Fox and Hield. I'm not totally sold on Skal as a full fledged potential star yet. As his minutes went up his production somewhat flattened out.
Fox and Giles
All Star spots are always hard to come by in the West, particularly the guard positions, but Fox has that kind of potential. He's certainly not hurting for confidence. And Giles of course has a long way to go but it's possible if he stays healthy. Though I see them more as solid starters or near All Stars, I'd give some consideration to Skal and Buddy too. Skal reminds me of LaMarcus Aldridge, a guy who's been to the All Star game 5 times, so if he maxes out his potential he could get there at least once. Buddy would probably get in as the second All Star if the team has enough wins to warrant having two All Stars and Buddy is the leading scorer. A bit of a long-shot but not impossible.
Those are the four guys who are probably going to be starters if we start winning leaving SF as the only real hole in the lineup. If Giles doesn't pan out then obviously we have two holes but we're being optimistic today right?
PS -- We'll see what happens in college next year, but my way too early pick is that getting Miles Bridges to slot in at SF would be AMAZING. From what I saw his Freshman season I'm already sold on him as a superstar in the NBA.
He doesn't have a lot of basketball experience and he already has elite touch with both hands and the footwork for a turn around jumper. 9 foot standing reach and a 40 inch vert. Start believing.
I never didn't believe, but we're talking about All star here. You either need to produce at an almost unrealistic level or be on a top winning team, which might happen in time. Demarcus was a player that didn't play the standard star minutes early on but his productivity per minute was off the charts and as his minutes crept up his numbers followed suit. Some players can put up per 40 stats that are off the charts in 10-15 minutes, but the question is what happens when they tick towards 30 mpg and beyond?
For skal beside strength his transformative skill would be being able to attack off the dribble. If/when he develops the triple threat you have your all star.
He needs to improve his footwork and his handle and his IQ. He already has the turn around foot work down so he's on his way there. He has elite touch at his age i am confident that hand eye coordination will translate to dribbling. The question is the IQ. His skill is higher then his IQ at this point. He lacks experience and he showed some limited glimpse of reading the defense. Time will tell. He passes my eye test.
FWIW, I placed my votes based on who I thought had a chance to actually play in the ASG, not who could be an All NBA level player. I think the latter is more important but the former is the one that gets all the recognition. Yet as we all know too well, in a market like Sacramento, all NBA talent is widely disregarded from any consideration for making the ASG or even appearing in the circus events during All Star Weekend.I guess the question is what does qualify as an all-star? A perennial all-star that makes the all-star team regardless of having a down year or an all-star at say Stojakovic or Hayward level?
Technically speaking, all of those are all-star talents. Hell even Mike Conley, Rudy Gay, Mike Bibby etc were all what you would call All-Star talents but have never officially been an all-star in their entire careers. Still good players who are at an all-star level, its just that there are others a bit better or more popular than then in the same conference.
Not sure I buy the bolded part.FWIW, I placed my votes based on who I thought had a chance to actually play in the ASG, not who could be an All NBA level player. I think the latter is more important but the former is the one that gets all the recognition. Yet as we all know too well, in a market like Sacramento, all NBA talent is widely disregarded from any consideration for making the ASG or even appearing in the circus events during All Star Weekend.
I'd say Fox & Skal with Giles being a sleeper pick potentially
An all-star is an all-star, IMO. Someone who has been "selected" to be on an all-star team. If you're talking about a higher standard, then I think you have to describe or define it. For example, he's a 5-time all-star, or a perennial all-star. Same for those who haven't been an all-star but are recognized as being an "all-star level player." The latter one is subjective, however, so when you suggest someone is at that level, but they have no all-star credentials, expect to be tackled.I guess the question is what does qualify as an all-star? A perennial all-star that makes the all-star team regardless of having a down year or an all-star at say Stojakovic or Hayward level?
Technically speaking, all of those are all-star talents. Hell even Mike Conley, Rudy Gay, Mike Bibby etc were all what you would call All-Star talents but have never officially been an all-star in their entire careers. Still good players who are at an all-star level, its just that there are others a bit better or more popular than then in the same conference.