Who do we draft?

[funkykingston]

We may end up having to face a similar decision this year, particularly if we land at #8/#9. I'd guess that many of the expected top ten are going to feel like they should be top five, and refuse to work out 8/9 for fear that it would make it look like a sign of weakness. I would actually be surprised if, out of the group of Fultz/Ball/Jackson/Tatum/Fox/Isaac/Monk/Markkanen/Smith we get more than say two to actually come work out in Sacramento. Ntilikina probably does come work out, and we probably won't have much trouble getting in guys trying to crack the top ten like Allen and Collins. Just a guess.

I think going forward we'll see more and more open workouts where a prospect gets to control the environment and any team can come and watch with individual workouts by top prospects only done for teams that player really wants to go to. Not great for a small market like Sacramento but I think that's the reality.

Ntilikina has a lot to prove so I agree he'll probably do more team workouts than most top prospects. Isaac may as well, if only to show that he has a lot more to his game than what he got to show at Florida State.

But yeah, this is likely a year where Vlade has to either draft a guy who didn't work out for him or risk drafting a lesser prospect if he holds on to that notion.

 

[SacTownKid]

Length be darned Collins certainly looks attentive on defense. He's always looking at the ball and his man.

 

[Folsomkingsfan]

We may end up having to face a similar decision this year, particularly if we land at #8/#9. I'd guess that many of the expected top ten are going to feel like they should be top five, and refuse to work out 8/9 for fear that it would make it look like a sign of weakness. I would actually be surprised if, out of the group of Fultz/Ball/Jackson/Tatum/Fox/Isaac/Monk/Markkanen/Smith we get more than say two to actually come work out in Sacramento. Ntilikina probably does come work out, and we probably won't have much trouble getting in guys trying to crack the top ten like Allen and Collins. Just a guess.

Then they are stupid. The only 3 that are consensus top guys are Fultz, Jackson, and Ball. Any of the other guys could fall. Some mocks have guys like Monk, Smith, Isaac, Markannen, and Ntilinka falling out of the top 10. Not that they will, but it should at least show them that they are far from guaranteed top 5 guys. If I were any of those guys not in the top 3, I would work out with every top 10 team rather than risk falling farther than they'd like. But of course that won't happen and there will be a lot of prima dona's who refuse to work out here.

 

[The_Jamal]

Assuming we draft Collins, our first pick should be a PG? Someone who can excel in PnR with Skal and Collins.

I'd be fine with Skal-Collins frontcourt. We'd lack strength, but it's going to be a long-term fit.

Yep, my new ideal pairing is Fox and Collins. I think they give us the franchise building blocks we're looking for and compliment our current talent so freaking well. It'd also give us so much roster flexibility moving forward:

The spacing+Get-out and run team+highest upside team: Fox-Buddy-Bogdan-Skal-Collins

The defense team: Fox-Buddy-Temple-Collins-WCS

The Slow and plodding team: Fox-Temple-Bogdan-Collins-Papa

Let me ask you and I might be off my rocker here, but I was thinking about Pau Gasol without the playmaking ability as a possible comp for Collins. He has the true positional flexibility to play the 4 and the 5; he's an excellent rim protector who can challenge shots; he's an excellent rebounder; he has phenominal footwork for a young big man; and he can hit the outside jumper. Collins is probably a little more athletic than young Pau too.

 

[Jimbob]

I hope some of those players passing on the combine are as high pick worthy as their agents believe they are. Markannen to the Wolves, and Monk to the 76ers should push at least one of my favorites, Fox or Isaac down to us at 8.
As of now Ntilinka and Collins should be around in our range. Smith could very well be there too, just wish I was higher on him.

 

[Jimbob]

Bleacher Report just put out a final pre combine draft. If draft positions hold as is I could see it playing out this way.
We would be guard heavy but I guess there are worse problems to have.

 

[Jimbob]

Seeing a couple draft boards have us taking Monk at 8 I thought I would sit down with some beer and watch a lot of tape on him. To me his handles look good, his passing looks promising, his athleticism off the charts. Very exciting player to watch. We know hes a scorer but small for a SG.
Can he and Buddy succeed as backcourt? thoughts.

 

[ESP47]

Seeing a couple draft boards have us taking Monk at 8 I thought I would sit down with some beer and watch a lot of tape on him. To me his handles look good, his passing looks promising, his athleticism off the charts. Very exciting player to watch. We know hes a scorer but small for a SG.
Can he and Buddy succeed as backcourt? thoughts.

Succeed with Monk at PG and Buddy at SG? I think the odds of that are about 1%. We would be playing 1 on 1 most the time while taking contested shots left and right. Both guys need a legitimate PG next to them to help create easier shots.

 

[dude12]

Best case scenario for Sac is to pick Smith at 8....it's assuming the top 3 stay that way and Fox is gone shortly thereafter. A Smith/Hield backcourt would have to work hard on defense but we can mix and match with a Temple for defense but Smith/Hield could be similar to a Portland backcourt. This team is being designed to push pace and score. I'd take the dynamically offensive PG in Smith. Go for the home run and trust Joerger and his staff can correct the perceived lack of effort or whatever his faults may be.

 

[upinsmoke]

Best case scenario for Sac is to pick Smith at 8....it's assuming the top 3 stay that way and Fox is gone shortly thereafter. A Smith/Hield backcourt would have to work hard on defense but we can mix and match with a Temple for defense but Smith/Hield could be similar to a Portland backcourt. This team is being designed to push pace and score. I'd take the dynamically offensive PG in Smith. Go for the home run and trust Joerger and his staff can correct the perceived lack of effort or whatever his faults may be.

Ask WCS if Joerger gives out free burn.

 

[Kingsfan23]

Succeed with Monk at PG and Buddy at SG? I think the odds of that are about 1%. We would be playing 1 on 1 most the time while taking contested shots left and right. Both guys need a legitimate PG next to them to help create easier shots.

I'm not sure his collegiate environment was conducive to showing his playmaking. He played some at youth level, and is still very young. Buddy has some Harden lite in him as well and I expect the rock in his hands a lot more heading forward. Monk is a wild card for me. If he can handle and we don't expect to run an exorbitant amount of offense up top I'd be on board, but if he's just another undersized defensively challenged SG I wouldn't look at him at 10 in this draft

 

[ESP47]

I'm not sure his collegiate environment was conducive to showing his playmaking. He played some at youth level, and is still very young. Buddy has some Harden lite in him as well and I expect the rock in his hands a lot more heading forward. Monk is a wild card for me. If he can handle and we don't expect to run an exorbitant amount of offense up top I'd be on board, but if he's just another undersized defensively challenged SG I wouldn't look at him at 10 in this draft

I think you're being highly optimistic. I'd be ecstatic if Monk turned out to be a playmaker and Buddy turned into Harden lite but I just don't see it at all. I think we are so used to seeing the handling abilities of BMac that a SG who can dribble for 3 seconds without it getting stolen or going off his knee ends up looking like they have Steph Curry handles. I remember being wowed by Stauskas' handles in summer league because I was so used to the train wreck that was McLemore dribbling the ball.

You're right that Monk wasn't in an environment conductive to showcasing his playmaking but you should be able to see spurts of it on a consistent basis if it was there and I never really saw that. Buddy is 23 and normally guys don't improve their handles all that much at that point. It's usually something you either have or you don't. I can see him tightening his handles up so he's not getting the ball stripped when he drives half the time but I don't see him as a guy who can take guys 1 on 1 and get to where he wants to go on a consistent basis. I hope I'm wrong on all accounts but I'm trying to be realistic about it.

 

[Kingster]

Wishing somebody into a point guard rarely works out. It's better to look for somebody that actually does have instincts for the game and a creative streak at his position of point guard. To me, that's the starting point of the analysis, and then you go from there. If the guy doesn't show something of those abilities in college, it's unlikely he's going to grow that part of his brain enough in the NBA to ever be more than mediocre at the position.

 

[Joshoua]

Best case scenario for Sac is to pick Smith at 8....it's assuming the top 3 stay that way and Fox is gone shortly thereafter. A Smith/Hield backcourt would have to work hard on defense but we can mix and match with a Temple for defense but Smith/Hield could be similar to a Portland backcourt. This team is being designed to push pace and score. I'd take the dynamically offensive PG in Smith. Go for the home run and trust Joerger and his staff can correct the perceived lack of effort or whatever his faults may be.

I say best case is Frank and Issac so much length and potential with that group.

 

[bajaden]

Yep, my new ideal pairing is Fox and Collins. I think they give us the franchise building blocks we're looking for and compliment our current talent so freaking well. It'd also give us so much roster flexibility moving forward:

The spacing+Get-out and run team+highest upside team: Fox-Buddy-Bogdan-Skal-Collins

The defense team: Fox-Buddy-Temple-Collins-WCS

The Slow and plodding team: Fox-Temple-Bogdan-Collins-Papa

Let me ask you and I might be off my rocker here, but I was thinking about Pau Gasol without the playmaking ability as a possible comp for Collins. He has the true positional flexibility to play the 4 and the 5; he's an excellent rim protector who can challenge shots; he's an excellent rebounder; he has phenominal footwork for a young big man; and he can hit the outside jumper. Collins is probably a little more athletic than young Pau too.

Well you stuck it in at the end. I was going to say that Collins is more athletic than Gasol. He has some work to do to reach Gasol's skill level, but he's young and has time. I just love his toughness, even if it gets him in foul trouble at times.

 

[Jimbob]

Best case scenario for Sac is to pick Smith at 8....it's assuming the top 3 stay that way and Fox is gone shortly thereafter. A Smith/Hield backcourt would have to work hard on defense but we can mix and match with a Temple for defense but Smith/Hield could be similar to a Portland backcourt. This team is being designed to push pace and score. I'd take the dynamically offensive PG in Smith. Go for the home run and trust Joerger and his staff can correct the perceived lack of effort or whatever his faults may be.

Iv'e been watching more clips of Smith as well and like Monk an amazing athlete, would be fun to watch. No question about his position and I'm clueless about his attitude/effort concerns but that injury still makes me a bit nervous.
I have been resistant to both players, but reality is they might be our options especially if we get pushed back a spot or two.
Smith and Buddy would be a score first backcourt and that seems to be the trend.

 

[bajaden]

Wishing somebody into a point guard rarely works out. It's better to look for somebody that actually does have instincts for the game and a creative streak at his position of point guard. To me, that's the starting point of the analysis, and then you go from there. If the guy doesn't show something of those abilities in college, it's unlikely he's going to grow that part of his brain enough in the NBA to ever be more than mediocre at the position.

Well, if you had read some of my reports during the college season, more than once after a Kentucky game, I stated that I thought Monk had a little PG in him. Why? Well because he made some nice drives and dished the ball. He also made some nice passes in traffic. None of that makes him a PG, but he does appear to have decent instincts for the position. Personally, I'd rather draft Fox, Smith, or Ntilikina for the PG position, but at the same time, if they're gone, and Monk is the best player available, than lets see what he can do.

 

[Mike]

Currently I'd mock these two players to us:

#1 Fultz, #2 Jackson, #3 Ball, #4 Fox or Tatum, #5 Tatum or Fox, #6 Isaac, #7 Ntilikina, #8 Smith, #9 Markkanen, #10 Monk

This scenario works on the basis that the T-Wolves will value Isaac's defensive ability and length to fit into their PF spot between Wiggins and KAT. The Knicks select the better fit at PG for their triangle, leaving us to select Smith. The Mavs then select Dirk's successor, a young Pf to slot between Barnes and Noel. That leaves us with Monk. Granted I'd be tempted to look elsewhere at this point, but I suppose Monk's ability and upside could be hard to turn down (perhaps we get a trade?).

Alternatively the Mavericks select Monk either to be their PG or SG prospect, which leaves us Markkanen and he could be an interesting second selection for us. Obviously we have Skal at PF, but Markkanen gives us something different skill and style wise, but also in line up possibilities.

Or alternatively I'd mock these two players to us:

#1 Fultz, #2 Jackson, #3 Ball, #4 Fox or Tatum, #5 Tatum or Fox, #6 Monk, #7 Ntilikina, #8 Isaac, #9 Markkanen, #10 Smith

This scenario sees the T-Wolves add Monk as insurance for Lavine but also some scoring power off their bench. Again the Knicks take their PG leaving us with a tough choice. Do we get our PG or draft a potential SF? I'd say grab Isaac and bet on Smith being available, if he's not draft Markkanen, and bring back Collison and/or Lawson or look elsewhere in free agency to fill that PG spot.

Alternatively we grab Smith first and bet on Isaac being there at ten. Problem is I suspect the Mavericks would take Isaac over Markkanen because he's got the size and skill set to slot in at PF between Barnes and Noel. But I suppose best case gets us Smith and Isaac which is my preferred duo at this point.

 

[Jimbob]

Well, if you had read some of my reports during the college season, more than once after a Kentucky game, I stated that I thought Monk had a little PG in him. Why? Well because he made some nice drives and dished the ball. He also made some nice passes in traffic. None of that makes him a PG, but he does appear to have decent instincts for the position. Personally, I'd rather draft Fox, Smith, or Ntilikina for the PG position, but at the same time, if they're gone, and Monk is the best player available, than lets see what he can do.

We are in a potentially awkward position picking eighth or possibly higher. All the top thought of PG's could be gone which means we can maybe grab a good SF with that pick or consider Monk.
Its going to be interesting and perhaps a bit frustrating as we watch top considered players go just before we pick. Kind of like last year.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Its going to be interesting and perhaps a bit frustrating as we watch top considered players go just before we pick. Kind of like last year.

Last year? Every year!

 

[Mike]

We are in a potentially awkward position picking eighth or possibly higher. All the top thought of PG's could be gone which means we can maybe grab a good SF with that pick or consider Monk.
Its going to be interesting and perhaps a bit frustrating as we watch top considered players go just before we pick. Kind of like last year.

It's pretty likey that Fultz and Ball go first and third overall to the Celtics and Lakers. After that is it possible the rest fall?

Maybe...

76ers might prefer to draft a SG like Monk since they plan to use Simmons as their primary ball handler, or even consider Tatum or Isaac to slot in next to Simmons.

Orlando might pass on a PG if they believe Payton is their guy going forwards. It's also likely they could consider Tatum an ideal SF for them, or even consider Isaac or Monk to fit in at SF or SG.

T-Wolves have Rubio and Kris Dunn, so PG is likely last thing on their mind.

So at this point let's say Monk, Isaac and Tatum have gone fourth to sixth in whatever order. That leaves three PGs on the board: Fox, Ntilikina and Smith.

Knicks need someone and arguably the best fit is Ntilikina, though Fox could/should be their selection. Alternatively they could fall in love with Markkanen, someone to slot in next to Porzingis. It's unlikely they'd pass on a PG, but it's the Knicks we are talking about and they could be trading Melo to another team, maybe they get a point guard in return or they bring back Rose...

With that said, it is possible that Fox, Smith and Ntilikina could all be available at eight if the teams above us go after non-PG prospects. Id say that's unlikely and it's more likely we'd be choosing between two of them since the Knicks should draft a PG before us, but it is possible we could have a choice of PGs to us at eight if things fall our way and other teams go in different directions.

 

[Jimbob]

Mike, odds are your right. There should be at least one highly thought of PG available when we pick.
I found your 1st mock scenario interesting as that's how Jonathan Wasserman has it in his latest Bleacher Report mock.
I do not put that much stock into mocks, but his scenario for the Kings picking Smith 8 and Monk 10 got me looking extensively at video on both last night as they have been two players I have not wanted.
After the videos I warmed a bit to both and actually saw some nice passing ability from Monk, granted its highlights but still. bajaden appears an avid college game fan and sounds like hes seen it in non highlights. So I recon workouts should be very telling. At 6'3" I would think teams would want to see those passing and handling skills capabilities.

 

[bajaden]

Iv'e been watching more clips of Smith as well and like Monk an amazing athlete, would be fun to watch. No question about his position and I'm clueless about his attitude/effort concerns but that injury still makes me a bit nervous.
I have been resistant to both players, but reality is they might be our options especially if we get pushed back a spot or two.
Smith and Buddy would be a score first backcourt and that seems to be the trend.

At this point in time, I have less concerns about his injury than I do his desire. I watched him play all year, and unless someone told you he had recovered from an injury, you wouldn't have known it. I saw no evidence of it at all. That doesn't mean it won't happen again, but I figure the odds are about the same as they would be for anyone else. Could have been a freak accident.

 

[Kingster]

Well, if you had read some of my reports during the college season, more than once after a Kentucky game, I stated that I thought Monk had a little PG in him. Why? Well because he made some nice drives and dished the ball. He also made some nice passes in traffic. None of that makes him a PG, but he does appear to have decent instincts for the position. Personally, I'd rather draft Fox, Smith, or Ntilikina for the PG position, but at the same time, if they're gone, and Monk is the best player available, than lets see what he can do.

When someone shows a little PG in college, it dissuades me from choosing him as a PG in the NBA. He's got to show more than a little because the demands of the NBA game are so much greater than that of college. The guy that comes to mind who actually showed a little PG in him college is LaVine. I did see him thread a few nice passes on the move in college, which was enticing. But those kind of plays tell you that the guy has a good chance at making some plays like that occasionally as a shooting guard in the NBA, not to bank on him as a PG. I think Tyreke is one of those guys that in retrospect showed some of the PG attributes in college, but I can't say that he ever demonstrated BBIQ in college or PG instincts in college - his primary asset was as guy who had the physical ability to be unstoppable going to the basket. Leaving aside his current physical handicaps, I still see Tyreke as a guy for whom the PG position doesn't come naturally, and that's after many years of "training" for the position. A guy that I did see with PG instincts in college is D'Angelo Russell. I haven't really paid a lot of attention to him other than when the Kings play, but from what I can see he's had his bumps and bruises as a PG so far. We'll see how that goes in a couple of years so I can know whether I was wrong or right on that one.

It may be that Divac may be less concerned with a prototypical PG who can make others better on the floor with his play-making than with a guy who can get the ball up the floor and get it into the hands of other guys who can make the plays, whether it's at center or a wing. I would think though that if Divac were going to go after a player like that the player would have demonstrated fairly conclusively that he can or will shortly be able to hit a 3 point shot on a consistent basis. I don't see how you can have a so-so play-maker combined with a non-3 point shooter that is a guard on the floor, as his other positive attributes won't be to outweigh the negative. That's a heavy lift for the player and for the team.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, but I'm much more interested in Divac's thoughts on the matter, and in the back of my mind I still wonder about his "two year" time frame for turning this thing around. If he is at all serious about that statement, then I find it very difficult to believe that he would choose either a Fox or a Ntilikina, who are both projects, unless he plan is to have one of those guys be an off-the-bench player for the next three years and have a vet be the primary PG (like the Teague/Schroder situation in Atlanta). But that scenario requires you to have someone like a Teague, which the Kings currently are not close to having. All of which leads to more questions about the direction of the team and the philosophy behind Divac's choice for PG on this team.

 

[ockingsfan]

Well, if you had read some of my reports during the college season, more than once after a Kentucky game, I stated that I thought Monk had a little PG in him. Why? Well because he made some nice drives and dished the ball. He also made some nice passes in traffic. None of that makes him a PG, but he does appear to have decent instincts for the position. Personally, I'd rather draft Fox, Smith, or Ntilikina for the PG position, but at the same time, if they're gone, and Monk is the best player available, than lets see what he can do.

If Monk could play PG, than he would be amazing with Hield in the same backcourt.

There was the same question marks about Russell Westbrook coming out of UCLA. Could he play point guard? Westbrook played behind our very own Darren Collison at PG, so the question marks were always there.

If Monk could play PG, the Kings would be set with a dynamic backcourt of Hield and Monk for the next 8-10 years!

 

[Joshoua]

Im going to change my mind on Dennis Smith Jr I'd take him at 8 over Frank and other guys not named Faults,Jackson, or Fox. I think with the right coaching and development he will be a 20ppg-7apg 1st or 2nd option guy. He gets to the rim at will with speed and strength and he gets to the line a lot both traits of elite scores. He will get more explosive in the league as this season he was only 1 year removed from an acl tear. Also he has NBA game as he exceeds in ISO and pick and roll game. He is very lazy on defense but has the athleticism to be good when focused. I'd trust him here because of Joerger and solid vets Temple and Tolliver we saw how Richardson, Hield, Papa, and Skal developed. Also I believe we resign Collison so he won't be rushed into the league and will earn a starter spot by playing defense first. Also he's not a prolific shooter but I see him developing into an above average shooter which is huge for a guy with his athleticism.

He has superstar potential and can easily be a top 3 player from the draft.

 

[funkykingston]

I've been pretty lukewarm on Smith. His lack of length is going to hurt his chances of even being a decent defender (he's got Kyrie length and Irving is one of the worst defensive PGs in the NBA - in large part because of that) and I REALLY struggle with guys that only play hard some of the time or look like they give up on their teams at times.

BUT, the Kings needs a focal point on offense. They need a go to scorer. And in this draft there's Fultz, there's Tatum (if he can still be an efficient ISO scorer against NBA level athletes) and then there's Smith Jr. Fox could also be in that group but he'll need a much more consistent jumper for that to happen. Monk would be too, but the Kings absolutely don't need another SG, especially an undersized one.

I love Isaac but I don't see him as a go-to scorer either. Rather, I think he'll be a VERY high level complimentary player. Great length and defensive versatility, improving outside shot and the ability to develop into something more offensively. But Smith could be the guy to make the Kings offense go.

Smith Jr and Isaac together could be fantastic for the Kings. But I'm pretty sure at least one will be gone at 8 if not both and I definitely think they are both off the board by #10.

I think I'm trying to see the upside in all the top prospects because the reality is that unless they trade up, the Kings aren't really going to have their pick of guys. There will be one or possibly two top prospects there at 8.

 

[206Fan]

Im going to change my mind on Dennis Smith Jr I'd take him at 8 over Frank and other guys not named Faults,Jackson, or Fox. I think with the right coaching and development he will be a 20ppg-7apg 1st or 2nd option guy. He gets to the rim at will with speed and strength and he gets to the line a lot both traits of elite scores. He will get more explosive in the league as this season he was only 1 year removed from an acl tear. Also he has NBA game as he exceeds in ISO and pick and roll game. He is very lazy on defense but has the athleticism to be good when focused. I'd trust him here because of Joerger and solid vets Temple and Tolliver we saw how Richardson, Hield, Papa, and Skal developed. Also I believe we resign Collison so he won't be rushed into the league and will earn a starter spot by playing defense first. Also he's not a prolific shooter but I see him developing into an above average shooter which is huge for a guy with his athleticism.

He has superstar potential and can easily be a top 3 player from the draft.

I continue to be extremely high on DSJ. I just can't justify picking a player like Ntilikina over him. I just went ahead and started a new thread about DSJ. I think he's criminally underrated. Joeger is a good coach, and I could see him being able to make DSJ at least an average defender.

. A guy that I did see with PG instincts in college is D'Angelo Russell. I haven't really paid a lot of attention to him other than when the Kings play, but from what I can see he's had his bumps and bruises as a PG so far. We'll see how that goes in a couple of years so I can know whether I was wrong or right on that one.

I agree with a lot of your post. In regards to Russell, the main reason why he's struggled in the NBA is due to his lack of a 1st step and quickness. He can't break down defenses, nor can he get to his spots on the floor. He's forced to settle for jumpers. Watching him can be pitiful. I thought he would be a sure-fire star coming out of OSU, but he's proved me wrong. Only way he can make up for his lack of quickness, is by improving his handles.

Same challenge might occur for Ntilikina. I think Frank is bigger and more athletic overall, so it could help him a lot more.

 

[bajaden]

When someone shows a little PG in college, it dissuades me from choosing him as a PG in the NBA. He's got to show more than a little because the demands of the NBA game are so much greater than that of college. The guy that comes to mind who actually showed a little PG in him college is LaVine. I did see him thread a few nice passes on the move in college, which was enticing. But those kind of plays tell you that the guy has a good chance at making some plays like that occasionally as a shooting guard in the NBA, not to bank on him as a PG. I think Tyreke is one of those guys that in retrospect showed some of the PG attributes in college, but I can't say that he ever demonstrated BBIQ in college or PG instincts in college - his primary asset was as guy who had the physical ability to be unstoppable going to the basket. Leaving aside his current physical handicaps, I still see Tyreke as a guy for whom the PG position doesn't come naturally, and that's after many years of "training" for the position. A guy that I did see with PG instincts in college is D'Angelo Russell. I haven't really paid a lot of attention to him other than when the Kings play, but from what I can see he's had his bumps and bruises as a PG so far. We'll see how that goes in a couple of years so I can know whether I was wrong or right on that one.

It may be that Divac may be less concerned with a prototypical PG who can make others better on the floor with his play-making than with a guy who can get the ball up the floor and get it into the hands of other guys who can make the plays, whether it's at center or a wing. I would think though that if Divac were going to go after a player like that the player would have demonstrated fairly conclusively that he can or will shortly be able to hit a 3 point shot on a consistent basis. I don't see how you can have a so-so play-maker combined with a non-3 point shooter that is a guard on the floor, as his other positive attributes won't be to outweigh the negative. That's a heavy lift for the player and for the team.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, but I'm much more interested in Divac's thoughts on the matter, and in the back of my mind I still wonder about his "two year" time frame for turning this thing around. If he is at all serious about that statement, then I find it very difficult to believe that he would choose either a Fox or a Ntilikina, who are both projects, unless he plan is to have one of those guys be an off-the-bench player for the next three years and have a vet be the primary PG (like the Teague/Schroder situation in Atlanta). But that scenario requires you to have someone like a Teague, which the Kings currently are not close to having. All of which leads to more questions about the direction of the team and the philosophy behind Divac's choice for PG on this team.

Look, I'm not suggesting that Monk can or can't play PG. I have no idea. The question seemed to be, has he shown any PG skills? That's all I was responding to. I'll leave it up to Vlade and company to make that decision. Personally, I alwayys prefer to draft someone that's played the PG position since he popped out of the womb. That said, PG's come in all shapes and sizes, and the trick is to find the one that best fits your team. As much as I like Ball, he needs the ball in his hands most of the time to be 100% effective. If that doesn't fit the style you want to play, then maybe you pass on him and go after Fox, or Smith. And or, perhaps Ntilikina.

As you said, maybe Vlade isn't looking for the prototypical PG. Although, with a very young team, maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea. As I've pointed out many times, Bibby wasn't that so called prototypical PG, but he fit perfectly what the Kings were trying to do at the time. Talent, and fit, are both important. There are two PG's in this draft that I would trade up to grab. Fultz, and Fox. Contrary to what you said, Fox is far from a project, and I'm not sure why you would think that he is. He has blazing speed, but is almost always under control despite that speed. His handles are excellent, and he can get anywhere he wants on the floor. Despite being a little on the thin side, he's a good finisher at the basket, but obviously, added strength will help. Defensively, he's already a good defender. Ask Ball! His biggest flaw is his three point shot, which improved in his last 15 games after he came back from an injury.

If I had to go out on a limb and predict who would be a star or a superstar in this draft, Fultz would be my first choice, and Fox would be my second choice. Both those guys have that "It" factor. You watch them play, and something tells you that their going to be special. To be honest, I felt that way about Smith for the first third of the season. Smith doesn't have the height of length of either Fultz or Fox, but he's just as skilled and just as athletic. If he shows up with the desire and focus necessary, then he can be a star as well.

I know some will think I'm nuts for not including Ball in that group, but I have a few small reservations about Ball. And they may not matter. But his jumpshot needs some work, and I'm not sure how good a defender he can be. He couldn't keep Fox in front of him. Those things may not matter and he may be the best player in the draft, but I doubt it. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to draft him if he were to fall. Not my first choice though. I love Fox, and I'll admit that I'm somewhat biased. I saw every game Kentucky played this season, and after you got past Fox and Monk, the drop off was dramatic. Those two guys carried the team all year. Fox is capable of playing on or off the ball. He's capable of guarding both the PG and SG position. The only player I'd take above him is Fultz.

 

[bajaden]

I continue to be extremely high on DSJ. I just can't justify picking a player like Ntilikina over him. I just went ahead and started a new thread about DSJ. I think he's criminally underrated. Joeger is a good coach, and I could see him being able to make DSJ at least an average defender.


I agree with a lot of your post. In regards to Russell, the main reason why he's struggled in the NBA is due to his lack of a 1st step and quickness. He can't break down defenses, nor can he get to his spots on the floor. He's forced to settle for jumpers. Watching him can be pitiful. I thought he would be a sure-fire star coming out of OSU, but he's proved me wrong. Only way he can make up for his lack of quickness, is by improving his handles.

Same challenge might occur for Ntilikina. I think Frank is bigger and more athletic overall, so it could help him a lot more.

I might add in regards to Russell, he's been totally mismanaged up to now, and he hasn't handled it well either. They've bounced him back and forth between PG and SG. They went out and got a center that plods up and down the floor, although I like the new kid Zubac. In short, the Lakers are a mess, and everyone expected Russell to come in and be Kobe Bryant. And, unfortunately, he tried.