The Official NBA Draft Day Thread 2014 Edition

[Jerichoholic]

it should be noted that i'm not comparing the two players' talent and skill level side-by-side; i'm comparing the ways in which they will have an impact on the game at the nba level, provided each reaches his full potential...

both mclemore and stauskas are going to make their living beyond the 3-point line. of course there will be other areas of the game that they impact, but those guys are out there to shoot the ball, plain and simple. mclemore's elite athleticism will help him get to the rim on occasion in spite of his lack of ball handling ability, and stauskas' ball handling ability will help him get to the rim on occasion in spite of his lack of elite athleticism. i don't expect either to become an elite defender, though there's certainly room for both to become adequate defenders. but again, more than anything, mclemore and stauskas will be on the court in order to get buckets, to spread the floor so that guys like cousins and gay can work more effectively in the post...

stauskas certainly appears to have a higher basketball IQ than mclemore, and i grant you that he's likely to be a better playmaker than mclemore, but i do not believe the differences in their game are enough to justify picking SG's in back-to-back drafts. let me put it this way: if ben mclemore has even an average rookie season in which he's not costing the team wins with his utter lack of production, do you think nik stauskas is even on the kings' radar? and if he is in that instance, i genuinely question what this new regime is attempting to accomplish...

That is a good question, if McLemore had an average or better rookie season would we still take Stauskas? If it's to be a SG my guess would be no. However if it's to be a PG then I would say yes. I know the idea of a defensive backcourt of Stauskas and McLemore sounds like a bit of a problem, although I don't think it's worse than a Thomas and McLemore backcourt. Actually Aaron Bruski was on the morning show this morning and I thought made a good point. He said that the Kings' main defensive problems are not on the perimeter, but more from the help defense, especially from the PF spot. Defenders get blown by all the time in today's NBA, even good defenders, the offensive players are just too athletic and too quick. It's all about help defense and rotations. If the Kings can find a way to fix that then I think a Stauskas and McLemore backcourt can work and that would allow Gay and Cousins to do what they do best offensively closer to the basket.

 

[Albatros]

That is a good question, if McLemore had an average or better rookie season would we still take Stauskas? If it's to be a SG my guess would be no. However if it's to be a PG then I would say yes. I know the idea of a defensive backcourt of Stauskas and McLemore sounds like a bit of a problem, although I don't think it's worse than a Thomas and McLemore backcourt. Actually Aaron Bruski was on the morning show this morning and I thought made a good point. He said that the Kings' main defensive problems are not on the perimeter, but more from the help defense, especially from the PF spot. Defenders get blown by all the time in today's NBA, even good defenders, the offensive players are just too athletic and too quick. It's all about help defense and rotations. If the Kings can find a way to fix that then I think a Stauskas and McLemore backcourt can work and that would allow Gay and Cousins to do what they do best offensively closer to the basket.

Thats because he's an IT fanboy. There are problems all over the court granted but the most grating just on the eyeball test was our inability to contain penetration and absolute ineptitude at guarding the three ball, which at times was embarrassing.

 

[roasthawg]

I was expecting us to come out of the draft with a PG or PF. On the PF side I wasn't enamored with Gordon, Randle of Vonleh but I would have been okay with Gordon as a Marion type and would have been happy with Smart or Payton.

I don't mind the Stauskas pick but I wish we would have dealt McLemore for Payton.

Really disappointing to go from envisioning a Rondo/Gay/Josh Smith/Cousins team or even a Payton/Gay/Sanders/Cousins team to basically the same dysfunctional team as last season plus Stauskas. And that's assuming we even resign IT.

I went from hoping we'd get a starting PG that would either replace IT or push him to his ideal role as sixth man to being forced into hoping the front office resigns him just so the team doesn't get worse.

Sheesh.

Well I heard it came down to Stauskas or Payton for us. Considering that I think we probably would've been willing to deal Ben for Payton... probably didn't have any takers.

 

[Uncia03]

it should be noted that i'm not comparing the two players' talent and skill level side-by-side; i'm comparing the ways in which they will have an impact on the game at the nba level, provided each reaches his full potential...

both mclemore and stauskas are going to make their living beyond the 3-point line. of course there will be other areas of the game that they impact, but those guys are out there to shoot the ball, plain and simple. mclemore's elite athleticism will help him get to the rim on occasion in spite of his lack of ball handling ability, and stauskas' ball handling ability will help him get to the rim on occasion in spite of his lack of elite athleticism. i don't expect either to become an elite defender, though there's certainly room for both to become adequate defenders. but again, more than anything, mclemore and stauskas will be on the court in order to get buckets, to spread the floor so that guys like cousins and gay can work more effectively in the post...

stauskas certainly appears to have a higher basketball IQ than mclemore, and i grant you that he's likely to be a better playmaker than mclemore, but i do not believe the differences in their game are enough to justify picking SG's in back-to-back drafts. let me put it this way: if ben mclemore has even an average rookie season in which he's not costing the team wins with his utter lack of production, do you think nik stauskas is even on the kings' radar? and if he is in that instance, i genuinely question what this new regime is attempting to accomplish...

I get the feeling that the FO believes that Stauskas can play the role of a Ginobli or Harden. A SG with enough PG abilities to be able to run the team in stretches with-out another pure PG on the floor. And they could be right, as Stauskas really does have superior ball-handling/passing for a SG. I don't believe that he can be converted into a full-time PG for a variety of reasons, but I do believe that he has the potential to run the team in small stretches. And that ability in and of itself completely separate him from Ben.
Ben's ceiling is Ray Allen while Stauskas is Ginobli. Sure Allen and Ginobli are SGs, but they way they impact the game are completely different.

Brick mentioned this in another thread, and I completely agree with him. Having Stauskas as your SG allows you incredible flexibility on who your PG is. You no longer have to have a pure PG, and can get away with a 'half-PG' who might be good at other things (defense/spot-shooting) because Stauskas should be able to carry the rest of the PG load.
So in theory, Stauskas represents an opportunity for incredible flexibility for the back-court.

The big problem I have is that Ben is so bad with his handle and has such limited ability in his PG skills, that even with Stauskas' PG abilities, I don't think there is enough ball-handling/passing between them to actually work long-term. So that means that if you are going to play them a lot together, you need another ball-handler on the floor with them, which ultimately means that you're probably going small, and that is not something I want to see. For that reason, if we can get a veteran defensive-oriented PG or a defensive big for Ben, that is the direction I'd like to see us move towards.

 

[Dime Dropper]

That is a good question, if McLemore had an average or better rookie season would we still take Stauskas? If it's to be a SG my guess would be no. However if it's to be a PG then I would say yes. I know the idea of a defensive backcourt of Stauskas and McLemore sounds like a bit of a problem, although I don't think it's worse than a Thomas and McLemore backcourt. Actually Aaron Bruski was on the morning show this morning and I thought made a good point. He said that the Kings' main defensive problems are not on the perimeter, but more from the help defense, especially from the PF spot. Defenders get blown by all the time in today's NBA, even good defenders, the offensive players are just too athletic and too quick. It's all about help defense and rotations. If the Kings can find a way to fix that then I think a Stauskas and McLemore backcourt can work and that would allow Gay and Cousins to do what they do best offensively closer to the basket.

We do need a shot-blocker, that's a given. But don't listen to Bruski, he'll do anything to divert attention away from IT's lack of defense, or flat out deny it. He's not an authority on the subject. Fact is, we need a shot-blocker, and we also need to NOT be pee-poor defensively on the perimeter, which is what we are now.

 

[Hallama]

Gay can handle pretty well. You could get away with Nic-Ben-Rudy for stretches.

 

[hrdboild]

I get the feeling that the FO believes that Stauskas can play the role of a Ginobli or Harden. A SG with enough PG abilities to be able to run the team in stretches with-out another pure PG on the floor. And they could be right, as Stauskas really does have superior ball-handling/passing for a SG. I don't believe that he can be converted into a full-time PG for a variety of reasons, but I do believe that he has the potential to run the team in small stretches. And that ability in and of itself completely separate him from Ben.
Ben's ceiling is Ray Allen while Stauskas is Ginobli. Sure Allen and Ginobli are SGs, but they way they impact the game are completely different.

Brick mentioned this in another thread, and I completely agree with him. Having Stauskas as your SG allows you incredible flexibility on who your PG is. You no longer have to have a pure PG, and can get away with a 'half-PG' who might be good at other things (defense/spot-shooting) because Stauskas should be able to carry the rest of the PG load.
So in theory, Stauskas represents an opportunity for incredible flexibility for the back-court.

The big problem I have is that Ben is so bad with his handle and has such limited ability in his PG skills, that even with Stauskas' PG abilities, I don't think there is enough ball-handling/passing between them to actually work long-term. So that means that if you are going to play them a lot together, you need another ball-handler on the floor with them, which ultimately means that you're probably going small, and that is not something I want to see. For that reason, if we can get a veteran defensive-oriented PG or a defensive big for Ben, that is the direction I'd like to see us move towards.

Then why draft Ben in the first place? It was completely obvious in college that he didn't have a handle. That's not why you draft him, you draft him to finish plays. The same crew that raved about McLemore is now raving about Stauskas. If we really wanted the flexibility of having a SG with more ball skills than we screwed up last year's draft and wasted that pick. The problem with both of these drafts isn't the picks themselves, both guys are talented players. The problem is that it shows we don't have a plan. If you can't find a way to take two and two and make 4 than you're falling behind. We could have taken a pass first PG that would have complemented Ben. We could have kept Tyreke at PG last year and that would have complimented Ben as well. We nixed both of those ideas and instead replaced Tyreke with a SG who can't make plays and a PG who can't play defense (Vasquez). In less than a year we've now scrapped that plan and by all indications we're going to replace Ben with a less talented player and we're still looking for a PG.

 

[Uncia03]

Then why draft Ben in the first place? It was completely obvious in college that he didn't have a handle. That's not why you draft him, you draft him to finish plays. The same crew that raved about McLemore is now raving about Stauskas. If we really wanted the flexibility of having a SG with more ball skills than we screwed up last year's draft and wasted that pick. The problem with both of these drafts isn't the picks themselves, both guys are talented players. The problem is that it shows we don't have a plan. If you can't find a way to take two and two and make 4 than you're falling behind. We could have taken a pass first PG that would have complemented Ben. We could have kept Tyreke at PG last year and that would have complimented Ben as well. We nixed both of those ideas and instead replaced Tyreke with a SG who can't make plays and a PG who can't play defense (Vasquez). In less than a year we've now scrapped that plan and by all indications we're going to replace Ben with a less talented player and we're still looking for a PG.

Well, as soon as we drafted Stauskas my expectation was that we were going to move Ben for another draft pick or involved in some sort of trade. That didn't happen, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen. Also I disagree with your last statement indicating that "we're going to replace Ben with a less talented player".
Stauskas right now is the better player and Ben is really going to have to reach the majority of his potential if he's ever going to be better than Stauskas simply because Stauskas handling/playmaking is light-years above what Ben has. Ben has the edge athletically, but the athleticism really is only going to be a factor on the defensive end, and if Ben can't channel that athleticism into great defense (which he wasn't able to do last year) then I don't think he ever becomes as good as Stauskas.

With all that said, you can't look back and ask why we drafted Ben when we've just gone and drafted Stauskas. It appears that we drafted Ben because the FO had mis-givings on whether they would be able to pay Tyreke and saw Ben as insurance at the SG spot. (Big mistake)
What is sad is that a Tyreke/Stauskas back-court would be absolutely killer, but there is really no point in dwelling on that.

Something else to remember in regards to Stauskas. Last year, Stauskas was a nobody. He was one of those kids that every college team has that is there simply to space the floor and hit the open corner jumper. He would have gone undrafted had he declared last year, and wasn't in the conversation even as a 2nd round pick at the start of the year.
What he did during the offseason between last year and this year was astonishing. He completely transformed his game, and a guy who is able to work that hard and see those kinds of results in a single offseason bodes very, very well for his long-term potential.

In my opinion we desparately need a veteran PG and a starting-caliber defensive big to pair with Cousins. Hopefully we'll see some moves to address those needs.
Stauskas is a good pick-up, but the redundancy at the SG spot with Ben is a problem, considering the team's overall lack of assets and glaring needs.

 

[John Galt]

After pondering my own feelings of disappointment on this draft, I've concluded that my dissapointment doesn't lie in the picking of Stauskas. At #8, I like the pick. Like others, I thought of Stauskas when we first discussed PDA's comments several weeks ago about wanting a versatile shooter. So what happened from the time we were all talking about Stauskas and now? A lot of hype is what happened. The obscure transparency of this regime has created rumors, hopes, scenarios, and excitement. Now at the end of the draft we stand where we began - with Stauskas. More than anything it tells me that this organization should shut the heck up. Petrie kept his mouth shut for a reason. The self aggrandizing publicity-seeking GM needs to put a sock in it until something actually happens. Secondly, the schizophrenia of this organization is starting to grate on my sensibilities. Case in point: Josh Smith. This is an organization that from its inception preached they wanted to change the culture. So of course they want to ponder bringing in Josh Smith to change it. Really? There are instances where the apprarent contradictions may be just paradoxes to the uninformed. But I can't for the life of me see how even contemplating Josh Smith is congruent with their game plan of changing the culture of this organization. Some apparent contradictions are just that - contradictions.

this hits the nail on the head - my feelings exactly after sleeping on it. I am happy with Stauskas with #8, but expectations were raised for much more impact.

 

[Uncia03]

this hits the nail on the head - my feelings exactly after sleeping on it. I am happy with Stauskas with #8, but expectations were raised for much more impact.

I agree with this as well.
Also, I think we all believe that Ben is now our best asset to be used to address some major issues with the team. When you then hear that the FO has no intention on using him as an asset to bring in critical pieces...it becomes even more deflating.

After all the talk of the major wheeling and dealing, the possibility that we go into next season as basically the same team plus Stauskas is a real let-down. And I really like Stauskas, but by himself, he isn't going to be near enough to take this team to another level.

Considering how important next year is, you have to believe that we will see more changes....right?

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Do you guys all just parrot the same exact insults ("Gerbil" and "Low Hanging Fruit") towards PDA? I just keep reading the same two things over and over in this thread. Very original......get some new material fellas.

You guys can make fun of him all you want and call him a "gerbil", "loser", and say he doesn't know what he's doing. However at the end of the day he's getting paid for a dream job as the GM of a professional sports franchise. Smart and successful people thought he was qualified for the job and thought he could do the job. Maybe they were wrong and made a big mistake (time will tell) but the Kings brass are still going to come out as winners in life while some of the childish members of this forum have to resort to stewing in anger on a forum and calling people "gerbil".

For the record I question the pick too just because I think they could have drafted Stauskas somewhere in the 10-13 range, so you would think they would have been able to trade down slightly and at least get an additional early 2nd round pick or something while still getting their guy. Stauskas just doesn't seem like as big of an impact player as you would expect to draft in the 8th spot of a deep draft. He was a very "safe pick" to put it mildly.

Like it or not though he does fill a need (on one end). PDA and Malone have been saying for weeks and really even during last season that the team needed help with outside shooting and they just went out and got that. So many people in this thread who are apparently deaf or dumb keep saying that PDA and the Kings don't have a plan.......well when the coach and GM keep saying they need outside shooting over and over and they go out and draft exactly what they have been telling you......how is that not a plan? You may not like the plan and it may very well be the wrong plan but make no mistake they stuck to their plan.

yes the insults are warranted which is why they continue.

just because he was hired for the job doesn't mean is great for the job. plenty of people who got the job but stunk at it. former knicks GM isaiah thomas, former twolves GM david khan and (possibly former kings GM gerbil) comes to mind.

when they took over they spoke heavenly about improving defense. we have added a ton of defensive players since i think. all we've done is try to mirror the franchise which the owner came from. for 2 seasons we've passed on players that could help us on the defensive end and rebounding (steven adams, noah vonleh) and duplicated the same position.

i guess us fans should stfu and be thankful the team didn't move right.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

I agree with this as well.
Also, I think we all believe that Ben is now our best asset to be used to address some major issues with the team. When you then hear that the FO has no intention on using him as an asset to bring in critical pieces...it becomes even more deflating.

After all the talk of the major wheeling and dealing, the possibility that we go into next season as basically the same team plus Stauskas is a real let-down. And I really like Stauskas, but by himself, he isn't going to be near enough to take this team to another level.

Considering how important next year is, you have to believe that we will see more changes....right?

gerbil is all bark and no bite? sounds like him.

 

[jcwkings]

While I'm upset with the lack of moves(I like the pick quite a bit), especially after all the talk PDA was spewing leading up to the draft, I will hold judgment until after all the Free Agent stuff settles. I find it hard to believe the FO got Rudy to opt back in with the thought the roster would pretty much be the same with the exception of a new rookie. Also i saw some reports that IT value around the league could be between $4-$6 million, in that case you have to keep him without questions asked(unless you can work a sign and trade for Rondo). I would just say to everyone that is spazzing out to hold out until the free agent dust settles and we really get into the DDOS, thats when we will have the clear picture of what the roster will be like going into training camp.​

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Then why draft Ben in the first place? It was completely obvious in college that he didn't have a handle. That's not why you draft him, you draft him to finish plays. The same crew that raved about McLemore is now raving about Stauskas. If we really wanted the flexibility of having a SG with more ball skills than we screwed up last year's draft and wasted that pick. The problem with both of these drafts isn't the picks themselves, both guys are talented players. The problem is that it shows we don't have a plan. If you can't find a way to take two and two and make 4 than you're falling behind. We could have taken a pass first PG that would have complemented Ben. We could have kept Tyreke at PG last year and that would have complimented Ben as well. We nixed both of those ideas and instead replaced Tyreke with a SG who can't make plays and a PG who can't play defense (Vasquez). In less than a year we've now scrapped that plan and by all indications we're going to replace Ben with a less talented player and we're still looking for a PG.

they wanted pass 1st PG so they tried to get jose calderon, iggy then settled for micro pizza boy who isn't pass 1st. watch them give him a landry type contract and further muck up the salary situation with no flexibility to make moves. our big 2.5 averaging 20ppg is a nice conversation piece though.

 

[hrdboild]

Like it or not though he does fill a need (on one end). PDA and Malone have been saying for weeks and really even during last season that the team needed help with outside shooting and they just went out and got that. So many people in this thread who are apparently deaf or dumb keep saying that PDA and the Kings don't have a plan.......well when the coach and GM keep saying they need outside shooting over and over and they go out and draft exactly what they have been telling you......how is that not a plan? You may not like the plan and it may very well be the wrong plan but make no mistake they stuck to their plan.

Yes, I realize the coach and GM have been saying how much they need outside shooting. And I've been critical of those comments the entire time because I think outside shooting is a very small need in relation to getting a PG who makes other players better, improved perimeter defense which can disrupt the passing lanes and make it harder for guards to get to the basket, and a defensive goalkeeper of sorts to deter shots when they do get there.

You build a team defense in much the same way you build a team offense. Everybody has a role. There's somebody up top to defend the primary ballhandler, somebody with length to guard the rim, somebody strong to body up the best post scorer, and somebody on the wing who's quick enough to chase shooters all over the floor. When you have to "cover" for a poor defender that means somebody in the defense is not doing their job. It's not unlike having a guy on the floor who can't shoot. And yet while we seem very interested in filling the holes in our offense, the holes in our defense are bigger and more worrisome and yet there's been little talk about plugging those.

 

[Prince_XY]

Also i saw some reports that IT value around the league could be between $4-$6 million, in that case you have to keep him without questions asked(unless you can work a sign and trade for Rondo).

Keep IT at 4M-6M?

Yeah, let us keep IT so we can keep the same problem for eternity - the never-ending back court poor defense, lack of ball movement due to me-first mentality/ball hogging, and freezing out of other players.

As someone mentioned before, we should just give IT to the Lakers so he could freeze Kobe on offense.

 

[twslam07]

What is sad is that a Tyreke/Stauskas back-court would be absolutely killer, but there is really no point in dwelling on that.

I really felt genuinely sad after reading this statement. You're absolutely right. Evans would be the ball dominant PG while Stauskas could still handle some of the the ball handling and playmaking duties. Evans would be the dribble penetrator while Stauskas shooting would help spread the floor. Both have good size. Evans would help cushion Stauskas on the defensive side. It is indeed very depressing to think about what an Evans/Stauskas backcourt could accomplish together, but I digress...

 

[jcwkings]

Keep IT at 4M-6M?

Yeah, let us keep IT so we can keep the same problem for eternity - the never-ending back court poor defense, lack of ball movement due to me-first mentality/ball hogging, and freezing out of other players.

As someone mentioned before, we should just give IT to the Lakers so he could freeze Kobe on offense.

I'd rather keep IT at that price than sign some journeymen. At worst you have a valuable asset that is flexible, can start or come off the bench, competes every night, has chemistry and a relationship with your franchise centerpiece, has proven himself in the league and works his tail off. BTW the only player you can argue IT "froze out" last year was Ben McLemore, who was one of the worst starters in the league. When he played with Cousins and Gay he naturally became the third option and played like it for the most part. I guess we'll see what happnes, PDA seems very hush about the IT situation, either the FO isn't very high on him long term or they are trying to get him at the lowest price possible.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Well, as soon as we drafted Stauskas my expectation was that we were going to move Ben for another draft pick or involved in some sort of trade. That didn't happen, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen. Also I disagree with your last statement indicating that "we're going to replace Ben with a less talented player".
Stauskas right now is the better player and Ben is really going to have to reach the majority of his potential if he's ever going to be better than Stauskas simply because Stauskas handling/playmaking is light-years above what Ben has. Ben has the edge athletically, but the athleticism really is only going to be a factor on the defensive end, and if Ben can't channel that athleticism into great defense (which he wasn't able to do last year) then I don't think he ever becomes as good as Stauskas.

With all that said, you can't look back and ask why we drafted Ben when we've just gone and drafted Stauskas. It appears that we drafted Ben because the FO had mis-givings on whether they would be able to pay Tyreke and saw Ben as insurance at the SG spot. (Big mistake)
What is sad is that a Tyreke/Stauskas back-court would be absolutely killer, but there is really no point in dwelling on that.

Something else to remember in regards to Stauskas. Last year, Stauskas was a nobody. He was one of those kids that every college team has that is there simply to space the floor and hit the open corner jumper. He would have gone undrafted had he declared last year, and wasn't in the conversation even as a 2nd round pick at the start of the year.
What he did during the offseason between last year and this year was astonishing. He completely transformed his game, and a guy who is able to work that hard and see those kinds of results in a single offseason bodes very, very well for his long-term potential.

In my opinion we desparately need a veteran PG and a starting-caliber defensive big to pair with Cousins. Hopefully we'll see some moves to address those needs.
Stauskas is a good pick-up, but the redundancy at the SG spot with Ben is a problem, considering the team's overall lack of assets and glaring needs.

he's like a taller version of beno with better shooting and ball handling. perfect fit next to reke.

if they kept reke, drafted steven adams instead of ben..

the roster might look like

cousins
adams
rudy
stauskas?
reke

thats a pretty well balanced team with balanced d and o. i'm pretty pissed after looking at adams highlights. the big man can pass.

 

[rainmaker]

We're Kings fans. We'd probably find something to complain about if we won the NBA championship.

Napear would be at the parade.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

You don't know that, though. And it's cute that philly is making all of these moves, but how will they score? they have holes they need to address as well

And stockpiling a bunch of young players, guarantees nothing.

true it doesn't guarantee anything however with them stockpiling them there is a chance a few of em make it. even if they don't sign all of them, they're worth something to other teams. how did houston pull off that trade to land harden? stockpiled picks and young players to trade.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

Gay can handle pretty well. You could get away with Nic-Ben-Rudy for stretches.

Yes it's when he picks the ball up in his moves to the rim that he constantly gets stripped

 

[swisshh]

You can get away with Nik-Ben-Rudy for periods of time. The key phrase there being 'get away'. You don't go in planning to use that. It's a break glass scenario. If you go in planning to use that set up often then you've ****ed up.

 

[Albatros]

Malone was just on the radio and he said you can use "whatever point guard you like" and then Nik at the 2 Ben at the 3 Rudy at the 4.

 

[sdballer]

Malone was just on the radio and he said you can use "whatever point guard you like" and then Nik at the 2 Ben at the 3 Rudy at the 4.

Ladies and gentlemen, Nellie ball at its finest. What a joke this franchise is becoming.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

Malone was just on the radio and he said you can use "whatever point guard you like" and then Nik at the 2 Ben at the 3 Rudy at the 4.

 

[rainmaker]

Malone was just on the radio and he said you can use "whatever point guard you like" and then Nik at the 2 Ben at the 3 Rudy at the 4.

 

[Prog]

Malone was just on the radio and he said you can use "whatever point guard you like" and then Nik at the 2 Ben at the 3 Rudy at the 4.

I don't think Malone is a very good coach.

 

[Livinthedream]

Malone was just on the radio and he said you can use "whatever point guard you like" and then Nik at the 2 Ben at the 3 Rudy at the 4.

Whatever PG you like? That's interesting.

I'm trying to imagine that line-up up against OKC. Against the Clippers. Would not be pretty.

 

[hrdboild]

Well, as soon as we drafted Stauskas my expectation was that we were going to move Ben for another draft pick or involved in some sort of trade. That didn't happen, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen. Also I disagree with your last statement indicating that "we're going to replace Ben with a less talented player".
Stauskas right now is the better player and Ben is really going to have to reach the majority of his potential if he's ever going to be better than Stauskas simply because Stauskas handling/playmaking is light-years above what Ben has. Ben has the edge athletically, but the athleticism really is only going to be a factor on the defensive end, and if Ben can't channel that athleticism into great defense (which he wasn't able to do last year) then I don't think he ever becomes as good as Stauskas.

With all that said, you can't look back and ask why we drafted Ben when we've just gone and drafted Stauskas. It appears that we drafted Ben because the FO had mis-givings on whether they would be able to pay Tyreke and saw Ben as insurance at the SG spot. (Big mistake)
What is sad is that a Tyreke/Stauskas back-court would be absolutely killer, but there is really no point in dwelling on that.

Something else to remember in regards to Stauskas. Last year, Stauskas was a nobody. He was one of those kids that every college team has that is there simply to space the floor and hit the open corner jumper. He would have gone undrafted had he declared last year, and wasn't in the conversation even as a 2nd round pick at the start of the year.
What he did during the offseason between last year and this year was astonishing. He completely transformed his game, and a guy who is able to work that hard and see those kinds of results in a single offseason bodes very, very well for his long-term potential.

In my opinion we desparately need a veteran PG and a starting-caliber defensive big to pair with Cousins. Hopefully we'll see some moves to address those needs.
Stauskas is a good pick-up, but the redundancy at the SG spot with Ben is a problem, considering the team's overall lack of assets and glaring needs.

I said Ben is the more talented player, not that's he the better player right now. Stauskas was a lights out shooter in college but that doesn't always translate easily to the pros. Ben had a rough season but he also put up 31, 5, and 5 in his final game. With a full off-season to work on his weaknesses, maybe he comes back next year a substantially improved player. Not to mention, I think a PG like Elfrid Payton would have made Ben look like a much better player on both ends of the floor by finding him with the ball off of cuts and screens and by lessening the load he's asked to handle defensively. Ben wasn't bad man-to-man last year, but he did get consistently lost in the maze of screens and switches he was asked to navigate. Alternatively, Stauskas off the bench as a shooter isn't a bad plan but we still need a PG and a defensive big and we have no cap space left to acquire them.