Who is the best player the Kings have drafted and who was the GM who drafted him?

[Hallama]

My top pick goes to Dejan Bodiroga, whom Petrie selected in the 2nd round. Sure he never played in the NBA, but he still counts, right?

 

[Ryle]

Corliss has a sixth man award AND a ring, even if he didn't get them with the Kings. I'm thinking that qualifies him.

Jason Williams has a ring to but I wouldn't put him in this discussion.....

Corliss was drafted the year after we took Brian Grant and his career with the Kings during his first stint wasn't that impressive. He had back surgery before he even played a game for us and I'm not sure you can really say he was a great pick for the Kings.

Nice pro and had a real nice career but most of it wasn't with the Kings. He was one of the "expendable pieces" but one of those pieces is still with us so not sure how expendable they were....

 

[Telemachus]

My top pick goes to Dejan Bodiroga, whom Petrie selected in the 2nd round. Sure he never played in the NBA, but he still counts, right?

The problem is that we will never know how he would have faired in the NBA, and that will always hurt his value in the eyes of most NBA fans. There have been too many European players that looked great over there and failed miserably in the NBA. I also think the fact that he wanted to stay a big star over in Europe and not risk just being another player in the NBA hurts him as well. At least with me, it makes me question how good HE thinks he would have been in the NBA. He just wasn't willing to take the chance.

 

[hrdboild]

I'd go so far as to say drafting Williams for need was a crucial blow, because if we'd have had Pierce, Peja, and Webber in their primes with Vlade it would have hardly mattered who we got to play PG.

Instead of trading Tariq Abdul Wahad and Corliss off for Nick Anderson and Doug Christie, maybe we focus on a PG.

This is the kind of revisionist history that drives me crazy. Paul Pierce, until recently, made his living as a scorer on a lot of bad teams. Some of them really bad teams. Sure he racked up All-NBA numbers, sure his team made it to the playoffs four years in a row, but those were some of the worst years in the history of the Eastern Conference. Until KG and Ray Allen came to town, Paul Pierce was either going to be traded for peanuts or end his career in Boston as the guy who never got it done. Our very own much-maligned Peja put up similar numbers to Pierce on better teams for years until his back surgery (and has been similarly critisized for failing to lead teams on his own).

I like Paul Pierce, I'm not trying to dump on the guy unnecessarily. But you can't just add his name onto our roster and say we would have been champions. It's unlikely both Peja and Pierce become All-Star players on the same team at the same time. There's only so much playing time, and only one basketball. Part of the reason those teams were so good was chemistry. Having the right PG is an essential part of creating that team chemistry. And you can't seperate the player from the team and say they would put up the same performance wherever they ended up with a different coach and different teammates. That's fantasy basketball, not real basketball.

 

[fnordius]

I like Paul Pierce, I'm not trying to dump on the guy unnecessarily. But you can't just add his name onto our roster and say we would have been champions.

Having Dirk as our third big (meaning we never trade Hedo+Pollard for Brad), could have been interesting. I'm no extremist WRT "draft big, trade little," but it might have worked out well in that case.

 

[Merdiesel]

ask me this question after Reke wins ROTY.

 

[Bricklayer]

This is the kind of revisionist history that drives me crazy. Paul Pierce, until recently, made his living as a scorer on a lot of bad teams. Some of them really bad teams. Sure he racked up All-NBA numbers, sure his team made it to the playoffs four years in a row, but those were some of the worst years in the history of the Eastern Conference. Until KG and Ray Allen came to town, Paul Pierce was either going to be traded for peanuts or end his career in Boston as the guy who never got it done. Our very own much-maligned Peja put up similar numbers to Pierce on better teams for years until his back surgery (and has been similarly critisized for failing to lead teams on his own).

I like Paul Pierce, I'm not trying to dump on the guy unnecessarily. But you can't just add his name onto our roster and say we would have been champions. It's unlikely both Peja and Pierce become All-Star players on the same team at the same time. There's only so much playing time, and only one basketball. Part of the reason those teams were so good was chemistry. Having the right PG is an essential part of creating that team chemistry. And you can't seperate the player from the team and say they would put up the same performance wherever they ended up with a different coach and different teammates. That's fantasy basketball, not real basketball.

I think you rather dramatically underestimate how good Paul Pierce was/is -- he was always a Kobe class player (albeit lower end), always far more than just a scorer, and always out of Peja's league in Peja's best year.

I have defended, to some degree, the JWill pick in the past on the grounds that Jason's style was an important component in creating the fame and personality that lifted the franchise out of the depths. But basketballwise, its a wipeout. A HOFer for a wild kid turned journeyman. Two HOFs actually with Dirk as well as Pierce. That's what we're talking about here -- we passed up two HOF players, something that Webb may not even get, for a wild young PG who barely lasted three years with us.

 

[King Baller]

a wild young PG who barely lasted three years with us.

But is was a fun wild ride for those 3 years!!!

Excerpt from me watching the Kings in those days:

"What is that Kid doing!!! Wow did you see that pass

No No No. don't shoot it!!! Nice shot J Will

Kid drove me nuts.
KB

 

[hammystyle]

This is the kind of revisionist history that drives me crazy. Paul Pierce, until recently, made his living as a scorer on a lot of bad teams. Some of them really bad teams. Sure he racked up All-NBA numbers, sure his team made it to the playoffs four years in a row, but those were some of the worst years in the history of the Eastern Conference. Until KG and Ray Allen came to town, Paul Pierce was either going to be traded for peanuts or end his career in Boston as the guy who never got it done. Our very own much-maligned Peja put up similar numbers to Pierce on better teams for years until his back surgery (and has been similarly critisized for failing to lead teams on his own).

I like Paul Pierce, I'm not trying to dump on the guy unnecessarily. But you can't just add his name onto our roster and say we would have been champions. It's unlikely both Peja and Pierce become All-Star players on the same team at the same time. There's only so much playing time, and only one basketball. Part of the reason those teams were so good was chemistry. Having the right PG is an essential part of creating that team chemistry. And you can't seperate the player from the team and say they would put up the same performance wherever they ended up with a different coach and different teammates. That's fantasy basketball, not real basketball.

It's not revisionist history, its a really interesting and pertinent "What if?"....IMO, its the most interesting and least talked about "What if" in Kings history.

Revisionist history is saying that Paul Pierce was just a scorer on a bad teams. He was a great player who dragged a bad team to the playoffs three times, then won a championship when he finally got help. He's very similar to Mitch Richmond actually, only a little better.

And in terms of how he would have fit...I'm sure it would have worked out fine. On defense Pierce can guard 2's and on offense he's a good shooter who's gets most of his points on post-ups and seal off cuts to the rim. In other words, he would have been perfect with Peja spreading the floor and Vlade and Webber feeding him down low.

 

[Heuge]

This is the kind of revisionist history that drives me crazy. Paul Pierce, until recently, made his living as a scorer on a lot of bad teams. Some of them really bad teams.

6 out of 10 years making the playoffs isn't that bad.

 

[hrdboild]

6 out of 10 years making the playoffs isn't that bad.

Yes but making the playoffs wasn't all that great of an accomplishment in the Eastern conference for most of those years. In 2004 his team was 10 games under .500 and still made the playoffs. That's historically bad. Do you think any team headlined by Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker would have cracked the top 8 in the west? Paul Pierce and Ricky Davis? And Jason Williams made the playoffs 7 out of 10 years in the same span anyway. 6 of those in the western conference.

It's not revisionist history, its a really interesting and pertinent "What if?"....IMO, its the most interesting and least talked about "What if" in Kings history.

Revisionist history is saying that Paul Pierce was just a scorer on a bad teams. He was a great player who dragged a bad team to the playoffs three times, then won a championship when he finally got help. He's very similar to Mitch Richmond actually, only a little better.

And in terms of how he would have fit...I'm sure it would have worked out fine. On defense Pierce can guard 2's and on offense he's a good shooter who's gets most of his points on post-ups and seal off cuts to the rim. In other words, he would have been perfect with Peja spreading the floor and Vlade and Webber feeding him down low.

Revisionist history is saying we passed on two Hall of Famers to pick an oft-injured journeyman PG. Because nobody would have made that comparison 8 years ago or even 5 years ago. That statement can only be made looking backwards at the careers of three different players who played on different teams. Now we can say that Paul Pierce is a hall-of-famer -- but what does that even mean? It means he put up good numbers for a long period of time. Without KG he goes down in history as another pretty good player who never made it to the finals and never won a ring. There's tons of those types of players in the NBA. If Peja stays healthy as long as Pierce did, he's got very similar credentials (excepting the 1 championship) and not that many people aroud here are arguing that Peja is a hall-of-famer. He might not even get his jersey retired. Go back in time to 2002, do you trade Peja for Pierce straight up? It's an obvious answer now, but not as obvious then. Some of you are going to say it was always obvious, but that's revisionist history. Pierce may have had better career numbers at that point, but there's no guarantee he sustains them on a much better team in the western conference. Since we can't go back and change history, there's no way to know.

It is an interesting "what if" to imagine, I'll grant you that, but you act as if you've answered the question merely by asking it. Like "man, if we'd only drafted Dirk or Pierce we would have won a championship by now". Well, while we're at it -- what if Webber doesn't get injured? What if Bobby Hurley wears a seatbelt? What if Bonzi Wells didn't get greedy? What's the point? What if Jason Williams wasn't coached by Sidney Lowe, Hubie Brown and Mike Fratello? What if he wasn't exiled to the least visible place in NBA basketball right about the time his popularity should have been peaking? All sorts of things could have happened. Once you start throwing out hypotheticals you have to admit that you depart from actual reality very quickly and thus can't use any examples from actual history (ie Pierce's stats as a Boston Celtic) to prove your point.

I think you rather dramatically underestimate how good Paul Pierce was/is -- he was always a Kobe class player (albeit lower end), always far more than just a scorer, and always out of Peja's league in Peja's best year.

I don't know that it's quite so obvious. Rebounding rate isn't that far off. Peja's shooting percentages are obviously much better. But Pierce takes more shots and gets more free throw attempts, so that helps to inflate his point totals. Pierce was a pretty good shot blocker in his first few years but that's fallen way off. And the only other distinguishing factor is the assists, which is of negligible importance I think considering that Peja played with some pretty good point guards and two of the best passing big men of all time while Pierce was basically given the ball and asked to create.

We could have a whole debate about which is a more valuable skill -- true shooting percentage or creating shot opportunities off the dribble. In fact, I think that debate is going to be on-going this season and beyond as it pertains to our new Martin/Tyreke backcourt. Without getting too far into it, basically I think that both skills are equally important in a team game, as a potential assist means nothing if the basket isn't made. I would go one step further and say that Peja's shooting touch made him a better fit for the team we had than Pierce would have been. Pierce wouldn't have spread the floor as well, wouldn't have converted open looks as well, and would have taken the ball out of the hands of Webber, Bibby, and Vlade. Or at least that could have happened. Like I said, it's an open question. My point is simply that the answer is not so obvious.

You could also make a point about "clutch" factor perhaps (which is maybe what you meant with the Kobe comparison) but it's been statistically proven again and again that "clutch" shooting is a myth. The percentages even out over the course of the game and that last shot has the same chance of falling in as any other shot. What changes is the impression last-second shots make in our mind. We ascribe those shots more importance as the game is being decided in the fourth quarter and thus the myth of the "clutch" shooter is born. If you go back and look at anyone who you think is a clutch shooter, you'll find that they took more shots than other players, missed more shots than other players, and naturally also made more shots than other players. It's purely volume shooting. The more opportunities you have to make a last-second shot, the more you're going to make.

The numbers say Pierce is the better player, but that just goes back to what I said before. We're talking about real basketball here, not fantasy basketball. And in real basketball terms, Peja was just as good at his peak as Paul Pierce was at his. And Pierce's numbers aren't even that much better than Peja's anyway. He just sustained his peak level a lot longer.

 

[hammystyle]

Yes but making the playoffs wasn't all that great of an accomplishment in the Eastern conference for most of those years. In 2004 his team was 10 games under .500 and still made the playoffs. That's historically bad. Do you think any team headlined by Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker would have cracked the top 8 in the west? Paul Pierce and Ricky Davis? And Jason Williams made the playoffs 7 out of 10 years in the same span anyway. 6 of those in the western conference.



Revisionist history is saying we passed on two Hall of Famers to pick an oft-injured journeyman PG. Because nobody would have made that comparison 8 years ago or even 5 years ago. That statement can only be made looking backwards at the careers of three different players who played on different teams. Now we can say that Paul Pierce is a hall-of-famer -- but what does that even mean? It means he put up good numbers for a long period of time. Without KG he goes down in history as another pretty good player who never made it to the finals and never won a ring. There's tons of those types of players in the NBA. If Peja stays healthy as long as Pierce did, he's got very similar credentials (excepting the 1 championship) and not that many people aroud here are arguing that Peja is a hall-of-famer. He might not even get his jersey retired. Go back in time to 2002, do you trade Peja for Pierce straight up? It's an obvious answer now, but not as obvious then. Some of you are going to say it was always obvious, but that's revisionist history. Pierce may have had better career numbers at that point, but there's no guarantee he sustains them on a much better team in the western conference. Since we can't go back and change history, there's no way to know.

It is an interesting "what if" to imagine, I'll grant you that, but you act as if you've answered the question merely by asking it. Like "man, if we'd only drafted Dirk or Pierce we would have won a championship by now". Well, while we're at it -- what if Webber doesn't get injured? What if Bobby Hurley wears a seatbelt? What if Bonzi Wells didn't get greedy? What's the point? What if Jason Williams wasn't coached by Sidney Lowe, Hubie Brown and Mike Fratello? What if he wasn't exiled to the least visible place in NBA basketball right about the time his popularity should have been peaking? All sorts of things could have happened. Once you start throwing out hypotheticals you have to admit that you depart from actual reality very quickly and thus can't use any examples from actual history (ie Pierce's stats as a Boston Celtic) to prove your point.



I don't know that it's quite so obvious. Rebounding rate isn't that far off. Peja's shooting percentages are obviously much better. But Pierce takes more shots and gets more free throw attempts, so that helps to inflate his point totals. Pierce was a pretty good shot blocker in his first few years but that's fallen way off. And the only other distinguishing factor is the assists, which is of negligible importance I think considering that Peja played with some pretty good point guards and two of the best passing big men of all time while Pierce was basically given the ball and asked to create.

We could have a whole debate about which is a more valuable skill -- true shooting percentage or creating shot opportunities off the dribble. In fact, I think that debate is going to be on-going this season and beyond as it pertains to our new Martin/Tyreke backcourt. Without getting too far into it, basically I think that both skills are equally important in a team game, as a potential assist means nothing if the basket isn't made. I would go one step further and say that Peja's shooting touch made him a better fit for the team we had than Pierce would have been. Pierce wouldn't have spread the floor as well, wouldn't have converted open looks as well, and would have taken the ball out of the hands of Webber, Bibby, and Vlade. Or at least that could have happened. Like I said, it's an open question. My point is simply that the answer is not so obvious.

You could also make a point about "clutch" factor perhaps (which is maybe what you meant with the Kobe comparison) but it's been statistically proven again and again that "clutch" shooting is a myth. The percentages even out over the course of the game and that last shot has the same chance of falling in as any other shot. What changes is the impression last-second shots make in our mind. We ascribe those shots more importance as the game is being decided in the fourth quarter and thus the myth of the "clutch" shooter is born. If you go back and look at anyone who you think is a clutch shooter, you'll find that they took more shots than other players, missed more shots than other players, and naturally also made more shots than other players. It's purely volume shooting. The more opportunities you have to make a last-second shot, the more you're going to make.

The numbers say Pierce is the better player, but that just goes back to what I said before. We're talking about real basketball here, not fantasy basketball. And in real basketball terms, Peja was just as good at his peak as Paul Pierce was at his. And Pierce's numbers aren't even that much better than Peja's anyway. He just sustained his peak level a lot longer.

You go in a lot of directions here.

1) The "what if chris Webber doesn't get hurt" is a pretty powerful "What if" and is talked about all the time. The other one you mention go nowhere and are pointless. The Pierce "What if" is, I think, at least equally as powerful as the Webber one in terms of potential outcomes. And its certainly more interesting, because it was controllable, not some fat of the world/**** happens circumstance.
2) Reason being, it was entirely plausible that they could have taken Pierce there instead of J-Will. Pierce was a high-profile All-American and everyone knew he had the goods and was one of the top 4 or 5 players in the draft. It was a gift for him to be there at 7...and that' what everyone thought at the time. That's not revisionist history, or hindsight. Of course at the time, it wasn't seen as a bad move to take J-Will, but that's why this is an interesting "what if" and not me railing at Petrie for being an idiot.
3) Even in 2002 noone but a Kings fan thought Peja was as good as Pierce. Maybe it would have been a defensible argument at the time, but saying that now is foolish. Revisionist or not isn't that the point of looking at history? You know more now than you knew then. That's why they say hindsight is 20/20.
4) Pierce vs Peja is pointless to this "what if" anyways, because in my scenario we get them both. In the beginning of his career Pierce was primarily a SG who can shoot 3's but was a slasher post player mostly. So they'd fit great.
5) What we don't have is J-Will and then Bibby. We still have Tariq Abdul Wahad and Corliss Williamson. I think its unlikly we trade for Christie. I think its fun to think of the possibilities of who Petrie would have sought after to be the PG.

 

[Oprostaj]

Yea Pierce was never in a different class than Pedja. He was just always the man on his teams, for better or worse (usually worse) He was tougher, better all around player (defense, rebounding, passing) but he was forced to do those things. Pedja was asked to score, and he did it phenomenaly well. Wouldn't discount him as a bad passer either, he was just hurt by that Rashard Lewis syndrome - you're tall and play on the perimiter, therefore you are a pansy. In Pedja's case he was truly a finesse player, but what he was known for he did it either the best or right with the best. Yes, he did choke a number of times, but I seem to remember Pierce deffering to Walker numerous times. Also, Pierce's teams were freaking terrible man. i know he didn't have much to work with but my god... He also was known as not the best teammate, he sulked and admitted to taking numerous plays (and games) off when the Cs were borderline one of the worst teams in the leauge.

 

[Bricklayer]

Yea Pierce was never in a different class than Pedja. He was just always the man on his teams, for better or worse (usually worse) He was tougher, better all around player (defense, rebounding, passing) but he was forced to do those things.

thos sentences do not fit together. That is precisely WHY Pierce was in a differnt class than Peja. Why is he is a HOF player, and why Peja was always nothing more than just a shooter. Pierce could do it all, fill up every corner of the boxscore, create his own offense, create other's offense. He was the real deal, The Truth so to speak. Peja was never anything more than scorer, and not even that -- a shooter. Meaning he did not create his own shots, he had them created for him by others. Those two players are on different planets. Its a distinction that....never was sure why it was so hard for people to get back in the day. Still don't. There's just an obvious gap between Kopbe, LeBron, TMac (in his prime), Pierce, Roy etc. and Peja, Rashard Lewis, or Michael Redd.

 

[VF21]

Wait...what????? Paul Pierce was drafted by the Kings???????

Wow. Leave a thread for a couple of days and it totally changes direction.

 

[bajaden]

Wait...what????? Paul Pierce was drafted by the Kings???????

Wow. Leave a thread for a couple of days and it totally changes direction.

Boys will be boys..

 

[swisshh]

The Kings needed JWill, they needed a PG. People underestimate JWill's abilities. Minus the leg and foot problems, I think he has a nice career. And he's right about Pierce, he was the star of a losing team in the eastern conference. Pierce certainly offers more than Peja, but he never turned around that franchise. Nor did Ray Allen turn around a franchise. KG did it for two different teams. Dirk is the only guy you can talk about in that draft as being more enticing.

 

[kennadog]

KG could be seen to have turned around the fortunes of the T'Wolves, but he only got the team to the first round of the playoffs once in 7 (?) years. And he hardly did it alone in Boston.