De'Aaron Fox:

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that doesn't make sense. We don't know what Foxs' draft position would be now if we did the draft several years into the future because he hasn't played any NBA games several years into the future. Here we have a draft without knowledge of Foxs' NBA future performance, as it is prior to his NBA career. Similarly, in the Parker and Schroeder drafts we had no knowledge of what their careers would be. We did not have access to their future performance at the time of their respective drafts, just as we do not have access to Foxs' future performance in this draft. Parker went #28 and Schroder went #17. So why, without being privy to Foxs' future performance, is he warranted the #5 or higher draft position?
Okay - Fox has also been compared to John Wall and Mike Conley so obviously he should be drafted in the 1-4 range.

Kobe Bryant went 13th in the draft. Does that mean that if a kid comes along that people think truly has Kobe Bryant level potential that he shouldn't be drafted any higher than 13?

This is a bizarre argument.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
By that logic the 2011 draft must have been the best draft ever since the 60th pick is an all-star PG who led his team to the ECF.

In 2001 international scouting consisted of grainy VHS tapes and seeing a kid in person. Parker was a blur with the ball but he was also a very young kid with no jumper from a country that had yet to produce a great basketball player. If that draft were done over in hindsight, Parker goes no later than #2 after maybe Pau Gasol.

If Fox turned out to be the level of player for the Kings that Parker is for the Spurs I'd be ecstatic. If Fox turns out to be the level of player Schroeder is or less, I'd be disappointed.

But if you want a reason, here are three:

(1) Fox is bigger than either of those two players
(2) Fox has better mechanics on his jumper at the same age even if the results weren't great last season
(3) Fox is statistically elite at getting to and finishing at the basket despite the fact that teams are playing off of him knowing he can't shoot


The hope is that Fox gets stronger and gets consistent from outside and then is fairly unguardable.

That said, I think Smith has more star potential. I think Fox will at least be a starter quality PG. I can't say that for sure about Smith. But if DSJ reaches his potential he could be the best player from this draft.
Again, it's faulty logic to use the "if this draft were done all over again" rationale. The teams who drafted Schroeder and Parker did not have foreknowledge of their respective performances; they were in the same situation as the people that are going to draft Fox; they didn't have the benefit of being transported into the future to see them perform. So you can't use the "if we did this draft over again" rational because you can't go five years into the future to see where Fox would be drafted. (It sure would be nice if that were the case; all of our problems would be solved).

Regarding your three reasons:

I find #2 to be lacking. As we have already discussed, shooting mechanics does not necessarily mean shooting efficiency in the NBA (See McLemore, Jamaal Wilkes, Reggie Miller, etc).

Regarding #1, sure, he's a little taller than either Schroeder or Parker; I'll give you that. So how much of a higher draft slot is that really worth?

Regarding #3, I'm not sure what you mean by "statistically elite" at getting to the basket. Weren't Tony Parker and Schroeder statistically elite at getting to the basket despite their poor outside shooting? Or is there a measurement of getting to the basket in which Fox is superior to Schroeder and Parker prior to their respective drafts?
 
Again, it's faulty logic to use the "if this draft were done all over again" rationale. The teams who drafted Schroeder and Parker did not have foreknowledge of their respective performances; they were in the same situation as the people that are going to draft Fox; they didn't have the benefit of being transported into the future to see them perform. So you can't use the "if we did this draft over again" rational because you can't go five years into the future to see where Fox would be drafted. (It sure would be nice if that were the case; all of our problems would be solved).

Regarding your three reasons:

I find #2 to be lacking. As we have already discussed, shooting mechanics does not necessarily mean shooting efficiency in the NBA (See McLemore, Jamaal Wilkes, Reggie Miller, etc).

Regarding #1, sure, he's a little taller than either Schroeder or Parker; I'll give you that. So how much of a higher draft slot is that really worth?

Regarding #3, I'm not sure what you mean by "statistically elite" at getting to the basket. Weren't Tony Parker and Schroeder statistically elite at getting to the basket despite their poor outside shooting? Or is there a measurement of getting to the basket in which Fox is superior to Schroeder and Parker prior to their respective drafts?
Yes. Did you read the article?
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
Okay - Fox has also been compared to John Wall and Mike Conley so obviously he should be drafted in the 1-4 range.

Kobe Bryant went 13th in the draft. Does that mean that if a kid comes along that people think truly has Kobe Bryant level potential that he shouldn't be drafted any higher than 13?

This is a bizarre argument.
First, the comparison has to be accurate. Just saying somebody is comparable to someone else doesn't make it so. (Also, comparability doesn't equate to identity; that's where analysis comes into play). But given a reasonable similarity, of course it's a logical approach. If you think that the type of player represented by Fox has gone much lower in prior drafts, I sure as heck hope you think about what makes Fox warrant a much higher draft position in this draft. This kind of analysis can keep you honest (with yourself). Maybe Fox is warranted the higher draft position (than Schroeder or Parker) because of his size; maybe there are other legitimate reasons. On the other hand, maybe it's because he's got UK on his jersey; maybe because he's over-advertised; maybe because everybody is looking for the next John Wall and anybody with speed will fit the bill.

Also, as you know, all these comparisons are done with respect to "successes" in the NBA; nobody is talking about comparisons to failures or disappointments in the NBA. It's not like there have not been athletic point guards drafted who either were disappointments or failures in the NBA. Therefore, right of the bat, the player evaluation is skewed to the upside Why is it exactly that every year there are many busts in the NBA, and yet the number of articles prior to the draft are so highly skewed to the positive comparisons? Why? Because positive hopeful comparisons sell. On draft day, you're not going to hear much on ESPN about major bust potential or the likelihood of disappointment of a particular player. For every positive comparison they aren't going to trot out film of busts who could be reasonably be compared to the draftee in question. We should keep that in mind when we hear about comparisons and analyze from that starting point - they are almost always comparing an acknowledged successful NBA player (with an NBA track record) to the draftee in question. I would think that excellent scouting departments would look at positive and negative comparisons of players and do it of those players at the time of the draft, not just with respect to the successes of present day.
 
First, the comparison has to be accurate. Just saying somebody is comparable to someone else doesn't make it so. (Also, comparability doesn't equate to identity; that's where analysis comes into play). But given a reasonable similarity, of course it's a logical approach. If you think that the type of player represented by Fox has gone much lower in prior drafts, I sure as heck hope you think about what makes Fox warrant a much higher draft position in this draft. This kind of analysis can keep you honest (with yourself). Maybe Fox is warranted the higher draft position (than Schroeder or Parker) because of his size; maybe there are other legitimate reasons. On the other hand, maybe it's because he's got UK on his jersey; maybe because he's over-advertised; maybe because everybody is looking for the next John Wall and anybody with speed will fit the bill.

Also, as you know, all these comparisons are done with respect to "successes" in the NBA; nobody is talking about comparisons to failures or disappointments in the NBA. It's not like there have not been athletic point guards drafted who either were disappointments or failures in the NBA. Therefore, right of the bat, the player evaluation is skewed to the upside Why is it exactly that every year there are many busts in the NBA, and yet the number of articles prior to the draft are so highly skewed to the positive comparisons? Why? Because positive hopeful comparisons sell. On draft day, you're not going to hear much on ESPN about major bust potential or the likelihood of disappointment of a particular player. For every positive comparison they aren't going to trot out film of busts who could be reasonably be compared to the draftee in question. We should keep that in mind when we hear about comparisons and analyze from that starting point - they are almost always comparing an acknowledged successful NBA player (with an NBA track record) to the draftee in question. I would think that excellent scouting departments would look at positive and negative comparisons of players and do it of those players at the time of the draft, not just with respect to the successes of present day.
Okay then. Explain to me how Parker and Schroeder are more "accurate comparisons" for Fox than Conley and Wall taking into account physical tools/measurables, statistics, team success and level of competition.
 
Schroder isn't the worst comparison but they're on opposite ends of the spectrum demeanor wise. There were character concerns with Dennis, there's none of that with De'Aaron.

Fox is also a lefty. I really like Schroder and Fox though so perhaps I'm not the best one to ask. They're both extremely good at pressing.

Wall and Conley are legit comps too. No comps are ever perfect.

FWIW The Hawks got a great bargain on the Schroder deal, he's worth considerably more in my book.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
If I tried to describe Fox to someone who'd never seen him play I'd probably start with John Wall because the first thing that jumps out about both of them is their speed with the ball and explosive leaping ability. I think Wall plays more physically though and Fox has a weaker frame right now so I'd start off by saying he's like a less physically imposing John Wall. About the same height/wingspan, same turbo boosters in his sneaks but less likely to play into contact and more likely to get pushed around on defense unless he can put in some serious work in the weight room. The next guy I'd look at would be Mike Conley -- a steady floor general with a tight handle who can get wherever he wants on the floor and keep teammates involved but is never thought of as a go-to scorer (bonus points for both guys being leftys). Conley didn't come into the league as a reliable outside shooter, preferring mostly to pull-up in the mid-range, but he's added that outside jumper to his game over time. I also think his play style (talking about Fox now) is going to be closer to Conley than Wall with the main differences being end-to-end speed and first step. There's some optimism there in that projection, but somewhere between Wall and Conley seems spot-on to me. But I also think his overall defensive potential (both his intensity and his awareness) is several notches above average at minimum so I diverge a bit from funkykingston there.
 
But that doesn't make sense. We don't know what Foxs' draft position would be now if we did the draft several years into the future because he hasn't played any NBA games several years into the future. Here we have a draft without knowledge of Foxs' NBA future performance, as it is prior to his NBA career. Similarly, in the Parker and Schroeder drafts we had no knowledge of what their careers would be. We did not have access to their future performance at the time of their respective drafts, just as we do not have access to Foxs' future performance in this draft. Parker went #28 and Schroder went #17. So why, without being privy to Foxs' future performance, is he warranted the #5 or higher draft position?
Parker being picked later in his draft has nothing to do with anything other than how people saw him as an 18 or 19 year old and what they projected he could do based on his production at that time.

There are multiple factors when it comes to where guys are picked. Body type. Athleticism. Speed. Agility. IQ. Vision. Heart. Attitude. Effort. Intangibles. Ball handling. Shooting. Rebounding. Defense. I'm sure there's a lot more that I'm forgetting.

You go down the list and check off what the player has. Fox has the right measurements, very athletic, super fast, good agility, excellent attitude and effort. Most all the intangibles. Good ball handling.

What is he decent at? Court vision, rebounding, defense.

What is he bad at? Shooting.

Then you take what he's not great at and figure if he can/will get better? Court vision can improve but guys like him almost never turn into a Rondo or Paul. His ceiling is probably an 8ast/gm maximum guy in his prime. Rebounding? Even if he's a below average rebounder, you don't draft PG's to rebound so it's a non issue. Defense? He is fast, very long and has shown a nose for it. With the right coaching he could possibly turn into one of the better defending PG's in the league. Now he's not a good shooter yet but he has shown good form and actually shot very well the last couple of months in college. So he has a solid chance of becoming at least an average shooter. There's basically nothing that he doesn't have a good chance at becoming average to above average at. Some players will just never be good at doing something but Fox has the ability to be above average at everything. There is a lot of value in that.

I didn't scout Tony Parker as a teenager but I'm guessing lack of footage, body type, shooting stroke and defense were huge concerns for him. Not to mention coming from overseas always hurts your stock, not only because of the lack of footage and playing minutes, but because of the long history of busts from Europe. Teams could have laid percentages on what they thought he was going to turn out to be and they could have been low percentages for him being an all star or premier starter and higher percentages as far as him being a backup or a bust. So based on need and who they think will turn out better, a handful of teams passed him up and he landed in San Antonio's lap because they deemed him a better value than anyone else left in the draft.

These guys fall in the draft because they haven't shown what they are capable of yet. Tom Brady was picked in the 6th round. That doesn't mean that his draft was the strongest draft in history. It means that Tom Brady wasn't Tom Brady yet coming out of college. Coming out of college, Fox is a better prospect than Tony Parker was. Doesn't mean he will be as good but a 19 year old Fox is rated higher than the 19 year old version of Parker based on what he's already done and what the odds are that he can develop into something special. Parker did a good job of defying those odds. We will see what Fox can do coming up here shortly.
 
@KingsterI understand what your saying with regards to "in hindsight". Why if in hindsight Tony Parker should have gone top 5 are we so sure that in hindsight years from now Fox wont be deemed to have been taken to high. That years from now we just might look back and say Fox should have gone 10th or wherever.There is a lot more data and access to footage today than in years past. Still players will always be projected higher or lower than true value. As you said we cant see the future.
 
Markkanen was an absolute terrible defender at Arizona. He's a one trick pony. His rebounding was OK, but not exceptional. He has no post game, He's shown no ability to pass the ball. His ballhandling is average to below average. He's a terrific shooter, period! I saw players 6'6" shove him around in the post and score. Not saying he can't become better in those areas. But he's not a player I'm lusting after.
I think once Markkanen gets stronger, he can play C. His lower body strength is pretty bad right now, but NBA conditioning will do him good. I see him turning into at least an average post defender. I'm not the biggest fan of Markkanen either, but I think he has a lot of offensive potential. If we do draft him at 10, I won't be too upset. I've actually rationalized myself with every single prospect so I won't have another Papagiannis freakout..which is best for everybody.

I can see why people are intrigued with Markkanen. He might be the best shooter in this whole draft. Markkanen also does offer diversity at PF and C. While I wouldn't be thrilled with him, I think he'd fit very nicely in any lineup we throw out there.
 
If I tried to describe Fox to someone who'd never seen him play I'd probably start with John Wall because the first thing that jumps out about both of them is their speed with the ball and explosive leaping ability. I think Wall plays more physically though and Fox has a weaker frame right now so I'd start off by saying he's like a less physically imposing John Wall. About the same height/wingspan, same turbo boosters in his sneaks but less likely to play into contact and more likely to get pushed around on defense unless he can put in some serious work in the weight room. The next guy I'd look at would be Mike Conley -- a steady floor general with a tight handle who can get wherever he wants on the floor and keep teammates involved but is never thought of as a go-to scorer (bonus points for both guys being leftys). Conley didn't come into the league as a reliable outside shooter, preferring mostly to pull-up in the mid-range, but he's added that outside jumper to his game over time. I also think his play style (talking about Fox now) is going to be closer to Conley than Wall with the main differences being end-to-end speed and first step. There's some optimism there in that projection, but somewhere between Wall and Conley seems spot-on to me. But I also think his overall defensive potential (both his intensity and his awareness) is several notches above average at minimum so I diverge a bit from funkykingston there.
I think our thoughts on Fox are actually really close. I see him as similar but not as physically dominant as Wall while having a ton of composure like Conley did while not being quite the same level of playmaker.

I also think Fox will be a very good defender in time. He's got the physical tools, he gives good effort and he already has good instincts in terms of playing the passing lanes and digging for steals like Doug Christie did so well. The issue right now is that in man defense he doesn't slide well and takes bad angles that get him in poor position. Those are very correctable issues.
 
I think once Markkanen gets stronger, he can play C. His lower body strength is pretty bad right now, but NBA conditioning will do him good. I see him turning into at least an average post defender. I'm not the biggest fan of Markkanen either, but I think he has a lot of offensive potential. If we do draft him at 10, I won't be too upset. I've actually rationalized myself with every single prospect so I won't have another Papagiannis freakout..which is best for everybody.

I can see why people are intrigued with Markkanen. He might be the best shooter in this whole draft. Markkanen also does offer diversity at PF and C. While I wouldn't be thrilled with him, I think he'd fit very nicely in any lineup we throw out there.
Markkanen isn't my first choice at #10 (or 2nd or 3rd or 4th) but he could be a solid complimentary piece, especially if they take Fox or Smith at #5.

They could have lineups with a penetrating PG, a screen & roll center (Trill or Papa) and three shooters.
 
Markkanen isn't my first choice at #10 (or 2nd or 3rd or 4th) but he could be a solid complimentary piece, especially if they take Fox or Smith at #5.
I have to admit -- while I'm not fond of drafting a such a 1 dimensional talent that is also a liability on defense -- I am intrigued by a 7 footer that can shoot it like Markkanen. And not just spot shooting, but catch and shoot off screens. That's Nowitzki-esque. And an indefensible shot.

I just wonder if he can develop any other skills over time, specifically the ability to play passable defense and rebound.
 
Markkanen would my least favorite of all the lottery picks.

He's a fantastic shooter. Doesn't rebound, play defense or pass well. The Kings are a good 3 point shooting team (5th in the league in percentage made). The Kings are a bad defending, rebounding and passing team.

Basically he just makes the one thing we're good at a little bit better and doesn't address any of our other problems. More than likely he will be exacerbating those other problems by taking away minutes from guys that can defend and rebound better than him.

In the end you have your fingers crossed that he somehow develops more into Dirk than Kaminsky. I don't see him being anything close to Porzingis because he doesn't have that natural toughness to him. You don't develop that.

His skill set would be fine if we were a playoff team looking to add deep shooting or a stretch big man. I don't see him as a needle mover for us and I'd hate to see our young group of big men lose out on minutes to a soft, stretch 4 or 5 that has very low odds of ever becoming Dirkesque.
 
No way I want to spend any top 10 pick on a stretch 4/5. Why not try to grab Leaf later in the draft?
I see where you are coming from. I'm not the biggest Markannen guy, but there is a huge gap between being good at something versus being elite.

Leaf is a good shooter. He shot 47% from three, but only took 1.7 attempts. Also he shot just 68% from the foul line. But Markannen had a historic shooting season for a big. 42% from three on 4.4 attempts, and he shot 84% from the foul line.
 
When comparing Wall to Fox for casual fans, I don't think it would be accurate at all. At the combine, Wall measured at 6'4 with a 196lb frame and a wingspan of 6'9.25. Compare that to Fox, he's 6'3 with a 170lb frame and a wingspan of 6'6.5. When casual fans think Wall, they think of an absolute bull with amazing power, strength, size, ELITE quickness, and ELITE athleticism. At 6'4 with a 190lb frame, Wall used his combo of strength and quickness to get anywhere he wanted at Kentucky. Fox on the other hand, he relies a lot more on his elite quickness. This is why I don't think comparisons are accurate at all. When you picture John Wall, you just think of an explosive and physical PG. That's not Fox. This is why I think John Wall is actually the better athlete between the two. Fox is just quicker, and a lot of that has to do with 20lbs less than Wall.

Another problem with the John Wall comparison. Wall was a scorer at Kentucky, but it was clear to everyone that he had an exceptional understanding of running an offense. Referring to his ability to read defenses and break them down with his passing ability.Then when you look at Wall in the NBA, he's a great playmaker who looks to gets teammates involved before finding his own shot. So when you say Wall, everyone assumes that you're talking about a pass-first PG. With Fox, that's not the case. Fox is a score-first PG. He's a good passer(underrated), but doesn't have the same playmaking capabilities as Wall. He's struggled in the half-court a little bit this year. For ex, there's times in the half-court where he'd beat his on-ball defender, then try to attack a crowd of defenders under the rim instead of passing it out. He's not a traditional playmaker like Wall.

I think the better comparison is a less physical Derrick Rose. I'm surprised no one has brought up this comp yet. Very similar players coming out of college.
 
When comparing Wall to Fox for casual fans, I don't think it would be accurate at all. At the combine, Wall measured at 6'4 with a 196lb frame and a wingspan of 6'9.25. Compare that to Fox, he's 6'3 with a 170lb frame and a wingspan of 6'6.5. When casual fans think Wall, they think of an absolute bull with amazing power, strength, size, ELITE quickness, and ELITE athleticism. At 6'4 with a 190lb frame, Wall used his combo of strength and quickness to get anywhere he wanted at Kentucky. Fox on the other hand, he relies a lot more on his elite quickness. This is why I don't think comparisons are accurate at all. When you picture John Wall, you just think of an explosive and physical PG. That's not Fox. This is why I think John Wall is actually the better athlete between the two. Fox is just quicker, and a lot of that has to do with 20lbs less than Wall.

Another problem with the John Wall comparison. Wall was a scorer at Kentucky, but it was clear to everyone that he had an exceptional understanding of running an offense. Referring to his ability to read defenses and break them down with his passing ability.Then when you look at Wall in the NBA, he's a great playmaker who looks to gets teammates involved before finding his own shot. So when you say Wall, everyone assumes that you're talking about a pass-first PG. With Fox, that's not the case. Fox is a score-first PG. He's a good passer(underrated), but doesn't have the same playmaking capabilities as Wall. He's struggled in the half-court a little bit this year. For ex, there's times in the half-court where he'd beat his on-ball defender, then try to attack a crowd of defenders under the rim instead of passing it out. He's not a traditional playmaker like Wall.

I think the better comparison is a less physical Derrick Rose. I'm surprised no one has brought up this comp yet. Very similar players coming out of college.
He's ridiculously quick. Remember when UCLA tried to trap him LOL he just put it into gear and beat everyone to the basket for a bucket.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
Yes. Did you read the article?
Yeah, yeah, and what was shocking is they didn't refer to the draft position of Schroeder or Parker when they were drafted. Also, the whole attempts at the goal/shooting % is a bunch of hooey. As they admitted, if they multiplied their attempts factor by %completed factor they've got Clarkson and Evans as superior to Fox. What a ringing endorsement! Also, if I look at their tables I'm wondering if it's better to have a lower % at the goal, as the two standouts in their comparison are McCollum with 45% and Lillard with 48%, whereas Fox had 58%. Or maybe we think Fox is going to be >>McCollum or Lillard?:rolleyes: According to their stats, maybe Portland should trade McCollum for Clarkson? Or Lillard? And Nate Wolters had 59%. Please, tell me: Who is Nate Wolters? I'm being a tad sarcastic, but really, where is the correlation to *winning* and these stats? And why in the world do they call Rubio at the beginning of the article a success when he's hardly been successful at Minni?* Isn't that a red flag - when they begin the article describing Rubio as a success?

*"It is simply a fallacy to suggest that point guards cannot succeed on offense in this day and age without a successful three-point shot. John Wall, Russell Westbrook, and Ricky Rubio have been consistently good (to great) offensive players without a good outside shot." (I just never knew until I read this article: Ricky Rubio is a good to great offensive player, belonging in the same camp as John Wall and Russell Westbrook. :rolleyes:).
 
I think that when people try to project a players fit with the team by evaluating personality type that they are not making a sound assessment as to whether or not the player would be good for us to draft. Who is anyone to say that 3-4 different personality types would not would not work well together with x player's personality type in terms of on court performance? I don't know that anyone is qualified to make a prediction on this topic that is worth considering. It would have to be a GM who is a long time player who has a Phd in psych.
 
I've pretty much locked in on Fox as the Kings pick at #5.

Which means I'm likely to be disappointed.

If the first four picks are Fultz, Ball, Jackson and Fox then I think I'm now back to the idea of taking Jonathan Isaac at #5.

I want the Kings to get an elite PG but I just have too many doubts about Smith.

I want the Kings to draft a go-to scorer but I don't know that Tatum will be as effective in the NBA and while he shot decently when he had time, his mechanics concern me. Tatum is a midrange focused, isolation scorer who wasn't very engaged on defense. I think I'd rather have the swiss army knife defender who can be a 3&D guy but may never be a real offensive force.

If Isaac is the pick at #5 I'd be hoping for Ntilikina or Smith at #10 where I'd feel more comfortable taking DSJ.

If Fox is the pick at #5 I'd be hoping that somehow Isaac falls to 10 though I don't see a way for that to happen. Otherwise, I'd be looking for a trade down or Ntilikina, OG Anunoby, Markkanen or Justin Jackson.
I think that we are safe in terms of Fox being available at our pick because of points that you have already made previously. A: The 76ers are already set on using Simmons at pg. B: PHX already has a slew of pg's. Do we really think that with all of the holes that PHX has on its roster that they will draft a player at a position in which they have a logjam? I don't think so. The only real threat that I see is LA passing on Ball and even that is highly unlikely. Fox will be there.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
I think that we are safe in terms of Fox being available at our pick because of points that you have already made previously. A: The 76ers are already set on using Simmons at pg. B: PHX already has a slew of pg's. Do we really think that with all of the holes that PHX has on its roster that they will draft a player at a position in which they have a logjam? I don't think so. The only real threat that I see is LA passing on Ball and even that is highly unlikely. Fox will be there.
I hope you are right, but after actually moving up in the lottery for once I fully expect something that screws up our chances of getting the guy we want. You know, KANGZ style.
 
If the Sixers or Suns think he is Wall lite they would be stupid not to take him regardless of fit. SI has us trading the 5 and 10 for the 3 and selecting Fox. Personally I'd do it since I think Fox is going to be a superstar. Fox, Hield, WCS, Skal is a really nice core.
 
If the Sixers or Suns think he is Wall lite they would be stupid not to take him regardless of fit. SI has us trading the 5 and 10 for the 3 and selecting Fox. Personally I'd do it since I think Fox is going to be a superstar. Fox, Hield, WCS, Skal is a really nice core.
I wouldn't do it... Isaac/Ntilikina > Fox alone in my estimation. It's a matter of throwing more darts at the board.
 
I see where you are coming from. I'm not the biggest Markannen guy, but there is a huge gap between being good at something versus being elite.

Leaf is a good shooter. He shot 47% from three, but only took 1.7 attempts. Also he shot just 68% from the foul line. But Markannen had a historic shooting season for a big. 42% from three on 4.4 attempts, and he shot 84% from the foul line.
He's worth look if we get Fox at #5 and OG is deemed too risky at #10. My first impression of Lauri was a better version of Kaminsky. Kaminsky is a pretty good player. Lauri looks taller with better mobility and balance and just as sweet or sweeter shot. Then he really struggled to end his season and left negative impression . But he has a solid frame growing into his body. The weakness to his game can be masked by the defense presence of Willie and Skal. With Lauri you could spread the floor, open the middle of the key for Fox to drive and pass to shooters at every position:
  • Fox
  • Buddy (Bogdan)
  • Malachi (Temple)
  • Skal
  • Lauri
That's a lot of shooting! Fox would be raking in the assists. Then since we did not address our SF void in the draft we would throw max contract at Otto Porter. Actually this could be the best possible of all outcomes in terms of draft and free agency.
  • Lauri
  • Porter
  • Fox
A true stretch 5 would be great to space the floor to give our post players room to operate and target for PGs. The challenge is could you play Lauri and Willie or Lauri and Papa G and match-up defensively? That's not a promising proposition.
 
He's worth look if we get Fox at #5 and OG is deemed too risky at #10. My first impression of Lauri was a better version of Kaminsky. Kaminsky is a pretty good player. Lauri looks taller with better mobility and balance and just as sweet or sweeter shot. Then he really struggled to end his season and left negative impression . But he has a solid frame growing into his body. The weakness to his game can be masked by the defense presence of Willie and Skal. With Lauri you could spread the floor, open the middle of the key for Fox to drive and pass to shooters at every position:
  • Fox
  • Buddy (Bogdan)
  • Malachi (Temple)
  • Skal
  • Lauri
That's a lot of shooting! Fox would be raking in the assists. Then since we did not address our SF void in the draft we would throw max contract at Otto Porter. Actually this could be the best possible of all outcomes in terms of draft and free agency.
  • Lauri
  • Porter
  • Fox
A true stretch 5 would be great to space the floor to give our post players room to operate and target for PGs. The challenge is could you play Lauri and Willie or Lauri and Papa G and match-up defensively? That's not a promising proposition.
I'd love the Fox-Markkanen pairing. I think Kaminsky was the better overall player(passing ability, PnR understanding, post play, shotblocking etc), but Markkanen is the elite shooter and younger.
I've fallen in love with Skal, and it's hard not to have his upside blind me from looking at other PF prospects. I think if you draft Markkanen, he'd fit much more next to Willie than Skal. Despite Willie's lack of shot blocking in the NBA, he still has a lot of upside as a rim protector. He can handle PFs or Cs. With Skal, he's very limited to PFs right now, and struggled tremendously on that end. Markkanen would probably fair a little better.
The only problem I'd have with drafting Markkanen is our hole at SF. I don't think we have a shot at Porter Jr(unless we're aiming for Michael next year in the draft). I also think there's 0 chance Skal can play SF. Malachi could bulk up and play SF, but he's ball dominant. I don't think it would fair well next to Fox. Maybe Temple could be a short-term solution for this season?
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
But that doesn't make sense. We don't know what Foxs' draft position would be now if we did the draft several years into the future because he hasn't played any NBA games several years into the future. Here we have a draft without knowledge of Foxs' NBA future performance, as it is prior to his NBA career. Similarly, in the Parker and Schroeder drafts we had no knowledge of what their careers would be. We did not have access to their future performance at the time of their respective drafts, just as we do not have access to Foxs' future performance in this draft. Parker went #28 and Schroder went #17. So why, without being privy to Foxs' future performance, is he warranted the #5 or higher draft position?
This boggles my mind. We have no way of predicting the future of any player in the draft. We hope we can project his talents to the next level, but there are no guarantee's. However, if you do your homework, which good teams do, you can cut down on the risk significantly. Parker and Schroeder were both young European players, and the younger the player in Europe, the smaller the body of work you have to go on. The older the player, like Bogdanovic for instance, the more certain you are of how his game will translate.

Some very talented young players in Europe might get only 6 to 8 minutes a game. They sort of have a seniority system over there, and you have to earn your spurs. You join one of the big clubs and your 18 or 19 years old, you probably have a couple of much older players at your position ahead of you. So, if your scouting that player, it's much more difficult to pass judgement than it is on a young college player like a Fox, who will play in around 32 games and get somewhere around 32 minutes a game. You simply know more about that player. And in all likelyhood, your team has been following this kid since he got into grade school.

Fox came out of highschool ranked as one of the top PG's and he did nothing at Kentucky to make anyone change their mind. If anything, he exceeded expectations, and that's why he ranked as high as he is. He went to a major school in a major conference and played against the best in college basketball. And in one of the biggest games of his career, he went up against another PG that was supposed to be better than him, and outplayed him for the second time. The ranking isn't just some arbitrary number that's pulled out of hat. It's bassed on all the information that scouts and GM's have on a player. They may disagree slightly on the exact spot he should be drafted, but it more about team needs, than his talent level.

Fox, in my opinion, has that IT factor. I can't describe it, it just leaps out at you. A confidenc, an attitude, the way he carries himself. The way he never panics or seems to lose control. He looks and acts like a leader, and at Kentucky, his teammates followed. I could say those same things about Frank Mason, and you could say, well then, why isn't he ranked that high. Because he's a senior, not as athletic, and is only around 5'11". But you know what, it wouldn't surprise me to see Mason starting for an NBA team someday. Will Fox be better than Parker or even Schroeder? Don't know, but he has all the tools to be better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.