With the 33rd pick in the 2010 NBA Draft, the Kings select...

#31
I was thinking mainly off the bench. 33rd pick so I figured might as well go for someone that's not afraid to light it up when the starters are on the bench.
 
#32
Art Parakhouski or Charles Villanueva for me.

We must try and gamble to get that defensive BIG in this draft now. It will really frustrate me to the max if the Kings comes back next season trying the same patch-up solution ( Sean May, Armstrong, Mikki Moore ) to fill the need when this draft is loaded with promising BIGs.
 
#33
Willie Warren? Here's my thumbnail:

Willie Warren had a terrible sophomore campaign and has slipped in the draft as such, but taking his skills as a whole he's definitely a viable NBA-role player. The pros is that he has a compact body at 6'4" 200, and his usage rate in college is such that he shouldn't have much trouble adapting as a role player (he's a middling scorer in the NBA). His overall offense is a mixed bag, however: what he does excel at, though, is in mutual exclusion, as he takes a lot of threes and gets to the line a lot offensively (only Scottie Reynolds and Elliott Williams had higher rates of both), and looking deeper he's a very good finisher as well, but appears to be only average as a long-range bomber. His skills are such that he'll be a SG at the next level, but he's a pretty good passer for the 2-guard and may act as a combo at spurts. But he's also highly turnover prone, and only four SGs in college had higher turnover rates with more possessions used. But those are offensive stats--his defensive stats ring highly, highly questionable--as he's a poor rebounder, even for a PG, and virtually negligible steal and block rates at college (he had 0 blocks in 21 games this year). His offense, with the mutual exclusion and some passing, overall is a plus, and combo guards of his ilk are getting more en vogue in the league, and should more than make up for his questionable defense. He'll find a role somewhere as a popcorn machine scoring guard with some passing, and may hit his stride as a sixth man type. PROJECTION: 25-35

How about another tweener guard?

Elliott Williams is someone I'm highly skeptical about on several fronts. It's hard to take away praise from a year where he showed himself to be a very good scorer who, like Warren, based his offensive game upon mutual exclusion (free throws and threes). He's a preferred slasher than shooter, a smart move because he can finish well and really get to the line (top 2 among SGs) while his long range game appears to be average at best overall. But while he can get to the basket, at 175 lbs and being a undersized SG (6'4") will this translate effectively to the next level? I have some doubts. Like Warren above, he'll have to rely on his scoring game--his rebounding and passing are average at best, and he's slightly below average in the passing lanes as well. He's relatively turnover prone as well. It's hard really getting up on his potential--his best asset of getting to the line/finishing might be eradicated with his slight frame, and as a long range shooter there's huge doubts, and the other parts of his game are average at best. His freshman year at Duke was also very nondescript. Unlike Warren, who has the body and better passing ability to perhaps make a bigger difference. PROJECTION: 38-50

Dominique Jones is on the small 6'5" side, as his standing reach isn't that impressive, but he's absolutely legitimate as a NBA scorer. He's a slasher extraordinaire, which combined with his sturdy frame and height bring about those Tyreke Evans comparisons. He's also the best at getting to the line extremely well while using tons of possessions, as no other SG in college does it as well as him, and he's a relatively good ballhandler. His jumper game lags behind the slashing--he has range and an okay jumper, but he doesn't show great potential in either, but at least he's not terrible either. He's my kind of player, one who imposes his athleticism, as he's also a highly impressive rebounder for a SG lacking in size, doing it on both ends. He's also legit defensively, getting a decent number of steals but being an above average shotblocker. But a major difference from Reke is that he's only an average passer even for SG standards, perhaps making him more Tony Allen than Evans. But he fits the bill of an athletic top shelf scorer and/or an energy/defensive guy, and he can fill a sizeable number of roles in the league. Really am high on the guy. PROJECTION: 15-30

I'm not sure of the intrigue behind Stanley Robinson. He'll be a low usage role player in the NBA and an average scorer, but moreover, what's really the source of his offense? He gets to the line rather poorly and hasn't fully invested himself as more of a shooter, but judging from his streaky percentages there and bad career free throw shooting it's not likely he'll really develop there anyway. His skill set to me is really lagging offensively. The problem with Robinson is that he's still very much more of a PF in style even though he has a SF body, as he's a decent shotblocker and rebounder for the SF position but only average on both for the PF position--and at 6'9" 225 he can't really play PF in the league unless in smallball matchups. So defensively he might encounter problems as well. Robinson just strikes me as undeveloped clay, but as a senior in college he can't really be called "clay" anymore, and just can't live off athleticism because most players in the league already fit that criteria. I don't think he'll make much of an impact in the league at all. PROJECTION: 40-55
 
Last edited:
#34
Just personal with me I guess. There were a lot of games where I didn't like the way he played. So I guess from my prespective, if you putting a team together, why not pick the type of players that fit the best. I think Randle would fit beautifully. Randle is a better player in my opinion. His problem is his height. I just don't want selfish players on the team. And at times Collins was selfish.

But aside from that, I don't think the Kings main need is at point guard. I think its at SG. Which is why I like players like Vasquez.
Totally with you on Vazquez. To me, he's a better version of the skills we need from Garcia (minus the d). He's tall which helps out in maximizing the Tyreke mismatches, shoots well, has good vision and is extremely clutch. 33 might be a little early for him but if you could pick up a cheap 2nd rounder, he's someone I'd really like to see us draft. I also like Randle, who I could see go undrafted and think the Kings should sign to a summer league deal right after the draft ends.
 

Capt. Factorial

Cantry Member
Staff member
#35
Elliott Williams is someone I'm highly skeptical about on several fronts.

...

PROJECTION: 38-50
Williams skipped out on the combine (so did Quincy Pondexter), and when a guy that is considered a first-round bubble guy skips the combine, there is usually strong suspicion he's got a first-round promise from somebody. So Williams is probably gone by 33, at least that's my guess.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#36
Willie Warren? Here's my thumbnail:

Willie Warren had a terrible sophomore campaign and has slipped in the draft as such, but taking his skills as a whole he's definitely a viable NBA-role player. The pros is that he has a compact body at 6'4" 200, and his usage rate in college is such that he shouldn't have much trouble adapting as a role player (he's a middling scorer in the NBA). His overall offense is a mixed bag, however: what he does excel at, though, is in mutual exclusion, as he takes a lot of threes and gets to the line a lot offensively (only Scottie Reynolds and Elliott Williams had higher rates of both), and looking deeper he's a very good finisher as well, but appears to be only average as a long-range bomber. His skills are such that he'll be a SG at the next level, but he's a pretty good passer for the 2-guard and may act as a combo at spurts. But he's also highly turnover prone, and only four SGs in college had higher turnover rates with more possessions used. But those are offensive stats--his defensive stats ring highly, highly questionable--as he's a poor rebounder, even for a PG, and virtually negligible steal and block rates at college (he had 0 blocks in 21 games this year). His offense, with the mutual exclusion and some passing, overall is a plus, and combo guards of his ilk are getting more en vogue in the league, and should more than make up for his questionable defense. He'll find a role somewhere as a popcorn machine scoring guard with some passing, and may hit his stride as a sixth man type. PROJECTION: 25-35

How about another tweener guard?

Elliott Williams is someone I'm highly skeptical about on several fronts. It's hard to take away praise from a year where he showed himself to be a very good scorer who, like Warren, based his offensive game upon mutual exclusion (free throws and threes). He's a preferred slasher than shooter, a smart move because he can finish well and really get to the line (top 2 among SGs) while his long range game appears to be average at best overall. But while he can get to the basket, at 175 lbs and being a undersized SG (6'4") will this translate effectively to the next level? I have some doubts. Like Warren above, he'll have to rely on his scoring game--his rebounding and passing are average at best, and he's slightly below average in the passing lanes as well. He's relatively turnover prone as well. It's hard really getting up on his potential--his best asset of getting to the line/finishing might be eradicated with his slight frame, and as a long range shooter there's huge doubts, and the other parts of his game are average at best. His freshman year at Duke was also very nondescript. Unlike Warren, who has the body and better passing ability to perhaps make a bigger difference. PROJECTION: 38-50
Of the two I'd take Williams. He's a little taller and just as good, if not a better athlete than Warren. Williams is a pretty good ballhandler, but not great. Your right about his passing ability, which is why I had Dominique Jones rated higher than him despite being a lesser athlete. One thing you didn't mention about Williams is that he's a very good defender, and that something thats always needed.

What a difference a year makes for Warren. If he had come out last year he would have been a sure 1st round pick. But now its likely he'll go in the top of the second round. He just had a terrible year. I'm sure not having Blake Griffin attracting all the attention didn't help him either.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#37
Totally with you on Vazquez. To me, he's a better version of the skills we need from Garcia (minus the d). He's tall which helps out in maximizing the Tyreke mismatches, shoots well, has good vision and is extremely clutch. 33 might be a little early for him but if you could pick up a cheap 2nd rounder, he's someone I'd really like to see us draft. I also like Randle, who I could see go undrafted and think the Kings should sign to a summer league deal right after the draft ends.
Thats what I'm hoping for with Randle. And its likely he will go undrafted. By the way I don't think that Vasquez is bad defender. He'll certainly give you the effort. He does play with a fire in his belly. I will agree however that his athleticism, or lack there of does limit him to some degree.

One of the hosts at the combine qualified athleticism. He said that when they refered to a player having only average athleticism, they were referring to NBA average athleticism. And that an average NBA player is 10 times more athletic than the average athlete off the street. His point being that all NBA players are good athletes. They only become average when compared against each other.

When someone starting talking about the potential of one of the players, he laughed and said yeah. Potential is what gets GM's fired.
 
#38
Thats what I'm hoping for with Randle. And its likely he will go undrafted. By the way I don't think that Vasquez is bad defender. He'll certainly give you the effort. He does play with a fire in his belly. I will agree however that his athleticism, or lack there of does limit him to some degree.

One of the hosts at the combine qualified athleticism. He said that when they refered to a player having only average athleticism, they were referring to NBA average athleticism. And that an average NBA player is 10 times more athletic than the average athlete off the street. His point being that all NBA players are good athletes. They only become average when compared against each other.

When someone starting talking about the potential of one of the players, he laughed and said yeah. Potential is what gets GM's fired.
Agree on the defense. I think effort is there, his physical abilities are limiting.
 
#40
I know Williams most likely will be drafted higher than that, as he has hype surrounding him that will elevate him somewhere in the 20s, but my projections are more or less based on where their talents should place them in the draft. With regards to Williams' defense, he has a good man-to-man defensive rep but at 175 lbs there's no way he'll be able to sustain that against stronger guards, even if he has the athleticism to match up (many good wing defenders either have height (Prince, Battier) or strength (Afflalo, D Jones) to excel in the NBA, and Williams has neither). And besides, I think he's a bit too scoring oriented to really invest himself as a defensive stopper, so a mindset change might be necessary. Just very, very skeptical overall.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#41
I know Williams most likely will be drafted higher than that, as he has hype surrounding him that will elevate him somewhere in the 20s, but my projections are more or less based on where their talents should place them in the draft. With regards to Williams' defense, he has a good man-to-man defensive rep but at 175 lbs there's no way he'll be able to sustain that against stronger guards, even if he has the athleticism to match up (many good wing defenders either have height (Prince, Battier) or strength (Afflalo, D Jones) to excel in the NBA, and Williams has neither). And besides, I think he's a bit too scoring oriented to really invest himself as a defensive stopper, so a mindset change might be necessary. Just very, very skeptical overall.
All good points.. And you could be right. I just thought he deserved some due for his defensive work in college. How that translates, is anyone's guess.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#42
I'm not going to go ga ga over just seeing someone impress at the combine in somewhat restricted drills. But I do think that one has to take some notice of Ryan Richards. He's certainly a physcial specimen and seems to have basic fundamentals down. Since were talking about the 33rd pick here, I wouldn't be opposed to taking a flyer on him at that point. You'd have a raw 6'11" Pf that you could groom the way you want. I don't know much about him since he's a european player and currently playing for a Spanish team I believe.

What I do know is that he's a graceful athlete that runs the floor very well and seems to have good hops. He appears to have a long wingspan and in the drills he shot the ball well. Now that leaves a lot we don't know. How he handles the ball? How he passes the ball? Whats his basketball IQ? How well does he play defense?

At the same time, he's only 19 years old. I would certainly take a look at him. You never know when your looking at a diamond in the rough.
 
Last edited:
#43
He seems to have a lot of similar buzz that fellow Englishman Joel Freeland had a few years ago.

We'll see how things go with him. It would be nice to get a high upside guy we can store overseas.
 
Last edited:

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
Contributor
#44
I'm not going to go ga ga over just seeing someone impress at the combine in somewhat restricted drills. But I do think that one has to take some notice of Ryan Richards. He's certainly a physcial specimen and seems to have basic fundamentals down. Since were talking about the 33rd pick here, I wouldn't be opposed to taking a flyer on him at that point. You'd have a raw 6'11" Pf that you could groom the way you want. I don't know much about him since he's a european player and currently playing for a Spanish team I believe.

What I do know is that he's a graceful athlete that runs the floor very well and seems to have good hops. He appears to have a long wingspan and in the drills he shot the ball well. Now that leaves a lot we don't know. How he handles the ball? How he passes the ball? Whats his basketball IQ? How well does he play defense?

At the same time, he's only 19 years old. I would certainly take a look at him. You never know when your looking at a diamond in the rough.
From today's Sacramento Bee (haven't seen it posted yet, but may have missed it):

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/22/2769139/aldrich-might-be-good-fit-for.html

Looking overseas again, the Kings also interviewed Ryan Richards on Thursday evening. The 19-year-old forward from England is listed at 6-113/4 in shoes.
more in the article....
 
#46
I also like Lance Stephanson as a possible second rounder, though I think he'll get picked up in the first. Came to the combine in great shape, and he has a pretty versatile offensive game. Can shoot, drive, be physical. Could be a really nice player.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#47
I also like Lance Stephanson as a possible second rounder, though I think he'll get picked up in the first. Came to the combine in great shape, and he has a pretty versatile offensive game. Can shoot, drive, be physical. Could be a really nice player.
There's no denying Stephenson's talent. I don't know how much you watched him play this year, but if you think Cousins is a head case, then Stephenson is physcatic. This is a guy that I saw get upset with a non call and just walk back to the other end of the court out of bounds at a nice leisurely pace. His coach had to come off the bench, run down to where he was and push him back onto the court. I saw this happen twice.

That aside, he's a very good basketball player. He's not the most athletic player out there, but he certainly talented..
 
#48
There's no denying Stephenson's talent. I don't know how much you watched him play this year, but if you think Cousins is a head case, then Stephenson is physcatic. This is a guy that I saw get upset with a non call and just walk back to the other end of the court out of bounds at a nice leisurely pace. His coach had to come off the bench, run down to where he was and push him back onto the court. I saw this happen twice.

That aside, he's a very good basketball player. He's not the most athletic player out there, but he certainly talented..
He has a nice upside and game. Pretty good handle and court vision for a guy with a selfish rep. Of course, I think the rep is earned, and I don't see where we need him. Let him be a possible find for someone else.

In the 2nd round we can actually draft for need. The draft is that deep in potential role players and contributors that we can target two or three problem areas and just get the best player who addresses them.

Its pretty hard to figure who will be there. Guys like Parakhouski and Dominique Jones measured out to legit C, and SG size prospects. Does that move them up to legit 1st rounders? Who does it move down?
 
#49
There's no denying Stephenson's talent. I don't know how much you watched him play this year, but if you think Cousins is a head case, then Stephenson is physcatic. This is a guy that I saw get upset with a non call and just walk back to the other end of the court out of bounds at a nice leisurely pace. His coach had to come off the bench, run down to where he was and push him back onto the court. I saw this happen twice.

That aside, he's a very good basketball player. He's not the most athletic player out there, but he certainly talented..

I saw Stephenson maybe once, but I agree with you, everything ive read and herd points to him being the headcase type like Cousins. Whether its true or not I dont know. Same goes for Cousins. So many of the athletes this year have perfect records, which makes players like Cousins and Lance look worse than they probly are.

Just like Cousins though, he has the talent. I would take Cousins at 5 without a doubt, and I AM one of those who think he might be a little crazy. Like you said, Lance has the talent of a first rounder whos head might force him into the second round. We could do worse than him there, thats for sure. I like his style. Reminds me a bit of a Bonzi Wells/ bully type guard. Would be nice to have on the bench. I liked his attitude at the combine too, during the the drills he did with the other guards. Seemed into it, and looked like a good enough guy. Of course, it is the combine, and it doesnt mean much. Just sayin.
 
#50
My choice is Parakhouski.

May be I am a little bit biased because he is from Belarus and Mom is originally from Belarus too :)

I like his size and toughness, and he has a nice shot. I think he's worth a gamble.

I only do not understand why his last name is spelled Parakhouski. If I am not mistaken, his last name is Параховский. So, it should be spelled Parakhovskiy or Parakhovski.
 
#51
Even if Stephenson didn't have the attitude issues, I'd say his gameface needed at least another year of school to grow. He's an average scorer who lacking a good jumper and great range at the moment, and considering his future position is at SG, those two are a premium and is a primary reason why he should have stayed at school (not sure if he can develop it on the fly at the NBA). Moreover, offensively, he's only an average finisher and doesn't get to the line well, so offensively he might have some problems in the NBA. Also, despite being 6'5" he really seems more SF than SG at the moment, taking into account his power body, the lack of range, his very good rebounding at both ends of the court and his only average passing ability. Defensively he's also questionable, not really being a good deflections type. His overall athleticism isn't special either--he's not that fast in the open court, has average lateral quickness and an average vert. I really don't see much potential with him as of now, and have bones to pick with offensively/defensively, not to mention he's a slight tweener--I see very slight shades of Bonzi Wells, but I don't think he's as physical offensively or defensively and anyway he'll have a long road to travel if he even gets there. I'd say he probably gets undrafted.
 
Last edited:

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#52
I saw Stephenson maybe once, but I agree with you, everything ive read and herd points to him being the headcase type like Cousins. Whether its true or not I dont know. Same goes for Cousins. So many of the athletes this year have perfect records, which makes players like Cousins and Lance look worse than they probly are.

Just like Cousins though, he has the talent. I would take Cousins at 5 without a doubt, and I AM one of those who think he might be a little crazy. Like you said, Lance has the talent of a first rounder whos head might force him into the second round. We could do worse than him there, thats for sure. I like his style. Reminds me a bit of a Bonzi Wells/ bully type guard. Would be nice to have on the bench. I liked his attitude at the combine too, during the the drills he did with the other guards. Seemed into it, and looked like a good enough guy. Of course, it is the combine, and it doesnt mean much. Just sayin.
I think everybody knows where I stand on Cousins. I agree with you. If he's there at five, you take him. He has tremendous potential, and yes there is some risk. But in this case I think the potential over shadows the risk.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#53
My choice is Parakhouski.

May be I am a little bit biased because he is from Belarus and Mom is originally from Belarus too :)

I like his size and toughness, and he has a nice shot. I think he's worth a gamble.

I only do not understand why his last name is spelled Parakhouski. If I am not mistaken, his last name is Параховский. So, it should be spelled Parakhovskiy or Parakhovski.
Parakhouski is one of my favorite players. And in the second round, I don't consider him a risk at all. If there wern't so many big men in this draft he'd probably be a first round pick. He's certainly not a great athlete, but he's not a bad athlete by any means. He has very good foot work under the basket in the post and he's extremely sound with his technique when it comes to rebounding. And rebounding is one thing for sure I'm sure will translate to the NBA. He went for 21 points and 13 rebounds against Kansas and Aldrich. His biggest weakness is his freethrow shooting. Which is surprising, because he has a nice turn around jumpshot and shows a good touch.

He's legitimate size as well and very strong. I'd be thrilled if we picked him in the second round. Parakhouski, Varnado, Jordan, or even Pittman would all add something to the team.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#54
Even if Stephenson didn't have the attitude issues, I'd say his gameface needed at least another year of school to grow. He's an average scorer who lacking a good jumper and great range at the moment, and considering his future position is at SG, those two are a premium and is a primary reason why he should have stayed at school (not sure if he can develop it on the fly at the NBA). Moreover, offensively, he's only an average finisher and doesn't get to the line well, so offensively he might have some problems in the NBA. Also, despite being 6'5" he really seems more SF than SG at the moment, taking into account his power body, the lack of range, his very good rebounding at both ends of the court and his only average passing ability. Defensively he's also questionable, not really being a good deflections type. I really don't see much potential with him as of now, and have bones to pick with offensively/defensively, not to mention he's a slight tweener--I see very slight shades of Bonzi Wells, but I don't think he's as physical offensively or defensively and anyway he'll have a long road to travel if he even gets there. I'd say he probably gets undrafted.
I'll tell you, I watched Stephenson play quite a few times. My orginal reason for watching Cincinnitti play was to see Yancy Gates. Who proved to be a disappointment. As a result I became interested in Stephenson. But I'll tell you, the dude is a walking time bomb at times. Say what you want about Cousins, but when Calapari said jump, he jumped. He may not have liked it, but he did as he was told.

Stephenson would totally ignore his coach at times. There was one game where he picked up his 2 foul early in the 1st half. His coach sent in another player so he could come out of the game and he refused to come out. Finally after some heated conversation, he went and sat on the bench and sulked. If I had to predict his outcome in the draft. I'd say he slides into the middle of the second round. But who knows.
 
#55
I would be so stoked if we could get Armon Johnson. I think he has a lot of potential to be really good. He's a great athlete, has great size and length. Can get to the hoop and score. The big thing is he needs to work on his jumpshot.

He could be a great player in a few years.
 
#56
^^I don't like Johnson, particularly in terms of his overall skills, but defensive specialists with his sort of physical tools are hard to come by, and someone will definitely bite in the early to mid-2nd round for that sort of stuff.

Another guy I like is Jeremy Lin of Harvard. Not because he went to Harvard,however. He'll probably be an average scorer in the NBA, but can really finish around the basket (albeit playing against weak competition) while getting to the line extremely well, and with middling possessions he's well-equipped to become a role player in this league. He's a way-preferred slasher than shooter, as he doesn't take too many threes nor shoots them well, and with his short wingspan and average athleticism his slashing game might not fully translate to the NBA level, so he'll probably have to improve his jumper to really make it. But what I like is between the slashing and his very good rebounding ability, he really maximizes his athleticism--he's a really tough kid, and defensively he's deflecting everywhere, being in the top 5 in steals and blocks (yes, blocks) among PGs throughout his career. Not surprisingly being everywhere, he's quite foul prone and also very turnover prone, so he might need to tone down the game a bit. Also, he's not really a PG, or even a combo, as he's more of a SG type with passing skills.

Overall he's a player with definite flaws--not great passing, not a good enough shooter, two things which are premiums in a NBA PG--and on top of that he's foul and turnover prone, and the things he excels at--slashing, rebounding, deflecting--might not fully translate with his average athleticism/wingspan, but his athletic markers are so off the roof and he's such a tough player that it's hard not to give him a look. I can actually think of few college players like him, so he's quite unique, and I'd like to see how he adjusts to the NBA game. PROJECTION: 48-UNDRAFTED
 
Last edited:
#58
still going with Jordan Crawford

the kid's a legit combo guard who can flat out shoot... he has a lot of work to do but there's a lot of potential there
 
#60
I just listened to it myself. I also was impressed. I don't know how many times you got to see him play, but when you consider how long he's played the game, he's way ahead of some others IQ wise that have played the game for a long time.
I barely saw him play. I'm intrigued by his physique and scoring ability though. Doesn't have great length or athleticism, so it's hard to know how he projects to the NBA.