Players to watch: 2016/17 college season.

We agree on Isaac. I think he's going to be a very good two way player in the NBA. But I'm higher on Tatum than you are. His game as improved as the season has progressed. Especially his 3pt shot. He's has good handles and is a good passer. And he rebounds. He's almost a prototype of what an NBA SF should look like. The question with Fox is can you fix his shot? His forum isn't that bad, and he takes a lot of off balance shots, which doesn't help. He reminds me of Richardson at Syracuse. I felt that if he could improve his shot selection, he would shoot for a higher percentage.

Fox plays so fast, that he tends to rush his shot, or many times he takes shots with the clock running down. Other than that, I like Fox a lot. It's amazing to me that he doesn't turn the ball over more than he does playing at that speed. He's also a tenacious defender. He's not my first choice, but I'll take him. If we could walk away with a SF/PG combination out these four players, Fox, Ntilikina, Isaac, and Tatum, I'll be happy.

Duke vs Florida State on ESPN right now, chance to look at Isaac vs Tatum, two potential guys Kings will look at. Most mocks have them in the 4-9 range.

I like Tatum. My concern is that his game reminds me of somewhat inefficient, midrange focused scorers like Jabari Parker, Rudy Gay, Carmelo Anthony, Danny Granger or Paul Pierce.

Pierce had the most success and physically Tatum reminds me of him. Tatum has shown a bit more all around skill than I expexted but he's also not a great athlete by NBA standards.

I think Tatum has a pretty small chance of being a bust but I'm not sure what his ceiling is.

We had Seth Curry here last year. He's got a ton of confidence too. He's sitting on a 44% 3pt percentage so far in his brief NBA career to date. He's even got magical Curry DNA in his veins! We let him go for nothing. Did not even try to bring him back and he's having a better season than any of the guards on our team this year. Before that we had Isaiah Thomas, who is not hurting for confidence or scoring ability, and let him go for nothing. Before that we had Tyreke and traded him for Grievis Vasquez. Before that we cleared out our backcourt to give Jimmer a starting spot then ultimately let him go for nothing too. A couple weeks ago we traded DeMarcus essentially for Buddy Hield and a protected pick because we think Buddy Hield has star potential because he shot the lights out at Oklahoma last year. Would we seriously throw another pick at essentially the same player? I just don't get it. Nobody is forcing us to play Bogdan out of position at SF or Monk out of position at PG. That's a choice. "Best player available" is subjective -- it's rare that everybody agrees on who that player is. Obviously if you really think Monk is going to be an MVP level superstar and nobody else in this draft is even close than you pick him anyway. It's going to force us into more losing trades, but you do whatever it takes to draft a superstar. I just see him as one more good player out of a dozen good players though and a terrible fit given the circumstances. A downright depressing one with historical context.

There are some really good defensive prospects in this draft too. We don't need to pick the best scorer on the board. Ntilikina is a bit of a mystery but he can shoot, he can play the point, and he's a smothering presence on defense. Not just that he has tools that could lead to playing good defense down the road, he already does it. So does DeAaron Fox. Maybe those guys can't shoot it like Monk can but that's not the entire game of basketball. I know that's not what you said or even implied -- I'm not arguing with anything you said exactly-- it's more the direction of the team that's puzzling to me. If swagger and confidence are important why didn't we bring back Curry and Acy this year? If our goal is to improve our outside shooting why did we push Omri out of the rotation for Matt Barnes? Building a team is about making choices. You can't be a defense-first team without targeting and signing defensive personnel. I don't want to see another player here who saves energy on defense so they can score 30 per game. I want to see some players here who lay everything they have on the defensive end for a change.

Sixers have a nice stretch 4 in Dario Saric. He's more athletic than Markkanen too. I could see them going SF, while letting Simmons play PF? I think Simmons can play any position except C. Since he can't shoot, you just compensate that with having 3 other shooters on the floor+ 1 big.

Yeah, I suppose it depends on where they play Simmons. But I'll be surprised if he and Saric both start. Saric isn't really a stretch four as he's not much of a shooter. He improved a fair amount last season before he came over so there's the hope he can do the same in the NBA but so far he's a 31% shooter from deep.

But I agree that what the Sixers should be looking to do is put three shooters around Simmons and Embiid.

They don't have enough tables in the training room.

The more I watch of Fox, the more I like him. He has so many tools at his disposal to be a great PG. I'm not sure I've seen a guard with that quickness being 6'3''+. He's John Wall quick (people can disagree, but he is), it's very exciting to watch. His passing, low turnovers, athleticism, finishing ability, handles, and savviness make him a great prospect. His shooting is obviously his main weakness but he can overcome that with time. He doesn't really have any other glaring weaknesses and he looks like he could be an elite defender down the road. Also a very intelligent, confident and high IQ player. We'll need a PG so we should be taking a strong look at him.

I love Monk too which is a testament to him because we already have 50 SGs on the roster and I still think he should be in play with our pick, that's how good he is. I think he's better than every SG on our roster at this very moment.

His shot isnt broken so I think that is something he can improve drastically as a pro. I also really like his combination of size, quickness and length. I would be fine with Fox or Nkitilina and one of the SF prospects.

Monk reminds me of Lou Williams, he's a pure scorer, if he can improve his handle I can see him as a McCollum type player.

Yeah I know what you mean with Fox. I do like him a lot and he could end up being the best PG from this draft in a few years time.

He obviously needs to get stronger and those legs are like twigs. He is not that great at finishing at the rim against the tall timber but that floater he has does have some touch on it which somewhat off-sets his weakness of finishing at the rim.

The shot it not completely broken. His shot is not MKG or even Tyreke like. He seems to have pretty solid mechanics on it but it's inconsistent in that the rotation on the ball varies and sometimes it lacks arc. I do think he can correct this with some real development work once he gets to the pros. His inconsistent shooting sees his opponents happily go under the screen and dare him to shoot. much like they did with Rondo while he was in Sacramento.

Defensively he is really good and when he gets stronger, he will get even better. I like Fox a LOT. If Fox and Tatum make their way to Sacramento from this draft, then that is some really good building blocks going forward. You just need to ensure that your development program is really strong and that these kids get a lot of attention and development from the fraachise.

Am I the only one concerned about Fox in the half-court? It seems like he excels with pushing the ball in transition. If you limit him in transition, then he doesn't look like anything special. I don't know if he has a go-to scoring move yet.

Right now, he's a pass 1st PG with good IQ and good defense. He's not much of a scoring threat, and teams can easily sag on him. He has the tools to become a really good PG, but his non-shooting ability scares me. He also hasn't demonstrated a lot in the half-court. He displays good PnR ability, but that's about it.

If Fox can never develop a 3pt shot, then he's automatically nothing more than a backup PG. His percentage scares the hell out of me.

Fair points. Getting a consistent jump shot out to 3Pt line just unlocks his game in a major way. Just like it would have for Tyreke.

One thing that I am comforted with is that Fox's shot does not look broken. It is really solid mechanics that requires a bit of tweaking and a great deal of repetition until it becomes a second nature. At the moment, while mechanics is solid, the ball rotation and the arc on the shot are inconsistent.

In terms of play making in the half court, some of that can be developed in time and some of it comes down to sets. Being good in PnR or PnP is a positive with the current bigs that the Kings have.

But you are absolutely correct in saying that how good a player he becomes is really dependent on him getting a consistent shot out to 3pt land.

I think our serious discussion just ended when you compared Monk, a freshman in college, to Curry. Look, Curry spent four years in college and almost four years in the NBA to get where he is. And all that said, Monk is probably a better player than Curry is right now at 19 years of age. I'm not advocating that we draft Monk. He's not my first choice, but he's certainly a player I'd have to consider long and hard before passing on him.

Usually in the draft your left with two choices. One choice is a player that's an average to good athlete, that's very skilled, or the choice of a player that's a terrific athlete, that's raw in many areas.. With the first choice, your getting a player that's more ready to play, but who doesn't have a high ceiling. With the second choice, your getting an elite athlete, and your hoping he's willing to put in the work to develop his skills.

Then, every once in a while, you get a player that's an elite athlete, and who is very skilled. Those players tend to go by the names of Jordan, Lebron, Wade, etc. Not all, but it's a rare combination to find in a freshman in college. Monk falls into that category. He's not perfect. He has a couple of flaws. His size isn't ideal for the SG position. He doesn't at present have what one would call an NBA body. But he has the handles you need. He's an outstanding shooter. He can go to the basket. He's very quick with good lateral quickness. He has a 42"vertical. And he likes to defend.

In our particular case, he doesn't fill a position of need. But, you can always use him as a trading chip to move down a couple of spaces, and maybe pick up a first round pick in 2019 if there's still a player on the board that you really like. But to pass on Monk, I need a very, very good reason. The last thing this organization needs, is to pass on a player that eventually ends up being an all star.

One of the problems any PG on the Kentucky team, and it's not unique to Kentucky in this one and done atmosphere were in, is that every year your putting five players on the floor that have never played together before. It's difficult to look good in the half court in particular, because that requires running plays. Executing! Kentucky's half court game has improved as the season has gone along. Monk has looked good all year because he doesn't need anyone to set him up. But players like Adebayo have started to look like solid prospects. Why? Because they're actually running plays better. It takes time folks.

Look at the current Kings. They have two experienced PG's on the team, but despite that, with all the new players now playing, it looks like mass confusion out there at times. Here's what I know about Fox. He's lightning quick. He has great handles. He can make the simple pass without turning the ball over. He runs the pick and roll very well. By that, I mean he does his part very well. He has good court vision, and I base that on some of the long outlet passes he makes in an instant, and with good accuracy. He has excellent size for the PG position, and he's a tenacious defender. His major flaws right now are his outside shot, which I think is correctable, and his lack of strength, which is certainly correctable.

If your looking for a PG that can effectively push the ball, and who plays at both ends of the court, then he's certainly a candidate. Monk would be the best athlete on that team, if it wern't for Fox. Together, they're probably the most athletic backcourt in college.

baja, I didn't compare Malik Monk to Seth Curry. I said we had an undersized SG who shot the lights out already last year and we wouldn't even pay him the $3 million it would have cost to bring him back this season. We had Isaiah Thomas scoring 20 points per game for us and that wasn't worth $7 million. We had Tyreke Evans scoring 20 per game and that wasn't worth $11 million. All throughout our decade of irrelevance we've had guards who can score the ball and this front office has treated them with all of the patience of a 9 year old on Christmas Eve. Despite all of that we still made Buddy Hield the centerpiece of the DeMarcus Cousins trade even though his upside is basically that of an athletically limited undersized shooting guard. And that's before you get into the whole idea of prior PG conversion failures like Tyreke or Jimmer. I'm well aware of how talented Monk is. But if we come out of this draft with another undersized SG as our prize I'm going to be monumentally depressed.

More than that though, watching Monk score 33 points against a college team doesn't titillate me the same way that Josh Jackson going 6 for 8, pulling in 12 boards, and blowing up countless Oklahoma offensive sets does because Monk is 6'2" and his only NBA position is SG while Jackson is a 6'7" wing player. Besides being a gifted athlete, Michael Jordan was huge for his position. Wade was a little bit shorter than ideal for a wing but he's still 6'4" barefoot with a nearly 7 foot wingspan. Monk can't defend NBA wings no matter how willing he is and that is a serious issue for his NBA potential. If he's going to be a big piece of our future than we'd need a wing player who can facilitate like a PG but defend other wings. We'd be starting our rebuild by locking ourselves into a difficult team building scenario where we're chasing after a particular type of player to cover up for Monk's weaknesses. I really don't want to indulge where that scenario might lead us if I can avoid it.

I always think backwards -- is this guy going to be a difference maker on defense? If the answer is yes, then I move on to what he can do on the other end of the court. Josh Jackson is a giant yes to that question. DeAaron Fox and Frank Ntilikina are both great defenders who can also run the point. I'm far more willing to draft a guy who is a proven facilitator who can also defend his position at a high level and get to the basket (Fox) and worry about improving his jumper in the future than to draft a guy who can really only defend one position, has not proven he can run an offense, and needs his shooting percentages to translate to the NBA level to justify the lottery pick. After watching Quincy Douby, Jimmer Fredette, Ben McLemore, and Nik Stauskas all come into the league as "sure-thing" long-range marksmen who were going to fix our shooting woes only to see all of them struggle to hit threes in the NBA, I'm very skeptical of any player who's lone standout skill at the college level is shooting.

You brought up CJ McCollum before. He's the #18 scorer in the league right now. I'll go even further and invoke Isaiah Thomas who is the #2 scorer in the league right now. They're deservedly garnering all the accolades that go along with being a leading scorer. Given the choice I'd rather have someone like Otto Porter though, averaging only 14 points per game but doing it with remarkable efficiency and also providing strong boardwork and heady defense. The only way I draft a player like Malik Monk is if every other reasonable option is already off the board and I'd probably still prefer to go with a defensive big with limited offensive potential because size and defense are always going to be important. It's just a difference in philosophy. We had an All-Star already -- our front office traded him for spare parts. That re-calibrates the scale a bit doesn't it? Maybe we aren't looking for an All-Star at any position, maybe we're looking for a particular kind of All-Star who can elevate a team to playoff contender by sheer force of will. The way I see it, that's never going to happen if you don't get a player who dominates both ends of the floor.

What are our most pressing needs in the draft? I imagine it being PG and SF. Seems like if we get two top 10 picks, it shouldn't be out of the question to land a great PG and SF.

I would not pass on Monk with #3 pick on down. Even if I had #2 pick, I would draft Ball and swap with Lakers/Magic/etc. for Monk + player/picks because I don't like the idea of the Balls with this franchise. We'll end up spending the 2018 first on his brother just to pump up our Lonzo extension hopes.

I like Monk a lot too, I see him becoming a star. Unfortunately we have too many SGs and I don't see Monk being able to play PG. Owner is too high on Buddy to pick Monk even if he fell to us.

If your asking me if I would take Jackson over Monk, the answer is yes, but that's not what we're talking about here, and I'm too tired to continue this discussion. By the way, I go by the height of players in their shoes. Last time I checked, they don't play in their bare feet. It's also what the league goes by when giving out heights. So to me, it's less confusing. Another measuring stat that can be a little misleading is wingspan. I prefer to go with standing reach, which is a better indicator. Two people can have the same arm length, and the same standing reach, but one can have a shorter wingspan because he has narrower shoulders.

Point taken. The only reason I use bare foot height for prospect discussions is because guys wear different shoes to the combine which means their "official" in-shoes heights are all out of whack. I think it's more fair to use the bare foot height and add an inch for their playing height. So I guess that makes Monk a touch over 6'3" and Wade a touch under 6'5". For the wingspan/standing reach measurements I tend to think standing reach is more important for the PF/C positions where you're wondering if they can affect shots near the basket and wingspan is more important at the guard positions where you're more concerned with their ability to contain other guards off the dribble and disrupt passing lanes. That being said, I didn't have a problem with Westbrook being undersized because he was a terror on defense at UCLA so I figured he could play up regardless of what his NBA position is. It's worth mentioning that nobody really expected Russ to play PG full-time either and he's made it work so I may be overly concerned about Monk for no reason.

We don't have to pursue this conversation any longer if that's your preference, suffice it to say I have personal reasons for disliking scoring guards, undersized ones in particular, that extend beyond their relative strengths as prospects. I never would have drafted Steph Curry either, so it is what it is. It's rare that I really flip over a guard who's calling card isn't defense or playmaking. Ben McLemore was probably the last time and look how that worked out. For the most part we tend to agree on most prospects but there's always a few every year that I'm radically opposed to for whatever reason and they usually end up being who the Kings draft! I didn't want Spencer Hawes, I didn't want Jimmer, I didn't want Nik Stauskas, I didn't want Willie Cauley-Stein. I will have a hard time sticking around here if we draft Lonzo Ball or Malik Monk so you all might be done with me pretty soon anyway.

This was probably covered up thread, but Ntilikina looks like a guy who could rocket up the board when the team workouts start. Seems like every year at least one European prospect vaults the college kids, and my money would be on Ntilikina this year. Not a super hot take, but I think he ends up being the 3rd PG taken. Right now, Sixers at #5 would have a tough choice between him and Monk. Smith will slide. Tatum should slide, but won't, because we need a SF prospect so badly and Jackson/Isaac probably go 3-4.

Some thoughts after watching Kentucky/Texas A&M:
- Monk was off, but he's still very intriguing. He still occupies the defense's attention when he's not hitting his shots, and can at least set other guys up when defenses collapse on him. Makes a ton of sense for the Sixers even if they're picking in the top 5; since they have Simmons they won't rely on him to be their primary playmaker.
- Fox is so, so quick. If he could shoot consistently, he'd be a top 3 guy. He hit a couple corner 3s that showed promise, but missed a couple open ones as well. Still had 17 points to pick up things with Monk off.
- Someone will take Robert Williams in the top 10 and be very happy. Still needs to work on his shot, and general instincts/feel for the game, but he has great touch grabbing rebounds and finishing at the rim.
- Bam Adebayo doesn't profile to be more than a role playing big, but looks to be very solid. Not great size, but I could see a team that's focused on the perimeter (like Houston) having some success with him.

Well I certainly hope you don't bail on us. We may not agree all the time, and of course I'm usually right, but the last thing we need is for everyone to be in lock step. Different opinions are what make this thing work, as long as everyone is civilized about it. I think you make valid points about Monk, and of course to some extent, it's always a crap shoot, but there are outliers with Monk that suggest he can be more than what you project. But no guarantees. With Ball, I would bet my life on your being wrong. He's a special player and if we were able to draft him, which we won't be, and you were to leave, you'd be missing out on a lot of fun. I think you's be back in a hurry.

The PG that I have the most reservations about, and the one that my gut tells me to beware of is Dennis Smith Jr. No denying his abilities, but something about him doesn't feel right, and I find myself having to talk myself into him. Always a bad sign. If Fox can improve his shot, he could end up being one of the best to come out of this class. But even with his bad shot, I don't have to talk myself into him,. Something just tells me he's going to be a good player.

I think your dead right. Of course were speculating about Ntilikina, but if you start digging deep into him, he comes across as very appealing. Howver whether that comes to pass or not, I agree that if anyone is going to slide, it's Smith. Something doesn't taste right to me. The player I hope is still there when we make our first pick is Fox. If I get to choose between Fox, Monk, and Ntilikina, so much the better. If the Basketball gods smile upon us and we walk away with Fox and Tatum, or Ntilikina and Isaac, I'll be a happy man.

Yeah, I've read some interesting takes that are skeptical of Smith. Here's one of them: https://deanondraft.com/2017/01/25/dennis-smith-jr-is-good-but-not-great/

Yep, already read that, thanks to my son. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but he makes a valid case for all of his opinions.

I already tried to untangle my aversion to Lonzo Ball, but it's more of a bad vibe than anything else. First of all, I almost always love big guards who can pass. Penny Hardaway in his prime is one of my top 3 favorite players ever and I've chased after every pseudo-Penny ever since hoping they're the second coming. None have been so far. Ball is a very impressive prospect in almost every way though. For a guy his size he can really fly up the court with the ball in his hands and his passing is so instinctual and on the money. He's the rare lead guard who is obviously the best player on his team and yet prefers to use his ability to attack and collapse the defense to facilitate everyone else's scoring. His jumpshot looks like a hail mary every time he throws it up and yet it almost always goes in. Athleticism and defensive ability aren't elite but they're both positives. On the court in pure basketball terms he's a top 8 guy at least, probably top 5 and if you're not a crazy defense-obsessed psycho like me almost certainly top 3.

But off the court it's a perfect storm of bad juju. The Ball family storyline really bothers me. He's from affluent Chino Hills, deep in Lakers territory. His family picked UCLA and got scholarship offers for his two younger sons out of it which, if you live in So Cal and aren't alumni UCLA basketball is a team for front runners. They're one of the darlings of Division I basketball and they get tons of media coverage no matter how bad they are and their players always get overhyped because of it. His dad (who is already selling Big Baller Brand clothes online) has put it out there that his son belongs in a Lakers jersey. All of the reasons that I want to root for a guy like Ben McLemore --poor family, single mom, tough upbringing, countless obstacles he had to overcome just to get where he is -- it's the exact opposite for Ball. He seems almost innately talented and he never looks like he's working very hard at all. His dad has groomed him for professional basketball since he was 2 years old. He was anointed as the next big thing before he played a single game in college. I'm sure Ball will continue to be a very successful basketball player somewhere but I don't really want to root for him. There's something about him that irks me. A smugness in how he carries himself. A smugness I've come to associate with Lakers fandom. And if he gets drafted by Sacramento I expect his agent/dad will get to work planning his exit to a major market (preferably the LA Lakers) as soon as his name is called. Basically I think he might already be "too big for Sacramento" and as a Nor Cal transplant residing in So Cal myself the whole idiotic idea that anyone can be "too big for Sacramento" still pisses me off.

So... just to recap: My primary problem with Monk is that he seems like a re-tread of every other dead end we've followed in the post-Adelman era to one last place finish after another. Fair to him? Not really, but that's my reaction. Good prospect, I'd just prefer that he went somewhere else. With Ball I feel like he'll either fail to live up to the impossibly high expectations everyone has placed on him or if he is the next Jason Kidd he'll leave Sacramento at the first opportunity. That's a lose-lose situation in Kings land. Do I know this? Of course not. But that's what my gut tells me. There's no magic formula for predicting success so I just have to go with my gut here. Picking either of these guys would feel like stepping onto a rollercoaster already knowing it's going to crash before it returns to the station. Who would willingly sign up for that? Nobody would. So that's where I'm coming from. I'd have to keep my distance for awhile at least until the coast seems clear. I don't root for Kings players to fail but I have watched quite a few through gritted teeth with my hands covering my face. I'd just prefer that we went with someone else here. Like you said, it's very unlikely we'll even be in a position to draft Ball at least so it's not really worth worrying about.

Enough about Lonzo Ball, I will fully agree with you about Fox though. He was my favorite player in this draft until Josh Jackson progressed from a good prospect into a great one. I'm actually really happy his shot isn't dropping this year because one season of poor shooting is easy to dismiss and/or overcome and it means he'll probably slip down further in the draft than he ought to, hopefully to a position where we might possibly get him. And I've got a similar feeling about Dennis Smith Jr. too -- of the top guys he's the one I'm least excited about from a pure basketball ability point of view. If we can come out of this draft with some combination of Isaac/Tatum and Fox/Ntilikina I'll be thrilled right along with you. If we can find a way to get Josh Jackson I'd be over-the-moon excited about watching him compete in a Kings uniform. Robert Williams and Miles Bridges intrigue me as fallback options if our pick is a little lower than expected and/or we have a second pick in the 10-15 range from New Orleans.

(Sidenote: How crazy is it that the first 15 picks of the draft this year are projected to be 14 freshmen and a 19 year old international prospect? Has this ever happened before?)
(Sidenote 2: In 15 years only once have I seen a player at UCLA and thought "holy crap, this kid is going to be a star in the NBA". That kid was Russell Westbrook who was not highly ranked coming out of high school and after 2 years at UCLA he was projected as a late lottery prospect but started to move up the board during workouts and eventually Seattle/OKC surprised a lot of people by picking him 4th overall. I was pissed, but it was unlikely we were going to get him at #12 anyway. Putting all that off-the-court Lakersfan/psycho-dad/Big Baller brand stuff aside, Lonzo Ball the player just doesn't blow me away like Russ did. His numbers are way better but the eye test says he's a borderline All-Star in the NBA to me. Borderline only because All-Star spots are usually given to leading scorers and he'll most likely be a 15pt/10ast per game type of guard playing in an era of scoring guards calling themselves point guards.)

Watched Tatum for the first time on Saturday and wasn't impressed. Didn't look like a lottery pick at all to me. Hopefully it was just a bad game.

Justin Jackson improving his 3pt shot has to be the biggest difference in his entire game. Saw that DX bumped him up to #13! I don't think he's a lotto player, but he's having a great college season.

Tyler Lydon hasn't broke out. It's frustrating because you know he can lead Syracuse, but he defers on offense way too often. At least Andrew White was able to step up for Syracuse.

Donovan Mitchell has impressed me lately, and he reminds me a little bit of Normal Powell in terms of explosiveness. Neither guys were good shooters, but Mitchell has improved a lot this year. Mitchell's consistency on his 3pt shot might bump him up to the 1st half of the 1st round.

Grayson Allen has been horrible this year. His child-tantrum has made me think entirely differently of him as a prospect. I wouldn't touch him in the 1st round. I think he's a 4 year player. Luke Kennard looks like he could be a better pro than Allen.