De'Aaron Fox:

There are also the Kings. "Yeah, we can do Sacramento," Fox's father says. "Laid back, relaxed. And then if you want to ride to San Francisco and the big city, the bridge is right there. And hey, Skal Labissiere came in and played well once Boogie left."

Gaston adds, "They were all scared of Boogie. Every last one of them players. He used to punk everybody."

His father laughs, "Man, I'd be traded. Me and Boogie would be going at it. F--- that."

Meanwhile, Fox is scrolling through his mentions. Earlier in the day, he took the "How well do you know De'Aaron Fox?" quiz that the Kings put together and scored a 100%. He tweeted his results. It has now unleashed a flood of fans begging him to come to Sactown. "They got some crazy fans," he says with a smirk.

I've been trying really hard to convince myself that Isaac or Tatum could be just as good, if not better, picks at #5 if Fox isn't there but in the end I'm not buying it. Fox is the guy I want.

I'd take Fultz over him and I'd reluctantly take Jackson over him (better, more versatile two way player right now but with less of a clear path to stardom and with PG being a huge hole right now) but I think that's it. I think Lonzo Ball can be a transformative player in the right situation but Fox feels like a better fit for the Kings.

It won't be the end of the world if he's picked before the Kings but I'd be upset. Especially since logically there's good reason to think he will given the teams picking 1-4 and their needs.

If Fox is there at 5 I'm warming up to the idea of Markkanen at 10. A trade up (to 7 or 8) for Tatum wouldn't be bad either, assuming Isaac goes #4 or # 6. I think Tatum is young enough and coach able enough that he could learn to move the ball more and not be as much of a ball stopper. If he can score against NBA SFs then the Kings will have filled two big holes with their first two picks.

My ideal scenario would be Fox at 5 and a trade up for Isaac.

But just getting Fox would be a great start to the draft.

Fox || Monk || Temple
Buddy || Monk || Temple
Bogdan || Temple

I've been trying really hard to convince myself that Isaac or Tatum could be just as good, if not better, picks at #5 if Fox isn't there but in the end I'm not buying it. Fox is the guy I want.

I'd take Fultz over him and I'd reluctantly take Jackson over him (better, more versatile two way player right now but with less of a clear path to stardom and with PG being a huge hole right now) but I think that's it. I think Lonzo Ball can be a transformative player in the right situation but Fox feels like a better fit for the Kings.

It won't be the end of the world if he's picked before the Kings but I'd be upset. Especially since logically there's good reason to think he will given the teams picking 1-4 and their needs.

If Fox is there at 5 I'm warming up to the idea of Markkanen at 10. A trade up (to 7 or 8) for Tatum wouldn't be bad either, assuming Isaac goes #4 or # 6. I think Tatum is young enough and coach able enough that he could learn to move the ball more and not be as much of a ball stopper. If he can score against NBA SFs then the Kings will have filled two big holes with their first two picks.

My ideal scenario would be Fox at 5 and a trade up for Isaac.

But just getting Fox would be a great start to the draft.

I've been trying really hard to convince myself that Isaac or Tatum could be just as good, if not better, picks at #5 if Fox isn't there but in the end I'm not buying it. Fox is the guy I want.

It would have to be the other way around IMO. IMO Minny would pick Isaac if there. If the Kings went Isaac and the Wolves were left with PGs and bigs they felt couldn't play with KAT/Wiggins they might do that trade down

If we pick Fox at 5(assuming Isaac goes at 4), anyone else think there's a good chance Tatum is there at 10??

6 Orlando: DSJ, Orlando will struggle to pick between the two, but they go DSJ
7 Minnesota: Markkanen or Collins. No way they pick another heavy ISO player alongside Wiggins and KAT right???
8 Knicks: Ntilikina, can't see them going with another ball dom. SF
9 Dallas: Monk, need a PG and SG. Already have Barnes at SF/PF, and both guys are redundant.

I'm not in love with the ball movement between Fox-Hield-Tatum-Skal-WCS, but it would be a talented core. I almost wonder if we'd be better off picking a different PG at #5 for better fit? That lineup above would only have 1 above average shooter, and only 2 3pt shooters total. Not nearly enough floor spacing.

If we pick Fox at 5(assuming Isaac goes at 4), anyone else think there's a good chance Tatum is there at 10??

6 Orlando: DSJ, Orlando will struggle to pick between the two, but they go DSJ
7 Minnesota: Markkanen or Collins. No way they pick another heavy ISO player alongside Wiggins and KAT right???
8 Knicks: Ntilikina, can't see them going with another ball dom. SF
9 Dallas: Monk, need a PG and SG. Already have Barnes at SF/PF, and both guys are redundant.

I'm not in love with the ball movement between Fox-Hield-Tatum-Skal-WCS, but it would be a talented core. I almost wonder if we'd be better off picking a different PG at #5 for better fit? That lineup above would only have 1 above average shooter, and only 2 3pt shooters total. Not nearly enough floor spacing.

I think the only way we can realistically move up from #10 is if we get a salary dump trade with Portland for their 15th pick by the time the draft starts.

If we can package the #10 and #15 (I don't think Portland's #20 would do it), we may be able to get up to #6 or #7 and snag whoever is left of Tatum and Issac.

If we pick Fox at 5(assuming Isaac goes at 4), anyone else think there's a good chance Tatum is there at 10??

6 Orlando: DSJ, Orlando will struggle to pick between the two, but they go DSJ
7 Minnesota: Markkanen or Collins. No way they pick another heavy ISO player alongside Wiggins and KAT right???
8 Knicks: Ntilikina, can't see them going with another ball dom. SF
9 Dallas: Monk, need a PG and SG. Already have Barnes at SF/PF, and both guys are redundant.

I'm not in love with the ball movement between Fox-Hield-Tatum-Skal-WCS, but it would be a talented core. I almost wonder if we'd be better off picking a different PG at #5 for better fit? That lineup above would only have 1 above average shooter, and only 2 3pt shooters total. Not nearly enough floor spacing.

I have been going back and forth on Isaac or Tatum and changed my mind a few times as well. At the moment I would take Tatum and I just don't see him dropping he is to good. The other thing about the FOX story. A comment was made and I quote "They were all scared of Boogie. Every last one of them players. He used to punk everybody." This comment was made by Fox's personal coach and I think it is a interesting take that we didn't really hear that much about.

I have been going back and forth on Isaac or Tatum and changed my mind a few times as well. At the moment I would take Tatum and I just don't see him dropping he is to good. The other thing about the FOX story. A comment was made and I quote "They were all scared of Boogie. Every last one of them players. He used to punk everybody." This comment was made by Fox's personal coach and I think it is a interesting take that we didn't really hear that much about.

Sports Illustrated has a long piece on Fox today. They discuss potential landing spots with Fox, his father, and his trainer. Here's what they had to say about the Kings:



The whole thing is worth a read: https://www.si.com/nba/2017/06/15/deaaron-fox-nba-draft-kentucky-wildcats-john-wall-john-calipari

I've been thinking Tatum could do a Paul Pierce like drop if he doesn't go top 5. The key IMO would be Orlando taking Smith at 6.

I'm back to liking Isaac over Tatum but it's worth noting that people discuss Isaac as a floor spaced or 3&D guy while Tatum's shot is questioned but they shot almost the same percentage. 34.8% for Isaac and 34.2% for Tatum on a higher volume 117 vs 89).

Both guys have less than ideal mechanics and are a bit stiff/rigid but I think they'll both be able to shoot on the next level.

The key with Tatum is whether a coach (Joerger in this scenario) can get him to move the ball quicker/more willingly and get him committed on the defensive end. Those are things you don't have to worry about Isaac as he's always active/effective on D and almost too deferential on offense. But of course Tatum also potentially represents the go-to scorer the Kings currently don't have.

My reasoning for going with Tatum is mostly based on the idea that I think he has a better chance to be a high level player than Isaac does. People forget how young these guys are. Most of Tatum's college games were played when he was 18. 19 for Isaac. It's now always about what they've done at that age but it's what you think they can accomplish in the future.

Tatum showed an entire bag of offensive tricks. He's not perfect at any one thing but he showed flashes of Dirk, Wade, Rudy, Carmelo etc. 3 point shooting, post up, attacking the rim, pick and roll, mid range, fade away jump shots. Sort of Skal like where you see this entire toolbox jam packed full of tools. I'd take another Skal type player in a heart beat.

I feel like Tatum's offense and Isaac's defense will both be high level, making that part of their games a wash. So for me it comes down to Tatum's defense and Isaac's offense. Tatum has shown many flashes of being able to play good defense. I feel like the with right coaching, he can easily be a plus defender. Isaac's offense is more worrisome to me. I feel like people are hoping he develops into something that we haven't seen any flashes of yet whereas Tatum has already shown us what he can do, just on a more inconsistent basis. I'll take the guy that needs to hone in the skills he already has over the guy that needs to develop new ones.

Don't know if there is a thread on this, but is it safe to say that the Kings would take Fox at #3 if we had #3?

If so, it means the Vlade swap cost nothing (if Fox slides to 5).

I like that for Vlade

Don't know if there is a thread on this, but is it safe to say that the Kings would take Fox at #3 if we had #3?

If so, it means the Vlade swap cost nothing (if Fox slides to 5).

I like that for Vlade

#3 + #10 looks a lot more appealing to the celtics than #5 + #10. Also no one really knows if fox would be the pick at #3. You can spin it any way you want but it's still a bad trade. But I guess if you squint hard enough that is a possible silver lining.

ok but when did packing in everything for Fulz become the agenda? I'm not sure we would give up 3 + 10 for #1 anyway.

I'm going with "if Fox is #5, we dodged the swap"

Don't know if there is a thread on this, but is it safe to say that the Kings would take Fox at #3 if we had #3?

If so, it means the Vlade swap cost nothing (if Fox slides to 5).

I like that for Vlade

What if Jackson fell to 3 he's just as good a fit as Fox at a harder position to fill

SF is harder to fill than PG? I mean height wise sure but floor general vs wing... I'm not sold on that.

If we pick Fox at 5(assuming Isaac goes at 4), anyone else think there's a good chance Tatum is there at 10??

6 Orlando: DSJ, Orlando will struggle to pick between the two, but they go DSJ
7 Minnesota: Markkanen or Collins. No way they pick another heavy ISO player alongside Wiggins and KAT right???
8 Knicks: Ntilikina, can't see them going with another ball dom. SF
9 Dallas: Monk, need a PG and SG. Already have Barnes at SF/PF, and both guys are redundant.

I'm not in love with the ball movement between Fox-Hield-Tatum-Skal-WCS, but it would be a talented core. I almost wonder if we'd be better off picking a different PG at #5 for better fit? That lineup above would only have 1 above average shooter, and only 2 3pt shooters total. Not nearly enough floor spacing.

My reasoning for going with Tatum is mostly based on the idea that I think he has a better chance to be a high level player than Isaac does. People forget how young these guys are. Most of Tatum's college games were played when he was 18. 19 for Isaac. It's now always about what they've done at that age but it's what you think they can accomplish in the future.

Tatum showed an entire bag of offensive tricks. He's not perfect at any one thing but he showed flashes of Dirk, Wade, Rudy, Carmelo etc. 3 point shooting, post up, attacking the rim, pick and roll, mid range, fade away jump shots. Sort of Skal like where you see this entire toolbox jam packed full of tools. I'd take another Skal type player in a heart beat.

I feel like Tatum's offense and Isaac's defense will both be high level, making that part of their games a wash. So for me it comes down to Tatum's defense and Isaac's offense. Tatum has shown many flashes of being able to play good defense. I feel like the with right coaching, he can easily be a plus defender. Isaac's offense is more worrisome to me. I feel like people are hoping he develops into something that we haven't seen any flashes of yet whereas Tatum has already shown us what he can do, just on a more inconsistent basis. I'll take the guy that needs to hone in the skills he already has over the guy that needs to develop new ones.

I just find it staggering how people underrate Tatum because he doesn't play the "modern" type of game and is old school. Seriously people. The kid is a very capable scorer who could come into the NBA and average 20ppg in his rookie year and give ROY a real shake.

When Kings traded away Boggie, my hope was that with the two picks, Kings walk away from whe draft with Fox and Tatum. That now seems unlikely but if we somehow manage to do it, then that is a massive jump start to the rebuild when you add those two to Skal, WCS and Buddy.

I am hoping that Tatum continues to be underrated and passed by other teams all the way to pick 10. If Kings get Fox at 5 and Tatum at 10, that is pants down, lap around the table time. Would be HUGE winners out of the draft.