Who do we draft?

[hrdboild]

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.

Wow! Given our discussions earlier in the year I didn't expect you to join me in the Fox over Ball camp Baja, but I like it! He's got a tenacity on defense and an explosiveness with the ball on offense that you just can't teach. 2nd overall over Josh Jackson? That's a tougher sell for me because I really like Jackson but our need at PG is dire and Fox definitely has everything I'm looking for from an intangibles point of view in addition to his skills on the court so I could be sold on that. I tend to cultivate two different lists when I evaluate the draft -- the list of guys ranked in order of how likely they are to become stars in my estimation and the list of guys ranked based on how much I like them as players and what I can tell of their personalities (based on their interaction with teammates and interviews and such). Fultz is a clear #1 for me on the overall potential list and I've got Josh Jackson #2 and DeAaron Fox #3. But on my second list, there's nobody I like more than Fox in this draft. Fultz and Jackson are two-way players with some fantastic skills but everything I've seen from Fox says 'born leader' and those are the types of guys we need to be bringing to this team more than anything else.

 

[Jimbob]

I'm also trying to be as open as possible to all the lottery projected players as 8 and 10 could easily be 9 and 11 or worse.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.
I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.

 

[Telemachus]

I'm also trying to be as open as possible to all the lottery projected players as 8 and 10 could easily be 9 and 11 or worse.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.
I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.

I tried listening to Cowbell Kingdom's podcast earlier this season, but their total lack of basketball knowledge made me stop. I just found myself saying too many times, They can't honestly believe that?

 

[upinsmoke]

I tried listening to Cowbell Kingdom's podcast earlier this season, but their total lack of basketball knowledge made me stop. I just found myself saying too many times, They can't honestly believe that?

They're freaking horrible. I used to love cowbell kingdom now I don't even waste my time with it.

 

[Jimbob]

I tried listening to Cowbell Kingdom's podcast earlier this season, but their total lack of basketball knowledge made me stop. I just found myself saying too many times, They can't honestly believe that?

Interesting. They seem like OK guys but I now remember listening to them once before and thought wow that could have been summed up in a third the time.
When I left the states I no longer had my basketball group of friends to have meaningful conversations about the game. We all had different favorite teams but still, it kept me from listening to podcast...

 

[206Fan]

uhm wtf? the Dennis Smith JR thread was deleted... so I'll just post this here.
https://twitter.com/t1m_nba made an amazing system where he compared offensive possessions of prospects to NBA players(15 matches).
Here's Dennis Smith Jr top 5 matches. It's extremely impressive:

Those comparisons continue to make me think that he can have a very high impact in the league. His game is modeled to fit today's NBA.

 

[206Fan]

I'm also trying to be as open as possible to all the lottery projected players as 8 and 10 could easily be 9 and 11 or worse.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.
I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.

I tried skimming through their podcast to find their take on Markkanen, but wasn't able to find it. What did they say?
I watched their video breakdown on Markkanen, and he admits at the beginning that he's been watching and reading up about Markkanen for the past 2 days before the video. Nothing wrong with this, but something "new comers" tend to do is just watch highlight videos and fall in love with a prospect. I don't know if CBK did that in this case, but with the way he talks about Markkanen, it makes me assume that a bit. One thing he did quite a bit was hit on his weaknesses, but then gently brush them away.
I don't have anything against them or their video, but it was less of a breakdown, and more of a "Why the Kings need to draft Markkanen". Even with that, they should've dug deeper into their strengths because their arguments weren't compelling at all.

I did lol a little bit at the end where he said "At worst, Markkanen will be Ryan Anderson barring injuries". That's certainly a high praise.

 

[Joshoua]

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.

Chris a Paul has a small wingspan and standing reach also but has the quickness and strength that Smith possess. So I don't expect Smith to be bad with a coach like Joerger.

Wow! Given our discussions earlier in the year I didn't expect you to join me in the Fox over Ball camp Baja, but I like it! He's got a tenacity on defense and an explosiveness with the ball on offense that you just can't teach. 2nd overall over Josh Jackson? That's a tougher sell for me because I really like Jackson but our need at PG is dire and Fox definitely has everything I'm looking for from an intangibles point of view in addition to his skills on the court so I could be sold on that. I tend to cultivate two different lists when I evaluate the draft -- the list of guys ranked in order of how likely they are to become stars in my estimation and the list of guys ranked based on how much I like them as players and what I can tell of their personalities (based on their interaction with teammates and interviews and such). Fultz is a clear #1 for me on the overall potential list and I've got Josh Jackson #2 and DeAaron Fox #3. But on my second list, there's nobody I like more than Fox in this draft. Fultz and Jackson are two-way players with some fantastic skills but everything I've seen from Fox says 'born leader' and those are the types of guys we need to be bringing to this team more than anything else.

Ya I'm a believer Ball won't be a top 5 player from the draft

 

[ESP47]

Chris a Paul has a small wingspan and standing reach also but has the quickness and strength that Smith possess. So I don't expect Smith to be bad with a coach like Joerger.




Ya I'm a believer Ball won't be a top 5 player from the draft

Chris Paul is an anomaly. The overwhelmingly majority of point guards with small wingspans and reach are not good defenders. It's kind of like saying we shouldn't pass on a 5'9" guy because IT is good.

I would take Smith over Nitiklinkinkina even if he winds up with Kyrie Irving defense because we need that go to guy. It's easier to hide them with 3&D guys than it is to win without a go to scorer on the wing.

 

[The_Jamal]

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.

It's an interesting idea, especially when you throw Bogdan into the mix. Basically operating without a traditonal PG and letting 3 combo wings run the show. And the offensive potential of a Monk-Buddy back-court is pretty tantilizing and has a proven track-record (GSW/Portland/Washington/Toronto) of doing well in today's NBA.

 

[biltalent]

It's an interesting idea, especially when you throw Bogdan into the mix. Basically operating without a traditonal PG and letting 3 combo wings run the show. And the offensive potential of a Monk-Buddy back-court is pretty tantilizing and has a proven track-record (GSW/Portland/Washington/Toronto) of doing well in today's NBA.

It can certainly work if the backcourt is good enough. What all those teams have in common as well is that they have 6'8 wing defenders at the 3 and 4 to hide their backcourt. GSW has Iggy/Draymond, Portland has Harkless/Aminu, Washington has Oubre/Porter and Toronto has Carroll/Tucker. So if we'd be going that way we could go with Anunoby #10 and a guy like Iwundu/Robinson at #34.

Another guy to look at, if we want to go the combo guard route, is Donovan Mitchell. I think he is about the same height as Monk, but longer, stronger, a better defender and a better playmaker than Monk. He didn't show it a lot at Louisville, but he really has a nice handle, solid vision, and is a very good passer on the move.
As he is playing more the 2 than the 1 you can't see it often, but in the game against Boston College it was on full display:

0:44 throws a nice alley-op in transitions
0:50 crossover to reject the ball screen, gets in the lane, kicks out
0:57 nice in-and-out dribble with his right, draws the help, kicks out again
1:15 change of directions through the legs
1:35 Now it gets interesting: He brings the ball up, gives it to the high post, spaces out, gets the ball back, gets screen to his left, in an-out-dribble with his left, gets to the rim and finishes with the right. I could see him running that on the Kings in Joerger's offense all day.
2:03: end of shot click pull up 3.
2:10 through the legs into crossover + drives and draws a foul
2:28 amazing instincts: gets the steal after turning his back and denying his man, immediate in-and-out + layup and-one
3:01 step-back 3

Here's another video pre college focusing more on this elite athleticism.

With that said, he is not the volume scorer or shooter that Monk is. He worked really hard on shooting this summer and now is at least capable, however he needs to get way more consistent. He shot ~30% the first half of the season and ~40%+ in the second half. His decision-making also needs work, especially if you want him to be a primary decison maker.

Currently I have him at #14 on my overall big board. I really like him for the Kings as a fall back option. If you look at the first video, it seems like he could really develop into a high post/triangle point guard. Especially the possesion from 1:35-1:50 in the first video looks like its taken straight from Joergers playbook. Bring the ball up. Give it to your wings or bigs. Wait for a kick out or get it back and run a well spaced pick and roll after motion.

 

[kingsfan1984]

I havent seen much of Mitchel, but i agree he looks like a solid NBA big combo guard. Watcbing the 3 players of jimmer BMac has made me appreciate the value of ball handling to success. This kid has solid ha dles and a nice 3pt shot. With just tbat he will have a career. When you add in his court vision and ability to score at the hoop he could be special.

 

[Kingster]

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.

Ball is a paradox: he's a low usage playmaking point guard. He actually does not need the ball in his hands a lot because he makes very quick decisions with the ball; he's the opposite of "dribble, dribble, dribble" that we've come to know and love over the last decade. I really don't have much against Fox other than his shot and his so-so playmaking skills. If you don't have a consistent outside shot in the NBA you're the definition of a PG project in my book. His basketball IQ is middling, so he's going to take longer, just from that aspect. I think that for a good long time teams are go under all of the screens set for him, which is going to inhibit his effectiveness on the floor. He might become very good over time because of his quickness and speed. But my inclination is to go with the extremely high BBIQ guy like Ball because a guy like that figures it out, usually fairly quickly, and the high BBIQ PG is a force multiplier on the floor, which I don't see in Fox's future for a good while.

Regarding Monk, I see as a smallish SG, which could work because of his athletic ability, defensive potential, and certainly his shooting ability. The best comps I can come up with for him is Ben Gordon or Eric Gordon. If the Kings pick him I'll be surprised if a trade isn't in the works.

 

[funkykingston]

Monk averaged 2.3 apg while primarily playing off the ball at Kentucky. And Calipari has a well deserved reputation for putting his players in boxes which limits their ability to show off their all-around skills.

Can Monk play PG full time? I don't know.

But it's certainly in his best interest to show teams he's closer to Damian Lillard than Lou Williams.

To me Monk still just makes so much sense in Philadelphia.

Ideally Monk goes to the Sixers, Thibs nabs Markkanen to space the floor for Wiggins and Towns (and Rubio and Dunn and Mohammed and - can anybody shoot in Minnesota?) and Phil falls in love with Ntilikina. If Fultz, Tatum, Jackson & Ball are off the board it would leave Isaac, Fox and Smith at 8 and another of those three at 10.

Fox & Isaac or Smith & Isaac would be a fantastic draft for the Kings.

 

[upinsmoke]

Monk averaged 2.3 apg while primarily playing off the ball at Kentucky. And Calipari has a well deserved reputation for putting his players in boxes which limits their ability to show off their all-around skills.

Can Monk play PG full time? I don't know.

But it's certainly in his best interest to show teams he's closer to Damian Lillard than Lou Williams.

To me Monk still just makes so much sense in Philadelphia.

Ideally Monk goes to the Sixers, Thibs nabs Markkanen to space the floor for Wiggins and Towns (and Rubio and Dunn and Mohammed and - can anybody shoot in Minnesota?) and Phil falls in love with Ntilikina. If Fultz, Tatum, Jackson & Ball are off the board it would leave Isaac, Fox and Smith at 8 and another of those three at 10.

Fox & Issac or Smith & Isaac would be a fantastic draft for the Kings.

Yes that's right, realistically what are the odds of markkanen going top 10? DX has him going #6 to Minnesota and I hope they are right. BPA blah blah blah I know but the fact is we need to leave with a pg and SF draft night.

 

[AaronPDX]

Smith Jr. at 8 and Isaac at 10 are my best case scenario. For some reason, every year the player I want is not who we get, so I just jinxed it, sorry

 

[funkykingston]

Yes that's right, realistically what are the odds of markkanen going top 10? DX has him going #6 to Minnesota and I hope they are right. BPA blah blah blah I know but the fact is we need to leave with a pg and SF draft night.

He's not just a good stretch four - he's the best shooting big I've ever seen on the college level.

For me that's not enough as he's not a great rebounder and poor defensively but in today's NBA he can be a valuable player.

My hope is that Thibs sees him as plug and play vs having to develop another young player.

 

[bajaden]

Wow! Given our discussions earlier in the year I didn't expect you to join me in the Fox over Ball camp Baja, but I like it! He's got a tenacity on defense and an explosiveness with the ball on offense that you just can't teach. 2nd overall over Josh Jackson? That's a tougher sell for me because I really like Jackson but our need at PG is dire and Fox definitely has everything I'm looking for from an intangibles point of view in addition to his skills on the court so I could be sold on that. I tend to cultivate two different lists when I evaluate the draft -- the list of guys ranked in order of how likely they are to become stars in my estimation and the list of guys ranked based on how much I like them as players and what I can tell of their personalities (based on their interaction with teammates and interviews and such). Fultz is a clear #1 for me on the overall potential list and I've got Josh Jackson #2 and DeAaron Fox #3. But on my second list, there's nobody I like more than Fox in this draft. Fultz and Jackson are two-way players with some fantastic skills but everything I've seen from Fox says 'born leader' and those are the types of guys we need to be bringing to this team more than anything else.

Well, I tend to change my opinion as the year goes on. And recently I've been going back and watching game film on Fox, Ball, Jackson, Fultz, and Smith. The reason I like Fox over Jackson, is like you said, he's a PG, and we need a PG. Two, Fox is really good at a couple of things and has athleticism off the charts. Jackson is pretty good at a lot of things, but not really great, skill wise at anything. He's a walking box of potential. If he becomes great at a couple of things, then he becomes a superstar. If not, he's still a very good player, but never reaches that next level. I think Fox is closer to the next level, and he'll have the advantage of having the ball in his hands.

Fultz is in a different category. He has no obvious weakness and is good at just about everything. So I have him ranked ahead of Fox on my personal list. But after going back and watching some early games with Fox, I've come to the conclusion that, as I said, he has that "It" factor. He would give the Kings a dynamic they haven't had in a while. Put him at the point, and you have a team that can run with anyone. And eventually, should be a good defensive team as well. By the way, I wouldn't turn down Jackson. Josh that is...

 

[bajaden]

I'm also trying to be as open as possible to all the lottery projected players as 8 and 10 could easily be 9 and 11 or worse.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.
I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.

Right now, in my opinion, Markkanen is a one trick pony. He can shoot lights out. Now someone tell me what else he can do. He doesn't rebound all that well. He hasn't shown much of a post game. I question is he's ready to guard NBA PF's. He's made a few nice passes, and his handles are probably OK for the PF position, but nothing to write home about. To me, Collins is a better all around player, and a better athlete to boot. Who knows, Markkanen may end up being the next Dirk. But we need him like we need a hole in the head.

 

[Jimbob]

I havent seen much of Mitchel, but i agree he looks like a solid NBA big combo guard. Watcbing the 3 players of jimmer BMac has made me appreciate the value of ball handling to success. This kid has solid ha dles and a nice 3pt shot. With just tbat he will have a career. When you add in his court vision and ability to score at the hoop he could be special.

Mitchell is not tall but hes built solid and does have a nice all around skill set. If we weren't so damn loaded with guards I think he would be a good pickup as a 3rd guard. Workouts will be interesting for him, will he rise into a lottery pick? It would be fun to see him up against Monk and see how they compare all around.
Regarding, 206Fan question about CBK and Markkanen, I think they get into it midway in their podcast just after they lose their guest speaker. I just remember them raving about his shooting and that he should be able to produce right away..

 

[bajaden]

Chris Paul is an anomaly. The overwhelmingly majority of point guards with small wingspans and reach are not good defenders. It's kind of like saying we shouldn't pass on a 5'9" guy because IT is good.

I would take Smith over Nitiklinkinkina even if he winds up with Kyrie Irving defense because we need that go to guy. It's easier to hide them with 3&D guys than it is to win without a go to scorer on the wing.

I have to admit that your spelling of Ntilikina gave me a chuckle....I can't pronounce his name either. So to me, he's Frank. I agree on Paul. What makes Paul great is what's between his ears. And, I might add, that's the area I question with Smith. And he could easily prove me wrong. Actually not prove me wrong, but remove my worries. A long time ago the Kings drafted a player that was supremely talented, named Billy Owens. A player that I was sold on. He had it all. Superstar was written all over him. Much to my chagrin, they immediately traded him to the Warriors for Mitch Richmond.

That ended up being a steal for the Kings. Richmond went on to a couple of all star games, and eventually was traded for Webber, and Owens became a good player, but never the great player everyone thought he would be. Why? Mostly because he didn't have the desire. Lamar Odom is another player, similar to Owens in skill set, that never became as great as everyone thought he would be. So I'm not saying that Smith won't be a good player, but might not ever be as good a player as he's capable of being. On the other hand, he's so talented, he's certainly worth the gamble if no one else is on the board that you have ranked above him.

Let me add one more thing. In fairness to Smith, his coach who recruited him got fired halfway through the season after a couple of blow out losses. One of which was to North Carolina. That one in particular was bad. I think the final score was something like 81 to 42. Don't quote me, or put money on it. But it was a terrible game for NC. St. It was at about that point in the season when Smith's game started to fall off. So maybe to some extent he let all that affect him mentally. After all, he is still a kid, so maybe I'm being a bit harsh on him. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[bajaden]

Ball is a paradox: he's a low usage playmaking point guard. He actually does not need the ball in his hands a lot because he makes very quick decisions with the ball; he's the opposite of "dribble, dribble, dribble" that we've come to know and love over the last decade. I really don't have much against Fox other than his shot and his so-so playmaking skills. If you don't have a consistent outside shot in the NBA you're the definition of a PG project in my book. His basketball IQ is middling, so he's going to take longer, just from that aspect. I think that for a good long time teams are go under all of the screens set for him, which is going to inhibit his effectiveness on the floor. He might become very good over time because of his quickness and speed. But my inclination is to go with the extremely high BBIQ guy like Ball because a guy like that figures it out, usually fairly quickly, and the high BBIQ PG is a force multiplier on the floor, which I don't see in Fox's future for a good while.

Regarding Monk, I see as a smallish SG, which could work because of his athletic ability, defensive potential, and certainly his shooting ability. The best comps I can come up with for him is Ben Gordon or Eric Gordon. If the Kings pick him I'll be surprised if a trade isn't in the works.

You lost me with Fox having a low BBIQ. As for Ball making quick decisions, you right, but the ball was in his hands up to that point. Just so you know, UCLA and Kentucky were at the top of the list in time of possession. Kentucky's time of possession was something like 14 seconds. So Fox makes quick decisions as well. And Fox outplayed Mr. BBIQ in their final match up. Not that it matters that much. I'm pretty tough on players that can't shoot, if I think they'll never be good shooters. One of the things I hammered Marcus Smart over. Not so with Fox. His form is good and he has good rotation on the ball. His problem is that he took a lot of off balance shots, and too may shots while traveling at light speed. Those things are correctable.

Ball's shooting stroke is horrible, but hey, it goes in. So I won't criticize his results. I might add that most of Ball's shots were wide open shots, although some were from a distance I wouldn't recommend. So at this point, I'm not worried about the shooting of either player. Aside from that, their two entirely different PG's. So pick the one that fits your needs the best. One looks like a young Jason Kidd, and the other looks like a young John Wall. My apologies to both those players.

 

[bajaden]

Monk averaged 2.3 apg while primarily playing off the ball at Kentucky. And Calipari has a well deserved reputation for putting his players in boxes which limits their ability to show off their all-around skills.

Can Monk play PG full time? I don't know.

But it's certainly in his best interest to show teams he's closer to Damian Lillard than Lou Williams.

To me Monk still just makes so much sense in Philadelphia.

Ideally Monk goes to the Sixers, Thibs nabs Markkanen to space the floor for Wiggins and Towns (and Rubio and Dunn and Mohammed and - can anybody shoot in Minnesota?) and Phil falls in love with Ntilikina. If Fultz, Tatum, Jackson & Ball are off the board it would leave Isaac, Fox and Smith at 8 and another of those three at 10.

Fox & Issac or Smith & Isaac would be a fantastic draft for the Kings.

I can only pray that your scenario comes true.

 

[Suicide King]

FWIW

Knee-Lee-Key-Nuh

 

[Telemachus]

Ball is a paradox: he's a low usage playmaking point guard. He actually does not need the ball in his hands a lot because he makes very quick decisions with the ball; he's the opposite of "dribble, dribble, dribble" that we've come to know and love over the last decade. I really don't have much against Fox other than his shot and his so-so playmaking skills. If you don't have a consistent outside shot in the NBA you're the definition of a PG project in my book. His basketball IQ is middling, so he's going to take longer, just from that aspect. I think that for a good long time teams are go under all of the screens set for him, which is going to inhibit his effectiveness on the floor. He might become very good over time because of his quickness and speed. But my inclination is to go with the extremely high BBIQ guy like Ball because a guy like that figures it out, usually fairly quickly, and the high BBIQ PG is a force multiplier on the floor, which I don't see in Fox's future for a good while.

Regarding Monk, I see as a smallish SG, which could work because of his athletic ability, defensive potential, and certainly his shooting ability. The best comps I can come up with for him is Ben Gordon or Eric Gordon. If the Kings pick him I'll be surprised if a trade isn't in the works.

I don't get where you are coming from when you say Fox has an Ok/low bbiq. He made quick decisions with the ball while playing at lightning speed and still had a low TO rate. As for players playing off him, they already did that in college (he got to the basket at will anyway). And it is much easier to clog the paint in college than in the NBA. There's a reason players like Westbrook and Wall, who have both struggled with their outside shot over the years, still get into the paint without any problems. Even Rondo doesn't seem to have much trouble getting into the paint, and he can't shoot and is nowhere near as quick or athletic as Fox.

 

[bajaden]

FWIW

Knee-Lee-Key-Nuh

What did you call me? Is that Cherokee?

 

[kingsfan1984]

Issac smith and Frank are the 3 available when kings pick, assume the kings take 1 pg and the Mavs then take Isaac....with the 10th pick do the kings take a 2nd pg in Frank or Smith if that is BPA or pick another position? Assume that no trades are availabe.

 

[kingdivac]

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.

Unfortunately, I think Smith is taken earlier than 8th. I like Smith and Issac which some mock drafts guess.....but usually the Kings greatly surprise me with their draftings like last year.

 

[kingdivac]

I don't get where you are coming from when you say Fox has an Ok/low bbiq. He made quick decisions with the ball while playing at lightning speed and still had a low TO rate. As for players playing off him, they already did that in college (he got to the basket at will anyway). And it is much easier to clog the paint in college than in the NBA. There's a reason players like Westbrook and Wall, who have both struggled with their outside shot over the years, still get into the paint without any problems. Even Rondo doesn't seem to have much trouble getting into the paint, and he can't shoot and is nowhere near as quick or athletic as Fox.

I like Fox, but I doubt he makes it to Wall's level offensively in the league. Rondo nowadays may not be as quick/athletic, but when he was younger, not so....

 

[funkykingston]

Issac smith and Frank are the 3 available when kings pick, assume the kings take 1 pg and the Mavs then take Isaac....with the 10th pick do the kings take a 2nd pg in Frank or Smith if that is BPA or pick another position? Assume that no trades are availabe.

If that's who's on the board I say take Isaac and whichever PG is left at 10.

Obviously the lottery could change things but if the Kings and Knicks stay put I'd definitely see if they'd be open to swapping #7 for #10 and if so, what they'd want to make that move.

Depending on who is left on the board and if Phil Jackson and crew really like Ntilikina (who I think could likely be there at 10) I'd be okay with an aggressive move by Vlade to get his guys.

Trade Richardson? Sure. Hield? Hmm.