De'Aaron Fox:

Jeeze! It wasn't Jason Jones. The article was by someone else (Thomas Oide) and quoted Chad Ford. If you looked at the article and saw Jason Jones' name, it's because they linked the article to a video interview that Jason Jones did with Fox.

From what I recall, Ford only said that the Kings were "considering" or "talking about" trading up with 5 and 10 for Fox. I also considered not wearing pants to work today.

That's a poor conclusion. We could devote an entire thread to listing players that were passed over but ended up being among the best in their draft class, if not the very best.

Not necessarily true. I've read numerous accounts believing Fox may end up being the best PG out of this class. Sure, a lot of pundits and fans alike do prefer Fultz and Ball. But there's really no true consensus. Hell, I've read a few NBA personnel say they believe Fultz will end up being a SG rather than a PG long term and some believe Ball's shot is more worrisome than Fox.

This is a deep and talented draft, but no LBJ or Tim Duncan sure fire #1. A player like Fox might end up going 5th in this draft when he might have been top 2 or 3 in another. That should be taken into account.

Lastly, in your Trubisky example, he was considered by some the #1 QB in what was also considered a weak QB draft class whereas Fox is a top talent in what's considered one of the deeper NBA drafts in recent history. Someone pointed out that if you put Fox in last year's draft, he'd have been the #1 PG. Just because he's viewed by some as the #3 PG in this deep draft doesn't make him less valuable.

I am not saying we shouldn't trade up for Fox because another team would pass on him. Also, I am not saying that he can't become a special player just because the 76ers and Suns pass on him because as you rightly say many great players have been passed on before. However, both teams arguably need a PG more than one of the small forward prospects or a shooting guard (though the 76ers do need a SG as well). So in my book if Fox is deemed to be special, the best point guard in the draft - or however you want to describe him - then in that scenario it would make me question why they are passing on him because he would clearly be a key piece for either team going. Granted one of the other prospects could be a key piece for them as well, especially if they can be special, but I am just wary of seeing us make a trade up for a player that other teams are willing to pass on despite having a potential need to fill that position on their roster.

With that said, if we land him at five then that is great news, but equally I would not criticise them for trading up if they believe believe he's special and the other players are simply good talent.

I think the 76ers are hoping we trade them 5 and 10 because I don't think they are planning on taking Fox anyway due to him possibly being a poor fit next to Simmons. They're kind of in the position of the Niners where they want us to give them a bunch of assets while they end up taking the player they wanted all along anyway.

Didn't Colangelo say that they are in the stage where they don't want to continue stockpiling assets and aim more for winning now?

Sorry, bad reporting on my part. I skimmed over the article and thought I saw Jones name on it. I guess I gave the Bee more credit than to report something that Chad Ford was the source of.

Back to trading up for Fox. That's a tough call for me. There is no player I would want more in this draft. Hes not a sure-fire Lebron type but I have not seen what appears a more appropriate, current, fit for the Kings ever. Still what's reasonable to give up.
The other realistic fit that intrigues me is Isaac at 5 and Mitchell at 10.

I'll say it again, we are not one player away from being a good team. Trading 2 lotto picks for a hyped up De'Aaron Fox would just continue the perception that the front office can be had. I'm confidant they won't take the bait and they aren't that moronic.

He may have. But lets just say Monk is the guy they're after. If we trade them 5 and 10, they get Monk plus an extra player or Monk and they trade the 10 pick. Either way it's like getting free stuff. Whether they want it or not, there's value in it so they aren't going to turn it down if they know the guy they want is going to be at 5 anyway.

I don't know, as much as I like Fox, I don't think I'm ready to give up our two first round picks for him. We have 2 top 10 picks in a loaded draft. It's too much to give up, considering we are not talking about a sure future superstar. He might become a superstar, but it's not s sure thing. Right now, there's no guarantee Tatum can't be a better pro than Fox. Or Smith. Or Isaac.

If Phila wants Monk so much, they can pick him with their own third pick as far as I'm concerned. Why should we give up assets so they can still take who they want and also get an extra pick? We already gave them the #3, enough.

I am not convinced that is quite right. We are seeing a lot of Fox hype at the moment because he has been the one that has been out there a lot more than any other prospects. Tatum to my knowledge has not done any workouts to date...or media availability. Fix has been out there on cameras, social media visiting teams etc...His agent and Fox himself are doing a great job of promoting themselves.

I still think teams go off the body of work of the player for the whole year and in a lot of cases more than that. Private workouts also give teams a close up look of players where they can confirm or deny their beliefs about player's strength and/or weaknesses.

I think we will have a better understanding of the order closer to the draft day because teams will be towards the end of their analysis or in a lot of cases completed it. All players would have done the workouts etc... You look at the media circus that is surrounding Lonzo's workout with the Lakers and in a couple of days there will be stories how Lonzo is a lock for #2.

Its really a whole lot of speculation at this stage. The order starts settling down 2-3 days before the draft.

While I highly doubt that Kings are willing to trade #5 and #10 for #3, there might be some logic to it provided that the Kings get Portland's #15 pick in the salary dump move. At 15 there are a couple of SF prospects that could be good to great NBA players in time. Let's for arguments sake say that Kings trade #5 and #10 to Philly for #3 and use the pick to get Fox or Ball and address their PG needs with high level young prospects.

Then at 15, you might have an option of drafting Justin Jackson as a role playing SF or you could swing for the fences and draft OG Anunoby. At #34 you could pick up a big body type of big in Caleb Swanigan and that is a pretty solid draft where you have addressed (or at least tried to) your two biggest needs and you have added a bruising type big that could come in and contribute as your scoring barreling big off the bench.

I think there is some merit in exploring the avenue but when it's all said and done, I think it is more likely that we trade up from the #1o position into the 6-9 range than there is to trade both #5 and #10 for #3. I think that might be too steep a price to pay for a team that is rebuilding and has needs across the board and not just at PG and SF which granted might be the greatest needs.

The Kings are not in a position to be giving away draft picks for the price of one, as much as hype and potential as Fox has, that isn't the direction the team needs to head in. They need to stand pat and take BPA at their selections because the team still lacks talent, despite all the youth, we don't really know what we have in any of the players until we see a few seasons of their play and if and how they've improved their games.

Maybe. But that leverage comes along with the draft position. Also, this is different than the Niners/Bears situation because the Kings aren't drafting 1 spot behind 76ers. The Kings need to worry about Fox being taken by PHILLY or PHX at 3 and 5 or any number of teams attempting to trade up ahead of them into those positions. There are lots of scenarios to consider.

With regard to what Bears did (and hopefully not to get off topic too much), they got a lot of flack for doing it since everyone is certain that the Niners weren't gonna take the QB .. however, what nobody knows is how many teams were trying to pry the Niners pick away from them so they could leapfrog the Bears to get that same QB. That's why the Bears did what they did. If Trubisky becomes the next Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan, everyone will look back at that move much differently. If he becomes Alex Smith, it will still look bad.

But it wasn't the wrong move for the Bears IF their analysis of Trubisky ends up being spot on. Same logic applies here with the Kings, if they do something similar.

But that's not the point or why they might be inclined to make this type of move. They're trying to acquire as many good players as they can. Drafting in volume isn't always the best way to do that. As we all know, a high percentage of lottery picks never pan out. So if you believe you've identified a player that you are certain will be a star player, you do what you need to do to get him. It always comes down to whether you end up being right or wrong. But you gotta make a decision and stick to it.

I remember the Kings having 4 1st round picks in 1990 (7, 14, 18, 23) and only one of them (Lionel Simmons) ended up becoming a worthwhile player. He was runner up to Derrick Coleman for ROTY. However, leading up to the draft it was widely reported that the Kings were enamored with Gary Payton who shot up the draft boards (went #2 overall). In hindsight, what if they could have packaged some or all of those picks to move up and land the player they were most fond of? Even Dennis Scott went #4 in that draft and I believe the Kings liked him a lot too.

Point is, you're not likely to find too many drafts where a team held 2, 3 or 4 picks and all of them hit. You're usually fortunate if 1 of them becomes an all-star caliber player. If you believe you've spotted one of those players, leveraging those extra picks isn't necessarily the worst thing to do. As I stated before, if you don't believe Fox is one of those guys -- fair enough. But not making that trade for whichever player you personally are sold on simply because the team isn't 1 player away doesn't make sense to me. It's about finding and acquiring the very best players you can even if you have to do it one player at a time.

Assuming Fox is only the 4th or 5th best player available is also just guessing. He could very well be the best player in this draft, period.

I agree. By deciding that we have to have Fox, we're putting ourselves in a position of being the fools that get their lunch money taken. There's so much group-think and gamesmanship surrounding the lottery part of the draft that you have to keep an emotional distance to be able to see what's really in front of you. You guys can and should have your favorites. And you can and should speclate on what the competition is likely to do. But once you think you have it figured out, or decide on the one player you have to have, you've lost the game!

So could Dennis Smith, Tatum, Jackson,even Isaac. After Fultz and Ball 3-8 are all similarly tiered players. Giving up #10 would be a huge mistake. #10 can still nab you a potential star, more likely though a good rotation player, possibly starter.

Or if his shooting doesn't develop he could be a mediocre player. No one really knows. That's why I'd rather have 2 chances to score a star.

I agree. It's tempting to trade up for Jackson or Fox but #10 is too high. At five we'll get Isaac or Tatum (really hoping it's Isaac) and at ten I think it'll be frank n or dsj as bpa. Both spots look to have a best player available that perfectly lines up with our needs. Really makes sense standing pat in this draft and hoping one of our picks outperforms expectations.

2 picks ftw.

Don't give in to the trade up temptation, Vlade!

We'll be a high lotto team again next year. Stack them assets.

Or you can put your faith into 1 immensely talented player that loves to work really hard and is driven to be great versus drafting 2 players that may not be so much like that. I don't know if you've noticed or not, those types of players don't exactly grow on trees. The Kings haven't had all that many over the years. From numerous accounts, Fox is like that. His college coach believes he's going to be great at the next level and he knows at least a little bit about the NBA, as well as Fox's work ethic, talent and potential.

I only listen to coaches when they have something bad to say about their guy! I agree Fox scores a ten in the character department... One of the reasons he'd be a great pick. Can't have too many of those guys.

Look let's not get too carried away here. College coaches will talk up their guys so that they get drafted as high as they possibly can. One reason is that it reflects well on the program when it comes to recruiting high school players the other is that the players themselves get a larger pay packet. I don't take too much value into what the coaches say. They will ALWAYS talk up their guys more than they are worth. It is their job.

I love Fox. He is my #1 choice for us and IMHO 2nd best prospect in the draft behind Fultz but there are some genuine concerns and question marks about his game. Work ethic is all well and good but work ethic does not always translate into results. By all reports Ben McLemore has an outstanding work ethic. His coach was saying that he has all-star potential, hell even Larry Brown said that Ben will be an all-star level player in the NBA leading up to the draft....let's not compare his level of production now and what people pegged him leading into the draft.

Now I am not saying Fox will be like McLemore but there is absolutely no guarantee that he will develop as we are projecting. He is not a can't miss type of prospect. His body shape it not great. How much bigger and stronger will he get? Will he always be a wiry type that bigger body PGs can barrel through? Will his slight body allow him to finish through contact against bigger opponents that he will face in the NBA. Will be he able to become a respectable long range shooter in the NBA with a hand in his face? He is an active defender now but its a case of a lot of effort and not a lot of effectiveness. These are all correctable things but there are no guarantees.

I think its too big a risk to give up two top 10 picks to move up a spot or two to get Fox when there is a reasonable chance he will be there at 5 and even if he isn't there are other prospects whose ceiling might be just as high if not higher than that of Fox. I just don't see the value there. I would rather walk away with Tatum and Smith (as suggested by Draftexpress) than I would with Fox alone. I get two players with all-star potential that address two of my positions of need as opposed to one in Fox and Smith's ceiling might just be higher than Fox' when its all said and done. Similar things were being said about Skal as they are about Smith and he turned out to be pretty good.

I hope Fox is there at 5 if he is who the FO wants. Grabbing Fox and another player at 10 would be fantastic. My main concern is we draft a floor general to lead this era of the Kings. We could draft Isaac and Ntilikina and if it works with our roster I will be happy.

I know many who are against trading up for Fox have stated they prefer DSJ. I wonder if they would be against trading up for him if the hype surrounding Fox and DSJ were reversed.

You are operating on false premise and vague rumor from a lousy source. The Kings just brought in Donovan Mitchell. Any reasonable deduction would lead to conclusion he is possible contingency plan at #10 if we do not get Fox at #5. I think the Kings would consider trading #5 and #10. But not for #3. But for #1 and Fultz. I don't think the Celts would agree however. Now given this the Kings have to decide what to do if Fox goes Top 4. My assessment is they'd take Isaac at #5 (or Jackson if he slides) .....then possibly Donovan at #10. So when you say "you decide on the one player you have to have...you have lost the game", actually I think you are the one misreading our front office, discounting their competency without credible evidence. And ignoring evidence to the contrary (Donovan). It is one thing to say the Kings have their favorite prospect. It is another thing to falsely conclude the Kings are fools with tunnel vision on one player. Any reasonable observer knows every team in the NBA is formulating contingencies, Plan A, B and C and etc. The Kings are no different.

My view of it would not change. Both have question marks and neither is a can't miss prospect even though I prefer Fox.

This is a team in rebuilding mode and as such they need assets and talent. This team is better off with two top 10 picks than 1. Let's use Draftexpress as an example (not necessarily that I agree this will happen) but I rather have Tatum and Smith than just Fox. I get two players both addressing my positions of need with all-star potential as opposed to 1.

My view might be different if this was a team one major piece away then I would be up for burning two top 10 pick for a single prospect but the Kings are not in that position. They are right at the very start of the rebuilding process and as such need as many good prospects as they can get. There are so many holes to fill that just looking to fill one is not a smart way to rebuild this thing.

I'd like to imagine that the Kings are going to let the draft play out before even considering moving 5 and 10 for #3....otherwise, why bring in Perry?

Fox is my guy. he would be my pick at 5. that said part of the reason I like him so much is he likes us too. He has given the Kings some love this off season. Now just because I like him does not make me want to give up two picks to get him. I will take my chances that he is there at 5. I think Phoenix is the only wild card and most of there fans are not crazy for fox like we are. If fox is gone I grab Tatum at five and try to move up from 10 to get our PG.

@Carolija

I don't disagree with what your saying. Truth be told, I am not a fan of giving up our 10th to move up. Were it me making the decision, I would be deciding which of our SG's I am willing to bet are not going to get the playing time to get full return on their value and offer that player to move either our 5 or 10 up. But I don't get a say in it so I have to hope it all works out.

Normally, I would tend to agree with you. However, this is UK and Coach Cal were talking about. They turn out more legit players than any school. Period. And Coach Cal doesn't always embellish and say things like this about all his players. This isn't some mid-major coach propping up his once in a generation player.