Detroit # 12

Let me add one more thing. I've done my share of criticizing Smith. But if he comes to the NBA with the right attitude, he would be just one notch below Fultz. If he comes with the right attitude, he's the 2nd best PG in this draft. Of course that's a big if for me. I had these same reservations about Drummond, and while he had a terrific rookie season, he's now living up to my expectations. I'm not looking for a quarter horse who quits at the quarter mile mark. I want a thoroughbred who runs the entire distance. That said, if I'm going to gamble at all in this draft, I'd gamble on Smith if Fox is gone.

In this draft, probably quite a bit. But as to the value of the 12th. I think it depends on the situation of the team. Are you trying to get into the playoffs? Are you in a rebuild mode? Are you already a playoff team, but you feel you need some important depth to move up a notch or two? The Kings and the Pistons are on two different paths. So their needs are different, and the way they might value a player like Koufos, or Temple is different. Neither Koufos or Temple are in the long range plans of the Kings, but they both serve a short term purpose. The question is, how valuable is that purpose when compared to the long range value of a young talented player in the draft.?

In the Pistons case, they would look at either Koufos or Temple as having far more value in the immediate than a rookie you could get with the 12th pick. Especially with a coach like SVG, who looks at rookies like they're pall bearers for his coffin. Yes, both Temple and Koufos are bench players, but they're highly valued bench players around the league. From the Kings point of view, do we need one more young player? Probably not! So it would depend on who that young player is, and how he fits in the long range plans of the team. If your just shooting arrows in the air in hope that one of them hits the target, then I'd rather keep both Koufos and Temple.

This is the sort of trade you would make on draft day when you would know exactly who you would be drafting at 12. Personally I think the draft has several tiers. Fultz is in one tier all by himself. then there is the second tier of about 4 players made up of Jackson, Ball, Tatum, and Fox. The third tier is made up of Smith (some would have him in that 2nd tier) Isaac, Markkanen, Monk, Ntilikina, and perhaps Zach Collins. That's eleven players. After that, there's another drop off. So you can see where I'm going with this. Were talking about the 12th pick, which is right on the edge of the drop off. Of course someone could, and probably will slide. If the Pistons had the 10th pick, they might not be talking about trading it.

Let me add one more thing. I've done my share of criticizing Smith. But if he comes to the NBA with the right attitude, he would be just one notch below Fultz. If he comes with the right attitude, he's the 2nd best PG in this draft. Of course that's a big if for me. I had these same reservations about Drummond, and while he had a terrific rookie season, he's now living up to my expectations. I'm not looking for a quarter horse who quits at the quarter mile mark. I want a thoroughbred who runs the entire distance. That said, if I'm going to gamble at all in this draft, I'd gamble on Smith if Fox is gone.

You are putting Smith ahead of Fox with this vague qualifier? That's ridiculous. It's not a question of "attitude". He does not have emotional maturity or charismatic nature of De'Aaron Fox even before we compare skills. Smith does not have the personality you would prefer in your PG (leadership, likability) whether or not his "attitude" is acceptable or not.

He had a 18 TOV% rate in the half court. He had a 25% TOV% rate in the P n R. That's pathetic. I don't want my primary decision maker to struggle so poorly against inferior competition before spending a lottery pick on him. I don't care if he had bad teammates or coach. Dennis Smith Jr is not even good as Ty Lawson. Ty Lawson is far better player (1) blowing by his man (2) running an offense (3) running a fast break. Smith has a smoother J compared to Lawson's knuckleball but their accuracy is about the same. Smith will probably fall out of the Top 10 if teams drafting there wise up to deficiencies (tunnel vision, personality, decision making, injury, size, defensive prowess and effort) in favor of better reward lower risk prospects like Donovan Mitchell and Frank N.

Ma'am, that's crazy. If a team offers a lottery pick for Koufos with no albatross contract they have themselves a deal.

lol we're not trading Temple

But for me, the eye test is always the most important thing with stats and analytics just providing a way to either reinforce what I watched, or give me a reason to try and see things differently when I see players in games.

In any event, Dennis Smith is IMO a more "talented" player than Fox. He has a better shot, he finishes at the rim significantly better, and his game is built for the NBA. He's somewhere between Marbury and Kyrie to me but more explosive than either. He also has injury concerns and isn't a
great playmaker. He pretty much makes the obvious pass. But then again, so does Fox. Guys like Kidd, Nash, Rubio, Jason Williams and Lonzo Ball all make passes where I just have to
wonder how they even saw the opening. Neither Fox nor Smith has ever done that. They are both primarily scoring guards.

And with Fox the concern right now is that he struggles to finish in traffic. He's very easily bumped off course and doesn't finish after contact. I also wonder how he'll hold up if he's gettign banged in the paint 4-5 times a game.

Smith DOES finish well in traffic and after contact.

I think Fox is the safer pick. I think Dennis Schroeder as his floor is a good comp and if he gets stronger and adds a jumper he can be extremely effective. But I think Smith has a higher ceiling if he stays healthy and actually reaches that level. But I have a lot more concerns about him.

Can he play a more team oriented game? Can he stay healthy? If his team loses a bunch of games (pretty much guaranteed if he goes in the lottery) will his intensity waver? Can a coach get him engaged on defense consistently? Because he's a very good defender when he takes up the challenge to be, though he can only guard one position.

But I'm not concerned about his "attitude". He's not a bad kid in any way shape or form. He has never had issues with his coaches, teammates, officials etc. He's not going to be a locker room cancer.

I don't 100% agree with your analysis, but I do appreciate and enjoy reading your takes. Always well thought out and articulated.

I agree that Smith is very talented, but I'm not sold that he's more talented than Fox. If I had the #1 pick, I'd strongly consider taking Fox with that pick. And I've heard at least 1 or 2 others in the media say the same, so it's not totally outlandish. Big gamble, yep. But going out on the ledge and taking a risk is what you do when you believe in someone.

Back in 2009, I was soundly on the Steph Curry bandwagon even though he didn't have the physical attributes of a Tyreke Evans and wasn't considered a true PG. While I never imagined he'd become MVP material, I was able to overlook his lack of strength and athleticism to see the skill. Same thing here with Fox, IMO. While obviously not a marksman shooter, I think his slight build and lack of strength can be overlooked because of his athleticism, length, speed and attitude. I believe he'll work hard to fill out and shore up his weaknesses. I believe that out of all the PG's in this draft, he's got more potential on both sides of the ball than any of them. Coupled with his attitude and demeanor, that's why I'd strongly consider taking him #1.

Outside of a lop sided trade, I.E. a top 10 pick or a player significantly better than him, he is one of the last players I'd ever consider moving. He is too important to our locker room.

I actually think Temple and his locker-room presence could be replaced. The dollars might not add up though. One (restricted) free agent in particular stands out Joe Ingles.

Marc Stein and others are reporting that Detroit is open to trading the 12th pick for a win now veteran.

We have numerous ties to Detroit with Ken and Scott etc. We are thin on veterans but perhaps Koufos or Tolliver could come into play here.

What are your thoughts on a trade with Detroit for 12, and how then could we best utilize the 10th and 12th picks?

Just spit-balling but if it was Koufos sent out, maybe Collins makes more sense at 10th and OG or someone else at 12th.

You are putting Smith ahead of Fox with this vague qualifier? That's ridiculous. It's not a question of "attitude". He does not have emotional maturity or charismatic nature of De'Aaron Fox even before we compare skills. Smith does not have the personality you would prefer in your PG (leadership, likability) whether or not his "attitude" is acceptable or not.

He had a 18 TOV% rate in the half court. He had a 25% TOV% rate in the P n R. That's pathetic. I don't want my primary decision maker to struggle so poorly against inferior competition before spending a lottery pick on him. I don't care if he had bad teammates or coach. Dennis Smith Jr is not even good as Ty Lawson. Ty Lawson is far better player (1) blowing by his man (2) running an offense (3) running a fast break. Smith has a smoother J compared to Lawson's knuckleball but their accuracy is about the same. Smith will probably fall out of the Top 10 if teams drafting there wise up to deficiencies (tunnel vision, personality, decision making, injury, size, defensive prowess and effort) in favor of better reward lower risk prospects like Donovan Mitchell and Frank N.

So last week he wasn't as good as Darren Collison and this week it's Ty Lawson. I wonder who it's going to be next week? It seems to me as if you are bringing him down to make a player you like, Isaac, look better than he actually is. Look, you and I and anyone else on this board won't be able to tell how good a prospect will be until a few years after the draft. We all have our favorites. It doesn't mean you have to bring down one prospect to boost another. You obviously favor defense, which is fine, hence the Mitchell, Isaac & Frank suggestions. However at 5, the Kings would be smart to look for franchise player potential and none of those players you mentioned fit the bill IMO, at 10? yeah definitely take a chance on them IF they come in for a workout and they like what they see.

I also think it's a bit funny that Smith gets criticized for his "attitude" but Zach Collins doesn't. He's also not an attitude problem per se, but he reminds me of Marquese Chriss in terms of both committing dumb fouls and as far as reacting poorly to calls or things not going his way and then letting it negatively affect his play.

Blob, do you watch a lot of NCAA ball? I'm not saying this in any way to criticize, I'm honestly asking. It seems like a lot of your opinions come from reading draft sites, looking at stats and watching highlight videos. And if that's the case, there's nothing wrong with that.

But for me, the eye test is always the most important thing with stats and analytics just providing a way to either reinforce what I watched, or give me a reason to try and see things differently when I see players in games.

In any event, Dennis Smith is IMO a more "talented" player than Fox. He has a better shot, he finishes at the rim significantly better, and his game is built for the NBA. He's somewhere between Marbury and Kyrie to me but more explosive than either. He also has injury concerns and isn't a
great playmaker. He pretty much makes the obvious pass. But then again, so does Fox. Guys like Kidd, Nash, Rubio, Jason Williams and Lonzo Ball all make passes where I just have to
wonder how they even saw the opening. Neither Fox nor Smith has ever done that. They are both primarily scoring guards.

And with Fox the concern right now is that he struggles to finish in traffic. He's very easily bumped off course and doesn't finish after contact. I also wonder how he'll hold up if he's gettign banged in the paint 4-5 times a game.

Smith DOES finish well in traffic and after contact.

I think Fox is the safer pick. I think Dennis Schroeder as his floor is a good comp and if he gets stronger and adds a jumper he can be extremely effective. But I think Smith has a higher ceiling if he stays healthy and actually reaches that level. But I have a lot more concerns about him.

Can he play a more team oriented game? Can he stay healthy? If his team loses a bunch of games (pretty much guaranteed if he goes in the lottery) will his intensity waver? Can a coach get him engaged on defense consistently? Because he's a very good defender when he takes up the challenge to be, though he can only guard one position.

But I'm not concerned about his "attitude". He's not a bad kid in any way shape or form. He has never had issues with his coaches, teammates, officials etc. He's not going to be a locker room cancer.

I think people are confusing what we mean, or at least what I mean, when I refer to his attitude. In fact, I'm referring to his desire and heart, not some confrontational attitude he has with his coach or other players. He's in the Andre Drummond class with me, except in Smith's case, he did have him moments last season where Drummond didn't do much of anything his last college season except disappear. My worry with Smith is what heppens when or if we start losing, which is likely. Will he do the same thing he did at N.C. State?

Look, he may have looked at his one college season as nothing but a stepping stone to the NBA, and once in the NBA, be an entirely different player. I do think his skill set lends itself to the NBA game where the spacing is better and you can't grow roots in the post. I think it suits both Smith and Fox better. I don't think it matters much to Fultz who can do pretty much anything he wants on the floor.

If I worry about any of the top PG's I would worry about Ball. Ball is a terrific player in transition, but he doesn't blow me away in the half court. He played off the ball in the half court as much on the ball. He seldom drove into the lane out of the half court. I think he'll have trouble creating his own shot in the NBA, and he seldom shot the mid-range shot at UCLA. A lot of what I find problems with is correctable, so I wouldn't go into a dizzy over it, but he's not without flaws. However, his court vision is remarkable and it's something you can't teach. Don't get me wrong, I think he's going to be a very good player, but he might not be the super star some think he'll be.

Temple is for the most part invaluable to this team. A guy who played himself into the league and is a true pro who takes nothing for granted. Himself, Buddy and hopefully Fox can truly change the culture here in Sac

I'm not sure which team is a good fit for Markkanen. The Wolves seem like one because they really lack outside shooting but I don't think Thibs would want his porous defense.

Sorry Funky, but your analysis is below average. No disrespect to you because I know you put in a lot of effort. But your bias towards Dennis Smith is clouding your objectivity and better instincts. Let me ask you a question, what do you think is best indicator of a collegiate PG with pro aspirations? Put differently, what is #1 attribute that matters when projecting whether these PGs are going to succeed?

<cue Jeopardy music>

OK now I am going to answer this question from my perspective and perhaps grant insight into my thought process. The #1 trait of a future successful NBA PG is an ability to get where he wants to get on the court. That is it. This is the case both offensively and defensively. Does said prospect play angles to cut off penetration to deny opponent where he wants to go? Does he command his position defensively as formidable deterrent? Does said prospect "rebound and go" before defense can set in transition? Does said prospect drive left and right and back off the defender to create space and cause defense to collapse?

The answer to all these questions can be more favorably answered in the affirmative for Fox than Smith. This is fact. This is not my opinion. And it is because he is quicker and longer and more resolute in his effort. So this is the fundamental starting point that favors one player over the other. Then when you want to talk about rising to the occasion in the biggest games with the most intensity and responding to adversity and rallying your teammate and playing with passion instead of apathy you also has to give advantage to Fox if you are objective about it.

And you want to argue against these indicators? That's betting on the long shot. Maybe the longshot hits but I doubt it. I know you like Fox. But you lose a degree of credibility in my mind when your analysis fails to exclude or significantly discount some of these prospects altogether. Why? Because a strong point endorsement carries more weight when it occurs in the context of excluding others not measuring up to strict analytic standards.

So if Lonzo Ball is anything but a collossal failure in the NBA then your entire rationale is flawed? He struggles to get where he wants offensively AND struggles to contain guys on D.

That's an easy benchmark going forward.

And Smith gets wherever he wants offensively. I've yet to see him be bottled up. He gets to the rim more easily than Fox and converts more effectively once he does. That may change for Fox if he develops his outside shot so that defenders stop sagging so far off him and gets stronger so he can finish more effectively but right now those are concerns.

Defensively Fox is more active and more engaged but not especially effective. I think that will change on the next level but this season Kentucky was statistically a better defensive team with Fox off the floor. Right now both guys are single position defenders.

Ntilikina and Mitchell are guys I like a fair amount and that you are high on. But while both are very good defenders but both struggle quite a bit in terms of getting into the lane or to the rim on offense Ntilikina because of his lack of burst and Mitchell because of his loose handle.

Dallas, Portland, OKC.

I actually think Temple and his locker-room presence could be replaced. The dollars might not add up though. One (restricted) free agent in particular stands out Joe Ingles.

Agreed. I actually remember seeing him play at LSU. IMO everyone's replaceable though, to me, thats just a fact of life. Joe Ingles is all of those things too. He was one of the best 3pt shooters in the league and pretty much locked up JJ Reddick and Klay in the playoffs. The issue is price though, Ingles will cost twice as much as Temple to pluck from Utah.

Sorry Funky, but your analysis is below average. No disrespect to you because I know you put in a lot of effort. But your bias towards Dennis Smith is clouding your objectivity and better instincts. Let me ask you a question, what do you think is best indicator of a collegiate PG with pro aspirations? Put differently, what is #1 attribute that matters when projecting whether these PGs are going to succeed?

<cue Jeopardy music>

OK now I am going to answer this question from my perspective and perhaps grant insight into my thought process. The #1 trait of a future successful NBA PG is an ability to get where he wants to get on the court. That is it. This is the case both offensively and defensively. Does said prospect play angles to cut off penetration to deny opponent where he wants to go? Does he command his position defensively as formidable deterrent? Does said prospect "rebound and go" before defense can set in transition? Does said prospect drive left and right and back off the defender to create space and cause defense to collapse?

The answer to all these questions can be more favorably answered in the affirmative for Fox than Smith. This is fact. This is not my opinion. And it is because he is quicker and longer and more resolute in his effort. So this is the fundamental starting point that favors one player over the other. Then when you want to talk about rising to the occasion in the biggest games with the most intensity and responding to adversity and rallying your teammate and playing with passion instead of apathy you also has to give advantage to Fox if you are objective about it.

And you want to argue against these indicators? That's betting on the long shot. Maybe the longshot hits but I doubt it. I know you like Fox. But you lose a degree of credibility in my mind when your analysis fails to exclude or significantly discount some of these prospects altogether. Why? Because a strong endorsement carries more weight when it occurs in the context of excluding others not measuring up to strict analytic standards.