Now that we know the draft order, who do we draft? (New thread)

I'm sure most of it is a response to Lavar Ball.

Now, I do think Ball would look bad in a one-on-one with Fox the same way Fox would look bad in a 3 point contest with Markkanen. Lonzo Ball's strength is in making everyone around him better.

I have legit concerns about how his game (and shot) will or won't translate but personally I've always put a fair amount of stock in a college player helping his team win. It's why I have concerns about Fultz that are only partly assuaged by my feeling that Romar is a poor coach.

Anyway, it's impossibly to deny the effect Lonzo Ball had on UCLA. I'm nervous about how his game would translate but if somehow he fell to give the Kings would HAVE to take him.

And there's a small part of me that would love to see Lavar Ball's reaction if the Lakers passed on him. And then then the Sixers passed on him. And then the Suns passed on him. And then he landed in Sacramento.

But I think if he slips past two the Sixers nab him.

What are the chances that Kings trade up with PHX where the framework (read not the actual deal) involves upgrading pick 10 to 4 and taking on Knight's contract and trading Afflalo to them so they can waive him. There would obviously have to be more to the deal but Kings could do really well with two top 5 picks!

If Minnesota favors Markkanen than we'd have a dream draft of Fox/Issac but then again they're won't take him over Issac

Very slim, but in the realm if possibility. Jackson would have to go #3, first of all. I would be surprised if they disliked Tatum and Isaac enough to trade out of the pick, but perhaps a salary dump would just be that much more appealing. We could also take on Chandler's contract. They could make a run at Porter and/or Griffin.

I agree. I can squint hard and picture a scenario where Thibs sees Markkanen as plug and play and a much needed floor spacer while thinking Isaac is too raw for his liking but u don't think that's realistic.

I think Isaac is too talented and a great fit for what Thibodeau wants to do defensively.

Don't remind me about Curry, I wanted the Kings to draft him that year, and was fairly disappointed!

Agree, I would not mind the Kings drafting Ball. Probably won't happen anyway....

Conceivably the Sixers could not like the fit with him and Simmons in terms of Ball dominance, the Suns/Lakers could not like the defensive fit with Booker/Russell

Who do you want this year? Anybody who had Curry over Evans has my attention (I didn't).

I think you are missing the point. In fact, you may be making my point and we may well agree. Tyreke was chosen in part over Curry because of a one on workout that distorted an accurate perception of him vis a vis Tyreke. The point is that these workouts don't in any way measure or evaluate BBIQ or how a guy affects the 5 on 5 game. Ball's measurable talents will therefore be skewed downward by such a workout. (Therefore, I'm all for Ball being in the workouts so he can slip down to #5).

I think the best thing about these workouts is the ability to talk to these players and see what their maturity level is, their work ethic, commitment to basketball, intelligence, and whether they have their head on straight. I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but it sure is my impression that players who come across as very immature in public seem to extend that to the basketball floor and don't do well, e.g McLemore. (The contrary doesn't work out as well: maturity doesn't seem to necessarily indicate success, e.g. Jimmer).

Just browsed NBAdraft.net's Mock..

What do you guys think of this result.

1. Fultz
2. Ball
3. Jackson
4. Fox
5. Tatum
6. Isaac
7.DSJ
8. Monk
9.Collins
10.Frank


If we could get Tatum and Frank... That would be an A+ draft from my standpoint.

Frank may take a year or two, Tatum's game concerns me as well. Seems a bit too iso ball for me.

I think Isaac's ceiling is higher than Tatum's too but may take a year or two as well.

The nice thing about Fox is he may be ready to play 30 a night in the first game.

I appreciate your analysis but you are on both sides of the fence. If Ball becomes bust or All-Star and you can effectively say "I told you so". You contradict yourself to list out long list of negatives then conclude he'll be a "very successful pro". I think what you are missing is Ball was NOT responsible to degree you assign for turning around UCLA. He had talented players around him. Ball does have an infectious unselfishness and confidence to way he plays for which he should be credited, but the guys around him were no slouches. Swap Ball with Fultz and Washington would have struggled just as much, probably more.

I don't know enough about Frank to trust any of my thoughts. I've seen only a few highlights here and there and half of them look like a practice gym somewhere so it'd be pure speculation. I would be happy with Tatum as I think he has star potential and he's a pure SF which we have none of on our roster. He fits a need and has a great potential and I didn't mention he seems like a good kid to boot.

Hate to throw this out there, but over the past decade, how many times have ANY of us actually been right who they draft? I wanted McCollum, I wanted Lillard, but I also wanted BMac, when Robinson fell? I wanted that pick, too, so my judgment is as much rubbish as anyone else's...lol

If we end up with Fox OR DSJ with the 5th pick, I'll be thrilled.

I feel Tatum is almost a can't miss prospect. His videos are just so solid. I doubt He slips past the Suns. I would be really happy if we were able to draft him.Which makes me think we will get either Jackson or Fox at 5.

To be clear, I think there's very little chance that Lonzo Ball is a bust. The question to me is whether he becomes a solid pro or a star player. I'd actually be shocked if he's a complete bust. I think his floor is likely as a better shooting, worse defending version of Shaun Livingston.

Ball elevated everyone around him. Nobody had TJ Leaf on their mock draft before the season. Or Anigbogu. Now, they have to be given credit of course, but Ball played a part in their success. He was basically allowed to run the offense with no restrictions at UCLA and he powered them to being the 2nd most efficient offense in the country.

He's also statistically the best shooter of all the point guards in this draft. I'm not on both sides of the fence. I think Lonzo Ball will be a good NBA player. My only question is if his weaknesses stop him from being a star.

I'd honestly rather have Isaac and Ntilikina than Tatum and Ntilikina.

Lonzo Ball is not ball dominant guard at ALL. He actually had a surprisingly low usage rate. He was also solid in working without the ball. He was especially good at cutting backdoor for lobs. I think he and Simmons would play off each other perfectly and I think he's the best fit for the 76ers in this draft.

I think Philly would be amenable to moving back as Monk seems a better fit than Jackson, who would be there at 5 with the Suns needs, not sure he'd be worth it

I guess we can have different interpretations of the term. He's going to be the chief initiator of offense, and I'm thinking the Sixers are looking at Simmons for that role. It's true that he has shown effectiveness off the ball as well, but I think Monk at PG makes more sense as an off ball type

If I'm right would you look at moving up?

The only thing I worry about with him is how well his game transfers to the next level. He is very dependent on isolation jump shots to score, which is considered a bad possession in today's nba. He's also kind of slow so I worry about him keeping up with other small forwards. Obviously if Fox and Jackson are gone you have to take him, but I just worry about him being effective off of the ball.

Lonzo Ball actually shot a better percentage from three than Monk (along with having a ridiculous eFG%) while having a far lower usage rate. But I can understand where you're coming from.

Yes, if Lonzo Ball was there at #3 I'd trade #5 and #10 to get him without hesitation.

If Ball & Fultz go 1&2 I wouldn't. In that case I'd definitely want to stay at 5 and be much more interested in trying to move up from 10

I wanted Cauley-Stein, Cousins and Kevin Martin. Outside of those three draft picks the Kings have never drafted the guy(s) I wanted.

I still remember yelling at the TV when they passed on John Wallace for some guy from Greece I'd never heard of . . .

You said about Ball: " He's got funky shot, the inability to turn the corner or penetrate consistently, struggles to guard quick PGs and hasn't shown that he can be nearly as effective in the half court and running the pick and roll.....Now you say you'd trade #5 and #10 for him?!? What am I missing?!?

If you would be willing to make this deal (two Top 10 picks in loaded draft, potentially Fox and Collins) then you are projecting Ball as All-Star to justify your valuation. But you also just said you don't know if he will a star or solid pro? Your logic is all over the place, i.e. illogical. You either need to go all-in on Ball and project him as transcendent talent or reconsider how many assets you would hypothetically give up for him.

Among the reasons I am down on Ball since I first started to scout him (before he got schooled in tourney) is because he is lanky player. He has a higher center of gravity. His lateral mobility is compromised. Now he does use quick choppy steps but smaller guards are going to blow by unless his defensive anticipation is consistently extraordinary.

He has some separation ability with juke moves but he has a high dribble and junk to his game. I saw a player vs Kentucky who was SCARED to expose his dribble to Fox or else get picked. Ball gives up his dribble too soon instead of maintaining dribble under pressure and deep penetration into lane. Then if you watch his highlight clips you will see that a lot of plays are under little to NO ball pressure. This is because of quality of opponent AND the attention his teammates demanded.

Where does this leave us? Talented passer. Good court vision. Ricky Rubio-esque with more range on his shot. But with that corkscrew jumper are you going to trust that shot? I don't trust it. Now maybe I am wrong. But I don't think so. All you can do when drafting is bet probabilities. It is probable Ball maxes out as Rubio with a better shot and poorer defender, a 8/10/5 with average efficiency. That's near bust relative to being picked Top 5 and certainly not someone you'd relinquish 5th and 10th pick. I will bet my reputation Fox will be the better pro next year and rest of their careers.

If you can get Fox at #5 vs Ball at #3 plus #10, then you are effectively trading for the lesser player AND giving away the 10th pick for free! Sorry that does not jive.

Same here, but do you expect Isaac to take maybe up to 2 years to shine?

I don't expect much in his rookie season.

A lot of times the wildcard is someone ahead of you does something inconceivable/stupid/inconceivably stupid and a player falls right into your lap. And sometimes when a guy falls the next team is like "oh snap, something must be way wrong" (Paul Pierce comes to mind).

It's interesting when it's something like Curry and Reke, because Reke had some injury issues that I think killed him when he was getting serious looks at Team USA early on. And if the game hadn't morphed over this decade and was still a big man's league would Steph be Steph?

I'm just grateful in a year where it seems like there is one consensus #1 and then 4 or 5 guys at the next level, we are guaranteed a shot at one of those guys.

It's all guess work for us. Professionals get it wrong a ton and they have far more experience and information that us. Feel free to remind me about this post when I get all up in arms about something someone says in disagreement with me.

I remember literally SCREAMING at the TV and wanting to kick it when they drafted a guy I thought was named "TURKEY-GLUE"...hahahha

Peja made me mad, too. I thought he was some Euro model guy who would NEVER play in the NBA.