I would very much like to hear going forward. I don't think he would surrender some competitive advantage by voicing it either. But it sure would give some fans some piece of mind about where this team is going. I'm just speculating, but maybe Petrie doesn't have a vision. Maybe for him "the best player available" is the extent of his vision.
You mention "vision". And I agree that a GM needs to have a vision. I've been waiting it seems like forever to hear that vision from Petrie. I wrote a post on the subject, entitled, "The Vision Thing." That is something that I would very much like to hear going forward. I don't think he would surrender some competitive advantage by voicing it either. But it sure would give some fans some piece of mind about where this team is going. I'm just speculating, but maybe Petrie doesn't have a vision. Maybe for him "the best player available" is the extent of his vision.
I think Hawes could be a very good fit with Williams and a guy that will probably be at pick 10. If J-Will is on the court, he really needs a big next to him that can score because otherwise you will have two totally inept big men on the floor that will put a ton of pressure on the backcourt to score. Hawes has quite the offensive repetoire and I think he can play some defense just because he has young legs and should put on more muscle.
Last edited:
I'd go with Hawes or Conley.
When you look at players that could be there around 10 ALL of them are going to have some warts, you just aren't going to find the perfect player still hanging around at 10, so you are going to have to take someone who is maybe not as strong in 1 or 2 areas as you would like, but has the rest of the package.
I think out of all the players that will around when we pick the 3 with the biggest upside are Hawes, Conley, and J.Wright. Personally I'm not sold on J.Wright, I just don't think he has a whole lot going for him besides athleticism.
Conley's only real blemish is a suspect shot, despite some posters claims here I believe shooting is something that CAN be corrected and improved on. Will everyone be able to do it, of course not, but does it have a chance at being fixed and improved on? Definitely. Besides the shooting, Conley can pretty much do it all and if he does improve his shooting he will be an all-star for sure.
Hawes catches a lot of flak for the Brad Miller comparisons which I think is really unfair. Their only real similarities are their size, skin color, and passing. Other then that Hawes has a much much more advanced post game, isn't afraid to bang inside and also plays decent defense (not outstanding, but not Miller bad). He is also young and has good BBall IQ which means he should be able to improve his game a lot. His rebounding also gets mentioned as a weakness, but he played next to one of the best rebounder's in college and naturally that's going to take away some boards from him. He also said he was more concerned with fundamentals like boxing out and footwork in regards to rebounding instead of just going up to get the ball. Once he works on that a little more and gets a good solid base to go from he can be a good rebounder. He is also knocked for a lack of athletesism but I think that's just unfair, in the in the 2005 Nike All-American Camp he tested as the 7th best athlete. Also keep in mind he is only 19 years old!
When you look at players that could be there around 10 ALL of them are going to have some warts, you just aren't going to find the perfect player still hanging around at 10, so you are going to have to take someone who is maybe not as strong in 1 or 2 areas as you would like, but has the rest of the package.
I think out of all the players that will around when we pick the 3 with the biggest upside are Hawes, Conley, and J.Wright. Personally I'm not sold on J.Wright, I just don't think he has a whole lot going for him besides athleticism.
Conley's only real blemish is a suspect shot, despite some posters claims here I believe shooting is something that CAN be corrected and improved on. Will everyone be able to do it, of course not, but does it have a chance at being fixed and improved on? Definitely. Besides the shooting, Conley can pretty much do it all and if he does improve his shooting he will be an all-star for sure.
Hawes catches a lot of flak for the Brad Miller comparisons which I think is really unfair. Their only real similarities are their size, skin color, and passing. Other then that Hawes has a much much more advanced post game, isn't afraid to bang inside and also plays decent defense (not outstanding, but not Miller bad). He is also young and has good BBall IQ which means he should be able to improve his game a lot. His rebounding also gets mentioned as a weakness, but he played next to one of the best rebounder's in college and naturally that's going to take away some boards from him. He also said he was more concerned with fundamentals like boxing out and footwork in regards to rebounding instead of just going up to get the ball. Once he works on that a little more and gets a good solid base to go from he can be a good rebounder. He is also knocked for a lack of athletesism but I think that's just unfair, in the in the 2005 Nike All-American Camp he tested as the 7th best athlete. Also keep in mind he is only 19 years old!
Hibbert in my opinion is not a bad choice because I feel he has a good amount of upside, at least as a #10 pick. Make no mistake, we WILL be able to pick a seven footer, even at the #12 pick. It will be about the quality of the 7 footer however. I think Conley will be gone by the time we pick. I will be happy about Hibbert. Yi is almost a lock to go to the Sonics in most drafts, so I would put my money on Hibbert.
If only Conely and Hawes are left at #10 I say trade the #10 to Philadelphia for #12 and #30. Pick Thad Young at #12 and Ukranian seven footer Kyrylo Fesenko with #30. Hey, Geoff didn't go to the Ukraine for the weather!
Of course, I am irrationally hoping that we somehow luck out with a top three pick. It could happen.
Of course, I am irrationally hoping that we somehow luck out with a top three pick. It could happen.