Detroit # 12

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..

Could you at least answer funky's question? How much NCAA ball do you actually watch?

Blob, you're the last person on here that should be saying that others have clouded judgment. You've had your Isaac rose colored glasses on for a while now.

I would bet the farm that we aren't going to pick Isaac over Fox or Smith. He's a complimentary piece, not a franchise player. Fox has a good chance to become one and Smith has a decent chance. Isaac, Mitchell and Frank have a very small chance. They are guys you pair up with the franchise, you don't just build a successful team with a bunch of complimentary players.

We all want defense as badly as you do but we realize that all the defense in the world wont get you anywhere if you don't have a guy on the team that can just make it happen when the situation calls for it. If Fox and Jackson are gone and we go with Smith, we better be looking to pair him with a defender at #10. If we wind up with Smith and Markkanen, that will be a massive fail by Vlade. Likewise, if we wind up with Isaac and Frank, that should be a solid defensive pairing in a few years but we're probably going to end up being a crappier version of what Utah is right now because they are simply going to be more talented position by position, even if our guys develop nicely.

This is the draft to swing for the next Richmond, Webber or Cousins. This isn't the draft to play it safe when there are a few possible franchise players sitting in the top 6.

You are making my point! You cannot on one hand make above statement and other hand say you would trade the #5 and #10 for Lonzo Ball! That's a form of cognitive dissonance. And you are also over-generalizing because Lonzo Ball has shown some inclination to play passing lanes, gamble successfully defensively, and cause the defense to shift with his own degree of shiftiness, but to the degree that is limited in this regard is the degree to which he will struggle at the next level to make plays.

If you look at all the best players in the NBA including PGs the trait that they share is ability to command their space on both ends of the floor: guys like Harden, James, Westbrook, Curry, Isaiah and Boogie get to their sweet spots on the floor to score draw fouls or draw and dish AND take away the preferred destination of the opponent. If you are making the aforementioned statement above them you are calling to light the fundamental component that predicates success or lack thereof.

Speed kills in the NBA. Fox is a speed demon with above average length at his position. Smith does not possess the length or strides of Fox and he does NOT compensate for this physical limitation through the will of his effort. I think you would agree with this, if you acknowledge how he mailed it in towards the end of the season?? This is how a guy makes a lasting impression to NBA scouts?! Wow, if that's not a warning sign I don't know what is.

You want to bet against that? Fine. You are entitled to do so. Perhaps it was an aberration not indicative of destiny as a pro. That's not a bet I'd want to make.

It's hard to have a discussion with you because you tend to move the goal posts. You also conflate opinion with fact. I have strong opinions but I also recognize them as such.

I don't believe there's any ONE indicator of how good a prospect will be in the NBA. I was using your rationale to make a point. A point that you then changed significantly.

First you have equal weight to a player getting where he wants on offense and denying his opponent and then listed Harden, Curry, Westbrook and Thomas as examples when none are great defenders.

You also use Smith's length/size as a reason he won't be successful despite Curry having a subpar wingspan and IT (who I really like and you seem to love) having significantly worse measurables. For that matter Smith is far and away a better prospect offensively and defensively after his freshman year than IT was at the same stage. It certainly doesn't mean he'll be a better pro but it does fly in the face of what you previously outlined as indicators of future success.

What is interesting about the idea that Smith's lack of length being prohibitive to his success on the next level is that the best two way PG in the NBA is Chris Paul who happens to have very similar measurables to Smith.

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.

I'd say John Wall might have a say in this conversation...

First it is "complementary" not complimentary. Sorry but pet peeve of mine I see ALL the time on this board and elsewhere. Not picking on you just in general. If I tell you I like your shoes, that's a compliment. If I say your shoes match your jeans, and you are going to be attracting the ladies tonight, then your shoes complement your jeans. If we draft an offense and defense player, their skills are complementary. If I say one player has a deft crossover move, I pay him a compliment. That ends our grammar lesson for the day.

Next, this is a hollow sentiment :

"a guy on the team that can just make it happen when the situation calls for it"

And this is a hollow sentiment:

"This is the draft to swing for the next Richmond, Webber or Cousins."

This is a lot of hollow sentiments. This is not an analytical or systematic process to pick the best player. I have written 100s and 1o00s of words why I am partial to Fox and Isaac and Donovan and warming to Lauri, and relatively sour on guys like Ball and Smith and recently Tatum. I provide qualitative and quantitative assessments to justify my pro and con opinions. You will never hear me say we should "swing for the fences" because that statement means nothing to me. It is a foundation of sand.

And again, you end your post with a hollow and flawed sentiment when you say "this isn't the draft to play it safe..." That is a nothing burger and one side of the coin.

The process by which to select the best player is to quantify and qualify potential risk AND potential reward, and make decision based on this ratio. A player may possess a high degree of upside (reward) but come with an undue level of risk. Another player may have equivalent amount of reward but far less downside and perceived flaws during the evaluation process. So in fact it is the perceived ratio of reward to risk that is the determining variable, not just "swinging for the fences" and assuming imprudent risk with semi delusionary visions of the next Chris Paul.

I am done for the night. You guys are wearing me out.

I think one of the first things Ball works on is a "floater." He has a nice touch finishing at the basket so I really can't see why he shouldn't get that intermediate shot perfected fairly soon. Unlike his weird outside shot, he can develop good form on the floater from the get-go so that it should be both accurate and the shot is quickly delivered. That shot is going to open up his entire offensive arsenal.

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.

At the end of last year when Temple went down in game all the players on the team, the ones on the court and ones on the bench, came over to check on him. That one instance speaks volumes of his presence on the team. While I think no player is irreplaceable either, guys like that that command that type of respect, especially to a young team, should be valued much, much higher.

At the end of last year when Temple went down in game all the players on the team, the ones on the court and ones on the bench, came over to check on him. That one instance speaks volumes of his presence on the team. While I think no player is irreplaceable either, guys like that that command that type of respect, especially to a young team, should be valued much, much higher.

Agreed, another example was Skal seeking out Temple every time he came to the bench. That tells me Temple communicates with the young fellas and has their respect. Temple and Tolliver were both voted team mates of the year by their previous teams. Young players need to learn how to succeed in the NBA and learn how to have their teammates back whether times are good or bad. Temple, Tolliver and Koufos have those traits and can pass them on.

Didn't mean it as a shot at Temple, he's worth every penny they pay him, surely teams would line up for his services if he was a UFA..

just saying Joe Ingles brings a lot of those vet qualities to the table, in spades, as well, this is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not... He took Rodney Hood's starting job off of him, that speaks volumes, Hood is going to get a monster deal next summer..

I can't speak highly enough about Ingles, I'm sure he'd be worth his weight in gold on this roster.

Point was, talking about trading Temple, aka extracting value for him, and then replacing him. Which isn't gonna happen, so it's moot, it is feasible though and there are viable replacements...

I'd definitely take Fox over Smith. I wouldn't take him over Ball or Fultz and likely not over Jackson either. That said he IS my favorite prospect for the Kings. I think he'd fit very well.

Smith is more of a gamble and will likely always be an inferior defender (a big thing for me) but there is a chance that a lot of teams are kicking themselves in a few years for not drafting DSJ when they had the chance.

But I wouldn't be upset if the Kings take Fox and Smith does reach his potential. Drafting Fox is the smart play and he's a good fit with the Kings current roster.

But if the first four off the board are Fultz, Ball, Jackson and Fox then I hope the Kings swing for the fences and take Smith.

So you'd take Smith over Isaac?

It's hard to have a discussion with you because you tend to move the goal posts. You also conflate opinion with fact. I have strong opinions but I also recognize them as such. I don't believe there's any ONE indicator of how good a prospect will be in the NBA. I

I'd really struggle with that. I think Isaac will be a very good and versatile defender. Offensively he looks like a less fluid Marvin Williams but he's shown some flashes, even if he's got suspect hands.

Smith has much higher bust potential IMO and I worry that his style doesn't lead to winning basketball. AND he's torn his ACL while playing a very attacking style. But he scores on all three levels, creates space easily and gets to the rim almost at will and finishes better than any PG prospect in this class, especially in traffic. He could be a stud. When motivated he can at least be a decent defender whose quickness and strength make up for some of his lack of length.

Would I gamble on him over a guy I see as talented and much safer in Isaac? Tough call but I think I would. Largely because the Kings need a star player but also because I'm starting to feel like Isaac isn't a SF.

I am not sure how it is that I move the goalposts, but okay....and I don't believe there is one indicator of success either. But as theoretical exercise if you were to distill ONE quality that predicates PG success, I believe it is the ability of a PG to get to his places on court AND simultaneously deny the opponent his preferred places. I think this is an ingenious insight and one of many that flows from my keyboard

Just messing around on a TGIF day in June and less than three weeks to D-Day!

If you want to compare Isaiah to Smith we can go there. Isaiah has the ability to drive into lane and shed contact and create space for his floater or lay-up. I don't see Smith with same ability. Isaiah is also incredibly positive and fierce competitor. When he walks into a room, he has infectious winning nature. You cannot say this about Smith. Smith took the final 5 games of his season off. I am sorry but that is just a disqualifying factor.

Just "NO"!!!! Why would you entertain the notion of drafting a quitter? Is it maybe an exaggeration to say he quit? Perhaps but it was obvious by the tape his effort was diminished. He was floating through sets and launching shots indiscriminately. That's NOT a winner. I do NOT want a player on my team who responds to adversity in immature manner. Drafting the best guy is a matter of probabilities. There are NO certainties. But this is NOT a bet I want to make. Any discretionary fan would concur. However, if you have bias towards said player, you may be inclined to overlook such blatant red flags. As far as Smith being a comparable to Chris Paul, that's fine. But then in the same breath Isaac is comparable to Durant and Fox is comparable to Wall. It is easy to match prospect and his style of play with an NBA All-Star and say if all goes well then that's who he will be.

But if you simultaneously ignore the cautionary variables, you are setting yourself to draft the next Nik Stauskas.

I will go on record officially saying I am 100% opposed, no more like 200% opposed, to drafting Smith Jr at #10.....and I think there is 50/50 odds Smith will NOT be selected Top 10!!! These GMs are mistaken prone but discerning and diligent nevertheless and they are not going to persuaded definitively because the guy can rise and dunk like Gerald Green. Who cares?!?!

I am excited by this draft I think NO other since the Boogie draft when I prayed in days preceding the Wolves and Kahn would have the lack of sense to pass on Boogie. For better or worse they did. The rest is history. I think this draft will have similar dramatic consequences. If the Kings get this right (Isaac, Fox, Donovan, maybe Lauri) this will be last lottery this team participates for a decade. If they get it wrong (Smith, perhaps Tatum, Frank N) then we will be debating prospects again in 2018. I'd rather be talking playoffs this time of year than one-and-dones. A little prudence goes a long way. To respectability and success. Entertaining the notion of Smith is imprudent, and this will be proven in due time.

I'd be surprised if Smith made it past Orlando at 6 and very surprised if the Mavs didn't take him at 9.

The attitude issues with Smith have been overblown. He was visibly frustrated and it affected his play. That is a concern but it's not "quitting on his team". NC State played a tough schedule with no one to space the floor and with one of my least favorite coaches at the helm. Gottfried teams haven't played defense or run an interesting offense long before Smith got there.

Launching shots indiscriminately? That describes Donovan Mitchell much more than Smith. Even as NC State fell apart down the stretch Smith wasn't launching as many bad threes early in the shot clock as Mitchell. If anything he was trying to hard to carry his team against tough competition (NC State's schedule was far harder than Washington's and yet Fultz seems to get a pass for the poor record and his often apathetic looking defense) and getting frustrated when he couldn't.

But for the record I've never compared DSJ to CP3 in anything but size. His game is more Steve Francis/Kyrie to me.

Kyrie is incredible and relentless shot maker. Smith performs this way only in his dreams. There's fluidity and undeniability to Kyrie's game that Smith does NOT possess. Kyrie also has (had) an impressive maturity beyond his years when he came into the league after not even playing in college. Smith is not on this level. I don't see it. I see a player who does not have that persistence and countless counter moves to the defense. I see a guy who settles and sulks. But let's see. I await to be proven wrong.

Kyrie Irving and maturity? That was the biggest knock on him his first few years. Until LeBron came back there was also the question of whether Irving played winning basketball. Something I wonder about Smith for the same reasons. But his talent is clear to me.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but what exactly did Irving do in his first 8 games at Duke that you could point to and say was better than what Smith did in his first 8 games at NC State?

He might have had more baskets in transition. I can't think of anything else that he did better, as long as we are comparing apples to apples.

Again, not saying Smith will be better than Kyrie, but he performed better in his first 8 college games against similar competition. Actually I'd argue that Smith faced a higher level of competition.