2016 NBA Draft Discussion

#91
I've seen Chriss play quite a bit, and you nailed it when you said he was a giant project. In truth, he doesn't know how to play the game very well. If drafted, he needs to go immediately to a D-League team where he can play every day. He's at least three years away from contributing to an NBA team, with emphasis on the word "contribute". He's a terrible rebounder right now, and a little too disinterested on defense at times. His outside shot shows promise and that, added to his athleticism, and his young age, is what interests teams. My problem is that we need players that can help now, not three years from now. To be honest, I reach for Brice Johnson, who is also a very athletic player and more ready to play now. The only reason he's not rated higher is that he's a senior. But right now, today, Johnson is the better player.

Now of course all this is just my opinion, and I'm sure some will disagree with me. But I'd be very wary of drafting him if you expect him to contribute right away.
I'm really high on Johnson. If Simmons, Ingram, Bender, Brown, Dunn, Hield, & J. Murray go 1-7, I'd very much like to see us trade the pick entirely or move back in the draft, pick up an asset, and draft a guy like Johnson. I'd also look at Luwawu, D. Murray, Beasley, Valentine, & Prince. I know you have mentioned before that you would go ahead and select Poeltl if the draft were to play out that way, but I'd rather us move it vs. selecting a player who has Cousins, Koufos, & Cauley-Stein to compete with at minutes for C. We have other needs. Even if we move on from Cousins, I'd rather see Cauley-Stein as the future center over Poeltl.

But getting back to Johnson, I think a Cousins/Cauley-Stein/Johnson 3 big rotation could be very special for years to come.
 
#92
Brice Johnson is too small/lacks physicality for a guy, who can't shoot past 15 feet, and he doesn't have ball skills to compensate for that. He is a smart player though, who can do a bit of everything, so he's likely to stick in the league, but becoming reliable 3rd big might be a best case scenario for him, and not an expected outcome.
 
#93
Brice Johnson is too small/lacks physicality for a guy, who can't shoot past 15 feet, and he doesn't have ball skills to compensate for that. He is a smart player though, who can do a bit of everything, so he's likely to stick in the league, but becoming reliable 3rd big might be a best case scenario for him, and not an expected outcome.
Agree about his size, but I think saying he can't shoot past 15 feet is a little misleading. He has the potential to be a good shooter (good mechanics, 78% FT shooter, etc.).
 
#94
Brice Johnson is one of my favorite players in this draft. Just the fact that he put up 17ppg on this loaded UNC team tells you about the talents he has(hopefully Justin Jackson can make that leap). I'd like to compare him to John Henson because they both played at UNC, and they're great athletes. However, Henson was a much better defensive prospect coming out. He was a "sure fire" rim protector for the NBA. Johnson...not so much. Johnson lacks the the length you want in a PF. However, he makes it up with his bball IQ and motor. Despite not being nearly the defensive prospect Henson was, Johnson can still turn out to be pretty good. If he's locked in 100%, I think he could become a very good defender. His frame should continue to fill out in the NBA. He's a very good rebounder for his size and position.

I think his offense is going to become very good at the next level. Stretch 4 good? Probably not, but I'd bet it's somewhere right above Taj Gibson.
He's one of those guys you look at and go, "man...does he knows how to play the game or what?!"

This is why I'm very optimistic for someone like Chriss (yes, shameless promotion). In 3 years, I could see Chriss being exactly what Brice Johnson is, BUT with better offense and the ability to guard positions 2-4. If Chriss develops as planned, his body should fill out, which will help make him a better rebounder. His bball IQ should increase with more coaching(sorry McLemore, you just missed out on competent coaching). His defensive awareness will increase as he gets more PT. His entire offensive machinery will be tapped into. 38% from 3, while remaining at 50% overall FG.


Now....would I take either guy in the top 10? No. Would I take them if we traded back? Yes. I think this is what the Kings need to do if they miss out on the top 7 guys.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#95
Brice Johnson is too small/lacks physicality for a guy, who can't shoot past 15 feet, and he doesn't have ball skills to compensate for that. He is a smart player though, who can do a bit of everything, so he's likely to stick in the league, but becoming reliable 3rd big might be a best case scenario for him, and not an expected outcome.
So let me get this straight. Johnson at 6'9.50" is too small, but Chriss at 6'8.75" is fine. What alternate universe am I living in. I agree that Johnson has to add some weight, but that's about the only issue. Both players have nice wingspans. I also agree that Johnson needs to work on his outside shot. The main reason I like Johnson is because he's ready to play now. He knows how to play the game, and Chriss doesn't. Johnson averaged 10.5 rebounds a game while Chriss averaged 5.4. They both averaged around 1.5 blocks a game. Now, truth be told, I wouldn't draft either one of them with the eighth pick in the draft. To me, both are bottom of the first round picks. However, I realize that some team or teams will lust after Chriss because of his potential. I wish them luck. After McLemore, and Robinson, I would think the Kings would look elsewhere.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#96
Brice Johnson is one of my favorite players in this draft. Just the fact that he put up 17ppg on this loaded UNC team tells you about the talents he has(hopefully Justin Jackson can make that leap). I'd like to compare him to John Henson because they both played at UNC, and they're great athletes. However, Henson was a much better defensive prospect coming out. He was a "sure fire" rim protector for the NBA. Johnson...not so much. Johnson lacks the the length you want in a PF. However, he makes it up with his bball IQ and motor. Despite not being nearly the defensive prospect Henson was, Johnson can still turn out to be pretty good. If he's locked in 100%, I think he could become a very good defender. His frame should continue to fill out in the NBA. He's a very good rebounder for his size and position.

I think his offense is going to become very good at the next level. Stretch 4 good? Probably not, but I'd bet it's somewhere right above Taj Gibson.
He's one of those guys you look at and go, "man...does he knows how to play the game or what?!"

This is why I'm very optimistic for someone like Chriss (yes, shameless promotion). In 3 years, I could see Chriss being exactly what Brice Johnson is, BUT with better offense and the ability to guard positions 2-4. If Chriss develops as planned, his body should fill out, which will help make him a better rebounder. His bball IQ should increase with more coaching(sorry McLemore, you just missed out on competent coaching). His defensive awareness will increase as he gets more PT. His entire offensive machinery will be tapped into. 38% from 3, while remaining at 50% overall FG.


Now....would I take either guy in the top 10? No. Would I take them if we traded back? Yes. I think this is what the Kings need to do if they miss out on the top 7 guys.
I'm going to disagree with you a little bit on player development. I think it's a two way street. I think it's the responsibility of the team to do everything in its power to help with the development of their players. But I also think the player has a personal responsibility to do everything he can to improve his game. Most big changes for an NBA player come in the off season, when the team doesn't have the player under their wing. As a player you can go to Las Vegas or LA and hire personal trainers to help you improve your game, or, you can take the Donte Greene approach, and paddle around the lagoon drinking beer and make a documentary about your summer.

During the season, it's a lot harder. You have less time, and most of the time you do have, is spent working on things you already know how to do. Your just trying to polish them. I think in McLemore's case, you have someone that has worked very hard on his game, but he doesn't have a natural feel for the game. It doesn't mean he can't improve, or become a decent to good player. it means he'll probably never be a great player. He wasn't born with the instincts, and basketball is a very instinctive game. Everything in basketball is action/reaction, and reaction is purely the instinctive use of all the tools you've developed as a player.

When I played centerfield, my body was already leaning in one direction and my first step was starting as the pitch was on it's way to the plate. I couldn't break it down for you as to why, other than what I was seeing was making my body react instinctively before the bat ever touched the ball. I knew what direction the ball was going to go, if indeed he did hit the ball and it was in the air. That wasn't unique to me. Every fielder, infielder or outfielder did the same thing, and if they didn't, they weren't very good at their position.

What I'm saying that you can be blessed with great athleticism, but poor hand/eye coordination, which will hamper your use of that physical ability. Or, you can lack the instincts that the great players have. And I feel that BBIQ, and feel for the game are closely related. Their all just words, but they do have meaning. The Michael Jordan's of the world don't come around very often. That's the whole package. In short, I don't think the organization is totally at fault when a player isn't developing. If you ever gone to a game early, many times you'll see one or perhaps two of the players out there shooting the ball, or practicing one on one with one of the coaches. No one ever had to ask me to work on my game. You don't become a great player by reading about it.
 

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#97
When I played centerfield, my body was already leaning in one direction and my first step was starting as the pitch was on it's way to the plate. I couldn't break it down for you as to why, other than what I was seeing was making my body react instinctively before the bat ever touched the ball. I knew what direction the ball was going to go, if indeed he did hit the ball and it was in the air. That wasn't unique to me. Every fielder, infielder or outfielder did the same thing, and if they didn't, they weren't very good at their position.
I did the same thing as a SS/3rd basemen. When I got older I noticed I was moving before the ball got to the batter. As an infielder it was only a lean. Never did understand how I knew which direction to lean toward. When I played third, it may have saved my life. :) You know, hot corner and all.
 
#98
I'm going to disagree with you a little bit on player development. I think it's a two way street. I think it's the responsibility of the team to do everything in its power to help with the development of their players. But I also think the player has a personal responsibility to do everything he can to improve his game. Most big changes for an NBA player come in the off season, when the team doesn't have the player under their wing. As a player you can go to Las Vegas or LA and hire personal trainers to help you improve your game, or, you can take the Donte Greene approach, and paddle around the lagoon drinking beer and make a documentary about your summer.

During the season, it's a lot harder. You have less time, and most of the time you do have, is spent working on things you already know how to do. Your just trying to polish them. I think in McLemore's case, you have someone that has worked very hard on his game, but he doesn't have a natural feel for the game. It doesn't mean he can't improve, or become a decent to good player. it means he'll probably never be a great player. He wasn't born with the instincts, and basketball is a very instinctive game. Everything in basketball is action/reaction, and reaction is purely the instinctive use of all the tools you've developed as a player.

When I played centerfield, my body was already leaning in one direction and my first step was starting as the pitch was on it's way to the plate. I couldn't break it down for you as to why, other than what I was seeing was making my body react instinctively before the bat ever touched the ball. I knew what direction the ball was going to go, if indeed he did hit the ball and it was in the air. That wasn't unique to me. Every fielder, infielder or outfielder did the same thing, and if they didn't, they weren't very good at their position.

What I'm saying that you can be blessed with great athleticism, but poor hand/eye coordination, which will hamper your use of that physical ability. Or, you can lack the instincts that the great players have. And I feel that BBIQ, and feel for the game are closely related. Their all just words, but they do have meaning. The Michael Jordan's of the world don't come around very often. That's the whole package. In short, I don't think the organization is totally at fault when a player isn't developing. If you ever gone to a game early, many times you'll see one or perhaps two of the players out there shooting the ball, or practicing one on one with one of the coaches. No one ever had to ask me to work on my game. You don't become a great player by reading about it.
With McLemore, I don't think he's done developing yet, and I'm not sure that Karls' offense was the best fit for him...but, that's a talk for another time. I think half of the fault does lie within our poor coaching.

We don't have a very good track record in player development. Since 2010, the only players under 25 that hhave truly developed under the Kings are DeMarcus Cousins and Isaiah Thomas. Would this have something to do with poor player personnel in the first place? Maybe. However, when the Kings have this track record, I think it should be looked at.

Improving basketball IQ is the hardest thing to do...because you're right, you just can't teach that stuff. Either you have it, or you don't. There are a loads of low bball IQ players who just have never reached their full potential because of it: Tyrus Thomas, Travis Outlaw, JaValee McGee, Gerald Green, Michael Beasley, etc. However, there are a few players who actually pan out and have increased their bball IQ: Russell Westbrook, Zach Randolph, and even Zach LaVine. I think it is something that can be improved pending on coaching.

This is why I think McLemore should be currently better than he is right now. LaVine arguably had lower bball IQ than McLemore coming out of college but all of a sudden, things have started clicking for him. Within 1 1/2 years, his bball IQ has actually gone up to completely league average. Even Shabazz has drastically improved his bball IQ in that same amount of time. I'm looking at McLemore and I go, how does a great shooter with all of the athleticism in the world not be at least a decent 3&D player at this point? Even if he commits the dumbest turnovers, he should be impacting this team just solely based on the fact that he can shoot and he's quick enough to defend. This is where I point to our coaching staff.

I just don't see how this coaching staff has benefited McLemore in any way in terms of his development. The only time we saw progress in McLemore was that short stint in his 2nd year under Malone. Was it our scheme? Was it Malone and his staff helping Ben figure things out? Was it the half-court offense that really allowed him to slow things down? What was it?

I personally think we screwed up Tyreke. He started out as a PG and we all witnessed growing pains...but he was doing exactly that, growing. Less than mid way through his 2nd year, we decided that he wasn't growing fast enough for us.. so we moved him off PG duties. We stopped developing him as a PG, took the ball out of the hands of a player who's game excelled with the ball in his hands, then asked : "how come Tyreke not putting up ROY numbers anymore?" 20-5-5 season was special to me, but people overlook the fact that it was 5.8asts... nearly 6asts a game. In 2016, there were only 8pgs who averaged over 6.5ast/game. It's hardly a surprise to anyone that Tyreke's best year after his ROY came when the Pelicans actually let him run their offense. How many games did we even win with Tyreke as our SG/SF? How many more games would we have lost with Tyreke as our PG?

The Kings just haven't been able to prove that they can develop young talent. If we're talking about a half-way decent organization like the Washington Wizards, then I'd just say that Ben will never be able to "get it". However, this is the Kings... anyone on the Kings should get the benefit of the doubt. We're as dysfunctional as the Browns. At this point, we probably would've been much better going with the moneyball approach after Adelman... sadly, not joking.
 
I'm going to disagree with you a little bit on player development. I think it's a two way street. I think it's the responsibility of the team to do everything in its power to help with the development of their players. But I also think the player has a personal responsibility to do everything he can to improve his game. Most big changes for an NBA player come in the off season, when the team doesn't have the player under their wing. As a player you can go to Las Vegas or LA and hire personal trainers to help you improve your game, or, you can take the Donte Greene approach, and paddle around the lagoon drinking beer and make a documentary about your summer.

During the season, it's a lot harder. You have less time, and most of the time you do have, is spent working on things you already know how to do. Your just trying to polish them. I think in McLemore's case, you have someone that has worked very hard on his game, but he doesn't have a natural feel for the game. It doesn't mean he can't improve, or become a decent to good player. it means he'll probably never be a great player. He wasn't born with the instincts, and basketball is a very instinctive game. Everything in basketball is action/reaction, and reaction is purely the instinctive use of all the tools you've developed as a player.

When I played centerfield, my body was already leaning in one direction and my first step was starting as the pitch was on it's way to the plate. I couldn't break it down for you as to why, other than what I was seeing was making my body react instinctively before the bat ever touched the ball. I knew what direction the ball was going to go, if indeed he did hit the ball and it was in the air. That wasn't unique to me. Every fielder, infielder or outfielder did the same thing, and if they didn't, they weren't very good at their position.

What I'm saying that you can be blessed with great athleticism, but poor hand/eye coordination, which will hamper your use of that physical ability. Or, you can lack the instincts that the great players have. And I feel that BBIQ, and feel for the game are closely related. Their all just words, but they do have meaning. The Michael Jordan's of the world don't come around very often. That's the whole package. In short, I don't think the organization is totally at fault when a player isn't developing. If you ever gone to a game early, many times you'll see one or perhaps two of the players out there shooting the ball, or practicing one on one with one of the coaches. No one ever had to ask me to work on my game. You don't become a great player by reading about it.
I was the same way when I played the outfield or 3rd base. I remember hearing a story about Willie Mays. He was being interviewed out in a stairwell in the center field bleachers (Mays couldn't see the field, but the interviewer could.) This was during batting practice. Each time a ball was hit, Mays would say where the ball was going (and was right every time.) I found this fascinating, but didn't much more of it. Then one day I was at a game and had a few times when a ball was hit while my attention was not on the game. Each time I reflexively looked to where I thought the ball was going (and was correct each time.) I can't explain this, but know others who have done the same.
 
So let me get this straight. Johnson at 6'9.50" is too small, but Chriss at 6'8.75" is fine. What alternate universe am I living in. I agree that Johnson has to add some weight, but that's about the only issue. Both players have nice wingspans. I also agree that Johnson needs to work on his outside shot. The main reason I like Johnson is because he's ready to play now. He knows how to play the game, and Chriss doesn't. Johnson averaged 10.5 rebounds a game while Chriss averaged 5.4. They both averaged around 1.5 blocks a game. Now, truth be told, I wouldn't draft either one of them with the eighth pick in the draft. To me, both are bottom of the first round picks. However, I realize that some team or teams will lust after Chriss because of his potential. I wish them luck. After McLemore, and Robinson, I would think the Kings would look elsewhere.
In my last post in this thread I mentioned, that I don't like any lottery guys projected around #8, well, except I go back and forth on Dunn and Baldwin.
Chriss, for example, will be a very underwhelming pick, since he's at least 3-4 years away from positive contribution in rotation...if ever.
Brice is smart and always active, but he is not comfortable defending outside and isn't strong/big enough to be a presence inside. He has excellent body control to compensate for that on offense, but Brice will actually have little impact defensively compared to his defensive stats. And on the other end he has good shot in the paint area, but never looks at the basket outside that range. So with his subpar handles/passing he doesn't have much to offer on offensive end as well. Up to this moment I somehow thought, that he was projected in late teens, but at least DX have him at #31, where I think he's solid value as Brice is likely to become 4th-5th big, and that's a positive outcome in early second-round.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I did the same thing as a SS/3rd basemen. When I got older I noticed I was moving before the ball got to the batter. As an infielder it was only a lean. Never did understand how I knew which direction to lean toward. When I played third, it may have saved my life. :) You know, hot corner and all.
Only played third base twice in my life and I hated it. Bang/bang! One/tenth of a second to make a decision. Nope, not for me. Let me roam in the expansive outfield... I had a lot of respect for anyone that played in the hot corner.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
In my last post in this thread I mentioned, that I don't like any lottery guys projected around #8, well, except I go back and forth on Dunn and Baldwin.
Chriss, for example, will be a very underwhelming pick, since he's at least 3-4 years away from positive contribution in rotation...if ever.
Brice is smart and always active, but he is not comfortable defending outside and isn't strong/big enough to be a presence inside. He has excellent body control to compensate for that on offense, but Brice will actually have little impact defensively compared to his defensive stats. And on the other end he has good shot in the paint area, but never looks at the basket outside that range. So with his subpar handles/passing he doesn't have much to offer on offensive end as well. Up to this moment I somehow thought, that he was projected in late teens, but at least DX have him at #31, where I think he's solid value as Brice is likely to become 4th-5th big, and that's a positive outcome in early second-round.
I think you, and draftexpress have Brice where he should be. I think Chriss is being overvalued. Not that it's his fault. I think if you can grab Chriss in the bottom half of the first round, your getting value. But if you grab him in the lottery, you may disappointed if you expect immediate lottery results.
 

Glenn

Hall of Famer
Only played third base twice in my life and I hated it. Bang/bang! One/tenth of a second to make a decision. Nope, not for me. Let me roam in the expansive outfield... I had a lot of respect for anyone that played in the hot corner.
That's why you start with an instinctive lean. It gives you a fighting chance. I played outfield once and was absolutely lost. I am sure that is a mystery to you. I would get the ball and not have a clue where to throw it. At 3rd, it was easy. I had a cannon for an arm which helped. I could stop the ball with my body and fire it to first. BTW, the first baseman was the team orthopedic surgeon for the 1992 Dream Team. That is kind of a "yeah, sure Glenn" comment but is true. Dave Fischer. He still is affiliated with the national team but I suspect only to do complex knee surgery. He is known to know what he is doing with three ligaments torn. His value to me was that he was tall and could catch anything thrown remotely near him. :)

He was my best man.





Addendum: Here's Dave.
http://www.ortho.umn.edu/bio/orthopaedic-surgery/david-fischer
 
Last edited:
That's why you start with an instinctive lean. It gives you a fighting chance. I played outfield once and was absolutely lost. I am sure that is a mystery to you. I would get the ball and not have a clue where to throw it. At 3rd, it was easy. I had a cannon for an arm which helped. I could stop the ball with my body and fire it to first. BTW, the first baseman was the team orthopedic surgeon for the 1992 Dream Team. That is kind of a "yeah, sure Glenn" comment but is true. Dave Fischer. He still is affiliated with the national team but I suspect only to do complex knee surgery. He is known to know what he is doing with three ligaments torn. His value to me was that he was tall and could catch anything thrown remotely near him. :)

He was my best man.





Addendum: Here's Dave.
http://www.ortho.umn.edu/bio/orthopaedic-surgery/david-fischer
I guess I'm the oddball. I loved both the outfield and 3rd base.
 

Glenn

Hall of Famer
I guess I'm the oddball. I loved both the outfield and 3rd base.
I even felt disoriented in the one time I played 2nd base. As basketball doesn't seem to lock people into one part of the court, it must be easier for the players but when Tyreke ended up as a SF, I felt sorry for him. He MUST have felt out of place.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
That's why you start with an instinctive lean. It gives you a fighting chance. I played outfield once and was absolutely lost. I am sure that is a mystery to you. I would get the ball and not have a clue where to throw it. At 3rd, it was easy. I had a cannon for an arm which helped. I could stop the ball with my body and fire it to first. BTW, the first baseman was the team orthopedic surgeon for the 1992 Dream Team. That is kind of a "yeah, sure Glenn" comment but is true. Dave Fischer. He still is affiliated with the national team but I suspect only to do complex knee surgery. He is known to know what he is doing with three ligaments torn. His value to me was that he was tall and could catch anything thrown remotely near him. :)

He was my best man.





Addendum: Here's Dave.
http://www.ortho.umn.edu/bio/orthopaedic-surgery/david-fischer
You want a good digger at first. Invaluable! People forget, that first base is also a hot corner for lefties. Back in my day there wern't that many of them. Now they're all over the place. Your centerfielder is usually the fastest outfielder and is the captain of the outfield, meaning he has the right to call off any other outfielder. He's also the main infield backup player, along with backing up both other outfield positions. and has to have a good arm. Not as good as the right fielder, but almost. But since this is a basketball forum, it's back to basketball.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I even felt disoriented in the one time I played 2nd base. As basketball doesn't seem to lock people into one part of the court, it must be easier for the players but when Tyreke ended up as a SF, I felt sorry for him. He MUST have felt out of place.
The hardest part of playing 2nd base is the double play pivot for a right hand thrower. Your body is going in one direction and your throwing the ball in the other direction. They usually don't put strong armed players at 2nd, unless they have no one else.
 
These are the players I would be happy getting, probably in that order. They also all might be gone before we draft.

Buddy Hield
Kris Dunn
Jamal Murray
Jaylan Brown
Its hard for me to get excited over Jamal Murray....his pre-draft workouts are going to be telling in regards to his athleticism and quickness. He looks slow to me on tape. He's very fundamentally sound but looks like he lacks that burst of speed....one of the reasons Emmanuel Mudiay struggled in Denver. Murray looks to have a better shot than Mudiay but I wonder about guards who struggle to beat their man off the dribble. To me if we can land Dunn, Brown or Sabonis at #8 we are making out well. Hield is great too but he's not going to last to #8.
 
Dunn would be a great get at #8, but Brown is not a smart player and can't shoot, while Sabonis is not a good passer and provides no inside presence (don't think, that most of his college offense will carry over), though he's actually pretty comfortable defending outside.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Its hard for me to get excited over Jamal Murray....his pre-draft workouts are going to be telling in regards to his athleticism and quickness. He looks slow to me on tape. He's very fundamentally sound but looks like he lacks that burst of speed....one of the reasons Emmanuel Mudiay struggled in Denver. Murray looks to have a better shot than Mudiay but I wonder about guards who struggle to beat their man off the dribble. To me if we can land Dunn, Brown or Sabonis at #8 we are making out well. Hield is great too but he's not going to last to #8.
With all due respect, there is no way in hell that I'm taking Sabonis at #8. First, I'll be shocked if he's really 6'10". Second, he's not very athletic at all. Third, he has no shot outside of 15 feet, and his post game is just OK. He is a good rebounder. I have him in the lower half of the first round. Somewhere between 20 and 25. If Hield, Dunn, Brown, and Murray are gone, then I'm taking Jakob Poeltl. We may not have a need at the center position at the moment, but in my opinion, he's the best player left on the board, and you never know what the future holds.

I like Murray a little better than you do. He's a lights out shooter, and personally, I think end to end speed is overrated. Nice to have of course, but by and large, its ballhandling and change of speeds that gets players open. Murray is an OK ballhandler, and should get better in the future. He's a high BBIQ guy and only 19 years old. I question his lateral quickness on the defensive side of the ball. That said, I saw him play some pretty good defense on occasion. So we'll see. I just happen to like Hield better. If somehow Dunn drops to us at eight, the drinks are on me. I'll even throw some shrimp on the BarBe.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Dunn would be a great get at #8, but Brown is not a smart player and can't shoot, while Sabonis is not a good passer and provides no inside presence (don't think, that most of his college offense will carry over), though he's actually pretty comfortable defending outside.
He is a good rebounder and that's one stat that usually carries over to the NBA. He's not a good leaper, but is good at clearing out space under the basket. Reminds me a bit of David Lee in the rebounding dept. Too bad the rest of his game doesn't remind me of Lee.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
With all due respect, there is no way in hell that I'm taking Sabonis at #8. First, I'll be shocked if he's really 6'10".
Well, no point in grabbing those bare wires just yet - apparently Sabonis is skipping the Draft Combine. Other notables skipping it are Simmons and Dejounte Murray. It looks like none of the internationals except for Zhou Qi will be there either, so no Bender/Luwawu/Korkmaz. The only other name I'm vaguely disappointed in seeing off the list (unless I missed somebody) is Damion Lee, who could be a decent get with San Antonio's second rounder, if he falls that far.
 
He is a good rebounder and that's one stat that usually carries over to the NBA. He's not a good leaper, but is good at clearing out space under the basket. Reminds me a bit of David Lee in the rebounding dept. Too bad the rest of his game doesn't remind me of Lee.
0.6 Ast/TO ratio, especially 4.5 TOs per 40 minutes, and bad shooting make him a no-go for me:
if someone can point me to a good swingman, who had that much TOs in college, I would take a look. There might always be first time for everything, but I'm not betting on Brown.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Well, no point in grabbing those bare wires just yet - apparently Sabonis is skipping the Draft Combine. Other notables skipping it are Simmons and Dejounte Murray. It looks like none of the internationals except for Zhou Qi will be there either, so no Bender/Luwawu/Korkmaz. The only other name I'm vaguely disappointed in seeing off the list (unless I missed somebody) is Damion Lee, who could be a decent get with San Antonio's second rounder, if he falls that far.
Did Lee get an invite? A lot of the seniors didn't get invited because there are so many one and doner's that scouts want to get another look at. Don't have the invite list in front of me. I don't understand Dejounte Murray's decision to skip the combine. Makes some sense for players that are already locked in at a certain number, but Murray isn't one of them. A lot of mocks have him at the bottom of the first or in the top of the second. The combine is a chance for him to improve his position. He may end up regretting his decision..
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
0.6 Ast/TO ratio, especially 4.5 TOs per 40 minutes, and bad shooting make him a no-go for me:
if someone can point me to a good swingman, who had that much TOs in college, I would take a look. There might always be first time for everything, but I'm not betting on Brown.
No doubt that Brown is a gamble. If your drafting him at 19 or 20, you don't feel like it's that much of a risk, but at eight, you betting he's going to be a very good player. I do think that Brown has some qualities that I like. But he's very raw in so many areas that it's scary. From all accounts, he has a very good work ethic, so that's something. I always hate when a player like him is available when we pick. If the choice ends up being between Poeltl and Brown, what to do, what to do. Personally, I think I'd take Poeltl. Not as flashy, nor does he have the upside, but I know for a fact that I'm getting a player that can play in the NBA, and who could be a starter in the NBA. Don't know if I can say that with any assurance about Brown.
 
Bajaden,

I have lots of respect for your talent evaluations. But I think you are sleeping on Sabonis. I don't like him at 8. But that kid is already grown man strong and has been playing pro ball since he was 16. I'm thinking Luis Scola with the potential to develop a reliable 3 point shot. In a draft with so many question marks, a 10 year rotational big isn't a bad pick.

Not who I want for the Kings, but he has a lot of game he didn't show because he bought into team play.
 
The fact, that a player uses strength all the time, doesn't mean that he's strong. Sabonis couldn't do anything against players of his size/strength. Domantas actually has almost perfect comp in the league: take away vertical explosiveness and add some shooting and you get Julius Randle - excellent rebounder without finesse game, who is just too small for NBA to be a power player.
I don't think Sabonis is similar to Scola as despite being even more groundbound than Domantas Luis has pretty long hands. Sabonis' future is to imitate Boozer, and unless Domantas wants to be a role player without necessary skills, he better learn to shoot that unblockable high-arching shot.
 
Last edited: