Your Reactions to Past Drafts

[SacKings384]

Maybe so, but the other side of the coin is that you are otherwise paying for a player to be on your team who really can't contribute soon and may not ever. Kinda like Martin his first year or two. Much higher risk for maybe not so high a reward? There is a plus and a minus for both sides....

Why do we need someone who can contribute immediately, in exchange for a lower ceiling? It's not as if the Kings are going to be contenders next year, or within the next few years for that matter. Contenders draft seniors to fill in holes where they need it, or they take risks. Rebuilders take young guys with high potential.

 

[beb0p]

Martin - I had him in the mid teen and I was excited he fell to us. Imagine had Bayless fell to #12, that's how I felt when we drafted KMart. And then I saw him in the summer league and he was even better than I anticipated.

Minard - Didn't know much about Minard so I didn't much cared.

Garcia - Another guy that fell, imo. I pegged him as a skinny Shane Battier with better skill, and Battier was lottery. Really thought he was going lottery to Minni, so I was delighted we drafted him. I think If McHale had to do it over again, he'd have picked Garcia over McCant.

Douby - caught me by surprise. Didn't like the pick because I thought he is just an undersized SG. He is a better defender than I thought and I still think he can be a special player.

Hawes - love the pick. He has played better than I expected, so I love the pick even more now.

Thompson - I don't think this is another Peja/Martin type homerun pick, but I do think this is a solid pick when we look back years from now.

Singletary - love the pick. The guy will be an NBA player when it's all said and done. It's just a matter of if he's a third-string or borderline starter.

Ewing Jr. - what the????

 

[Warhawk]

Why do we need someone who can contribute immediately, in exchange for a lower ceiling? It's not as if the Kings are going to be contenders next year, or within the next few years for that matter. Contenders draft seniors to fill in holes where they need it, or they take risks. Rebuilders take young guys with high potential.

But it may not be a lower ceiling, it may be the same ceiling but he just reaches it sooner with the team because he's a couple years older when we drafted him.

Thompson is what, 21 or 22? He's not 30 or anything....

And what is wrong with contributing immediately? Isn't that what you want on the team, someone who can help win games? It's not like he's going to peak his rookie season, he's still going to mature, learn, and get better, just like every other player that just got drafted.

 

[Bricklayer]

But it may not be a lower ceiling, it may be the same ceiling but he just reaches it sooner with the team because he's a couple years older when we drafted him.

Thompson is what, 21 or 22? He's not 30 or anything....

And what is wrong with contributing immediately? Isn't that what you want on the team, someone who can help win games? It's not like he's going to peak his rookie season, he's still going to mature, learn, and get better, just like every other player that just got drafted.

Er...this just is not that hard:

If a player, on average, devlops something like this:

18-->19 gets much better
(POINT A)
19-->20 gets better
20-->21 gets better
21-->22 gets better
(POINT B)
22-->23 gets better
23-->24 maybe gets better
24-->25 maybe gets better
25+ unlikely to significantly improve

then if you draft a player at Point B ratehr than Point A you have lost half of his prime years of improvement. Or rather he has already experienced them. The clearest example would simply be this -- if the exact smae player gave you 20pts 12 rebs at Point A as opposed to 20pts 12 rebs at Point B, the player at Point A would be an INFINITELY better pickup than the one at Point B because he would have so much more time to grow. And indeed you can back that down -- if the same player gave you 18 and 8 at Point A as opposed to 20-12 at Point B, he is STILL likely a better choice at Point A because fo the growth potential. The Point B player is going to "mature, learn and get better" for a much shorter time and with much less dramatic results than the Point A player. Its liek looking at a 15yr old and looking at a 10yr old, and saying there is no difference in their potential for future growth, since both guys are going to mature and grow. Yeah, both will. But chances are that one is going to do a lot more of it.

And as far as a player helping win now -- that is nearly irrelevant to us. WE are not ready to win now, so whether a player can "halp now" or not is at best irrelevant, at worst pernicious (if for instance you had a player be the difference between you drafting Dwight Howard or drafting whomever was taken second in that draft, you might want take him out back and beat him with shovel). If he shows her can help in the future, that is jsut as good as helping now.

A rebuilding team has different priorities than a contending team. The continued stubborness on that point never fails to amaze. Teh Spurs need somebody who can contribute today. We need WHOEVER will be the largest contributor in 3-4 years. Does not matter in the least who is the largst contributor today. Guy cna score 20 this year. Guy can score 3 this year. Irrelevant. The ONLY question that matters for us is who is going to score more in 2011?

 

[bajaden]

Why do we need someone who can contribute immediately, in exchange for a lower ceiling? It's not as if the Kings are going to be contenders next year, or within the next few years for that matter. Contenders draft seniors to fill in holes where they need it, or they take risks. Rebuilders take young guys with high potential.

Wow. So, if you can draft a player that already has skills, and if your lucky, he can contribute right away. You pass on the guy your pretty sure is going to be a good player and draft a guy that has few skills, but he can jump high and run fast, and you hope that he will be able to learn and develop. Whats that old saying? A bird in hand is better than two in the bush.

You always take whoever you and your scouting dept think is the best player available. Hey, now that I think of it. We did draft a player that can jump high and run fast. Except we did it in the second round.

 

[Warhawk]

Yeah, I get all that, but why would you want to have the guy on your team if he's scoring 6-8 points per game and not helping your team win? Yeah, he's learning, but in a couple years I want a player that is hitting his stride and ready to start/contribute for years, not someone who just finished growing his last inch, is still under 200-lbs, and is anxiously awaiting the time he can go to the bar with the team after an away game.

Really, if we are setting our sights on 2010-2011 with a free-agent push, I want a guy who is ready to seriously contribute at that time, not someone we are guessing whether he will even grow big enough to play the position we need.

Basically, the draft is pretty much a crapshoot after the top few picks. If there is a really hot, pretty much sure-fire talent then yes, take him and let him develop. But if you have 2 different guys and neither are particularly fabulous, but one is 6-11 and 250 and the other is only when hiolding a 60-pound barbell (if he can hold it at all), I'm going with the NBA-ready body and proven talent unless there is some particular reason not to. And none of the other players available at 12 this draft had anything saying "pick me, I'm a sure-fire talent".

Maybe we are debating two different things - I am focusing on this particular draft, maybe you are speaking in more generalities?

 

[fnordius]

I'm going with the NBA-ready body and proven talent unless there is some particular reason not to.

Few really good players stay in until they're seniors anymore, though. And that trend's been going on for a while. While the competition's been getting Bryant, Bynum, etc. over the last decade+, the only guy the Kings have ever drafted that was not a senior or Euro player was Spencer Hawes.

The top 10 last year featured few seniors. This year, it featured zero seniors. I think we need to start getting used to that. Maybe we should discover the DL, too. Many teams have, without obvious regrets.

 

[nbrans]

Few really good players stay in until they're seniors anymore, though. And that trend's been going on for a while. While the competition's been getting Bryant, Bynum, etc. over the last decade+, the only guy the Kings have ever drafted that was not a senior or Euro player was Spencer Hawes.

The top 10 last year featured few seniors. This year, it featured zero seniors. I think we need to start getting used to that. Maybe we should discover the DL, too. Many teams have, without obvious regrets.

Kevin Martin, Francisco Garcia and Quincy Douby were juniors, Gerald Wallace was a freshman.

But while these past two years have been top-heavy with non-seniors, as I pointed out earlier, some of the best players to come out of recent drafts have been seniors, including Brandan Roy, Randy Foye and David Lee. There have been some "potential" guys who have panned out, but there are also guys like Tyrus Thomas, Patrick O'Bryant, Shawne Williams, etc., who haven't (yet -- we'll see).

As the Basketball Prospectus guy pointed out, Atlanta went with the "potential" of Marvin Williams over proven commodities like Deron Williams and Chris Paul. Whoops.

 

[est.1999]

Petrie drafted a freshman last year and this year he goes senior. Big effin deal

 

[fnordius]

Kevin Martin, Francisco Garcia and Quincy Douby were juniors, Gerald Wallace was a freshman.

I stand corrected, and should have remembered Wallace. As for the others, I remembered their ages when drafted, and recalled none of them as inconsistent with being seniors. Especially Garcia... a 23.5 year old Junior?

So I hereby give Geoff credit for (correctly) taking a chance on Gerald Wallace. Somehow, it doesn't make me feel a lot better, but credit where it's due.

 

[SacKings384]

Btw, the Spurs worked Jason Thompson out multiple times, and expected him to go late 20's at best. I trust the Spurs judge of talent far my than I do our own.

 

[SacKings384]

Wow. So, if you can draft a player that already has skills, and if your lucky, he can contribute right away. You pass on the guy your pretty sure is going to be a good player and draft a guy that has few skills, but he can jump high and run fast, and you hope that he will be able to learn and develop. Whats that old saying? A bird in hand is better than two in the bush.

You always take whoever you and your scouting dept think is the best player available. Hey, now that I think of it. We did draft a player that can jump high and run fast. Except we did it in the second round.

First of all, you act as if Thompson is some polished big man who has hit his stride and is clearly NBA ready, when he isn't necessarily a significant playing time player. Second of all, we don't need a bird in the hand right now. We stink, and we need to get better draft picks. How many of us were practically begging Theus to play the young guys more, so they can get experience? We all knew winning was irrelevant at that point.

The same holds true here. I'd rather take the guy who could give us two birds in the future, than the bird in the hand immediately. Thompson is a senior, playing against weaker talent, and thus we see what he will be like. You take a player who is a freshman, and imagine giving him 3 years to develop, and he's really good. Then guess what? He's the same age Thompson is when he entered. We don't need to win now. Sure we can take the few granted bricks that we get now from Thompson, but it's not as if our castle is going to be finished anytime soon, and therefore I want the guy who is going to deliver more bricks in the future.

I'm not saying I hate the pick, but I'm not saying I like it. However, this particular part of the discussion has nothing to do with that. It's the fact that him being a senior is indeed a knock on him, especially considering some around here consider him to be a sleeper.

 

[Aenadin]

Er...this just is not that hard:

If a player, on average, devlops something like this:

18-->19 gets much better
(POINT A)
19-->20 gets better
20-->21 gets better
21-->22 gets better
(POINT B)
22-->23 gets better
23-->24 maybe gets better
24-->25 maybe gets better
25+ unlikely to significantly improve

then if you draft a player at Point B ratehr than Point A you have lost half of his prime years of improvement. Or rather he has already experienced them. The clearest example would simply be this -- if the exact smae player gave you 20pts 12 rebs at Point A as opposed to 20pts 12 rebs at Point B, the player at Point A would be an INFINITELY better pickup than the one at Point B because he would have so much more time to grow. And indeed you can back that down -- if the same player gave you 18 and 8 at Point A as opposed to 20-12 at Point B, he is STILL likely a better choice at Point A because fo the growth potential. The Point B player is going to "mature, learn and get better" for a much shorter time and with much less dramatic results than the Point A player. Its liek looking at a 15yr old and looking at a 10yr old, and saying there is no difference in their potential for future growth, since both guys are going to mature and grow. Yeah, both will. But chances are that one is going to do a lot more of it.

And as far as a player helping win now -- that is nearly irrelevant to us. WE are not ready to win now, so whether a player can "halp now" or not is at best irrelevant, at worst pernicious (if for instance you had a player be the difference between you drafting Dwight Howard or drafting whomever was taken second in that draft, you might want take him out back and beat him with shovel). If he shows her can help in the future, that is jsut as good as helping now.

A rebuilding team has different priorities than a contending team. The continued stubborness on that point never fails to amaze. Teh Spurs need somebody who can contribute today. We need WHOEVER will be the largest contributor in 3-4 years. Does not matter in the least who is the largst contributor today. Guy cna score 20 this year. Guy can score 3 this year. Irrelevant. The ONLY question that matters for us is who is going to score more in 2011?

well if were comparing thompson and randolph then i dont see why randolph should have a higher ceiling just because of age and because of the numbers he can produce... at that age

remember that thompson is a late bloomer and played different positions as he grew... he was an undersized guard.... learned it then grew then forward... learned more and grew.... and finally powerforward.. well at least we know he can pass and shoot... the other guy we wanted had an "awkward motor"

 

[Warhawk]

Thompson is a senior, playing against weaker talent, and thus we see what he will be like.

Uh, he got the best of Beasly in their matchup. He's played some of his better games against the best opponents - he rose to the occasion.

He also played well against LeBron in his camp and impressed everyone.

Give some credit where it is due.

 

[JerN820]

Uh, he got the best of Beasly in their matchup. He's played some of his better games against the best opponents - he rose to the occasion.

He also played well against LeBron in his camp and impressed everyone.

Give some credit where it is due.

Against K-State and Beasley he had 24 pts, 7 rebs, and 4 blocks to be exact (per espn.com).

Definitely some nice stats in the head to head match up!

 

[bajaden]

First of all, you act as if Thompson is some polished big man who has hit his stride and is clearly NBA ready, when he isn't necessarily a significant playing time player. Second of all, we don't need a bird in the hand right now. We stink, and we need to get better draft picks. How many of us were practically begging Theus to play the young guys more, so they can get experience? We all knew winning was irrelevant at that point.

The same holds true here. I'd rather take the guy who could give us two birds in the future, than the bird in the hand immediately. Thompson is a senior, playing against weaker talent, and thus we see what he will be like. You take a player who is a freshman, and imagine giving him 3 years to develop, and he's really good. Then guess what? He's the same age Thompson is when he entered. We don't need to win now. Sure we can take the few granted bricks that we get now from Thompson, but it's not as if our castle is going to be finished anytime soon, and therefore I want the guy who is going to deliver more bricks in the future.

I'm not saying I hate the pick, but I'm not saying I like it. However, this particular part of the discussion has nothing to do with that. It's the fact that him being a senior is indeed a knock on him, especially considering some around here consider him to be a sleeper.

Its amazing that the old teams from the past were able to put decent teams on the floor when all they had to work with were seniors. Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlin, Bill Russell, Bob Cousy. I could go on and on, and trust me, if the NBA could inforce its will on the players union, they would require that all players stay in college for four years. Don't you really think that they would much rather pick a more complete player. Using your analogy, we would pass on Oscar Robertson and draft Anthony Randoff because he might have more upside. After four years in college, Robertson was probably all he was going to be. No damm upside at all..

 

[1kingzfan]

I'm with bajaden on this one.

Why does a drafted college freshman have more upside potential than a drafted college senior? He may be able to show in 3 years when he reaches the age of the comparable senior that he had either more potential or less potential or the same potential.

And in the hypothetical case up above by SACKings384 between Randolph and Thompson, how does that help us in 3 years? Randolph gets a lot better, and Thompson does not. That is but ONE possible outcome. The flaw in the assumption is that Randolph will improve dramatically (surpassing where JT is now) and Thompson will not improve (or improve marginally). So what we see now in JT, is more or less what we get in 3 years. Ludicrous.

In 3 years, looking at Thompson and Randolph, we would have the potential to have one player better than the other, or two roughly equivalent players. Even if that hypothetical case would run out and Randolph has a longer NBA career than Thompson, since he starts 3 years earlier, who give's a rat's behind about what might be when Thompson gets to be 30-32 and Randolph is 27-29? Who is to say when each player might reach his prime (if he reaches one), how long he may enjoy that prime, and then, who cares about 10-12 years from now, for crying out loud? The odds say that a player will not last that long with his drafted team anyway.

There is nothing magical about reaching college senior age versus freshman age in relation to potential upside. For every LeBron, there are a gaggle of extremely early entry NBA busts, so what does that say about potential? Players can become superstars or be out of the league in short order, regardless of what age they begin their NBA careers. There is no established age when NBA players stop "growing", some max out on draft day, some max out in a year or two, some max out in 5 or 6 years, some max out nearer the end of their careers.

 

[uolj]

The Kings don't need a proven commodity. The Kings don't need David Lee or Randy Foye or Brandan Roy. They need Dwight Howard or Chris Paul.

Yes, if you draft somebody younger with more "upside" they also will have more downside. The point is not that in the end you will get better talent if you draft for potential. The point is that you have a better chance of getting the superstar the Kings need.

 

[swisshh]

Kevin Martin- I guess we're trying to be Detroit
Francisco Garcia- A Doug Christie replacement ok
Quincy Douby- Everyone loves this pick, though I don't like AI-junior type players, maybe quick guards will rule the league soon?
Ricky Minard- don't care
Spencer Hawes- why did we draft brad miller redux?

 

[beb0p]

18-->19 gets much better
(POINT A)
19-->20 gets better
20-->21 gets better
21-->22 gets better
(POINT B)
22-->23 gets better
23-->24 maybe gets better
24-->25 maybe gets better
25+ unlikely to significantly improve

The problem I see is that not every player gets better from Point A to Point B. I'm sure each of us can think of at least ten guys who never got much better from Point A and beyond.

And I've already expounded that this draft is filled with those "very young but won't get much better" type.

 

[bajaden]

The Kings don't need a proven commodity. The Kings don't need David Lee or Randy Foye or Brandan Roy. They need Dwight Howard or Chris Paul.

Yes, if you draft somebody younger with more "upside" they also will have more downside. The point is not that in the end you will get better talent if you draft for potential. The point is that you have a better chance of getting the superstar the Kings need.

So, none of the players I mentioned were superstars? They were all seniors.. Getting a superstar requires good research and a lot of damm luck. Even in the case of people like Karl Malone and Michael Jordan, no one knew for sure that they would become superstars. By the way, I'll take Brandon Roy on my team any day. Dwight and Chris too..

 

[bajaden]

Kevin Martin- I guess we're trying to be Detroit
Francisco Garcia- A Doug Christie replacement ok
Quincy Douby- Everyone loves this pick, though I don't like AI-junior type players, maybe quick guards will rule the league soon?
Ricky Minard- don't care
Spencer Hawes- why did we draft brad miller redux?

I'm probably wasting my time, but, Hawes, plays nothing like Miller. If you had seen him play in college you would know that. If anything, he plays more along the lines of Vlade Divac. In college Hawes was mostly a post player. Miller has never been a post player.

 

[bajaden]

I have never done any research on this subject, but I was always told that most players in the NBA reach thier prime between the years of 27 and 32. Don't know how much truth there is to it, and it may be an individual thing. I know that Steve Nash improved greatly after the age of 25, so I don't think it written in stone.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I have never done any research on this subject, but I was always told that most players in the NBA reach thier prime between the years of 27 and 32. Don't know how much truth there is to it, and it may be an individual thing. I know that Steve Nash improved greatly after the age of 25, so I don't think it written in stone.

Actually that age range is largely associated with baseball primes, not basketball. Basketball primes are more in the late 20's.

 

[uolj]

So, none of the players I mentioned were superstars? They were all seniors.. Getting a superstar requires good research and a lot of damm luck. Even in the case of people like Karl Malone and Michael Jordan, no one knew for sure that they would become superstars. By the way, I'll take Brandon Roy on my team any day. Dwight and Chris too..

That's nice, but it doesn't have any relevance to the question. Of course it's possible for a superstar to have gone to college through his senior year. Of course no one knows if Malone or Jordan (an early entrant) will turn out to be a superstar. Of course you'd take Roy on your team any day. So?

• To be title contenders, the Kings probably need a superstar, right? (Let's make up a number - 90% of title winners have a superstar. Let me know if you disagree with this number.)
• If a player is a likely superstar entering the draft, he is likely to be taken in the top few picks, and therefore before the Kings pick, right?
• It is difficult to get a superstar through means other than the draft, right? (Let's say 80% of superstars are achieved through high draft picks. Let me know if you disagree with this number.)
• So that means that the best way to achieve title contention is to draft your superstar. Right?
• But since all the likely superstars are taken at the very top of the draft you have to draft a potential superstar, right?
• So then the question is, given two guys, one who is younger and one who is older, and neither of whom are "likely" superstars, which in general is more likely to become one in their career? The answer of course is the younger one in general, because there is more chance for the younger one to grow and get better (in general). Do you disagree with that, even if the difference is small?

Conclusion, the Kings should (in general) draft a younger player with more potential because they need that superstar. That doesn't mean that any one particular draft pick is bad, because maybe given the guys available the solid, older player has more value than any of the potentials left. But still, the logic here clearly is that drafting younger guys makes more sense in general if you're looking to be a title contender (and you lack your star).

 

[Kingsguy881]

Btw, the Spurs worked Jason Thompson out multiple times, and expected him to go late 20's at best. I trust the Spurs judge of talent far my than I do our own.

The Spurs have a knack for drafting really good players whenever they pick. Good point.

 

[Bricklayer]

Its amazing that the old teams from the past were able to put decent teams on the floor when all they had to work with were seniors. Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlin, Bill Russell, Bob Cousy. I could go on and on, and trust me, if the NBA could inforce its will on the players union, they would require that all players stay in college for four years. Don't you really think that they would much rather pick a more complete player. Using your analogy, we would pass on Oscar Robertson and draft Anthony Randoff because he might have more upside. After four years in college, Robertson was probably all he was going to be. No damm upside at all..

That's a completely bogus argument, as I am sure you knew when you made it.

Since there was a de facto seniors only rule at the time, EVERYBODY had to draft a senior, hence no advantage to anyone.

And if Oscar Robertson were a senior this year we would not be having this conversation, because Oscar Robertson would have averaged 30-10-10 or something in college (no idea what the real numbers were) and been an obvious superstar in waiting. But the point is that today Oscar Robertson would NOT be a senior -- ever. He would be scooped up after his freshman year the same way LeBron was scooped up out of high school. And if he WERE a senior, he would be picked #1, not #12. And the further point would be that rather than Oscar averaging 30-10-10 (or whatever) as a senior, we are talking about a guy who averaged 20-12 at a small school. IF ANYBODY remaining in this draft at the time we picked was going to be Oscar, was going to be 30-10-10 as a senior, it obviously was not Jason Thompson who we already knew what he looked like at that age -- it would have had to been one of the younger guys. Unlikely of course. But that is what youth and potential buys you -- a chance to be special whereas the older guys have already proven they are not.

 

[1kingzfan]

So?

• To be title contenders, the Kings probably need a superstar, right? (Let's make up a number - 90% of title winners have a superstar. Let me know if you disagree with this number.)
• If a player is a likely superstar entering the draft, he is likely to be taken in the top few picks, and therefore before the Kings pick, right?
• It is difficult to get a superstar through means other than the draft, right? (Let's say 80% of superstars are achieved through high draft picks. Let me know if you disagree with this number.)
• So that means that the best way to achieve title contention is to draft your superstar. Right?
• But since all the likely superstars are taken at the very top of the draft you have to draft a potential superstar, right?
• So then the question is, given two guys, one who is younger and one who is older, and neither of whom are "likely" superstars, which in general is more likely to become one in their career? The answer of course is the younger one in general, because there is more chance for the younger one to grow and get better (in general). Do you disagree with that, even if the difference is small?

I'll give you #1 through #5, but there is no logic given to support #6. Why can't the younger drafted player be done growing at his age and the older drafted player still have big upside?

Age is not the end-all. In the end, this is a complex evaluation issue, and trying to boil it down to age just does not work. Younger players are drafted because scouts see skills that can be further developed, ie, upside. Why this cannot be applied equally to guys 3 years older, well, I have no idea, becasue obviously it is. True, the younger guy has 3 more years to develop into a better player at the same age than the older guy, but he also has that time to stay the same or display that he is not as good as the other guy, or he has a lower ultimate ceiling.

 

[1kingzfan]

But that is what youth and potential buys you -- a chance to be special whereas the older guys have already proven they are not.

Once again, I am of the opinion that reaching college senior age is not a magical time in a player's life where he has mostly reached his potential versus a college freshman.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'll give you #1 through #5, but there is no logic given to support #6. Why can't the younger drafted player be done growing at his age and the older drafted player still have big upside?

Age is not the end-all. In the end, this is a complex evaluation issue, and trying to boil it down to age just does not work. Younger players are drafted because scouts see skills that can be further developed, ie, upside. Why this cannot be applied equally to guys 3 years older, well, I have no idea, becasue obviously it is. True, the younger guy has 3 more years to develop into a better player at the same age than the older guy, but he also has that time to stay the same or display that he is not as good as the other guy, or he has a lower ultimate ceiling.

Your logic is faulty.

Situation A -- Player is 22 and not a superstar
-- we absolutely KNOW he has not become a superstar from ages 19-22

Situation B -- player is 19 and not a superstar
-- we do NOT know whether he will become a superstar between ages 19-22

Given that ANY chance is better than NO chance situation B is absolutely, 100% unarguably superior if your goal is to draft a superstar. If the Situation B player does not become a sueprstar by age 22, he is STILL no worse off than than the 22 yr old who we already KNOW has failed to do so.