Players coming for workout

#31
I think it's the other way, Boston is looking that the Warriors 4 year window and having Brown, Smart, what they haul from this draft, next year's Brooklyn's pick going forward. Fultz allows them to both compete now, compete later, had have options to flip either him or Thomas depending if they decide to go for it or reset the clock around Christmas ... and that's the plan ... but if Vivek and Vlade are prepared to go nuclear to get Vivek his dream back court, Danny would totally roll back the clock to load up his roster for 2019.

But he's not doing that for 5, 10, and WCS. Not enough. Boston isn't getting Hayward if they do that trade. Drafting Fultz and then gunning for Hayward is a great plan and it's going to take a monster offer to move Danny off that.
 

gunks

Hall of Famer
#32
Wow, we are really bringing in the prospective #1 for a workout?!

Clearly our FO has turned the corner in the respect department.

I don't think we have the assets. But if all it takes is 5 + 10 + WCS to get a player that people are calling the next Wade, you do it.

Ainge fleeces people though. I have the feeling we'd end up giving them next year's first (unprotected) on top of everything else, and considering how bad we'll be next season, that's not worth it.

Gonna be an inneresting draft day though that's for sure!
 
#33
Wow, we are really bringing in the prospective #1 for a workout?!

Clearly our FO has turned the corner in the respect department.

I don't think we have the assets. But if all it takes is 5 + 10 + WCS to get a player that people are calling the next Wade, you do it.

Ainge fleeces people though. I have the feeling we'd end up giving them next year's first (unprotected) on top of everything else, and considering how bad we'll be next season, that's not worth it.

Gonna be an inneresting draft day though that's for sure!
According to this article, Ailene V(P)oison jumped the gun and is incorrect (surprise, surprise). Fultz might visit us (not this weekend either), but will probably not work out for us.

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2017/6/9/15767948/sacramento-kings-draft-workout-markelle-fultz

EDIT: I do agree that the narrative on our front office is changing for the better. It seems that Perry was a great choice by Vlade.
 
#36
He's not going to be drafted in spots our picks currently sit. Really like his potential but it's not all that more exciting than the potential already offered by Trill, Skal, or the Greek Peak. And Kosta is still on the roster.
Sure, but you still want to see guys that might slide, or that might be available when the dust settles from a pick swap, right?
 
#39
Despite Voisin (and thus myself) jumping the gun, I believe something was lost in the scenarios thrown about. Perry might simply have pulled strings because he can, and it goes a long way towards mending a long soiled image of our FO. Moments after her tweet started circulating the Kings were the buzz and for positive reasons.
 
#41
Not sure if already mentioned, Collins coming in for a workout on Sunday.

If I had to choose between either Collins or Markannen at 10, I would likely go with Collins.
I think between the two I'd actually take Markkanen, especially if the Kings land Fox at #5. He's potentially a big time weapon off the bench.

I'm not really high on either but I'm just not seeing anything Collins is great at. He seems like a solid but unspectacular big on the NBA level who will have a long career but not necessarily be a difference maker.
 
#42
I keep wondering how workouts went for some of these players from the perspective of the management.
So again excuse me, but according to Leo Bias of Cowbell Kingdom Donovan Mitchells workout went very well which leads me to believe he showed the ability to run the offense.
I can't wait to hear Isaacs name scheduled for a workout. Barring any trade ups or downs or shot at Fox with the 5th, Isaac and Mitchell at 5 and 10 sounds sweet to me.
 
#43
No way am I giving up #5, #10, and wcs for a guy that might end up being Damian Lillard. I don't believe in Fultz enough for that package. That's just me though, I'm sure others wouldn't balk at that price.
Daaang guys we really need to stop selling ourselves short. 5,10,WCS for an unproven rook??? My goodness.
At least you guys are consistent with your opinion. With so many opposed to trading #5 and #10 to assure getting Fox, I can't honestly believe anybody else is seriously considering parting with even more than that for a guy that might not even be better than Fox.

I think some get too wrapped up in projected draft position. Just because many mock drafts have Fultz #1, doesn't mean he is the best player nor does it mean he's worth more in trade. This draft doesn't have an LBJ or Tim Duncan in it. You'd certainly give up more for #1 in a draft like that (even though nobody would trade #1 in that scanerio). But, while this draft is certainly deep, the talent difference among the top 4 isn't such that you'd give up more for Fultz than Ball, Jackson or Fox. Any of those players could end up the being the best player when it's all said and done. Maybe even someone else further down the top 10.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#44
At least you guys are consistent with your opinion. With so many opposed to trading #5 and #10 to assure getting Fox, I can't honestly believe anybody else is seriously considering parting with even more than that for a guy that might not even be better than Fox.

I think some get too wrapped up in projected draft position. Just because many mock drafts have Fultz #1, doesn't mean he is the best player nor does it mean he's worth more in trade. This draft doesn't have an LBJ or Tim Duncan in it. You'd certainly give up more for #1 in a draft like that (even though nobody would trade #1 in that scanerio). But, while this draft is certainly deep, the talent difference among the top 4 isn't such that you'd give up more for Fultz than Ball, Jackson or Fox. Any of those players could end up the being the best player when it's all said and done. Maybe even someone else further down the top 10.
What about a Anthony Davis, Russ or Giannis?
 
#45
At least you guys are consistent with your opinion. With so many opposed to trading #5 and #10 to assure getting Fox, I can't honestly believe anybody else is seriously considering parting with even more than that for a guy that might not even be better than Fox.

I think some get too wrapped up in projected draft position. Just because many mock drafts have Fultz #1, doesn't mean he is the best player nor does it mean he's worth more in trade. This draft doesn't have an LBJ or Tim Duncan in it. You'd certainly give up more for #1 in a draft like that (even though nobody would trade #1 in that scanerio). But, while this draft is certainly deep, the talent difference among the top 4 isn't such that you'd give up more for Fultz than Ball, Jackson or Fox. Any of those players could end up the being the best player when it's all said and done. Maybe even someone else further down the top 10.
That is very subjective! As of right now Fultz is a better, more complete player than Fox at this stage. That jumper is smooth from anywhere on the court, the craftiness, body control and ability to finish against the bigs is much better than it is with Fox.

Could Fox end up being better than Fox in 5 years time? Possibly but it is not a given. He needs to shoot better and will he ever get bigger and stronger?

Fultz could walk into the NBA and average 20/5/7 in his rookie year season
 
#46
That is very subjective! As of right now Fultz is a better, more complete player than Fox at this stage. That jumper is smooth from anywhere on the court, the craftiness, body control and ability to finish against the bigs is much better than it is with Fox.

Could Fox end up being better than Fox in 5 years time? Possibly but it is not a given. He needs to shoot better and will he ever get bigger and stronger?

Fultz could walk into the NBA and average 20/5/7 in his rookie year season
Not in Boston. My dark horse for best player in the draft when we look back is Monk. His ability to catch fire and stay hot looks legit to me. Also his handles are not weak like some may think. He's trouble in transition.
 
#49
He's talking about no brainer, once every five years number one overall. Anthony Davis definitely fit that mold coming out... Westbrook and giannis didn't.
I agree. Westbrook and Giannis weren't consensus #1 picks that were pretty much locks to be stars. They are what we are hoping to get by keeping the #5 and #10 picks
 
Last edited:
#51
Not in Boston. My dark horse for best player in the draft when we look back is Monk. His ability to catch fire and stay hot looks legit to me. Also his handles are not weak like some may think. He's trouble in transition.
I agree in Boston probably not but what about if by some chance he played his rookie year in Sacramento?

I do think that Jayson Tatum is most likely going to be ROY next season from this draft class. He is either going to go to PHX or ORL where he will likely get the freedom to be a scorer. Same would apply if SAC picks him up at 5. He is already a very smooth scorer.
 
#52
If you have a chance to get Fultz or Ball, you do it. Nabbing a 1 or 2 gets you a 70 percent chance of an All Star.

A 5 and 10 pick yields a 20 percent chance of landing an All Star. Don't believe look at the Top 10 picks of the past 20 years. Stats don't lie.
 
#53
If you have a chance to get Fultz or Ball, you do it. Nabbing a 1 or 2 gets you a 70 percent chance of an All Star.

A 5 and 10 pick yields a 20 percent chance of landing an All Star. Don't believe look at the Top 10 picks of the past 20 years. Stats don't lie.
Where do you get these statistics from?
 
#54
Where do you get these statistics from?
Well, just out of curiosity I went and looked at the rates of different picks being stars. For simplicity I took any player that had made at least one all-star game and/or one all-NBA team (1st, 2nd or 3rd). So this includes guys who made a single all-star team alongside HOF'ers. But at the very least it separates out relative busts from what I would consider a successful pick.

I started in 2012 which was the first year that any player taken 1, 2, 5 or 10 made an all-star or all-NBA team. From the 2013 draft Giannis was an all-star and he and Gobert were 2nd team all-NBA but they weren't taken in the slots being discussed. Anyway, I went back 25 years (back through 1988) and here's how often each slot reached an all-star or all-NBA level sometime in their careers:

76% of #1 picks
40% of #2 picks
40% of #5 picks
28% of #10 picks

Of the six #1 picks that didn't make an all-star or all-NBA team, 4 out 6 years, the #2 pick did. Durant, Aldridge, Tyson Chandler and Antonio McDyess. Only once did all four make the cut - in 1994 with Robinson, Kidd, Juwan Howard and Eddie Jones. Grant Hill went #3.

So this would seem to indicate that the #1 pick is hugely valuable but that the #2 pick is on average the same as the #5 pick.

But of course what that really means is that teams picking at #2 have missed more often than they should have. It's worth noting that teams at #1 and #2 that have missed have often missed on bigs. Greg Oden, Hasheem Thabeet, Shawn Bradley. Even that stacked 1996 draft had the #2 pick (Marcus Camby) and the #10 pick (Dampier) not make an all-star or all-NBA team when 10 other 1st rounders did.

That actually surprised me a bit and is an example of how this is a very superficial analysis. Camby was a good player . Sure, he wasn't Iverson (#1) or Kobe, Peja or Nash (#13-15) but I'd argue he had a better NBA career than Marbury who made 2 all-star teams and two all-NBA 3rd teams.

So, interesting if not totally clear cut information. Oh, and worth noting. The ONLY year of all 25 that I looked at where not one guy taken 1, 2, 5, or 10 ever made an all-star game or all-NBA team was 1989. And of course, that was the year the Kings had their only #1 pick and drafted Pervis Ellison.
 
#56
Stats:

Minnesota Timberwolves Karl-Anthony Towns Kentucky
2014Cleveland CavaliersAndrew Wiggins Kansas
2013Cleveland Cavaliers Anthony BennettUNLV
2012New Orleans Hornets Anthony DavisKentucky
2011Cleveland Cavaliers Kyrie IrvingDuke
2010Washington Wizards John WallKentucky
2009Los Angeles Clippers Blake GriffinOklahoma
2008Chicago Bulls Derrick RoseMemphis
2007Portland Trail Blazers Greg OdenOhio State
2006Toronto Raptors Andrea BargnaniItaly
2005Milwaukee Bucks Andrew BogutUtah
2004Orlando Magic Dwight HowardSW Atlanta Christian Academy
2003Cleveland Cavaliers LeBron JamesSt. Vincent-St. Mary HS (OH)
2002Houston Rockets Yao MingChina
2001Washington Wizards Kwame BrownGlynn Academy (GA)
2000New Jersey Nets Kenyon MartinCincinnati
1999Chicago Bulls Elton BrandDuke
1998Los Angeles Clippers Michael OlowokandiPacific
1997San Antonio Tim Duncan Spurs


13 All Stars in 20
Years. 65 percent of Number 1 picks have been All Stars
 
Last edited:
#57
Pick 5

Player
2015 Mario Hezonja
2014 Dante Exum
2013 Alex Len
2012Thomas Robinson
2011Jonas Valanciunas
2010DeMarcus Cousins
2009Ricky Rubio
2008Kevin Love
2007Jeff Green
2006Shelden Williams
2005Raymond Felton
2004Devin Harris
2003Dwyane Wade
2002Nikoloz Tskitishvili
2001Jason Richardson
2000Mike Miller
1999Jonathan Bender
1998Vince Carter
1997Tony Battie




4 All Stars in 20 years: 20 percent chance
 
#58
Pick 10

Justise Winslow
2014 Elfrid Payton
2013 C.J. McCollum
2012Austin Rivers
2011Jimmer Fredette
2010Paul George
2009Brandon Jennings
2008Brook Lopez
2007Spencer Hawes
2006Mouhamed Sene
2005Andrew Bynum
2004Luke Jackson
2003Jarvis Hayes
2002Caron Butler
2001Joe Johnson
2000Keyon Dooling
1999Jason Terry
1998Paul Pierce
1997Danny Fortson
Pick 10

2 All Stars in 20 years. 10 percent chance.
 
#59
Well, just out of curiosity I went and looked at the rates of different picks being stars. For simplicity I took any player that had made at least one all-star game and/or one all-NBA team (1st, 2nd or 3rd). So this includes guys who made a single all-star team alongside HOF'ers. But at the very least it separates out relative busts from what I would consider a successful pick.

I started in 2012 which was the first year that any player taken 1, 2, 5 or 10 made an all-star or all-NBA team. From the 2013 draft Giannis was an all-star and he and Gobert were 2nd team all-NBA but they weren't taken in the slots being discussed. Anyway, I went back 25 years (back through 1988) and here's how often each slot reached an all-star or all-NBA level sometime in their careers:

76% of #1 picks
40% of #2 picks
40% of #5 picks
28% of #10 picks

Of the six #1 picks that didn't make an all-star or all-NBA team, 4 out 6 years, the #2 pick did. Durant, Aldridge, Tyson Chandler and Antonio McDyess. Only once did all four make the cut - in 1994 with Robinson, Kidd, Juwan Howard and Eddie Jones. Grant Hill went #3.

So this would seem to indicate that the #1 pick is hugely valuable but that the #2 pick is on average the same as the #5 pick.

But of course what that really means is that teams picking at #2 have missed more often than they should have. It's worth noting that teams at #1 and #2 that have missed have often missed on bigs. Greg Oden, Hasheem Thabeet, Shawn Bradley. Even that stacked 1996 draft had the #2 pick (Marcus Camby) and the #10 pick (Dampier) not make an all-star or all-NBA team when 10 other 1st rounders did.

That actually surprised me a bit and is an example of how this is a very superficial analysis. Camby was a good player . Sure, he wasn't Iverson (#1) or Kobe, Peja or Nash (#13-15) but I'd argue he had a better NBA career than Marbury who made 2 all-star teams and two all-NBA 3rd teams.

So, interesting if not totally clear cut information. Oh, and worth noting. The ONLY year of all 25 that I looked at where not one guy taken 1, 2, 5, or 10 ever made an all-star game or all-NBA team was 1989. And of course, that was the year the Kings had their only #1 pick and drafted Pervis Ellison.
Awesome man, appreciate the effort! Was thinking about doing something like this myself. According to your research having pick 5 and 10 gives us a 68% chance of getting a good player, just 8% short of the #1 overall pick and far more valuable than pick #2.

In a loaded draft like this our percentages might increase... Plus, the real advantage of two picks vs one is that we have maybe a 10% chance of drafting two really good players while anyone with only one pick has no chance.
 
#60
Awesome man, appreciate the effort! Was thinking about doing something like this myself. According to your research having pick 5 and 10 gives us a 68% chance of getting a good player, just 8% short of the #1 overall pick and far more valuable than pick #2.

In a loaded draft like this our percentages might increase... Plus, the real advantage of two picks vs one is that we have maybe a 10% chance of drafting two really good players while anyone with only one pick has no chance.
The percentages were really interesting to me, especially for #2 picks. And yes, if this draft is similar to the 1996 draft then having two top ten picks (especially if not reaching for bigs) seems like a great asset.

That said, I would trade #5 and #10 for #1 in a heartbeat. I could be wrong, but Fultz just jumps out to me as a stud. And I absolutely love his attitude.

Ball could be a transformational talent but I have more concerns about him. I think at minimum Fultz is a very good player. I don't know who else has that floor.

With Fox it's his shot. With Tatum it's his lack of explosiveness and whether his game translates. With Isaac it's his asthma, small hands and his lack of position and fluidity. With Smith it's his effort. And so on.

With Fultz the only real question is if he's just good or really great. I'd gamble on him over two longer odds shots at getting two great players.