De'Aaron Fox:

That's all well and good. We are hoping that one of those guys develops into a go to guy. They are all nice complementary pieces with Skal being the only one that might develop into a go to guy.

Why hope for something when you have a chance to get someone that is a lot more certain in that regard?

Well it's no surprise you're a Jayson Tatum supporter, he's seemingly the player you're looking for. It is possible with the proper skill development/project to develop into a go-to player over time, look no further than Gordon Hayward (if he's good enough to be a go-to player in the playoffs vs top-teir teams is debatable IMHO, I'd say he's more of a really good second gun).

There's some possible go-to players squarely on the radar for next years draft; Luke Doncic, Michael Porter Jr and I'd say Collin Sexton.

I'm not the best person to talk to about this stuff. I'm in the take the BPA boat always, drafting for team need isn't exactly my style I don't think thats the right way to look at this sorta stuff tbh, worry about getting the best players/projects (AKA strongest eventual trade assets) and fill in the rest of the pieces later when you're holding loads of assets, sort of like what the Celtics and soon enough the 76ers are doing, I call it the asset acquisition stage, it proceeds the win-now stage which seems like its 2 seasons away for the Kings IMO (seeing as they don't have a 2019 draftpick, it's then time to see what the squads made of)..

I am not really a Jayson Tatum supporter. I am get me the centerpiece supporter and I think with a top 5 pick in allegedly loaded draft, you need to make sure that you walk away with a centerpiece type talent. I prefer Fox for a number of reasons but I see Tatum as a highly skilled versatile scorer who will have very little trouble being a #1 scoring option on any team (especially as his consistency from the long range keeps improving). 25ppg scorers are not growing on trees. They are pretty difficult to find and Tatum has the potential to be that type of scorer. He also happens to play the position of need for us.

Gordon Hayward is a poor man's scorer. He is the #1 guy on a team not known as having skilled scorers so he is their guy. Same way Kevin Martin was Houston's guy there for a while after the Kings traded him.

I see Tatum as a lot more refined scorer. He is a more polished scorer than Hayward and believe me, I am a bit of a Gordon Hayward fan...just not in the hierarchy that he is in Utah.

For the Kings, Fultz would be my #1, Fox my #2 and Tatum #3 because I can see all 3 of those being able to be their team's #1 scorer in their own different way. Jayson Tatum to me is more Paul Pierce like than he is Gordon Hayward and Pierce in his prime was one of the most potent scorers in the NBA at the time.

I agree with most of what you've posted. With all due respect though I think you're focused a bit on finding a piece to the puzzle, immediately, and in doing so missing out on the big-picture, which is really more about stocking the cupboard full of assets and preparing to fight another day... I can understand the frustration of rooting for a franchise like the Kings so it's easy to see how this mindset came to pass. It's unfair to put that type of expectation on one of these rookies, for some players; Michael Porter Jr next year or Luka Doncic, they can live up to that billing but for the players in this class it's probably asking too much, except for Markelle Fultz, who's well out of range. Fox can take the ball to the rack, he's so fast going to his left he'll be able to get to the FT line and the rack, ultimately he's a floor general though, not your first or second gun, he's the maestro.

This is what it really boils down to. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather the Kings tank for high draft picks every single season until they do find their franchise cornerstone because let's be honest with ourselves, you don't win in the NBA without one. If it takes another 3-5 seasons to acquire that talent, then so be it, I'd be happier with that result rather than trying to make the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed and get ousted in the playoffs, I know the experience is invaluable but I'd like to see that experience go to the cornerstone of the team and not simply the complimentary pieces.

Asset acquisition is perfectly fine. There is no reason why you can do that and get your centerpiece. These are kids who will take 3--5 years to start entering their peak which is when you want to align your franchise to start contending. I see no reason why I should focus on asset acquisition only for now.

I see it as needing to strike while you have a chance. If you are allegedly in a loaded draft class and you have 5th and 10 pick, then IMHO, you better come away with all-star level talent. If you don't then you really are pissing your most valuable assets into the wind.

If the draft is as good as it is being reported, then this is the draft where you need to get a couple of key all-star level players to get your rebuild on the way. None of these guys are LeBron so they are not going to take you into the play offs any time soon. I look at the Timberwolves and I see a team that has 3 all-star level talents on their team but they are still in the lottery. Not because they don't have the talent but because it takes time for that talent to mature and gel. While the talent is maturing and gelling, there is nothing stopping them from getting those complementary pieces in the lottery which they did last year (Dunn who BTW has struggled) and they will also go there this year with a top 10 pick.

Even if Kings hit absolute home runs with their two top 10 picks this year and get 2 franchise level players, they are still 3-5 years away from being a lower level play-off team let alone anything more than that. There is nothing stopping the Kings from acquiring assets while also looking to build their core.

In this draft, I am looking for players who have all-star level talent and who are able to be franchise centerpieces. Maybe I bomb out on my swing for the fences but I know the team is not going to go anywhere until they find a player or two like that. So the complementary pieces can wait for the drafts where the talent is not considered as good as in this draft. I think Kings did a good job in last year's draft getting good complementary pieces in Skal (who might have that all-star potential), Richardson, Papagiannis and after the trade in Hield. That is a nice bunch of complementary pieces and assets. Then there is also an issue of having too many assets that leads to a loss of value or holding on to an asset for too long until it loses all the value it had (see Kings and Ben McLemore)

What if you never get that star? Watching a team tank year after year can get tiresome. I'd prefer a team compete because I actually like watching my team win. Teams rarely go from bottom dweller to contenders in a season. You take steps. Get to the playoffs first, draw some talented free agents who want to join a winning team, and build chemistry.

Sean Cunningham‏ @SeanCunningham
After being in Oakland at the #NBAFinals, De'Aaron Fox is in Sacramento to meet with Kings. Got a late night workout at team facility

This. Would being the jazz suck? I don't think so at all. They're young, competing, and while they'll probably not win a championship with this young core they have there's no way to know that for sure... So there's plenty to root for in the meantime.

I really like Fox. But I'm not willing to package the #10 with the #5 to go after him. Not in this draft.

But maybe we wouldn't have to. Assuming he's there at 4, would Phoenix be willing to trade down one slot if we took Knight's contract off their hands (for Afflalo's partially guaranteed deal)?

I think this is a possibility if Phoenix is targeting Tatum or Jackson. Assuming Fultz, Ball and one of Tatum and Jackson go top 3, this could make sense for Phoenix to get the guy they want and unload a contract they don't need at the same time.

Does "young core" mean a weak team? Does "young" in this context mean the world would be better off if they had played college ball for four years? Is a "one and done" automatically better tha a "four and done"? How about a player that's had 3 to 6 years of experience in the NBA? Or more? Are we right to add three more "young" players to our present six?

I think there is merit in the argument that that's the best way to do it but ......... Maybe one can prefer the talented, experienced, proven player who's there right now. I trust that the Kings will navigate successfully the "rook and the vet" question. I believe the answer is the careful use of them both. Tank next year? Hell no. Win next year? Hell yes.

1. I don't think we are trading picks with Phoenix. It makes no sense. They will only trade the pick if they are not after the guy we want, so why trade with them? If they are high on Fox, and he is still available at 4, no way they unload a contract just to see us draft him. It's nonsensical.

2. The only benefit from querying a swap with them is to find out of their intentions. If they are open to discussing it, you know they are not taking our man. If they don't, you better start looking to swap for #3.

3. If the Suns end up taking the 3rd PG at 4 (Fox), and we did not trade up, we need to contact them to check how eager are they to rid themselves of Bledsoe.

As a side note: there are often surprises in the way teams pick. I expect this draft to be no different. I really hope that the player to slide this year is not Ball. I don't want him here, but if he slides to 5 (assuming we stay put) I can't see how Divac passes on him.

Well, I know the Jazz very, very well, I watched like 90% of their games this decade. At one point they were a great model for how to do this, they took their foot off the asset acquisition pedal and onto the win-now pedal, to appease Hayward, and IMO it had dire consequences. 2 seasons ago at one point they were the youngest team in the league at around 23. something, Last year it jumped up to around 26 or 27, and for what? so they could get obliterated by the Warriors in the playoffs, It's worth noting that they had about 200 games combined missed to injury pretty much tops in the league (if you don't include Bosh's 82 on the Heat), still the result would've been the same. They traded a lotto pick for George Hill, who had a career year but also missed a ton of games due to injury, wasn't available vs the Warriors in the playoffs and is rumored to be looking for a deal near the max, quite simply they overplayed their hand.

They have that franchise cornerstone though, Rudy Gobert, they have arguably too much talent to keep around too, It seems Derrick Favors will be the odd man out.

Being the Jazz would not suck though I assure you though. They imposed their will and style of play in a majority of the 82 games this season and that'd be a monumental step up for the Kings and their fanbase. They built up incredible depth, Rodney Hood is gonna get paid big bucks next summer and he was coming off the bench..

Again I agree with you on most of this stuff. I just worry about pigeon-holing the pick.. Thats really it. I'm really not a big fan of whats called 'hero-ball' I thoroughly believe in building a team just worrying about quality and depth and ball-movement, because even if you don't have a true #1 at that point, whoever is leading the team in scoring, it's possible you could dupe some team into paying for him like he's a #1 in trade and finding that dude somewhere else.

The thing is with this draft is it's really, really deep, so much so that we'll see some nice contributors from those who go undrafted.. I question just how top-heavy it really is, there's no doubt that the 5 and 10 fall in the upper tiers of this draft, which seems to drop off a bit near the end of the lottery.

I'm not so sure about the 3-5 year outlook thing either. I think, like Vlade, that it can be done in 2, they could be pushing 40 wins by then ez. I really don't think we're gonna see much of a talent drop off in these drafts this decade though, there's a tidal wave of talent incoming to the league - I'm sure of it.

If Papagiannis, who's got go-to moves already, can really show big leaps of improvement the outlook will change here quickly, that might be asking too much, there's a reason they took him so high though.

You don't win in the later rounds of the playoffs without a centerpeice, but I'd actually cite that Detroit Pistons team as an excellent example of just having great all around quality and a disruptive style that was good enough to get the job done.

The Kings are positioned to wait 3-5 years like that, most of these youngins still will be in their mid 20's, I really think the outlook is 2 seasons, Vlade's said that after the Cousins trade and I believe him. Lets say they hit a homerun with the 34th pick, and get two worthy players at 5 and 10, the ramifications could be awesome, there's game-changers to be had. It's all about plucking low-hanging fruit, thats the move,to get picky and choosey about what to pluck isn't my style.

It's extremely unlikely McDonough would be willing to part with Knight just for salary relief, They'd have to have their eyes set on Tatum at 5 to even consider this move, there'd have to be more going back to them.

Fox and Knight would be a jackpot scenario though, MAJOR upgrades, I'd be ecstatic.

No, definitely not, they're not synonymous. It's a common assumption but ultimately it's a mischaracterization, it's sensationalized. It's the misstep the Jazz took this year, vets aren't enough to take you to the promised land, not these days, the capacity of the threat(Warriors) is well beyond just getting some vets to push you over the tipping point... The Raptors have a very young core, the Jazz have a young core and made it to the 2nd rd of the playoffs and were one of the most injured teams in the league.

About #1. That's exactly why I wrote "if they are targeting Tatum and Jackson". I know that it makes no sense if their man is Fox.

I truly, truly, hope Ball does not fall to us. If he is there we have to take him. But I can just totally see Lavar throwing a fit and threatening to hold out from Day 1 and being a problem from there with the culmination of everything being an eventual trade to Lakers or Knicks for peanuts.

In this case we better not trade picks with them and simply take Fox at 5 (assuming Fultz, Ball, Jackson and Tatum go 1-4). If Jackson and Tatum are left after the first three picks, I wouldn't mind taking either.
And again - the Suns won't swap picks with us unless they are 100% certain we are not taking their favoured player (and they can't be, hence they don't swap picks).

I will be happy to get Fox at 5, and I do believe it is a realistic scenario, but he is currently creeping up on draft boards so I am not betting the house on it...

I share your concerns.

But kindly be reminded of rule number 1:

You. Do. Not. Trade. With. The. Fakers.

I know Ball slipping to us at 5 would bother many. I won't advocate one way or the other there. However if we were to draft him, we set out guidelines if necessary as was done at UCLA. Lavar does not come to practice, bug the coach or interfere in any way. From what I have read he abided by the rules without incident.

Now since Lavar fancies being on camera, the media is a different story.

I see two outcomes for whoever drafts Ball. Either they draft a gifted passer and Lavar sticks to positive spin, or Lavar causes issues to the point he ruins his son's career. He already made a mistake IMHO regarding shoe endorsements, I wonder would he really make Lonzo a toxic commodity?

If he fell to us, then the Lakers passed on him. How would it be a good idea to force Lonzo out of wherever he goes?

Just my 2 coppers

I've said it a few times now but I can't see Ball falling past the Sixers.

They have a defensive anchor in Embiid who can make up for Ball not being a great defender and his outside shooting, contagious (and elite) passing and ability to play off the ball are ideal for a team that wants to put the ball in Simmons' hands and and has a high usage big like Embiid.

If they stay healthy the Sixers have their cornerstones. So you don't draft a PG like Fox or even Smith who needs the ball in their hands, aren't great playmakers and don't stretch the floor.

I'm a Lonzo Ball fan so I actually hope he goes #3 to the Sixers. To me it's an ideal fit and I can root for him as opposed to being obligated to hate him if the Lakers take him.

If he fell to #5? I dont want the Lavar Ball show off the court (and in today's click based journalism he'll keep getting coverage just by saying outlandish things) but on the court I'd love Lonzo Ball running the show on the court.

You're 100% right on everything. This is just an odd situation because Lavar has dominated the media coverage of the Ball family much more than Lonzo has so far. He has spoken for Lonzo every step of the way, from rejecting a sneaker deal on his behalf, to saying WE'RE only working out for the Lakers. The way he seems to be symbiotically attached to his son to the point of speaking for him at every turn gives me no confidence at all that he won't be an issue going forward. Drafting a player whose dad could be a major issue is a huge risk for any team to take, let alone a rebuilding one trying to repair their image.

As R2D2 stated above it's unlikely the Suns swap picks with us. Either they want Fox or they don't in which case if available we can get him at 5. I guess there is the possibility its worth it them to unload Knight if their guy is available at 5 and they are happy to roll with Bledsoe and Ulis as PG's. There is also the possibility they like Smith but I think its Tatum or Jackson they would target.

I love this news. Fox has perfect fit for the Kings written all over him. Of the teams with the top 5 picks its Sacramento that can just give him the keys to run the show. It also nice that he will have two Kentucky alumnus playing along side him.

My grandmother told me a long time ago that "if" is for children. No offense intended. I get your point. What this comes down, to is what is your philosophy for building a team. If your the GM, you have to pick one, and then stick with it. What you don't do, is do one for a few years, and then change and try another way. When you do that, you end where the Kings are right now, starting over, with another new philosophy.

The Kings have decided to rebuild through the draft and by acquiring assets. Those assets, and perhaps some of the players that they've drafted may be turned into other players down the road, or perhaps more assets. That's the road they have chosen, and it's a proven road if done correctly. That's how the Warriors got to where they are. Did anyone here know that Curry was going to be a franchise player when the Warriors drafted him? I sure didn't. I mean I liked him, but I had questions about him prior to the draft.

So sitting here now, and saying you want to make sure you draft a franchise player is sort of silly. I mean, of course you do. Who doesn't? But there are no guarantee's. Drafting 5th isn't a guarantee. It increases your odds, but that's about all. What you don't do is reach for position. If the player you really want (Fox) is gone, then you take the best player available, not the next best PG available.... Unless he happens to be the best player available. At the end of the day, if you end up with a really good starting player, you've been successful and you've obtained another solid piece to your team. Lets all remember, we're building a TEAM.

I emphasis that because one franchise player won't do it for you. You'll win more games with five solid team players than you will with one franchise player and four on lookers. At the end of the day, I care about how many wins the team has, and not how many all star games my franchise player has gone to. And I'm not against having a franchise. Give me two of them, maybe three. My point is, build the team, and they will come, or develop. I like develop the best, because they develop within the system of the team. Everyone is on the same page. The last thing the team should do right now, is anything that comes from the mentality of, we've got to make the playoffs next year.

If that happens, then it happens, but it happens within the process of the philosophy your using. Your not force feeding at a high cost. I think the Kings are finally on the right track and they need to stick to their guns. It's a shame that it didn't happen sooner. If it had, maybe Cousins would still be here, and be a part of something special. But that win now philosophy destroyed any chance of that happening. That was fools gold.

I understand what he mean't when he said, would being the Jazz suck? I get where he's coming from. But in reality, when I look at the Jazz team right now, and I project toward the future, yeah, it would suck. I think you did a great job of explaining where they were, and where they are now, and where they are now if in an uncomfortable spot. They're not in as bad a position as Portland for instance. But they're confronted with either pursuing the current course and praying, or taking a couple of steps backward, swallowing hard, and doing a small re-start.

The Kings, while not in the playoffs have a much brighter future than Portland does, and, depending on what the Jazz do, maybe the Jazz. There's nothing wrong with paying the big bucks for the right players. But you better be sure they're the right players. Mistakes happen when you get close, and you can actually smell the odor of a championship. At that moment, it's hard to stay the course, and not spend big money on a player you think can get you over the top. You ignore his injury history, or that perhaps that he's not the perfect fit.

I don't want to just make the playoffs. I want to make the playoffs and do some damage. I want making the playoffs the first step on the road to a championship. That's when making the playoffs becomes meaningful.

Once again we have prominent Kings Fan dot com member contradicting himself within one post. First you are "NOT a Tatum supporter" then proceed to say he is more "polished scorer" than an NBA All-Star and soon to be max player? Then you say he will have little trouble being a team's #1 scorer on any team. Then you compare him to a future Hall of Fame player in Paul Pierce? Am I in the Twilight Zone?

You are NOT supporter of guys you compare to current All-Stars and future Hall-of-Famers? Tell me, what am I missing? Would you be more inclined to latch your wagon of support to the next Jimmer, Stauskas or Jason Thompson?

I will continue to challenge fallacy of the opinions of those who distance themselves from a prospect in one breath then later compare them favorably to highly successful NBA players. You can NOT have it both ways and hope to retain credibility. If Tatum is as good as you say he is, i.e. #1 scorer on any team with little trouble, more refined than Hayward and Pierce-like, then let's draft him!!!! If he's this good, why would you NOT be a supporter of him?! He will be a 10-time all-star!

Raise your game or prepare to be Blob'd.

Here's my stance: I do NOT like Tatum, Smith Jr. or Ball for multitude of reasons I have detailed extensively. Accordingly I am not going to predict their careers are destined to play out similar to Melo, Paul or Kidd. Why would I? I don't think they are that good. This is called logic. Frankly, some of you ought to try it. I conclude this rant by saying you claim you are fan who wants a "centerpiece" then you basically proceed to define Tatum as a centerpiece?! Yet you are not a fan of Tatum?! Unbelievable.