Welcome Maxime Raynaud

iowamcnabb said:
Jay Bilas was saying something about that on a pod the other day. When he was playing it was the norm that 22 year olds were still going through the development process and now everyone thinks you have to be 18 to develop
Click to expand...
The problem is that we've gotten so good at identifying who the great talents are going to be by the age of 18 (e.g. LeBron, Wemby at #1; Kobe, Giannis late lotto) that it becomes easy to believe that nobody really slips through that freshman net. The game becomes "draft them before they're fully ready or somebody else will". And that in turn leads to the thinking "by age 22 all the good ones are gone". It's not true, but there's a reason that fallacy exists and is compelling. Even though one might specifically acknowledge it isn't true when pressed, that fallacy still has the power to draw you in when you're not guarding against it.
 
I watched this kid in a interview on you tube about a month ago. He is one very impressive young man. Who is a gentleman and know his strengths and weaknesses and tell what he ius doing to improve. I also heard he is very loud in the gym and has a great basketball iq for only playing th game for like 4 years. I love this pick
 
His coach said that they had him settle more on the defense because they ran everything through him and he couldn’t get into foul trouble. But when they needed him to play defense he could. His first 23 games of the season he had 27 blocks, his final 9 games he had 23 blocks.

Dude has a lot potential, especially since he has only played basketball seriously for the last four years.
 
iowamcnabb said:
The biggest difference is shooting. If you can shoot you have a role. If you can’t and can’t defend, bye bye.
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part for the vast majority of players but not so much when the position requires anchoring the defense. He would have to develop skills that he hasn't shown much of yet. As of right now, the opposing team could just put a 4 on him because he doesn't really bully smaller players very well. That 4 will abuse him on the other end because he's not particularly agile defensively and can't anchor the paint.

The_Jamal said:
The three guys you mentioned though are all relic post-only bigs though. Raynaud looks like a wing on the perimeter offensively and he's projected to be an excellent spacer. 3 of the 4 final teams in the playoffs just showed how powerful being able to play 5-out is in the NBA. If Raynaud can access that set for us in 12-15 MPG as a back-up, that's a huge win and a huge boon to our offense.

To me, the guy you're talking about is Johnni Broome more than anything who doesn't have a place in the NBA anymore. Ground-bound post big, doesn't have great size to be a true C so more of a tweener, can't switch on the perimeter, doesn't project to be a shooter.
Click to expand...

That's why I was saying he has more in his bag than those guys but I don't think he's going to have enough to make up for his inability to defend at the most important defensive position.

I personally am not a huge fan of player archetypes that there are very few successful versions of. Especially ones that require players around them to have very specific skills that aren't found every day. I think IT is about the only low odd archetype the Kings were successful with.

I agree that playing 5 out is a recipe for success but we're talking about guys like Chet and Turner that are legit defensive anchors to go along with their ability to spread the floor and score in creative ways. On paper Maxime has the latter but he doesn't have the former and I don't think capable NBA centers can stick around without having the former unless their offense is off the charts. I called it out during the Bagley draft and everyone disagreed with me there as well. I'm rooting for the kid but centers normally seem to be able to defend right away in college and their offensive game is a work in progress. Normally they don't all the sudden acquire the ability to defend as NBA players. That's not to say that it never happens but I'm not going to point to a player or two that has done it in the last decade and say see, our guy can do that too.

NiNetNiNe said:
His coach said that they had him settle more on the defense because they ran everything through him and he couldn’t get into foul trouble. But when they needed him to play defense he could. His first 23 games of the season he had 27 blocks, his final 9 games he had 23 blocks.

Dude has a lot potential, especially since he has only played basketball seriously for the last four years.
Click to expand...

That's really promising to hear!
 
Capt. Factorial said:
The problem is that we've gotten so good at identifying who the great talents are going to be by the age of 18 (e.g. LeBron, Wemby at #1; Kobe, Giannis late lotto) that it becomes easy to believe that nobody really slips through that freshman net. The game becomes "draft them before they're fully ready or somebody else will". And that in turn leads to the thinking "by age 22 all the good ones are gone". It's not true, but there's a reason that fallacy exists and is compelling. Even though one might specifically acknowledge it isn't true when pressed, that fallacy still has the power to draw you in when you're not guarding against it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why there are so many busts in the NBA lottery. They are trying to project instead of believing what their eyes are seeing. Pretty much why players like Steph, Klay, Draymond, Lillard, and Jalen Brunson fell in their drafts.
 
ockingsfan said:
I’m not sure why Maxime is considered a non-defensive big. He average 1.4 blocks, one steal and 10 rebounds per game. He may not be Wemby defensive monster, but I would say he should be serviceable on that end. After all, he went to Standford so he is a smart kid, I'm sure he can learn to play better pick and roll defense with proper coaching. To go along with the offensive repertoire, we could have a 2nd round steal.

Unless he puts on more bulk, I think he will be a stretch 4 in the league, reminds me of a young Lauri Marrkaren. If he was a freshman or sophomore coming into the draft, he would had been a lottery pick.
Click to expand...

It's definitely his avoiding contact that sketches people out. On both ends he loses his balance if he's hit. He's a lot like a younger Porzinigis in that way. Tall, narrow, high center of gravity bigs are what they are. He can move laterally though so that's actually more important probably in such a switch heavy leage. Look at the dual big lineup the Thunder played, there were moments the Thunder just couldn't play it and Chet manned the C spot. The difference being is that even in high school you could tell Chet loved contact. He never backed down. Yeah, Lauri is a good comp too.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
The problem is that we've gotten so good at identifying who the great talents are going to be by the age of 18 (e.g. LeBron, Wemby at #1; Kobe, Giannis late lotto) that it becomes easy to believe that nobody really slips through that freshman net. The game becomes "draft them before they're fully ready or somebody else will". And that in turn leads to the thinking "by age 22 all the good ones are gone". It's not true, but there's a reason that fallacy exists and is compelling. Even though one might specifically acknowledge it isn't true when pressed, that fallacy still has the power to draw you in when you're not guarding against it.
Click to expand...

Yep, the moment KG came along it started a whole new process where 15 year olds are really the new college prospects.
 
SacTownKid said:
It's definitely his avoiding contact that sketches people out. On both ends he loses his balance if he's hit. He's a lot like a younger Porzinigis in that way. Tall, narrow, high center of gravity bigs are what they are. He can move laterally though so that's actually more important probably in such a switch heavy leage. Look at the dual big lineup the Thunder played, there were moments the Thunder just couldn't play it and Chet manned the C spot. The difference being is that even in high school you could tell Chet loved contact. He never backed down. Yeah, Lauri is a good comp too.
Click to expand...
He's going to get used to contact in practice for sure.
 
SacTownKid said:
It's definitely his avoiding contact that sketches people out. On both ends he loses his balance if he's hit. He's a lot like a younger Porzinigis in that way. Tall, narrow, high center of gravity bigs are what they are. He can move laterally though so that's actually more important probably in such a switch heavy leage. Look at the dual big lineup the Thunder played, there were moments the Thunder just couldn't play it and Chet manned the C spot. The difference being is that even in high school you could tell Chet loved contact. He never backed down. Yeah, Lauri is a good comp too.
Click to expand...

But Kristaps ended up bulking, which may or may not be a reason he's been so injury prone. Not that I want bean pole bigs, but it does seem like the more weight you add on the Giants frame, the greater chance at injury
 
Caccia said:
It sounds like Raynaud had settled on Sacramento as his preferred destination, which means the Kings will offer him a regular contract. His agent would not have allowed him to fall so far without guarantees from the Kings' front office. He will be the tallest player on the roster, an inch taller than Valančiūnas.

The signing will bring the Kings roster up to twelve players, not including two-way contracts such as Dylan Cardwell. There are still three open spots, with free agency starting next Wednesday. Lyles, LaRavia, Fultz, McDermott, Crowder, and Mason Jones are all free agents.
Click to expand...
Lyles has definitely proved he ought to be resigned for bench play.
 
iowamcnabb said:
The biggest difference is shooting. If you can shoot you have a role. If you can’t and can’t defend, bye bye.
Click to expand...
If you can't play at least average defense its a non-starter unless your lights out on shooting - why I can't stand LaVine who is below average at best on defense and rebounding. He clearly shies off contact on defense.
 
ESP47 said:
I agree for the most part for the vast majority of players but not so much when the position requires anchoring the defense. He would have to develop skills that he hasn't shown much of yet. As of right now, the opposing team could just put a 4 on him because he doesn't really bully smaller players very well. That 4 will abuse him on the other end because he's not particularly agile defensively and can't anchor the paint.



That's why I was saying he has more in his bag than those guys but I don't think he's going to have enough to make up for his inability to defend at the most important defensive position.

I personally am not a huge fan of player archetypes that there are very few successful versions of. Especially ones that require players around them to have very specific skills that aren't found every day. I think IT is about the only low odd archetype the Kings were successful with.

I agree that playing 5 out is a recipe for success but we're talking about guys like Chet and Turner that are legit defensive anchors to go along with their ability to spread the floor and score in creative ways. On paper Maxime has the latter but he doesn't have the former and I don't think capable NBA centers can stick around without having the former unless their offense is off the charts. I called it out during the Bagley draft and everyone disagreed with me there as well. I'm rooting for the kid but centers normally seem to be able to defend right away in college and their offensive game is a work in progress. Normally they don't all the sudden acquire the ability to defend as NBA players. That's not to say that it never happens but I'm not going to point to a player or two that has done it in the last decade and say see, our guy can do that too.



have
Click to expand...
At pick 42 a great dice roll. Defense is easier to get results on than offense to some degree - but atheleticsm and motivation is important for it. Raynard's atheletism is good for his size, but not stellar. It begins with wholesale mindset. weights, and conditioning which shouldn't be a problem. The kings have brought in Caldwell just for that although I dont know if Caldwell will make the cut. Raynard will work on his defense. He will get some playing time try-outs hopefully earlier.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
The problem is that we've gotten so good at identifying who the great talents are going to be by the age of 18 (e.g. LeBron, Wemby at #1; Kobe, Giannis late lotto) that it becomes easy to believe that nobody really slips through that freshman net. The game becomes "draft them before they're fully ready or somebody else will". And that in turn leads to the thinking "by age 22 all the good ones are gone". It's not true, but there's a reason that fallacy exists and is compelling. Even though one might specifically acknowledge it isn't true when pressed, that fallacy still has the power to draw you in when you're not guarding against it.
Click to expand...
I think some of it has to do with the number of Reps. To get really good you have the 10,000 hours rule another says 3,000 reps. With AAU teams many kids reach those hours prior to college. Starting as a senior and going to Stanford as a Math Computer Science major I am guessing this kid has a way to go.
 
kingdivac said:
At pick 42 a great dice roll. Defense is easier to get results on than offense to some degree - but atheleticsm and motivation is important for it. Raynard's atheletism is good for his size, but not stellar. It begins with wholesale mindset. weights, and conditioning which shouldn't be a problem. The kings have brought in Caldwell just for that although I dont know if Caldwell will make the cut. Raynard will work on his defense. He will get some playing time try-outs hopefully earlier.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if he can avoid the tweener issues. Potentially not long enough and explosive enough to be a rim protector. Also not athletic enough with enough lateral quickness to be a stretch 4. The risk is why he likely fell to us but he is very intriguing and will be fun to watch.

And if he doesn’t make it on the court, the dude is a math and computer science double major from Stanford. The Kings analytics department better be keeping an eye on him.
 
Last edited:
ESP47 said:
I agree for the most part for the vast majority of players but not so much when the position requires anchoring the defense. He would have to develop skills that he hasn't shown much of yet. As of right now, the opposing team could just put a 4 on him because he doesn't really bully smaller players very well. That 4 will abuse him on the other end because he's not particularly agile defensively and can't anchor the paint.



That's why I was saying he has more in his bag than those guys but I don't think he's going to have enough to make up for his inability to defend at the most important defensive position.

I personally am not a huge fan of player archetypes that there are very few successful versions of. Especially ones that require players around them to have very specific skills that aren't found every day. I think IT is about the only low odd archetype the Kings were successful with.

I agree that playing 5 out is a recipe for success but we're talking about guys like Chet and Turner that are legit defensive anchors to go along with their ability to spread the floor and score in creative ways. On paper Maxime has the latter but he doesn't have the former and I don't think capable NBA centers can stick around without having the former unless their offense is off the charts. I called it out during the Bagley draft and everyone disagreed with me there as well. I'm rooting for the kid but centers normally seem to be able to defend right away in college and their offensive game is a work in progress. Normally they don't all the sudden acquire the ability to defend as NBA players. That's not to say that it never happens but I'm not going to point to a player or two that has done it in the last decade and say see, our guy can do that too.



That's really promising to hear!
Click to expand...
Watched him play defense and his form seemed not great. I think with the right coaching he can be a Markannan type of player. I’m not convinced he can’t guard the perimeter given his ability to change direction on offense and his lane agility times.
 
Hit or miss, I don't care, sick and tired of drafting guards. Finally, we got some size, who could potentially play along with Domas and Keegan at the frontcourt, given them much more needed help, or whatever fits. It'll be fun to watch how he develops and gels.

Grok says, "Stanford University's basketball team, where Maxime played from 2021 to 2025, is not particularly renowned for its defense in the context of NCAA basketball. Stanford's program has historically been more recognized for its academic prestige and for producing well-rounded players rather than consistently elite defensive teams."

Now it's up to Doug to teach him whatever he's lacking at the defensive end. He's a fast learner and intelligent, I'm betting on 'em.
 
Last edited:
The_Jamal said:
My favorite draft adage ever that 22 and 23 year old can never get better at the nba level
Click to expand...
iowamcnabb said:
Jay Bilas was saying something about that on a pod the other day. When he was playing it was the norm that 22 year olds were still going through the development process and now everyone thinks you have to be 18 to develop
Click to expand...

Yeah, that view is pretty silly.

Look at someone like Nikola Jokić, who had the advantage of playing in the league for several seasons before turning 22 (as opposed to just playing college ball), and improved a lot by age 25, 26.

Steve Nash is an example I always use. He came into the league at 22 and his first 4 seasons were pretty underwhelming. He didn’t reach MVP level until year 9.

Nash is an outlier, but does go to show that not all players develop along the same timeline and that development/growth is still possible deep into one’s career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Angelo127
Welcome Back!
Replies
9
Views
533
MizzouKing
MizzouKing
whitechocolate
Welcome Zach LaVine!
5 6 7
Replies
191
Views
12K
pdxKingsFan
pdxKingsFan
Tetsujin
Welcome Nique Clifford
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
3K
ESP47
E
iowamcnabb
Oh! Welcome back!
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
megapoxy
Welcome Markelle Fultz
2 3
Replies
88
Views
6K
coolhandluke
coolhandluke
Back
Top