Who do we draft?

I agree his injury was not good and I have yet to find much about how his recovery is going. He may not even declare. Most mocks had him around 10th pick pre-injury and mid to late teens now.

If he recovers well I think he is going to be pretty good defensively. His 3pt % dropped from 44% to 31% between freshman and soph yrs which gives pause. However in Joergers system I think he would excel as a wing defender. His wingspan is great and he has an air about him that is focused and buisness like.

Again only if we cant get Isaac, Tatum, ect.

Speaking of declaring, I thought I heard something about Bridges dad saying he may forgo the draft for another year at college??

There are unknowns heading into off-season but one known I can inform you of is we are not trading the NOP pick for Stanley Frigging Johnson!

Regardless of where pick ends up or who slides. I like to play fantasy GM as much as next guy, maybe more , but it is interesting you have made your mind up to do this hypothetical trade with unknown of whether NOP pick is as high as 8th or low as 12th? NOP are within 2 games of 8th pick and two games of 12th. Yet you are ready to wheel and deal?! I appreciate your gusto but what kind of logic is that?! I will give you a hint it starts with a F and ends with a D. No, not the dirty word. There's a W in there too.

The difference between #8 and #12 is potentially Jonathan Isaac vs Justin Jackson yet your mind is made up? I mean that seems like tunnel vision don't you think, especially amidst evidence Stanley was way more impressive as collegiate against guys he could physically dominate as opposed to guys who expose his weaknesses. I know he is kid and far from finished product. And I agree there are scenarios you entertain trading the pick. But we have to wait to see if those scenarios play out and whether it would be prudent given the various options. Vlade would have to be very very very dissatisfied with who is on the board to dump the pic for Johnson.

There's a way to simplify this. I think you may be overcomplicating:

A lottery pick in a loaded draft is opportunity to get a star, a cornerstone, a game changer! You have to try to exploit this opportunity. If any team could use a star it is the Kings! If you trade pick for a guy who has shown NO star potential over two years you are selling low just like on Boogie trade. I don't care he's kid or whatever justification you want to muster. Off athleticism hustle and garbage points a future star makes better than 37% FGs! How do I phrase this precisely....37% is pathetic! It is unworthy of being in the league. The worst players mistakenly signed and given minutes make 37% FGs. That's floor where the likes of Jimmer and Douby wallowed.

The instinctive retort is wait until he blossoms, gets stronger and develops his lethal J but that is a low probability bet. Sure you can make bet and win but you can also go to Vegas and role snake eyes a dozen times in row. You might be right but why bet the long shot? That is adhering to an opinion in face of contradictory evidence. This is the obvious facts! I am not going out on limb here! I loved Myles Turner before draft. If he was not proving himself I would not be saying "let's trade for him" I would say "hmm...I expected more. I may have missed that one."

And that is because I understand the nature of the game, as do the most successful GMs. You are always betting on the probabilities. That's it. There are no certainties only probabilities. So you do your due diligence and hope for the best. And when it doesn't go well you cut your losses as Vlade did with Marco, Rondo and ultimately with Boogie. Adhering to an assessment against overweighted evidence is stubbornness personified and demise of decision makers. Unapologetic fans of Boogie were guilty of this, excusing away bad behavior because black and white thinking is easier than shades of grey.

There are plenty of nuggets in these words so the young fans should print this out for future reference and study.

Papa G at 19 years old is averaging 4 PPG and 3 PPG on 48% FGs in first 15 games in NBA. Papa G was fat and out of shape this summer and per James Ham gets nervous before and during games. His stats are more impressive than esteemed Stanley J!

Another example: I liked Mudiay before the draft. I thought he was Tyreke-like. I wanted him over Willie. No way now am I going to suggest now we acquire Mudiay for the NOP pick despite need for PG. No thanks! The books is not yet written and he could turn into a good player but odds are not favorable. He could not beat his man off dribble. He didn't have quickness or first step to create an advantage. In person scouts can come to this assessment more readily than fan on You Tube. But once the evidence is there for everyone to see it is also easy to see whether pre-draft hype was justified.

Judging speed and size can be difficult off clips unless prospect is going against another highly ranked prospect (see Fox v Ball) . Three more guys come to mind belying what eyes told me. I liked Sabonis in last years draft. He could pass, pivot and overpower. Then he gets to OKC and is dwarfed by centers. I was like "whoa check out the little man!" Same goes for T-Rob and Evan Turner who projected as SF. He did not have length to dominate SFs like he did at Ohio. He was just another guy unworthy of #2 pick.

Once vitals are comparable, then it is a matter of skill. Stanley Johnson has skill in the ballpark of Langston Galllaway and I don't mean that as compliment. Stanley looked LeBron-esque in college against 6'4 and 6'5" opposition then gets to DET and is of equal size with less skill with his unrefined game. This overwhelmed project is who you want to trade NOP pick for, a pick that could turn into Jonathan Isaac who has KD-esque skills?!

That is is NOT happening no matter how much you want to adhere to an opinion from 2015! I am not 100% confident in Vlades evaluation skills but I know he can and WILL do better than this!!

Stanley Johnson....JUST SAY NO!

I was an extremely big fan of Stanley Johnson coming out of the draft, but I questioned parts of his game.. the same parts that he hasn't been able to answer in the NBA. His shot is extremely ugly. Shooting motion appears to be inconsistent still, and the way he lands is bad. I really don't know the word for his jumpshot lol. It's bad from top to bottom, and that's something hard to overlook with Johnson, especially considering that he's shown almost 0 offense elsewhere. Not quick enough to attack, and when he can, he doesn't finish.

I still like his defensive potential, but I just don't think it's enough to make up for his offense. I'd rather gamble on a different unknown coming out of college. We've seen Stanley Johnson in the NBA for 2 years already. He has lots of untapped potential, but I don't think it's AS potential. Not saying Johnson is a proven commodity, but he's already been considered a bust by some Piston fans.

I'm a major university graduate, still I write like I talk, sort of as if I was raised in the valley of California.
Some of you posters are very good writers and I mean that in all sincerity.

Also the Wolves helped our cause today with a win over the Lakers.

I have two degrees one undergraduate and one post-graduate. They are not reflection of intelligence just following the rules like a zombie clone and played no role in success since then. I know plenty of people who have degrees who are rather dim witted. Degrees are kind of worthless you have to be a hustler and value creator. You can become good writer through more reading and less TV and exposure to expansive vocabulary and complex sentence structures. You don't even have to think about it, it kind of happens by osmosis. Also if you go on a ketogenic diet (with periodic backloading post workout) you fuel your brain with what it prefers (healthy fats) to unleash your innate genius. Also, go Kings. More wosses or lins or whatever pseudo word that lands us Fox.

What's the Stanley Johnson nonsense about

I mean... you're not shy about expressing your opinion are you? This is a very long-winded way of simply saying that you don't like his numbers isn't it? What else are you even saying here? 90% of this isn't even about Stanley Johnson as a basketball player it's about your reaction to me liking a player you don't care for and MY GOD MAN what an idiot that must make me!

All I'm going to say is that I know I could be wrong, but that's the case with anything ever. You mentioned never betting the long shots? This isn't a card game. There's nothing random about evaluating prospects, either you see something that you like or you don't. There is uncertainty because you can't see what's inside a guy's head but when you've got game tape, workouts, interviews and measurements to work with you should be able to make some pretty strong educated guesses. I have been watching Stanley Johnson this season and I still see a player there that I want to take a chance on. I'm not "dumping the pick" in any way shape or form here -- I'm saying if the guys I like in this draft more than I like Stanley Johnson 2 years into his NBA career are off the board than I'm trying to trade for Stanley rather than drafting a prospect that I'm not 100% sold on. There are like 8 guys in this draft that I would confidently take over Stanley Johnson at this point and we have a pick that very likely will be lower in the draft order than 8th. Seems pretty logical to me.

I'm not in the business of making obvious suggestions. I'm trying to identify star players before anyone else can see it. Honestly, most of these comments read to me like a typical sports reporter who has zero capability of predicting the future only of making hyperbolic statements about things that have already happened because they don't really even understand what they're watching.

Here's a homework assignment for you if you want it: watch Stanley Johnson play defense for a couple games and see if he doesn't win you over. I don't even care about his broken jumper right now or his turnover-itis, though those are obviously problems he needs to correct. I'm not high on him because of what he can do on the offensive end. Just watch what he does on defense. I've seen tons of plays this season where 4 Pistons look like they've never played defense before and there's Stanley out there in exactly the right spot to deny his match-up a pass or an open shot. It's incredibly rare to see a player with his combination of strength, quickness, and instincts for where he needs to be on the floor for every play. Incredibly rare. I see flashes of Ron Artest in his defensive ability and that's not a comparison I make lightly, Ron Ron was superb defensively. Show me another rookie who can deny Lebron James post position in the playoffs. There isn't one. That same guy can outmuscle 3 bigger defenders under the basket for an offensive rebound, chase a superb ballhandler like Igoudala around the outside of a screen without giving up a step. If the Pistons are ready to give up on this guy because he can't shoot, good! That's their loss.

Well, some used to say a BS stands for Bull Dung. My teenage son is a fantastic writer and he's always attributed this to a lot of reading. He never gravitated to video games or excessive TV. He plays multiple instruments and is a very good song writer as well. I have him proof read everything of importance that I write.
The way things are playing out I think one of Fox or Ntilikina is ours. The Wolves should beat us on their court and that will cement where we pick 1st barring teams jumping ahead.

Yeah, I'm also not 100% sold that the Kings should pick Fox over Ntilikina. But without factoring in team fit my best guess is that Fox's most likely outcome is higher than Ntilikinas ("BPA"). But if I had to make the decision for the kings it could be another story. What type of offense are we going to run the next years? An uptempo 1-in-4-out spread pick and roll where Fox quickness could really shine? Or a slower high post offense where you want your PG to give the ball up, spot up and shoot the three in the high 30's%?

I could make a good argument for why Ntilikina is the better fit and will be more successfull than Fox in the latter case which seems to be what Joerger is trying to do. Or I could also make an argument that we dont know what Vivek is going to do next and therefore we should take BPA.

And how much should I factor in that - apart from the outstanding big man of 2018 you mentioned - the three or four guys I also really like in this class are wings that like to have the ball in their hands as well? The nr. 1 ranked player in the country is Michael Porter, a 6'9 SF. Luka Doncic from Real Madrid, a 6'7 wing looks to be special running pick and rolls. Kevin Knox, 6'9 SF/PF has already impressed me. And then there's also Isaac Bonga, a 6'9 wing that plays the point all the time. Does this favor Ntilikina more because I think he will be the better and more versatile off ball player?

I simply dont know. But I would be happy with both of them.

First, you simply can't worry about 2018 prospects and their fit with the current guys we're looking at. That shouldn't play any factor in Ntilikina vs Fox vs DSJ.

But to me, I don't think Joerger knows what he wants to run yet as we really don't have a team identity anymore. With Boogie, it was slow it waaay down and dump it to the big fella. Now, the young guys are a bunch of athletes (minus Papa) who would excel picking up the pace and running. Skal and WCS both project as excellent rim running bigs, so getting a PG who can attract attention off the pick and create would be ideal.

I guess the point a lot of people are making is why should we be giving up a lottery pick when Stanley has been a disappointment thus far? You basically say as much in your evaluation that you're looking at his potential rather than what he's actually done on the court. And I've been following Stanley too, it's not like he's been tearing up the defensive end, otherwise he'd be a staple of the Pistons rotation right now. And they need significant help.

You could talk me into flipping Malachi or Papa for him, but i'm not touching WCS, Skal, Buddy or the 2 lotto picks unless we're getting a solid ransom back.

I like Ntilikina as a prospect. I have him in my top 10 like most others do, but I don't understand how a lot of you guys even consider ranking him above Fox. Does the fact that he's only had a limited role in Europe not worry anyone else? I mean he only averages 2 assists (and 1.5 TO's) a game. From what I've seen he looks like he'd struggle to get past his man in the NBA. I'm just left thinking that his impact as PG and a creator are still undetermined.

I know Fox isn't as good a shooter, but that seems to be the only area where he's behind Frank and I'm a believer in his form and potential improvement in that area. I think I'd just feel more confident in picking the guy whose racked up more minutes proving he can run a team.

Ntilikina's defence and shooting look very intriguing though, even if he is a bit of mystery box.

Btw loving the look of Doncic for the 2018 draft. Just looks like a 'can't miss' type of talent to me.

With any 20 year old I think you're looking at potential more than production. Obviously nobody in the draft this year has played in the NBA yet so if you want to make a statistical comparison, look at what he did in his one season at Arizona and compare that to all of this year's super Freshmen. He had a higher WS/40 (.212) than any of the top SFs this year (Jackson .180, Isaac .205, Bridges .160, Tatum .169). Or you could look at TS% where they're all in the same ballpark (Johnson .551, Jackson .559, Isaac .614, Bridges .580, Tatum .566). Actually I'll just make this easy and post all of their advanced stats together and you can see if anything jumps out to you:



You'll probably want their shooting splits too:
................................FG%/3p%/FT%
Stanley Johnson........446/371/742
Josh Jackson..............513/378/566
Jayson Tatum............452/342/849
Jonathan Isaac..........508/348/780
Miles Bridges.............486/389/685

But! (people will argue) Stanley has been exposed as a fraud in the league already (37%!) while these other four players have superstar potential. Well, for one thing we don't know that -- we're projecting their potential as well. Stanley is 20 years old right now and so is Josh Jackson. Bridges is the youngest and he just turned 19 last week so age shouldn't be much of a factor. But personally, I think you can take all these fancy numbers and sweep them into the garbage. This may be seen as scandalous to some, but I've never had a statistical argument for why I like Stanley Johnson so much as a basketball player. By way of explanation, let me start with a story:

I had a bit of a revelation in 2011 when I was scouting Tristan Thompson for this board. He was projected in the mid to late lottery at the time, didn't have great size for a PF, and had a decent year at Texas but nothing that leaps off the page statistically. Then I watched game tape and I started to see a player who makes a lot of brilliant plays that will never show up in a boxscore. On offense he had the rough outline of a developing post game but what really impressed me is that he was an uncommonly smart defender, for lack of a better term. He was always in the right position to make a play on the ball, could help without losing track of his man, used every inch of his length effectively on the boards because he understood how to box out and create space for himself under the basket. You had to get deep into the tape to see all of this and focus your attention on him on every play. Prior to that point in time I don't think I even had the experience to understand what I was watching. But there it was on tape for anyone who wanted to put in the time.

I remember thinking that I'd uncovered something that most people were missing and had him ranked higher on my board than any of the expert mocks. Clearly that wasn't the case though as Cleveland made him the 4th overall pick in that draft. There were a lot of confused reactions but I understood. They had watched the tape too and seen the same things that I saw. Four years later Thompson got an $82 million dollar contract from Cleveland and people were confused again. This guy had just wrapped up a season where he averaged 8.5 points and 8 rebounds per game. What the hell is Cleveland doing? What they were doing was contending for a championship. Lebron said "we need this guy" and the front office made it happen. I forget this at times in my attempts to make a point but people who know basketball don't need stats to do their arguing for them and there's no combination of words that could replace simply watching the tape.

So back to Stanley Johnson. Every time I watch Stanley Johnson it hurts me that he's not playing for the Kings. We had a chance to draft him and passed. A few of us have cultivated the "cult of Stanley" over the years much to the consternation of others who don't "get it" but it really just comes down to game tape. Watch this guy play defense, it's an absolute clinic. Does everything show up in a boxscore? Not even close. Can he single-handily swing a game with his defense? Not yet. But give me 5 players who can play defense like Stanley Johnson can and I'll show you the San Antonio Spurs. And this guy hasn't even played for Popovich yet! No wonder the Spurs were trying to nab him early in the season. In an alternate universe where heady defense headlines Sportscenter highlight reels rather than dunks, crossovers and step back threes this guy is already a star.

He's only been a disappointment for people who saw him dominate Summer League as a scorer and expected that to carry over into the NBA sooner than it has. As I said before, I'm not worried about him offensively. He's got the tools he needs to be effective he just needs to develop them. I don't expect him to be a 20ppg anyway, though he's probably capable of that. I think 17-18 ppg with inconsistent percentages year to year and All-NBA level defense is a damn fine player though. As quickly as the fans here fell in love with Garrett Temple, I think you'd see a similar reaction to the Stanimal if people actually watched him play here for 82 games. Kings fans get a lot of grief, mostly because of our front office's blundering, but these fans know good basketball when they see it. Detroit has a lot of issues right now so the search is on for appropriate scapegoats (sound familiar?) -- I think you'll find that the less reactionary among them are dreading a Stanley Johnson trade.

It's fine to still see him as an upside player and I like your analysis, but as an asset he has depreciated after two sub par years. He was arguable for a mid-late lotto pick pre two sub par years. That's why I thought Detroit's first should come along with it. Them getting a Markannen (upside player who fits roster wise) who would normally be out of their range might be worth that jump. Johnson can still have that upside but as an asset he's depreciated

Has anyone here been paying any attention to Isaiah Hartenstein. I had not until today as he plays in Germany and have heard no one mention him, but hes projected top 15. If you haven't paid attention read up on him and watch some videos. Hes close to 6'11" 245 lbs and most impressively handles and passes the ball well and decent speed. Hes being referred to as the best big out of Germany since Dirk and some write ups project him as a SF. Even if hes more a PF, besides Skall its not like were loaded in that position. The way the Pels are rolling that could be the 14th pick, Bridges will be gone, so just looking at other possibilities.

Okafor & Covington out for the rest of the year, this should help our draft position a bit.

I think the 10th spot is looking pretty likely for the Pels pick. At 33-43, they're 2 games ahead of the Mavericks in the 9 spot and 2 games behind the Pistons for the 11 spot. With only 6-8 games left for most teams, 2 games is still a pretty big hill for them to climb higher than they are now, especially with Det, Hornets and Chicago all still trying their hardest to sneak into the playoffs.

4-8 is far from undecided though and it'll be an interesting fight to say the least to see who gets their tank on the best.

Yeah this way if we jump into the top 3 and they don't at worst we would pick about 6. Orlando has lost by 1 point and in OT their last two games which is too bad but New York won today putting us tied with 6 games to go.

Perhaps your right. I think the Pels are playing the best but they have no chance of making the playoffs which serves as incentive for the mentioned eastern conference teams.

H
He reminds me of a lefty Paul Pierce, and I have trouble discerning between he and Isaac a the better pick....I like Bridges competitive fire. I would be quite happy if they got either. Bridges blocking ability may be best in the draft at his size.

Regarding Stanley Johnson, I would rather draft OG Anunoby or Bridges, both of whom have similar skill sets. We could also draft and stash Hartenstein if that Pelicans pick slides to 12/13.
I like him a lot. We could draft and stash him too, which could be important if we use up roster spots via trade, given all the cap space we have. But, he's a very fluid player for his size.

Apparently James Ham and Reynolds both agree that the Kings should try to trade their two #1s to get into the top 3 in this draft. In so doing, the Kings could get a star. But what team in the top 3 would ever do such a thing? Don't we know that as the draft gets closer that those picks in the top 3 get even more valuable? Sure, I'd like if Divac tried to make such a deal, but it's highly unlikely such a deal would ever get done. Maybe if Skal and two #1s were included in the deal it could happen; otherwise, forget it. (And I don't like the idea of Skal being in such a deal).

Interesting Reynolds would say that - he's a smart guy and I like him.

I'm not college hoops expert but I read a little bit and the draft looks EXACTLY 10 deep with terrific players that I'd love to have (based on Tankathon mock draft - which seems to have a crazy order but a solid top 10). And it sure looks to me like we have strong likelihood of two picks in the top 10.

I think the last Tankathon mock I did gave us Jonathan Isaac and DeAaron Fox at 6&10. I'd be thrilled to come away with that. Would not package up the moon to try and get Lonzo or Fultz or Jackson. Those guys aren't stars yet. If we're gonna get a star - lets get a proven star.

How many draft picks will we mak? 1,2,3,more? We're best off to pick only one. We don't want to carry any more first, second and third year players. Make room for some good vets.

I'd take the opposite approach. Good vets don't want to come here. All we seem to do is overpay for mediocre vets who we then have to buy out before their contract is up. Keep building a young core and let them grow up together with a good coach. The only veterans we really need are good role-model teaching types who's primary value is going to be felt in the lockerroom, on the sideline, and on the practice court.

"Good vets don't come here." Well I say keep on trying. I include in good vets, Collison, Lawson, Koufos, Temple, Tolliver, Gay and our history includes a regular flow over the years. One might ask if we have done better with rookies.

Your view is certainly a legit view. I just want a useful mix.

We have to stop getting hustled for once. My biggest complaint about the DMC trade wasn't even the lack of a second 1st rounder but it was that top 3 protection. I mean we're offering you a DMC / AD pairing you don't like it explain it to your owner over the summer why you couldn't make that deal. Cmon!

If we traded both pick to move up and draft anyone not named Faults I'd loose my crap and nit in a good way.

The idea is really enticing. Trading up for a (almost)guaranteed franchise player in Markelle Fultz. Or how about get a franchise PG for the next 10 years with Lonzo Ball? Josh Jackson seems to be a guy with a good floor and high ceiling.

I could see why people would want to trade up in the top 3. I think it comes down to where our pick lands. If we're in the top 7 range, then I don't think we'll trade up. However, if we fall to 9 or 10, while the Pelicans go around 13, then I wouldn't oppose a trade.